MCU: Who is better written and acted? - Thor vs Matt Murdock

Avatar image for the_justiciar
The_Justiciar

16135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Poll MCU: Who is better written and acted? - Thor vs Matt Murdock (58 votes)

Thor 40%
Matt Murdock 60%
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

 • 
Avatar image for the_justiciar
The_Justiciar

16135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#1  Edited By The_Justiciar

Please vote only if you're familiar with both characters and their respective films/series.

Thor might get my vote.

Avatar image for mrmonster
mrmonster

25770

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Daredevil

Avatar image for deactivated-5d6bc0cd36084
deactivated-5d6bc0cd36084

12990

Forum Posts

676

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Not sure on this one.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c8fd6cb3e4f4
deactivated-5c8fd6cb3e4f4

18365

Forum Posts

152

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Daredevil imo

Avatar image for amcu
Amcu

18512

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Amcu

Thor. Matt's cool too though.

Avatar image for krleavenger
KrleAvenger

26354

Forum Posts

63045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 114

#6  Edited By KrleAvenger

Thor was well written only in his first movie. He had the personality and attitude of a god, he did not have that annoying sense of humor and he went from reckless, arrogant and proud warrior to humiliated, beaten up and casted out man, to a god who learned how to be humble and was ready to sacrifice himself for others, becoming worthy again. He was cool in Avengers too. He looked like a combination of 616 and Ultimate Thor to me. His performance and appearances in the sequel to those two movies were ok but kinda forgettable. Then Thor Ragnarok came and they just ruined Thor even worse than Homecoming ruined Spider-man. They turned him into annoying brick who constantly makes unfunny jokes, childlike reactions and has absolutely no character that remotely resembles his comic counterpart or even the way he acted in the previous movies. He was just dumb and annoying.

Hell, even if we ignore the source material (comics), his jokes would still be annoying and it would come from nowhere given how different his character was prior, or just wasn't a comedy relief. While Russo Bros apparently gave us back the version of Thor we should see on the big screen, it does not make up for two forgettable performances and one from the last installment of the trilogy which is just painful. At least, not compared to Charlie Cox, who not only is as close as we can get to Comic version of Matt Murdock, but his character is at least consistent. I know it can be troublesome with constant change of the directors, since every single Thor movie had it's own different director (plus Joss Whedon and Russo Bros), but Captain America and Iron-man went through these changes as well and their characters remained consistent. Not to mention that not a single one of their appearances was forgettable.

In other words, I would go with Daredevil, easily.

Avatar image for rbt
RBT

41650

Forum Posts

1387

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Thor has better progression, I'd say. Matt has stagnated as a character.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00
deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00

10000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Daredevil by a mile.

Avatar image for gamer-guy
Gamer-Guy

3354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

thor 2 and the 2 avengers movies really bring thor down so id say matt

Avatar image for kingofwakanda
KingOfWakanda

4861

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hemsworth's speech to Rocket is probably as good or better than anything Charlie Cox has done as an actor as Daredevil. Add in the comedic chops and I'm taking Thor.

Avatar image for worldofthunder
Worldofthunder

5256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Matt by far

Avatar image for deactivated-5d6bc0cd36084
deactivated-5d6bc0cd36084

12990

Forum Posts

676

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Going with Thor.

Avatar image for buildhare
buildhare

11606

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Both are great but Charlie is a cut above.

Thor was well written only in his first movie. He had the personality and attitude of a god, he did not have that annoying sense of humor and he went from reckless, arrogant and proud warrior to humiliated, beaten up and casted out man, to a god who learned how to be humble and was ready to sacrifice himself for others, becoming worthy again. He was cool in Avengers too. He looked like a combination of 616 and Ultimate Thor to me. His performance and appearances in the sequel to those two movies were ok but kinda forgettable. Then Thor Ragnarok came and they just ruined Thor even worse than Homecoming ruined Spider-man. They turned him into annoying brick who constantly makes unfunny jokes, childlike reactions and has absolutely no character that remotely resembles his comic counterpart or even the way he acted in the previous movies. He was just dumb and annoying.

