Twilight of Asgard: the SURTUR thread

[Vartha]

Thinking about both. lol Merge the two and keep your title

 

[DarthPietro]

It's less the Spider-Man thing that worries me, and more how they treated Malekith in TDW. He's a pretty big Thor villain, and Feige described him as "a big villain" in the pre-release marketing. And yet once the movie came out, it was pretty clear that Marvel didn't give a crap about Malekith as a character. They were interesting in more Loki, and Malekith was an afterthought. That would be what gives me pause about them using Surtur, or The Enchantress/The Executioner for that matter.

As for "not repeating their mistakes" well Marvel made mistakes with the first film. And then they proceeded to make many of the same mistakes with TDW, and made them worse in many cases. So yeah, there's that.

1. Feige might have meant that Malekith was "a big villain" in the sense that he is quite a formidable, and/or well-known opponent.

2. It is a category error to claim that "Marvel made mistakes". Making choices about how to construct or portray stuff aesthetically is subjective, so you can't make mistakes or produce successes in the sense that they can be "right" or "wrong". What you can say is that for you Marvel got it wrong, but maybe that's what you were saying and I assumed too much.

I for one was never bothered by Malekith not having more backstory or being conventional. I enjoyed the performance and the aesthetic of his look. I also find that giving villains a sympathetic or developed edge can become rather generic and boring too.

I do hope Surtur gets a decent amount of screentime though, similar to Smaug in "The Desolation of Smaug", but I doubt that due to how much they'll be able to fit into a 2 hour movie.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Given the choice between a developed Hela and a developed Surtur, I'd absolutely take Hela. I think she has more potential.

 

[MbJ]

Surtur doesn't really need to be developed. He's a force of nature like a hurricane or a supernova.

He's pretty much the one MCU villain you can justify not having a particularly well fleshed out character.

 

[First Avenger]

Surtur doesn't really need to be developed. He's a force of nature like a hurricane or a supernova.

He's pretty much the one MCU villain you can justify not having a particularly well fleshed out character.

I agree. He's a perfect final boss for the movie.

 

[The Overlord]

Surtur doesn't really need to be developed. He's a force of nature like a hurricane or a supernova.

He's pretty much the one MCU villain you can justify not having a particularly well fleshed out character.

Except that is what we had last time with Malekith, a villain with no personality who wants to destroy the universe for no particular reason and he sucked, you could have replaced him with some natural disaster and lost almost nothing.

How is this Thor movie going to be better then the last one, if Surtur is just going to be Malekith 2.0?

1. Feige might have meant that Malekith was "a big villain" in the sense that he is quite a formidable, and/or well-known opponent.

2. It is a category error to claim that "Marvel made mistakes". Making choices about how to construct or portray stuff aesthetically is subjective, so you can't make mistakes or produce successes in the sense that they can be "right" or "wrong". What you can say is that for you Marvel got it wrong, but maybe that's what you were saying and I assumed too much.

I for one was never bothered by Malekith not having more backstory or being conventional. I enjoyed the performance and the aesthetic of his look. I also find that giving villains a sympathetic or developed edge can become rather generic and boring too.

I do hope Surtur gets a decent amount of screentime though, similar to Smaug in "The Desolation of Smaug", but I doubt that due to how much they'll be able to fit into a 2 hour movie.

Malekith has no personality though, he has no presence, there is nothing compelling about him, I have no reason to like him or hate him or feel anything towards him, Malekith is the most dull and generic villain in the MCU and that is saying something.

Why does Malekith want to destroy the universe? I have no clue, he seems to have no reason for it, how can I care about a villain that has no motive or personality? Malekith in the comics is actually a detestable character and one of the most evil foes Thor has faced, in the movie, you could have replaced him with a natural disaster and it would not have made a difference.

If Surtur is just going to be the same type of villain as Malekith, I'm not sure how this Thor movie will be better then the last.

 

[Loki882]

That's why I'm hoping that Hela is the actual main villain (well one of the reasons, there are many others). And Surtur is just, kind of an obstacle to overcome.

I apologize if some Surtur fans don't like that and I get their concerns. But I find Hela to be far more interesting and I feel like her being the main villain (as opposed to just being a flunky) would be far more interesting and refreshing as well.

 

[BoredGuy]

Yeah I get wanting Surtur to be his own character and stuff, in the comics he's interesting in his own right, but my prediction the moment they announced Ragnarok was that Surtur was going to just be the big fight, unleashed by Hela or Loki, and that Thor (and Hulk) will have to stop him from destroying Asgard in act 3

 

[Mjölnir]

Hela is quite obviously going to be the villain that drives the story of the movie. First of all the story makes much more sense that way since Surtur won't interact with any hero until he's released, and that's a big act 3 thing. Secondly they cast arguably one of the best actresses of all time as Hela, and have focused on that in the marketing (she was the final shot at Comic-Con, for example), so that definitely indicates the leading villain role.

