That Devin review was so ridiculously flawed. 'Shield sinks the film'? So he's so lazy he's just copying his criticisms of Iron Man 2 onto Thor? He proposes so many subjectives without ANY evidence, just 'Asgard looks so cheesy and silly, the script is awful, Anthony Hopkins collects his paycheck'. I hate that the internet allows people like that to qualify as journalists.
The Hopkins paycheck line is ridiculous. I've been down on Hopkins since The Wolfman, where I did feel he was going through the motions.
Hopkins was not going through the motions in Thor, though. Quite honestly, I was rather amazed at how well he worked a part that was ripe for overplaying.
I really hate spoon feeding dialogue. Any blatant exposition dialogue/conversations between characters gets on my nerves. The way Loki and Frigga were discussing it seemed like a natural conversation, not a blatant expositon dump.
It's not spoonfeeding, in the script he had been preparing to appoint Thor king so that he could go into the Odinsleep. A line of dialogue pertaining to this would have really helped explain the concept to the uninitiated.
Sometimes people just end up seeing what they want to see or expect to see. People also don't like admitting they are wrong, generally speaking. A lot of the comments in the Devin Faraci review come across that way to me. That's not to say that there aren't some legitimate criticisms to be made of the movie, of course.
It's not spoonfeeding, in the script he had been preparing to appoint Thor king so that he could go into the Odinsleep. A line of dialogue pertaining to this would have really helped explain the concept to the uninitiated.
Well, that doesn't sound too bad. But the conversation between Loki and Frigga still explained that this was a sort of tradition. I thought it was sufficient.
Other than JK Simmons, I don't think there actually IS any real humor in Raimi's Spider-man films. At least none that's competently done. Thor's humor may be of a simpler nature than the more sophisticated humor of the Iron Man movies(which I still think reigns as king of how to effectively use humor in a superhero film series) but it works. I'd say the humor in Thor is about on par with the humor in Donner's Superman films. And that humor to me worked as well. Raimi's humor was simply eye rolling every time Maguire(who seems to have NO comedic talent whatsoever) tried to do a witty Spidey-ism.
Sorry you didn't like them or find them funny. Other people did. Is there really a point in continuing to argue what ultimately boils down to a difference in sense of humor?
Is there really a point in continuing to argue what ultimately boils down to a difference in anything? We might as well shut the forums because everyone has already a personal opinion.
I don't think Thor really gets made fun of anyway. He mixes things up, but he's so resilient and feels so superior he clearly doesn't care. His reactions to the cars honking at him is priceless.
The second hitting was unnecessary as we all knew what hitting him was like the first time. The second tyimne was just to make him look ridiculous as ridiculing a superhero is always decoded as "funny."
I don't see how the taser scene was unnecessary. It was showing how vulnerable Thor was. He thought he was still some nigh on invulnerable warrior, he arrogantly scoffs at the "puny weapon"... then gets put down like a sack of potatoes.
Didn't you - who're so adamant about spoonfeeding - think that hitting him twice with a car was enough to prove that point so the tasering was unnecessary?
Also the inability to lift the Mjonlir was a better way to express Thor's impotence and weakness than cheap jokes?
I really hate spoon feeding dialogue. Any blatant exposition dialogue/conversations between characters gets on my nerves. The way Loki and Frigga were discussing it seemed like a natural conversation, not a blatant expositon dump.
Spoonfeeding dialogue is also a plague superhero movies have. But most people have just assumed it's just the way it is and accept it. Aftyer all these are "just" fun movies. They shouldn't be better than they currently are.
Didn't you - who're so adamant about spoonfeeding - think that hitting him twice with a car was enough to prove that point so the tasering was unnecessary?
Also the inability to lift the Mjonlir was a better way to express Thor's impotence and weakness than cheap jokes?
The taser thing happened long before he got hit with the car the second time.
His inability to lift Mjolnir has nothing to do with his now mortal vulnerability or weakness. It was because he wasn't worthy of lifting it.
Spoonfeeding dialogue is also a plague superhero movies have. But most people have just assumed it's just the way it is and accept it. Aftyer all these are "just" fun movies. They shouldn't be better than they currently are.
Well i agree with you. If there is one thing i cannot stand about any movie, it's a blatant exposition dump or spoon feeding dialogue.
I think Thor does well in that regard. Obviously the opening narration by Odin is exposition, but that's narration. I thought in terms of actual dialogue between characters throughout the movie, most of the conversations seemed natural.
The second hitting was unnecessary as we all knew what hitting him was like the first time. The second tyimne was just to make him look ridiculous as ridiculing a superhero is always decoded as "funny."
Eh, I think you're misreading that scene, honestly. It's funny, not because Thor is a superhero per se, but because he was previously the nigh invulnerable prince of the realm. Thor has to get humbled a bit to be, well... humbled. Not being able to lift the hammer is part of that, of course, but some of his other experiences have to play into that dynamic as well.
I not sure I really understand the desire for comic book movie material to be treated with reverence and seriousness all the time. There are serious elements, yes, but it should also be fun.
Even though the percentage on Rottentomatoes went down a little, the number out of ten has increased from 6.7/10 to 6.9/10. I believe Iron Man 2's was 6.5/10, so in away, the score is still increasing.
Is there really a point in continuing to argue what ultimately boils down to a difference in anything? We might as well shut the forums because everyone has already a personal opinion.
But it seems like you've been arguing for days that what other people found funny isn't funny. For people who found it funny and laughed it was a nice moment, for those who didn't (like yourself) it seems unnecessary. That is how comedy on film always has been. Senses of humor will never change so I guess I just don't see what you're getting out of arguing so adamantly against it.
Is Jane going to be hating on Thor in a possible Thor sequel when he comes back to Earth in The Avengers & does not tell her if Natalie Portman is not in The Avengers. Like how Lois hated Superman in Superman Returns ? I am sure they will do that just for the drama
Loved Thor.Far more than i like Comic Thor.I especially liked the fact that Thor hardly wears his silly helmet and is not overpowered.Im going to watch it again.
...or you could realize this isn't high school debate club, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. Some people are just here to shoot the **** about movies, not get involved in a structured argument just so you can satisfy your ego.
Thor's Helmet is as much a part of him as Mjolnir, Zionite.
In a way I like the way they're approaching why he isn't wearing it tho and I would rather he be wearing the helmet.
See there's a scene in the script that's not in the film someone told me about,
There a few minutes of Thor talking to Loki, Sif, and the Warriors III BEFORE you see them in the throne room for the Coronation. Both Thor and Loki are dressing and Thor pics up his helmet with Loki commenting on Thor's helmet looking like an Eagle.
but what I like is because litterally Thor was couple words away from being crowned king, he can't wear the helmet.
Thor's Helmet is as much a part of him as Mjolnir, Zionite.
In a way I like the way they're approaching why he isn't wearing it tho and I would rather he be wearing the helmet.
See there's a scene in the script that's not in the film someone told me about,
There a few minutes of Thor talking to Loki, Sif, and the Warriors III BEFORE you see them in the throne room for the Coronation. Both Thor and Loki are dressing and Thor pics up his helmet with Loki commenting on Thor's helmet looking like an Eagle.
but what I like is because litterally Thor was couple words away from being crowned king, he can't wear the helmet.
if there is a vote of whether looks better with or without his helmet I have to fall on the side of the people who thinks he looks better with the helmet. it's a major bummer you only see thor in his helmet for one scene, he looks so freaking cool.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
