@asgardianbrony: The Asgardians were weak in the sense that they were nothing more than strong, slightly durable humans. I had gone into this hoping to see a true godly war but all they did was punch each other. Thor fell to an electrified net! And Valkyrie, although a great fighter, had very little true power (by that I mean something other than being strong). They were impressive but they weren't gods, and honestly the movie which I felt did the most justice to the concept was the original Thor--mostly because it showed a distinct contrast between Thor, Loki, and the humans around him.
Regarding the magic, I mean something we haven't seen before. Something impressive. Loki getting caught by a portal spell? Seriously? All he ever does in these movies is cast a few illusions. Magic, maybe, but nothing even CLOSE to the flair we've encountered in Doctor Strange and nothing like I was hoping for with how grand this was supposed to be. Most of the magic was very subtle and while I liked that in the beginning, it got tiring. Most of the things you've listed are exactly that--stuff referenced or appearing vaguely but more as passive traits than actual spells. Stuff that could even be argued as not magic, just natural traits and abilities X-Men-style. Loki is the friggin' God of Magic and he gets his butt handed to him by a half-trained human sorcerer? Whatever happened to Asgardians being the supreme beings? And yea, Fenris was mildly entertaining, but he was only there for an easter egg, not to eat Odin or raze Asgard alongside his brothers and sister.
Hela's weakness was entirely in that she didn't have any real power. She is a skilled fighter and certainly a capable warrior but when I think power and divinity I think of beings who can snap their fingers and mow down entire cities. Ones who don't need to fight directly because they're just that good. When Hela fights it is the exact kind of display we see in any normal combat scene, just amped up to higher stakes. 90% of what she did was strength-based and, in the long run, nothing truly unique to her--except maybe the Eternal Flame part but it isn't clear just how much of that was her to begin with.
I never said he wasn't comic-accurate, because he was for the most part. It's just that, from a narrative perspective, he was a weak addition. Introducing a character in the beginning solely to have him pull off some big feat at the end, with no actual role in the story other than that plot device, is just bad writing.
Ragnarok is more than the death of Asgard, it is the death of the gods. It is the end of all things. I was expecting a grand mythological feat and a significant death toll; the sort of thing that makes you feel it. The movie was just so light that the stakes never felt all that real to me. It was hard to reconcile the death of Asgard with Thor and Loki goofing off on a tech planet half a galaxy away.
Ah yes, condescension. How original. What I mean is that Marvel has been for several years now struggling to find a good foundation for their tone. Ragnarok is a prime example of it--a movie about an intense, emotional story turned light-hearted and fun. There's nothing wrong with fun it's just that they're making every movie fit that same theme. Even Civil War fell victim to it. I miss the days of Winter Soldier where the character development and the underlying theme were more important then growing a universe and adding wise-cracks. For all its many flaws I respect the Fox X-Men 'verse just because it is willing to make something brand new, not just build on what it has.
Log in to comment