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

[The Morningstar]

He wasn't really that much different from comic Loki either. Comic book Loki is sympathetic. He isn't pure evil, he's just mischevious.

Again, I strongly recommend the Loki mini series from 2004. Really good read with amazing art and a great insight into the Loki character.

 

[piccolo]

Reading through this thread, why do people keep saying Thor and Jane were in love? They liked each other, and were attracted to each other, and wanted to see each other again. Thats like a good first date. At the most they were infatuated with each other, which happens all the time. No mention of love anywhere in the movie, Thor doesn't even try to kiss her when he leaves, she has to plant the wet one.

 

[Nathan]

Well, to be honest I haven't read much about comic Loki, the most I know about him comes from the newest Avengers cartoon. He just seems like a *****e there. So he isn't Odin's son, big deal. Now he wants all the power for himself, be the ruler of Asgard and pretty much kill anyone in his way.

I liked that in the Movie Loki's goals were a bit more noble. That he wasn't a dick because he hated his brother, but that he kept him from the Throne simply because he was concerned about Asgard's well being. And after learning the thruth about his origin, he didn't try to conquer Asgard or try to get rid of Odin. He wasn't a bad guy at his core. But the sudden revelation of what he really was, as well as trying to prove his worth to Odin, let him down to the path of evil.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea pretty much.

In fact, I'd say this is the only superhero movie without an actual bonafide villain.

 

[WildcatNC]

He wasn't a super villain by the end either. He's in a self-imposed exile after trying to destroy Jotunheim in Asgard's interest. He'll turn to villainy because he believes its his only path left. Inside, he's still the same person we saw throughout the movie - an inherently good person who honestly just needs a hug.

I got more than what I wanted from Loki performance-wise. Didn't get exactly what I wanted character-wise. I'll leave it at that, and agree that regardless of this Loki was the scene-stealer and Hiddleston deserves an academy nomination at the least.

He is in the after credit scene but you just didn't see enough to get a feel. His fall through the "wormhole" sent him somewhere that really put him over the edge and opened his eyes to bigger plans than "fathers love" or "Thor's equal". Not that they aren't still motivators. Even bad people have base motivations like the rest of us. They just lack the boundaries or conscience the rest of us have.

 

[piccolo]

Have to disagree with you Morningstar on comic Loki, who is every bit the evil villain. Even when he redeems himself, as he did when he sacrificed himself for Asgard in the Doom storyline recently, he still has his shroud of evilness that made you glad he was gone. I get a very different vibe from movie Loki than comicbook one.

I've read the Loki miniseries, I have it saved to my external harddrive. But that isn't the only time Loki has appeared in comic books. He's normally the classic villain. Hiddleston is anything but.

If thats your cup of tea, thats fine and i'm really glad everyone loved it so much, the movie deserves praise in all aspects. I wanted something a little different in Loki than what I got though. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. But I would have preferred more malice.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea didn't Hiddleston say in an interview that where Loki goes after the fall into the abyss changes him even further for the worse?

 

[El Payaso]

Reading through this thread, why do people keep saying Thor and Jane were in love? They liked each other, and were attracted to each other, and wanted to see each other again. Thats like a good first date. At the most they were infatuated with each other, which happens all the time. No mention of love anywhere in the movie, Thor doesn't even try to kiss her when he leaves, she has to plant the wet one.

Because the movie explains how he wasnm't happy at the end and longed to be with her again. I mean, if that's not screaming 'they fell in love' I don't know what is.

But I'll give you something: it didn't feel like love. Or like anything worthy.

 

[The Morningstar]

Have to disagree with you Morningstar on comic Loki, who is every bit the evil villain. Even when he redeems himself, as he did when he sacrificed himself for Asgard in the Doom storyline recently, he still has his shroud of evilness that made you glad he was gone. I get a very different vibe from movie Loki than comicbook one.

I've read the Loki miniseries, I have it saved to my external harddrive. But that isn't the only time Loki has appeared in comic books. He's normally the classic villain. Hiddleston is anything but.

If thats your cup of tea, thats fine and i'm really glad everyone loved it so much, the movie deserves praise in all aspects. I wanted something a little different than what I got though. Doesn't mean I didn't like it. But I would have preferred more malice.

Fair enough. But I've always felt of Loki more of a sympathetic, misguided villain who is mischevious rather than pure, mustache twirling evil. He's the God of Mischief at the end of the day.

That mini series is my favourite portrayal of him.

 

[The Morningstar]

Because the movie explains how he wasnm't happy at the end and longed to be with her again. I mean, if that's not screaming 'they fell in love' I don't know what is.

But I'll give you something: it didn't feel like love. Or like anything worthy.

That doesn't scream "they fell in love" to me. That just says that he liked her, he misses her and that he wanted the chance to be with her longer.

