Just been to see it. No spoilers at this early stage, as I’m still mentally digesting.
Overall, it’s good. Christian Bale is an amazing baddie, and heaven knows the MCU usually hurts for Decent Baddies.
Overall, the second best Thor film. Not quite as good as Ragnarok, and the pacing feels a little off here and there. But overall pretty damned enjoyable all the same. Certainly the pacing stuff is quickly forgotten when the plot rattles on,
If you didn’t enjoy Ragnarok, you’re not going to enjoy this. But if you did, you should enjoy this.
How is the balance between humor and intensity? My 13 year old daughter really enjoyed Ragnarok, but for some reason is afraid LaT will be intense and not humorous. I told her it's the same director, so it should be a similar tone.
The reviewer I go to said the first five minutes were quite strong and emotionally intense... and then it descended into farce without ever really exploring the issues brought up in the first five minutes.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: There’s plenty drama, plenty laughs. Again no spoilers at this stage.
Vulcan, happy to say your reviewer is talking mince. Plenty of emotion in the movie, and indeed throughout it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and there are two post-credits scenes.
It's four critics whose judgement I trust saying it now. Ideas raised but never explored, payoffs dropped in without proper setup, and a ton of attempted jokes that fall flat on delivery.
May just be that our taste and yours are just that different. If you enjoyed it, don't let my reluctance dissuade you from singing it's praises. As always, YMMV.
Cards on table? There is one scene I think is going to be genuine Cinematic Marmite. I got a real kick out of it, but others might feel distinct levels of cringe.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Cards on table? There is one scene I think is going to be genuine Cinematic Marmite. I got a real kick out of it, but others might feel distinct levels of cringe.
You’ll know it when you see it. Trust me.
There are several in the trailers, so you aren't narrowing it down. The 'Greek pantheon and attendants are overwhelmed by nudity to the point of passing out' already hit ridiculous and 'cringe'
I feel like it's a waste of Christian Bale and his character (arguably the best part of the movie), who did the best he could with as little screentime as he got as Gorr, which is pretty disappointing given how they initially depicted him in the trailers. I feel like there is a distinct lack of character direction (there's a lot of contrivances in the movie which I won't get into detail since we're not going into spoiler territory) and there isn't enough time to breath in the movie without constant quips and jokes, most of which fall flat, and really emphasizes the issues of the MCU formula really outstaying its welcome, especially for a character like Thor who has gone through a lot of changes and it feels like there isn't really any consistency between all the events in the movies he's been through.
I mean it says something when Hemsworth says that the premise of the movie was thought out through the lens of "If a seven-year-old was making a movie, what would you do?"
It was entertaining for it's laughs, but like the other 15+ MCU movies I've watched over the years it usually comes at the expense of everything else. There are upsetting moments and tragic loss in this film, but its hard to be invested emotionally when frequently interrupted with goofy comedy.
Despite having seen all three previous Thor movies, I felt like a stranger to this new entry in the series. And thats also having seen the two Guardian movies as well, who were actually in the trailer and supposed to be part of it, but went walkies after 20 minutes. Thankfully I had watched Infinity War previously and was able to guess as to what may have happened in Endgame and other MCU movies that I missed...
I had more issues with the film but I got what I paid for; comic book heroes goofing around for two hours and must admit it was fun.
Erm….where was Alternate Timeline Gamora? I’m sure she was with the Asgardians of the Galaxy at the end of End Game?
Spoiler:
I'm pretty sure for Gamora that she doesn't end up with the guardians at the end of End Game, the whole point was that Quill and the rest of the Guardians wanted to find her since she took off and never actually helps out with the battle. It's clear that this will be a big plot point for GotG3
Vulcan wrote: It's four critics whose judgement I trust saying it now. Ideas raised but never explored, payoffs dropped in without proper setup, and a ton of attempted jokes that fall flat on delivery.
I think I started watching the review you are referring to before work this morning.
I'm actually moderately pissed. This was the one MCU flick I was looking forwards to and now the reviews are awful by MCU standards and significantly more critical than the ones for Ragnarok. Incredibly frustrating.
Guess I'm gonna break the mold here, because I thought it was fething amazing. Taika actually improved the end of Gorr's story. They make some changes from the story they adapted, but they hit the most important notes for the God Butcher. He's definitely recognizable as the villain from the comics. Bale's performance was amazing, I just wish we got a little more of him. In regards to the humour/serious balance, I thought this was an improvement over Ragnarok. You've still got a joke here and there in a scene that doesn't really warrant it, but especially toward the end the film is not afraid to take itself seriously.
Thor: Love and Thunder was just okay at best. More of a coherent story than Multiverse of Madness, but not as stylistically directed. In my theater a lot of the things that were supposed to induce laughter fell flat. That was kind of awkward.
Overall... a fairly weak MCU entry. It didnt take itself seriously and the steaks never felt significant.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm actually moderately pissed. This was the one MCU flick I was looking forwards to and now the reviews are awful by MCU standards and significantly more critical than the ones for Ragnarok. Incredibly frustrating.
I think between the amount of content they've been shovelling onto D+ and the movies they have planned, there's too much content to get through the level of oversight Kevin Feige originally had for the other previous MCU films, where they had more time to breathe between releases unlike now where I can see there being a lot more MCU fatigue since it feels like the quality has dropped a lot in return for quantity. So unfortunately even with some of the sequel films for existing characters (see MoM for Dr. Strange), the writing has become much more noticeably worse when it comes to plot conveniences and holes.
I can't deny that that explanation does make sense. I do think that part of it is a lack of over-arching big bad a la Thanos so far. Phase 4 seems to be dealing with the repurcussions of Tne Snap and moving forward with their lives and the writing for that simply hasn't been as compelling outside of Falcon and The Winter Soldier which addressed it directly.
trexmeyer wrote: I can't deny that that explanation does make sense. I do think that part of it is a lack of over-arching big bad a la Thanos so far. Phase 4 seems to be dealing with the repurcussions of Tne Snap and moving forward with their lives and the writing for that simply hasn't been as compelling outside of Falcon and The Winter Soldier which addressed it directly.
Agreed, we don't really have any macguffins on par with the INFINITY stones either, at best it's just a loosely veiled threat of the multiverse and incursions but it's a very loose thread that isn't held together with a central villain like Thanos.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm actually moderately pissed. This was the one MCU flick I was looking forwards to and now the reviews are awful by MCU standards and significantly more critical than the ones for Ragnarok. Incredibly frustrating.
So go see it for yourself & make your own judgement.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm actually moderately pissed. This was the one MCU flick I was looking forwards to and now the reviews are awful by MCU standards and significantly more critical than the ones for Ragnarok. Incredibly frustrating.
So go see it for yourself & make your own judgement.
Though I would suggest watching it after it comes out on D+ or through other...um..."online means", given that I think it's frankly not worth the ticket atm.
Phase 4 does have a central villain, and his name is Taika Waititi!
Spoiler:
Now if I began this by saying "I liked it more than Ragnarok", some would consider that an example of damning with faint praise. That would be a fair assessment, but I actually don't want to damn this movie with faint praise because I genuinely did like it more than Ragnarok, which was a blisteringly fun movie heavily marred by the most egregious use of bathos I have ever come across (so much so that I learnt the word 'bathos' thanks to that film). And Korg is the avatar of Bathos, the 5th God of Chaos.
