Which film is better? Thor or Thor: the Dark World?

[Mjölnir]

I liked one and not the other?

Thor-9/10
Thor: TDW: 8/10

I dont mean to offend, but that statement is ridiculous, I liked both movies, as I have stated repeatedly, and their ratings are not hugely different. I am not biased and I am not trying to reinforce my opinion, I am STATING my opinion. Malekith was a bad villain, Loki was a good one IMO.

The "liked one and not the other" referred to the villains, not the movies. I was just saying that it was the only logical reason I could find for stating something like that because your assessments of Loki's and Malekith's actions were very unequal. One was a favorable view on what happened, the other one was the opposite. I've shown that by applying your tone on Malekith on Loki's actions.

It's not about you thinking that Malekith is a bad villain (I suggest reading that twice), it's about that you argued Malekith was bad by saying that he didn't do anything. That's what I argued against but I just keep getting answers that have to do with something else (that you think I'm arguing against you thinking that Malekith was bad).

I've even said that there are plenty of arguments why someone could dislike Malekith that wouldn't be illogical or wrong so I'm very open to people not liking him, or the movie for that matter.

By the end of Thor 1, Loki's actions effected many people in a negative way, His Father, Mother, Brother, his brothers love and her friends, the whole of Asgard couldnt travel anywere due to the bifrost being down, there are more, but you get my point.

Malekith's actions dont really effect anyone in a negative way by the end of the movie, hell Darcy and co were even making jokes during his attempted distruction. Loki caused more pain in this movie than Malekith did.

So you mean that Frigga wasn't affected negatively at the end of the movie? I must have missed her resurrection. I didn't see Odin manage to come to terms with the sorrow that drove him to become like Malekith either. Similar to not being able to use the Bifrost, Malekith's actions made it so that the Aether is now in the hands of the Collector.

Malekith also caused some good change, since the change in Thor originated from what Malekith did and what effects came out of that.

Thor's coronation and him going to Jotunheim and then getting banished all happened in one day, the next day Odin fell into the Odin sleep, He didnt really have a lot of time to make plans, and as you said yourself, Thor WAS going to be king, Odin didnt have anything prepared in case that didnt come to pass as it was unexpected it wouldnt.

Of course he would have had time to tell the person he wanted to be in charge. He could have done that right after he banished Thor and would logically have done so if he expected to go into the Odinsleep the day after.

But that's not the preparation I was talking about. Frigga said that she was unsure if he would wake up because they were unprepared for him to go into the Odinsleep. That's a very significant statement to that it was completely unplanned. Just as if Odin expected to sleep he wouldn't be wandering about doing other small stuff. And if neither Frigga nor Odin himself expected it then Loki sure as hell wouldn't know it if they don't show him finding out in the movie.

But that's pretty moot because he couldn't even know that Odin would banish Thor. Thor would have done stupid things for centuries, probably often due to Loki's schemes.

But he didnt become Kurse until about 10/15 mins in either, so he hardly had any screen time, and yet still came across as more of a threat that Malekith. Loki was closer to achieving his goals than Malekith was as well. Thor had to make a big sacrifice to stop Loki, he didnt to stop Malekith.

If you separate Kurse from Algrim (which I guess is always his name in the movie) then I get your point about that. As for being more of a threat, I disagree. Kurse was a real badass in combat (against a Thor without Mjolnir though) but that's pretty weak in comparison to someone basically capable of ending the universe. Malekith was also unkillable until he was teleported away from the Aether.

As for Loki as a threat, he didn't pose much threat to Thor. Thor ended the fight easily when he just decided he had enough while Malekith took the biggest hits Thor has given anyone in a movie and made him fly away further than when Kurse hit him. I agree about the sacrifice though.

I disagree back , Loki's actions had big implications for the 9 realms and that was even before his death. Thor states in Avengers many people mourned Loki's death, I didnt see anyone mourning Frigga for more than 5 mins. Again this may be down to the director, but Loki's actions seemed to have a much bigger impact than Malekith's.

If you didn't disagree with me I couldn't disagree with you.