Hell, even if we ignore the source material (comics), his jokes would still be annoying and it would come from nowhere given how different his character was prior, or just wasn't a comedy relief. While Russo Bros apparently gave us back the version of Thor we should see on the big screen, it does not make up for two forgettable performances and one from the last installment of the trilogy which is just painful. At least, not compared to Charlie Cox, who not only is as close as we can get to Comic version of Matt Murdock, but his character is at least consistent. I know it can be troublesome with constant change of the directors, since every single Thor movie had it's own different director (plus Joss Whedon and Russo Bros), but Captain America and Iron-man went through these changes as well and their characters remained consistent. Not to mention that not a single one of their appearances was forgettable.

In other words, I would go with Daredevil, easily.

I understand he doesn't align with other versions but Taika/Hemsworth has given us the best version of Thor/Best Thor film by far. That's not really open to interpretation given how disinterested everyone was with him before it (also, obviously Ragnarok was received infinitely better than his other outings). Infinity War redacted some of that to give him a hammer and an eye but still kept most of what he was in Ragnarok.

Changing a character you like doesn't make the change itself bad. If they needed to change him in a way that made him instantly more popular and interesting but also lost a core group of fans such as yourself I think they certainly made the right call.

Avatar image for rukelnikovftw
RukelnikovFTW

7590

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By RukelnikovFTW

Thor.

He is definitely the better written, and regarding the acting, well it depends, Charlie is a more consistent actor, Hemsworth has higher highs and lower lows, but much of this I think was because pre-ragnarok Thor didn't really allow him to show what he's better at. Ragnarok gave us his best performance IMO (and better than Charlie's Matt), infinity war let go of much of the sillyness and jokes, but the amp Hemsworth received during ragnarok seems to have lingered.

Avatar image for krleavenger
KrleAvenger

26354

Forum Posts

63045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 114

#16  Edited By KrleAvenger

@buildhare:

I understand he doesn't align with other versions but Taika/Hemsworth has given us the best version of Thor/Best Thor film by far.

I don't support that claim but I do respect your opinion.

That's not really open to interpretation given how disinterested everyone was with him before it (also, obviously Ragnarok was received infinitely better than his other outings). Infinity War redacted some of that to give him a hammer and an eye but still kept most of what he was in Ragnarok.

I do agree that Thor Ragnarok is a better movie overall. But who received better rating or higher box office has nothing to do with how accurate a character is to his mainstream version, or even how consistent he is. Especially because a lot of people who watch these movies don't read the comics or don't judge the movies based on accuracy. Take a look at Flash show for example. It's extremely popular and a lot of people on internet will tell you they love it and that it made them really like the Flash as a character.

But as a Flash show, it's just not good because it literally has almost zero characteristics of the Flash's character. Thor from Thor Ragnarok is the same. His personality is nothing like his mainstream counterpart, and sure, you need to change few things when you make a movie, but when you completely miss the mark, the change is not acceptable (although that is more of a subjective thing). Regardless, like I said, even if you disregard the existence of comic Thor, MCU Thor's character is inconsistent due to different interpretations.

In his original film, he is pretty similar to his 616 version. In Avengers movie he is like a combination of 616 and Ultimate. In Dark World and Age of Ultron he is his own thing while still having characteristics of both. In Thor Ragnarok he is like a combination of Hercules and Deadpool. As for Infinity War, I personally didn't notice any similarities between that version and Ragnarok version aside from maybe two funny lines or the fact that Infinity War picks up where Ragnarok left off, and that is fine by me.

Changing a character you like doesn't make the change itself bad. If they needed to change him in a way that made him instantly more popular and interesting but also lost a core group of fans such as yourself I think they certainly made the right call.

That's the thing, it all depends on what you prefer. It's just personal opinion. Hell, who do you prefer out of the two (Matt or Thor) is subjective opinion. From producer's perspective, I do think Ragnarok was good. When it comes to the movie itself, I liked it. I think it is the best one of the franchise. I just think that it fails to present Thor as a character, big time. But this is not about whether what they did was a good idea or lost cause, but what character I prefer out of the two, and I said it's Matt not just because he follows the source material more often than not, but because the writers don't pull new stuff out of nowhere for him. It's certainly more justified than Martha from BvS. I'm just saying it's not accurate to the comics and it's not accurate to previous portrays of the character in the same Universe.

