The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread

[ElMariachi]

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

Yes, but he initially saved him and gave him the idea. Tony wouldn't have even known about about shrapnel and fragments heading towards his heart.

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.

How is it any different?

Also, he wasn't handed the answer by Fury. Fury gave him a bunch of papers that Tony threw in the trash. Tony discovered the proposed element when he came across the Stark Expo model in Pepper's office and the message on the plaque. Everything else was all Tony. He used his technology to map the element, built a particle accelerator in his basement, and ultimately fixed himself.

 

[J.Howlett]

Happy,

All I'm saying is it would've been nice if Tony figured it out without SHIELD's interference.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Years ago - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers? Wow, how cool!"

Now - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers! Boooo!"

Geez Louise, people will truly complain about anything. How fickle fandom can be.

 

[The Morningstar]

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...

Ummm... pretty much all the reviews ARE saying Thor stands out as a unique superhero film. So I don't actually know where you are getting this all from, especially since you haven't seen the movie.

Anyway, did someone mention the after credits scene is on the net somewhere? I'd appreciate a PM if that is the case. Thanks.

 

[Village_Idiot]

I'm just excited they even made a Thor movie , I mean seriously

 

[J.Howlett]

Now see, I love Ang Lee's film because it had balls. Yeah, it's slow but it's dripping with character and theme and it has ambition. I rather a film fail with big ambition than play it safe.

I guess I'm just more of a fan of the Marvel pre-2005 than I am post-2005.

Blade
Blade II
X-Men
X2
Hulk
Spider-Man 2

 

[Son of Coul]

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.

That's another biggie that ties directly into both things we're talking about. Him accepting help from others and the legacy part. I'm convinced a big part of Stark's downfall was thinking his heartless daddy couldn't be lived up to. Even when they give him the suitcase, Stark clearly doesn't have his full heart put into it until he sees his dad wasn't such a bastard and assists Tony to becoming even bigger than he was.

If they intended half the **** I pull from this movie's two leading themes/character arcs, IM2 is much more brilliantly and meticulously crafted than it seems on first glance. The more I think about it, the more impressed I am with it. And I'm certainly not one to overanalyze.

 

[Son of Coul]

Happy,

All I'm saying is it would've been nice if Tony figured it out without SHIELD's interference.

Fair enough, I just think it's not so different than what we've seen before with the character and don't mind it.

 

[J.Howlett]

Happy,

I just would've loved a second act with Tony dealing with idea of dying, while trying to set up for a future with him not here, while Vanko and Hammer were actively trying to kill him...and from the ashes of all that is crumbling around him, Tony, some how, some way found the strength and figured out his problem on his own and then faced Vanko and Hammer as a new man, that he created in the face of death...

...and I believe he could've done that without Fury, Widow, and SHIELD.

 

[kedrell]

Now see, I love Ang Lee's film because it had balls. Yeah, it's slow but it's dripping with character and theme and it has ambition. I rather a film fail with big ambition than play it safe.

I think it was less about having balls and more about thinking they were smarter than the source material(newsflash-they weren't) and not giving it the proper respect. And I'll give more admiration for a film that aims lower but actually manages to hit what it aims at than a film that aims high and misses. The end result is ultimately what matters, at least to me. They don't get much points for failure but still having given it a 'good try'. They get points for success. And I'm not necessarily talking about box office results here(however that's important as well).

I guess I'm just more of a fan of the Marvel pre-2005 than I am post-2005.

Blade
Blade II
X-Men
X2
Hulk
Spider-Man 2

Well most of those films I think are either mediocre or just bad. All pretty much pale in comparison to the best of post 2005 films, IMO.

 

[Son of Coul]

Happy,

I just would've loved a second act with Tony dealing with idea of dying, while trying to set up for a future with him not here, while Vanko and Hammer were actively trying to kill him...and from the ashes of all that is crumbling around him, Tony, some how, some way found the strength and figured out his problem on his own and then faced Vanko and Hammer as a new man, that he created in the face of death...

...and I believe he could've done that without Fury, Widow, and SHIELD.

Fair enough

Now back to that Thor movie, looks like it'll kick ass!

 

[Marvel]

Years ago - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers? Wow, how cool!"

