Thor: Ragnarok trailer


Movies

451 to 500 of 545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Cole Deschain wrote:
thejeff wrote:
archmagi1 wrote:

I don't want them to bring the hammer back. Doing so invalidates so much of his heros journey, not just in Ragnarok, but all the way back to Thor. His arc has been about defining who he is as a super being, and particularly in Ragnarok, that arc involved rejection of his cultures history of conquest and embracing protection. Mewmew is a literal symbol of the old Asgard, and of the tyranny he rejected in Hela. He evolved beyond needing Odin's safety net, beyond Asgard's safety net, and finally beyond Mewmew's. Bringing the hammer back for him would be a step back for the character.

Now if someone brings the hammer back for another to take the mantle of Thor, then it becomes useful to the plot. Otherwise it's a fall back on a version of Thor that the character has moved beyond.

If so, that's a damn stupid arc. Mjolnir is an iconic part of Thor. Stripping him of it for a time can be good character growth, but removing it permanently is just wrong.
If "permanently" is, "for the next movie or two before he basically vanishes" (dead, retired, whatever), then bringing it back less than a film after he lost it would be an even more stupid arc, because it would be genuinely pointless.

Well, I take your point about "permanent", but still I don't think it's pointless - He got the character growth and self-discovery, now he can get the hammer back and get another boost.

Still, mostly that goes to my "damn stupid arc". If the best story arc you can come up with for Thor is to get rid of his iconic thing, you're missing the point. Mjolnir has been part of Thor, not only for 50+ years of comic history, but in the entire mythology that it draws on as well. Setting it up so Mjolnir was just a crutch holding him back is ... I don't have words.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh. I'd be amused to see Thor trying to get Mjolnir reforged just because lesser weapons can't survive being used by him.


Zhangar wrote:
Heh. I'd be amused to see Thor trying to get Mjolnir reforged just because lesser weapons can't survive being used by him.

Mind you, it would still be cool if he used Jarnbjorn and all would be forgiven if he got to fly around in his chariot with Toothgnasher and Toothgrinder. :)

But I don't expect that.

Dark Archive

Cole Deschain wrote:
If "permanently" is, "for the next movie or two before he basically vanishes" (dead, retired, whatever), then bringing it back less than a film after he lost it would be an even more stupid arc, because it would be genuinely pointless.

That's pretty much what I expect. Just like Iron Man blowing up all his armors and getting rid of his arc reactor and retiring to spend more time with Pepper at the end of Iron Man 3, only to have his armors back by Age of Ultron and all of the shiny bow-wrapping end-of-arc in Iron Man 3 would be quietly ignored and undone...

Maybe some sort of time stone shenanigans will occur, to at least rationalize it (or maybe someone will make a fake hammer for him, that completes the 'iconic' look, but doesn't really do anything but hit things and act as a metal channel through which he can shoot his lightning).


Set wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
If "permanently" is, "for the next movie or two before he basically vanishes" (dead, retired, whatever), then bringing it back less than a film after he lost it would be an even more stupid arc, because it would be genuinely pointless.
That's pretty much what I expect. Just like Iron Man blowing up all his armors and getting rid of his arc reactor and retiring to spend more time with Pepper at the end of Iron Man 3, only to have his armors back by Age of Ultron and all of the shiny bow-wrapping end-of-arc in Iron Man 3 would be quietly ignored and undone...

Yet another really stupid arc wrap up, especially when they damn well knew he was coming back as Iron Man in AoU. As did the entire audience.

There were a lot of reasons I didn't like that movie, even though I mostly enjoyed it while it was happening. You've got to be really carefully trying stories where the superhero decides the whole superhero thing was a bad idea and they should give it up. At least with that as the intended climax. It just doesn't most superhero personalities - they're too driven, by noble reasons or tragic reasons or sometimes just the thrill. They don't just stop.
Could work as the second part of trilogy for some characters, where we get to see them rededicate themselves to the fight in the finale. But if you're actually trying to do superheroes seriously, you can't end with "And then he came to his senses and gave that nonsense up."


I do hope they reforge Mjolnir. It's kind of his go-to weapon. But if they give him Jarnbjorn for a bit, that's fine too. Mjolnir though is iconic, like Superman's cape or Batman's cowl.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I actually looked at it as "Tony Stark realized all his stuff was crap when he made it in the depths of PTSD-induced insomnia so what better way to start all over than to blow all the things up?"

Thomas: ... or Cap's shield... Too soon?


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


I actually looked at it as "Tony Stark realized all his stuff was crap when he made it in the depths of PTSD-induced insomnia so what better way to start all over than to blow all the things up?"

Thomas: ... or Cap's shield... Too soon?

I was going to say. Wouldn't be surprised if he gets it back in A:IW, or at least before the next one.


