Thor Ragnarok vs Aquaman

[CB Fan]

Where as so many are put off by less than stellar cgi, I am put off by bad acting so Aquaman loses.

 

[kguillou]

I choose AM by a considerable margin but its a matter of tastes. Although i enjoyed Ragnarok a lot on my first watch, it had diminishing returns because of the overbearing comedy on whats supposed to be Thor’s most epic installment. AM’s humor felt more natural and it took its story seriously and I always like that in my comic book movies.

And another thing that I know many will disagree heavily with me on: the cinematography. I think AM mops the floor with Thor on this. There are some GREAT visuals in Ragnarok no doubt, but there are a LOT of scenes that straight up look like theyre filmed like a sitcom and it may be intentional due to the overall tone of the film. AM just...LOOKS epic with the way its filmed with its dynamic lighting and coloring. Stuff like that helps me get sucked into a film’s atmosphere.

So Aquaman for me. But it really is a matter of tastes, I simply just wasnt gung ho about Waititi’s handling of Thor.

 

[Luigi]

Aquaman is leagues better than Ragnarok, it's not even close.

 

[samsnee]

Granted I've only seen Aquaman once but I don't remember anything as awesome as this scene, especially with Immigrant Song in the background.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Loved Aquaman, but vote goes to Thor: Ragnarok.

 

[Boy Scout]

And another thing that I know many will disagree heavily with me on: the cinematography. I think AM mops the floor with Thor on this.

Agreed. Though TR was better than some other MCU movies in that regard.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Ragnarok is such a better movie this poll shouldn't even exist. I liked Aquaman, but come on.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I have no prior bias towards either character, and I thought Aquaman was a good but flawed movie that was a good start to the characters series.

Ragnorak though is one of the best CBMs in the genre, which for me Aquaman isn’t even close to being. Honestly if this poll was Thor 1 vs Aquaman I would probably still go with Thor. Let alone the best movie in the franchise.

 

[Finarfiniel]

*looks at poll results*

Oh, thank goodness. I thought I was going to have to quit this forum out of disgust, but thankfully I won't have to. I would have missed some of you.

The only thing that's arguably better about Aquaman is the visuals (although I still prefer certain standout scenes in Ragnarok like the Thor decimating zombie armies with his badass lightning powers like in the gif in that category overall). Literally everything else is superior about Ragnarok; acting, characters, story, humour, direction, score, costumes, originality...

I have nothing against Momoa and he was perfectly adequate in Aquaman, but Hemsworth is so much better, more charismatic and more likable as Thor. And I struggled to remember who the villain even was in Aquaman at first when I opened this thread, that's how utterly bland and uninteresting I found Orm. Wilson's rather bored, flat performance isn't even remotely comparable to Blanchett's deliciously campy and vampy, funny, sexy and slinky performance as Hela. Plus, Hela could utterly decimate Orm whilst blindfolded with both perfectly manicured hands tied behind her back. No problem.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I agree. I do think Aquaman had better VFX and camera work, but Ragnarok was the better movie overall.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

*looks at poll results*

Oh, thank goodness. I thought I was going to have to quit this forum out of disgust, but thankfully I won't have to. I would have missed some of you.

The only thing that's arguably better about Aquaman is the visuals (although I still prefer certain standout scenes in Ragnarok like the Thor decimating zombie armies with his badass lightning powers like in the gif in that category overall). Literally everything else is superior about Ragnarok; acting, characters, story, humour, direction, score, costumes, originality...

I have nothing against Momoa and he was perfectly adequate in Aquaman, but Hemsworth is so much better, more charismatic and more likable as Thor. And I struggled to remember who the villain even was in Aquaman at first when I opened this thread, that's how utterly bland and uninteresting I found Orm. Wilson's rather bored, flat performance isn't even remotely comparable to Blanchett's deliciously campy and vampy, funny, sexy and slinky performance as Hela. Plus, Hela could utterly decimate Orm whilst blindfolded with both perfectly manicured hands tied behind her back. No problem.

You leaving would also have caused the forum to have a severe lack of Blanchett.

 

[Finarfiniel]

You leaving would also have caused the forum to have a severe lack of Blanchett.

I know, and that would surely be a tragedy. Fortunately, the power of Blanchett (and Waititi, Hemsworth, Hiddlestone, Ruffalo, Thompson, Goldblum, Hopkins, Elba, e.t.c) have won out and I won't have to leave this place in a depressing Blanchett deficit.

If these gifs don't single-handedly make Ragnarok win this poll, then what will??

 

[FunkMiller]

Shouldn’t this be Aquaman vs the first Thor movie? Entirely unfair, otherwise.

Aquaman is better than Thor 1. Ragnarok is better than Aquaman.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Aquaman > Ragnarok. Not even close.

 

[Batmannerism]

Ragnarok is such a better movie this poll shouldn't even exist. I liked Aquaman, but come on.

Honestly, I've thought it over and I agree with you. Fortunately the poll results suggest that sanity is prevailing.

Aquaman is good fun, but comparing it to Ragnarok is like comparing a Fast and Furious film ( pick one) to Mad Max Fury Road.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

Shouldn’t this be Aquaman vs the first Thor movie? Entirely unfair, otherwise.

Aquaman is better than Thor 1. Ragnarok is better than Aquaman.

It depends on how you view it. Thor 1 and Aquaman were made in clearly different times. A big reason why Aquaman and Ragnarok look like they do is because the groundwork had been laid for more out there films, while when Thor 1 was made it the general idea was to make superhero films more grounded. That comparison certainly makes sense for several reasons, but it's not like it has less difference factors involved.

Ragnarok and Aquaman works as a comparison as they are films with similar ambitions in being more out there, and being works of the same period. Certainly more similar films than Aquaman and Thor 1.

