Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
I have to wonder, considering the critical failure of the new Terminator film, whether Marvel's actions may have saved the film in a way. I remember reading somewhere that they didn't get Alan Taylor until the last minute, so a lot of the Troubled Production aspects might come from things that preceded him.
Kenneth Branagh absolutely isn't doing Thor 3
. Aww I kinda liked Thor 1.
WE had this discussion beforehand, but it didn't matter how much more screentime Malekith could have gotten, he would have still been a bad villain. Making his henchman more competent than him was a mistake. Letting him speak in strange elfish tongue was a mistake. His motivation made no sense. And you know what? While he is the worst villain Marvel ever had, he is not even what dragged the movie down. There have been week villains beforehand. It's all the time spend on earth and the contrived reason needed to get Jane on Thor's journey. There are also some editing problems and some decisions made, I certainly question.
Any character that isn't Thor, really.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.Thor is an important prop to give Darcy and Jane something to react to.
Forever liveblogging the AvengersI personally find Jane and post-Character Development Thor equally dull as dishwater. Interesting in concept, and incredible potential, but ultimately bland in execution. I keep trying to like them, but just as with (hiding in spoilers because a lot of people will get mad) Asami Sato every time I come away with the conclusion that 90% of the interesting stuff about them all comes from WM Gs and Fan Wank rather than anything directly stated or implied within the work itself.
edited 1st Jul '15 1:37:25 AM by AlleyOop
That's Steve, not Thor. And they made two good movies with Steve. There is a lot they could do with Thor, especially if they bothered to compare his cultural outlook to Jane's, something they never did, unless you count Thor smashing cups. If I had written the The Dark World, it would have started with the Bifrost finally being repaired and Thor going to fetch Jane against the will of his father. It would have then proceeded with Thor showing Jane his world, allowing the audience to see more of Asgard than some set-pieces. Jane's "infection" would have been less random but something which happened because she is human, thus showing that even if she wanted to, it would be incredible dangerous for her to life in Thor's world. And the final battle would have happened on the various worlds, not on Earth.
I like Darcy, but at this point, her internship should be over, so they should have included her, if they had to, in another way. And Selvig I always considered a nuisance. It is a good character on it's own, but I always felt that he is not needed since Jane is supposed to be a great scientist by herself. Tony and Bruce certainly don't need some sort of mentor puttering around, so why should Jane need one? It diminishes her character.
Well given Odin is in fact not Odin at all Thor should be able to get something interesting to do in the next one. hE can go back to openly defying Daddy Dearest (unaware he's nothing of the kind) and suddenly, oops, he's not the Prince of Asgard anymore, he gets himself dispatched on some suicide mission to somewhere remote and taken out of his comfort zone.
He's been raised to rule Asgard but now he has to grapple with the possibility he has to take the throne by force or something similar. How far can he go? What will he do? Could be pretty interesting.
Also, be quite happy with less humans if it means we get to see the (Marvel) Enchantress and Skurge up to tricks.
"These 'no-nonsense' solutions of yours just don't hold water in a complex world of jet-powered apes and time travel."Why is Thor still bothering with Jane when he has Sif? Honestly, I think the Thor movies would be better if they just focused on the god stuff.
When Thor and Iron Man were comparing girlfriends and Thor finished by saying "Jane's better". I nearly laughed. I suppose Jane can work with the right writers and I think Natalie Portmons a solid actress, but as she is now in the MCU she is dull.
edited 1st Jul '15 3:58:37 AM by 940131
True, but she's an Action Girl and a relationship with Sif would leave Thor free to do magic god stuff. It's the reason I got into Thor comics and the scenes off Earth are the best parts of these movies IMO.
edited 1st Jul '15 4:01:29 AM by 940131
There is a reason they don't spend too much time off world. Beyond potential budget issues I imagine (though this is probably less excusable after GOTG) they want an anchor character so the entire movie isn't taking place in territory that constantly needs to be explained.
If they'd handled Jane and her friends well instead of making them really annoying, they could have used her well as the viewpoint character who provides a reason for exposition.
Y'all are wrong. Jane is awesome and Sif is awesome.
The next movie, Ragnarok, should be about Jane and Sif teaming up to take out the bad guy while Thor wanders around Hel in search of his father. He gets back and they will be all, "Oh, right, that whole end of the world thing? Yeah, done, not a problem."
Whenever Sif and Jane interacted in the comics funny things happened
◊.
(Finding these shots is my superpower)
edited 1st Jul '15 7:56:49 AM by LordofLore
Anyway, since I grew up with Walt Simonson's Thor, I'm firmly in the Sif/Thor camp. Though I thought it was a pretty good choice on Straczynski's part to bring Jane back, but not as Thor's love interest, rather than as an individual character in her own right. Movie Jane has been fairly boring so far, because they haven't done much more than your typical damsel in distress stuff with her.
<shrug> Movieverse Thor and Sif have no real romantic chemistry, one sided at best (and even then, the movies don't particularly do anything with it besides the occasional facial expression), and the idea of putting them together reminds me of the justifications for putting Superman and Wonder Woman together.
edited 1st Jul '15 8:05:39 AM by KnownUnknown

Do we know that giving Loki scenes was specifically the reason?
It's worth noting that Dark World was clearly a movie intended to be more centered on the protagonists than the others - the premise is on Thor and Loki, not necessarily the threat they face specifically.
While the way they treated Malekith is definitely not only the worst part of the movie but brings down the movie as a whole and is one of the more disappointing things in the entire MCU, I wouldn't just out and blame Loki for it.
Given the actual plot of the movie near all of his scenes seem rather essential, and there's nothing wrong with that.
edited 30th Jun '15 6:10:52 PM by KnownUnknown