Wei,

Only in the sense they haven't given it back to him.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Except... would he take it back?

He was kind of making a declarative statement there...


Dunno. That part remains unclear.

Liberty's Edge

It was a passable movie but it left a bad taste in my mouth when had time to think about it as a whole.

1) Why is it that the only way to make Thor a likable character was to make him a different character? We already have TWO smarmy fast-talking wise guys, who thought it was appropriate to turn Thor (personality-wise) into Ironman/Starlord? Thor from Age of Ultron is unrecognizable from Thor in Ragnarok.

2) They cannibalized Hulk's most iconic storyline to give it to Thor. Was the Ragnarok story not strong enough to stand on its own? The movie already felt rushed. There was no need to squeeze parts of World War Hulk into it, especially since...

2b) If you're going to steal Hulk's storyline, you could at least let him be the star of it. Thor was at his weakest and he still would have beaten the Hulk if not for the Grandmaster's interference. Is Hulk jobbing just going to be a staple of the Avengers movies now? We already know it's going to happen early on in Infinity War.

3) The CG was mediocre to bad in a lot of places and the reshoots are glaringly obvious. Marvel, I expect better. You have the money and the man power - get it right.


Really? I thought based on the trailers, the CGI was good enough.

Though I agree in some ways with 1 and 2 points, for different reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

being a Thor fan I didn't mind stealing from Hulk. Enjoyed it much more than the first two films, not for the humour, which went dangerously close at times to ruining the suspension of disbelief, but liked the characters more. In my opinion, this was one of Jeff Goldblums best performances..he stole every scene he was in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wasn't 'sold' on Goldblum pulling off that role... until I saw it on the screen.

Ruffalo has said that there's a story arc going on with Hulk/Banner and we've only seen a piece of it.

What would be more impressive is if they step *away* from 'The Worf Effect' and show what happens if the Hulk goes to town without restraint because 'it's the best option anyone can think of'.

An order of magnitude higher than even the first Avengers film should terrify pretty much everyone, and might even give someone like Thanos a brief moment of pause.

Liberty's Edge

I would love to see MCU Hulk win a fight but we’ve already seen Banner get his ass kicked in the trailer.


Feral wrote:
I would love to see MCU Hulk win a fight but we’ve already seen Banner get his ass kicked in the trailer.

He did get to beat up a puny god. :)

Seriously, even if he couldn't take out Thanos, we could see him cut loose on one of the Black Order - smash them after they've tossed a bunch of others around. And then get his ass kicked by Thanos, just to heighten Thanos's bad ass level.


Feral wrote:
I would love to see MCU Hulk win a fight but we’ve already seen Banner get his ass kicked in the trailer.

He beat up Loki. That was a pretty entertaining fight.

Liberty's Edge

Thanos beating up Hulk doesn't prove anything. Tony and Thor did it pretty easily.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know If I call what tony did easy. He seemed terrified the entire time. Thor would of won the fight possibly but jeff had to go and mess that up. Thor really is marvel's superman. He's the one who does the things no one else can pull off. So him beating the hulk isn't a stretch.

If I remember correctly thanos vrs hulk usually goes something of thanos tricking hulk to do something to take him out of the fight. Thanos knows why try to beat him with that strength when he can just teleport him into space or something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Feral wrote:
1) Why is it that the only way to make Thor a likable character was to make him a different character? We already have TWO smarmy fast-talking wise guys, who thought it was appropriate to turn Thor (personality-wise) into Ironman/Starlord? Thor from Age of Ultron is unrecognizable from Thor in Ragnarok.

Much as I LOVE my Walt Simonson Thor... the feel of those stories is a hard fit for the vibe Marvel seems hellbent on, especially after they kinda fumbled Thor's first two solo movies. If Fox can pull off superhero horror with New Mutants, I hope Marvel will sit up and take notice. My favorite Marvel flicks to date are Guardians of the Galaxy (which owns its ridiculousness, so the humor doesn't really feel out of place) and Winter Soldier, which has some humor in it, but is generally a lot more serious in execution than the rest of their stuff.

Quote:
2) They cannibalized Hulk's most iconic storyline to give it to Thor. Was the Ragnarok story not strong enough to stand on its own? The movie already felt rushed. There was no need to squeeze parts of World War Hulk into it, especially since...

...

You and I have a very different view of what constitutes iconic.

Quote:
2b) If you're going to steal Hulk's storyline, you could at least let him be the star of it. Thor was at his weakest and he still would have beaten the Hulk if not for the Grandmaster's interference. Is Hulk jobbing just going to be a staple of the Avengers movies now? We already know it's going to happen early on in Infinity War.

