2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Film & TV => Topic started by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 02:41:23 PM

Title: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 02:41:23 PM
New trailer out!

https://youtu.be/v7MGUNV8MxU (https://youtu.be/v7MGUNV8MxU)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 03:09:21 PM
New poster

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9DnwY8UAAAqYf3.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Professor Bear on 10 April, 2017, 03:51:51 PM
More like Thor: WANKnarok.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: dweezil2 on 10 April, 2017, 04:08:02 PM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 10 April, 2017, 03:51:51 PM
More like Thor: WANKnarok.

Shouldn't that be WANKnaCOCK?  ;)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: radiator on 10 April, 2017, 04:25:46 PM
Trailer is awesome.

Poster is beyond awful. What the hell were they thinking?
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 04:29:51 PM
They should go with this as official poster...

(http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/sites/default/files/thor-ragnarok-poster.jpg)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: dweezil2 on 10 April, 2017, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: radiator on 10 April, 2017, 04:25:46 PM
Trailer is awesome.

Poster is beyond awful. What the hell were they thinking?

Guardians Of The Galaxy I imagine.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 04:52:04 PM
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WEpIapohtXI/WOuNdD0J-uI/AAAAAAAAdsY/kvy3l9TAptssYEvNfz-H_88q8RbmAo_YwCLcB/s1600/giphy-8.gif)

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rhXyiuAAfUQ/WOuNeUjJlLI/AAAAAAAAdsc/wsSDUlbLIzosWPGUX8pArmnxTReqkI9mgCLcB/s1600/giphy-9.gif)

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y9w1D38oo_w/WOuNMEvFiiI/AAAAAAAAdrw/xOTqaO3IuzE3QSFULHmybDqBiNO4kywBQCLcB/s1600/giphy-11.gif)

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMpq-nJEZhE/WOuNREFBpuI/AAAAAAAAdr8/fXI5Xd_LQmcwrH8ReDbS3hZ8VeByVYXqwCLcB/s1600/giphy-12.gif)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: radiator on 10 April, 2017, 05:00:01 PM
Quote from: dweezil2 on 10 April, 2017, 04:33:41 PM
Quote from: radiator on 10 April, 2017, 04:25:46 PM
Trailer is awesome.

Poster is beyond awful. What the hell were they thinking?

Guardians Of The Galaxy I imagine.

I meant in terms of the pose, position of his hand and, er, helmet.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 05:00:41 PM
And this guy...

(http://media.comicbook.com/2017/04/thorragnarok11-989372.jpg)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Greg M. on 10 April, 2017, 05:05:04 PM
Quote from: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 05:00:41 PM
And this guy...

"He stood alone at Gjallerbru." Best moment of the trailer: a piece of pure Walt Simonson-inspired glory.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 10 April, 2017, 05:13:36 PM
Quote from: Greg M. on 10 April, 2017, 05:05:04 PM
"He stood alone at Gjallerbru." Best moment of the trailer: a piece of pure Walt Simonson-inspired glory.

And that, right there...

(http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb36/jimcampbell2000/Ragnarok_Title_zpsbq4qbrkj.jpg)

...is yer actual Kirby Krackle. Fantastic.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Professor Bear on 10 April, 2017, 05:39:52 PM
I love the Ragnarok logo if nothing else, as it makes this look like the must-have ZX Spectrum game of 2017.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Art on 10 April, 2017, 06:22:00 PM
MARVEL ULTIMATE: PLAY THE GAME
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Dandontdare on 10 April, 2017, 07:46:14 PM
Why does he have elf ears shaved into his head in that first poster?
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: dweezil2 on 10 April, 2017, 07:48:42 PM
Quote from: Dandontdare on 10 April, 2017, 07:46:14 PM
Why does he have elf ears shaved into his head in that first poster?

In homage to Cate Blanchett's role in LOTR!  ;)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 08:37:08 PM
 :lol:

(https://scontent.flhr3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17903366_1429605410416675_8223897054952358850_n.jpg?oh=fa96e3ada9b24d07178420b12510d03b&oe=5951BC6F)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 10 April, 2017, 08:41:52 PM
I love EVERYTHING about this trailer, not least the Flash Gordon overtones. I was expecting something bleak and portentous (The Darker World , basically), instead it seems to embrace the source material  with the same gusto as the first Thor outing, and it looks, tight, funny and gloriously operatic at the same time.

As the young folk say, "Fudge yeah!".
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Colin YNWA on 10 April, 2017, 09:07:10 PM
Yeah have to say while I'm not a fan of so much that goes on in superhero movies there is no denying that seems a whole load of fun. Everyone seems to be having a riot.

Mind craming Ragnarok AND Planet Hulk into the same movie. Is there not a danger of over egging your puddin'?
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 09:40:59 PM


(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Z6l81Ec4--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/nadzictxnqpen3xskllo.gif)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: dweezil2 on 10 April, 2017, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: Goaty on 10 April, 2017, 09:40:59 PM


(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Z6l81Ec4--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/nadzictxnqpen3xskllo.gif)


Urban can't escape those shoulder pads!!!

It must be in his contract!!  :lol:
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Prodigal2 on 11 April, 2017, 12:57:16 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 10 April, 2017, 08:41:52 PM
I love EVERYTHING about this trailer, not least the Flash Gordon overtones. I was expecting something bleak and portentous (The Darker World , basically), instead it seems to embrace the source material  with the same gusto as the first Thor outing, and it looks, tight, funny and gloriously operatic at the same time.

