So Thor is… pretty good, all things considered. And this comes from someone who is avowedly not a fan of Thor comics, so for once I was approaching this more as a general moviegoer than somebody with the Fuck Yeah _____ t-shirt on. It has decent performances, fun enough action, some pretty decent dialogue and plot, gorgeous visuals and solid editing. It was a perfectly decent superhero movie.
That having been said – some critics have accused it of being bloodless or soulless, and although I don’t agree with them I can see where they’re coming from, because Thor really toes a line that’s been bothering me more and more vis-a-vis superhero movies. Thor in many ways feels like a different sort of exercise than what moviegoing should be like: what bothers me, however, isn’t the “this is the obvious Piece X in the set of pieces to make the Avengers movie happen” aspect of the film (which is certainly prevalent).
What bothers me about Thor is that, although it doesn’t quite cross the line, it definitely comes right up to it in that Thor feels like the balance between “let’s make a really good and faithful adaptation of some comics that were good” and “let’s make a good movie.”
When I talk about this I’m not talking about something like Watchmen, which is a slavish imitation of the original comics and way way over the line. That’s certainly an example of the problem, but a hyperbolic one. What I’m talking about instead is that Marvel’s movies – and looking at Green Lantern it appears DC is following the trend – have started to get a really slick, corporate feel to them. I know that sounds like an odd complaint (“wait, you’re saying that enormous movie studios are making corporate product? Shut your mouth”) so let me explain.
Basically, the filmmaking process for superhero movies is starting to feel less organic. Fans have praised Thor for being visually and thematically faithful to the Kirby vision of what Thor comics could be, and to that my response is “why is that faithfulness de facto praiseworthy?” Granted, after years of things like Nicolas Cage as Ghost Rider movie or Ang Lee’s Hulk1, I can see why comic fans might want to encourage filmmakers to stick closer to the existing ideas behind comics. But Fantastic Four, on the other hand, demonstrates that staying reasonably close to the existing formulae doesn’t necessarily mean a good movie either.
And the current crop of super-faithful movies don’t advance the characters or their overarching story: you only get that when you let filmmakers tinker a bit with the ideas. Superman wasn’t a Kansas farmboy until Superman: The Movie established that Smallville was in Kansas. Gotham City wasn’t the dark, nightmarish Gothic city that’s dominated the comics for two decades until Tim Burton and Anton Furst got their hands on Batman.2 If you want a smaller-scale example of how this can work, think about how the Blade franchise turned a Z-lister into a really cool bunch of B-movies, which is no small accomplishment when your main star is Wesley Snipes.3 Or how The Crow turned what was, let’s be honest, a pretty lousy comic into a pretty great movie.4
Thor is fun, but there’s no really new ideas to it: the closest you get is the exercise of making certain elements of a superhero mythos that might not work in a two-hour movie palatable for a mass audience, referenced as callbacks for nerds. Most of the modern crop of Marvel movies fit into this mold (the first Iron Man is an outlier, mostly because of Robert Downey Jr.’s performance). When critics complain about superhero movies becoming soulless, that’s what they mean. These movies don’t advance the story: they’re about “let’s make a Thor movie that’s just like what the comics would be if they were a movie!” And that’s kind of a shame.
- Yes, I know people have tried to reclaim it as a secret success. Those people are wrong. [↩]
- And then Christopher Nolan completely ignored what had become the standard and plainly portrayed Gotham as Chicago in his Batman movies, which again goes to show how a fresh take on a character can creatively rejuvenate a franchise. [↩]
- He used to be a big star at one point! [↩]
- Which then had pretty lousy sequels. [↩]
Related Articles
44 users responded in this post
Huh. You know, you’re kinda right about this, it’d never even occurred to me; I’s forgotten all about the influence the first Superman and Burton Batman movies had actually had, not to mention Blade. And come to think of it, that kind of (re)interpretation and experimentation isn’t likely to happen nowadays (though if it did, I think Edgar Wright’s Ant-Man would be the most likely to attempt it, and maybe even pull it off, as almost none of the general public probably has any idea who he is in the first place).