When Loki "dies" we get about 15 seconds of reactions from Odin and Thor. The next time we see Asgard there's a feast and people are laughing and telling stories of glory. That's not grieving whatsoever so possibly only Loki's immediate family is actually mourning. The only thing that's said about Loki is that Sif tells Frigga she's sorry for her loss, and Frigga says that Thor mourns his brother and misses Jane. Thor and Odin just talk about Thor and then Thor goes to Heimdall to ask about Jane.

When Frigga dies we get the same reactions, although longer. Then we get a huge funeral scene (certainly no laughing there), we get Odin losing his mind over the loss and starts to turn into a Malekith kind of person, Loki wrecks both his cell and himself and even joins Thor and even puts his life on the line to help him because he's so hungry for revenge. That's much more reaction than the first movie gave us.

Well I wouldnt say its a fact because IMO he has no arc. At the start when talking to Odin he basically says he doesnt want to be king, then he says the same at the end, to me, thats no arc.

In the beginning of the movie he has assumed all the responsibilities he has as heir to the throne. He's leading Asgard's forces, he does all that Odin tells him to do (including not contacting Jane). I don't remember anything at all that suggests that he's not on the way to become king.

When the movie ends he says that he's learned what it takes to rule, that it's not what he wants and that Loki always understood it better than he. He walks away from what he was doing at the start of the movie, choosing Jane over Odin and Asgard.

I can't see how anyone could suggest that he starts and ends in the same place (although you can of course technically have an arc where that happens as well).

See Sams next post, he states why Malekith is a bad villain. I was originally agreeing with Sam not because he states Malekith doesnt succeed, but because he says he's bad villain. I didnt state that because I was responding to him and not you.

And as my answer to that post, and several things I've written in our discussion, show I don't have any problems with anyone thinking he was boring, flat or whatever it may be. That's never been what I've argued against, as the first section of this post tries to clarify.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The "liked one and not the other" referred to the villains, not the movies. I was just saying that it was the only logical reason I could find for stating something like that because your assessments of Loki's and Malekith's actions were very unequal. One was a favorable view on what happened, the other one was the opposite. I've shown that by applying your tone on Malekith on Loki's actions.

It's not about you thinking that Malekith is a bad villain (I suggest reading that twice), it's about that you argued Malekith was bad by saying that he didn't do anything. That's what I argued against but I just keep getting answers that have to do with something else (that you think I'm arguing against you thinking that Malekith was bad).

I've even said that there are plenty of arguments why someone could dislike Malekith that wouldn't be illogical or wrong so I'm very open to people not liking him, or the movie for that matter.

Malekith was a poor villain for several reasons, but he still didnt do anything to me. Frigga died, but Thor got to be with his love with the blessing of his father (at least he thinks this). Frigga's loss didnt really seem to impact anyone but Odin. Thor is joking with Loki 5 mins after funeral scene, again some poorly placed humour and this is why scenes lacked impact for me in TDW. Other than the skiff scene Frigga is barely mentioned after her death. At the end of Thor 1, a lot of people are sad at Loki's passing, Thor is also unhappy at being seperated from Jane and the bifrost is gone meaning the Asgardians cant travel anywere. Loki's action had bigger implications for everyone, hence why they were still trying to clean up the mess even in TDW which was 2 years later.

So you mean that Frigga wasn't affected negatively at the end of the movie? I must have missed her resurrection. I didn't see Odin manage to come to terms with the sorrow that drove him to become like Malekith either. Similar to not being able to use the Bifrost, Malekith's actions made it so that the Aether is now in the hands of the Collector.

Malekith also caused some good change, since the change in Thor originated from what Malekith did and what effects came out of that.

Again, Frigga seemed the only one effected, who knows what happened to Odin at the end, he MAY have gone to hell to get her back, we just dont know until the 3rd movie.

Of course he would have had time to tell the person he wanted to be in charge. He could have done that right after he banished Thor and would logically have done so if he expected to go into the Odinsleep the day after.

But that's not the preparation I was talking about. Frigga said that she was unsure if he would wake up because they were unprepared for him to go into the Odinsleep. That's a very significant statement to that it was completely unplanned. Just as if Odin expected to sleep he wouldn't be wandering about doing other small stuff. And if neither Frigga nor Odin himself expected it then Loki sure as hell wouldn't know it if they don't show him finding out in the movie.