As the young folk say, "Fudge yeah!".

This.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 11 April, 2017, 02:05:12 PM
https://twitter.com/TaikaWaititi/status/851437855557603330 (https://twitter.com/TaikaWaititi/status/851437855557603330)

:lol:
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 23 July, 2017, 07:20:44 AM
Ha! This looks awesome! Hulk's CGI looks much better!

2nd trailer.

https://youtu.be/ue80QwXMRHg (https://youtu.be/ue80QwXMRHg)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Greg M. on 23 July, 2017, 11:20:17 AM
My gut feeling is that provided the film doesn't split at the seams from having too much squeezed into it, this may prove one of the very best Marvel movies. Plus.. [spoiler]Surtur[/spoiler]!
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: DaveGYNWA on 23 July, 2017, 05:33:11 PM
Quote from: Greg M. on 23 July, 2017, 11:20:17 AM
Plus.. [spoiler]Surtur[/spoiler]!

Nearly wet myself with excitement at that closing shot. Love the conversation between Thor and Banner ANDr and Hulk - makes me grin to know that Hulk gets chatty :D
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 23 July, 2017, 07:38:46 PM
Wow...

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8897335/ragnarok.jpg)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 23 July, 2017, 08:23:16 PM
Even the bloody poster is exciting! Pleeeeeeeaase be even half as good a film as these promos already are.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 23 July, 2017, 09:59:04 PM
Quote from: Greg M. on 23 July, 2017, 11:20:17 AM
Plus.. [spoiler]Surtur[/spoiler]!

He will be voiced by Clancy Brown.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Zarjazzer on 23 July, 2017, 10:02:50 PM
Hey! This is the internet! Where are the amusing pussycats?  :-*

Enjoyed the trailer though anything with Cate Blanchett in it is somehow lovelier. Cool to see Karl Urban as well, looking, well, mean...
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Greg M. on 23 July, 2017, 10:41:35 PM
Quote from: Goaty on 23 July, 2017, 09:59:04 PM
He will be voiced by Clancy Brown.

"I have something to say: it's better to burn out than to fade away!" Very appropriate.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Frank on 24 July, 2017, 04:15:55 PM

The eighties vibe of the score and typography is augmented by casting Cate Blanchett as Hexadecimal from Re:boot. That's another fiver Hollywood owes Brendan McCarthy.

(https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/toonami/images/d/de/Reboot-Hexadecimal.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130418153119)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 24 July, 2017, 04:20:06 PM
Bit of gamble... but can't wait to see it!

"Thor: Ragnarok" director Taika Waititi has surprisingly revealed that a whole bunch of his upcoming venture into the Marvel Cinematic Universe was made up as they went.

The New Zealand filmmakers sensibilities can be seen all over the two trailers released so far for "Thor: Ragnarok," and that free-flowing mood has led to plenty of praise already about how this looks like it could be not just the best of the "Thor" films to date but one of the best MCU titles.

Over the weekend, Waititi spoke with MTV and was asked how much of the film was improvised and filmed in a way that resembled his earlier indie New Zealand films. He says:

"I would say we improvised 80% of the film, or ad-libbed or threw in... My style of working is I'll often be behind the camera, or right next to the camera yelling words at people, like, 'Say this, say this! Say it like this, Say it this way!'. I'll straight-up give Anthony Hopkins a line reading. I don't care.

In a film like this, you want it to be fun. I'm trying to bring my tone and sensibility from my other films. I'm trying to foster a familial, very loose and collaborative mood on set."

As a result, some of the actors took a little while to get into the groove of his filmmaking style including Hulk actor Mark Ruffalo. Waititi shared a brief story about that:

"Mark Ruffalo would be finished shooting for the day, and he'd come up to me and he'd be like, 'Why have we not been fired yet? We are doing the most insane stuff in this film, so where's the phone call?"

Others it was easier, such as Chris Hemsworth with Waititi saying this take on Thor is closer to Hemsworth's real life personality. In related news, Karl Urban spoke to IGN and explained how his character Skurge becomes caught up on the story:

"When we find Skurge, he's operating the Bifrost because Heimdall is missing in action, and then pretty soon after that Hela shows up. Skurge sees the writing on the wall and has to make a decision whether to die or join her, so his instincts of self-preservation take over."
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: radiator on 24 July, 2017, 05:36:43 PM
Nice to hear a Magic Sword track in the new trailer - you may recognise it from the Hotline Miami 2 soundtrack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G02wKufX3nw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G02wKufX3nw)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 24 July, 2017, 06:49:23 PM
Seeing as Taika Waititi has never made anything that I didn't absolutely adore, I have ridiculous expectations of this, ad-libbing included. Hold your Infinity Wars and Justice Leagues, this is the big one.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 26 July, 2017, 10:28:54 PM
It's just occured to me that Cate as Hela is channelling Maureen Lipman.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Tiplodocus on 26 July, 2017, 10:33:48 PM
A sexy Maureen Lipman.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Rara Avis on 27 July, 2017, 05:45:06 PM
I'm just seeing these now for the first time. Holy moly but this looks good but once again I'm concerned that all the best bits are in the trailers.

However am loving the Hulk and that old skool style Thor helmet .. very cool.