Am I the only who found Thor to be anticlimatic due to the fact that Thor will be be in the Avengers movie? Still a fun movie though.
Hollywood works via formula. It took them years to figure out a formula for turning superhero comics into successful movies. Now that they’ve found one (and I’ll point to Iron Man as the formula setter), they’re not going to deviate from it until the formula stops working.
They probably have rules for their screenwriters and production cast that go like: “X number of callbacks to minor characters in Act one” and “Set design must follow comic color scheme” and “Take 1-3 lines of dialog from the comic on every script page”. Hollywood is a place where creativity is generated by committee. It takes the influence of a Nolan or an Ang Lee or a Del Toro to break them out of any successful mold.
I realize I’m in the minority, but I’ve been a supporter of Ang Lee’s Hulk from the get-go. I have been shunned by my people as a result and been forced to wander the earth in search of safe haven, but I stand by my beliefs…
(I freely admit that its dissapointing as a traditional adaptation of the Hulk comics/TV show, but judged on its own as a film, it is really impressive. The mutant poodle was a bad choice, ‘tho.)
Disagree. My problem isn’t that it takes liberties: my problem is that the sliding-wipes and onscreen panel gutters Lee used to try and create the effect of a “living comic book” distract terribly from the narrative.
Also the narrative is kind of stupid, with the whole mutant poodles thing and the plot about Bruce’s father just being a big load of “wait, what?” and handwaving. I give the Lee Hulk points for courage, but none for success.
I think you’re right, but it’s also one line in a dialogue. Right now they’re doing comics movies this way, and I think it’s no coincidence that the sources they’re using are ones that benefit from being so treated (by which I think I might mean “durable, silver-age, solo acts”. I have a theory about this and even a testable hypothesis– Cap will be good, Avengers will be a total fucking fiasco).
I think a Supernan movie done in this style
would fail, ditto Wonder Woman, but it’s working right now for these properties, so more power to ’em.
@ solid snake: I found the movie anti-climactic as well, but not because “Thor will return in The Avengers”. I thought it was anti-climactic because the big ending fight with the Destroyer was even lamer than the Ironmonger fight ending Ironman and the duel with Loki felt generic.
Another issue I had with the film in general was the attempt to connect the Asgardians and Norse mythology. If we humans based our mythology on the actions of a god-like race (from space!), why doesn’t anyone in Asgard know that Loki is Not To Be Trusted? We’ve got scads of information in mythology books talking about him, but no one in Asgard seems to be aware of it. Either the Norsemen who wrote the myths were bloody prescient, or the Asgards are idiots. Either way…
Please God, let’s not take Del Toro as a mold for comic adaptations. Sure, Blade II was better than Blade (not saying much), but Hellboy… I can’t see it as anything other than a misfire. The first movie added useless characters that acted as black holes for charisma and excitement, and made Hellboy himself rather more petulant and stupid than he is in the books. The second one added frivolous bickering between Hellboy and Liz, a lot of really groan-worthy comedy moments, and gorgeous production design with something vaguely resembling a story to support it. They felt way too kiddy and lowest-common-denominator. In terms of tone, Pan’s Labyrinth is a more faithful adaptation of Hellboy. Chilling, atmospheric, and serious. There’s humor, sure, but of the cold, cynical variety, not buffoonish shenanigans.
That, to me, is what really typifies a successful adaptation. The story beats and characters can change, as long as it captures the tone of the comics (or books, TV series, whatever), the emotions you feel while reading them. That has more to do with Watchmen’s failure than slavish devotion to the comic. It was too self-consciously awesome, with it’s beautifully choreographed slow-mo fight scenes and melodramatic music. Watchmen the comic felt stark, uncompromising, objective. And no matter how many storyboards Snyder traced from Gibbon’s art, without that sense of tone, it all felt wrong.