But that's pretty moot because he couldn't even know that Odin would banish Thor. Thor would have done stupid things for centuries, probably often due to Loki's schemes.

Odin may have gone into the weapons vault to tell Loki he was going to be his successor, we dont know, things may have changed once he saw Loki with the casket.

The 1st movie contradicts itself in regards to the Odinsleep, Laufey comments on Odin looking weary, Thor is going to be pronounced king, so the Odinsleep must have been expected in some way, but then Frigga says they were unprepared. Bit of a movie mistake so we cant really know what was intended.

Yeah Loki didnt know Thor would be banished I will agree there. But once he was, Loki took full advantage like a good villain would .

If you separate Kurse from Algrim (which I guess is always his name in the movie) then I get your point about that. As for being more of a threat, I disagree. Kurse was a real badass in combat (against a Thor without Mjolnir though) but that's pretty weak in comparison to someone basically capable of ending the universe. Malekith was also unkillable until he was teleported away from the Aether.

As for Loki as a threat, he didn't pose much threat to Thor. Thor ended the fight easily when he just decided he had enough while Malekith took the biggest hits Thor has given anyone in a movie and made him fly away further than when Kurse hit him. I agree about the sacrifice though.

But Kurse came across as a bigger than Malekith because he beat Thor into the ground, Malekith was knocking Thor back and wasnt having much of an impact, even Thor comments on this himself in the final battle. Malekith may have had the power to end the universe, but he didnt do anything with it, and didnt come across as a threat to me. We never saw Thor on the floor unable to do anything like in the Kurse fight.

Loki didnt pose a threat to Thor himself, but Thor still had to make a HUGE sacrifice to stop Loki's plans, THEN had to watch his brother seemingly commit suicide after act as well, again, impact.

If you didn't disagree with me I couldn't disagree with you.

When Loki "dies" we get about 15 seconds of reactions from Odin and Thor. The next time we see Asgard there's a feast and people are laughing and telling stories of glory. That's not grieving whatsoever so possibly only Loki's immediate family is actually mourning. The only thing that's said about Loki is that Sif tells Frigga she's sorry for her loss, and Frigga says that Thor mourns his brother and misses Jane. Thor and Odin just talk about Thor and then Thor goes to Heimdall to ask about Jane.

You do know this stuff happens at funerals right? Doesnt mean they didnt grieve, especially Sif and The Warriors 3 who were friends of Loki. Thor, Odin and Frigga were obviously effected the most though.

Also the 1st movie was ending and had to wrap things up, hence why they didnt show us more.

When Frigga dies we get the same reactions, although longer. Then we get a huge funeral scene (certainly no laughing there), we get Odin losing his mind over the loss and starts to turn into a Malekith kind of person, Loki wrecks both his cell and himself and even joins Thor and even puts his life on the line to help him because he's so hungry for revenge. That's much more reaction than the first movie gave us.

Sif was the only one crying in the funeral, I didnt see any actual mourning from anyone else except an implication that Loki had done some. And again, the characters are joking around 5 mins later. It would have been nice to show a quick scene of Thor and Odin sharing a story about Frigga from Thor's childhood, just some sort of mourning that TDW didnt give and that the 1st movie really couldnt because the movie was wrapping up.

In the beginning of the movie he has assumed all the responsibilities he has as heir to the throne. He's leading Asgard's forces, he does all that Odin tells him to do (including not contacting Jane). I don't remember anything at all that suggests that he's not on the way to become king.

When the movie ends he says that he's learned what it takes to rule, that it's not what he wants and that Loki always understood it better than he. He walks away from what he was doing at the start of the movie, choosing Jane over Odin and Asgard.

I can't see how anyone could suggest that he starts and ends in the same place (although you can of course technically have an arc where that happens as well).

Odin basically says its obvious Thor's heart is not with the throne but with Jane, heavily implying Thor doesnt want to be king, he wants to be with Jane. By the end he is still the same. The only change Thor makes by the end is his attitude toward his brother. But that will change again come Thor 3.