So, when we come to Thor 4: Thor on the Dance Floor, we have a number of problems:
1. Taika clearly as no desire to keep the set up he was given at the end of Endgame (Asguardians of the Galaxy), as the Guardians do nothing and vanish from the story just as quickly. Their entire role is relegated to one battle, where they are window dressing, and then one scene on the ship where Starlord makes a gakky metaphor and then feths off with the rest of the team.
2. Taika clearly wants to gak on people who liked The Warriors 3, referring them to "that guy" "that guy" and "whoever that guy was". When Sif appeared I was so worried that he was going to gak all over her as well, but thank Odin she made it out alive.
3. Taika is stuck in the past. Jean Claude Van Damm's Volvo leg split stunt was from nearly 10 years ago, yet it appears in this film. The fething screaming goats meme is 14 years old, yet here it is again. Comedy works in threes, Taika is of the opinion that you should add several digits to that number, and then do it once more in case people missed it.
4. Taika double's down on SOD breaking jokes. Other than Korg's near-movie-destroying monologue over the destruction of Asgard, my most hated line from Ragnarok is the "I'm made of rocks, but don't be afraid unless you are made of scissors" joke. Haha. Yes. He's a rock. Rock/paper/scissors. I get it. It's funny. It's also an Earth-based game that a random alien from another world shouldn't be referencing. It's too colloquial for it to be something anyone outside of Earth culture should know. In this film we meet the god of Korg's race, who has a Game of Thrones style Iron Throne (that show finished in 2019 and vanished from relevance almost overnight - see point 3 above) that is made of fething scissors!!!
So my conclusion is that we were wrong about Phase 4 of the MCU. It has a clear villain, and his name is Taika Waititi. He should stick to non-MCU films, where his films are actually really good (no joke, go and see Hunt for the Wilderpeople - it's amazing!).
So what else happened in Thor 4: Thor's Door? Well, there was a love triangle between a low IQ alien, a hammer, and an axe. I cannot believe I just wrote that sentence. Thor is a fething moron for most of this film, with brief moments of clarity where becomes the respected hero he should be. Other than that, he's repeating the beats from previous films without any of the growth he achieved in those films. So Thor's role in this film is one of duality - half oafish imbecile who pines for a hammer whilst talking to an inanimate object, and half-on task hero who understands the stakes and wants to ensure the safety of his people. The latter doesn't require him to be a bore, but the former requires the audience to forget every other film before this.
And the players are back! It was funny in Ragnarok, so let's do it again but also have Melissa McCarthy play Hela. See? It's funny because it's Matt Damon and he's famous!
The chief bad guy in Thor 4: Gorr goes to Mordor, is Gorr the God-Butcher, and he is suitably creepy but mostly a non-entity for the first half of the film. There's a lot more of him in the second half, so it feels like the balance is off (with the whole film, not just his character). The Necrosword is given about as much respect as the Warriors Three, and is just a means to an end. They obviously can't go into the same level of detail as it's comics origins, but "It kills gods because reasons!" is pretty lame. The shadow monsters were cool, to a point. The issue is that you could never see them. Most of the fights against them occurred at night, in a dark room, or on a planet where there was literally no colour... it made the fight scenes very choppy and hard to follow. That was a poor choice.
I found myself really enjoying Jane's presence in Thor 4: Thor to the Core. Her plotline was very much a "We've only got Natalie for one of these, so let's do as much as we can!", but I think it worked. It was nice to have cameos from Darcy and Selvig, and I liked how it wrapped up. Well, not the Valhalla part, that was more of Marvel movies having a terrible time ever killing anyone, as even the dead aren't really dead. Overall, as something I was worried about when we first heard they'd be doing a Mighty Thor, it turned out really well. Jane was not the main focus of the story, and her naivete with the super-hero-ing side of things helped to undercut it a bit, but not in a Korgian way.
Valkyrie was in this film. She certainly was. She had no arc to speak of other than "Meetings boring. Me want to punch stuff again!". So she did, got stabbed, didn't die (because of course not), and then sat out the rest of the film.
Korg was also in this film. A lot of this film. Too much of this film. My heart rose in praise to the gathered pantheons of many cultures when Zeus smote him with his mighty Thunderbolt, but apparently even the power of the God of Gods cannot topple the Avatar of Bathos, 5th God of Chaos, as we were stuck with his stupid talking fething head for the rest of the movie. And then his body grew back, apparently, because virtually no one ever dies in Marvel films. And then he marries another Krogan... and this one has a giant porn-stash for some reason. More timely humour from Taika.
So far I'm gaking on Thor 4: Gorr's War a lot, which is weird given that at the start of this I said that I genuinely liked it. The thing is, the good in Thor 4: Thor Corps has to be found in the spaces between the bull gak. I liked the plot with the Asgardian children being taken. I really liked Axl, Heimdall's son; he was loads of fun. Thor empowering the kids at the end was a genius move, marred only by the fact that it was another fight scene in the dark. This movie gave me the second thing in two movies that I never thought we'd see in the MCU. The first was Incursions in Dr. Strange 2, and the second was Eternity, who shows up in this movie looking pretty much spot on from the comics. The godly city was a nice touch. Russel Crowe appeared to be having the time of his life playing Zeus and sounding like every Greek immigrant father I've ever seen in Australia. I'm really happy Sif survived. I hope that's not the last time we see Jamie Alexander (maybe she'll get her own overly short, badly paced and barely plotted D+ series?).
I'm not good with the ending to Thor 4: Thor Snores on the Shore. Thor now has an adopted daughter and... ok. That's going to be hard to explain from now on, or are we just looking at yet another replacement character, which seems to be about the only thing Phase 4 is about. Criticisms of this film talked about how they liked how the story ended, just not how the movie ended. I didn't understand what that meant at the time, but I totally get it now, and I agree.
And Hercules? Ok, sure, why not.
So yeah, Thor: Love & Thunder was a reasonably entertaining film that I can look back on and not feel mad about it like, say, Ragnarok or Iron Man 3. Nor was it a movie that squandered its potential and undid its own character like Black Widow. It's not very high up in my rankings of MCU films, and I'm in no rush to see it again (unlike No Way Home and Multiverse of Madness), but it was perfectly above average and I'm happy for it to live there.
Now please, never let Taika direct another MCU film again.
Phase 4 does have a central villain, and his name is Taika Waititi!
Spoiler:
Now if I began this by saying "I liked it more than Ragnarok", some would consider that an example of damning with faint praise. That would be a fair assessment, but I actually don't want to damn this movie with faint praise because I genuinely did like it more than Ragnarok, which was a blisteringly fun movie heavily marred by the most egregious use of bathos I have ever come across (so much so that I learnt the word 'bathos' thanks to that film). And Korg is the avatar of Bathos, the 5th God of Chaos.
So, when we come to Thor 4: Thor on the Dance Floor, we have a number of problems:
1. Taika clearly as no desire to keep the set up he was given at the end of Endgame (Asguardians of the Galaxy), as the Guardians do nothing and vanish from the story just as quickly. Their entire role is relegated to one battle, where they are window dressing, and then one scene on the ship where Starlord makes a gakky metaphor and then feths off with the rest of the team.