Cate B looks amazing and 2000AD fan favourite Karl Urban looks like he's really bulked him for this.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Steve Green on 27 July, 2017, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 26 July, 2017, 10:33:48 PM
A sexy Maureen Lipman.

You got an 'ology'!
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 18 September, 2017, 08:59:34 PM
Haha! This is brilliant, someone did fan trailer of the trailer in 1987 style!

https://youtu.be/qqNn14l7hhA (https://youtu.be/qqNn14l7hhA)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Enigmatic Dr X on 28 October, 2017, 05:01:10 PM
Just back from seeing this. It was a great romp. More than that, it was like a comic from my (our) era. It reeked of Kirby and the 70s/ early 80s, when comics were allowed to be about heroes and didn't need depth or subtext. As such, this is a near perfect kids movie - and as good as you will get in this day and age.

Context: My 8 year old laughed hard at the "[spoiler]anus[/spoiler]" joke, and I laughed with him.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 28 October, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
I ENJOYED THAT A LOT.

That is all.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Rara Avis on 28 October, 2017, 09:55:09 PM
The best of the lot. that was very camp, very funny and holy shit Hulk is looking fine .. I feel weird now ..
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Radbacker on 29 October, 2017, 12:58:26 PM
And a fun time was had by all, this was great, cinema erupted in laughter at the right moments probably funnier that Guardians of the Galaxy.  Absolute blast, Blanchet having fun chewing scnery as the bad guy, Hulk making friends, Loki getting a good arc, Valkarie was a bad arse and Thor being a riot.
Not to mention Rock monster man nearly stealing the show, knowing a couple of Kiwi's i swear I've met him before  :lol:
Will watch again when comes out for home butat the moment probably my favorite Marvel jam yet.

CU Radbacker
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 29 October, 2017, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Radbacker on 29 October, 2017, 12:58:26 PM
Not to mention Rock monster man nearly stealing the show, knowing a couple of Kiwi's i swear I've met him before  :lol:

That was Taika Waititi, director of this film
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Prodigal2 on 30 October, 2017, 10:37:30 AM
Speaking as a former pre-eminent member of the Thor message board (true story) I loved it.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 30 October, 2017, 06:01:38 PM
What a film!  Magnificently paced, audaciously camp, consistently hilarious, and yet somehow thrilling and engaging too. Flash Gordon, the Hulk, Simonson, Pak and Kirby,  all in one film - just an endless treat, plus a structure and ending I did not expect. The way the plot builds seamlessly from The Dark World and Avengers 2 was particularly pleasing, lifting those lesser-loved films by association. The MCU films have become a true shared universe, and never more naturally than here.

Minor niggles: did I miss Sif? I know Valkyrie usurped her spot here but she remains the most underused character in these films - in fact generally the Warriors got a bum deal. And the Dr Strange cameo, while fun, went on a bit too long without really adding much. That's it: I loved everything else.

Some unexpected highlights: Hopkins really getting to strut his stuff; Tessa Thompson is just charisma personified; Blanchett chewing scenery to beat the band; Waititi's Korg and Rachel House's Topaz  are comedy gold; and two Hemsworths for the price of one!

I'm really pleased for Taika Waititi, for one of my favourite filmmakers to pull off something as huge, extravagant and satisfying as this is just terrific. I may have to see this again, and soon.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 30 October, 2017, 10:31:43 PM
What a fantastic film - loved everything about it except the absence of Lady Sif. Can't wait for the dvd!

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Mardroid on 31 October, 2017, 01:55:53 AM
I saw this earlier today (well, technically yesterday now that I'm writing this) and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very silly, but in a very good and enjoyable way. Only thing I wasn't keen on: [spoiler]how quickly they killed off Thor's warrior friends. I understand they wanted to show what a hard-ass Hela is, and phwoar,
did Cate Blanchett do the role justice, and our Carl Urban's shallow scourge had a great redemptive moment, but I think they should at least have lasted longer, or been part of Heimdahl's resistance.  [/spoiler]

A great romp, all round.

One question: [spoiler]I haven't read many Thor comics, so forgive me, but is this the first time that the idea that Mjolnir is not actually the source, of his weather control powers, has been suggested? I. E. Odin states that the hammer was merely to provide focus for power Thor already has. I know that Thor is pretty strong even by Asgardian standards, but this is the first time I came across this.

It doesn't really matter, if the answer is 'yes' as the films are their own thing, but I'm curious.[/spoiler]
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Prodigal2 on 31 October, 2017, 12:27:14 PM
Quote from: Mardroid on 31 October, 2017, 01:55:53 AM
I saw this earlier today (well, technically yesterday now that I'm writing this) and I enjoyed it a lot. It was very silly, but in a very good and enjoyable way. Only thing I wasn't keen on: [spoiler]how quickly they killed off Thor's warrior friends. I understand they wanted to show what a hard-ass Hela is, and phwoar,
did Cate Blanchett do the role justice, and our Carl Urban's shallow scourge had a great redemptive moment, but I think they should at least have lasted longer, or been part of Heimdahl's resistance.  [/spoiler]

A great romp, all round.

One question: [spoiler]I haven't read many Thor comics, so forgive me, but is this the first time that the idea that Mjolnir is not actually the source, of his weather control powers, has been suggested? I. E. Odin states that the hammer was merely to provide focus for power Thor already has. I know that Thor is pretty strong even by Asgardian standards, but this is the first time I came across this.