Thor was losing until he Plot Deviced, which we later learn means he's supposedly stronger than Odin. Hulk was cleaning house with him- even when Thor landed a hit or made some neat counter, the outcome didn't look to be much in doubt.

It was only when Thor started channeling lightning willy-nilly and basically doing the Aang/Neo/DBZ "now I know my true power" angle that Hulk was going to lose. And since it's a Thor movie...

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Except... would he take it back?

He was kind of making a declarative statement there...

Well, the trailer flat out states that he won't really need to get the original shield back.

Spoiler:
He is in the land where vibranium lives, after all, and it's King just said, 'get that dude a shield.'


Set,

Excellent point but still prefer the original shield.

Also in a fight, Thanos versus Hulk, while Hulk is always the strongest (mostly because he's the angriest) Thanos wins because he's clearly the more strategic fighter. So while Thanos wins that, Hulk is good for being the guy to smash through puny things, not necessarily gods.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

They could be saving Hulk vs Thanos for the second infinity war. I get a sense that different groups of characters might be facing different threats at the same time (Team Cap protecting the soul gem in Wakanda, team Stark dealing with the time stone in with Dr. Strange, and Thor with the Guardians being involved with the Aether maybe), with not all of these folks interacting in this movie.


Set wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


Except... would he take it back?

He was kind of making a declarative statement there...

Well, the trailer flat out states that he won't really need to get the original shield back.

** spoiler omitted **

He'll get the shield back. It's symbolically important.

He'll just need to reconcile with Tony first. Heal that rift.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

...well, in an infinite number of realities...


Indeed, Wei.

Also I think you're correct, MMC, that they could be doing that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:


2) They cannibalized Hulk's most iconic storyline to give it to Thor. Was the Ragnarok story not strong enough to stand on its own? The movie already felt rushed. There was no need to squeeze parts of World War Hulk into it, especially since...

That probably has to do with the distribution rights issues Marvel has with Universal. MCU Hulk has to be a part of other heroes/team films or the two companies need to come to an agreement to make a solo film.

To be fair, Ragnarok could have used Beta Ray Bill and a metric crap ton of other Thor storyline cues from over the decades and not touched on the Hulk at all. In that vein Hela had a bit of the God Butcher going for her and the idea of bringing Asgard to Earth seems to be happening.


Combat,

Yeah I did notice that but I chalked it up to the fact Hela does have some weaponry that can act much like the Necrosword.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
I guess the question would be: Who do you consider Marvel's A-listers?

Prior to the comic book movie boom? (Which prety much started in 2000 witht he first X-Men film)

Spidey, Wolverine, and Hulk


What? Blade was the first!

Dark Archive

Blade came first, but it didn't really spark the comic book movie boom, because most viewers didn't really view it as a comic book movie. It was a vampire movie. Most people weren't even aware it was based on a comic book character.


Eh. It was a comic book movie to me... :p :) But fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I guess the question would be: Who do you consider Marvel's A-listers?

Prior to the comic book movie boom? (Which prety much started in 2000 witht he first X-Men film)

Spidey, Wolverine, and Hulk

I certainly agree with Spidey and Wolverine, but why Hulk? Not saying I disagree, I'm just not sure why he gets the prominence. The old TV show?

Dark Archive

Definitely influenced by the old TV show, but sometimes comic book characters can be popular without something like that. Spider-Man has been just as popular as Superman and Batman for a long time...long before he had a popular movie. In fact, he has long rivaled them in terms of popularity despite the fact that they had very popular movies and TV shows LONG before the Raimi films.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Definitely influenced by the old TV show, but sometimes comic book characters can be popular without something like that. Spider-Man has been just as popular as Superman and Batman for a long time...long before he had a popular movie. In fact, he has long rivaled them in terms of popularity despite the fact that they had very popular movies and TV shows LONG before the Raimi films.

It's just that I don't really think Hulk was that popular as a comic character, despite some popular runs. He didn't carry multiple titles or regularly get used as the guest star to draw attention to other titles.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Definitely influenced by the old TV show, but sometimes comic book characters can be popular without something like that. Spider-Man has been just as popular as Superman and Batman for a long time...long before he had a popular movie. In fact, he has long rivaled them in terms of popularity despite the fact that they had very popular movies and TV shows LONG before the Raimi films.
It's just that I don't really think Hulk was that popular as a comic character, despite some popular runs. He didn't carry multiple titles or regularly get used as the guest star to draw attention to other titles.

More or less this... the Hulk had a cartoon around the same time as Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, and so on.

Spidey also had multiple TV shows... particularly in the 1990s- much like the X-Men.