2. Taika clearly wants to gak on people who liked The Warriors 3, referring them to "that guy" "that guy" and "whoever that guy was". When Sif appeared I was so worried that he was going to gak all over her as well, but thank Odin she made it out alive.
3. Taika is stuck in the past. Jean Claude Van Damm's Volvo leg split stunt was from nearly 10 years ago, yet it appears in this film. The fething screaming goats meme is 14 years old, yet here it is again. Comedy works in threes, Taika is of the opinion that you should add several digits to that number, and then do it once more in case people missed it.
4. Taika double's down on SOD breaking jokes. Other than Korg's near-movie-destroying monologue over the destruction of Asgard, my most hated line from Ragnarok is the "I'm made of rocks, but don't be afraid unless you are made of scissors" joke. Haha. Yes. He's a rock. Rock/paper/scissors. I get it. It's funny. It's also an Earth-based game that a random alien from another world shouldn't be referencing. It's too colloquial for it to be something anyone outside of Earth culture should know. In this film we meet the god of Korg's race, who has a Game of Thrones style Iron Throne (that show finished in 2019 and vanished from relevance almost overnight - see point 3 above) that is made of fething scissors!!!
So my conclusion is that we were wrong about Phase 4 of the MCU. It has a clear villain, and his name is Taika Waititi. He should stick to non-MCU films, where his films are actually really good (no joke, go and see Hunt for the Wilderpeople - it's amazing!).
So what else happened in Thor 4: Thor's Door? Well, there was a love triangle between a low IQ alien, a hammer, and an axe. I cannot believe I just wrote that sentence. Thor is a fething moron for most of this film, with brief moments of clarity where becomes the respected hero he should be. Other than that, he's repeating the beats from previous films without any of the growth he achieved in those films. So Thor's role in this film is one of duality - half oafish imbecile who pines for a hammer whilst talking to an inanimate object, and half-on task hero who understands the stakes and wants to ensure the safety of his people. The latter doesn't require him to be a bore, but the former requires the audience to forget every other film before this.
And the players are back! It was funny in Ragnarok, so let's do it again but also have Melissa McCarthy play Hela. See? It's funny because it's Matt Damon and he's famous!
The chief bad guy in Thor 4: Gorr goes to Mordor, is Gorr the God-Butcher, and he is suitably creepy but mostly a non-entity for the first half of the film. There's a lot more of him in the second half, so it feels like the balance is off (with the whole film, not just his character). The Necrosword is given about as much respect as the Warriors Three, and is just a means to an end. They obviously can't go into the same level of detail as it's comics origins, but "It kills gods because reasons!" is pretty lame. The shadow monsters were cool, to a point. The issue is that you could never see them. Most of the fights against them occurred at night, in a dark room, or on a planet where there was literally no colour... it made the fight scenes very choppy and hard to follow. That was a poor choice.
I found myself really enjoying Jane's presence in Thor 4: Thor to the Core. Her plotline was very much a "We've only got Natalie for one of these, so let's do as much as we can!", but I think it worked. It was nice to have cameos from Darcy and Selvig, and I liked how it wrapped up. Well, not the Valhalla part, that was more of Marvel movies having a terrible time ever killing anyone, as even the dead aren't really dead. Overall, as something I was worried about when we first heard they'd be doing a Mighty Thor, it turned out really well. Jane was not the main focus of the story, and her naivete with the super-hero-ing side of things helped to undercut it a bit, but not in a Korgian way.
Valkyrie was in this film. She certainly was. She had no arc to speak of other than "Meetings boring. Me want to punch stuff again!". So she did, got stabbed, didn't die (because of course not), and then sat out the rest of the film.
Korg was also in this film. A lot of this film. Too much of this film. My heart rose in praise to the gathered pantheons of many cultures when Zeus smote him with his mighty Thunderbolt, but apparently even the power of the God of Gods cannot topple the Avatar of Bathos, 5th God of Chaos, as we were stuck with his stupid talking fething head for the rest of the movie. And then his body grew back, apparently, because virtually no one ever dies in Marvel films. And then he marries another Krogan... and this one has a giant porn-stash for some reason. More timely humour from Taika.
So far I'm gaking on Thor 4: Gorr's War a lot, which is weird given that at the start of this I said that I genuinely liked it. The thing is, the good in Thor 4: Thor Corps has to be found in the spaces between the bull gak. I liked the plot with the Asgardian children being taken. I really liked Axl, Heimdall's son; he was loads of fun. Thor empowering the kids at the end was a genius move, marred only by the fact that it was another fight scene in the dark. This movie gave me the second thing in two movies that I never thought we'd see in the MCU. The first was Incursions in Dr. Strange 2, and the second was Eternity, who shows up in this movie looking pretty much spot on from the comics. The godly city was a nice touch. Russel Crowe appeared to be having the time of his life playing Zeus and sounding like every Greek immigrant father I've ever seen in Australia. I'm really happy Sif survived. I hope that's not the last time we see Jamie Alexander (maybe she'll get her own overly short, badly paced and barely plotted D+ series?).
I'm not good with the ending to Thor 4: Thor Snores on the Shore. Thor now has an adopted daughter and... ok. That's going to be hard to explain from now on, or are we just looking at yet another replacement character, which seems to be about the only thing Phase 4 is about. Criticisms of this film talked about how they liked how the story ended, just not how the movie ended. I didn't understand what that meant at the time, but I totally get it now, and I agree.
And Hercules? Ok, sure, why not.
So yeah, Thor: Love & Thunder was a reasonably entertaining film that I can look back on and not feel mad about it like, say, Ragnarok or Iron Man 3. Nor was it a movie that squandered its potential and undid its own character like Black Widow. It's not very high up in my rankings of MCU films, and I'm in no rush to see it again (unlike No Way Home and Multiverse of Madness), but it was perfectly above average and I'm happy for it to live there.
Now please, never let Taika direct another MCU film again.
Yeah, Taika is perfectly fine when it's for legitimate comedies with silly characters like in Jojo Rabbit, but when you have someone like Thor that needs some actual nuance to his character that isn't just him being a dude-bro, (especially given the aftermath of having pretty much everyone he loves having died and Jane being potentially next) it's really dumb that he doubles down on Thor being a caricature of himself even though it looks like they resolved that in Endgame.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm actually moderately pissed. This was the one MCU flick I was looking forwards to and now the reviews are awful by MCU standards and significantly more critical than the ones for Ragnarok. Incredibly frustrating.
I would ignore those reviews; Love & Thunder is hardly a step down from what they've been doing already. It would be like saying Attack of the Clones is a step down from The Phantom Menace...
trexmeyer wrote: I'm actually moderately pissed. This was the one MCU flick I was looking forwards to and now the reviews are awful by MCU standards and significantly more critical than the ones for Ragnarok. Incredibly frustrating.
So go see it for yourself & make your own judgement.
Though I would suggest watching it after it comes out on D+ or through other...um..."online means", given that I think it's frankly not worth the ticket atm.
Opposite opinion on being worth the ticket. I saw it in the afternoon, so (in my area) somewhat cheaper than evening prices.
Did I see Oscar-bait? No.
Was I entertained for two hours? Yes.
I got at least as much value for my money as I get on a trip through Starbucks....
trexmeyer wrote: I'm actually moderately pissed. This was the one MCU flick I was looking forwards to and now the reviews are awful by MCU standards and significantly more critical than the ones for Ragnarok. Incredibly frustrating.
