The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread

[jmc]

How does Thor feel handcuffed to the Marvel universe? I'm curious because the only mention or reference to the other films is Agent Coulson, and he can just be taken as a stand alone character in the Thor film, going by what other reviews have said.

No one seems to mention that Thor is like IM2 in that regard.

Handcuffed in the sense of being made to work within a certain area. I said in my review that the film played things very cautiously, partly because of the character, partly because he's gotta work with Tony Stark and friends next year. If he isn't bound to the universe it gives you an entirely different canvas to work on and more freedom to try things.

 

[The Morningstar]

How about the inclusion of Black Widow and Nick Fury and the entire mid-section of the film?

Honestly, couldn't you completely cut them out of the film and still end with the same result that we got at the end of the film?

Not really. Nick Fury gave Tony a kick up the ass when he was acting like a self destructive *****e. He inspired him to live up to his fathers legacy and sort his **** out. Kinda like a Drill Instructor, only more cool.

Black Widow? Yea she was pretty pointless.

 

[ElMariachi]

How about the inclusion of Black Widow and Nick Fury and the entire mid-section of the film?

Honestly, couldn't you completely cut them out of the film and still end with the same result that we got at the end of the film?

Black Widow and Nick Fury work for SHIELD, which was introduced in the first movie. They are hardly advertisements for The Avengers. I agree that Black Widow could have been cut out of the movie. Nick Fury had a purpose. His role had more to do with Tony's father than he did with the Avengers.

 

[J.Howlett]

And that's the problem. In the original film, Tony figured out all his problems all on his own.

Think of what Iron Man 2 would've been like if Tony fixed himself all on his own, while fighting off a constant antagonistic assault that knows that he's dying and why.

And the funny thing about Nick Fury is that he's never properly introduced. The majority of general audiences don't stay after the credits. And yet, in Iron Man 2, he just shows up. If no one knew about the after credit scene in the original Iron Man, they'd ask, "what the hell is Sam Jackson doing in this film and who the hell is he?

 

[The Morningstar]

Handcuffed in the sense of being made to work within a certain area. I said in my review that the film played things very cautiously, partly because of the character, partly because he's gotta work with Tony Stark and friends next year. If he isn't bound to the universe it gives you an entirely different canvas to work on and more freedom to try things.

But this is the story of Thor coming to Earth, is it not? The story of his banishment. So you're saying they should have deviated from the source material?

I'm sure that in a Thor sequel, if it gets it, we'll probably get a stand alone Thor tale of him not on Earth as much. But for his very first film, his introduction, it makes perfect sense that they use the banishment story.

 

[Son of Coul]

But without Black Widow they still would have needed a means of SHIELD tracking Tony's behavior and discovering his poisoning. Widow was a good means of doing so. Sure you could have substituted her with something or someone else, but that's the funnest option.

And I'm a little tired of people saying that if you didn't stay after the credits you'd have no idea who Fury was or where he came from. I know some of the most oblivious people to the comics and even they knew he was "the head SHIELD guy."

 

[The Morningstar]

And that's the problem. In the original film, Tony figured out all his problems all on his own.

Think of what Iron Man 2 would've been like if Tony fixed himself all on his own, while fighting off a constant antagonistic assault that knows that he's dying and why.

Tony did fix it on his own really though. It still took his ingenuity to create the new element for his Arc Reactor.

Fury basically just said "Look kid, don't just accept death, do something about it". Then he went and did something about it.

 

[Village_Idiot]

The only reason why there was a Thor movie to begin with was to get him in the Avengers movie

so of course he would be tied in to the banishment to Earth story

 

[ElMariachi]

Not really. Nick Fury gave Tony a kick up the ass when he was acting like a self destructive *****e. He inspired him to live up to his fathers legacy and sort his **** out. Kinda like a Drill Instructor, only more cool.

Black Widow? Yea she was pretty pointless.

yeah, exactly.

Nick Fury was the one guy, the only guy that could get through to Tony as a man. I really dug that about the movie. Kind of a father figure in some ways that could get Tony to man up.

 

[jmc]

But this is the story of Thor coming to Earth, is it not? The story of his banishment. So you're saying they should have deviated from the source material?

I'm sure that in a Thor sequel, if it gets it, we'll probably get a stand alone Thor tale of him not on Earth as much. But for his very first film, his introduction, it makes perfect sense that they use the banishment story.

Are you suggesting there's only one way to explore that banishment story?

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Tony was given the answer by Fury with his father's briefcase.

