Thor: Love and Thunder | July 8, 2022 | Directed by Oscar Winner Taika Waititi | Ninth most profitable movie of 2022

[ThomasNicole]

2 minutes ago, KJsooner said:

Its pretty clear you don’t know a damn thing about what you’re talking about it. The first Thor at the time was considered a decent box office hit, and helped elevate The Avengers to the next level box office wise. The only reason why the first Thor didn’t gross more was due to a surprising Fast Five being released in all territories around the same time. 
 

You can tell this above poster has an extreme biasness, you can’t debate with people like that.

Biasness of what? Ffs some of you act like crybabies all the time. I watched all MCU movie in theater for the past decade, wth you're talking about?

 

Did i said Thor box office wasn't decent? I said it wasn't impressive, with this word specifically. 449M for a 150M budget movie during the peak of 3D wasn't impressive indeed, where are the lie? 

 

Not being impressive doesn't make it bad like you're having a meltdown about. 

 

And if i'm the type of user that people can't debate about things why you're quoting me anyway?

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, lorddemaxus said:

Why are so many reviews like "this movie was just passable but I'm gonna give it a 4/5"?

 

[Johnny Tran]

6 hours ago, exomassey said:

Sorry but the film was made by Marvel Studios. 
 

I don’t know how you can say it disconnects from the MCU when it’s features Dr Strange and has multiple Avengers/MCU references.

 

Because most of the fun came from the Sonyverse. 

[Mojoguy]

CRITICS CONSENSUS

In some ways, Thor: Love and Thunder feels like Ragnarok redux -- but overall, it offers enough fast-paced fun to make this a worthy addition to the MCU.

[cannastop]

1 hour ago, lorddemaxus said:

Why are so many reviews like "this movie was just passable but I'm gonna give it a 4/5"?

That's how I'd score it too. 7.5/10 is only a passable grade.

Edited July 5, 2022 by cannastop

[Johnny Tran]

5 hours ago, Maggie said:

I really can't see what can consinstely make  the huge numbers of Marvel.

 

Clone Tom Cruise

[exomassey]

1 minute ago, Johnny Tran said:

 

Because most of the fun came from the Sonyverse. 

And what? Still apart of the MCU.

[exomassey]

Marvel Studios had an amazing ten year run that concluded with Endgame.

 

To double down on making MCU content after Endgame just feels like a cash grab especially when a lot of the output is mediocre. Everyone is saying quantity over quality and that is correct. 

 

Also regarding box office, Marvel losing China is still a massive blow imo. I know they shouldn’t cater to China but them billion dollar movies and 2 billion dollar Avengers movies will be a bit harder to come by.

[Krissykins]

20 minutes ago, cannastop said:

That's how I'd score it too. 7.5/10 is only a passable grade.

 Absolutely not lol.

 

4/5 is not only a passable grade. That would be a 3/5 or 6/10. 
 

If 4/5 is “passable” why is there only one more point for perfection? 

 

1 poor

2 average 

3 good

4 great

5 excellent

[eddyxx]

5 hours ago, Valonqar said:

IMO, problem Marvel is facing is damn D+. Disney is pushing Marvel to create content for D+ so they are ramping up production that is now not about stories that need to be told but "we need yearly quota, produce whatever". In such environment, any character that gets some fandom traction like memes, gets a show or a movie. Agatha, Echo, Captain Carter, whats-his-face-Skrull-from-CM are just a few that got projects just because they generated some minor chatter or whatever other reason. Like, who asked for these? You can't expect top notch quality out of assembly line production. But here we are. That's the reality. Marvel has to feed D+ and considering how slow LFL is with getting SW content off the ground, Marvel will have to be the breadwinner for D+ for years to come. 

They had that Echo show green lit before Hawkeye even premiered so don’t think that fits what you’re saying and since when does Captain Carter have a show?

[Menor the Destroyer]

2 minutes ago, Krissykins said:

 Absolutely not lol.

 

4/5 is not only a passable grade. That would be a 3/5 or 6/10. 
 

If 4/5 is “passable” why is there only one more point for perfection? 

 

1 poor

2 average 

3 good

4 great

5 excellent

Because you can use half-stars. 3/5 is barely more than watchable for me, I think only 3.5/5 and above is what I would call passable. It's very weird how some people like to act like there is some sort of objective standard of how movies must be numerically graded, and everyone else should be forced to think like them. 

[Krissykins]

Just now, Menor Reborn said:

Because you can use half-stars.

Ah, I never do. 
 

If I thought something was only worth half a star, then it’s really not, so just bring it down. 
 

I know it differs by country too. I think I’m just used to decades of reading critics reviews here in the UK, only ever out of 5, no half stars and never out of 10 or letter grades.