So go see it for yourself & make your own judgement.
Though I would suggest watching it after it comes out on D+ or through other...um..."online means", given that I think it's frankly not worth the ticket atm.
Opposite opinion on being worth the ticket. I saw it in the afternoon, so (in my area) somewhat cheaper than evening prices.
Did I see Oscar-bait? No.
Was I entertained for two hours? Yes.
I got at least as much value for my money as I get on a trip through Starbucks....
I mean Starbucks is already a place I never go to since I find everything is upcharged for subpar drinks and food, so not a good comparison for me haha
If you can get cheaper prices by all means feel free to go, but I heard how bad MoM was and I watched it online and it was definitely one of the better decisions for me to not have wasted money AND time on something that I felt wasn't worth the two or so hours I lost from it.
Vulcan wrote: It's four critics whose judgement I trust saying it now. Ideas raised but never explored, payoffs dropped in without proper setup, and a ton of attempted jokes that fall flat on delivery.
I think I started watching the review you are referring to before work this morning.
Probably a wait to stream for me.
Yeah, I'm almost certainly going to catch it at some point as well, preferably for free or as close to free as I can manage. And going in with such low expectations might allow me to derive some enjoyment out of it.
Much as I enjoy Waititi’s fare, I do get why others just…won’t. I’ve better things to do with my time and the next person’s time than argue that toss. Especially given comedy is incredibly subjective.
His stuff chimes with me, and so I’m predisposed to enjoy, and possibly be more forgiving as a result.
I do stress I’m not holding L&T up as genius, perfect film making. It definitely has its flaws, they just don’t bother me, personally, all that much.
I still say watch it if you’re on the fence. The bum notes are, for me, heavily outweighed by the masterful concertos. Though I must also stress the scene I enjoyed the most is definitely going to be Marmite. I loved it, as I love Marmite. A deep, abiding love of which I cannot get enough of. But if it leaves a sour, eye crossing and rolling into the back of the head taste in others? I absolutely get it. Because the very thing I absolutely bloody love about it, is the very thing that will have others utterly despising it like they just kicked your Nan, stole your Kidney, and interfered with your pet.
Sod it. It’s on wide enough release. I can spoiler the specific scene.
Spoiler:
It’s the final big fight scene. Where Thor bestows the Power of Thor upon the kids. I. fething. Loved. It. Just everything about it. To see kids terrified by a total knobber. Who picked on them because he decided they were his trump card, suddenly get the strength they needed, and then Get Their Ming On cheered my sad old soul no end. Especially the kiddo with the Cuddly Toy shooting deathbeams through its eyes. Given what the Asgardians have been through, to see their youngsters get their moment to shine just…..works for me.
If you’ve rolled your eyes at this spoiler and haven’t seen it? Just watch it.
If you’ve rolled your eyes at this spoiler but have seen it? Do you see what I consider it serious Marmite?
Much as I enjoy Waititi’s fare, I do get why others just…won’t. I’ve better things to do with my time and the next person’s time than argue that toss. Especially given comedy is incredibly subjective.
His stuff chimes with me, and so I’m predisposed to enjoy, and possibly be more forgiving as a result.
I do stress I’m not holding L&T up as genius, perfect film making. It definitely has its flaws, they just don’t bother me, personally, all that much.
I still say watch it if you’re on the fence. The bum notes are, for me, heavily outweighed by the masterful concertos. Though I must also stress the scene I enjoyed the most is definitely going to be Marmite. I loved it, as I love Marmite. A deep, abiding love of which I cannot get enough of. But if it leaves a sour, eye crossing and rolling into the back of the head taste in others? I absolutely get it. Because the very thing I absolutely bloody love about it, is the very thing that will have others utterly despising it like they just kicked your Nan, stole your Kidney, and interfered with your pet.
Sod it. It’s on wide enough release. I can spoiler the specific scene.
Spoiler:
It’s the final big fight scene. Where Thor bestows the Power of Thor upon the kids. I. fething. Loved. It. Just everything about it. To see kids terrified by a total knobber. Who picked on them because he decided they were his trump card, suddenly get the strength they needed, and then Get Their Ming On cheered my sad old soul no end. Especially the kiddo with the Cuddly Toy shooting deathbeams through its eyes. Given what the Asgardians have been through, to see their youngsters get their moment to shine just…..works for me.
If you’ve rolled your eyes at this spoiler and haven’t seen it? Just watch it.
If you’ve rolled your eyes at this spoiler but have seen it? Do you see what I consider it serious Marmite?
Now for why this might really, REALLY bug you.
Spoiler:
Problem 1: If Thor could di this at any time - just give the Power of Thor to random people, or even random Asgardians - why not do this during Infinity War? Or Ragnarok? Or the Dark Elf invasion?
Problem 2: The real issue is the bad guy's plan in the first place. He's kidnapped kids and expecting Thor to come save them.
But... isn't he mad at the gods because they DIDN'T come save his daughter? And he's killing them because they don't come save their followers?
But he's still expecting Thor to come save the kids?
Hunh?
Other problems with the movie. Jane is looking for Mjolnir to help her with her cancer, an utterly selfish reason. How does this make her worthy to lift it?
For that matter, why does Jane, an astrophysicist, think she can do the labwork to cure her cancer better than her doctors?
If Mjolnir could reforge itself at any time, why didn't it do so earlier... like during Infinity War, so Thor could go after Thanos BEFORE Thanos got all the Infinity Stones? That way Thor wouldn't have to faff around making Stormbreaker and all. An argument might be made for it if Thor had lost his worthiness somewhere along the line, possibly from his reaction to Thanos' attack on the Asguardians and his subsequent failure to stop the 'snap'. But... they make a point of having Thor 'check' his worthiness, and he's still got it. So... what the heck, Mjolnir?
There's suspension of disbelief... and plot holes that keep you from doing it.
Saw it. Really enjoyed it. Saw some stuff on screen that was 100% comic accurate that I never expected to see. Totally wild.
Spoiler:
fething Eternity. Wild man.
In the past we have seen an appearance of something as kind of a sneak peak of the special effects for something else. Blonski's pre abomination super soldier fight with the Hulk was a precursor to Captain America's special effects as an example. The shadow monsters in this are a straight up tease of what Knull and his Dragons are going to be like. Crazy ass gak. And I am super excited for it.
The little girl at the end. Her reflection in the water was Eternities reflection. I think there is a really good chance that she is Captain Universe. Protector of Eternity. And the one thing that can actually stop Knull.
Now that Thor has Mjolnir back AND he isn't using Storm Breaker that is a great opportunity to give it to Beta Ray Bill.
Problem 1: If Thor could di this at any time - just give the Power of Thor to random people, or even random Asgardians - why not do this during Infinity War? Or Ragnarok? Or the Dark Elf invasion?
Problem 2: The real issue is the bad guy's plan in the first place. He's kidnapped kids and expecting Thor to come save them.
But... isn't he mad at the gods because they DIDN'T come save his daughter? And he's killing them because they don't come save their followers?
But he's still expecting Thor to come save the kids?
Hunh?
Other problems with the movie. Jane is looking for Mjolnir to help her with her cancer, an utterly selfish reason. How does this make her worthy to lift it?
For that matter, why does Jane, an astrophysicist, think she can do the labwork to cure her cancer better than her doctors?
