The Official 'Thor Rate & Review' thread

[darthlaney]

Just seen it and loved it.

Chris Hemsworth looks huge in it and more than fulfills the role.

Action a plenty and fun

 

[Vartha]

Which did you see Darth, the 2D or 3D?

 

[darthlaney]

3d - the big battle sequences were really hard to watch, they all just blended together, hard to focus. I'll go see it in 2d, should be a little easier to watch, not a big deal, but one that has me thinking that I won't bother with 3d initially for Cap in July

 

[Vartha]

I've worked in 3D art, but not the typical red and blue lined art and lenses.
The versions I work with works basically the same way as the movie theaters. The lenses have tiny little prisms in them, they push cool colors back and bring warm colors foreword. Crayola has color chalk with the lenses these days, where when they were first introduced they were used with florescent markers.
I'm sure in some cases if your eye sight's bad enough your eyes don't catch that effect easily. I wonder if that's the case with some of these movies?

 

[darthlaney]

Interesting, a lot of the frost giant scenes are dark and blueish. The low key nature of the scenes marks everything recede anyway, the characters are mostly dark costumed (apart from bright capes), so this doesn't help much either.

 

[hatebox]

3D is dying on its arse. I'm surprised studios are still using the format.

 

[kedrell]

I swore to never see a film in 3-D again after Avatar. What a waste. I don't get the whole 'immersive experience' bull***t. I get immersed in worthwhile stories & characters, not gimmicks. Same thing goes for stuff shot with IMAX cameras. Just a gimmick to me.

 

[Vartha]

Interesting, a lot of the frost giant scenes are dark and blueish. The low key nature of the scenes marks everything recede anyway, the characters are mostly dark costumed (apart from bright capes), so this doesn't help much either.

well see in that case the backgrounds would be cooler in color than the Frost Giants. Every color has a warm and cool color, even gray. Sometimes the difference isn't noticeable to the average human eye.
I have a couple friends who are color blind. The old 3D line comic books with the red and blue lenses and lines would blend into one big mess because they couldn't see certain colors.
These newer lenses for movies are different, they work in a different way, but it doesn't work if you eyes aren't great.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm glad this is making the skeptics into believers. Man, I can't wait to see this film now.

 

[marvelboy10]

Hey Guys, join us to ask a captain america 1990 revival DVD in France and around the world : http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_155050447890794

Same thing for the old Punisher with Dolph Lundgren : http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_177243038990915

 

[Chewy]

Popcorn Junkie -
http://popcornjunkie.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/review-thor/
QUTE Magazine -
http://qutemag.org/post/4857593157/the-movie-guy-reviews-thor-by-benjamin

 

[hatebox]

I swore to never see a film in 3-D again after Avatar. What a waste. I don't get the whole 'immersive experience' bull***t. I get immersed in worthwhile stories & characters, not gimmicks. Same thing goes for stuff shot with IMAX cameras. Just a gimmick to me.

Stuff shot in IMAX does make a difference, as long as you watch it in IMAX. I'll never forget the audience gasping out loud at the opening shot of TDK when I saw it for the second time at my IMAX theatre.

3D, on the other hand, still costs more in a normal cinema AND it actively makes a film look worse. Apparently Cameron had to practically beg Michael Bay to film Transformers 3 in 3D just to keep the format relevant. But it doesn't matter now, audience aren't interested.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

The bad thing is it's going to take some spectacular failures from some very expensive pictures before the cokehead execs start taking the hint.

 

[Chewy]

The bad thing is it's going to take some spectacular failures from some very expensive pictures before the cokehead execs start taking the hint.

Mars Needs Moms was step 1

 

[kedrell]

Stuff shot in IMAX does make a difference, as long as you watch it in IMAX. I'll never forget the audience gasping out loud at the opening shot of TDK when I saw it for the second time at my IMAX theatre.

I don't waste extra $ going to an IMAX. I've been quite happy with regular screens all this time and don't see the point in paying more. It's the same damn movie. Thankfully, I live in the second largest metro area in the U.S. so finding a 2-D regular screen for Thor is not going to be hard. I feel for those who aren't so fortunate though.

 

[hatebox]

I don't waste extra $ going to an IMAX. I've been quite happy with regular screens all this time and don't see the point in paying more. It's the same damn movie.