Avatar image for the_badman
The_Badman

2725

Forum Posts

870

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I vote Daredevil for the same reason as explained below.

Thor was well written only in his first movie. He had the personality and attitude of a god, he did not have that annoying sense of humor and he went from reckless, arrogant and proud warrior to humiliated, beaten up and casted out man, to a god who learned how to be humble and was ready to sacrifice himself for others, becoming worthy again. He was cool in Avengers too. He looked like a combination of 616 and Ultimate Thor to me. His performance and appearances in the sequel to those two movies were ok but kinda forgettable. Then Thor Ragnarok came and they just ruined Thor even worse than Homecoming ruined Spider-man. They turned him into annoying brick who constantly makes unfunny jokes, childlike reactions and has absolutely no character that remotely resembles his comic counterpart or even the way he acted in the previous movies. He was just dumb and annoying.

Hell, even if we ignore the source material (comics), his jokes would still be annoying and it would come from nowhere given how different his character was prior, or just wasn't a comedy relief. While Russo Bros apparently gave us back the version of Thor we should see on the big screen, it does not make up for two forgettable performances and one from the last installment of the trilogy which is just painful. At least, not compared to Charlie Cox, who not only is as close as we can get to Comic version of Matt Murdock, but his character is at least consistent. I know it can be troublesome with constant change of the directors, since every single Thor movie had it's own different director (plus Joss Whedon and Russo Bros), but Captain America and Iron-man went through these changes as well and their characters remained consistent. Not to mention that not a single one of their appearances was forgettable.

In other words, I would go with Daredevil, easily.

You, sir, are a wise man.

Avatar image for whyzoserious
WhyZoSerious

2551

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By WhyZoSerious

Matt is one of the best in MCU, by far the best Netflix both written and acted, but Thor is different league man. For these 10 years he is the most developed and second interesting character(close to Iron man, which development does not exist btw, cuz he's too cool anyway), from more than 6-7 movies. Matt only got 2 seasons and a half and he pretty much stays the same throughout the process.

Avatar image for gokluma
Gokluma

9904

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Thor's jokes gotten way too 4kidstv for me and i'm picking daredevil

Avatar image for angeljax
AngelJax

15760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Matt

Thor didn't start becoming a good character on his own, until Ragnarok and he had to adopt the witty, wise-cracking persona that pretty much every MCU male lead already has.

Avatar image for deathstroke512
deathstroke512

2377

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Charlie cox as Murdock is perfect fit.

Avatar image for alavanka
Alavanka

3441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23  Edited By Alavanka

Daredevil started great with season 1 and 2, but Defenders didn't really do with Matt's character. Thor was alright in his first film, but lacked any development in Avengers, The Dark World, and Age of Ultron. Ragnarok was a course correct, and may have doubled down a bit too much on the humour. Thor's portrayal was perfect in Infinity War. Thor was easily one of the best parts in Infinity war, and Infinity War is the MCU's the greatest success. Matt was great in his 2 standalone seasons and Thor was mediocre in phases 1-2. But Matt was mediocre in Defenders, whereas Thor was the highlight in Infinity War. Matt's probably more consistently enjoyable, but he never reached Thor's heights of greatness in Infinity War. "Bring me Thanos" brought about the biggest reaction I've seen in a movie theatre ever. It easily topped the cheering from Force Awakens when Rey force-grabbed the saber from Kylo. Looking online at other theatre reactions, clearly my experience wasn't an outlier.

Loading Video...
Avatar image for allstarsuperman
AllStarSuperman

51224

Forum Posts

148

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Thor god stomps

Avatar image for bruceveidt
BruceVeidt

3570

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Daredevil is a much harder role to play. I almost forget Charlie Cox is not blind in real life, that’s how good he is.

1000000000% this

Avatar image for asgaard
Asgaard

4880

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

So now we are comparing series with movies in terms of narrative? (lol)

Movies only have like 2 hours to tell their story...

Yet even under that circumstances Thor had more character progression than Daredevil...