If Mjolnir could reforge itself at any time, why didn't it do so earlier... like during Infinity War, so Thor could go after Thanos BEFORE Thanos got all the Infinity Stones? That way Thor wouldn't have to faff around making Stormbreaker and all. An argument might be made for it if Thor had lost his worthiness somewhere along the line, possibly from his reaction to Thanos' attack on the Asguardians and his subsequent failure to stop the 'snap'. But... they make a point of having Thor 'check' his worthiness, and he's still got it. So... what the heck, Mjolnir?
There's suspension of disbelief... and plot holes that keep you from doing it.
Spoiler:
1) His father could do this before. He didn't know he could do it. It was when he realized he could that he started to. Thats the Odin Force/Thor Force.
2) This is another movie where in the movie there is a line of dialog that directly says he is being corrupted by object. In this case the Necrosword, and for some reason the audience doesn't understand that concept. I don't know what people need to hear to understand the words actually spoken in the movie.
3) It doesn't. You see Thor in a flash back hugging Jane, say something to the effect of The Hammer always protecting her and then it got the glow with the nordic Knot. She was sick. The Hammer tried to make her strong. It failed, but it tried.
4) Desperate people are desperate. Shes in the denial stage of grief over her own impending death.
5) See 3. It was an effect of the specific enchantment Thor put on it.
2) This is another movie where in the movie there is a line of dialog that directly says he is being corrupted by object. In this case the Necrosword, and for some reason the audience doesn't understand that concept. I don't know what people need to hear to understand the words actually spoken in the movie.
Or maybe, just maybe, audiences have grown past 'a wizard did it' (either directly or by proxy) as an acceptable excuse for villains, and they want an interesting character in the movie with some depth and actual motivations. Especially in a franchise with such crappy fething excuses for villains.
Its less a problem with understanding than it is 'that is an unacceptably shallow answer for anyone over the age of 10.' People do terrible things for reasons they think are rational, and characters in films should reflect that. Especially a villain, since they're so central and important to this type of film.
2) This is another movie where in the movie there is a line of dialog that directly says he is being corrupted by object. In this case the Necrosword, and for some reason the audience doesn't understand that concept. I don't know what people need to hear to understand the words actually spoken in the movie.
Or maybe, just maybe, audiences have grown past 'a wizard did it' (either directly or by proxy) as an acceptable excuse for villains, and they want an interesting character in the movie with some depth and actual motivations. Especially in a franchise with such crappy fething excuses for villains.
Its less a problem with understanding than it is 'that is an unacceptably shallow answer for anyone over the age of 10.' People do terrible things for reasons they think are rational, and characters in films should reflect that. Especially a villain, since they're so central and important to this type of film.
Right. So.
Spoiler:
Gorr's basic motivation of killing all Gods is grounded in the opening scene with him. You see the devotion he gave to a careless monster. Then, he is suddenly given the power to do something about it and goes on his rampage. The basic motivations he has for what he is doing is simple but logical. All powerful beings that abuse the little guys need to go. The universe would be better without them. But he needs the bifrost and right now that means Stormbreaker.
The corruption bit is how he gets over the irony of using kids as a means to an ends. Which, is the exact difference between a hero and a villain. Zemo isn't actually wrong about what the Avenegers did to him. But he sees the innocents he purposefully kills as a means to his ends as a unfortunate but totally acceptable sacrifice for his goals. Likewise, Gorr glosses over the irony of the kids both because the Necrosword is egging him on and because he isn't a good guy. He's the villain. He is willing to torture and kill for his goals.
The fact that he changes his wish at the end after the necrosword has been "destroyed" says everything about what kind of a hold it had on him. If he still had the sword in hand, it's unlikely Thor and Jane could have turned him away from his stated mission.
Sod it. It’s on wide enough release. I can spoiler the specific scene.
Spoiler:
It’s the final big fight scene. Where Thor bestows the Power of Thor upon the kids. I. fething. Loved. It. Just everything about it. To see kids terrified by a total knobber. Who picked on them because he decided they were his trump card, suddenly get the strength they needed, and then Get Their Ming On cheered my sad old soul no end. Especially the kiddo with the Cuddly Toy shooting deathbeams through its eyes. Given what the Asgardians have been through, to see their youngsters get their moment to shine just…..works for me.
If you’ve rolled your eyes at this spoiler and haven’t seen it? Just watch it.
If you’ve rolled your eyes at this spoiler but have seen it? Do you see what I consider it serious Marmite?
Loved that scene.
And the screaming goats.
And talking to/arguing with the weapons.
And....
Problem 2: The real issue is the bad guy's plan in the first place. He's kidnapped kids and expecting Thor to come save them.
But... isn't he mad at the gods because they DIDN'T come save his daughter? And he's killing them because they don't come save their followers?
But he's still expecting Thor to come save the kids?
Hunh?
Gorr believes the gods care only for their own kind, so yes, of course he would expect Thor to come save the Asgardian children. They're all gods.
Other problems with the movie. Jane is looking for Mjolnir to help her with her cancer, an utterly selfish reason. How does this make her worthy to lift it?
There is a flashback where you see Thor tell Mjolnir to protect Jane, and the hammer glows in acknowledgement. He inadvertently enchants it.
For that matter, why does Jane, an astrophysicist, think she can do the labwork to cure her cancer better than her doctors?
I don't know if she thinks she can do it better, but I completely understand the impulse to try and do something about it yourself when you're already on death's door. If the alternative is to sit around and wait for the end, I don't think it's that ridiculous to believe a person like Jane would try to do something about her condition even if it's completely out of her field.
If Mjolnir could reforge itself at any time, why didn't it do so earlier... like during Infinity War, so Thor could go after Thanos BEFORE Thanos got all the Infinity Stones? That way Thor wouldn't have to faff around making Stormbreaker and all. An argument might be made for it if Thor had lost his worthiness somewhere along the line, possibly from his reaction to Thanos' attack on the Asguardians and his subsequent failure to stop the 'snap'. But... they make a point of having Thor 'check' his worthiness, and he's still got it. So... what the heck, Mjolnir?
There could be a lot of reasons for this, since we don't know how Mjolnir works. Thor may have never even tried to put it back together, since he and Loki left in a hurry after Hela shattered it. Even if he came back to it after, he may not even have tried to put it back together since it's clearly a very special weapon even by Asgardian standards and Thanos killed so many of the Dwarves on Nidavillir. Or maybe the hammer just needed time, who knows?
At what point did Thor have the time to go looking for Mjolnir prior to forging Stormbreaker?
From Thor’s perspective, everything from the moment Hela shatters Mjolnir, to being picked up the Guardians of the Galaxy happens in….maybe a week at most? He and Loki attempt to emergency Bifrost back to Asgard, get thrown out on to the wrong planet. Enslaved as a Gladiator. Meets Hulk. Gets to Asgard, defeats Hela and saves his people, and they more or less immediately run afoul of Thanos, who’s rampage we pick up on at the beginning of Infinity War.
From there, he’s picked up by the Guardians, and needing a weapon, it’s off to see a man about a dog. Gets the dog, and promptly fails to stop Thanos in time.
By the time New Asgard is founded on Earth? Thor is in a deep and understandable depression. Just as we saw in Thor? Being worthy of Mjolnir is not a consistent state. At all.
