Thor's idea for a movie was to take this sci fi fantasy warrior hero and depower him for most of the movie and stick him in a small town.
Aquaman's idea for a movie was to take this sci fi fantasy warrior hero and hurl him into breathtaking battle sequences reminiscent of a beautiful fusion of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.
It isn't hard to see why one is getting far more attention than the other. Thor's movie almost seemed like it didn't want to be a Thor movie.
Back when every character had an obligatory secret identity? Sure. But Thor has come a long way since the days of Donald Blake. I didn't go to a movie about a space viking god with the power of storms to see him have coffee at starbucks and get hit by a car a few times.
Even then they didn't exactly do anything with the Donald Blake concept. Thor abandoned it the second he got his hammer back so it all feels kind of pointless.
Thor actually had dramatic moments to be found in its meager humor attempts.
Aquaman tries too hard to be some grand epic by throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there but ultimately ends up an over bloated fun flick with no regards for logic. Thor is easily the better flick cuz it's apparently clear it's not trying to be something it's not.
I was making the exercise of imagining 2011 Thor as a $200M Cgi-fest like Aquaman was, and thinking if the results by the end of Avengers Infinity War would be the same or different, for better for worse?
I mean would Loki be the Avengers villain, would Asgard be at the center of the Infinity Stones plot, and would Thor be the main hero of biggest comic book movie till this day aka Infinity War? Nope, for that it was needed all the character development and worldbuilding that Thor 1 had, so for the most part i prefer movies where the appeal isn't all focused on the visuals, sure that i would probably liked some more action sequences in Thor 1 but at that period the Mcu movies weren't produced by Disney yet and Feige didn't have money for more, and if that would mean the non development of for example the sense of worthiness that by now is heavy marked on pop culture (in such way that 2018 Aquaman actually tried to copy it but failed) i would always prefer Thor being worthy.
2011 Thor almost follows its main narrative its not loud like other comic book movies but humble enough to be worthy...
I was making the exercise of imagining 2011 Thor as a $200M Cgi-fest like Aquaman was, and thinking if the results by the end of Avengers Infinity War would be the same or different, for better for worse?
I mean would Loki be the Avengers villain, would Asgard be at the center of the Infinity Stones plot, and would Thor be the main hero of biggest comic book movie till this day aka Infinity War? Nope, for that it was needed all the character development and worldbuilding that Thor 1 had, so for the most part i prefer movies where the appeal isn't all focused on the visuals, sure that i would probably liked some more actions sequences in Thor 1 but at that period the Mcu movies weren't produced by Disney yet and Feige didn't have money for more, and if that would mean the non development of for example the sense of worthiness that by now is heavy marked on popular cultural (in such way that 2018 Aquaman actually tried to tried to copy it but failed) i would always prefer Thor being worthy.
2011 Thor almost follows its main narrative its not loud like other comic book movies but humble enough to be worthy...
Haven't seen Aquaman but I agree with everything this says about Thor
@richubs: Hmm I never hated Jane like 95% of the site. Her statement isn't what made me like the scene or anything but it didn't take away from it for me.
Thor's idea for a movie was to take this sci fi fantasy warrior hero and depower him for most of the movie and stick him in a small town.
Aquaman's idea for a movie was to take this sci fi fantasy warrior hero and hurl him into breathtaking battle sequences reminiscent of a beautiful fusion of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.
It isn't hard to see why one is getting far more attention than the other. Thor's movie almost seemed like it didn't want to be a Thor movie.
I see where you are coming from, but in this case Marvel was actually being very faithful to the source material by giving Thor his proper origin story. He DID get banished and depowered for a long time, before he eventually became the Thor we know.
True. I was just hoping for something with a bigger scope. It is true that it is faithful to the source material, but a the same time confining Thor to a small town just didn't feel like it did him justice. Plus he was only human for a few days. Not really time to "grow to love Earth" like we keep being told happened even though he never willingly goes back there except to fight something.
But that is just classic movies rushing emotional development that should take a lot longer.
Log in to comment