Thor: Ragnarok The Official News and Speculation Thread - - Part 11

[Web-Head]

Ughh "fun"? I need a serious movie, not a comedy

 

[BigThor]

Ughh "fun"? I need a serious movie, not a comedy

Lmao

 

[ImSGirl95]

Ughh "fun"? I need a serious movie, not a comedy

We need a "dark and gritty" movie

 

[IAmAsgardian]

I swear, if anyone in the theater even thinks about smiling, my telepathic ass is walking out

 

[Loki882]

I don't mind, I feel heroes should get more shine than the villains anyway. I'm not a fan of a villain taking over a film Heath Ledger style in The Dark Knight, might as well call the film "The Joker".

Except he didn't. That's a misconception. He gets less screentime than Batman, Harvey Dent, and Gordon. In an over two and a half hour movie, he's onscreen for maybe 30-35 minutes.

It's just that he was so brilliant that he stole every scene that he was in and his presence was felt even when he wasn't onscreen (which is the mark of a great villain).

And if you don't want that with your villain, then don't case someone like Cate Blanchett to play her. Because I'm sorry, but as much as I love Chris Hemsworth, Cate Blanchett>>>>Chris Hemsworth any day of the week.

 

[seridrl]

To be fair that's been a consistent issue with Marvel villains. The actors are giving good performances, but they're just not given that much material to really work with.

I was hoping that Cate wouldn't have that happen to her as well. And I even said awhile back that I was worried that, once they got to Sakaar, she was going to get the shaft in terms of screentime/stuff to do.

Marvel's villains always seem to be the weakest part of all their films. It's made all the more irritating to me because they keep getting great actors to play the roles, so the people they get sell the roles really well but just don't have enough screen time. Especially when everything else is generally so good in the movies, the under done villains stand out more.

I don't think I'd mind as much if the villains were weak because they didn't have a good actor playing the role but when you keep getting top rate talent to play them there is really no excuse.

 

[P Supreme]

Collider says the weakest part was Hela but not because of Kate Blanchet.

Please NOOOO

I've been building her up in my head I know that's my problem but I sure hope they don't waste the character

 

[BigThor]

Except he didn't. That's a misconception. He gets less screentime than Batman, Harvey Dent, and Gordon. In an over two and a half hour movie, he's onscreen for maybe 30-35 minutes.

It's just that he was so brilliant that he stole every scene that he was in and his presence was felt even when he wasn't onscreen (which is the mark of a great villain).

And if you don't want that with your villain, then don't case someone like Cate Blanchett to play her. Because I'm sorry, but as much as I love Chris Hemsworth, Cate Blanchett>>>>Chris Hemsworth any day of the week.

I said "shine" I didn't say he had more screentime, he clearly got the most eye catching scenes and best lines to work with.

 

[Web-Head]

Marvel's villains always seem to be the weakest part of all their films. It's made all the more irritating to me because they keep getting great actors to play the roles, so the people they get sell the roles really well but just don't have enough screen time. Especially when everything else is generally so good in the movies, the under done villains stand out more.

I don't think I'd mind as much if the villains were weak because they didn't have a good actor playing the role but when you keep getting top rate talent to play them there is really no excuse.

Well said. I feel the villains have improved for the most part though. Zemo, Vulture and Ego are all some of the better ones the MCU has to offer, in my opinion.

 

[DeadStroke]

I agree with this comment from quara33 from over in the Black Panther thread

I think a problem the MCU has is that while they've been able to build up B and C list heros through solo movies, they can't easily do the same for B and C list villains, which are really the only ones they have rights to. The marvel 'lex Luther' is arguably Norman Osborne, which Sony has the rights to, for example. All things considered they've done a pretty good job with Loki

They have gotten better lately--I really liked Vulture as a villain, a well as Pierce and Zemo as more 'mastermind' type villains.

To bring this back to topic, i rewatched AoU and had forgotten how much I liked Serkis's Klaw--it'll be fun to see him again. I'm definitely looking forward to the 'Game of Riddles' reunion, but I'm also excited to see his scenes with MBJ-- MBJ is such a good actor, I'm really hoping he isn't a one-and done (frankly, I'd love for him to become the Loki of the MCU beyond Avengers 4)

 

[HammerDown]

Glorious HD!!! And it looks beautiful and epic as always.