 

[BoredGuy]

ooo, she was?
was there any descriptions of her look??

 

[MbJ]

Except that is what we had last time with Malekith

Malekith didn't work because he was boring and there was nobody else to counteract him. This movie has at least three villains other than Surtur, one of whom has already been said to have a character arc.

 

[Finarfiniel]

ooo, she was?
was there any descriptions of her look??

I was talking to someone who was at the SDCC at another site and apparently they showed a glimpse of Cate Blanchett in full costume and she looked like Hela down to a tee, like she'd literally just stepped out of the comics. Green and black catsuit, cape, antler headdress, everything. Loads of people on twitter were raving about it, saying that she looked completely and utterly badass. I'm so jealous, I can't wait until we get our first look at her.

I'm with most in this thread, the inclusion of Surtur is great (it isn't Ragnarok without him after all), but there's no way he's going to be the main villain. They're not going to cast Cate frigging Blanchett as Hela and then have her overshadowed by a giant CGI demon.

My predictions for the bad guys are:

• Hela - The main villain and the driver of the plot, she will be trying to bring about Ragnarok by releasing Surtur and Fenris, e.t.c. Motive: she's sick of being stuck in Hel and wants to kill everyone in the Nine Realms so she will have absolute power and rule them all.
• Skurge - Hela's devoted henchman, he will end up turning on her at the end and will help the good guys.
• Loki - Is well... Loki. He will be on whatever side benefits him the most, I predict he'll be Hela's co-conspirator but they will both try and double cross each other. A lot.
• The Grandmaster - Side villain like The Collector in GoTG during the Planet Hulk part of the movie (taking the place of the Red King) - not a huge role, he's mainly here as a set up for Infinity War.
• Surtur and Fenris Wolf - Third act villains who Hela/Loki release to bring about Ragnarok, Fenris to start it and Surtur to finish it.

 

[BoredGuy]

Yeah Malekith was supposed to be the lead villain, typically a major role with some level of development and motive
in this film, that will be Hela (and I'm quite confident Cate can knock it out of the park)

Surtur would be closer in comparison to Kurse
Nobody minded that Kurse didn't have backstory or motives, we just wished he was more terrifying and tough to defeat, which Surtur should be

I was talking to someone who was at the SDCC at another site and apparently they showed a glimpse of Cate Blanchett in full costume and she looked like Hela down to a tee, like she'd literally just stepped out of the comics. Green and black catsuit, cape, antler headdress, everything. Loads of people on twitter were raving about it, saying that she looked completely and utterly badass. I'm so jealous, I can't wait until we get our first look at her.

awesome-sauce

 

[Mike Murdock]

Surtur doesn't really need to be developed. He's a force of nature like a hurricane or a supernova.

He's pretty much the one MCU villain you can justify not having a particularly well fleshed out character.

I agree completely, but, full disclosure, I haven't really seen as much Surtur in the comics as some of the others.

 

[jaqua99]

Hela is quite obviously going to be the villain that drives the story of the movie. First of all the story makes much more sense that way since Surtur won't interact with any hero until he's released, and that's a big act 3 thing. Secondly they cast arguably one of the best actresses of all time as Hela, and have focused on that in the marketing (she was the final shot at Comic-Con, for example), so that definitely indicates the leading villain role.

Yeah. I'm cool with Surtur being the final boss battle. I just hope he is intelligent, and that he can speak. Regardless of his characterization, he's still likely to be the king of an entire realm. A being like that, regardless of character development, size, and power should have lines. As long as Surtur speaks, I don't really see how he can be screwed up. He doesn't need to be fleshed out.

 

[The Overlord]

Malekith didn't work because he was boring and there was nobody else to counteract him. This movie has at least three villains other than Surtur, one of whom has already been said to have a character arc.

So would he be more like a plot device then a character? That's fine, as long as he is not the main villain, because having a main villain like that again would be a bad move.

 

[First Avenger]

Hela is the main villain,not Surtur.

 

[DarthPietro]

Malekith has no personality though, he has no presence, there is nothing compelling about him, I have no reason to like him or hate him or feel anything towards him, Malekith is the most dull and generic villain in the MCU and that is saying something.

Why does Malekith want to destroy the universe? I have no clue, he seems to have no reason for it, how can I care about a villain that has no motive or personality? Malekith in the comics is actually a detestable character and one of the most evil foes Thor has faced, in the movie, you could have replaced him with a natural disaster and it would not have made a difference.

I understand what you're saying. Personally, sometimes villains who don't have a transparent motivation makes them more terrifying. In reality, there are many terrifying things that people do and we don't have a clue as to why they're doing them, unless we take some time to look into the "why" (and even then, we may never "know"). But otherwise, it's like a shark that comes out of the darkness, and that's all we need to know to feel fear.