And as my answer to that post, and several things I've written in our discussion, show I don't have any problems with anyone thinking he was boring, flat or whatever it may be. That's never been what I've argued against, as the first section of this post tries to clarify.

Fair enough, I thought he was all those things you mention and more. Malekith isnt the only MCU villain to feel that way though, The Red Skull and Whiplash were pretty similar in that shared the same flaws as characters.

 

[Mjölnir]

Malekith was a poor villain for several reasons, but he still didnt do anything to me. Frigga died, but Thor got to be with his love with the blessing of his father (at least he thinks this). Frigga's loss didnt really seem to impact anyone but Odin. Thor is joking with Loki 5 mins after funeral scene, again some poorly placed humour and this is why scenes lacked impact for me in TDW. Other than the skiff scene Frigga is barely mentioned after her death. At the end of Thor 1, a lot of people are sad at Loki's passing, Thor is also unhappy at being seperated from Jane and the bifrost is gone meaning the Asgardians cant travel anywere. Loki's action had bigger implications for everyone, hence why they were still trying to clean up the mess even in TDW which was 2 years later.

With your logic almost no villain ever does anything. I can apply that to most of the CBM's I've ever watched.

Your comment about mentions of Frigga's death is just weird. Thor and Loki have an entire scene based on it while Loki is still in the dungeon. Not to mention that the entire problem with Odin is based on her death.

As for the people sad at Loki's passing, which people other than Thor, Odin and Frigga are you referring to? People in Asgard are laughing and having a good time. Sif mentions Frigga's loss but it seems more like a courtesy and she mainly seems to worry about Thor. That's of course in line with the comics since Loki was never much loved in Asgard.

Again, Frigga seemed the only one effected, who knows what happened to Odin at the end, he MAY have gone to hell to get her back, we just dont know until the 3rd movie.

Ok, so we agree that the staement that no one is affected was wrong? Glad that we can come to some conclusions at least. We don't know about Odin, but the last time we saw him he was not fine, nor does him being gone in any way indicate a positive, so even there it would be drawing a highly unlikely conclusion to say that he wasn't negatively affected. Whether that's the important part is another thing as the reason why he's absent can be more significant, which is fine by me as this is a movie with more than one villainous faction.

Odin may have gone into the weapons vault to tell Loki he was going to be his successor, we dont know, things may have changed once he saw Loki with the casket.

The 1st movie contradicts itself in regards to the Odinsleep, Laufey comments on Odin looking weary, Thor is going to be pronounced king, so the Odinsleep must have been expected in some way, but then Frigga says they were unprepared. Bit of a movie mistake so we cant really know what was intended.

Yeah Loki didnt know Thor would be banished I will agree there. But once he was, Loki took full advantage like a good villain would .

Odin makes it clear that Loki was never meant to sit on the throne of Asgard so that wasn't the case. He was meant to create an alliance between Asgard and Jotunheim but Odin says even that is no longer an option.

It's no contradiction. Frigga said that Odin had put it off for a long time, which implies that he should have gone into the sleep earlier. Therefor it's perfectly in line that he seems weary to Laufey. It also seems like the stress of the conversation with Loki is what forces him into the sleep, which would be why they didn't prepare correctly.

Yes, Loki is a master at turning chaos into his advantage so of course he took full advantage of the favorable situation. Loki is one of my favorite villains ever so I'm not putting him down.

But Kurse came across as a bigger than Malekith because he beat Thor into the ground, Malekith was knocking Thor back and wasnt having much of an impact, even Thor comments on this himself in the final battle. Malekith may have had the power to end the universe, but he didnt do anything with it, and didnt come across as a threat to me. We never saw Thor on the floor unable to do anything like in the Kurse fight.

Loki didnt pose a threat to Thor himself, but Thor still had to make a HUGE sacrifice to stop Loki's plans, THEN had to watch his brother seemingly commit suicide after act as well, again, impact.

That's actually sort of in line with a pet peeve I have about wizards in various media, especially RPG's. For some reason they always have a ton of spells to kill people with, but why would such people bother learning to kill people when any brute can do that? It's better to focus on doing something that no one else can. The threat of Malekith isn't from someone that is out to kill Thor, it's from having to stop him before he does something much much worse. We've already had the former kind of conflict in the movie.