I can’t speak to Thor’s faithfulness in that regard, having not read the comics. But whatever flaws it had (Dutch angles, pacing, underdeveloped characters) it at least felt “right” in some way. The scenes in Asgard had the cosmic epicness and theatrical tragedy of immortal warriors, the Earth scenes the confusion and wistfulness of mortals striving to deal with forces beyond their understanding. That the establishment of that tone felt somewhat… calculated, like it wasn’t quite earned by the events on screen, might be where the label of “soulless” comes from.
It feels like we are inching toward the inevitable, unmitigated disaster.
@Remus: Iron Man actually changed a lot from the comics, though. They made Jarvis an AI! And it’s already had a lot of influence on the comics and other adaptations, the Iron Man of the Avengers cartoon is basically the same as the movie version.
The Crow is a special issue of the Punisher where he reads you the poetry he wrote in High School.
Or possibly The Crow: Just Because They Dress In Black Doesn’t Mean Goths Aren’t Afraid Of Black People.
I don’t think that Thor was a straight up adaptation of the comics. Thor is not in the body of a crippled doctor, even if they reference Donald Blake. Jane Foster went from being a nurse to being an astrophysicist, and the rainbow bridge turned into a wormhole machine. Asgard, Jotunheim, and the other nine realms are apparently different planets. Sif isn’t Thor’s woman, and having read a lot of Thor comics over the years I don’t remember Odin’s wife really being around like she was in this film. I’m not go into bring up how a couple Asgardians got racial changes, because most fans who complain about that seem like racist wankers to me.
I think they had a lot to set up and explain to the audience before they could really advance the story, moreso than the standard “normal guy gets powers” deal like you’d see in Spiderman. You’ve got to establish Asgard and explain how the mythology interacts with the modern world, and not just devote time to developing a hero, a supporting cast and a villain. I would expect Thor 2 to be better.
I wouldn’t call Hulk a “secret success, but I will say that Ang Lee was at least trying to do something fresh with the character. Also, The Incredible Hulk was at least two steps down, a paint-by-numbers project that didn’t warrant being a reboot.
Thor was pretty good. Can’t wait to see how Green Lantern and Captain America rate against it.
I can definitely see where you’re coming from, because I’ve felt it myself. The Marvel Studios movies in particular are playing it as safe as possible, not taking any risks. I can’t entirely blame them for that, though, because they want to make sure this all comes together for Avengers, which in and of itself is a risky movie.
At the same time, I really wish IM2 had explored the darker side of Tony’s character and the theme of alcoholism. The comics sort of glossed over it almost immediately after introducing it (for obvious reasons), and I hoped the movie could approach from a fresh angle. That wouldn’t have made a safe, marketable movie, though, would it?
Maybe after Avengers comes out they’ll be more willing to experiment. The guy they hired to write a Black Panther script has primarily worked on serious documentaries before this, including one about the troubles of modern Africa. A serious superhero movie that tackles those sorts of themes could be a disaster, of course, but it would definitely be a ballsy move, and show a willingness to take chances.
One last thing I will add is this: This stuff is not new to us, but it IS new to the movie going public who has no familiarity with comics. We can spot how little innovation the movies have brought to the table, but things like Kirby’s Asgard and the GL Corps, those are all being introduced to a lot of people for the first time through these films. Certain things from the comics resonate with people, and I think it makes some sense to present those elements as straightforward as possible, in the hopes that it will have the same effect on this new audience as it did on comic fans.
I would actually disagree with the notion that the Ang Lee Hulk was all that unfaithful to its source material. Success or failure beside the point, it was drenched with what Hulk is all about, from the comic-book psychological claptrap about rage to trashing Army equipment in the desert.
It’s a similar situation with Ghost Rider, though I’d argue that fannish disappointment had more to do with an overinflated opinion of the character’s importance and thematic profundity than the movie failing to reach the heights the property called for; that film was basically at the exact level that the character deserved, which I don’t say as an attempt to praise the film (just as something that I know is more likely to leave Ghost Rider fans annoyed with me). Same thing with Daredevil, quite frankly.
I’m not sure I agree with your dismissive comments on the first Iron Man movie. (Let it be said that I am not a comics-guy…)
I found that movie interesting, and a good movie, because of two very “movie” things about it. One was that the main character was not just on a physical journey, but an emotional one. The other is that the movie is chockfull of pas de deux vignettes of real acting. Whenever there are just two actors on screen, there’s a real movie going on here.
