Thor: The Dark World (2013)

[keysersoze123]

Superhero films for the most part, have weak villains.  There are exceptions of course, but Marvel superhero films have been really weak at times in terms of villains.  This one has to be the weakest of them all.  They need to make the entire universe dark so they can rule it again.  Why not just rule a different part of the galaxy?  And what is the red rock that gives them power to explode or power to do whatever it does?  I'm sure someone here will explain it to me, but the fact that I have no idea what it is really doesn't bode well for the yeoman.  Also, why was that one area in London a portal from one world to the next?  Was that ever explained?  

 

Sorry, but for a superhero film to be remotely interesting, there has to be things that are easily understood.  Star Wars does that and older superhero films do that.  Zod and his buddies were pissed at Jor-Els dad so they want to take revenge, that makes sense.  Lex Luthor is an ego maniac and wants to rule the US, that makes sense.  Green Goblin is used by his company, then fired and then spoken about like he is a grade 5 biology student instead of a brilliant scientist, so he wants revenge.  The Joker is a typical bad guy who falls into a vat of acid, disfiguring him.  All of these make sense.  They are simple and straightforward.  Thor's villains are so paper thin that it creates boredom.  Loki's intentions in Avengers make sense and even if they didn't (he wants to be king and is angry that he is adopted) the difference is he is very entertaining, he is well written and well interpreted by Hiddleston.  

 

Now those of you who love it, great. Good for you.  But I'm not a comic book purist.  I'm not a Marvel nut. I don't know these characters, I don't know their history.  I should, as a paying customer with no knowledge of the background, be able to understand wtf is going on.

 

Iron Man 1: Perfect

Avengers:  Brilliant

Spiderman 1 and 2:  fantastic

X-men 1-2: excellent

 

The rest of them are disappointing imo.

 

you do not like xmen first class?

[4815162342]

The "plot not making sense" makes no sense since the plot is incredibly simple and thin.

[AniNate]

I haven't even seen the film yet, but these "the plot doesn't make any damn sense but I still liked it" posts are ridiculous.

 

If the story is inadequate and nonsensical, the film failed.  Period.

 

Superficial thrills are pretty much the MO of Marvel films. Making sense is secondary.

[lilmac]

I really hope the mid-credits scene isnt indicative of what we'll get in GOTG. I can see why Alan Taylor wanted to distance himself.

[Squaremaster316]

The main problem with Thor 2 (and phase 2, in general) is the fact that the creators rely on infusing their films with so much humor that they don't care if it's hit or miss (more so the latter, in this case) or whether it's being employed at appropriate times.  They almost seem terrified at the prospect of having serious dramatic moments even though a plot of this nature basically screams for it. 

 

For those that complained about Man of Steel's constant state of dread throughout the climax, you didn't know how good you had it.

[rukaio101]

The main problem with Thor 2 (and phase 2, in general) is the fact that the creators rely on infusing their films with so much humor that they don't care if it's hit or miss (more so the latter, in this case) or whether it's being employed at appropriate times.  They almost seem terrified at the prospect of having serious dramatic moments even though a plot of this nature basically screams for it. 

You mean like Frigga's funeral? Or Loki's death? Because weren't characters just cracking jokes like crazy then?

 

 

For those that complained about Man of Steel's constant state of dread throughout the climax, you didn't know how good you had it.

I don't think anyone was complaining about Man of Steel 'constant state of dread'. If anything, we were complaining about the lack of dread. Or lack of anything interesting at all.

[AniNate]

I give Taylor credit for actually toning down the humor here. It was kinda ridiculous in the first Thor, bordering on a sitcom.

[rukaio101]

Honestly, I've never understood why some people here seem to be so against comedy in superhero films, particularly Marvel ones. I shall repeat this as many times as necessary, darker and more serious doesn't mean better. Man of Steel proved that. In particular, I think TDW would have been boring if it was a grim-dark drama all the way through, unless it was very well written.

