Thor: Love and Thunder [SPOILERS]

[JGP]

18 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

** Did Zeus call him "Hercules" or "Heracles" at the end of the movie? Because if it was the former, definitely no monument for you, Russell. 

The former, which makes sense. Marvel went with the Latinized name same as most.

I’m amongst those that won’t.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

motherfuckers.

[polishgenius]

14 hours ago, sifth said:

Also when did Korg join the team? He wasn't with Thor on the ship at the end of End Game.

 

I mean, I don't think this is any kind of an issue. This doesn't pick up directly after endgame. They didn't need to show them stopping to pick Korg up.

 

On the whole 'why do comic adaptations get more leeway for changing things' discussion - I think it's just because Marvel and DC comics aren't one standalone story, and even the comics themselves are constantly picking out what to keep and what to ditch and changing that all the time and circling back to old iconic stories and doing them again etc etc, so it's not the same as a single focused story with specific points that people feel are being messed with if something changes. As long as a movie gets the basics of the character right (so no Cassandra Cain in BoP) and isn't shit (looking at you, x3), fans will roll with it. 

Mind you, even though I really like Ragnarok and didn't mind at all that its resemblance to WWH was almost nothing, I do feel irritated for how badly they fucked up Skurge's plot. Hell, making nods at 'he stood alone at Gjallerbru' without actually doing it properly was probably worse than if they'd just ignored that entirely.  

 

 

On 7/8/2022 at 8:29 AM, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

It felt like it was trying too hard at times. It was good that it embraced its own goofiness but it doesn't do it in a way that something like the Deadpool films or Everything Everywhere All At Once does. Maybe those are just better films.

 

I mean, they are. Well, Everything Everywhere anyway, I like Deadpool fine but neither blew my mind. But like yeah coming out the month after I saw Everything Everywhere, Top Gun Maverick and RRR, this is in the same spirit of earnest goofyness but just isn't as good. 

But it's still a lot better than something like Aquaman (or what I've seen of WW84), which both attempted similar things in overall tone and style and well I actually did quite like Aquaman but it's a lot jankier than this. 

 

 

 

 

I do think it does feel more rushed than Ragnarok, although I don't know if it's because of Watiti being distracted or just because Disney are trying to do too much at once now and things are getting constantly chopped, changed and shuffled to fit schedules. It was very very notable that the shadow realm set piece was clearly better planned and executed than the other two, and the fight at the gate to Eternity was in turn better done than the village attack, which was frankly a bit shit (Marvel- Disney's big show properties in general tbh- really do have a problem with lighting, whether it's an inability to shoot scenes in the dark so you can see them at all, or that issue matching green-screened lighting to CGI backgrounds).  


I will say that I appreciated that the ending was one of the few times I've seen a 'power of love' finale work. It makes total sense that having been freed of the influence of the sword, Gorr would no longer be focused on his vow and be open to going 'oh yeah that's a much better wish'. Sure you can pick at why he didn't wish himself healthy too, but eh, that's a 'why didn't the Eagles fly Frodo to mount doom' nitpick, the story wouldn't work properly if he did. 

[sifth]

The more I think about it, the GotG really did feel like they were acting out of character in this film. I get the feeling Waititi didn't know how to write them or just didn't want them in his film.

[The Anti-Targ]

I enjoyed Love and Thunder. Not quite as much as Ragnarok but still a very solid movie. I like Waititi's style, but it's not for everyone, so I can see it not clicking with some people. I would not want the whole MCU to be like this, but I am happy for Thor's corner to be played this way all the time.

Will be interesting to see where they take Hercules in the MCU. I totally knew Zeus could not be killed by his own lightning bolt. The actor playing Herc is a total unknown to me, but clearly he's going to be the antagonist for at least half of the next Thor installment. He'll come around half way through the second act no doubt. But there should be a couple of epic fights.

Actually bringing Valhalla into the frame is interesting too.

Christian Bale was great. I felt like they rushed giving Gorr his motivation to go and kill all the gods, though on the other hand it would take half a movie to do it properly.

Surprised we didn't see the flying spaghetti monster, maybe still too minor of a god to be invited to the orgies.

 

[Slurktan]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I enjoyed Love and Thunder. Not quite as much as Ragnarok but still a very solid movie. I like Waititi's style, but it's not for everyone, so I can see it not clicking with some people. I would not want the whole MCU to be like this, but I am happy for Thor's corner to be played this way all the time.

Will be interesting to see where they take Hercules in the MCU. I totally knew Zeus could not be killed by his own lightning bolt. The actor playing Herc is a total unknown to me, but clearly he's going to be the antagonist for at least half of the next Thor installment. He'll come around half way through the second act no doubt. But there should be a couple of epic fights.

 

The actor playing Heracles is Roy Fucking Kent.  For me though the setup wasn't a Thor villain but a wider MCU villain as Zeus wants the mortals to respect the gods not gods respect gods.

As for the movie I enjoyed it quite a bit and they were clearly trying the Aquaman gambit which I appreciate all the time. I can see why others don't but different strokes.

[sifth]

45 minutes ago, Slurktan said:

The actor playing Heracles is Roy Fucking Kent.  For me though the setup wasn't a Thor villain but a wider MCU villain as Zeus wants the mortals to respect the gods not gods respect gods.

As for the movie I enjoyed it quite a bit and they were clearly trying the Aquaman gambit which I appreciate all the time. I can see why others don't but different strokes.