That’s why I was so disappointed with the second Iron Man: that’s just a sequel in search of another sequel, barely nodding at the successful tropes of the first.
The movie industry makes a lot of money when it makes a film “just like the others” and no one notices: and they go back. It achieves art when it does something new, and wonderful, either in the story or in the telling.
I have not (yet) seen Thor. I may not, largely because it seems that it is a movie I have seen before, many times, often better. I’m not in love with the character, nor am I nostalgic for the comic. What is new and wonderful here?
I don’t know if it’s new and fresh, and I’m not really a big fan of Thor comics, but Hiddleston’s Loki was really good, and worth a watch.
I wasn’t expecting much from this movie, but I also found it managed to do really well with a very complicated screenplay that needed a lot of information and context dumped on the audience before really starting any sort of narrative, as well as handling several threads and characters. It did extremely well at something that so many other movies fail at, and I think it did it because it had a real drive behind it and real drama holding everything together.
There’s a reason the earth exile feels out of place, and its because the movie manages to get us interested in the otherwise too-over-the-top mythical world of Asgard through what are real conflicts, if in a weird world. It gets you absorbed enough to let go of the silly details, such as the outrageous setting. I think its worth a watch, and while I get what you’re saying MGK, I don’t really think it’s soulless, although it’s obvious it’s another piece in what amounts to a marketing ploy, but you can hardly fault them for that. If nothing else, you can rest assured that this era of formulaic Superhero movies will end abruptly once the Avengers movie bombs.
“At the same time, I really wish IM2 had explored the darker side of Tony’s character and the theme of alcoholism. The comics sort of glossed over it almost immediately after introducing it (for obvious reasons), and I hoped the movie could approach from a fresh angle. That wouldn’t have made a safe, marketable movie, though, would it?”
In the comics, Tony’s alcoholism got so bad that he had to give up being Iron Man for something like three years, leaving the job to Rhodey while Stark was – literally! – living in dirty alleyways and sleeping on the street for a good stretch of issues. So no, it wasn’t glossed over, but that would probably be a bit more of a downer than your typical summer movie.
I’m sorry, I should have been more clear; I always felt the it was the resolution to Tony’s alcoholism that the comics glossed over.
Tim O’Neil, yes you are correct, that all happened in Denny O’Neil’s Iron Man run, which came after “Demon in a Bottle” which did indeed gloss over the alcoholism. In fact, if someone read Demon in a Bottle, which covers something like 8 issues of “boy i could use a drink” and then spends one issue of Tony as an alcoholic, then that someone could be forgiven for thinking that Tony defeated Alcoholism over night.
But Fantastic Four, on the other hand, demonstrates that staying reasonably close to the existing formulae doesn’t necessarily mean a good movie either.
I’m not convinced Fantastic Four stayed anywhere close to the existing formula. Plus, I’m pretty sure the actors sucked.
It was just that the FF movies sucked, pretty much totally in ways that have almost nothing to do with how faithful or unfaithful to the source they were. Writing, directing, editing, production: all areas worthy of blame.
“Plus, I’m pretty sure the actors sucked.”
Ah, Chiklis did a good job, and would have been excellent in a better movie.
(Also, count me firmly in the “suit is the only way to go for a movie Thing” camp. Spare me a 7-foot tall CGI one that looks like it stepped out of Heroes Reborn.)
I would also argue that Chris Evans did a pretty good Johnny Storm.
I thought the whole and only point of a Thor movie was to see who they could dredge up to look like a real-life Thor. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Thank you Branagh, my daydreams will thank you for at least six months.
Just got back from Thor, and I will concede that it lacked the spark that Iron Man – well, Downey himself – brought to the proceedings. The crowd I saw it with didn’t have that “fuck YEAH” reaction throughout, even during the big fight scenes.
That said, it wasn’t badly-made. Helmsworth was solid playing Thor’s growing-up process, and he definitely has a strong presence in the role. Now the onus is really on Chris Evans to command the screen when he has to share it with Helmsworth and Downey.
