Sequels Thor: Love and Thunder

[DarthSkywalker]

I am confused. I was told this film was going to continue the destruction of his character. Why would he be excited about this?

 

[TheGuy]

I would have preferred if Guardians came in first before Thor. But Waititi is damn good so I trust his vision.

 

[Herolee10]

I am confused. I was told this film was going to continue the destruction of his character. Why would he be excited about this?

Well they did say that he hasn't read the script yet, so...

 

[Zarex]

I understand it rubbed certain types the wrong way. But while Aaron's Thor work has been great the stories with Jane Thor were real standouts. I can see why Portman would want to come back for what should be a really unique take on a superhero. Even though it clearly means Hemsworth be will be forced into a glorified cameo role.

 

[Moridin]

It is useless if all you measure a character by is their power level and how badass they come off in a superficial manner.

My displeasure with how Thor was handled in Endgame has nothing to do with power levels.

Going into a deep depression during the 5 years after the Snap was fine. However after he was given the opportunity to fix it he should have come back to himself and been much more focused. Instead he was all over the place, to the point where he flaked out on Rocket in the middle of their mission, putting the entire thing in jeopardy.
And as I've already said, at the end, flaking out on his people when they need him to have fun with tGotG. Handing the throne over to Valkyrie, who herself had abandoned Asgard for who knows how many thousands of years, voluntarily becoming a f***ing slave trader... in no way has she earned leading Asgard. Does she even have a real name? Spectacularly bad creative decisions there, IMO.

Highly un-Thor-like things to do, especially when taken on the back of what was so well established in Ragnarok:
"Go ahead, stay here and enslave people for that lunatic, keep drinking, keep hiding... but me...

That was such a great character defining moment. Endgame eviscerated it.

 

[HammerDown]

 

[Herolee10]

Yeah, characters not having a compelling arc being bad isn't a particularly unique thing. What I fail to see is a reason to assume that's going to happen here when all our information amounts to Thor, Jane is Thor too, and Valkyrie is there and still Queen. None of those facts mean Thor can't have a compelling arc, or that he's being replaced.


Why assume this movie is mainly to serve as establishing Jane as the new Thor? What reason do we have to assume they'd suddenly kick Hemsworth, who has never been more popular as Thor, to the curb?

Last I checked, there are a lot of Thor comics. I doubt they're all about being king or being the only one with lighting powers. If the character can no longer be compelling if he's not king (something he was not until the end of his third film) or the only one with his powers, then that would reflect poorly on him as a character. It'd be like asking what the point of having Batman in a Batman movie is if Robin, Batgirl, Nightwing, Batwoman, Spoiler, Huntress or some other Gotham vigilante was also in it. And like those characters would likely have arcs that would be designed to challenge and flesh out Batman if it's a Batman movie, I'm sure Valkyrie and Jane's arcs will be set up to challenge and develop Thor as well. I see no reason to think Waititi suddenly can't write a protagonist.

As I seem to recall, Thor lost his rights in being "Thor" after Jane was deemed worthy to lift his trademark hammer. Seeing as how that was one of the main plot points for Jane's arc in the comics, it wouldn't be surprising to see that translated to this film.

Thor has already lost his title and heritage as being Prince/King of Asgard to Valkerie. So the idea of him losing the right to call himself Thor to Jane like he did in the comics isn't the most appealing idea for me at least.

In regards to your example with Batman, the difference here is that no matter how many members of the Bat Family are present in any story, Batman has always been portrayed as the leading figure of the group and the one that pushes them all forward.

And when it all boils down to it, I just don't want to see a repeat of what I've seen on Supergirl and DC's Legends of Tomorrow where some characters are made to look great at the expense of other. Sara Lance/White Canary is always written to look like a total badass while some of the other members in her group come off looking like idiots or useless (e.g. Atom and Steel).

And Thor served as the comic relief in EG. So if the Russos, who are known for making more serious MCU films can do that to Thor, I shudder to think on how much further Taika will go with Thor's new personality.

 

[Mysteryman]

I am very interested in learning more about the story for this film.

 

[Zarex]

My displeasure with how Thor was handled in Endgame has nothing to do with power levels.

Going into a deep depression during the 5 years after the Snap was fine. However after he was given the opportunity to fix it he should have come back to himself and been much more focused. Instead he was all over the place, he flaked out on Rocket in the middle of their mission, putting the entire thing in jeopardy.
And as I've already said, at the end, flaking out on his people when they need him to have fun with tGotG. Handing the throne over to Valkyrie, who herself had abandoned Asgard for who knows how many thousands of years, voluntarily becoming a f***ing slave trader... in no way has she earned leading Asgard. Does she even have a real name? Spectacularly bad creative decisions there, IMO.

