So, apparently, Thor is good...?
- Thread starter Frank
- Start date
- Status
J
Jiarn
Didn't your mother ever teach you anything? Such as if you don't have something nice to say etc?
Seriously, is your only goal on these boards to enter a topic which is decidedly one opinion, then in your oh so ImnotahipsterbutIsureashellactlikeone ways decide to drop your opinion as one would leave excrement in a commode? If so, why even bother? Get some kind of sick pleasure from it? Lord knows you're not a troll, at least you don't think you're one, so what is it?
J
Jiarn
He keeps trolling, but I get the infraction for calling him out on it. Gotcha.
While I can't say if I agree with the review or not, since I haven't seen the movie, THIS:
is a lot more than just saying "I don't like the genre". It's critiquing the emotional quality of the film and the interaction with the viewers as well as the way the writer percieves the film being constructed (in the vein of comic books and big summer events/tying them all together to keep you buying them, which is a FASCINATING catch on his part).
So I would say you can disagree with it but it's actually not half bad as far as reviews go. In fact it's got some really interesting insights.
New criticism seems to be, be snarky and ignore the movie.
There appears to be some confusion here.
First, part of AO Scott's criticism towards Thor is that it's formulaic. Now, formulaic means that it's following a formula. A formula is developed when people look at trends in movies and find that if films contain certain elements, people find them entertaining. Which means that if a person goes to Thor expecting an entertaining film, they are not going to be disappointed.
When Scott criticizes a film being formulaic, he's not talking about the entertainment value of the film anymore, but more passing judgement on the people behind the film because it's lazy. Which it is. The elements for making a good example of a genre film are right there, it's just about assembling them correctly.
Now then, there are several camps among movie watchers and we're only going to concern ourselves with two: those who define "good" as being entertaining and those who define "good" as something that challenges them mentally while also having some entertainment value. For the first camp, Thor will be a fantastic film because it's so entertaining. For the second camp, Thor will be a bad film because it was thrown together following a schematic designed for the much larger first camp. In other words, since Thor was only made to be entertaining, it will be missing that mental challenge that the second camp can enjoy.
Now, one can construe the second camp as being anti-mainstream. This isn't their fault. Mainstream films are, on a whole, not going to target them. They're a smaller group and aren't going to be able to shell out the kind of money the first camp can (and does). Being a hipster has nothing to do with it. They have to go to more obscure films to get what it is they're after. And since it's obscure films that are giving them what they want, they're going to like them better. I doubt TLB's enjoyment of something like The Hurt Locker had anything to do with how many people saw it.
So what we're dealing with is conflicting notions of the words "good" and "bad". For the first camp, when reading a review, they really should be looking for words like "formulaic" rather than "bad", since that means that the movie is providing exactly what it is they're looking for.
And this ended up being a lot longer than I meant it to be >.>
tl;dr No, fuck you. Read the whole thing or don't read it at all.
First, part of AO Scott's criticism towards Thor is that it's formulaic. Now, formulaic means that it's following a formula. A formula is developed when people look at trends in movies and find that if films contain certain elements, people find them entertaining. Which means that if a person goes to Thor expecting an entertaining film, they are not going to be disappointed.
When Scott criticizes a film being formulaic, he's not talking about the entertainment value of the film anymore, but more passing judgement on the people behind the film because it's lazy. Which it is. The elements for making a good example of a genre film are right there, it's just about assembling them correctly.
Now then, there are several camps among movie watchers and we're only going to concern ourselves with two: those who define "good" as being entertaining and those who define "good" as something that challenges them mentally while also having some entertainment value. For the first camp, Thor will be a fantastic film because it's so entertaining. For the second camp, Thor will be a bad film because it was thrown together following a schematic designed for the much larger first camp. In other words, since Thor was only made to be entertaining, it will be missing that mental challenge that the second camp can enjoy.
Side note: I'm unhappy with using the phrase "mental challenge", as I don't think it properly covers what I mean. I'm talking about films that challenge how you view the subject matter. For instance, Defamation covers multiple views of of modern antisemitism, and is made to challenge what the viewer thinks about it.
Even then, this completely ignores that part of the entertainment could be how the film itself was constructed. For the second camp of people, Scott Pilgrim was a good movie for challenging preconceptions of how movies can be made and presented.
Also, although I say two camps, this implies that they're much more discrete than they actually are. The truth is, it's more of a spectrum and most people are going to fall in-between, being able to enjoy a mindless film for the sake of entertainment value alone while also being able to enjoy something that has something worthwhile to say about themes. Which one you're closer to is going to affect how you enjoy a film.