I’ve been saying something similar to what MGK says here for some time now about comic movies in general–the two Hulk movies being a real exemplar of this increasing tendency (and yes, Ang Lee’s Hulk wasn’t very good but it was so stylistically daring and technically well-made that I’m still eagerly awaiting a SF movie with a GOOD script directed by Ang Lee). But I’m not sure that Thor is the movie I’d have applied it to. Yes, it’s obviously trying to be “on-model”–I’m sure that Braunagh wasn’t going to be allowed to make Thor a black and white film about a race car-driving ninja who just wants his kids back–but as far as I can see, both Thor and Loki’s characters are completely different from the comics, at least at first, and the visual design, while it obviously owes a lot to Jack Kirby, is still very much a cinematic interpretation (with some very innovative aspects) rather than a transliteration. The “magic vs. science” theme was new, too, and the way Jane and Thor’s love story ended up was oddly sweet.
here’s an idea that seeems lost these days. Things that you like will seem like good things to you. You like Kirby Thor, then similarities to Kirby Thor is a good thing.
Superhero movies being true to superhero comics is a good thing, because it means they’re working from the source material. You point out the 1989 Batman movie’s Gotham is what basically created modern Gotham. Why should a movie that’s over 20 years old be allowed to dominate what the comics do?
Of course I consider experimenting overrated.
It’s not “dominating” it. 1989 Gotham is visually striking and distinctive, which is why comics cribbed from it: a good idea that somebody comes up with is one you keep using.
You do realize that Batman canon is a progressive history, right? Commissioner Gordon was a fat buffoon until Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams revamped Batman in the 70s; that was the same time Arkham Asylum showed up. Alfred wasn’t the Alfred you recognize and love until Year One in 1986. Mr. Freeze was a joke until “Heart of Ice” in BTAS made him a player. And so on.
I thought Thor was an interesting movie in that, while it had a lot in common with other superhero movies that have come out recently, it did a few things very differently. The biggest is probably that the protagonist is a superhero at the beginning of the movie and shortly thereafter loses all of his powers. That’s the exact opposite of pretty much every superhero movie, ever. I also liked that the main villain is not actually inherently evil. Even when they’re fighting each other at the end, they still love each other as family, and you can tell that Thor would probably rather give him a hug than bash his head in, if circumstances were different.
When it comes to costumes, action sequences, and a lot of other stuff, yeah, it’s pretty much paint by numbers. But I think it plays around in that framework enough that it’s worth watching.
@Drag Balls:
“Please God, let’s not take Del Toro as a mold for comic adaptations. Sure, Blade II was better than Blade (not saying much), but Hellboy… I can’t see it as anything other than a misfire. The first movie added useless characters that acted as black holes for charisma and excitement, and made Hellboy himself rather more petulant and stupid than he is in the books. The second one added frivolous bickering between Hellboy and Liz, a lot of really groan-worthy comedy moments, and gorgeous production design with something vaguely resembling a story to support it. They felt way too kiddy and lowest-common-denominator. In terms of tone, Pan’s Labyrinth is a more faithful adaptation of Hellboy. Chilling, atmospheric, and serious. There’s humor, sure, but of the cold, cynical variety, not buffoonish shenanigans.”
In this, we could be as brothers. The Del Toro Hellboy adaptations are, to me, the perfect example of a comic book movie that gets the appearance right but misses the mark when it comes to everything else. It’s especially galling when you consider the apocryphal “studio meddling” which Del Toro claimed he was battling against…the Hellmobile and the Helldog and why can’t Hellboy be like Ghost Rider and yadda yadda…only to discover that no studio meddling was required to make a Hellboy movie that sucked.
@MGK:
Your point about superhero films “playing it safe” nowadays are well taken, especially when, as you yourself pointed out, something like Nolan’s take on Batman results in something that feels fresh and invigorating. I wonder, though, if the latest crop of superhero movies might be…not “exempt” from this, exactly, but if it might be a bit more forgivable in this instance if only because the average moviegoer probably has no clue what’s up with Marvel’s Thor in the first place. I mean, to people familiar with Thor, sure, there may not be any real vital spark here, anything fresh and new…but to Joe Moviegoer whose knowledge of superheroes encompases Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and (nowadays) Iron Man and that’s it, something like Thor may feel fresh to them.