Highly un-Thor-like things to do, especially when taken on the back of what was so well established in Ragnarok:
"Go ahead, stay here and enslave people for that lunatic, keep drinking, keep hiding... but me...

That was such a great character defining moment. Endgame eviscerated it.

Valkyrie got the surviving Asgardians to safety and appeared to have spent half a decade building their new home. And then led the Asgardian army into battle on a flying frikkin horse. She earned the crown.

 

[jmc]

Oh, that is ironic.

Also, are you just going to ignore the bit about Thor's powers?

I made a story suggestion in about 30 seconds not remembering all the story aspects that have come before. Seriously dude, it's like you can't actually conceptualise the idea that you might be looking at what people said from the wrong perspective. Instead of jumping to the conclusion someone is complaining because they don't understand the character, perhaps it would behoove you to take into consideration that maybe not everyone remembers everything from past movies, and made suggestions for a story based on what one remembered. So yeah. A little bit of challenging your own assumptions wouldn't go astray in some cases dear sir.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

My displeasure with how Thor was handled in Endgame has nothing to do with power levels.

Going into a deep depression during the 5 years after the Snap was fine. However after he was given the opportunity to fix it he should have come back to himself and been much more focused. Instead he was all over the place, he flaked out on Rocket in the middle of their mission, putting the entire thing in jeopardy.
And as I've already said, at the end, flaking out on his people when they need him to have fun with tGotG. Handing the throne over to Valkyrie, who herself had abandoned Asgard for who knows how many thousands of years, voluntarily becoming a f***ing slave trader... in no way has she earned leading Asgard. Does she even have a real name? Spectacularly bad creative decisions there, IMO.

Highly un-Thor-like things to do, especially when taken on the back of what was so well established in Ragnarok:
"Go ahead, stay here and enslave people for that lunatic, keep drinking, keep hiding... but me...

That was such a great character defining moment. Endgame eviscerated it.

First, Valkyrie spent five years establishing exactly why she would make a fine leader.

Second, Infinity War and Endgame explain why I disagree with your theory. Thor did get that chance. And he failed through his own need to relish in his victory. One of my favorite bits about the opening of Endgame is that we see Thor stewing. Living with it. It isn't going well and he is given false hope that he an undo it. And well considering how he was before that, I don't think he would of handled the next five years of living with it well at all. Not after also losing his mother, father, and brother all in rather quick succession for basically an immortal.

The idea that he would just snap back to being prime Thor makes no sense imo.

 

[Zarex]

I am confused. I was told this film was going to continue the destruction of his character. Why would he be excited about this?

Strictly for contractual reasons. Poor Chris knows Taika's going to complete the emasculation of the once proud God of Thunder and he's trying to keep a stiff upper lip.

 

[Herolee10]

My displeasure with how Thor was handled in Endgame has nothing to do with power levels.

Going into a deep depression during the 5 years after the Snap was fine. However after he was given the opportunity to fix it he should have come back to himself and been much more focused. Instead he was all over the place, to the point where he flaked out on Rocket in the middle of their mission, putting the entire thing in jeopardy.
And as I've already said, at the end, flaking out on his people when they need him to have fun with tGotG. Handing the throne over to Valkyrie, who herself had abandoned Asgard for who knows how many thousands of years, voluntarily becoming a f***ing slave trader... in no way has she earned leading Asgard. Does she even have a real name? Spectacularly bad creative decisions there, IMO.

Highly un-Thor-like things to do, especially when taken on the back of what was so well established in Ragnarok:
"Go ahead, stay here and enslave people for that lunatic, keep drinking, keep hiding... but me...

That was such a great character defining moment. Endgame eviscerated it.

Yeah, well a lot of the events and development in Thor: Ragnarok were thrown out the window once IW and EG came around (i.e. New Eye, New Weapon, Coward Thor, etc.)

And seeing on how they're interested in giving Valkerie her own queen as well, I guess Thor won't be reclaiming his kingship any time soon or ever.

So if Thor 4 isn't about Thor leading his people or finding a new home for them, then I can only guess that it'll be about him passing his legacy to...Jane Foster.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Does he want a cookie?

 

[Herolee10]

First, Valkyrie spent five years establishing exactly why she would make a fine leader.