[YT]Bj-DGqRNdEw[/YT]

 

[BigThor]

Forget Norman Osborne, Marvel Studios doesn't have DOCTOR DOOM.

 

[IAmAsgardian]

Forget Norman Osborne, Marvel Studios doesn't have DOCTOR DOOM.

Just like we got Spidey back, one day we'll see a sign that says Latveria

edit: say -> says

 

[DeadStroke]

Forget Norman Osborne, Marvel Studios doesn't have DOCTOR DOOM.

Oh man would he be great to see in the MCU.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Marvel's villains always seem to be the weakest part of all their films. It's made all the more irritating to me because they keep getting great actors to play the roles, so the people they get sell the roles really well but just don't have enough screen time. Especially when everything else is generally so good in the movies, the under done villains stand out more.

I don't think I'd mind as much if the villains were weak because they didn't have a good actor playing the role but when you keep getting top rate talent to play them there is really no excuse.

Well, I know not many people here want to hear this; but, that's who one of the many reason we're getting villain centric films from Sony. If the title of the film is in lock step with the title character/team...that's what I expect to see...I expect the film to chronicle the title character. Now I certainly don't mine the film's villain over-shadowing or equal billing to the title character...that's just a mark of great characterization...reason why I regard Heath's Joker, Keaton's Vulture, Redford's Pierce, and Hiddleston's Loki as great villains, that over-shadowed or nearly over-shadowed the title character.

So if you are one of those that want villains to have more screen time of the film's title character...than go see Venom when it comes out...because as far as I'm concern, unless the villain is the title character, they should get more screen time. The films are suppose to follow & chronicle the heroes. I think Cate probably got the necessary screen time in this film, to suit its purpose.

 

[Web-Head]

I feel like adding a few minutes to each movie alone in benefit of the villain would really help.

 

[fancyarcher]

Some of the trailers looked a little silly, I don't want them to dumb the movies down.

If it's at least fun, then I have no issue with it. At least it explores the Thor mythology enough.

 

[HammerDown]

 

[fancyarcher]

Marvel's villains always seem to be the weakest part of all their films. It's made all the more irritating to me because they keep getting great actors to play the roles, so the people they get sell the roles really well but just don't have enough screen time. Especially when everything else is generally so good in the movies, the under done villains stand out more.

I don't think I'd mind as much if the villains were weak because they didn't have a good actor playing the role but when you keep getting top rate talent to play them there is really no excuse.

DC movies villains recently, aren't much better either though. Comic book movies in general have really disappointed on the actual "villain" front. It seems the focus on the hero has both a blessing and a curse in many ways. They don't give the villains enough scenes to stand-out at least. The Vulture in Spider-Man: Homecoming, at least had a few moments where he stood out, and even upstaged the hero, but those types of baddies are few and far between.

 

[Enriquespy]

On the netflix shows however...

 

[BigThor]

I don't know why people always level the weak villain complaints to "Marvel films".

What DC film besides a few Batman films actually had a good villain?

 

[RoastBeast]

True. Its like throughout the genre there is a fear that a 'good' villain will overshadow the hero, when a weak villain only makes the hero look limp. When I swat a fly, it doesn't make me a tough guy. Now if I wrestle a bear down...

Iron sharpens iron, but you wouldn't know it from a lot of the writing.

 

[Finarfiniel]

I don't know why people seem to be levelling the 'weak villain' thing against Ragnarok anyway when the reviews released so far are indicating that Hela is actually awesome, just slightly underutilised. Underutilised doesn't = weak.

 

[RoastBeast]

I don't know why people seem to be levelling the 'weak villain' thing against Ragnarok anyway when the reviews released so far are indicating that Hela is actually awesome, just slightly underutilised. Underutilised doesn't = weak.

it means the writers were weak, didn't have the guts to go for it maybe. But I have seen plenty of weak and I bet this is just the 'you don't get enough' syndrome, not enough backstory or motivation, not enough beats...

 

[InCali]

Makes me wish I lived in England....except we have better Mexican Food.