Sequels Thor: Love and Thunder

[DarthSkywalker]

Correction; I liked him in "Ragnarok" and "Infinity War". I can't say the same for "Endgame".

The reason why my expectations are different now is because of where the character is currently at after his appearance in "Endgame". He is no longer King of Asgard (and from the sounds of it, they have no plans on ever returning the throne to his character). Also, he has been mainly portrayed as a joke since gaining weight as well.

So when you have Jane becoming the new Thor and Valkerie ruling Asgard, what more could Chris's Thor possibly contribute other than comic relief?

Nothing, clearly. Which is why Taika didn't even cast him in this movie.

 

[LvtLeeTDK]

I’m interested in this film. But man that is a ****ing terrible title

 

[jmc]

Correction; I liked him in "Ragnarok" and "Infinity War". I can't say the same for "Endgame".

The reason why my expectations are different now is because of where the character is currently at after his appearance in "Endgame". He is no longer King of Asgard (and from the sounds of it, they have no plans on ever returning the throne to his character). Also, he has been mainly portrayed as a joke since gaining weight as well.

So when you have Jane becoming the new Thor and Valkerie ruling Asgard, what more could Chris's Thor possibly contribute other than comic relief?

The only logical place to go is he regains the power of Thor. Essentially Jane Forster as Thor is temporary until he earns the right again.

 

[Herolee10]

Good thing that didn't happen then.

You are defining Thor in a very bizarre way. Thor is Thor. We know who he is. We know how powerful he is. He isn't "losing his place". He is evolving as a character. Which is exactly how it is suppose to work.

The Thor that I saw portrayed in every film prior to Endgame was one that was being groomed (one way or another) towards becoming the next and rightful king of Asgard. If the character is no longer going to be used as a protector and leader of his people then what could they possibly do with him in this film?

And although I completely understand on how he could change after the traumatic events of "Infinity War", I do not believe that portraying his trauma in a comedic way was the best creative decision that they could make.

Now after "Endgame", Thor is no longer King or Prince of Asgard. And it seems like Marvel Studios are more interested in focusing on Thor's comedic performance and less on his seriousness. Plus, after his huge weight gain, he lost a lot of his potential so it doesn't feel like you can even call him the mighty Thor either.

 

[Snow Queen]

Correction; I liked him in "Ragnarok" and "Infinity War". I can't say the same for "Endgame".

The reason why my expectations are different now is because of where the character is currently at after his appearance in "Endgame". He is no longer King of Asgard (and from the sounds of it, they have no plans on ever returning the throne to his character). Also, he has been mainly portrayed as a joke since gaining weight as well.

So when you have Jane becoming the new Thor and Valkerie ruling Asgard, what more could Chris's Thor possibly contribute other than comic relief?

Contribute to what? It's his movie. What he has to contribute is the same thing he has to contribute to any movie his name is in the title of: an engaging, fleshed out character with a hopefully well-formed arc. Jane and Valkyrie will probably have arcs, and like in pretty much every movie with supporting characters, they'll compliment whatever the themes are with his arc. The idea there's no reason for his character to exist anymore because he's not king or the only one with his powers seems like it ignores his quality as a character in his own right and boils him down to a job and powers.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The only logical place to go is he regains the power of Thor. Essentially Jane Forster as Thor is temporary until he earns the right again.

Okay, so you are complaining about a character you clearly don't understand. Because as Ragnarok points out, the power of Thor is in Thor. It's his own power. The hammer only helped him focus it. It is why he doesn't need Mjolnir to use lightning.

I mean if you are going to complain, at least get it right.

 

[Herolee10]

It would have never have happened, by my Sif would have been Keira Knightley. But I also would have written Sif as a character worth the time and effort.

Hmm...now there's a choice that I had never thought about. Strangely enough, I could have seen that working as well.

Honestly, I would have LOVED it if they could have portrayed Sif in Thor's films the same way Mera was in Aquaman. Seeing Thor and Sif go on a crazy adventure throughout the 9 realms would something that I would be interested in seeing.