It's like, you see a girl out at a club or whatever. You really get along, maybe even share a kiss at the end of the night. Then you don't know if you'll see her again. But you still think about her.

 

[WildcatNC]

Reading through this thread, why do people keep saying Thor and Jane were in love? They liked each other, and were attracted to each other, and wanted to see each other again. Thats like a good first date. At the most they were infatuated with each other, which happens all the time. No mention of love anywhere in the movie, Thor doesn't even try to kiss her when he leaves, she has to plant the wet one.

Because they are assuming it based on the comics I imagine. Your right though.

 

[WildcatNC]

Yea didn't Hiddleston say in an interview that where Loki goes after the fall into the abyss changes him even further for the worse?

Yes he did. Thats what i'm trying to explain.


He WILL be that villain in Avengers. This was HIS origin story. How he became that villain.

No one escapes the womb twirling their mustache.

 

[MadVillainy]

Yes he did. Thats what i'm trying to explain.


He WILL be that villain in Avengers. This was HIS origin story. How he became that villain.

No one escapes the womb twirling their mustache.

Sounds like a Family Guy cutaway

 

[DigificWriter]

I'm really finding this whole 'Loki was too sympathetic' sentiment to be a bit baffling; he's certainly no more sympathetic, IMO, than characters such as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, Alfred Molina's Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus (who, to this day, still remains one of my all-time favorite filmic comic-based villains), or James Franco's Harry Osborne, and the fact that we - as an audience - can sympathize and identify with the motivations behind Loki's actions only enhances the pathos associated therewith, because, while we're ultimately rooting for him to get taken down a few pegs by Thor, we're also subconsciously hoping for a reconciliation and a 'happy ending'; this is also true of the other 'tragic villains' I mentioned, and is one of the defining characteristics of that particular character archetype.

 

[piccolo]

Because the movie explains how he wasnm't happy at the end and longed to be with her again. I mean, if that's not screaming 'they fell in love' I don't know what is.

But its not...

People can care for each other and want to be with each other without actually being in love. It doesn't go from 0-100, there are areas in-between that encompass all of the things said.

And it doesn't exactly take months to develop strong feelings, there are people who have never spoke but go to sleep thinking about each other.

 

[WildcatNC]

Sounds like a Family Guy cutaway

 

[BoredGuy]

Finally saw it.
Loved it.

I don't understand any criticisms about Thor's change being too sudden, I thought it was perfectly developed, and I certainly didnt feel the earth stuff was too short.

And I agree that Loki was very sympathetic, and you felt genuinely bad for him.
But I don't think he was so sympathetic that you forgive what he's trying to do.
Thor is still the hero, no question about it.

 

[piccolo]

I'm really finding this whole 'Loki was too sympathetic' sentiment to be a bit baffling; he's certainly no more sympathetic, IMO, than characters such as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, Alfred Molina's Otto Octavius/Doctor Octopus (who, to this day, still remains one of my all-time favorite filmic comic-based villains), or James Franco's Harry Osborne, and the fact that we - as an audience - can sympathize and identify with the motivations behind Loki's actions only enhances the pathos associated therewith, because, while we're ultimately rooting for him to get taken down a few pegs by Thor, we're also subconsciously hoping for a reconciliation and a 'happy ending'; this is also true of the other 'tragic villains' I mentioned, and is one of the defining characteristics of that particular character archetype.

Most of this is true. And yet it doesn't change my feeling about his movie portrayal vis a vis his more malevolent comics persona. Being a great character does not necessarily mean being a great villain. Sympathy does not make you a great villain either.

As a side, Darth Vader was not sympathetic until Anakin Skywalker was in ROTS. And yet through the first 3 episodes, when there was no sympathy for him, he was at his best as a villain. Similarly, Emperor Palpatine was legitimately evil, yet was a fantastic villain.

I don't want, nor need, to feel sorry for Loki. Its not what I get in the comics, and its not what I want in the movie.

 

[Vartha]

Sounds like a Family Guy cutaway

pictured Dick Dastardly as a baby personally lol

 

[Raiden]

Most of this is true. And yet it doesn't change my feeling about his movie portrayal vis a vis his more malevolent comics persona. Being a great character does not necessarily mean being a great villain. Sympathy does not make you a great villain either.

As a side, Darth Vader was not sympathetic until Anakin Skywalker was in ROTS. And yet through the first 3 episodes, when there was no sympathy for him, he was at his best as a villain. Similarly, Emperor Palpatine was legitimately evil, yet was a fantastic villain.

I don't want, nor need, to feel sorry for Loki. Its not what I get in the comics, and its not what I want in the movie.