It doesn't really matter, if the answer is 'yes' as the films are their own thing, but I'm curious.[/spoiler]





The idea of Mjolnir as a focus point or conduit rather than a source has been a bone of contention for Thor fans down the years and often emerged in Hulk v Thor type discussions.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Mardroid on 31 October, 2017, 03:21:05 PM
I could understand that. [spoiler] When I saw Thor  holding his own in the fight against Hulk without his hammer, even appearing to beat him for a while, I was mentally shaking my head. (If that's possible.) With the hammer, I'd see it as an even match. Without, I wouldn't think Thor would last long. But if the power is in Thor* himself, that would explain things, even before he called down the lightening.[/spoiler]

*or Thornton' , as my autocorrect would have it. I think I'll call him that from now on. 😆
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Prodigal2 on 01 November, 2017, 10:00:49 AM
Quote from: Mardroid on 31 October, 2017, 03:21:05 PM
I could understand that. [spoiler] When I saw Thor  holding his own in the fight against Hulk without his hammer, even appearing to beat him for a while, I was mentally shaking my head. (If that's possible.) With the hammer, I'd see it as an even match. Without, I wouldn't think Thor would last long. But if the power is in Thor* himself, that would explain things, even before he called down the lightening.[/spoiler]

*or Thornton' , as my autocorrect would have it. I think I'll call him that from now on. 😆

That works for me too. Thornton it is.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 01 November, 2017, 10:09:26 AM
They Mighty Thornton - Good off Thunder.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 01 November, 2017, 10:35:26 AM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 01 November, 2017, 10:09:26 AM
They Mighty Thornton - Good off Thunder.

And toffee.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Prodigal2 on 02 November, 2017, 10:26:55 AM
Toffo Odinson.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 02 November, 2017, 12:12:02 PM
And his brother, Locketts.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Dandontdare on 02 November, 2017, 12:18:19 PM
saw this yesterday - I was worried that the camp, improvised humour might be too OTT, but it was balanced perfectly with the action, a great film. I can only echo what others have said - this DID feel like Lee/Kirby Thor (how many times did the Hulk end up in Asgard?  :D), and it does feel like a real consistent universe that all the movies share.

Loved the little asgardian play - as well as the Hemsworth bro playing Thor, did you notice Sam Neill and Matt Damon playing Odin and Loki?
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: abelardsnazz on 02 November, 2017, 12:19:55 PM
It was about half an hour too long for me, and I thought Cate Blanchett's role was pretty much the standard baddie thing, which i was a bit disappointed by having seen her in so many great roles in the past.

I enjoyed the humour, and Jeff Goldblum playing Jeff Goldblum is always fun.

It was better than the last one, anyway. Eccleston didn't do the 50th anniversary to do that?

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Woolly on 05 November, 2017, 08:28:19 PM
Just got back from this, and feel it was great but not that great.

What I didn't like:
[spoiler]The humour mostly came across like naff ad-libs, and I hated Taika's rock-bloke character. Neither funny, or important.
Scourge was pointless and underused, Jeff Goldblum was just Jeff Goldblum, I refuse to accept that SHIELD planes are spaceworthy, or that Hulk could fly one to wherever they were in the galaxy in just a few years.
Oh, and there wasn't nearly enough Dr Strange.[/spoiler]

What I did like:
[spoiler]Everything else! Loki stole the show as usual, Hulk/Banner were wonderful, Cate Blanchett rocks, the plot and pacing were spot-on. [/spoiler]

Overall a 7/10 for me. Thoroughly enjoyable, but a bit messy.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Juan De La Karite on 14 November, 2017, 10:17:27 AM
Saw it yesterday, really enjoyed it. Continues the trend of Marvel taking risks on directors and making fun movies (Spider Man Homecoming and both Guardians of the Galaxy movies).

Plus it has a soundtrack by one of the dudes from Devo!

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 14 November, 2017, 12:18:37 PM
Quote from: Woolly on 05 November, 2017, 08:28:19 PM
What I didn't like:
I refuse to accept that SHIELD planes are spaceworthy, or that Hulk could fly one to wherever they were in the galaxy in just a few years.

I'll confess I'm a bit baffled as to why you would conclude that SHIELD quinjets are spaceworthy and capable of FTL travel, and that the Hulk is capable of piloting one, rather than simply assuming that some time shortly after we last see Hulk at the end of Ultron, the quinjet is hoovered up by a wormhole and deposited on Sakaar... much the same way that everything else gets there.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 14 November, 2017, 12:55:01 PM
It also could be that Tony Stark, Reed Richards, Thor and/or Dr Strange conspired to create an artificial wormhole to rid the Earth of the Hulk menace (as I think happened in the comics, or something similar).
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Smith on 14 November, 2017, 01:57:13 PM
Sometimes fun,but ultimately generic and forgettable.I think its time to admit Im too old for this...
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: SmallBlueThing(Reborn) on 14 November, 2017, 02:04:48 PM
I completely fail to see anything "generic" about Ragnarok. I could understand that levelled against Dr Strange or Ant-Man, because despite loving both they didn't once push the envelope either in content or style. But Ragnarok was about as far from the norm for these things as it's likely they will ever get.