Which leads me to likewise question you giving Hulk the third spot, 'cause my top three prior to the first X-Men flick and Raimi's first Spider-Man flick would have been-

Spidey (and Venom), Wolverine with the rest of the X-Men as clear attachments, and the Fantastic Four (between Ben Grimm being awesome and the fact that until fairly recently, they were kind of the company's legacy flagship property, no matter how worthless Reed Richards was). They got exposure other characters could only envy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I feel like Hulk, even prior to the MCU, was far more visible to the public than the Fantastic Four. That TV show ran in syndication for a pretty long time, enough so that casual folks are familiar with the character.


MMCJawa wrote:
I feel like Hulk, even prior to the MCU, was far more visible to the public than the Fantastic Four. That TV show ran in syndication for a pretty long time, enough so that casual folks are familiar with the character.

That's kind of my feeling as well.

It's hard for me to tell though. I've been reading comics so long, it's hard for me to know what might be familiar to those who don't pay attention to such things.

It's also hard to directly compare teams to individual characters. The X-Men were as well known as anything else in comics, but Wolverine was the only real breakout character from them. Much more so than the FF, who didn't have any real solo star. What that means when talking about "A-list characters", I don't really know.


Cole Deschain wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Definitely influenced by the old TV show, but sometimes comic book characters can be popular without something like that. Spider-Man has been just as popular as Superman and Batman for a long time...long before he had a popular movie. In fact, he has long rivaled them in terms of popularity despite the fact that they had very popular movies and TV shows LONG before the Raimi films.
It's just that I don't really think Hulk was that popular as a comic character, despite some popular runs. He didn't carry multiple titles or regularly get used as the guest star to draw attention to other titles.

More or less this... the Hulk had a cartoon around the same time as Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, and so on.

Spidey also had multiple TV shows... particularly in the 1990s- much like the X-Men.

Which leads me to likewise question you giving Hulk the third spot, 'cause my top three prior to the first X-Men flick and Raimi's first Spider-Man flick would have been-

Spidey (and Venom), Wolverine with the rest of the X-Men as clear attachments, and the Fantastic Four (between Ben Grimm being awesome and the fact that until fairly recently, they were kind of the company's legacy flagship property, no matter how worthless Reed Richards was). They got exposure other characters could only envy.

For the Hulk, I wasn't talking about the cartoon, but the 70s/80s live action Hulk TV show.

Spider-man also had a 60s cartoon that stayed on Saturday morning shows into the 80s at least.

Dark Archive

Hulk is a character who's popularity in the mainstream never managed to be mirrored with his (fairly mediocre) comic book sales.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
I feel like Hulk, even prior to the MCU, was far more visible to the public than the Fantastic Four. That TV show ran in syndication for a pretty long time, enough so that casual folks are familiar with the character.

That's kind of my feeling as well.

It's hard for me to tell though. I've been reading comics so long, it's hard for me to know what might be familiar to those who don't pay attention to such things.

It's also hard to directly compare teams to individual characters. The X-Men were as well known as anything else in comics, but Wolverine was the only real breakout character from them. Much more so than the FF, who didn't have any real solo star. What that means when talking about "A-list characters", I don't really know.

It's confusing for me as well, and I don't even really read comics. But anyone who is embedded within nerd culture online is just inundated with this stuff as well.

I mean, I think Deadpool had a pretty high profile online (I knew about him prior to Xmen origins), even if my parents had no clue who he is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Much more so than the FF, who didn't have any real solo star.

!

BLASPHEMY!

(This post brought to you by Cole's never-fulfilled desire for a miniseries where Ben Grimm and the Joe Fixit Hulk go on a cross-country road trip)


Cole Deschain wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Much more so than the FF, who didn't have any real solo star.

!

BLASPHEMY!

(This post brought to you by Cole's never-fulfilled desire for a miniseries where Ben Grimm and the Joe Fixit Hulk go on a cross-country road trip)

Agreed. The Thing was marvel's poster boy for quite a while with a couple of solo series and the star of Marvel's two in One series that ran for nearly a decade.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:
Blade came first, but it didn't really spark the comic book movie boom, because most viewers didn't really view it as a comic book movie. It was a vampire movie. Most people weren't even aware it was based on a comic book character.

Including the people who actually MADE the movie. I was a huge Nightstalker/Tomb of Dracula fan back then... and it was a much better vampire movie than a Blade movie :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
What? Blade was the first!

Uh technically howard.


Yeah, Howard the Duck came out before anything else. Which begs the question, why?

Then again, they made Masters of the Universe with Dolph. I blame Pablo Escobar for supplying Hollywood producers with too much coke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If nothing else Masters gave us Frank Langella killing it as Skeletor and a great Evil-Lyn. The rest was a bad 80s movie. But my ten year old self loved it in the cinema^^


2 people marked this as a favorite.

He-man is definitely Dolph's greatest film.


And that is saying a lot about his other movies^^

451 to 500 of 545 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Thor: Ragnarok trailer All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.