It's actually pretty similar to the first movie. Kurse is the Destroyer, Malekith is Loki. Thor sacrifices outside things in the first movie, in the second he almost dies.

I'm fine with you not liking the whole thing but I'd say that Malekith was the biggest threat this far. Which other villain threatened the entire universe?

You're just speculating, you're not going by what was shown which is what we were discussing. TDW showed much more reactions to the death than Thor did. If we are to speculate freely I could come up with all sorts of reactions to Frigga, who unlike Loki would actually be loved by many.

Sif was the only one crying in the funeral, I didnt see any actual mourning from anyone else except an implication that Loki had done some. And again, the characters are joking around 5 mins later. It would have been nice to show a quick scene of Thor and Odin sharing a story about Frigga from Thor's childhood, just some sort of mourning that TDW didnt give and that the 1st movie really couldnt because the movie was wrapping up.

So first you say that people laugh and joke at funerals so that doesn't mean that they don't grieve. Then you say that only Sif cried so only she and Loki seemed to grieve. This is what I was talking about before, using very different measuring sticks to measure the same things in the respective movies.

The first movie was wrapping up, the other one is moving along the plot after spending plenty of minutes on the fallout of her death. It doesn't seem to fit Odin to talk about nice little memories when he's going overboard with lust for revenge.

Odin basically says its obvious Thor's heart is not with the throne but with Jane, heavily implying Thor doesnt want to be king, he wants to be with Jane. By the end he is still the same. The only change Thor makes by the end is his attitude toward his brother. But that will change again come Thor 3.

You are wrong, he says Thor's focus is divided. That means that he's focused on both, not just one thing.

The big difference is that in the beginning of the movie Thor does everything for Asgard, to be who he is supposed to be according to Odin (including completely forsaking Jane). He even obeys when Odin tells him to at least act like he's happy when they party. He's definitely on his way to becoming king, despite not being 100% happy.

At the end he instead forsakes Asgard and the throne to be with Jane. He says he will defend Asgard but that's all, which is the attitude he had towards Midgard in the beginning. I don't get how those two things look the same to you.

It's a fact that this is Thor's arc (together with his stuff with Loki of course). It's been analyzed in discussions and podcasts and it's been talked about by the filmmakers. You don't have to like the arc but it's just silly to try to deny it's existence.

Fair enough, I thought he was all those things you mention and more. Malekith isnt the only MCU villain to feel that way though, The Red Skull and Whiplash were pretty similar in that shared the same flaws as characters.

That's fine. As said I have no problems with just differing opinions and I'm never (hopefully) too blind to see that everything has flaws so I can understand several arguments about it. What I disagree about is the notion that Malekith doesn't do anything.

 

[Rock Sexton]

What I disagree about is the notion that Malekith doesn't do anything.

I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to make that argument. He clearly has stuff to do in the film .... i.e. Battle Bor & Einherjar, awaken from sleep, locate the Aether, attack Asgard, attempts to kill Frigga, gain possession of the Aether, use the Aether during the Convergence, and battle Thor.

But since we didn't get a simple flashback scene of his kids, it means he did nothing. LOL .... too funny.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to make that argument. He clearly has stuff to do in the film .... i.e. Battle Bor & Einherjar, awaken from sleep, locate the Aether, attack Asgard, attempts to kill Frigga, gain possession of the Aether, use the Aether during the Convergence, and battle Thor.

But since we didn't get a simple flashback scene of his kids, it means he did nothing. LOL .... too funny.

I don't get this either. Malekith, while not the most complex villain ever, did a whole lot more than anyone else did in Thor.

 

[Hulk]

After watching TDW, I thought it was one of my least liked MCU movies. However, after the 2nd viewing, it became one of my favorites! So, I consider it much better than Thor.

 

[Mysteryman]

Malekith fails miserably to defeat Asgard 5000 years ago, and kills off the vast majority of his own race in the course of the battle. In 2013, he fails miserably to defeat Asgard again, and gets the rest of his race killed off.

