criterionforum.org

I mildly like the previous Thor films (The Dark World is the low point of the MCU so far, IMO), so it's without much hyperbole when I say that the Ragnarok trailer is already my favorite Thor movie.

The Thor series is maybe the blandest one with multiple entries on the Marvel universe, and even among the one offs they seem fairly, I dunno, worksmanlike- even with its eccentricities ground off something like Ant Man had more flair- and it feels like Marvel maybe realized that. I suspect they also noticed that Chris Hemsworth is a phenomenal comic actor.

Goldblum is not clicking with me in that trailer. He just sounds bored and uninterested/uninteresting.

Hulk made me giggle, but I'm tired of their music choices for the trailers being as uninspired and boring as their movies.

Consider me excited. Although Hemsworth shows some decent comic timing in the first Thor (esp. the "we drank, we fought, he made his ancestors proud" line), I think he was a revelation in Ghostbusters, and this trailer will utilize that talent.

I was never a fan of the Thor comics, but I thought the first Thor movie was a totally unexpected hoot, and possibly the most visually inventive MCU movie as well. The Dark World was a dreary downer, but based on the strength of the first one, I know they can make this character enjoyable (for me, anyway), so I'm really looking forward to this one.

While only my 3rd Marvel movie (liked the first Avengers, couldn’t stand the second) Thor Ragnarok is a hoot.


See it in 3D. The colors are amazing, and it’s full of UK deadpan humor. Jeff Goldblum fits in nicely. It was so much fun, that I was only mildly irritated when it started to tell its story.

Kiwi, not UK.

I'd agree on Thor Ragnarok - it's a lot of fun. Story wise it's a mess, and Blanchett is largely wasted (but she's clearly having fun as what is effectively a panto villain, you can almost hear the boos and hisses when she comes on screen) but there is always a laugh just coming up - often just when you think the film is about to get too serious or sentimental. Taika Waititi's own character - the motion captures Korg - is a particular highlight and, crucially, not overused.

Black Panther also benefits from being directed by the only name I’ve heard of outside of Marvel. I know there’s been discussion about how these films are mostly studio films akin to the golden days but I’m hoping Coogler will give it some flair like he did for Creed.

Edit: Ok, Whedon but he sucks.

Really? You hadn't heard of Shane Black, Taika Waititi or Kenneth Branagh?

matrixschmatrix wrote:Really? You hadn't heard of Shane Black, Taika Waititi or Kenneth Branagh?

Forgot about Black. Did Branagh do one of the Thor movies? I only saw Ragnarok and still don’t know about Waititi.

Or Favreau ignoring quality for a moment. They've done surprisingly few pure journeymen considering the nature of these things.

The Russo brothers have made several of them--are you not familiar with their TV work (Arrested Development, Community, Happy Endings)?

swo17 wrote:The Russo brothers have made several of them--are you not familiar with their TV work (Arrested Development, Community, Happy Endings)?

I know those shows but I don’t follow tv directors. It makes sense though why Russo brothers have had perhaps better quality films having come from producer-driven tv world.

I mean, ultimately I don't think your point is an unfair one- Marvel seems generally to want a relatively anonymous house style, and the movies that escape that (Black's, Ragnarok, the Guardians movies) are the exception rather than the rule, to the degree that Marvel actually cut the legs out from under Ant-Man seemingly to enforce a more anonymous style. I think the Russo brothers are a good fit here- they do good, engaging work with whatever material they're handed, very much in a classic studio director Michael Curtiz kind of mold (and I don't think you're wrong that coming off of TV direction makes that easier for them.) I think Marvel is loosening up a bit, though- the only real 'who?' director of phase 3 is Scott Derrickson, who did Doctor Strange, and that actually has what is maybe the most interesting use of extensive cg of any movie in the MCU. (You could also add Jon Watts, who directed the new Spider-Man, but I don't think Feige and co were calling the shots on that one, so it probably doesn't really factor into a discussion of their artistic choices.) Meanwhile, you've got Coogler, Waititi, and James Gunn (who isn't a huge name, but who has a very clear signature to his work) pushing in the direction of more distinctive, more auteurist entries.

I do hope they don't shoot them for 3d anymore though- I greatly enjoyed Ragnarok but the ugly over-bright lighting for 3d turned a number of beautiful tableaux into ugly setpieces, which I don't know that good directors can necessarily prevent.

The thing that I'm, perhaps over optimistically, hoping for is for all the weird and strange 'unofficial' comic book movie offshoots that turn up from around the world and put their own spins on similar material, but that is probably impossible in the same way as it was back in the 60s through to the 80s. I know that the Italian film industry has been in the doldrums for decades now, but I'm really missing the rough-and-ready equivalent of a Starcrash (incidentally this is how I'm imagining Christopher Plummer is going to appear in that re-jigged All The Money In The World film!) or Kinji Fukasaku's Message From Space to amusingly contrast against (or cash in on!) the thundering corporate might of a Star Wars franchise.

(Though I suppose it could be argued that we have been getting something like an 'international comic book adaptation' trend with adaptations of graphic novels like Persepolis!)

It might be me being biased against all this wave of movies but I didn't feel any of the "auteur" hired by Marvel pushed any of their movies in a very distinctive personal way. Gunn made the Guardians fun and lighter and meta but the material was like this to being with. And all Black managed to do with IM3 was shoving an unneeded buddy movie that didn't save anything at all but further made the film stupider than it already was but in the end, I doubt these movies would be massively different if helmed by somebody else.

colinr0380 wrote:The thing that I'm, perhaps over optimistically, hoping for is for all the weird and strange 'unofficial' comic book movie offshoots that turn up from around the world and put their own spins on similar material, but that is probably impossible in the same way as it was back in the 60s through to the 80s. I know that the Italian film industry has been in the doldrums for decades now, but I'm really missing the rough-and-ready equivalent of a Starcrash (incidentally this is how I'm imagining Christopher Plummer is going to appear in that re-jigged All The Money In The World film!) or Kinji Fukasaku's Message From Space to amusingly contrast against (or cash in on!) the thundering corporate might of a Star Wars franchise.

(Though I suppose it could be argued that we have been getting something like an 'international comic book adaptation' trend with adaptations of graphic novels like Persepolis!)

Closest modern equivalent I can think of is Empires of the Deep, a Chinese $130 million 3D mermaid epic that was basically jumping on the Avatar bandwagon, but sadly it's never been released.

Oh my goodness, that incessant temp track music is hilarious

Christian Bale in talks for next Thor sequel, presumably for the role that was offered to Gosling

Looks at thread title and doesn't feel sorry for GoT guy.