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

[dudalb]

SOme bitching about Natalie Portman coming back after having pretty much walked away from the role after Thor 2.

IMHO I don't blame Portman, given how poorly Foster was written in Thor 2..which I think, except for IM3, has the weakest script in the MCU. SHe was hoping the character would be allowed to grow more in Thor 2, and not just be Thor's love interest,and when that did not happen she decided to walk. Can't blame her. SHe was an actress coming off a Oscar win, and of course she wanted meatier roles the a routine love interest. I am sure she was promised better writing for Thor 2, and when that did materialize she got angry.

You have to wonder how much better Thor 2 would have been if Patti Jenkins had stayed on as director ( a director generally has a huge role in what the final script looks like even if they don't get a writing credit). Feige made one of his few mistakes there,and am sure he sort of kicked himself in the pants a couple of years later after he saw Wonder Woman.

2013 was the MCU's weakest year with IM3 and Thor 2 being, though box office successes, a huge step downward in quality. Luckily the MCU recovered big tme with CA:WS and GOTG 1.

Edited July 24, 2019 by dudalb

[Sam]

Iron Man 3 remains one of MCU’s best movies. I will not stand to take slander against it. 

[dxmatrixdt]

 

Booger too?

 

[Nero]

3 hours ago, dudalb said:

SOme bitching about Natalie Portman coming back after having pretty much walked away from the role after Thor 2.

IMHO I don't blame Portman, given how poorly Foster was written in Thor 2..which I think, except for IM3, has the weakest script in the MCU. SHe was hoping the character would be allowed to grow more in Thor 2, and not just be Thor's love interest,and when that did not happen she decided to walk. Can't blame her. SHe was an actress coming off a Oscar win, and of course she wanted meatier roles the a routine love interest. I am sure she was promised better writing for Thor 2, and when that did materialize she got angry.

You have to wonder how much better Thor 2 would have been if Patti Jenkins had stayed on as director ( a director generally has a huge role in what the final script looks like even if they don't get a writing credit). Feige made one of his few mistakes there,and am sure he sort of kicked himself in the pants a couple of years later after he saw Wonder Woman.

2013 was the MCU's weakest year with IM3 and Thor 2 being, though box office successes, a huge step downward in quality. Luckily the MCU recovered big tme with CA:WS and GOTG 1.

IM3 was and is still fantastic... I don't get the hate. 

[Alexandros]

I don't blame Natalie Portman either, her role in these first two movies was that of the cliche love interest. Same for Rachel McAdams in Dr Strange. 

[justvision]

5 hours ago, Sam said:

Iron Man 3 remains one of MCU’s best movies. I will not stand to take slander against it. 

YES. IM3 gets better with repeat viewings. For me in top 7 of all 23 MCU movies, and in top 3 solo movies (with IM, CA:WS). 1.215 B WW BO in 2013 was impressive. Post-Avengers boost was one thing, but it was mainly its own quality and merits that sustained the BO run.

[ddddeeee]

Thor always getting lumped together with TDW makes me sad. Portman has a fun role in the first one, and Hopkins is kinda great in it too. Hems, Portman and Hopkins getting fed up was everything to do with the messy TDW production/script (well, for Hems, every Thor appearance after the first movie) and nothing to do with the first movie.

Edited July 25, 2019 by ddddeeee

[Ororo Munroe]

2 hours ago, ddddeeee said:

Thor always getting lumped together with TDW makes me sad. Portman has a fun role in the first one, and Hopkins is kinda great in it too. Hems, Portman and Hopkins getting fed up was everything to do with the messy TDW production/script (well, for Hems, every Thor appearance after the first movie) and nothing to do with the first movie.

I'm inclined to see it this way or I would hope so because the idea that Portman left due to Jane just being the love interest doesn't move me. For one, I never saw her as "just the love interest." I think that's an inaccurate description, one that is often placed on female leads who don't have any super powers. But if that is how Portman saw it, I don't have much sympathy because she knew what the role was when she signed on. 

 

That said, Jane as Thor has the potential to be really fun so I'm fine with her return. 

 

 

 

[justvision]

I would be a bit disappointed if Thor 4 does not show Thor going outer space in search of another realm (read: planet) for Asgard. In spirit I agree Asgard is about people, not a place. But in reality the people need to find a place to inhabit and develop their civilization. Lodging in a small town on Earth will be depressing to the remnants. And Asgard is supposed to protect Nine Realms, how on Earth (literally) are they going to build the infrastructure, the advanced technology, and Bifrost Bridge?

 

I think Thor's decision at the end of Endgame (still got to be vague about this due to Endgame spoilers restriction) should not be viewed as unloading responsibility to Valkyrie and seeking his own freedom. I like to think he wanted to explore a new frontier for his people, being a spiritual leader and a pioneer, so he could not afford to stay on Earth for daily administrative work.

Edited July 30, 2019 by justvision
Edit: should be "so he could NOT afford to stay on Earth for daily administrative work

[Valonqar]

I don't know, I like the premise of potential Queens fighting for King Valkyrie's hand more fun and interesting than search for home/boo refugee crisis. I'm glad they aren't going in that direction. 