SBT
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Smith on 14 November, 2017, 02:15:16 PM
World conquering villain,CGI hole in the sky,army of faceless mooks,Loki...just like every other Marvel movie.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 14 November, 2017, 08:11:45 PM
Quote from: Smith on 14 November, 2017, 02:15:16 PM
World conquering villain,CGI hole in the sky,army of faceless mooks,Loki...just like every other Marvel movie.

Thor? Antman? Spider-Man: Homecoming? Captain America: Winter Soldier and Civil War?  None of those films have any of those elements (apart from Loki, but a first appearance is exempt). I think maybe you just like a good moan, Smith, but if Ragnarok failed to entertain you may be right to stay away in future. 
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Smith on 14 November, 2017, 08:20:49 PM
Excuse me,I didnt realize you have a monopoly on opinions about movies.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 14 November, 2017, 08:27:50 PM
Not sure what in my post led you to that conclusion. I'll try again, you moany bugger: none of the things you listed as being in every Marvel movie are in at least the four I mentioned (and arguably aren't really centre-stage in this one).  There've been umpteen of these things now: if you found them dull, stay at home and save your money.   
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 14 November, 2017, 08:32:55 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 14 November, 2017, 08:27:50 PM
Not sure what in my post led you to that conclusion. I'll try again, you moany bugger: none of the things you listed as being in every Marvel movie are in at least the four I mentioned (and arguably aren't really centre-stage in this one).  There've been umpteen of these things now: if you found them dull, stay at home and save your money.   

Agree those are great films, Smith just a troll as with his posts on other threads.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Smith on 15 November, 2017, 05:13:53 PM
Quote from: Goaty on 14 November, 2017, 08:32:55 PM
Agree those are great films, Smith just a troll as with his posts on other threads.
And your clearly an idiot who cant form his own opinion,as evidenced by your other posts.

Quote from: TordelBack on 14 November, 2017, 08:27:50 PM
Not sure what in my post led you to that conclusion. I'll try again, you moany bugger: none of the things you listed as being in every Marvel movie are in at least the four I mentioned (and arguably aren't really centre-stage in this one).  There've been umpteen of these things now: if you found them dull, stay at home and save your money.   
I'll try again,you stupid wanker,if I didn't like it,that doesn't stop you  liking it.Peace out.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 15 November, 2017, 05:37:42 PM
Quote from: Smith on 15 November, 2017, 05:13:53 PM
I'll try again,you stupid wanker,if I didn't like it,that doesn't stop you  liking it.Peace out.

Whoa, there. You self-evidently are a moany bugger. That's your entire schtick here — "I saw this, it was 'meh'... I read that, it was 'meh'... I'm soooooo jaded... feel my ennui..."

Calling someone a stupid wanker for accurately describing the persona you actively choose to project is a bit much.

There's plenty of things I'll take exception to being called on here, but if someone calls me, say, a grumpy bastard, I have to take that on the chin because despite my best efforts, it's still true. If you don't want to be described as a moany bugger, maybe try being less of a moany bugger...?
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Molch-R on 15 November, 2017, 05:47:16 PM
I don't like having to come on here to intercede but I would like to reiterate that aggressive behaviour will not be tolerated and will lead to temporary bans. Disagreements are fine but this thread is over the line - please desist.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Smith on 15 November, 2017, 05:56:17 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 November, 2017, 05:37:42 PM
Quote from: Smith on 15 November, 2017, 05:13:53 PM
I'll try again,you stupid wanker,if I didn't like it,that doesn't stop you  liking it.Peace out.

Whoa, there. You self-evidently are a moany bugger. That's your entire schtick here — "I saw this, it was 'meh'... I read that, it was 'meh'... I'm soooooo jaded... feel my ennui..."

Calling someone a stupid wanker for accurately describing the persona you actively choose to project is a bit much.

There's plenty of things I'll take exception to being called on here, but if someone calls me, say, a grumpy bastard, I have to take that on the chin because despite my best efforts, it's still true. If you don't want to be described as a moany bugger, maybe try being less of a moany bugger...?
Excuse me,have we actually meet?Do you know anything about me?What exactly gives you the right to judge anyone?
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 15 November, 2017, 06:07:34 PM
Quote from: Molch-R on 15 November, 2017, 05:47:16 PM
I don't like having to come on here to intercede but I would like to reiterate that aggressive behaviour will not be tolerated and will lead to temporary bans. Disagreements are fine but this thread is over the line - please desist.

Yeah you're right, sorry about that. Just annoyed with his posts. Should learn "Don't feed the troll".
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Smith on 15 November, 2017, 06:11:16 PM
That would leave you to starve.Which would actually be a boon to human race.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 15 November, 2017, 06:34:21 PM
I enjoyed this film very much. I'll be buying the DVD so I can enjoy it some more.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 15 November, 2017, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: Smith on 15 November, 2017, 05:56:17 PM
Excuse me,have we actually meet?Do you know anything about me?What exactly gives you the right to judge anyone?

Ahem. I very specifically and carefully said nothing about you as a person. I very specifically and carefully said I was talking about the persona you choose to project on this forum. I have no way of knowing how that persona relates to you as a person, so you might want to either 1) dial the outrage down a bit,or 2) think about how you choose to come across on here, as I have in recent months.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 15 November, 2017, 07:02:04 PM
I think Jim's right.

He's put me straight a time or two as well.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Molch-R on 16 November, 2017, 09:56:33 AM
This thread has now been unlocked. Please contain the discussion to the topic at hand in a respectful manner, thank you.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 16 November, 2017, 10:14:21 AM
I apologise for my last comment.