Second, Infinity War and Endgame explain why I disagree with your theory. Thor did get that chance. And he failed through his own need to relish in his victory. One of my favorite bits about the opening of Endgame is that we see Thor stewing. Living with it. It isn't going well and he is given false hope that he an undo it. And well considering how he was before that, I don't think he would of handled the next five years of living with it well at all. Not after also losing his mother, father, and brother all in rather quick succession for basically an immortal.

It's too bad that all of that development for Valkyrie took place off-screen.

Seems like Thor from the end of TDW was more suited to be King (which is ironic since that's when he didn't want to be King at all) as opposed to current day Thor.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's too bad that all of that development for Valkyrie took place off-screen.

Seems like Thor from the end of TDW was more suited to be King (which is ironic since that's when he didn't want to be King at all) as opposed to current day Thor.

Thor is not built to be king. He is only really fit for it when he doesn't want it, but Thor as a character is built to adventure and roam. He is warrior, not a ruler.

 

[TheGuy]

Thor
Beginning: wants to be king
Ending: gives himself more time to be king

The Dark World
Beginning: continuation from Thor's ending
Ending: relinquishes the throne and becomes a wandering warrior

Ragnarok
Beginning: we see him as a wandering warrior and asgard in disarray due to his absence
Ending: he finally accepts his position as king

Infinity War
Beginning: out for vengeance because his people was killed
Ending: becomes depressed because of successive failures

Endgame
Beginning: we see him in depression
Ending: overcomes his depression and relinquishes the throne for a second time after Valkyrie showed leadership in the events between Infinity War and Endgame

Thor has the best story line in the MCU and based on that summary, I think Waititi should finally settle Thor as a true King. Future adventures should be him as a King not just in name but in deed as well.

 

[jmc]

It's too bad that all of that development for Valkyrie took place off-screen.

One of the biggest issues I'm seeing with a lot people these days is the defence that something happening off screen means creative choices are justifiable. There are cases where filling in the blanks is something that you have to do, and cases where you need to see certain information. Development happening off screen is not development.

 

[flickchick85]

Strictly for contractual reasons.

Yep, he was contractually obligated to sign that brand new contract he just signed! Man, they run a tight ship.

 

[Iceman]

I wonder what Hemsworth will be doing in this film.

 

[Herolee10]

Thor is not built to be king. He is only really fit for it when he doesn't want it, but Thor as a character is built to adventure and roam. He is warrior, not a ruler.

Which is strange because the Thor in the comics, who is every bit the warrior and wanderer that you're talking about, managed to be a competent King when he became King later on.

If anything, he isn't that much different from the way Jason Mamoa's Aquaman was portrayed and yet he came off as a competent King when the situation called for it.

Honestly, Chris's Thor could be a great King as well. It's just that the folks in charge don't want him to be a King and want Valkyrie to be the one in charge instead.

And seeing as how "love" is in the title, I'm guessing that a romantic plot will be at the forefront so I really don't know on how we can get a epic Thor adventure in this film (at the moment).

I had hoped that this film would rebuild Thor up but it feels like it may be more of a passing of the torch film for him.

 

[Herolee10]

Yep, he was contractually obligated to sign that brand new contract he just signed! Man, they run a tight ship.

Well it's not like he's finding huge success in other franchises.

 

[Zarex]

Yep, he was contractually obligated to sign that brand new contract he just signed! Man, they run a tight ship.

Taika tricked him into signing onto Thor 4 with his raw Kiwi charm. That's not Chris's fault.

 

[Herolee10]

One of the biggest issues I'm seeing with a lot people these days is the defence that something happening off screen means creative choices are justifiable. There are cases where filling in the blanks is something that you have to do, and cases where you need to see certain information. Development happening off screen is not development.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Which is strange because the Thor in the comics, who is every bit the warrior and wanderer that you're talking about, managed to be a competent King when he became King later on.

If anything, he isn't that much different from the way Jason Mamoa's Aquaman was portrayed and yet he came off as a competent King when the situation called for it.

Honestly, Chris's Thor could be a great King as well. It's just that the folks in charge don't want him to be a King and want Valkyrie to be the one in charge instead.

And seeing as how "love" is in the title, I'm guessing that a romantic plot will be at the forefront so I really don't know on how we can get a epic Thor adventure in this film (at the moment).

I had hoped that this film would rebuild Thor up but it feels like it may be more of a passing of the torch film for him.

How long does King Thor last in the comics?

You really do look for the worst possible outcome for everything. Love is in the title, so there can be no epic Thor adventure? Based on what exactly?