Now - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers! Boooo!"

Geez Louise, people will truly complain about anything. How fickle fandom can be.

You use the word "fickle" and I use the word "morons" ... let them complain because complexity to any film universe only adds to the depth. People looking for something to complain about latched on to the Avengers stuff in Iron Man 2. IM2's plot was structured remarkably well and stood on its own. Having a broader frame of reference means a film is more complex and thus, doesn't fit in to what some are used to. That's THEIR problem, not the film itself.

 

[J.Howlett]

How did Lee's film not respect the source material?

And don't for a second think that the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 are in any way shape or form better than those films that I listed above because they're not.

 

[RichardMoore]

I rather a film fail with big ambition than play it safe.

I go to movies to be entertained. If a movie aims high and misses, it's depressing and it's not entertaining. If a movie doesn't aim quite as high and hits all the right spots, I'm entertained.

Certain movies like LOTR, TDK, Inception etc. can aim high and succeed. But if a movie aims high and sucks, that's just a sucky movie (and the same for a movie that doesn't aim high and sucks).

 

[kedrell]

Years ago - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers? Wow, how cool!"

Now - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers! Boooo!"

Geez Louise, people will truly complain about anything. How fickle fandom can be.

Yeah, there's something to that.

 

[Tony Stark]

Years ago - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers? Wow, how cool!"

Now - "Marvel is making all of their movies fit into the same universe, complete with cameos and crossovers! Boooo!"

Geez Louise, people will truly complain about anything. How fickle fandom can be.

Totally agree. But as I say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and now Warner is trying to do the same thing, hence the post Nolan Batman reboot is already in planning.

 

[J.Howlett]

We don't know what WB is doing. I wouldn't make that assumption just yet...

 

[Tony Stark]

Now see, I love Ang Lee's film because it had balls. Yeah, it's slow but it's dripping with character and theme and it has ambition. I rather a film fail with big ambition than play it safe.

I guess I'm just more of a fan of the Marvel pre-2005 than I am post-2005.

Blade
Blade II
X-Men
X2
Hulk
Spider-Man 2

To paraphrase Downey, Marvel Studios putting all their heroes in the same film is the most ambitious movie.

Ang Lee's film was total crap. Bana is a great actor, but you could tell he was totally uncomfortable in that roll and trying to figure out what they wanted. Say what you will about The Incredible Hulk, but Norton just stepped into that roll.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

How did Lee's film not respect the source material?

And don't for a second think that the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 are in any way shape or form better than those films that I listed above because they're not.

I think that they are better than the movies that you listed above.

 

[J.Howlett]

Is this a group think session I walked into?

 

[jmc]

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.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm talking about the execution and feel of the movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

How did Lee's film not respect the source material?

Dr. Bruce Krentzler?????

And don't for a second think that the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 are in any way shape or form better than those films that I listed above because they're not.

better than Spider-man 2? probably not. X2, debateable, better than Ang's Hulk yeah way better.

Blade 2 was pretty cool, Blade 1 was OK.

 

[kedrell]

How did Lee's film not respect the source material?

Hulk is a character. If you put him in a film and just make him an effect then you just don't get the character at all. And 5 words spoken in the film(by him) and expecting facial expressions & body language to do the bulk of the work is simply an insult, IMO. It's just perpetuating the mistake made by the TV show. To be fair, TIH is guilty of this as well but at least that film managed to be enjoyable in a popcorn kinda way. But that's why I rank TIH as the lowest of the Marvel Studios films so far.

And don't for a second think that the Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2 are in any way shape or form better than those films that I listed above because they're not.

Iron Man 2 is, IMO. Far better. TIH? Well that's the weakest post 2005 film so far from Marvel Studios(but better than any of the outside studio efforts at Marvel characters in the same timeframe). TIH is about on par with the best of the pre-2005 films you mentioned. Maybe Blade1 is slightly better than TIH but that's about all I'd agree with.

 

[Village_Idiot]

I still haven't liked either of the Bruce Banner's , and I'm still not set on Mark Ruffalo as the third , will have to wait and see

 

[J.Howlett]

X2 has ever Marvel Studios' film beat in spades.