The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread - Part 2

[Eddie Dean]

How awesome was Colm Feore in this? Completely unrecognizable, I wish we saw more of him.

 

[J.Howlett]

Vartha,

Read the Thor script and yeah, there's some stuff that happens in Asgard that we've seen in the trailers (Frigga-"Asgard is yours, as Loki is presented with Odin's staff) that should've been in the film. There are two scenes with Frigga and Odin that should've made it. There's more to the scene between Frigga and Loki at Odin's bedside that would've been nice additions.

The Warriors Three explaining to the scientists about the Norse mythology and how it relates to Asgard and Earth is interesting.

Funny enough, the relationship aspect between Thor and Jane is actually shorter in the script than the film. As a matter of fact, it's better represented in the film than the script. They added little bits and piece (whether by rewrite or ad libing on set) that really, really helped a lot.

If you can believe it, when Thor goes down and Jane runs to him, there's no dialogue between them in the script in that moment...compared to the film.

 

[The Morningstar]

How awesome was Colm Feore in this? Completely unrecognizable, I wish we saw more of him.

Yea, Laufey was awesome.

 

[El Payaso]

fair enough

How is it obvious? First off Ledger was a well established actor by the time TDK came out. Hiddleston is 20 years old, and his first major roll he's put up with Sir Anthony Hopkins, alot of people would have melted under that situation. In fact he even joked with Hemsworth, "how do you follow up to that?" referring to a scene with Hopkins where he banishes Thor, to which Hemsworth replied facetiously, "quit, go home."

Yes, I'm only comparing the fact that Hiddleston nailed one of the top 3 Marvel villians as Heath did to Joker. But it's like telling a Mac user you actually like your PC. It's not within their comprehension that you might actually prefer microsoft over the mighty blue Apple.

I don't get what Legder's fame has to do with his acting skills.

Anyways, Hiddleston was good but not Joker good. Now, it's of course a most unfair comparison since the Joker, no matter who's portraying him, is a scene-stealer and one of the most attractive characters ever.

Now, I understand you, as everytime I'm asked about acting in TDK I say I prefered Aaron Eckhardt over Heat Ledger.

Actually it wasn't shaped after the Marvel movie style. This movie in scope was bigger than anything they'd done before. It's Lord of the Rings, meets Star Wars, meets Hamlet.

Erm... some elements from Star Wars, LotR and Hamlet are there but "Thor" barely lived to them. Let alone Hamlet. I wish "Thor" had a Hamlet-Ophelia type of intense romance (even if she didn't die). Or its humour.

Thor felt the classic Marvel movie. Good anough acting, lots of comic references, unfunny humour. Decent movie that didn't pretend to be any better than it was.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Edit

 

[Tony Stark]

I know it's a strange thing, because it's never been done in the films before, but you have to accept that these films all take place in a shared universe. In that sense they are all somewhat sequels to one another.

I guess it's a bit like "get him to the greek" is somewhat of a seuqel to "forgetting sarah marshall". When watching get "get him to the greek" you don't sit there and wonder about other characters that were in forgetting Sarah Marshall, wondering what they're doing.

I heard an interview with Gregory Itzin, who played President Charles Logan on 24, say when talking about his appearance in the final season, that the writers were not going to explain what happened to his character, who was previously seen being carted off in an ambulance flatlining. He said 24 for is about the "here and now', and you don't worry about stuff that's not tied to what's going on in the moment. He said that most people can draw their own conclusions that obviously the character did not die, and he recovered just fine, without wasting screen time explaining it.

This is exactly the approach that Marvel has taken with these movies. There are connective threads, but you could sit there and ask "gosh why doesn't Tony go suit up and try to stop Hulk? or the Destroyer?" Well he doesn't and it doesn't matter.

 

[J.Howlett]

Hiddleston's 20 years-old?! Seriously?!

 

[The Morningstar]

I thought the acting was great across the board here. There wasn't really any stinkers. I guess you could say Kat Dennings, but she did what was required of her.