Let's try this scenario; Tony's pounding away in his shop, hoping and looking for anything that will help his problem. He goes through his old college notes. He goes over some recent notes. As he does that, he finds some of his father's old notes on various projects from the past.

What if Tony saw a workable solution in his father's notes and applies his ideas/genius to create this new element?

It achieves exactly the same thing that the film did without having Fury and SHIELD give him the solution. And by Tony doing it himself, it reveals something deeper about himself and the audience as a character.

It's what Favreau basically did in the first film...

 

[kedrell]

And that's the problem. In the original film, Tony figured out all his problems all on his own.

Think of what Iron Man 2 would've been like if Tony fixed himself all on his own, while fighting off a constant antagonistic assault that knows that he's dying and why.

And the funny thing about Nick Fury is that he's never properly introduced. The majority of general audiences don't stay after the credits. And yet, in Iron Man 2, he just shows up. If no one knew about the after credit scene in the original Iron Man, they'd ask, "what the hell is Sam Jackson doing in this film and who the hell is he?

But the whole theme of IM2, Tony's entire character arc in the film would have been destroyed. The point was that he needed other people. He can't go it all alone. And Tony's never really been a loner type character but he was understandably cautious and gunshy of depending on others after the events of the first film. Stane's actions left a lasting mark.

 

[J.Howlett]

All I'm saying is is that there was a more organic way to involve SHIELD in Iron Man 2 than what was presented. I'm not against them being in the film. But, the film still would've ended the exact same way had Tony figured out all this himself.

And instead of having a dull second act, you could've cut out SHIELD and had Vanko actively attack Tony at his weakest point. It would've saved the second act if Vanko would've kept after Tony since he already revealed to Tony that he knew he was dying.

 

[J.Howlett]

The theme of Iron Man 2 is legacy, not that he needed the help of others. That theme is the theme for the Avengers. And it's actually funny...the theme of Iron Man is technically legacy as well and yet in that film, Tony has a much more active role in redefining his legacy. In Iron Man 2, it's just words. It's never fulfilled. It's never explored.

 

[piccolo]

I thought the 2nd half of IM2 was a stark improvement over the first half, though still not great. The first half of that movie was just embarrassing imo.

 

[ElMariachi]

And that's the problem. In the original film, Tony figured out all his problems all on his own.

Think of what Iron Man 2 would've been like if Tony fixed himself all on his own, while fighting off a constant antagonistic assault that knows that he's dying and why.

And the funny thing about Nick Fury is that he's never properly introduced. The majority of general audiences don't stay after the credits. And yet, in Iron Man 2, he just shows up. If no one knew about the after credit scene in the original Iron Man, they'd ask, "what the hell is Sam Jackson doing in this film and who the hell is he?

No he didn't. Yinsen saved his life in the first movie at the beginning. Rhodey rescued him in the desert. The robot (that had emotions, no less) saved Tony when Obadiah betrayed him. Pepper also landed the finishing blow against Obadiah at the end when she overloaded the arc reactor.

In IM2, he did solve his problems regarding the poisoning. Fury didn't cure him. He fixed himself in a unique scene where he created an element after discovering his father's research. Which, voila, concluded the angle about his father and his legacy in the movie.


I made this point last year, but nobody cared when Lucius Fox saved Batman after getting sprayed by Scarecrow in BB.

 

[J.Howlett]

All I'm getting at is Marvel has a chance to do something epic with Thor that sets it apart from other comic book films. But, because this first film ties directly to the Avengers, they've shortchanged their own film.

I hope and pray the Avengers is worth it because if that film doesn't work, all you have is a bunch of films that are just merely good but could've been something more had Marvel not been so narrow minded in getting to the big team up film before DC...

 

[kedrell]

I disagree. IM2's biggest theme(and it obviously had more than one) WAS Tony learning to trust others again after the events of the first film. It also perfectly ties into the Avengers. But it didn't JUST refer to the Avengers. It was just as much about his own inner circle of friends as well.

 

[J.Howlett]

Yinsen didn't save his life. He merely postponed Tony's death. Tony's genius and quick thinking saved his life in that cave...

 

[J.Howlett]

Being poisoned and about to die in a matter of hours and being saved by a doctor or from someone who works for you at Wayne Enterprises is slightly different that dying a slow death over a matter of months and being handed the answer in a large briefcase by Fury.

 

[ElMariachi]

All I'm getting at is Marvel has a chance to do something epic with Thor that sets it apart from other comic book films. But, because this first film ties directly to the Avengers, they've shortchanged their own film.