 

[jmc]

Okay, so you are complaining about a character you clearly don't understand. Because as Ragnarok points out, the power of Thor is in Thor. It's his own power. The hammer only helped him focus it. It is why he doesn't need Mjolnir to use lightning.

I mean if you are going to complain, at least get it right.

You've got a funny idea of what complaining looks like. How about you assume I'm coming at what I wrote from a different perspective other than making an assumption I'm complaining? Or is that too difficult a thought experiment?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The Thor that I saw portrayed in every film prior to Endgame was one that was being groomed (one way or another) towards becoming the next and rightful king of Asgard. If the character is no longer going to be used as a protector and leader of his people then what could they possibly do with him in this film?

And although I completely understand on how he could change after the traumatic events of "Infinity War", I do not believe that portraying his trauma in a comedic way was the best creative decision that they could make.

Now after "Endgame", Thor is no longer King or Prince of Asgard. And it seems like Marvel Studios are more interested in focusing on Thor's comedic performance and less on his seriousness. Plus, after his huge weight gain, he lost a lot of his potential so it doesn't feel like you can even call him the mighty Thor either.

Did you watch Infinity War, Endgame? Thor basically has PTSD because of the events in those movies. He is a man who failed, and wasn't able to cope with it, especially after losing almost everyone. Of course he is in no position to be the king. He is still trying to recover from his ultimate failure. Infinity War sets it all up perfectly. Where he spends the entire movie trying to hype himself up for some form of redemption, only to fail to go for the head. That you did not see Endgame coming, isn't the fault of Endgame. It was very nature.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You've got a funny idea of what complaining looks like. How about you assume I'm coming at what I wrote from a different perspective other than making an assumption I'm complaining? Or is that too difficult a thought experiment?

Here is the thing. I can read all of your posts. You came in complaining that Thor has been made a joke in the last three films. Then you post something that seems to show that what you have been complaining about, you either didn't watch or completely misread. So... yeah.

 

[Herolee10]

Contribute to what? It's his movie. What he has to contribute is the same thing he has to contribute to any movie his name is in the title of: an engaging, fleshed out character with a hopefully well-formed arc. Jane and Valkyrie will probably have arcs, and like in pretty much every movie with supporting characters, they'll compliment whatever the themes are with his arc. The idea there's no reason for his character to exist anymore because he's not king or the only one with his powers seems like it ignores his quality as a character in his own right and boils him down to a job and powers.

Honestly are we so sure that the "Thor" in the film's title is referring to Chris's Thor and not Jane's Thor? Plus, just because a character's name is in the title, it doesn't mean squat if they don't have an compelling arc of their own that's at the forefront of it all.

Look at how Superman, despite his name being in the "BvS" title, had little to do in the actual film when compared to Batman. The theatrical version of the film came off as more of a Batman film to a lot of viewers from what I remember reading due to the amount of exposure and more compelling arc that Batman had when compared to Superman's.

And Fox's X-Men is another example as well. Despite being listed as a team film, the story would always focus on a few characters and leave everyone else in the shadows and sidelines.

Plus, if this film is to mainly serve as establishing Jane as the new Thor and Valkerie as the new true ruler of New Asgard for the MCU's future, then is Chris's Thor really necessary for it?

I seem to recall a lot of people having hoped that Thor 4 would be about Thor trying to find a new home for his people (prior to EG) and leading his people into a new age. Seeing as how that isn't going to be the case, I just have some difficulty in trying to determine on what he could possibly do now that would put his story at the forefront and be just as compelling as Jane's and Valkerie's arcs.

 

[jmc]

Here is the thing. I can read all of your posts. You came in complaining that Thor has been made a joke in the last three films. Then you post something that seems to show that what you have been complaining about, you either didn't watch or completely misread. So... yeah.

That's not called complaining. That's called an opinion. But not only that I was responding to someone who wasn't sure what story direction the character could go in. If that's your idea of complaining you must be incredibly sensitive to opinions.

 

[-Arya-]

So Chris Hemsworth isn’t in the movie at all?