And I disagree, Loki is a much more complex villain than Joker. Joker is more outlandish, sure. But for me, Hiddleston's Loki is a much more complex and interesting character compared to Ledger's Joker.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Hiddleston's 20 years-old?! Seriously?!

Huh?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Stark,

Let me take back a few things. First, I think Scarlett was great in the film. As a matter of fact, she would've been my only representation of SHIELD in Iron Man 2. She would've played the role exactly as she played it in the film, but without the "donut shop" and the "Fury/Stark talk at Stark's house" scenes. I would've taken out the Agent Coulson "New Mexico" reference, as well.

The SHIELD aspect would've been revealed when Natalie breaks into her SHIELD outfit and help in the fight. The warehouse scene between Tony and Fury would've played exactly the same, except I would've added Black Widow in the scene as well.

I dont see why a 2 second reference to New Mexico hurts you so bad. Its only a small reference to Thor and gives us a sense of time and how the movies supposedly take place at the same time.

Imho the only bad thing about Shield was the injection, which relieved all of Stark's symptoms and all the tension and pressure about his health that we were feeling. From the on he's back to his RDJ self, buying strawberries and mumbling stuff to Pepper. To me the most engaging subplot was his illness and how that affected him, and made him care about his legacy. War Machine was the result of all that. Shield busting in and slapping him in the face to set him straight was also a result of that. The just didnt need the injection. I also hope they would have explored Howard Stark more than that hamfisted scene.

As for the villains... meh... I only liked the Monaco scene and the "sharks will come" scene. From then on they didnt really matter. They were just thorns in Tony's side while he was dealing with his health problems.

So to me, IM2's plot about the palladium was a lot more engaging than IM1's overly simplistic plot. Favs just failed to handle it correctly, but hey that doesnt mean that the movie didnt do so well because of that. ROTF was crap and it still made a billion bucks, so i guess the audience wanted more action? I think Marvel shouldnt go through with their Clancy spy IM3 idea. It sounds like a desperate attempt to go all Nolan and get back the fans, when all they needed was a more exciting and well made movie.

 

[El Payaso]

Hiddleston's 20 years-old?! Seriously?!

He's actually 30.

 

[J.Howlett]

Well, Ledger's Joker is a lot different than Hiddleston's Loki.

Loki has a true, character arc. The Joker is the living embodiment of the theme that Nolan's pushing through out the film. He's not a real character in the classic sense.

And yet, both of these characters are classics because of their portrayals. Ledger's is more disturbing. Hiddleston's is more tragic.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea Hiddleston was born in 1981.

 

[J.Howlett]

Payso,

Oh, read the post wrong.

 

[J.Howlett]

So to me, IM2's plot about the palladium was a lot more engaging than IM1's overly simplistic plot. Favs just failed to handle it correctly, but hey that doesnt mean that the movie didnt do so well because of that. ROTF was crap and it still made a billion bucks, so i guess the audience wanted more action? I think Marvel shouldnt go through with their Clancy spy IM3 idea. It sounds like a desperate attempt to go all Nolan and get back the fans, when all they needed was a more exciting and well made movie.

Yep.

As for the villains, they could've been better because of the fact that Vanko knows that Tony's dying. If I'm him and I'm teamed up with Hammer, I attack Tony again. I don't wait.

And I don't buy the legacy theme in Iron Man 2 because, frankly, the first film was about legacy and it handled that much, much better than 2....

 

[Mr. Earle]

I know it's a strange thing, because it's never been done in the films before, but you have to accept that these films all take place in a shared universe. In that sense they are all somewhat sequels to one another.

I guess it's a bit like "get him to the greek" is somewhat of a seuqel to "forgetting sarah marshall". When watching get "get him to the greek" you don't sit there and wonder about other characters that were in forgetting Sarah Marshall, wondering what they're doing.

I didnt know about the connection between Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get him to the greek.

 

[The Morningstar]

Well, Ledger's Joker is a lot different than Hiddleston's Loki.