 

The Marvel films know they are light-hearted entertainment flicks and don't pretend otherwise. And it works well. It helps that the jokes and humour are genuinely funny, unlike some franchises I could mention (*cough* Transformers *cough*). 

[Michael Gary Scott]

I was entertained and id put it ahead of thor 1. The villain was incredibly weak but the ending was awesome. 4/5

[Michael Gary Scott]

I was entertained and id put it ahead of thor 1. The villain was incredibly weak but the ending was awesome. 4/5

[Squaremaster316]

Honestly, I've never understood why some people here seem to be so against comedy in superhero films,

They're not against comedy, they're against an overabundance being employed at inappropriate times.

 

The TDK trilogy, for example, had smatterings of subtle, sophisticated and dark humor, all of which was utilized appropriately and kept on the back burner when their services were not required.

 

Bryan Singer's X-Men also had comedy that wasn't over-exaggerated and didn't suffocate the audience.

 

P.S. The scenes revolving around Foster's crew back on Earth DID border on Transformer-ish at times.

[John Marston]

The problem I have with many Marvel movies is the over abundance of humor to the point of almost irritation. Nothing wrong with some comedy but you have to balance it well.

 

 

Old blockbusters like The Star Wars trilogy or Indiana Jones movies are good examples of balance. That recent Marvel movies fail to do. 

 

 

 

in terms of superhero movies. Spider-Man 1 and 2 are other examples of good balance between humor and drama

 

 

 

Or about The Avengers itself.  The Avengers humor did two things: 

A) It was often banter between characters that FURTHERED their relationships and characters, while being witty and fun; 

B if  it wasn't that, it was quick, snappy physical humor (such as Hulk ragdolling Loki or punching Thor) that felt well timed at the right moments. 

Edited November 11, 2013 by John Marston

[Squaremaster316]

Here's an example of Marvel Studios employing good comedy at the right time:

 

[redfirebird2008]

Enjoyed this movie very much. Better than Thor 1, which was already pretty good to begin with.

[Jose Gabriel Alvarez]

I really liked the Thor, it had a great Shakespearean tone with an interesting and engaging main character and an even more intriguing villain. It was one of my favourite films of 2011 and after The Avengers which is I believe to be one of the best superhero films ever made (only second to The Dark Knight). I was excited for Thor: The Dark World, So I went in with big expectations. The acting was all on top form, Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman had decent chemistry and both were comfortable in their roles and Tom Hiddleston once again stole the show as Loki. However Christopher Eccleston's Malakith was a weak and lacklustre villain that followed a dull and average plot that gave our main villain no real motivations for his evil scheme. However don't get me wrong I really liked this film the rest of the Dark Elves are truly creepy and well designed characters. The production values of this film is unflawed and you can see just the amount of work that has gone into the design. The humour is a refreshing change of pace and keeps it fun and light hearted. The Action is marvellous too giving us fantastic battles, chases and epic fights, with London being an brilliant setting for the film. Interesting character development, a terrific score (even if I did miss Patrick Doyle's first theme) and the special effects are some of the best in the business. As well as being far more action packed and epic than the first. However the ending will either get some grinning with joy or just darn frustrated. In conclusion, anyone who is a marvel fan I believe will enjoy Thor: The Dark World as will anyone who liked the first with plenty of throwbacks to the original and enough set-up and cameos for the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 2. I would give it 8/10

Edited November 11, 2013 by baumer

[baumer]

you do not like xmen first class?

 

Yes, I forgot about that one.  Probably top 3.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

The movie is decent. I liked the first 30 minutes but the plot here is paper thin. The screenplay is very week and the villain is forgettable.  The humor in the film okay but felt forced at times. Iron Man 3 had way better humor and has the best humor in the MCU. The movie is very predictable, I could tell Loki did not die and when that solider appeared  i figured he kill the king or something so he could be king. The villain is lame and forgettable, every villain in the MCU is forgettable, the acting was just there his voice was lame. On the other hand, there is a lot good improvements in this film. The acting between Loki and Thor is great. The visual effects are great. The cinematography is the best in MCU. I enjoyed the set piece and score was is one better ones in the MCU.  I think this movie improved on Thor but I feel no reason to watch this again. 