Note that the display case has grass under Mjolnir’s parts. Likely the very turf it fell on after being shattered. We can reasonably extrapolate Thor did try to collect the pieces, but due to his depression wasn’t worthy at that point, hence they farted around the poo, and just excavated the land it was on.
It’s not until later in End Game, when Thor knows he has a chance to set things right that we see him test his worthiness by summoning Past Mjolnir, and succeeding in doing so. We see his very visible and emotional state when it’s confirmed he is still worthy. Likely returned to state because he has a mission which he needs to complete.
Granted this is a bit of a deep dive, so please don’t think any of this was set out by me with a “duuuhhhh” in my head. This is explanatory, not flexing
I DO think there is a penchant for certain people (not just on this forum, but all over the internet) to call things "plot holes" that are actually just forgotten facts. Or ignored circumstances? I dunno. Its something. But its not plot holes.
Well that was fun, popcorn fare - but then it is a superhero movie.
Spoiler:
fortunately, to my taste, the Waititi coefficient wasn't as high as I feared and all the Bro/Dude bollocks was at the forefront at the start but settled down, although still there. Korg is still utter, utter, utter s*** so I take comfort in that it seemed he was written out. I loved Portman as Mighty Thor and it's shame this was a one-and-done show (although, as we saw, at least for Asguardians, even the dead are still 'there'). And I'm glad that Chris is still up for more Thor, even though his fellow original Avengers have stepped away from the franchise.
The jealous Stormbreaker gag was quite lame, but the empowering of the children was cool moment.
Lance845 wrote: I DO think there is a penchant for certain people (not just on this forum, but all over the internet) to call things "plot holes" that are actually just forgotten facts. Or ignored circumstances? I dunno. Its something. But its not plot holes.
thats something that is a problem on the internet over all. I forget how many times I've read media articles on the internet titled "NEW MOVIE CREATES A PLOT HOLE IN STAR WARS/STARTREK/THE MCU!" etc that basicly boils down to "something happened in this movie that I actually had to pay attention to and make a logical inferance because they didn't baby walk me through it"
it drives me crazy. if A New Hope was a new movie you'd see these people suggesting the clone wars was a plot hole. because "they mention it and then nothing gets done with it!"
Not throwing shade at anyone in this thread, but whilst some will be acting in bad faith, I think we do need to keep in mind levels of interest in a given franchise or film is not universal. Especially if you’re Universal, as nobody is interested. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Ahem. Anyways. The MCU is of course phenomenally successful. Success, and sustained success, on a level frankly never before seen, and so far yet to be replicated on any meaningful level.
Each entry absolutely puts bums in seats - but not every bum owner is going to be as invested as we on Dakka. And even on Dakka, those of us with enough interest to play “spot the crossover and that” are probably in a minority.
Me? I’ve just got a good memory, and a knack for linking things together, honed by my profession. So being able to rattle off a quick timeline like I did earlier is kind of second nature. I also really, really like the MCU, and am probably one of the more invested Dakkanauts overall as a result. Not everyone is, and it’s more than OK to forget stuff and think it a plot hole - so long as you don’t get arsey or combative when someone points out stuff you’ve missed or forgotten
yeah regarding movies I tend to use the "... would my dad understand this or will I have to spend 20 minutes after the movie explaining it to him?" criteria. My dad is a good example of what is proably the "non-hard core fanbase" for the MCU is, he goes to see explosions and fighting and be enterained, he's not exapcting high art but he does wanna know whats happening etc.
and the only marvel movie I ever recall him "not getting" was X-men Apoclpyse
Agree with all that. But the people who are kind of out of it and just taking in the movie in front of them in a vacuum are not accusing Wanda of having a weird plot hole filled character arch in MoM. They watch the movie and they go. "Yeah, the red one was the bad guy. Because kids and bad book."
As a single entry viewed entirely on it's own there is no sudden twist for the viewer. It's spelled out clearly from the very beginning. Marvel is GREAT about doing that. Making the movie itself digestible for the average movie goer as a single movie. It's probably the secret of their success.
The people complaining about "plot holes" are people trying and failing to piece together multiple movies.
Voss wrote: No, like most of this, people aren't complaining about plot holes. Just bad writing.
I don't think MoM had bad writing.
Unless you're talking about Thor: Dumb & Dumber, in which case yes, that movie has bad writing, because it takes all of Thor's growth from 6* previous movies, throws them out the window, and applies a -50% modifier to his IQ.
Voss wrote: No, like most of this, people aren't complaining about plot holes. Just bad writing.
I don't think MoM had bad writing.
MoM had terrible, atrocious writing.
Unless you're talking about Thor: Dumb & Dumber, in which case yes, that movie has bad writing, because it takes all of Thor's growth from 6* previous movies, throws them out the window, and applies a -50% modifier to his IQ.
It really doesn't though. Learning to let other people into his heart again is a very sensible followup to the depressed, miserable Thor we saw in Endgame.
With out spoilers I'd say that for me the best part of this movie was Zeus and the two goats but also that I enjoyed this one more than I had expected to. Christian Bale could have easily been replaced by Cody from Cracked .com. See the welcome back potter sketches for reference.
Voss wrote: No, like most of this, people aren't complaining about plot holes. Just bad writing.
I don't think MoM had bad writing.
Unless you're talking about Thor: Dumb & Dumber, in which case yes, that movie has bad writing, because it takes all of Thor's growth from 6* previous movies, throws them out the window, and applies a -50% modifier to his IQ.
*Thor did not grow in Dark World.
speaking of which, did you sleep through the exposition in L&T? that'd explain your not getting the character development they went through.
we saw in end game thor had gone to sort of a dark place, having no confidance, basicly hanging out "in the basement" (can't remember if it was an actual basement) drinking and playing video games all day shirking responsiabilities etc (king or no he shoulda been deeply involved with new asgard) the end of the movie has him recover his confidance and set off to discover himself.. but it eistablishes he's not really able to let people into him, understandable after so much loss, and it's hinted he'd begun doing so even BEFORE the events of Rangork) love and thunder is about him learning to let people in and him.... really finding a new family.
I still don't get how Stormbreaker was the key to Eternity when Eternity has been around since time began, possibly earlier, and Stormbreaker was forged 6-7 years ago in Infinity War.
I still don't get how Stormbreaker was the key to Eternity when Eternity has been around since time began, possibly earlier, and Stormbreaker was forged 6-7 years ago in Infinity War.
Stormbreaker might be new, but the Bifrost isn't. That's why the axe is necessary, it opens the Bifrost.
I swear it's like people deliberately chose not to pay attention to anything in this movie.
The Bifrost is some other thing that the Asgaurdians use. Heimdals sword could summon the bifrost. Stormbreaker when it was being forged, was said to theoretically be capable of summoning the bifrost (proven true).
The Bifrost is something they utilize, it's not their own invention. The bifrost predates all of them.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Didn't Thor use the Bifrost with Stormbreaker in Infinity War? It's not like this power was suddenly pulled out of nowhere for Love and Thunder
Also Heimdall wasn't the only one that could use it, he was just the custodian of the gatehouse. Skurge took control of it in Ragnarok.
Right, because it was the sword that was the key to summoning the Bifrost (just like Stormbreaker).
