Thor: Ragnarok (2017)


I thought Thor 2 was terrible and Ant-Man was great so production line may work for some and not others.

Ant-Man was new and original Thor really needs a Winter Soldier level of a movie to kick it on.


Well putting Ragnarok in the title I assume means some serious shit is going down cause these movies need it. The first two were completeyly dull and forgettable.


I don’t think the superhero genre is going anywhere. America is in a really weird place now. The Internet has webbed is all together and peiple are realizing now more than ever that they all have Moses syndrome. They are born ordinary and think they are all extraordinary. It’s the escapist fantasy due to the threat of world annihilation that was born in the 30s and 40s. Now it’s turned on its head as all of these young males who just -know- they were born to live a life of adventure escape into the genres where ordinary people become extraordinary, almost as if they were chosen. We unfortunately see this in mass shootings and women shaming all over America. In my opinion theae things are subtlety related, which is why Aurora hurt so much.

As long as the world is being portrayed by the media as a small and dangerous place (where in reality it’s a large place and the safest and most secure its ever been), these movies will continu to be successful. Who doesn’t want to be Thor or Batman, take on evil and be admired?


On the rumor mill for today, there’s a story about Hiddleston saying he’s curious about Loki’s future but that no one from Marvel has talked to him in two years, and then a separate report floating around that of course includes Hiddleston in the cast list, but also Mark Ruffalo. Both via

Very hard to imagine doing anything else Thor related and [I]not[/I] including Hiddleston, so I assume if Marvel hasn’t picked up the phone yet, they’re just not to that point in preparations yet and it’s coming soon, but if we’re still that early in the game, it’s also hard to put much weight in anything already confirming Ruffalo.


That’s a good argument, but as a counter, historically, superheroes first became popular in times that were far more optimistic, progress-positive and science-positive than they are now, even despite a Great Depression that society had only just recently started to recover from. The Silver Age was also a product of an optimistic and confident 60s (again, [I]despite[/I] Cold War and nuclear paranoia). I don’t think there’s any particular correlation either way, I think the superhero thing is more constant and appeals to a deeper drive: [I]to have power over nature.[/I]

Plus, everyone [I]is[/I] extraordinary. Everyone [I]is[/I], in fact, unique and a special snowflake :)


Re: ElGuapo

The whole superhero genre juggernaut reminds me of Adorno’s criticism of Hollywood as a culture industry: it is profit driven mass manipulation, not “authentic” culture. Marvel/DC is part of a mega corporation (Disney and Time Warner respectively) and it shows.

It is kind of sad really that anything art and cultural nowadays is not only supported but coopted by money. Jeff Koons’s multi-million dollar “art” is the pinnacle of this.


Lord, Jeff Koons is odious.

The whole superhero genre juggernaut reminds me of Adorno’s criticism of Hollywood as a culture industry: it is profit driven mass manipulation, not “authentic” culture.

I suppose culture came from two places historically. You had folk, or peasant culture, which a grounded in daily life. On the other end of the scale you had high culture, which is driven by the noble or patrician class.

That changed with the rise of a rich and powerful middle class. They had money to spend, and tastes which were peculiar to their class. Thus we have the rise of the mass media culture and institutions like Hollywood.


Someone in the movie industry was explaining to me why movies are typically so so dumb and fomulaic. It’s because the people who talk about movies being art like the ones in this forum are not typical of the ones buying tickets in the theatre. The typical moviegoer loved the part in Transformers 2 when th giant robot balls clanged together. The typically movie goer either is dumb or all the executives with the purse strings think they are dumb. Just like public education is meant to teach farmers who will go back to being farmers, movies are written for the uncritical dualist dum dum. It’s a formula they think and have convinced themselves works. He wasn’t sure how it happened but that’s why you get tacked on love stories and crappy sequels.


I think it’s really that the “suits” tend to copy what’s a hit. Lots of films break through to popularity that are intelligent as well as fun; often, when they do they start a trend that less able teams try and copy. It’s really more the degredation of Team B, Team C and Team D copying badly what Team A originally did well.

The big popcorn movies are hits because everyone likes them - they are the lowest common denominator movie making. Even artsy types will go and enjoy a good blockbuster now and then. So the popularity of them shouldn’t confuse us: lots of people sometimes go and see good movies too, the capacity and intelligence are there in the audience, it’s just not called-forth as much.

And actually, marketing has something to do with it: on those rare occasions when something a bit artsy, but with high production values, is advertised big, it’s can be a hit too. When the producers have confidence and are willing to go the extra mile on the risk for marketing of an artsy thing, it can work well.


Wait, what?


I’m not sure exactly how true this is, but there’s the idea that 2005’s “Save The Cat” became the de facto screenplay formula for modern blockbuster movies.


Save the Cat was huge. I’m not sure if it’s still the go-to for Hollywood, but the beats in his book are timeless, really. As an exercise, you can apply his beats to older movies and they line up nicely. I think it’s just the natural outcome of Hollywood action movies needing to fit within a similar time constraint while drawing in the spending demographic. You’re always going to have certain scenes.


Casting news:

Two-time Oscar®-winner Cate Blanchett (“Blue Jasmine,” “Carol, “Cinderella”) joins Marvel Studios’ “Thor: Ragnarok” as the mysterious and powerful new villain Hela, along with Jeff Goldblum (the upcoming “Independence Day: Resurgence,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” “Jurassic Park”) who joins the cast as the eccentric Grandmaster, Tessa Thompson (“Creed,” “Selma”) who will bring the classic hero Valkyrie to life on the big screen, and Karl Urban (“Star Trek” trilogy, “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King”) who will add his might to the fray as Skurge.


I enjoy the Thor movies. That said, I do think they’re the weakest of the MCU movies, to date. I think it’s because they really don’t have the whole theme thing down, as many of the other MCU movies seem to have down. High Fantasy or bloody Viking/Norse would seem like a fit, but they didn’t really go with those.


I like the Thor movies better than the Iron Man movies. More entertaining, a little better writing, more likable main character. Of course the Captain America movies rule all.


Definitely looking forward to Blanchett as Hela - as Emergency Awesome pointed out, hopefully it’s going to be like that scary bit in the Lord of the Rings movie where she shows Gandalf how the ring would change her into an evil queen.


Did anyone like the first two Thor movies? Aside from Tom Hiddleston as Loki, that is.




What was it you liked about them? I found myself really wanting to like them, because I liked the premise, but the movies ended up being boring and predictable.

Also: where do the Thor movies rank for you with the other Marvel movies?


So will Hela replace Death as Thanos’ obsession for the Infinity Gauntlet?