 

[Herolee10]

Did you watch Infinity War, Endgame? Thor basically has PTSD because of the events in those movies. He is a man who failed, and wasn't able to cope with it, especially after losing almost everyone. Of course he is in no position to be the king. He is still trying to recover from his ultimate failure. Infinity War sets it all up perfectly. Where he spends the entire movie trying to hype himself up for some form of redemption, only to fail to go for the head. That you did not see Endgame coming, isn't the fault of Endgame. It was very nature.

That's what I just said. I understand on how Thor could change as a result of the traumatic events that he recently experienced before the events of Endgame.

I was (ignorantly) under the impression that Thor giving his right/title as King to Valkerie was a temporary thing until he was ready to assume that role again. However, it doesn't seem like that's going to be the case anymore. And seeing as how this film is called "Love and Thunder" seems to suggest that a love story will be at the forefront so I doubt that Thor being redeemed for his failures is going to be a plot point.

 

[Herolee10]

So Chris Hemsworth isn’t in the movie at all?

He is. Why, is something that I'm trying to figure out due to the premise of the film.

 

[-Arya-]

He is. Why, is something that I'm trying to figure out due to the premise of the film.

My guess as a potential mentor to Jane.

 

[Herolee10]

My guess as a potential mentor to Jane.

If anything, it seems like that's going to be a big theme in Phase 4; the passing of the torch from one generation to another.

Tony- Peter
Steve- Sam
Clint- Kate Bishop

and now...

Thor- Jane.

 

[Snow Queen]

Honestly are we so sure that the "Thor" in the film's title is referring to Chris's Thor and not Jane's Thor? Plus, just because a character's name is in the title, it doesn't mean squat if they don't have an compelling arc of their own that's at the forefront of it all.

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.

Look at how Superman, despite his name being in the "BvS" title, had little to do in the actual film when compared to Batman. The theatrical version of the film came off as more of a Batman film to a lot of viewers from what I remember reading due to the amount of exposure and more compelling arc that Batman had when compared to Superman's.

And Fox's X-Men is another example as well. Despite being listed as a team film, the story would always focus on a few characters and leave everyone else in the shadows and sidelines.

Plus, if this film is to mainly serve as establishing Jane as the new Thor and Valkerie as the new true ruler of New Asgard for the MCU's future, then is Chris's Thor really necessary for it?

I seem to recall a lot of people having hoped that Thor 4 would be about Thor trying to find a new home for his people (prior to EG) and leading his people into a new age. Seeing as how that isn't going to be the case, I just have some difficulty in trying to determine on what he could possibly do now that would put his story at the forefront and be just as compelling as Jane's and Valkerie's arcs.

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.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's not called complaining. That's called an opinion. But not only that I was responding to someone who wasn't sure what story direction the character could go in. If that's your idea of complaining you must be incredibly sensitive to opinions.

Oh, that is ironic.

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

 

[Zarex]

So Chris Hemsworth isn’t in the movie at all?

Yes, but he's going to be obese, weak, impotent, and cucked by Jane Foster.

 

[flickchick85]

Contribute to what? It's his movie. What he has to contribute is the same thing he has to contribute to any movie his name is in the title of: an engaging, fleshed out character with a hopefully well-formed arc. Jane and Valkyrie will probably have arcs, and like in pretty much every movie with supporting characters, they'll compliment whatever the themes are with his arc. The idea there's no reason for his character to exist anymore because he's not king or the only one with his powers seems like it ignores his quality as a character in his own right and boils him down to a job and powers.

There seems to be a certain section of both the Thor AND Superman fandoms who apparently love the characters for their bragging rights, instead of for their personalities, principles, humanity or any of that meaningless rubbish. Unsurprisingly, there also seems to be a lot of overlap in those sections of the two fandoms.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

Which is why you should read some, girl!!!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes, but he's going to be obese, weak, impotent, and cucked by Jane Foster.

YOU HAVE BEEN READING MY FANFICTION!!!!!

 

[HammerDown]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There seems to be a certain section of both the Thor AND Superman fandoms who apparently love the characters for their bragging rights, instead of for their personalities, principles, humanity or any of that meaningless rubbish. Unsurprisingly, there also seems to be a lot of overlap in those sections of the two fandoms.

It's like we are living in a constant vs. thread.