Hercules isn’t a villain in the comics, I mean heck he’s one of the Avengers. So don’t expect him to stay as a villain for very long.

[polishgenius]

Yeah absolutely certain that Hercules and Thor will team up to stop Zeus by the end of Thor 5.

I do think it'll be Thor 5 though, firstly I think Zeus as shown here is too goofy to be a wider MCU/Avengers villain and second there are too many potential wider villains being built already (and that's not even counting Doom).

[Whiskeyjack]

Thought the movie was good.  Laughed a lot and liked the action.

Wasn't as good as Ragnarok (which I rate as one of the best Marvel movies), but had the same style and still enjoyed it.

Kind of surprised there's so much negativity.

[Whiskeyjack]

2 hours ago, Slurktan said:

The actor playing Heracles is Roy Fucking Kent.

That was awesome, great surprise at the end.

[Darryk]

A very "meh" film, like most Marvel films.

Didn't realise that was Brett Goldstein at the end though, that's pretty cool.

[Maltaran]

Fun to watch, but nothing special.

One question though - the scene where Axl first appears and Thor calls him Astrid several times. Does this mean he’s trans?

[Werthead]

Hercules is one of the few Marvel Comics characters I'm reasonably familiar with, since one of his comic runs - the one where he is banished from Olympus and Earth and has to travel through space with Recorder and ends up punching Galactus in the face - was the backup strip to Transformers in the 1980s (so was Rocket Raccoon for a while, when he was travelling in space with Wal-Russ). So a bit of a shame it doesn't look like we're getting the same character in the MCU.

7 hours ago, sifth said:

The more I think about it, the GotG really did feel like they were acting out of character in this film. I get the feeling Waititi didn't know how to write them or just didn't want them in his film.

Given how briefly they were in the film, I don't see why they couldn't have gotten James Gunn to come in to either direct their scenes or, if he wasn't available for that, at least give their bits of the script a pass, like he did on Infinity War and Endgame.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

Fun to watch, but nothing special.

One question though - the scene where Axl first appears and Thor calls him Astrid several times. Does this mean he’s trans?

That confused me as well. Astrid is a female name but the character is consistently referred to as Heimdall's son.

[Maltaran]

1 minute ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

That confused me as well. Astrid is a female name but the character is consistently referred to as Heimdall's son.

That’s why I thought he’s trans - Astrid being his deadname.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Nothing indicates he's trans, Thor is just upset he decided to change the name his father gave to the one of Axl Rose.

[The Grey Wolf Strikes Back]

58 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Nothing indicates he's trans, Thor is just upset he decided to change the name his father gave to the one of Axl Rose.

Then why is his original name Astrid, which is exclusively given to girls?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

17 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I do think it does feel more rushed than Ragnarok, although I don't know if it's because of Watiti being distracted or just because Disney are trying to do too much at once now and things are getting constantly chopped, changed and shuffled to fit schedules. It was very very notable that the shadow realm set piece was clearly better planned and executed than the other two, and the fight at the gate to Eternity was in turn better done than the village attack, which was frankly a bit shit (Marvel- Disney's big show properties in general tbh- really do have a problem with lighting, whether it's an inability to shoot scenes in the dark so you can see them at all, or that issue matching green-screened lighting to CGI backgrounds).  

I'm not a big fan of Ragnarok. I liked it when I saw it in the theater but it's gotten progressivley less interesting and less funny with each successive viewing. The last time I saw it I didn't even finish it. I will say though, there's not much one could fault with the pacing or editing of that film. It drags a bit when he first gets to Sakaar, but that's it. And I think there are still one or two really great scenes. 

Quote

I will say that I appreciated that the ending was one of the few times I've seen a 'power of love' finale work. It makes total sense that having been freed of the influence of the sword, Gorr would no longer be focused on his vow and be open to going 'oh yeah that's a much better wish'. Sure you can pick at why he didn't wish himself healthy too, but eh, that's a 'why didn't the Eagles fly Frodo to mount doom' nitpick, the story wouldn't work properly if he did. 

 Yeah Gorr's arc was great. Although, if the sword was destroyed how could he harm Eternity? Maybe I missed something about that scene but it played like he was going to kill Eternity and Thor convinces him to make a wish instead. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I'm not a big fan of Ragnarok. I liked it when I saw it in the theater but it's gotten progressivley less interesting and less funny with each successive viewing. The last time I saw it I didn't even finish it. I will say though, there's not much one could fault with the pacing or editing of that film. It drags a bit when he first gets to Sakaar, but that's it. And I think there are still one or two really great scenes. 

 Yeah Gorr's arc was great. Although, if the sword was destroyed how could he harm Eternity? Maybe I missed something about that scene but it played like he was going to kill Eternity and Thor convinces him to make a wish instead. 

The point of getting to Eternity was to wish all the gods dead, not to kill Eternity. But Thor convinced him to make a wish motivated by love not by hate and vengeance.

I very much liked the fact that the victory in the movie came from appealing to the villain to be the better person rather than just chop their head off.

The way I heard it, it's a one wish deal, and I imagine Eternity would not be duped into allowing a combo wish like "I wish my daughter is alive AND that I am healed of the necro-sword's corruption." So it was either he live without his daughter, or his daughter live without him. Clearly a parent so devoted to his child as Gorr would wish for the latter.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

I just saw a review that speculated the reason for the tonal shifts in the film are down to Korg as narrator. The scenes where he's present are told from his POV. The scenes where he isn't are from our POV. Interesting theory. This film might be more clever than I thought.