I hope and pray the Avengers is worth it because if that film doesn't work, all you have is a bunch of films that are just merely good but could've been something more had Marvel not been so narrow minded in getting to the big team up film before DC...

You haven't even seen Thor. How can you bash the movie when it is getting so much love and positive comments already? One of the positives has been that the movie is unique.

 

[Son of Coul]

Morningstar,

Tony was given the answer by Fury with his father's briefcase.

Let's try this scenario; Tony's pounding away in his shop, hoping and looking for anything that will help his problem. He goes through his old college notes. He goes over some recent notes. As he does that, he finds some of his father's old notes on various projects from the past.

What if Tony saw a workable solution in his father's notes and applies his ideas/genius to create this new element?

It achieves exactly the same thing that the film did without having Fury and SHIELD give him the solution. And by Tony doing it himself, it reveals something deeper about himself and the audience as a character.

It's what Favreau basically did in the first film...

That would've been a much bigger deuce ex machina than Fury giving him the suitcase if you ask me, and would've garnered possibly more complaints. Stark is gonna find something in the shop he works in almost every day, the one he's torn apart and rebuilt with testings and hall of armors and whatnot after all these years? It's a stretch.

And him finding something in the shop doesn't reveal anything deeper about him as a character because he was desperately trying to stop himself from dying. He'd been doing that from the start.

The theme of Iron Man 2 is legacy, not that he needed the help of others. That theme is the theme for the Avengers. And it's actually funny...the theme of Iron Man is technically legacy as well and yet in that film, Tony has a much more active role in redefining his legacy. In Iron Man 2, it's just words. It's never fulfilled. It's never explored.

The theme is legacy. The character arc is learning that no man is an island. It was part of him refusing help from any friends, particularly Rhodey, and him finally conceding once Fury steps in and accepting the fact that he needs Rhodes/War Machine to help him save the day.

 

[The Morningstar]

Are you suggesting there's only one way to explore that banishment story?

Well yea, what other way could they have done it but in a contemporary world? In our time? Makes it more relatable.

I suppose they could have done it in the stone ages as some proper period piece. But they chose not to.

And again, going by reviews, the "fish out of water" humour of a God in a world of diners and pet shops works very well. So I don't see the problem.

Morningstar,

Tony was given the answer by Fury with his father's briefcase.

Let's try this scenario; Tony's pounding away in his shop, hoping and looking for anything that will help his problem. He goes through his old college notes. He goes over some recent notes. As he does that, he finds some of his father's old notes on various projects from the past.

What if Tony saw a workable solution in his father's notes and applies his ideas/genius to create this new element?

It achieves exactly the same thing that the film did without having Fury and SHIELD give him the solution. And by Tony doing it himself, it reveals something deeper about himself and the audience as a character.

It's what Favreau basically did in the first film...

Fury and SHIELD didn't give him the solution though. IF Fury and SHIELD turned up and actually gave him the new element or told him how to create the new element? Yea, that'd be contrived.

But Fury came in, gave him a kick up the ass, gave him his Father's old blue prints and research, which makes sense as his Father worked for SHIELD on confidential projects, then Tony used his ingenuity to put the pieces together.

It also had a great character moment for Tony where watching the reels of footage of his Father showed that his Father did actually love him. Which inspired him.

 

[J.Howlett]

And that's the thing. I've never bashed the film. I'm merely commenting on jmc's and other reviews comments about the film "feeling" safe because of the tie in to the Avengers.

Frankly, I'm stoked for Thor only because it feels like a very close cousin to a film I dearly love from the 80's (Masters of the Universe) and I've wanted to see a big budget version of Masters of the Universe for a long, long time.

And Thor is that film for me.

 

[kedrell]

All I'm getting at is Marvel has a chance to do something epic with Thor that sets it apart from other comic book films. But, because this first film ties directly to the Avengers, they've shortchanged their own film.

I hope and pray the Avengers is worth it because if that film doesn't work, all you have is a bunch of films that are just merely good but could've been something more had Marvel not been so narrow minded in getting to the big team up film before DC...

You can't skip steps, IMO. You can't get to Batman Begins without Batman'89 paving the way. You can't get to a Thor film that'd make LOTR look puny by comparison w/o going through THIS film. There is a progression. And like a doctor, a filmmaker's first responsibility when adapting these properties should be to DO NO HARM(i.e. now people are aware of the character but they hate him/her or the idea of watching another movie about him/her). God I wish Ang Lee had kept that in mind when he adapted Hulk in 2003. Because he did harm to the character, to give an example. Burton's Batman isn't all that good a movie in many, many respects but at least he did no harm to the property.