It is the same movie, but in that instance the collective reaction from the audience wasn't the same. And for that I was happy to pay a bit more as a one-off (TDK, and 300 as it happens, remain the only films I've ever seen at an IMAX). 3D never elicits that kind of reaction though, and that studios expect people to pay more for it is boderline insulting. But money talks, and 3D no longer has any noticable effect on revenue. In its current form, its days are numbered.

 

[Chewy]

I have seen TDK, Star Trek, IM2, and soon Thor on IMAX. I have yet to regret purchasing an IMAX ticket.

 

[marcvader]

Love IMAX

 

[conan69]

I have no interest in imax or 3D. Ive seen each once and once was enough.

 

[kedrell]

It is the same movie, but in that instance the collective reaction from the audience wasn't the same. And for that I was happy to pay a bit more as a one-off (TDK, and 300 as it happens, remain the only films I've ever seen at an IMAX). 3D never elicits that kind of reaction though, and that studios expect people to pay more for it is borderline insulting. But money talks, and 3D no longer has any noticable effect on revenue. In its current form, its days are numbered.

Well, I understand the whole collective reaction thing(and I love it when that happens). The thing is, I've seen just that same reaction many times in non IMAX screenings. So I think it's much more about what the characters are doing onscreen than the particular film stock it was shot in, as long as it's all descernable to the eye and not shaky-cam'ed to death or something similar. But I do hope you're right and that 3-D is on it's way out.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I have seen few films in IMAX. Mostly when I lived in NY. I saw Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Harry Potter 4 and 5, Superman Returns, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Now, the last 2 films I listed sucked period, but in IMAX they were more enjoyable. IMAX does make a difference. 3D really hasn't for me since Avatar, but IMAX does.

Since I moved here to Pittsburgh, I saw Tron: Legacy in IMAX, which made it better. I have no regrets paying the extra money to see Thor in IMAX 3D (which I already bought my tickets for) at 12:01

 

[darthlaney]

well see in that case the backgrounds would be cooler in color than the Frost Giants. Every color has a warm and cool color, even gray. Sometimes the difference isn't noticeable to the average human eye.
I have a couple friends who are color blind. The old 3D line comic books with the red and blue lenses and lines would blend into one big mess because they couldn't see certain colors.
These newer lenses for movies are different, they work in a different way, but it doesn't work if you eyes aren't great.

Yep, know what you are saying and get the design principles associated with color / tone. I teach this sort of thing as part of multimedia and 3d design. I would also consider my eye sight 20/20 so it wasn't a vision issue.

The issue is more when all of the similar tones, rather than colours were on top of each other. Example the Asgardian, ice giant battle. You had warm greys and cool grey backrounds with cool medium blue characters predominently in the foreground (not much contrast) and while principle hero characters were quite different in appearance, swords swishing around had the same reflected colours of the ice giants - it was really difficult for the eyes to focus or maintain the correct depth of field / focus. Perhaps the movement was just to quick. A reason to see the 2d version to make a better judgement,

I found this with Transformers 1 (not 3d I know), where the robots fighting each other was so fast and the detail so deep that it was impossible to catch everything.

However as said before a personal issue with the 3d, that did not really effect my overall enjoyment of the movie. Looking forward to seeing it again.

 

[darthlaney]

Stuff shot in IMAX does make a difference, as long as you watch it in IMAX. I'll never forget the audience gasping out loud at the opening shot of TDK when I saw it for the second time at my IMAX theatre.

3D, on the other hand, still costs more in a normal cinema AND it actively makes a film look worse. Apparently Cameron had to practically beg Michael Bay to film Transformers 3 in 3D just to keep the format relevant. But it doesn't matter now, audience aren't interested.

Cameron must have begged a ***** load of other people as well. C'mon it's relevant and does enhance a movie. I was blown away by the POTC trailer tonight, the 3D in that looks fantastic. I think it works better on more vibrantly colour films though.

 

[Chewy]

ScienceFictionWorld
http://sciencefictionworld.com/films/fantasy-films/759-kenneth-branaghs-mighty-thor.html
Popcorn Addiction
http://popcornaddiction.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/thor-2011/

 

[RichardMoore]

IMAX is way better than 3D. I think that filming stuff with IMAX cameras is a great idea, especially enhancing the IMAX experience. I'm also interested to see what Peter Jackson is doing with the 3D in the Hobbit.

But I'd prefer for 3D to just not exist. It doesn't add anything to the movie. IMAX is a far more immersive experience.