The way I see it is that, in this movie Loki went from a brother and son who felt slighted, to someone who actually ascended to the throne and got a taste of what it feels like to wield tremendous powers. This is the beginning of Lok's journey to the darkness, and since he will be appearing in the Avengers, I think it is safe to speculate that Loki will eventually become the villain that he is in the comic universe.

Btw, I don't think sympathetic villains are bad; I think Doc Ock was more sympathetic when he was in the Spider-man comics, yet he was the best villain in the trilogy. It is when they have overdone it, like what Raimi did to Sandman in Spider-man 3, when it becomes a problem. I thought Branagh made Loki into a complex villain but in the end you want Thor to take him down for his actions. I think such complexity will only serve to create nuisances in this movie for us to appreciate.

 

[DigificWriter]

Most of this is true. And yet it doesn't change my feeling about his movie portrayal vis a vis his more malevolent comics persona. Being a great character does not necessarily mean being a great villain. Sympathy does not make you a great villain either.

As a side, Darth Vader was not sympathetic until Anakin Skywalker was in ROTS. And yet through the first 3 episodes, when there was no sympathy for him, he was at his best as a villain. Similarly, Emperor Palpatine was legitimately evil, yet was a fantastic villain.

I don't want, nor need, to feel sorry for Loki. Its not what I get in the comics, and its not what I want in the movie.

It would be more accurate to say that it's not so much the sentiment itself that is baffling to me as it is this idea/precedent of said sentiment being leveled as a criticism of the film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wishing that Loki's film portrayal would've been more to your individual tastes, but such a sentiment really doesn't need to be leveled against the film as a criticism; it's a very weak argument to make, and doesn't really hold much substance; it also seems to go against typical audience convention/reaction, just like this whole 'Jane and Thor's relationship was too shallow/moved too fast' sentiment.

 

[Vartha]

Finally saw it.
Loved it.

I don't understand any criticisms about Thor's change being too sudden, I thought it was perfectly developed, and I certainly didnt feel the earth stuff was too short.

And I agree that Loki was very sympathetic, and you felt genuinely bad for him.
But I don't think he was so sympathetic that you forgive what he's trying to do.
Thor is still the hero, no question about it.

Well I loved it as it was too, but I understand what people gripe about. There SHOULD be a scene right AFTER the scene with Thor and Loki as kids, that takes places just before you see Thor at Coronation. It's in a side room with Thor, Loki, Sif, Warriors III, and Frigga, it basically introduces everyone and shows how Thor reacts to everyone which does help later in the film on a couple points.

I felt bad he was being used by Odin, yes, but I'm not too sure if Loki KNEW his heritage sooner that it would made a difference.

 

[The Morningstar]

Also, it should be said that once Loki realizes Thor went "soft" because of a human in Jane, he was like "Maybe i'll pay her a little visit too!" or whatever he said.

He definitely started to get more unhinged as the film progressed.

 

[piccolo]

It would be more accurate to say that it's not so much the sentiment itself that is baffling to me as it is this idea/precedent of said sentiment being leveled as a criticism of the film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wishing that Loki's film portrayal would've been more to your individual tastes, but such a sentiment really doesn't need to be leveled against the film as a criticism; it's a very weak argument to make, and doesn't really hold much substance; it also seems to go against typical audience convention/reaction, just like this whole 'Jane and Thor's relationship was too shallow/moved too fast' sentiment.

If anyone thinks my posts on Loki are an "argument" against the film, then there's been some miscommunication. I've ******ed Loki's performance almost as much as i've talked about my preference for a more evil portrayal. And thats only because people keep quoting me about it.

There's been no lack of activity on my end in exclaiming my enjoyment and appreciation for this movie. And as the issue was not a major one for me, i've tried to drop it a few times in favor of talking about what I did like about the movie, which was everything else.

If all you get from my posts is a sense of critical argumentation against the merits of Thor as a film, you should probably try to stop being so easily offended.

 

[BoredGuy]

^oh no doubt about it, morningstar

Well I loved it as it was too, but I understand what people gripe about. There SHOULD be a scene right AFTER the scene with Thor and Loki as kids, that takes places just before you see Thor at Coronation. It's in a side room with Thor, Loki, Sif, Warriors III, and Frigga, it basically introduces everyone and shows how Thor reacts to everyone which does help later in the film on a couple points.

I agree the film wasn't perfect, and couldve used a tad more character development, (especially the warriors three, whom I think people in the audience with me were just confused about.. they each had like 5 seconds to showcase their character) i'm just saying I thought the earth parts were well paced, and developed nicely.

My main criticism might be the action being a little tough to see.
In jotunheim, the action was pretty awesome.
When he started twirling the hammer, i was like "sweeeet!"
But then I found myself straining to see what exactly was happening.
and this was in 2D mind you