Worst. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRRR

Loki, on the other hand, winds up getting out of jail, disposing of his hated (foster) father, taking the throne of Asgard, paying off his debt to Thanos, sending his hated (foster) brother off to Midgard to cavort with mortals, deceiving the universe into believing that Loki is dead and turned out to be a really nice guy after all, and keeping the Tesseract all for himself.

Mission accomplished.

Best. Marvel villain. EVARRRRRRRR

I like Malekith over Whipash.

 

[Mysteryman]

With your logic almost no villain ever does anything. I can apply that to most of the CBM's I've ever watched.

Your comment about mentions of Frigga's death is just weird. Thor and Loki have an entire scene based on it while Loki is still in the dungeon. Not to mention that the entire problem with Odin is based on her death.

As for the people sad at Loki's passing, which people other than Thor, Odin and Frigga are you referring to? People in Asgard are laughing and having a good time. Sif mentions Frigga's loss but it seems more like a courtesy and she mainly seems to worry about Thor. That's of course in line with the comics since Loki was never much loved in Asgard.



Ok, so we agree that the staement that no one is affected was wrong? Glad that we can come to some conclusions at least. We don't know about Odin, but the last time we saw him he was not fine, nor does him being gone in any way indicate a positive, so even there it would be drawing a highly unlikely conclusion to say that he wasn't negatively affected. Whether that's the important part is another thing as the reason why he's absent can be more significant, which is fine by me as this is a movie with more than one villainous faction.



Odin makes it clear that Loki was never meant to sit on the throne of Asgard so that wasn't the case. He was meant to create an alliance between Asgard and Jotunheim but Odin says even that is no longer an option.

It's no contradiction. Frigga said that Odin had put it off for a long time, which implies that he should have gone into the sleep earlier. Therefor it's perfectly in line that he seems weary to Laufey. It also seems like the stress of the conversation with Loki is what forces him into the sleep, which would be why they didn't prepare correctly.

Yes, Loki is a master at turning chaos into his advantage so of course he took full advantage of the favorable situation. Loki is one of my favorite villains ever so I'm not putting him down.



That's actually sort of in line with a pet peeve I have about wizards in various media, especially RPG's. For some reason they always have a ton of spells to kill people with, but why would such people bother learning to kill people when any brute can do that? It's better to focus on doing something that no one else can. The threat of Malekith isn't from someone that is out to kill Thor, it's from having to stop him before he does something much much worse. We've already had the former kind of conflict in the movie.

It's actually pretty similar to the first movie. Kurse is the Destroyer, Malekith is Loki. Thor sacrifices outside things in the first movie, in the second he almost dies.

I'm fine with you not liking the whole thing but I'd say that Malekith was the biggest threat this far. Which other villain threatened the entire universe?



You're just speculating, you're not going by what was shown which is what we were discussing. TDW showed much more reactions to the death than Thor did. If we are to speculate freely I could come up with all sorts of reactions to Frigga, who unlike Loki would actually be loved by many.



So first you say that people laugh and joke at funerals so that doesn't mean that they don't grieve. Then you say that only Sif cried so only she and Loki seemed to grieve. This is what I was talking about before, using very different measuring sticks to measure the same things in the respective movies.

The first movie was wrapping up, the other one is moving along the plot after spending plenty of minutes on the fallout of her death. It doesn't seem to fit Odin to talk about nice little memories when he's going overboard with lust for revenge.



You are wrong, he says Thor's focus is divided. That means that he's focused on both, not just one thing.

The big difference is that in the beginning of the movie Thor does everything for Asgard, to be who he is supposed to be according to Odin (including completely forsaking Jane). He even obeys when Odin tells him to at least act like he's happy when they party. He's definitely on his way to becoming king, despite not being 100% happy.

At the end he instead forsakes Asgard and the throne to be with Jane. He says he will defend Asgard but that's all, which is the attitude he had towards Midgard in the beginning. I don't get how those two things look the same to you.

It's a fact that this is Thor's arc (together with his stuff with Loki of course). It's been analyzed in discussions and podcasts and it's been talked about by the filmmakers. You don't have to like the arc but it's just silly to try to deny it's existence.