[justvision]

5 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

I don't know, I like the premise of potential Queens fighting for King Valkyrie's hand more fun and interesting than search for home/boo refugee crisis. I'm glad they aren't going in that direction. 

Both can co-exist. You need the fresh (love) and you need the bone (thunder) to make a movie stand up.

[Valonqar]

1 minute ago, justvision said:

Both can co-exist. You need the fresh (love) and you need the bone (thunder) to make a movie stand up.

I'm not disagreeing with this. 

[dudalb]

17 hours ago, Alexandros said:

I don't blame Natalie Portman either, her role in these first two movies was that of the cliche love interest. Same for Rachel McAdams in Dr Strange. 

Portman managed to make Jane Foster r interesting at times , but the McAdams character in Dr Strange was a total bore.

[Ozymandias]

So is this a passing of the torch kind of movie where thor is in it and trains her or whatever?  And if Natalie Portman and Tessa Thompson get it on in this movie, then I'm totally down with female thor.

On 7/22/2019 at 11:02 AM, TheDarkKnightOfSteel said:

Lol at fanboys all over social media talking shit about  Portmam’s acting skills when she has proven that she can act circles around the entire cast of Ragnarok (except Cate Blanchett ofc).I don’t know what’s up with Lady Thor (sounds like a cool idea) but i’m Happy that Portman will get shut these fanboys up.

Isn't she on record saying that the SW prequels nearly killed her career because a lot of people in Hollywood thought she was a shitty actress after AOTC?  She has since proved those weren't her limit imo. but either way, you don't exactly need to be a great actor/actress of to headline a Marvel movie.

[BadAtGender]

On 7/22/2019 at 11:02 AM, TheDarkKnightOfSteel said:

Lol at fanboys all over social media talking shit about  Portmam’s acting skills when she has proven that she can act circles around the entire cast of Ragnarok (except Cate Blanchett ofc).I don’t know what’s up with Lady Thor (sounds like a cool idea) but i’m Happy that Portman will get shut these fanboys up.

 

Her name isn't Lady Thor, it's Thor. (Or Thor, Goddess of Thunder.)

 

(In all likelihood, Hems will be called Odinson.

 

On 7/22/2019 at 2:56 PM, TheDarkKnightOfSteel said:

It may sound racist to some but...I do get the concerns of genderbending or racebending some characters.I sure as hell don't want to see a black Superman.Batman has to be white...he always has been.I think studios are doing these not because they genuinely care about diversity but because they want to get people talking on social media.

 

I am all about representation.About people of color or people by the LGBT  community or people with disabilities getting their time to shine.But you don't have to change your source material.Use your existing characters that could actually use the spotlight and need the attention.I want to see Vixen on screen,not a white Male character played by an actress that could play Vixen.Or better yet...create diverse characters to the point that they equal those that are already exist.

 

If that is racism...well I have bad news for me....

 

Kinda racist, yeah.

 

The source material is a vast and extremely fungible thing. Steve Rogers has not always been Captain America, and others have taken up the role. Same with Tony Stark. (Sam Wilson and James Rhodes have both taken those roles.)

 

The problem with the "make up new characters" is that there is weight in the names that exist. The idea that superhero identities are mantles that can be passed on is one with a long tradition. And writing stories that highlight characters who aren't straight, white, able-bodied, (American) men is ultimately good.

 

It's a pretty slim track record for new characters to get traction to stick around, especially if they don't have a mantle to take up. The 90s got us Cable, Deadpool, and Harley Quinn. (All notably white.) The Milestone characters were in that era (notably Static), but they have been utilized fairly poorly in recent years. (I suppose Squirrel Girl as well was from the 90s, but she didn't really become a huge thing until much more recently. Even the Dan Slott Great Lakes Avengers feels particularly out of touch for her.)

 

Many of the specifically POC characters that have gotten headway are specifically taking up mantles: Cassandra Cain (Batgirl), Jaime Reyes (Blue Beetle), Damien Wayne (Robin), Miles Morales (Spider-Man), and Kamala Khan (Ms. Marvel). If those same characters had debuted without a familiar name, they probably wouldn't have lasted.

 

There are many reasons for this. Franchising, both of properties and things within properties, has really exploded over the past 20 years or so. And the nature of cultural conversations has changed significantly along with it. Plus, many creators are not especially inclined to create new characters that they don't own. 

 

Diversity is good, actually. And there are extremely few superhero characters who have an intrinsic need to be white.

[Waffles]

 

 

 

[NamakFiskKa]

8 hours ago, Waffles said:

 

 

 

something something Land Down Under

women glow and men thunder

 

so couldnt help myself

[TServo2049]

Can’t you hear, can’t you hear the thunder? You better run, you better take cover!

[Avatree]

Unfortunately Chris Hemsworth is one inch too short for that song.

 

 

As for this movie - its a shame Natalie Portman is back but I'm hoping they've figured out a good way to use her.

[TServo2049]

13 hours ago, Avatree said:

Unfortunately Chris Hemsworth is one inch too short for that song.

And he doesn’t sell bread in Brussels.