He does summon a brief Bifrost in Infinity War to send Hulk to Earth. Can’t recall if he had his hand on his sword.
But as we know with Mjolnir, Asgardian tech doesn’t generate, but helps focus powers. So could be the same thing, and it’s simply safer to use the sword.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: He does summon a brief Bifrost in Infinity War to send Hulk to Earth. Can’t recall if he had his hand on his sword.
But as we know with Mjolnir, Asgardian tech doesn’t generate, but helps focus powers. So could be the same thing, and it’s simply safer to use the sword.
I still don't get how Stormbreaker was the key to Eternity when Eternity has been around since time began, possibly earlier, and Stormbreaker was forged 6-7 years ago in Infinity War.
Don't think about it. Get excited about New Content. Consume Content. Get excited about Next Content.
Just got back from the theater. I’m going to bed so I’ll have to read thru the thread tomorrow, but you can have my initial knee jerk reaction right now;
While overall entertaining, the movie is extremely excessively dumb haha jokey time, and I don’t want Taika Waititi to direct another MCU movie again.
I get the Bifrost part but they showed old painted images of Stormbreaker specifically opening the gate. If they had just said it needed RAINBOW POWAH to open the gate that would make more sense but they had an ancient painting of a (roughly) 8 year old Axe.
AduroT wrote: Just got back from the theater. I’m going to bed so I’ll have to read thru the thread tomorrow, but you can have my initial knee jerk reaction right now;
While overall entertaining, the movie is extremely excessively dumb haha jokey time, and I don’t want Taika Waititi to direct another MCU movie again.
Isn't he going to do a Star Wars movie? Given the reactions here, that promises to be entertaining. But at least you won't have to worry about the MCU for a while.
Ahtman wrote: I get the Bifrost part but they showed old painted images of Stormbreaker specifically opening the gate. If they had just said it needed RAINBOW POWAH to open the gate that would make more sense but they had an ancient painting of a (roughly) 8 year old Axe.
Those were not old ancient paintings.
Spoiler:
That was Gorr's own notes trying to figure out how to open the gate to Eternity. You can tell because it was drawn on paper.
Here is the timeline from Gorr's point of view.
1) Get the Necrosword with flashes in his mind of the Gates of Eternity and the Necrosword telling him "summon the Bifrost". 2) Kill his god. 3) Go on a killing spree. Not because killing individual gods is a good use of his time. But because he is looking for the Bifrost. 4) Kill the big dog god and take off the arm of the first Asguardian he finds, Sif. Sif, knows that he is heading for Asgard next. Shock and awe... he shows up and goes straight for the axe when he sees it. 5) The movie.
They are inside Gorrs own "house" in the shadow realm looking through Gorr's own notes as he tortured and killed Gods across the universe looking for the bifrost until he got information about the axe.
Also side note: Everything on all the rocks on his home planet was pictograms. His race likely has no written language.
Characters having in-universe access to the script?
Prophecies desperately need to be retired from books and movies (comment not specific to this one). It is beyond a joke that no fictional character has the basic education (or in modern settings, watched films or read books) to recognize a self-fulfilling prophecy and know that its going to go bad.
I was in a discussion recently about RPGs and world building and "chosen ones". People were asking how they handle those kinds of things.
I told them I Darksouls it. There is no real chosen one. Prophecies are propaganda designed to throw people at a problem until somebody eventually makes it through. I am A'Okay with that kind of prophecy and chosen one stuff.
The typical prophecies are real kind of garbage? Nah. Agree with Voss. It needs to go.
Ahtman wrote: I get the Bifrost part but they showed old painted images of Stormbreaker specifically opening the gate. If they had just said it needed RAINBOW POWAH to open the gate that would make more sense but they had an ancient painting of a (roughly) 8 year old Axe.
And so?
1) Time travel & dimensional hopping is an established thing in the MCU well before L&T.
Just because you haven't yet been shown the story of how someone wielding Stormbreaker wound up in the past & was seen opening the Bifrost with it.... And we're told "Thor will return...." So maybe you will get to see it happen.
2) Who said Thor used a unique design when making Strormbreaker?
3) As was said, there's always Prophecy.
4) And of course they could've had no deeper thought on the subject than making it easy on a certain % of the audience to grasp.
It wasn't ancient paintings. It was on paper. Paper doesn't last that long. That wasn't some kind of engraved mural in stone that would actually hold up to the test of time to some extent. It was a bunch of papers over lapping each other inside of Gorr's house.
Those were his notes, collected over killing, torturing, and interrogating gods looking for the bifrost so he could open the gates to eternity.
This had NOTHING ancient about it. Gorr made those drawings.
stormbreaker wasn't the key to eternity, the bi frost was. Stormbreaker has the power to summon the bi frost so......
Anything that could summon the bi frost could have opened the gate.
As was said above this isn't a plot hole, people just don't pay attention while watching films.
I enjoyed the film, definitely lent into the humour more that others (compare it to thor2!) but made for a good evening out with freinds. which is what a film should provide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles wrote: I guess nobody thought to ask all of those other gods for help during the whole 'half the life in the universe has been wiped out' situation...
this actually opens another question, did half of the gods get snapped too?
It wasn't ancient paintings. It was on paper. Paper doesn't last that long. That wasn't some kind of engraved mural in stone that would actually hold up to the test of time to some extent. It was a bunch of papers over lapping each other inside of Gorr's house.
Those were his notes, collected over killing, torturing, and interrogating gods looking for the bifrost so he could open the gates to eternity.
This had NOTHING ancient about it. Gorr made those drawings.
That does make more sense. I only saw it once and while ok it isn't good enough to pay just to catch that one scene again.
So what calls Birfrost now? Stormbreaker can but Mjolnir can't. Heimdall's sword did but he is dead and his sword was with him when Thanos blew up the ship so I don't think anyone has that atm.
It wasn't ancient paintings. It was on paper. Paper doesn't last that long. That wasn't some kind of engraved mural in stone that would actually hold up to the test of time to some extent. It was a bunch of papers over lapping each other inside of Gorr's house.
Those were his notes, collected over killing, torturing, and interrogating gods looking for the bifrost so he could open the gates to eternity.
This had NOTHING ancient about it. Gorr made those drawings.
That does make more sense. I only saw it once and while ok it isn't good enough to pay just to catch that one scene again.
So what calls Birfrost now? Stormbreaker can but Mjolnir can't. Heimdall's sword did but he is dead and his sword was with him when Thanos blew up the ship so I don't think anyone has that atm.
stormbreaker as of the movie was easily the most obvious place, Thor is a known individual, reported on in the media, with easily acessable friends and followers. it all adds up to stormbreaker being the obvious target
BrianDavion wrote: stormbreaker as of the movie was easily the most obvious place, Thor is a known individual, reported on in the media, with easily acessable friends and followers. it all adds up to stormbreaker being the obvious target
I imagine that answers someone's question but not the one asked. The question was what else do we know of that can summon Bifrost?
BrianDavion wrote: stormbreaker as of the movie was easily the most obvious place, Thor is a known individual, reported on in the media, with easily acessable friends and followers. it all adds up to stormbreaker being the obvious target
I imagine that answers someone's question but not the one asked. The question was what else do we know of that can summon Bifrost?