Anyway, this was a tangent, so back to your regularly scheduled post.
Even then, this completely ignores that part of the entertainment could be how the film itself was constructed. For the second camp of people, Scott Pilgrim was a good movie for challenging preconceptions of how movies can be made and presented.
Also, although I say two camps, this implies that they're much more discrete than they actually are. The truth is, it's more of a spectrum and most people are going to fall in-between, being able to enjoy a mindless film for the sake of entertainment value alone while also being able to enjoy something that has something worthwhile to say about themes. Which one you're closer to is going to affect how you enjoy a film.
Anyway, this was a tangent, so back to your regularly scheduled post.
Now, one can construe the second camp as being anti-mainstream. This isn't their fault. Mainstream films are, on a whole, not going to target them. They're a smaller group and aren't going to be able to shell out the kind of money the first camp can (and does). Being a hipster has nothing to do with it. They have to go to more obscure films to get what it is they're after. And since it's obscure films that are giving them what they want, they're going to like them better. I doubt TLB's enjoyment of something like The Hurt Locker had anything to do with how many people saw it.
So what we're dealing with is conflicting notions of the words "good" and "bad". For the first camp, when reading a review, they really should be looking for words like "formulaic" rather than "bad", since that means that the movie is providing exactly what it is they're looking for.
And this ended up being a lot longer than I meant it to be >.>
tl;dr No, fuck you. Read the whole thing or don't read it at all.
You know Allen, that was a great post on its own. But this part...
... makes it fantastic.
No question.
From the review "This is franchise building of the kind that has long been practiced by comic book publishers to keep their long-running serials fresh and their readership hooked."
That's what they are trying to do. Marvel wants the movies to be living comics. And cliff hangers are what kept me buying comics when I was younger. The reviewer has some legitimate complaints but I've enjoyed the Marvel movies as well, if not more, that most other movies based on comic book characters. I know The Incredible Hulk was not well received but I absolutely loved the fight scenes and when the Hulk tore the police car in two and used the halves as boxing gloves I thought that was worth the price of my ticket right there.
I'm going to see the movie tomorrow with a few friends and am looking forward to it. I'm not expecting Oscar material but I fully expect to be entertained for two plus hours.
That's what they are trying to do. Marvel wants the movies to be living comics. And cliff hangers are what kept me buying comics when I was younger. The reviewer has some legitimate complaints but I've enjoyed the Marvel movies as well, if not more, that most other movies based on comic book characters. I know The Incredible Hulk was not well received but I absolutely loved the fight scenes and when the Hulk tore the police car in two and used the halves as boxing gloves I thought that was worth the price of my ticket right there.
I'm going to see the movie tomorrow with a few friends and am looking forward to it. I'm not expecting Oscar material but I fully expect to be entertained for two plus hours.
I just got back from it.
I feel kinda bad for saying this, but I felt it was merely "okay." In fact, it's closer to my "bad" end of the comic book movie spectrum (Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Wolverine, the Fantastic Four films etc) than the "good" end (the first two Spider-Man films, the first two X-Men films, Dark Knight etc).
Now, Thor's definitely not a bad movie. I had fun watching it, and there were definitely some awesome and funny moments. But I couldn't help coming out of the theater thinking about what could have been.
I feel kinda bad for saying this, but I felt it was merely "okay." In fact, it's closer to my "bad" end of the comic book movie spectrum (Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Wolverine, the Fantastic Four films etc) than the "good" end (the first two Spider-Man films, the first two X-Men films, Dark Knight etc).
First of all, Loki's character was completely chaotic and bizarre, and it's impossible to work out what his motivations are. Okay, so he's jealous of Thor, so how does letting Frost Giants into Asgard without the Frost Giant king's knowledge, betraying the Frost Giant king, and then trying to wipe out the Frost Giants help? Seems like a pretty Rube Goldberg-esque plan. And if he can travel to Earth whenever he wants, why not just kill Thor himself? Why send the Guardian? And then the post-credits scene, how did Loki end up taking control of Dr. Selvig?
Secondly, there were quite a few plot threads that are mentioned and then go nowhere. Dr. Selvig's had experience with SHIELD, and even mentions a colleague he can contact for more information. And then nothing happens. Loki mentions the Bifrost is not the only way into Asgard, and yet the whole final conflict of the movie revolves around the Bifrost being definitely the only way in and out of Asgard. Loki is a Frost Giant, but that plot thread doesn't go anywhere, and the movie would still have worked just as well if Loki was pure Asgardian.
Finally, the final fight between Thor and Loki turns out to be a close-quarters brawl. These are two super-powered beings with godly abilities, and all they can throw at each other are punches? Why isn't Thor summoning thunder and lightning against Loki?