Loki has a true, character arc. The Joker is the living embodiment of the theme that Nolan's pushing through out the film. He's not a real character in the classic sense.

And yet, both of these characters are classics because of their portrayals. Ledger's is more disturbing. Hiddleston's is more tragic.

Yea I'm not really trying to compare the characters per se. Just saying that I preferred watching Loki, if that makes sense. There is just more complexity and meat to the Loki character. Joker was still great, but that was more to do with Ledger, rather than how he was written. With Joker, there isn't that many levels to his character. There is no arc, he doesn't grow. He's like others have mentioned, a force of nature, an embodiment of a theme (that relies on plot contrivances, but I digress)

 

[Tony Stark]

My bad, for some reason on IMDB, I thought it said 91 not 81.

 

[Tony Stark]

I didnt know about the connection between Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get him to the greek.

Yeah Russel Brant is the same character.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well, Ledger's Joker is a lot different than Hiddleston's Loki.

Loki has a true, character arc. The Joker is the living embodiment of the theme that Nolan's pushing through out the film. He's not a real character in the classic sense.

And yet, both of these characters are classics because of their portrayals. Ledger's is more disturbing. Hiddleston's is more tragic.

Again, not comparing the characters, I'm comparing the actor's ability to bring the fullness of the characters they are playing, to which both were highly successful. I used Ledger as the comparison point, because he won an oscar. Not saying that Hiddleston will, in fact if Ledger had done another dramatic roll, I'm sure the academy would have rather nominated him for that, as they hate these type of movies.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm being serious. People want to call this movie an Avengers commercial, yet can never explain why.

Black Widow not being needed? Um she was introduced in the pages of Iron Man (or Tales of Suspense #52) And she actually has had more team ups with Iron Man and been on more Avengers, teams with Iron Man than War Machine (Rhodey wearing the armor). So why wasn't she needed, yet him wearing the suit was completly fine?

Same with SHIELD, they have a long history with Tony.

You're just trying to nitpick and complain about stuff that isn't there.

Its just this bandwagon that because IM2 wasnt great, then all these other superheroes appearing in it must have been about the Avengers and the plot was derailed by them. People are just not used to this idea of the shared universe that allows Widow (and not some random dude in her place) to be the one that spies on Ironman.

So it simply isnt true that the Avengers hurt IM2.

Checkmate and Waller work in the same way for GL. They dont belong in the GL franchise and yet they re used as opposed to some random government organization. Will it lead to a JL movie? I dont think so, but even if it does, Checkmate is just there to investigate Abin Sur and Green Lantern, not the JL.

 

[piccolo]

Yes, Loki was the best performance of the film, but has anyone mentioned how awesome Fandral was? He totally stole any scene he was in, which is what I thought Volstaag would do. Guy did a great job.

And just my opinion, but I don't think they made Loki "bad" enough. You can't have Loki that sympathetic a character imo.

 

[Mr. Earle]

That's what a couple reviewers had said about the trailers for both Thor and Cap then seeing the screening a few months ago.
They weren't impressed with Thor's Trailers but were with Cap's, yet when seeing the Screening they were reversed, they were more impressed with Thor over Cap.
Really hope that 2nd trailer changes that, whenever it comes out.

So Cap doesnt look good does it?

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

I'm still trying to find this plot contrivances in Knight that everyone references.

Maybe, I'm bias. But, I'm starting to get bias about Thor because I'm falling in love with the damn film. Go figure.

 

[The Morningstar]

I actually watched IM2 last night. It was better than I remembered.

And yea, people who bring up SHIELD and the Avengers was negatives about that movie... I just don't get it. SHIELD didn't even make their presence known until the last act. There was a 5 minute talk about the Avenger Initiative right at the end.

And even if SHIELD did have a heavy presence, which they didn't, it isn't that far out of the realms of possibility that a government secret agency would want a piece of Tony Stark. If it had happened in real life you can bet your life savings that the FBI, CIA or whatever other government agency would be heavily involved in the goings on.