Malekith not having any personality works with this aforementioned idea for me; we don't often know people who commit horrific acts (or generous acts); as strangers, we don't always have time to get to know them, but we form a quick impression based on some actions they make. It's the same thing with Malekith for me. His demeanor, his actions, his look -- all of those things were enough for me to get a sense that this guy means business.

I do think though that Malekith was more of a simple counterpoint to the other characters. And I think TDW is actually quite an interesting film about how revenge and loss can make people act in ways that are not so black and white. Odin's grief compromises his ability to act tactically, you could say, and he makes some decisions similarly to Malekith. Thor, Heimdhall and the warriors 3 are committing treason with the risk of working with Loki and universal annhilation; Loki acts in revenge similar to Odin and Malekith. So there are lots of grey areas where the characters dare to tread, and Malekith acts as a kind of black, if that makes sense.

 

[First Avenger]

I understand what you're saying. Personally, sometimes villains who don't have a transparent motivation makes them more terrifying. In reality, there are many terrifying things that people do and we don't have a clue as to why they're doing them, unless we take some time to look into the "why" (and even then, we may never "know"). But otherwise, it's like a shark that comes out of the darkness, and that's all we need to know to feel fear.

Malekith not having any personality works with this aforementioned idea for me; we don't often know people who commit horrific acts (or generous acts); as strangers, we don't always have time to get to know them, but we form a quick impression based on some actions they make. It's the same thing with Malekith for me. His demeanor, his actions, his look -- all of those things were enough for me to get a sense that this guy means business.

I do think though that Malekith was more of a simple counterpoint to the other characters. And I think TDW is actually quite an interesting film about how revenge and loss can make people act in ways that are not so black and white. Odin's grief compromises his ability to act tactically, you could say, and he makes some decisions similarly to Malekith. Thor, Heimdhall and the warriors 3 are committing treason with the risk of working with Loki and universal annhilation; Loki acts in revenge similar to Odin and Malekith. So there are lots of grey areas where the characters dare to tread, and Malekith acts as a kind of black, if that makes sense.

Really interesting take. Malekith wasn't so much of a problem for me,even though I would have liked to see more of him. I liked TDW more than most people and my biggest problem was how the human characters were used in it. Other than that I really enjoyed it,but Ragnarok sounds like it will be on a whole 'nother level.

 

[Loki882]

I didn't any deeper idea or theme behind Malekith. He was boring and lacked motivation, because the filmmaker's didn't give a crap about his character. He was a plot device, nothing more. The fact that he originally was going to get some development/backstory but it was cut, just makes it all the worse.

I shouldn't be constantly going "get this guy offscreen. He's not interesting at all, and I want him gone" to the MAIN villain. Also a horrible waste of Christopher Eccleston (and actor who gets a lot of mileage out of his emotions/personality) to boot.

But then again the entire movie felt like that, very just "kind of there."

 

[Wildcard]

Surtur doesn't really need to be developed. He's a force of nature like a hurricane or a supernova.

He's pretty much the one MCU villain you can justify not having a particularly well fleshed out character.

Absolutely. He hasn't ever really been a super-super deep character. He's a Godlike monster with one goal in mind: destruction.

You don't need to do a whole lot to sell just that.

 

[Mjölnir]

Really interesting take. Malekith wasn't so much of a problem for me,even though I would have liked to see more of him. I liked TDW more than most people and my biggest problem was how the human characters were used in it. Other than that I really enjoyed it,but Ragnarok sounds like it will be on a whole 'nother level.

I agree. Other than overuse of the humans I don't have any problems with what they showed (although I still would have preferred to see Malekith's backstory and the original end to the big fight), but it's clearly not reaching the potential of what a Thor movie could be. Ragnarok is the movie that looks like it might have a shot to do so. This far everything sounds great, but there's a long way to go.

 

[TeeKay]

I'm afraid they might "Doomsday" Surtur. I'm sure that'll likely happen.

 

[Bren]

I also worry about that. Hopefully they learnt from the criticisms.

Also, I hope we get enough backstory about Surtur, where he came from, who our how he was made, that type of thing. Rather than, "Damn, my initial plan failed, release the Surtur!" followed by "Oh no it's Surtur!!! For Asgard!!!" at the end.

 

[RoryTate]

If Surtur is a "force of nature" without backstory, then the battle can still have meaning if it prevents the destruction of Asgard, stops Hela's plan, etc. Basically, if the stakes are well set, and the execution solid, it can work.

My main worry -- after re-reading the Surtur comic arc a short time ago -- is that it may be too much like a repeat of the Malekith threat. The way Surtur is supposed to end the universe -- by putting his sword in the eternal flame of Asgard -- may feel a bit too much like a repeat of the "convergence" plotline. I think they may have to change that mechanic up a bit to try and keep the story fresh.