Secondly, there were quite a few plot threads that are mentioned and then go nowhere. Dr. Selvig's had experience with SHIELD, and even mentions a colleague he can contact for more information. And then nothing happens. Loki mentions the Bifrost is not the only way into Asgard, and yet the whole final conflict of the movie revolves around the Bifrost being definitely the only way in and out of Asgard. Loki is a Frost Giant, but that plot thread doesn't go anywhere, and the movie would still have worked just as well if Loki was pure Asgardian.
Finally, the final fight between Thor and Loki turns out to be a close-quarters brawl. These are two super-powered beings with godly abilities, and all they can throw at each other are punches? Why isn't Thor summoning thunder and lightning against Loki?
Now, Thor's definitely not a bad movie. I had fun watching it, and there were definitely some awesome and funny moments. But I couldn't help coming out of the theater thinking about what could have been.
The Following Post Will be Quoting What Bhamv3 spoilered out. If you don't want spoilers, skip this post.
The Selvig thing is a sequel hook for The Avengers. It will be explained further there, presumably.
My thoughts - I liked it. A lot. I think someone at Warner Bros. need to look at this movie as a rough guide to how to handle their magic-in-the-modern-world properties like Wonder Woman.
Ranking the Marvel Studios films thus far:
Loki's plan was thus:
- Sneak Frost Giants into Asgard, knowing they will easily be beaten by The Destroyer.
- Steer Thor towards disobeying their father, who will forbid retaliation.
- Get stopped before ever getting to Jotunheim. (Failed, but the fracas at Jotunheim certainly accomplished the same goal)
- Cause Thor to fall out of their father's good graces and take his place as heir (worked better than expected).
- While ruling during the Odinsleep, bring in more Frost Giants under the pretense of killing Odin. In reality, this is a triple cross that will make him the hero of Asgard for saving his father's life (possibly an example of Xanatos Speed Chess at this point, ruined by Thor).
- Destroy Jotunheim with Bifrost and really cement his position as hero for destroying their long time foes.
- With Loki beloved by the Asgardian people, Odin will have no choice but to leave Loki as his permanent heir.
The Selvig thing is a sequel hook for The Avengers. It will be explained further there, presumably.
Selvig's experience with SHIELD was just a reference to Bruce Banner, and his friend who could help was only important when they thought they were dealing with a crazy homeless dude as opposed to the God of Thunder. Fair enough point, though. As far as Loki knowing alternate ways into Asgard, it was a plot point that no one else knew about them. When he got sucked into the black hole, the information went with him. And I wouldn't say that the Loki is a puny Jotun plot element went nowhere. He started out the movie feeling like his father's unfavorite and finding out he was the Jotun only made his desire to prove himself burn even hotter. Since the whole "Discredit Thor and become heir" plan was based on that envy, one could argue that the more extreme lengths Loki takes the plan to as the film goes on (having his birth father come personally as Odin's attempted assassin, deciding to use Bifrost as the Death Star) arise from his jealousy slipping into slight madness.
Yeah, apparently directing Shakespeare adaptations didn't quite prepare Kenneth Branagh for directing a super hero movie. The fights scenes were pretty much a let down all around, though I thought the acting was wonderful. Though I am wondering if they tried leaving some of the story details to the performances a bit too much, based on your reaction.
My thoughts - I liked it. A lot. I think someone at Warner Bros. need to look at this movie as a rough guide to how to handle their magic-in-the-modern-world properties like Wonder Woman.
Ranking the Marvel Studios films thus far:
- Iron Man
- Thor
- Incredible Hulk
- Iron Man 2
A forum where everyone agrees and posts the same opinion over and over is pretty boring, isn't it?
For not giving a shit, you guys certainly seem to respond a lot.
So you choose to generate feedback? Sounds pretty stupid of you guys.
Allen who isn't Quiet
They're not responding because of what he says; they are responding because of how he says the things he says.
Is that clearer?
I just saw it. I thought it was very good but not great. I was certainly entertained though, and I felt as though I got my money's worth. However, if you are thinking of seeing it in 3D I would say save your money. It doesn't seem to add much.*
*Just like every other movie that just has "In 3D!" slapped on it after filming ends.
*Just like every other movie that just has "In 3D!" slapped on it after filming ends.
Honestly, the only movie in 3D that I really thought the 3D added to it instead of detracted was My Bloody Valentine 3D.
You don't think it worked for Avatar?
Whoops. I guess this validates me saying at the time that the movie was completely forgettable.
J
Jiarn
Except when they do it to continue a facade that never worked for them in the first place.
- Status