“A good idea that somebody comes up with is one you keep using.”
The same thing applies to comics-to-movies adaptation, of course, as to cribbing ideas from the movies to use in the comics. The movie’s Asgard is Kirby-esque because Kirby’s loopy-sci-fi’ed-up Asgardian design aesthetic is one of the cool things about the Thor comics. So, when you’re making a Thor movie, why wouldn’t you use that?
Faithfulness to source material is not in and of itself a virtue (Snyder’s craptacular “Watchmen” being a great example of this), but using what works about the source material and respecting what the original fans love about it is a worthwhile and generally laudable effort on the part of adapters.
I do think the thing about Thor is, that’s one movie that should be faithful to the comic because otherwise…why are you making it? Thor’s a public domain character.
But I think marvel’s playing it safe because 1) Hulk, good or bad, was so mercilessly drubbed that it gave the impression risk wasn’t worth it. I really think, if Hollywood is a little bit safer than it was, that movie’s reception was a big catalyst for it.
2) A lot of the new movies are in Marvel’s hands, and they want to make sure the characters are recognizable so they can draw from the synergy. The X-Men movies were a very different take on the concept, and a case of “giving to the mythology”, (I think every new interpretation from here on out will establish Magneto as helping build Cerebro, and the helmet being telepathy dampener) but Marvel in a financial and merchandising standpoint gained little from them.
I disagree because THOR did add a lot of cool stuff to the series like Bifrost (my God that was brilliant), Yggdrasil being a network of wormholes, and New Mexico.
So I don’t think it’s so much as progressing or adding to the original that is required; other adaptations don’t really require what you suggest. Reinvention is important to adapting works to make certain that they’re more suitable to the medium they’re in, and also to improve upon lesser works, but I think the reason people refer to THOR and the others as ‘soulless’ is simply this:
They’re unoriginal.
These movies are very cliched, we’ve seen them a thousand times before, and so they seem lacking. People use cliches because they work. That’s why they become cliches in the first place. The first time they were used it was a brilliantly original choice.
The trick of late, to compensate for this, is to have a distinct visual kinesis and empathy with the main characters. Really enjoyable characters draw people in so they don’t mind.
I enjoyed THOR precisely because I found Thor and Loki to be so empathetic, but it was a paint-by-numbers exercise, as was IRON MAN, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, STAR TREK – these are cliched films that you know inside and out, and while they embellish and indeed, are told with great skill, certainly enough skill to make them satisfying, entertaining, and very successful (as they deserve to be), they feel lacking somewhat after the fact because they are fundamentally unoriginal. You’ve seen it before. (Well, you’ve experienced the exact same story before, as I mention, the visuals are often wildly original.)
We also forgive them a little because we understand that this is the first movie in a franchise (though personally, I don’t think we should – but the fact is, we all do).
It’s this lack of originality that separates them from movies like THE DARK KNIGHT or RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or even THE MATRIX which, when they come out, blow people away because you’ve never sat down for a story quite like that.
THE DARK KNIGHT went to a darkness we rarely see in the genre and was incredibly surprising throughout, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is filled with incredible turning points, and THE MATRIX is the only “the One” movie where it sowed real doubt in its audience as to whether Neo really was “the One” or not.
THOR, STAR TREK, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, IRON MAN, and no doubt GREEN LANTERN – you could take a guess at what the entire structure of the story from the trailer, and you’d be right. (That’s not the trailer’s fault.)
So as entertaining as they are, they’re somewhat soulless because you’ve seen it all before.
Still enjoyed the hell out of them though.