Both comparisons make sense for different reasons, and it's not like the norm in the film industry is that sequels are better than the originals. Especially not the third installments. Unfair does not enter the picture in either case as I see it.

 

[Flint Marko]

Mjolnir took the words right out of my mouth.
Aquaman was only able to come out and be as crazy as it was because of Guardians and Ragnarok, so it’s a pretty fair comparison I think. More so than the first Thor, which is almost a decade old at this point and feels safe and small by comparison to the superhero movies of today.

Ragnarok is like a fine wine. It was great when it came out in 2017 and it’s still one of the best blockbusters of the past decade in 2019. It doesn’t get enough credit for actually having a central message and point of view on colonialism and immigration in favor of people just writing it off as a silly comedy and nothing more.

 

[k.s.k]

For me Aquaman anytime over Ragnarok in every category.

 

[-Arya-]

I loved Aquaman but I have to say Ragnarok is the better movie. It was the first time I actually cared about Thor.

 

[HammerDown]

Ragnarok is like a fine wine. It was great when it came out in 2017 and it’s still one of the best blockbusters of the past decade in 2019. It doesn’t get enough credit for actually having a central message and point of view on colonialism and immigration in favor of people just writing it off as a silly comedy and nothing more.

This. Even today i found myself quoting the movie, it´s actually one of the aspects of Taika's directing which play very well into repeat viewings... the quirky/memorable dialog and it's delivery. The quote was part Skurge's speech to the asguardians "...there will be consequences. Bad ones." Classic.

Regarding the "central message" you made about the colonialism and immigration... it's another point i agree with. The movie is also layered with real life parallels to viking history, dictatorial regimes... A few weeks ago i was reading about viking history, the people, their traditions, the mythology... And i was actually kind of shocked with some of the parallels with Thor Ragnarok even though i knew the comics are heavily based on the nordic mythology. For example the dark backstory of Odin, Asgard and the asgardians perfectly mirrors the real vikings themselves and their methods of conquest. When they invaded, conquered and pillage other nations.

 

[Mjolnir Reborn]

This. Even today i found myself quoting the movie, it´s actually one of the aspects of Taika's directing which play very well into repeat viewings... the quirky/memorable dialog and it's delivery. The quote was part Skurge's speech to the asguardians "...there will be consequences. Bad ones." Classic.

Regarding the "central message" you made about the colonialism and immigration... it's another point i agree with. The movie is also layered with real life parallels to viking history, dictatorial regimes... A few weeks ago i was reading about viking history, the people, their traditions, the mythology... And i was actually kind of shocked with some of the parallels with Thor Ragnarok even though i knew the comics are heavily based on the nordic mythology. For example the dark backstory of Odin, Asgard and the asgardians perfectly mirrors the real vikings themselves and their methods of conquest. When they invaded, conquered and pillage other nations.

I agree that Ragnarok lends itself very well to repeat viewings. It's incredibly well-paced and the balance between action, humor and consequences is really on point in Waititi's own way.

It's a good point you bring up about the parallel to vikings, although I guess it took the humans a bit longer to really go away from war and conquest as we have the Swedish Empire Era as late as the 18th century.

 

[Deck Rickard]

*looks at poll results*

Oh, thank goodness. I thought I was going to have to quit this forum out of disgust, but thankfully I won't have to. I would have missed some of you.

The only thing that's arguably better about Aquaman is the visuals (although I still prefer certain standout scenes in Ragnarok like the Thor decimating zombie armies with his badass lightning powers like in the gif in that category overall). Literally everything else is superior about Ragnarok; acting, characters, story, humour, direction, score, costumes, originality...

I have nothing against Momoa and he was perfectly adequate in Aquaman, but Hemsworth is so much better, more charismatic and more likable as Thor. And I struggled to remember who the villain even was in Aquaman at first when I opened this thread, that's how utterly bland and uninteresting I found Orm. Wilson's rather bored, flat performance isn't even remotely comparable to Blanchett's deliciously campy and vampy, funny, sexy and slinky performance as Hela. Plus, Hela could utterly decimate Orm whilst blindfolded with both perfectly manicured hands tied behind her back. No problem.

Yep. This pretty much sums up my thoughts. If you just break it down by performances, I would say that all the major players in Ragnarok shine (Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Blanchett, Ruffalo, Thompson, Goldbum and Hopkins) and even the minor ones are very memorable (Urban, Waititi, Cumberbatch). The characters all have distinct personalities and clear motivations, and all of them are fun to watch. In contrast, I struggle to really name and standouts in Aquaman. I think Momoa and Heard did solid work but neither performance blew me away. Kidman was mostly wasted. Wilson and Abdul-Mateen were one-dimensional. Though Julie Andrews did provide some interesting voice work; that was a bit of inspired casting. I'm not calling Aquaman bad but I feel like there were some missed opportunities when it came to the performances. Maybe it was because some of the dialogue was so corny, I don't know. But, for example, I've seen Patrick Wilson deliver awesome performances before, even in some of James Wan's own movies. To see him play a character who is so one-note was disappointing.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Wilson delivered a "one-note" performance, while Blanchett was the cat's meow as an underused Hela? This is rich.

 

[Flint Marko]

Hela was underused but Blanchett’s performance was widely hailed as one of the best in the movie.

Compare that to Wilson who I’ve heard next to no one talk about. Not sure how that’s a controversial opinion.

 

[Patchwork Man]

Hela was underused but Blanchett’s performance was widely hailed as one of the best in the movie.

Look at the movie in question. It's more a celebration of Blanchett than Blanchett as Hela, really.

Compare that to Wilson who I’ve heard next to no one talk about.

You mean since you last visited the Aquaman forum.