That's fine. As said I have no problems with just differing opinions and I'm never (hopefully) too blind to see that everything has flaws so I can understand several arguments about it. What I disagree about is the notion that Malekith doesn't do anything.

Thor did have an arc in TDW. it was just more pronouced in Thor .
in the original film,
Thor started out as arrogant and cocky ,
In the end, he sacrificed his life for humans .
In TDW, he started out reluctant to take the throne and ended up not taking it .

 

[Mjölnir]

Thor did have an arc in TDW. it was just more pronouced in Thor .
in the original film,
Thor started out as arrogant and cocky ,
In the end, he sacrificed his life for humans .
In TDW, he started out reluctant to take the throne and ended up not taking it .

Yes, it was of course a bigger change in Thor. That's also to be expected if you do a real origin story for a superhero and my argument was never about which arc which is the best (which is up to everyone to decide for themselves).

It's still pretty significant that Thor seemingly leaves Asgard for Midgard. It's even pretty likely that Thor 3 will have Thor returning to Asgard for the first time since TDW.

 

[fixxxer]

Really liked both, but T:TDW > T by a bit.

 

[cherokeesam]

Yes, it was of course a bigger change in Thor. That's also to be expected if you do a real origin story for a superhero and my argument was never about which arc which is the best (which is up to everyone to decide for themselves).

It's still pretty significant that Thor seemingly leaves Asgard for Midgard. It's even pretty likely that Thor 3 will have Thor returning to Asgard for the first time since TDW.

Yet not significant enough to be included in the main plotline. That scene is reserved until after all the credits have rolled, when only a handful of die-hard fanboys like you and I are still standing, and the ushers are impatiently waiting for us to get the hell out. As far as the vast majority of the movie's audience know, Thor never returned to Earth or Jane.

 

[seahammer]

Yet not significant enough to be included in the main plotline. That scene is reserved until after all the credits have rolled, when only a handful of die-hard fanboys like you and I are still standing, and the ushers are impatiently waiting for us to get the hell out. As far as the vast majority of the movie's audience know, Thor never returned to Earth or Jane.

Except that the final scene before the credits ends with Thor walking out of Asgard's throne room after stating (and getting permission) that he was refusing the throne and going to live on Earth with Jane.

I think the majority of the movie's audience knows that Thor went to earth because... that's what the final scene tells them.

(And I'm not trying to be rude or start something with you CS... I just thought this was obvious).

 

[Mjölnir]

Yet not significant enough to be included in the main plotline. That scene is reserved until after all the credits have rolled, when only a handful of die-hard fanboys like you and I are still standing, and the ushers are impatiently waiting for us to get the hell out. As far as the vast majority of the movie's audience know, Thor never returned to Earth or Jane.

As seahammer said, Thor says what he's doing in the final scene. I actually didn't get to see the end credits scene the first time I saw the movie so I know exactly how the movie comes across without it, and I knew that Thor was leaving for Earth. The end credits scene doesn't give any more information, it's just meant as a feelgood moment.

 

[Duran Man]

Thor: The Dark World 9/10
Thor 8.5/10

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Prefer the first one. Thor's character arc helps give the first one a sense of dramatic depth and progression missing in the second. Loki is also a significantly better main villain than Malekith. I also find Branagh's interpretation of Asgard with its colorful glitter of golden halls more appealing than Alan's more prosaic, earthy approach.

 

[psylockolussus]

Yet not significant enough to be included in the main plotline. That scene is reserved until after all the credits have rolled, when only a handful of die-hard fanboys like you and I are still standing, and the ushers are impatiently waiting for us to get the hell out. As far as the vast majority of the movie's audience know, Thor never returned to Earth or Jane.

I actually didn't see the post-credit scene because almost 99% of the crowd that went to see the movie already went outside. So I didn't wait for the scene anymore and I just left.

 

[Saturius]

I actually didn't see the post-credit scene because almost 99% of the crowd that went to see the movie already went outside. So I didn't wait for the scene anymore and I just left.

