Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)  (Read 3330 times)

Goaty

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8673
  • Goaty the illustrator
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #90 on: 16 November, 2017, 08:45:57 pm »
The Devil's Anus

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
    • the_sharkpool blog
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #91 on: 16 November, 2017, 09:14:31 pm »
I had that once after a plate of dodgy snails in Skiernewice.


Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11901
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #92 on: 16 November, 2017, 09:15:37 pm »
Skiernewice.

Great artist. Elektra: Assassin is brilliant.
Eagle Award Nominated Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
    • the_sharkpool blog
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #93 on: 16 November, 2017, 09:20:53 pm »
Heh, I had the TPB of that, I remember the art was indeed pretty damn fine.

Tiplodocus

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6640
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #94 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.
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

Tiplodocus

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6640
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #95 on: 18 November, 2017, 12:35:42 am »
Feel that was all a bit harsh. Dunno why I'm not in a better mood.
Be excellent to each other. And party on!

radiator

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9740
  • A fry without beans is a mere meat collage.
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #96 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.

Quote
I 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.

moly

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #97 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

Jim_Campbell

  • 2000AD Creator
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11901
  • Letterer to the Stars! (and PJ)
    • View Profile
    • deviantArt Gallery
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #98 on: 19 November, 2017, 11:26:31 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 Hela destroying Mjolnir 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.

Eagle Award Nominated Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Juan De La Karite

  • Mek-Quakes Leftovers
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #99 on: 19 November, 2017, 05:44:47 pm »
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.

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.

radiator

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9740
  • A fry without beans is a mere meat collage.
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #100 on: 19 November, 2017, 08:23:21 pm »
Quote
I’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.

Quote
They 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.

Quote
I’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.

JOE SOAP

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14468
  • Enquiry Agent
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #101 on: 19 November, 2017, 09:06:36 pm »
Quote
They 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.


Rara Avis

  • Member
  • Page Numbering Droid
  • **
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #102 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 ..

JamesC

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3680
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #103 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.

DaveGYNWA

  • Member
  • Sentient Tea Bot
  • **
  • Posts: 460
    • View Profile
Re: Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
« Reply #104 on: 12 December, 2017, 10:22:27 pm »
Nope, that didn't work....but I reckon the next one will :D