I find hilarious that some users claim that Ragnarok ruined Thor for them but this are users that already disliked (to not use other words) the character before Ragnarok (lol), and the part where its another interpretation is not true at all, he just has a more light-hearted tone, because its in Ragnarok that Thor made us remember from comic Thor personality traits, like that scene when Hela destroyed his hammer and unlike Loki he still wanted to fight her...

Avatar image for g2_
g2_

14340

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 3

Matt.

Avatar image for mexcomics2078
mexcomics2078

7682

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 mexcomics2078  Online

Written - Thor ( i love his development during the 3 phases of MCU)

Acted - Daredevil ( Charlie cox nailed it as Matt Murdock)

Avatar image for mikemageo
MikeMageo

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Matt is better written and acted than Thor. Thor's character development was good, but Matt's was just better. Also , Matt is more similar to that of the comics than Thor.

Avatar image for mikemageo
MikeMageo

1449

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for deactivated-627d8daf1de25
deactivated-627d8daf1de25

16791

Forum Posts

3038

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Thor, recently they have added a lot of character to him.

Avatar image for the_justiciar
The_Justiciar

16135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

bump

Avatar image for ldm
LDM

5365

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Matt but it is close IMO. Thor has become one of my favorite characters in recent years

Avatar image for ichinisanji
IchiNiSanji

538

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Daredevil. Charlie Cox plays a blind man and goes through the spectrum of emotions really well (cocky, sad, angry, happy). The little pigeon like head turns when he's listening, the way he walks with the stick, when he questions people while knowing whether they're telling the truth and still playing along. There's subtlety and nuance.

As far as writing goes, in season 1 his motivation and method was contrasted with Fisk's idea of improving the community. Fisk had gentrification (which actually leads to lowering of crime, improvement in living quality etc). However as we know gentrification leads to displacement and puts financial pressure on those living there. On the other hand Daredevil had the idea to elevate the individuals and people already living there.

His morality is also great. Its based on his religious values (of which he doesn't seem to follow any when it comes to being a catholic) and he justifies him not wanting to kill (which is his biggest rule) on his religion. However he constantly flirts with breaking this rule. Beats people up, tortures people, throws them off roofs, puts them in comas, nearly kills people all the time. He has a darkness inside him and at times it seems that the only thing holding it back is his firmness when it comes to his rule. He struggles with the guilt of this darkness and constantly asks the Father and God for forgiveness. It also brings out the hypocrisy of religion. In season 2, I wish this were explored a bit more, especially when it came to the punisher's "debate" with matt and also how matt killed Nobu so many times.

Thor: From what I understand Chris Hemsworth was tired of playing thor. He was almost about to quit. Despite that I think he gave a serviceable performance. His character compared to daredevil is a lot louder and more straightforward, earnest so I feel subtlety can be lost or take the backseat when it comes to such a character in terms of acting. However, infinity war shows us how despite the humor (which he carried from Thor), there's a lot of pain. I feel he really shines there. I didn't feel that sense of pain when it came from ragnarok despite there being attempts at showing them.

In terms of character, Thor has had multiple arcs. I like his Thor Ragnarok arcs and Infinity war (I take them as continuous) most. In Ragnarok, thor shows his sense of duty towards asgard, where he goes from planet to planet looking for the cause of his visions of doom. His entire motivation is to prevent the destruction of asgard, which is fairly straightforward. However his attachment towards asgard is to its people, while Hela is more about the place (further solidified by how she needs it for her power). Hela thirsts for power and glory, very much like how Thor did in Thor 1, while here we get to see how far thor has come (and also retroactively, Odin's concern for thor's action in the first 1).

There's further contrast with Odin's idea of what a good solution to the problem is. Odin covers up their history, covers up their sister (quite literally, he built over the old murals and paintings). Instead of solving the Hela problem, he sought to cover it up, use deceit (much like Loki would, hence Hela thinking he's more Odin's son). However thor, being earnest, genuine and open, decides simply to destroy Asgard. He decides no more secrets and lies. He realizes unlike his father, brother and hela, that Asgard is a people, not a place and also has the mettle to follow through with this and thus sets off ragnarok

Overall, I prefer Thor. But I think Daredevil had a higher quality.

Avatar image for quantum-savage
quantum-savage

767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Outside of character development, Thor has nothing on Murdock