I'm still confused over the director saying he thought the whole movie was about whether Thor and Jane were going to be together, but then doesn't feel it's important enough to put it into the main body of the film. Instead it's buried at the very end credits. Strange and somewhat contradictory.

 

[Mjölnir]

I'm still confused over the director saying he thought the whole movie was about whether Thor and Jane were going to be together, but then doesn't feel it's important enough to put it into the main body of the film. Instead it's buried at the very end credits. Strange and somewhat contradictory.

That he's leaving Asgard to be with Jane is what he's talking about in the final scene so it's in there. It's just their meeting that's an extra scene as it doesn't pack the same punch as a finale as Loki's reveal.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Thor - 8/10
Thor 2 - 7/10


Like the first one a little better.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Prefer the first one. Thor's character arc helps give the first one a sense of dramatic depth and progression missing in the second. Loki is also a significantly better main villain than Malekith. I also find Branagh's interpretation of Asgard with its colorful glitter of golden halls more appealing than Alan's more prosaic, earthy approach.

Thank you! Thought I was the only one. Asgard didn't stand out to me at all in the second film. It was just another gritty fantasy world. Sure, it looks more "lived in" but not everything has to have this super realistic edge to it. The Asgard in the first film is a visual marvel (no pun intended). Every scene that takes place there has me gawping like a fish. It's glorious and reminds me of the Asgard from the early 60s comics and Simonson run especially. The Asgard in the second film could have just been a reject from the LOTRs films.

 

[one4smoke]

Thank you! Thought I was the only one. Asgard didn't stand out to me at all in the second film. It was just another gritty fantasy world. Sure, it looks more "lived in" but not everything has to have this super realistic edge to it. The Asgard in the first film is a visual marvel (no pun intended). Every scene that takes place there has me gawping like a fish. It's glorious and reminds me of the Asgard from the early 60s comics and Simonson run especially. The Asgard in the second film could have just been a reject from the LOTRs films.

I think as more and more time goes on, The first Thor will be considered one of, if not the best MCU film of all time.

 

[Tymminator]

Really liked both, but T:TDW > T by a bit.

Same.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Thor - 6.5/10

The first Thor, which is probably my favorite MCU movie, has heart, a wonderful score, great chemistry between the leads, a dramatic climax at the bifrost, and hilariously entertaining theatrical drama from Loki ("Tell me!!!"), all good stuff.

but it also unfortunately sort of felt like a B-movie at times, and a lot of the action in the second half of the movie was underwhelming. Thor vs SHIELD Agents was really lame...it nearly put me to sleep. Thor vs the Destroyer also felt surprisingly cheap. Loki vs Thor was good though ("If you destroy the bridge you'll never see her agaainnn!!!").

Thor TDW - 6.5/10

Thor 2 was very well visually realized, and it was more impressive and epic than the first (it never gave me b-movie vibes), but it was also surprisingly flat. The opening was quite dull, as were a lot of the scenes in London. But I started to get into it when we see Thor missing Jane, when Jane comes to Asgard, and when Thor teams up with Loki; but it unfortunately doesn't lead to anything interesting because Malekith was not interesting. All his scenes drag the movie down. During the climax, I just didn't care (though it's partly due to the fact that it felt rushed, like the climax of a TV episode). None of the character development or themes really lead anywhere. Still, it's a relatively fun ride; it's just not very satisfying.

 

[Thoix]

Thor - 7/10
Thor: The Dark World - 6/10

I like both movies but they aren't special. T:TDW is almost tied with Iron Man 2 as the worst MCU for me though.

 

[BoredGuy]

I'd have to give it to Thor, it was miles better to me than TDW

as others have mentioned, I want a character arc for my hero
and no "being reluctant to take the throne, and then deciding by the end not to take it" is not a full character arc, it's a tiny part of an arc, just one beat

If they had gone more into the court intrigue stuff, showing Odin's pragmatic but shady actions, and Bor's outright warmongering, and showed Thor coming to terms with what it means to lead a society of superbeings, then I would be able to accept the moment at the end a lot more

as it stood it came off as just: "Dad I wanna go live with my girlfriend, but don't worry, I'll be back on Sundays for dinner" [/nerdvoice]