Nothing else that we know of. Asgard when it existed had that entire rainbow bridge structure manufactured just to wield and summon the bifrost with the sword acting as the key. Heimdal was able to do it once in Infinity war with just the sword but he had to do his little prayer or whatever (Ancestors... let the dark magic flow through me one last time...) and we don't really know what it might have taken out of him to do it that way without the rest of the machinery.
Storm Breaker is the first otherwise mobile and easily accessible source of the Bifrost. Which would explain why someone hasn't gotten to Eternity before this. You would need to break into Asgard. Get the sword. Defend the Bifrost while it fired up and pointed itself at the gates of eternity, and then defend it while it maintained it's beam at the door. Or otherwise find out about and get to Nidavellir and get the dwarves to make you a bifrost summoning something if you even thought that was possible.
Ok, please tell me if there is a memory hole in my head or were the Asgardians said to be no gods (just long lived - 5 thousand years - very technologically advanced aliens) in the first Thor? Same as with the rest of the myths, it was all explained by the ''space science''? And now suddenly we have the gods everywhere, like they were in the myths, and they were always there, with Asgardians being the same?
Guess it applies to any similar species that’s interfered with other planets. If you’re powerful enough, and live long enough you look the same to successive generations of subject, you become a god to them.
Still not amused by the Bao though. That was egregiously silly.
Shadow Walker wrote: Ok, please tell me if there is a memory hole in my head or were the Asgardians said to be no gods (just long lived - 5 thousand years - very technologically advanced aliens) in the first Thor? Same as with the rest of the myths, it was all explained by the ''space science''? And now suddenly we have the gods everywhere, like they were in the myths, and they were always there, with Asgardians being the same?
In the first Thor movie Darcy and Jane argue that they could just be technologically advanced aliens to Selvig. Keep in mind that Darcy and Jane don't know what the feth they are talking about.
The Asgardians are like... Space God Amish. They don't do what the rest of the gods or space (society) are doing and keep manufacturing swords and gak instead of guns. Even though they do also make gun (their long ships have them... even though they are long ships). They are just odd ducks. Sitting in their corner of space doing things in their weird old ways.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Guess it applies to any similar species that’s interfered with other planets. If you’re powerful enough, and live long enough you look the same to successive generations of subject, you become a god to them.
Correct but what I meant is that we have now 2 different versions for the gods/all other myth creatures in MCU. In Thor 1 and 2, they all were simply beings from other planets in the multiverse, and their ''magic'' etc. was explained as ''super science'' etc. Even at the time of the Infinity War, beings like ''Dwarves'' are still just creatures of flesh and bones, their tech hyper advanced. Now, we have all those creatures as the very same gods/demons etc. that they were in myths, and all their skills etc. are magical. There is even Valhalla as the afterlife. There is no consistency with the previous movies. Either give us pure comics version with magical creation, Elder Gods, Atum etc. or stay with hyper advanced aliens, but not switch versions with the new director of the movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AduroT wrote: They may talked about the magic is just science stuff, but they also do still actively refer to themselves as gods.
Wasn't that either Odin or Loki telling that they are not gods, just living longer than the ''mortals'' in the first movie? At least I remember it so but might be wrong as it was long ago.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Guess it applies to any similar species that’s interfered with other planets. If you’re powerful enough, and live long enough you look the same to successive generations of subject, you become a god to them.
Correct but what I meant is that we have now 2 different versions for the gods/all other myth creatures in MCU. In Thor 1 and 2, they all were simply beings from other planets in the multiverse, and their ''magic'' etc. was explained as ''super science'' etc. Even at the time of the Infinity War, beings like ''Dwarves'' are still just creatures of flesh and bones, their tech hyper advanced. Now, we have all those creatures as the very same gods/demons etc. that they were in myths, and all their skills etc. are magical. There is even Valhalla as the afterlife. There is no consistency with the previous movies. Either give us pure comics version with magical creation, Elder Gods, Atum etc. or stay with hyper advancen aliens, but not switch versions with the new director of the movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AduroT wrote: They may talked about the magic is just science stuff, but they also do still actively refer to themselves as gods.
Wasn't that either Odin or Loki telling that they are not gods, just living longer than the ''mortals'' in the first movie?
In the first movie Thor specifically doesn't say it isn't magic. He says their magic and technology are one in the same. They use technology that runs on magic. The Bifrost bridge/sword is a technology built to harness the Bifrost, a magical force and put to use by them. Mjolnir is a hammer, designed by dwarves with some kind of forge-a-brick-with-a-handle-out-of-uru (space magic metal) technology to help Thor to harness and control his inherent magical abilities.
Likewise, moonknight has the Egyptian Gods. Who are magical and have some weird tech too. Moon Knights suit is something. Clearly fueled by some kind of magic, but made out of some kind of crap that could be "technology" if someone understood it.
I don't think we have 2 versions. We have 1 that straddles both tech and magic. Consistent with Thor's description in Thor: The First Thor.
One thing this movie left me wondering is will we get a Mighty Thor movie or show or at most/least another appearance of the character.
A cool cameo would be very worth while as a bit of plot armour for someone in another show or movie. Don't groan too much, I kinda feel that by the end of Love and Thunder She had really come into her own as a Thor but there was mention She'd done a little bit of head smashing before the movie really gets going and it could be a nice bit of useful fanservice. The cool kind not the naughty kind.
Back on topic I've heard and read a lot of complaints that main Thor was dumb and just joking around way too much. I have to wonder if this was because he is so powerful he knows just how off putting and intimidating he can be to regular people and just just playing a "simpleton" to help the interactions. Probably just my own head cannon.
Back on topic I've heard and read a lot of complaints that main Thor was dumb and just joking around way too much. I have to wonder if this was because he is so powerful he knows just how off putting and intimidating he can be to regular people and just just playing a "simpleton" to help the interactions. Probably just my own head cannon.
So It looks like my memory was not so bad, and Odin really said ''we are not gods'', but it was not in Thor 1 but Thor 2.
Around 0:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhXBlJFgGKU
I think the movie would have been better if it focused more on Gorr, much like Infinity War did with Thanos. We should see how he learns all the things he does and watch him defeating the 'gods' he brings down to really instill both empathy as well as the level of the threat he posed.
To much of it is just told to us and not enough is shown.
Topaz (Grandmaster's henchwoman) is considered to be based off a character from Malibu Comics' Ultraverse named Topaz and not another character named Topaz that was in Marvel comics.
Yep, and was pretty much a name grab to get Rachel House in the movie. The only things that match for the character are the name, chromosome pairing, and vague color patterns with the costumes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: I... Very much doubt Grandmasters Topaz is anything but an original character.
Tom Mason, formerly of Malibu Comics and one of the Ultraverse founding fathers, disagrees with you on that one. I'd like to hope it's wishful thinking on his part because I'd rather have no representation of the Ultraverse characters than abysmally gakky representation.
I had completely forgotten about Malibu Comics. I have some issues of Prime around somewhere. didn't realized Marvel bought them up in like 94' until today.
bbb wrote: It's kind of a rights issue for getting anything made because creators retained rights to characters if memory serves correct.
No, having pieced together all the bits of info it seems it's all tied to EVERYTHING has to involve Scott Rosenberg and Marvel flat out refuses to do so. There may be some more to it, but that's the main beef. No creators own any of the Ultraverse characters, and the royalties aren't any bigger than what they have to pay for Marvel proper characters.