C+

[baumer]

Well, I saw it again today just to see if it was better the second time around.  It isn't.

 

Questions:

 

1) That glowing thing that the Kursed gets put into him, why does it make him invincible?  I didn't see that explained.

2) Why is Selvig running around naked?

3) How does Selvig know that all those points on the map and markers and that Greenwich is the place where it will all happen?

4) Why does the device that Selvig and jane have make people disappear and into different parts of the world?

5) I liked the end with Loki, but how is it possible?  Did he kill Odin or something?

 

There's more but I will stop.  The film just doesn't work for me.

[Blankments]

Well, I saw it again today just to see if it was better the second time around.  It isn't.

 

Questions:

 

1) That glowing thing that the Kursed gets put into him, why does it make him invincible?  I didn't see that explained.

2) Why is Selvig running around naked?

3) How does Selvig know that all those points on the map and markers and that Greenwich is the place where it will all happen?

4) Why does the device that Selvig and jane have make people disappear and into different parts of the world?

5) I liked the end with Loki, but how is it possible?  Did he kill Odin or something?

 

There's more but I will stop.  The film just doesn't work for me.

 

The only one I really know off the top of my head is 2, which is that they implied that Loki being inside his head caused him to go insane. This gets me interested for Hawkeye in Avengers 2 personally

[rukaio101]

They're not against comedy, they're against an overabundance being employed at inappropriate times.

Examples?

 

 

The TDK trilogy, for example, had smatterings of subtle, sophisticated and dark humor, 

*snigger*

 

Sorry, that bit got me for a second. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you had some sort of bias towards Christopher Nolan.

 

On a more serious note, TDK trilogy mostly used the same sort of snarky one-liner comedy that Marvel often uses (aside from with the Joker who was more scary-funny than laugh-out-loud funny). Admittedly, it was used less than in Marvel movies but just because Nolan is using it doesn't make it 'subtle, sophisticated and dark.'

 

Besides, everyone knows Bale and Hardy's voices were the funniest things in the TDK Trilogy.

 

 

-all of which was utilized appropriately and kept on the back burner when their services were not required.

 

Bryan Singer's X-Men also had comedy that wasn't over-exaggerated and didn't suffocate the audience.

True. However, X-Men and Batman are the sorts of properties which lend itself more to the serious side of things. Characters like Thor.... really aren't.

 

 

P.S. The scenes revolving around Foster's crew back on Earth DID border on Transformer-ish at times.

No. Just no. I'll admit I wasn't the fondest of many of the Earth scenes (aside from the climax), but that's a stupid exaggeration.

 

 

 

 

 

The problem I have with many Marvel movies is the over abundance of humor to the point of almost irritation. Nothing wrong with some comedy but you have to balance it well.

Except that whole 'over abundance of humor' really doesn't happen here, no matter how much people like to exaggerate and pretend it does. There was plenty of serious, dramatic and intense moments. Hell, the only real characters who provided comedy were Darcy, Loki and Selvig and there were a lot of scenes which none of them were in.

 

 

1) That glowing thing that the Kursed gets put into him, why does it make him invincible?  I didn't see that explained.

2) Why is Selvig running around naked?

3) How does Selvig know that all those points on the map and markers and that Greenwich is the place where it will all happen?

4) Why does the device that Selvig and jane have make people disappear and into different parts of the world?

5) I liked the end with Loki, but how is it possible?  Did he kill Odin or something?

1) Why does Thor's hammer let him shoot lightning? How does a lightsaber work? It's a comic book movie. These things really don't need to be explained. 

2) Like Blankment's said, it was damage from Loki messing around in his head.

3) Because he's an leading astrophysicist who has been studying that sort of thing for years.

4) It was originally designed to stabilise our world and stop bits of it disappearing into other worlds, however, they were able to adapt it so, instead of stopping things teleporting into other worlds, it makes them teleport instead.

5) Maybe. We'll just have to wait for the next movie.