I have enjoyed all the Thor films so far, and just about all the MU films as well. I think I'm so lucky to live in an age where SFX can bring these characters and stories to the screen without looking naff. It is an Age of Artificial Wonders.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Bolt-01 on 16 November, 2017, 10:26:01 AM
I've said a few times to my kids that if someone had told me at age 7-9 (when I really began reading comics) that I'd be able to see a fully realised Hulk, Iron Man, Cap and any of the others I'd have scoffed.

I always try to watch these films with that sense of wonder in mind as the grown-up I've become is far too cynical.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: IndigoPrime on 16 November, 2017, 10:41:26 AM
For me, most of the issues stem from weak writing and editing – which is a problem in many US comics as well. Dredd had a kind of compact terseness to it that mirrored the comic. Many Marvel movies want to be epics, within a broader universe of super-epics. Often, you get to the end of a 2.5-hour trudge and think they could have cut an hour out of it.

The films are never less than watchable at least, but I think the original Guardians was the last one I watched that I really thoroughly enjoyed. (Guardians 2, by comparison, was... fine.) I have high hopes for the new Thor, on the basis that it looks like it is a bit different and seems like it's broadly self-contained. (Alas, it'll be, what, six months before I can watch it on rental?)
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Mattofthespurs on 16 November, 2017, 11:20:03 AM
Quote from: Bolt-01 on 16 November, 2017, 10:26:01 AM
I've said a few times to my kids that if someone had told me at age 7-9 (when I really began reading comics) that I'd be able to see a fully realised Hulk, Iron Man, Cap and any of the others I'd have scoffed.

I always try to watch these films with that sense of wonder in mind as the grown-up I've become is far too cynical.

Exactly. I watch films with much different expectations. When I go and see a MU or DCU movie my expectations are considerably lower, but that still does not stop me having fun seeing Thor, Spider-Man, Batman etc...On the big screen.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: matty_ae on 16 November, 2017, 12:20:31 PM
Just seen Thor for a third time each time bringing a different friends or family
They all loved it and only on the last watch did I catch all the jokes.

Great ride. Exactly what I want in a Superhero film.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Steven Denton on 16 November, 2017, 02:24:29 PM
I really enjoyed it.

The Plant Hulk section is a really decent and visually original slice of Sci-Fi. I particularly enjoyed the cockney spiv Skurge. Karl Urban channelling Danny Dyer.   
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: DaveGYNWA on 16 November, 2017, 02:32:59 PM
Quote from: Bolt-01 on 16 November, 2017, 10:26:01 AM
I've said a few times to my kids that if someone had told me at age 7-9 (when I really began reading comics) that I'd be able to see a fully realised Hulk, Iron Man, Cap and any of the others I'd have scoffed.

I always try to watch these films with that sense of wonder in mind as the grown-up I've become is far too cynical.

I'll always remember the feeling I had when I went to see Iron Man just 9 years ago - when he finally gets the suit out for a trial run, with the music playing along. I was like a little kid (a big 36 year old little kid) at that very moment, jumping around in my seat getting all giddy about it, going 'woohoo' to the amusement of the rest of the people watching the film.

And my thought was "I wonder what the 10 year old me would have made of this"
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 16 November, 2017, 02:39:50 PM
First film where I've gone back for a repeat visit to the cinema since Fury Road and, before that, Dredd. Totally worth it.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: TordelBack on 16 November, 2017, 08:11:08 PM
Hadn't noticed this was unlocked 'til now. I don't want to drag us backwards, but I would like to apologise to Smith: I used the phrase 'you moany bugger' in the way I would with friends and colleagues who are forever giving out about the weather or the change from Marathon to Snickers: it wasn't meant to be insulting at all, just a friendly bit of ribbing based on your online demeanour ("It was shit", etc). I like a good moan, and I'm sorry that it came across otherwise.

As for the rest, I wasn't denying your right to dislike something, just making the trite observation that if you know you're not enjoying something, you could save yourself a lot of grief by avoiding it. See: me and Transformers movies, or Keith Lemon.  I (generally) don't come here to pick fights, especially about matters of taste, so my apologies for coming across that way.

Also: hoping to see Thor Ragnarok again this weekend, an honour usually only reserved for Star Wars. 
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: IndigoPrime on 16 November, 2017, 08:40:34 PM
All you lot going for multiple viewings. Hmm. I wonder whether a three-year-old would like the film...
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 16 November, 2017, 08:41:42 PM
Only one way to find out...

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Goaty on 16 November, 2017, 08:45:57 PM
The Devil's Anus
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 16 November, 2017, 09:14:31 PM
I had that once after a plate of dodgy snails in Skiernewice.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 16 November, 2017, 09:15:37 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 16 November, 2017, 09:14:31 PM
Skiernewice.

Great artist. Elektra: Assassin is brilliant.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 16 November, 2017, 09:20:53 PM
Heh, I had the TPB of that, I remember the art was indeed pretty damn fine.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Tiplodocus on 18 November, 2017, 12:34:44 AM
So thought that was ok but not great. You've mentioned the things I liked above particularly the inventiveness and energy of the whole thing (except maybe the idea of the Bond style opening vignette) but the list of things I didn't like is pretty large.