While I was watching Thor (which I thought was pretty good actually, fun adventure) I was struck how they seemed to be fitting it into the mold of Iron Man, at least structurally. It starts in the desert, hell even with a car accident, followed by a flashback to show the main character at the height of assholishness (but Thor is the bigger asshole and his asshole stuff is a lot more fun than standing up someone at an awards banquet.), followed by redemptive hero arc, where the villain is revealed to be a trusted friend concluding with a fight with a hulking robot (and the betrayer falling off something high). I don’t know if Marvel decided to stick with a winning formula and just change the particulars, of if’s just coincidence.
@MGK: You know, the only thing I actually liked about the Lee Hulk movie was the ‘comic panel effect’ your talking about, because it was the only thing that gave the movie any energy. And they they walked around in a ghost town for the next 20 minutes and talked about repressed memories. Whatever happened to ‘Hulk Smash?’
I am truly surprised by the number of Ang Lee Hulk defenders, though I see your points. What we need to do is bring those hands of Lee Hulk and Incredible Hulk together, though that doesn’t seem likely at this point.
Helmsworth and the actor playing Loki turned in really good performances. And how can you not love a movie that casts Titus Pullo as Volstagg, really?
I was exceptionally pleased with it, and couldn’t think of anything I’d want them to have done differently. There were so many nice little touches.
And freakin’ Fandral, laughing like Errol Flynn, exactly as he should.
Bass, I wouldn’t count “The Dark Knight” because as a second installment (or sixth, depending on you look at it)it’s not a good (or even applicable) example of why should and can knock it out of the park the first time.
Nolan sure is getting a lot of love in these comments, but I actually thought Batman Begins and Dark Knight were just as formulaic and derivative as the other superhero movies being discussed. The only original element in Nolan’s films was Heath Ledger’s take on the Joker, which as far as I can tell has had no impact on the comics (unlike 1989 Batman, which revolutionized the Gotham setting). All of the other elements were cribbed from Year One—a comic book that was made a quarter of a century ago.
[…] be told, I knew I was going to have to challenge Bird on this matter even before yesterday’s post, because the other day he was complaining about Green Lantern’s mask. I don’t see the […]
There were so many things about the Thor movie that were better than I would have expected. (SPOILERS BELOW!)
For one thing it looked fantastic. The stills released of Asgard made me fear it was going to look like 80’s Doctor Who sets, but wow did it end up looking great. The city-on-a-cloud-in-space was wonderful. And what genius came up with that design for the rainbow bridge? Recognizably something you’d use the word “rainbow” to describe, but looking nothing at all like a unicorn poster. Thor’s and Loki’s helmets could easily have looked ridiculous, but were great instead. All the Asgardian costumes were faithful to Kirby and the comics but somehow made to look really good.
Thor’s power wasn’t toned down so he could fight “realistic” villains from our world, instead they put him up against Frost Giants and the Destroyer Armor (which looked and sounded great — those visor blasts were actually scary, even if they were just tearing through a small town diner), against which, Thor really seemed godlike in his power (which makes me curious how they’re going to handle him in the Avengers).
Loki was written and played with such restraint when he could have so easily been a bog-standard scene-chewing crazy evil mastermind. His manipulation of Thor at the beginning was actually subtle. And how often is the villain’s Real Plan revealed to actually be less sinister than it appeared? (Okay, so genocide is still pretty evil, but you get the sense he would never kill his father, and it actually comes across as a reveal.)
And I loved the way government agent Coulson came across as an apologetic guy doing his job instead of a power-crazy sinister The Man. And the way when he’s finally confronted with Thor in all his glory, Thor doesn’t give him the expected snarky put-down, but takes the regal high road: “Grant my friend this boon and I’ll be your ally.”
I did think it was kind of hilarious the way Thor’s cape looked *exactly* like it does in the comics.
@Urthman. I agree with you about everything, but for one small point. The main palace in Asgard looked waaaaay too much like a pipe organ. I kept expecting to hear Toccata and Fugue in D Minor.
I liked how Thor calls him “Son of Coul.” 🙂
I loved the movie, and I totally think that Loki is the best villain ever. I defend my theory here: http://socialistatheistnerddude.blogspot.com/2011/05/many-nerdy-bloggers-have-posted-short.html