[eddyxx]

6 hours ago, Claudio said:

Too much focus for the marketing team. They were marketing Ms Marvel before so Thor’s one was late (Even now they still have to market Ms Marvel cause it’s still running) and not long after Thor, they have to shift/divide the marketing focus to She-Hulk. So yeah, too much work and focus for them so Thor’s one is kinda meh, rush and like ‘at least I already marketed Thor’ kind of advertising. Different from Ragnarok when the focus was just it and they can focus the shit out of it with much time, heart and soul. 
 

that’s why I think 7 movies+series (and even worse, they’re all connected) a year is content overload. Too much focus and rush will hurt the quality, create some diminishing returns/fatigue from audiences, meh VFX and weak marketing like reflected in this one.

I’m pretty sure the films and tv shows have a different team for marketing lol 

[The Dark Alfred]

Obviously everyone has their own grading system as they please, there is no right or wrong when it comes to it but if someone rates 4/5 or 7.5 only passable then that grading system makes little sense as it has no value for great movies. Even if you use quarter stars lol

[infamous5445]

I might be in the minority but I'm fine with recent MCU movies not building up to anything. I'm just looking for fun blockbuster 

[BruiseCruise]

https://deadline.com/2022/07/box-office-thor-love-and-thunder-global-opening-1235058402/

[Menor the Destroyer]

10 minutes ago, The Dark Alfred said:

Obviously everyone has their own grading system as they please, there is no right or wrong when it comes to it but if someone rates 4/5 or 7.5 only passable then that grading system makes little sense as it has no value for great movies. Even if you use quarter stars lol

It's easy:

 

5-6/10: watchable but flawed (less than passable but didn't regret watching it)

7-8/10: passable but not great, solid enough

9-10/10: very good to great

[Gopher]

The same way that the MCU was instigated by perfect timing-- imagine if they started all this with a movie that wasn't Iron Man, or if The Incredible Hulk came out at any time that wasn't six weeks after Iron Man, and a lot of what ended up happening could've been derailed-- I think their current predicament is a victim of very bad timing. Everyone at Marvel is exceptionally smart. They know if they're gonna keep all of this going after Endgame, it does make sense to try out a bunch of other things before you focus on a Galactus or whatever posing the same cosmic threat Thanos did, and risk making everything you just attempted to conclude feel more arbitrary. So try making TV, try finding more Taikas and Gunns to give your movies a unique stamp, try flirting with where things are ostensibly going to group up (Young Avengers/Thunderbolts on a micro scale, incursions/Secret Wars on a macro scale). But if you're gonna do something different than what people expect you have to do it very very carefully. If you're gonna up the quantity, the order in which all these movies came out and how they intersect or don't intersect with TV shows is very important.

 

Covid messed all that up. It messed it up in a macro storytelling way: Strange 2 was supposed to be the film that introduced the multiverse. It was supposed to come out before Loki, and was conceived before No Way Home was even a real idea. It's hard to imagine the expectations of that film would be focused on "what are the cameos gonna be" if No Way Home (an example of Sony crashing Marvel Studios' party, insisting on a new Spider-Man every two years regardless of what's happening in the broader MCU) hadn't just set the template for what an audience would expect from a multiverse. And it messed it up in a micro storytelling way: all these projects were made under insane duress, with new creative and logistical challenges, and I think that led to their process of quality control falling off at the same time that the creative ideas were growing more ambitious. So you end up with more isolated circumstances of creative success (Wandavision, Shang-Chi, No Way Home) and lot more clunkers than we are used to (most of the TV shows, in my view, have chosen to function more like lower-budget four-hour movies than actual episodes of television, and that's been brutal for their outcomes). 

 

Thor's case it's a rare occasion in the MCU where a director gets a chance to do the same singular thing they were universally praised for doing the first time, but more because it's a sequel, and that rarely works out in or out of the MCU... I love Guardians 2, but most people preferred 1, and Iron Man 2 and Age of Ultron became templates at Marvel for what to avoid with their sequels. If this was in the Infinity Saga, a tossed-off sequel that's largely irrelevant to the broader story wouldn't bump with audiences if it's still doing something new-- that's effectively what Ragnarok was. It's the timing of Love and Thunder being potentially underwhelming at a broader moment of insecurity with the direction and quality of the MCU that is making folks feel a little more existential.

[Pinacolada]

7 hours ago, John Marston said:

Shang Chi was elevated because of Tony Leung. Outside of him the movie was standard and filled with bad comic relief and CGI overload 

3rd act of that movie sucked so hard

[Pinacolada]

7 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

Marketing for this has just been weird in general. Not only was the trailer mega late but it really didn't lean into being a Guardians team up, didn't lean into any epic threat with Bale's character like they did with Blanchett (even though Bale is a mega star), didn't exploit an apparent angle with Jane that could have moved numbers (no spoilers but you know what I'm talking about). It's pretty much just...."here's another Thor movie!"

THIS 100000% 

 

Super weird they didn't play up any of this in the marketing