For me, it had just too much self aware humour with just about every moment of super hero dialogue or action being undercut and diminished by a verbal or visual gag.  I get that was sort of the point but when it gets to the point that you can predict them (Hulk's heroic leap at the end) then they cease to be funny and just become annoying.

Twenty minutes too long but perversely the opening was too rushed and didn't give time for character moments to breathe (e.g. Helen's arrival so quickly after the boys have their moment with Odin).

Doctor Strange was utterly redundant and Thor screamed like a wuss far too much in the first half.

Hela was a one dimensional villain  ("Ooh I am evil, It's my  destiny"). Cgi army of bad guys was dull. I didn't like the cheesy synth score and some of the colourful spaceship shops looked well ropey  (possibly deliberate).

None of the action set pieces had a "Wow" factor for me.

So fun, as far from generic as you can get but far from perfect. Don't think I'll watch it again.

(I suspect We'll see more of this almost Parody style. Tiny Tips said he thought GOTG2 was similar; not seen it yet)

Yes, I know. I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Tiplodocus on 18 November, 2017, 12:35:42 AM
Feel that was all a bit harsh. Dunno why I'm not in a better mood.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: radiator on 19 November, 2017, 09:08:17 AM
Saw it tonight.

Overall I liked it, but can understand why others didn't.

An endearing energy, a likable cast (Tessa Thompson FTW), some incredible visual design and a lot of very cool individual moments in a film that often feels quite loose and slapdash.

The humour mostly worked for me, but was calibrated just a little too high, and (and these complaints are going to sound very familiar) the film as a whole feels very messy and overstuffed - too many characters spread too thinly, and momentous events happening in too quick a succession for any of them to have any real dramatic weight. It felt very obvious to me that the writers had been given a bullet point list of plot points that had to happen, and were tasked with joining the dots between them.

It also felt like two or three film's worth of plot crammed into one movie - imo the film could have got enough mileage out of the 'gladiator world' setup for an entire movie's worth of plot. There's also quite a lot of weird technical issues, such as some fairly dodgy cgi and it being painfully obvious that Chris Hemsworth and Anthony Hopkins were clearly never in the same room together during filming, but hey, that's modern blockbusters for you, I guess. Our boy Urban was on customary fine form in a role that - being totally honest - seemed totally extraneous to the overall plot, and probably should have been cut.

Leaps and bounds ahead of The Dark World, but *controversial opinion* I still think the original Thor is the superior film. It's just much a more coherent and focused film.

QuoteI suspect We'll see more of this almost Parody style. Tiny Tips said he thought GOTG2 was similar; not seen it yet

Nah, I disagree. For me at least, both of the GotG films get the balance of humour, action and relationship drama juuuust right and never overstep into self-parody, and the series remains the pinnacle of all the MCU has achieved as far as I'm concerned. Volume 2, which I regard as weirdly underrated, in particular packs a real emotional punch and knows when to dial the silliness back.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: moly on 19 November, 2017, 10:09:11 AM
Finally watched this yesterday, thought it was a good film and my 6 year old daughter sat through the entire film which is always a good indication
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Jim_Campbell on 19 November, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
Quote from: radiator on 19 November, 2017, 09:08:17 AM
There's also quite a lot of weird technical issues, such as some fairly dodgy cgi and it being painfully obvious that Chris Hemsworth and Anthony Hopkins were clearly never in the same room together during filming

I'm not sure that's true — the entire Norway cliff-top setting was CG-ed in around the characters late in the day. The trailers clearly showed [spoiler]Hela destroying Mjolnir[/spoiler] in what looks like a New York back alley.

Quote*controversial opinion* I still think the original Thor is the superior film. It's just much a more coherent and focused film.

I've said it before, but I have no idea why the first film is poorly regarded in the Marvel movie canon — I think it's a delight from start to finish.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Juan De La Karite on 19 November, 2017, 05:44:47 PM
Quote from: radiator on 19 November, 2017, 09:08:17 AM
It also felt like two or three film's worth of plot crammed into one movie - imo the film could have got enough mileage out of the 'gladiator world' setup for an entire movie's worth of plot.

They don't seem to trust another Hulk standalone movie so this seemed like a way of filming the Planet Hulk story which covers that. It's worthwhile reading it or failing that watching the animated film. I love a bit of Hulk action.

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 19 November, 2017, 11:26:31 AM
I've said it before, but I have no idea why the first film is poorly regarded in the Marvel movie canon — I think it's a delight from start to finish.

I love the first movie, it's pure Shakespeare. It's also very quotable and hasn't got a particularly complicated set up, a cocky Prince is literally brought down to Earth so he's more down to earth. I agree, don't know why it's regarded as a weak Marvel movie.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: radiator on 19 November, 2017, 08:23:21 PM
QuoteI'm not sure that's true — the entire Norway cliff-top setting was CG-ed in around the characters late in the day.

Yeah, there was definitely something off about that scene - it looked really ropey and greenscreeny. Perhaps Hemsworth and Hopkins actually did film that scene together, but I was thinking in particular of Hopkin's first scene in Asgard (when he is Loki in disguise). He and Hemsworth are never in the same shot together and there's loads of very clunky editing and awkward looking shot/reverse shot scenes where it's very obviously a stand-in dressed as Odin and not Hopkins himself. It looked like something out of a cheap sitcom.

QuoteThey don't seem to trust another Hulk standalone movie

They're not allowed to make one, due to a right's dispute with (iirc) Universal. Hulk was the breakout character of Avengers 1 - Marvel would definitely have made a second standalone Hulk film by now if they were able to.

QuoteI've said it before, but I have no idea why the first film is poorly regarded in the Marvel movie canon

I'm tempted to say because maybe people tend to lump it in with the far inferior sequel? But then, I can remember people being sniffy about it even before the sequel came out.

It's a decent movie, one of Marvel's strongest imo. A likable lead, a scene-stealing villain with - shocker - and actual discernible personality and motivation. A clear three act structure and a great arc for the main character, plus some cute comedic beats that recall old 80s fish out of water comedies and give the filmmakers license to play the mythological Asgard stuff straight by contrast. I also like that it's a really self-contained and relatively small-scale film.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: JOE SOAP on 19 November, 2017, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: radiator on 19 November, 2017, 08:23:21 PM
QuoteThey don't seem to trust another Hulk standalone movie

They're not allowed to make one, due to a right's dispute with (iirc) Universal. Hulk was the breakout character of Avengers 1 - Marvel would definitely have made a second standalone Hulk film by now if they were able to.


As I understand it Marvel can produce a Hulk film however they want to but they must offer the distribution to Universal. It's a much less complex situation than the deal they have with Sony and Spider-Man so I don't see how it's that much of a problem since they had distribution deals with both Paramount and Universal before Disney took over. I believe the more pertinent reason we aren't seeing a Hulk solo film is because the previous 2 films underperformed at the box-office and the Hulk is doing well enough as a supporting character/co-lead.

Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Rara Avis on 12 December, 2017, 07:27:56 PM
I thought I had posted in here to say that I actually really enjoyed this ..I wanted to go see it again but between one thing and another I missed it ..
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: JamesC on 12 December, 2017, 07:33:34 PM
I really want this thread to get to the next page so The Devil's Anus isn't the first thing I see whenever I open the thread.
The irony will be if this post is the post that tips over onto the next page and then The Devil's Anus will be at the top of that page too.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: DaveGYNWA on 12 December, 2017, 10:22:27 PM
Nope, that didn't work....but I reckon the next one will :D
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Tiplodocus on 13 December, 2017, 08:26:11 AM
 Devil's anus?
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Bolt-01 on 13 December, 2017, 08:44:30 AM
You're a bad man, Tips.

I was having a drink when I pressed 'next page'...
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Proudhuff on 13 December, 2017, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: radiator on 19 November, 2017, 09:08:17 AM

the film as a whole feels very messy and overstuffed - too many characters spread too thinly, and momentous events happening in too quick a succession for any of them to have any real dramatic weight. It felt very obvious to me that the writers had been given a bullet point list of plot points that had to happen, and were tasked with joining the dots between them.


I know its not a popular POV but this is how I feel about the whole MCU, but as TB says I just don't go to see them any more but catch up when its out on DVDVD...
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: JamesC on 13 December, 2017, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 13 December, 2017, 08:26:11 AM
Devil's anus?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: The Legendary Shark on 13 December, 2017, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: JamesC on 13 December, 2017, 11:11:46 AM
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 13 December, 2017, 08:26:11 AM
Devil's anus?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: radiator on 13 December, 2017, 04:50:27 PM
Quote from: Proudhuff on 13 December, 2017, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: radiator on 19 November, 2017, 09:08:17 AM

the film as a whole feels very messy and overstuffed - too many characters spread too thinly, and momentous events happening in too quick a succession for any of them to have any real dramatic weight. It felt very obvious to me that the writers had been given a bullet point list of plot points that had to happen, and were tasked with joining the dots between them.


I know its not a popular POV but this is how I feel about the whole MCU, but as TB says I just don't go to see them any more but catch up when its out on DVDVD...

No, I don't think that's an unpopular (or rare) opinion. The Marvel movies have almost transcended the concept of 'movies' now, and feel more like episodes of a TV show, because thats basically what they are.

While they are reliably enjoyable, I think they're in danger of becoming skippable - for instance Homecoming and Doctor Strange were I think the first two MCU movies since the original Thor that I didn't go to see at the cinema, and Black Panther - while looking stunningly imaginative and novel on a purely visual level, looks incredibly bland and predictable narratively.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Keef Monkey on 14 December, 2017, 09:21:46 AM
Yeah, Thor and Guardians are the only two series that we're bothered about going to see in the cinema nowadays, everything else we just wait and watch some time down the line on Netflix or if someone loans us the disc. Even then there's no rush, took me a couple of years to see Antman and still haven't seen Spiderman despite it apparently being very good.

There's just too many of them and we don't go to the cinema often enough for it to be a Marvel movie every time.
Title: Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
Post by: Frank on 27 July, 2019, 03:57:40 PM

I thought Ragnarok was fun but patchy. Waititi's other films are great, though - and so is the self-aware marketing for his upcoming Jo Jo Rabbit (https://twitter.com/jojorabbitmovie/status/1154798536044634113?s=20). Who'd have thought you'd ever piss yourself laughing at one of those again?

It's also a clever way of disseminating information that preempts some of the criticism that will come the film's way. Here's a link to the trailer (https://youtu.be/Q33RrLVryU4) - Disney's head must be turning in its fridge at the thought of his fortune being used to make fun of Nazis (https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/walt-the-quasi-nazi-the-fascist-history-of-disney.html).