THOR Post Release - Page 7

Having watched the deleted scenes last night, I kinda found myself hoping for an "Extended edition" that spliced some or all of them back in.  Though I didn't listen to the commentary from Branagh explaining why they were left out (yet), I thought that in particular the additional material concerning the Warriors Three and Sif would have been most welcome.  It doesn't flesh them out too much more than the film already did, but it still provides some nice little character moments for them and makes them feel more fleshed-out even if they're not.  Plus the comic-geek in me greatly enjoyed some of the tiny little easter-egg references to the other Asgardian realms they dropped.

 

Plus the pre-coronation scene with Loki and Thor was pretty cool just for showing us clearly where the relationship between them is to start, though I can understand that one being cut (it plays slightly against the "arrogant and thoughtless" Thor we're supposed to have at the beginning of the movie, as well as pushing the already rather sympathetic Loki even further into that territory).

When I got the DVD out of REDBOX, none of the bonus features (no, not even the commentary track) were on the disc. Seeing as I loved Stevenson'ssmall role in the film, I am now on a mission to hunt down the full set and check out those scenes. I enjoyed the world of the film, and this is one of those cases where the chance to spend more time there would have helped the movie on the whole IMHO

Yes, Stevenson, who was already arguably the most "featured" of the Warriors Three, definitely had the most stuff cut, as well.  But you do see a little more of Asgard, and get more sense of the camaraderie between Sif, Thor, and The Warriors Three, and to a lesser extent Loki.  Plus you get a bit more of the Warriors Three on Earth, as well.

Haven't watched any of the extras yet (save the useless Avengers one), but I sure do like this movie. Just loads of fun throughout, and still my favorite of the summer tentpoles.

I wish Fandral asking his groupies to polish his sword had stayed in, I couldn't believe they even filmed that, it was brilliant.

 

I still enjoy the film but the Warriors Three were really given the short stick.

That had much to introduce to an unfamiliar audience. I'm sure we'll see more of them in the sequel.

So there are two and three Disc Blu Ray options available on Amazon. What are the differences? The descriptions only mention the Agent Coulsen short. Is that it?

The 3 disc version is likely the one that comes with the 3D blu-ray as well as the 2D blu-ray.  Otherwise, it should be exactly the same in terms of features.

Verily, On this...Eve of...THORsday, I have seen...THOR, again!  By ODIN'S Beard...THOR is...THORoughly Awe-Inspiring, and Fun!

Sincere apologies for being dense on this, but what is Portman's character researching? Why was she out there when Thor arrived? She mentioned occurrences that happened 17 times before that were predictable, almost as if Thor's banishment was preordained. I know that's not what they're suggesting at all, but I just don't get it. If she was actually researching what turned out to be those gateways, how are they predictable (such as his banishment)?

I'm sure there's a quick line of dialogue explaining it, but apparently I keep missing it.

As someone who never had much interest in Thor I must say I really like this movie. Kudos, Branagh and Hemsworth.

brandhay, She is studying what is happening in space, through the active use of the...Asgardian's Rainbow Bridge!  THOR, tells Jane all about the...9 Realms and the Rainbow Bridge after he brings her mentor to her dwelling.

Still love this flick even on second viewing, glad I picked up the Blu Ray this week. My only gripe is the Hawkeye stuff really does feel shoe horned in.

 

Quite enjoyed the Marvel One Shot as well, it's an interesting way to link the movies together pre-Avengers.

Hawkeye was shoehorned in, but Renner packs a lot of great attitude and humor into his few lines. Good casting.

Is Thor a feminist movie?

 

 

The Marvel One Show for Captain America was pretty funny as well.
 

 

Finally caught this on Blu last night. Strong start to the film, but (maybe I was too tired) was having a tough time being invested at the end. Love the Asgardian stuff, the fact that they didn't shy away from the fantastic, especially the production design and the initial Jotunheim battle (shoulda been Fenris though IMO instead of Troll-asaurus Rex). Hated the forced romance. Really undermined Foster's "strong female lead" independence and was totally unbelievable to me (especially compared to how it was handled with tension over time in CAP).. Would have preferred more bonding scenes there. Also kept thinking that Thor should say something like "You're much... shorter than the women at home." Portman looked like a child compared to Hemsworth.

 

Speaking of children. I chuckled at the cliche "establish a character as a hero by showing him lift up a child into a truck fleeing for safety" shot.

 

Also, all this magical gobbledygooky tech, and the Asgardians still ride around on horses. Silly. :)

 

After I leaned over to my wife to make a MST3K comment "Must be a Comic Con in town.. there's Gimli and Legolas..." when the Warriors 3 show up on Earth, the movie delivered its own Ren Faire/Xena joke. I laughed hard.

 

Kenneth B was a godd fit for the material though and Loki made a great villain here (surprisingly nuanced). Thought of MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE 80s flick and BEASTMASTER 3: THE EYE OF BRAXUS many times throughout. Nothing wrong with that. Enjoyed it mostly, but loved CAP AMERICA and IRON MAN 1 heaps more.

 

Anyone know how heavy those helmets were? They looked massive.

 

EDIT: Watching behind the scenes now. Didn't realize that the smalltown in NM was Silverado (set).

Edited by DARKMITE8 - 2/2/12 at 9:29am

I really liked it. I'm a lifelong superhero fan, but I was never into Thor. Always seemed boring and/or silly to me, depending on the version. Much credit goes to the casting - Chris Hemsworth was really likable. This really could have gone in the wrong direction. I was very pleasantly surprised. 

 

Agree on the Frost Monster. Reminded me too much of the LotR cave troll. Should have been a big wolf. But maybe audiences wouldn't have liked the hero if he punched a hole in a big doggie's mouth - and that was a pretty cool move. 

Watching the EPK-style behind the scenes. Sir Hopkins quick feedback on both Hemsworth and Colm Feore in 2 different segments? "Great actor. We had some great scenes together." They may even be the same soundbite! Hilarious.

 

It may be that I just revisited the ALIEN Quadrilogy set, but this BTS stuff is the definition of back-patting fluff.

 

EDIT: Between the pop tarts, pancakes, coffee, and egg mentions and scenes, maybe he should be dubbed "THOR: GOD OF BREAKFAST". Shoulda given the guy (and Volstagg) Hostess fruit pies instead...

 

Edited by DARKMITE8 - 2/2/12 at 11:06am

I really liked this movie. The Asgrard stuff was grand and epic in a way Green Lantern couldn't match up to, and it dialed back the Marvel Universe tie ins to set up the Avengers. I know building up the the Avengers is the plan of these movies, but Iron Man 2 felt like too much of a setup film for the Avengers, than actually having a coherent story to tell. I mean we had a villain who had access to Stark technology, but was poor and drank himself to death? Wait what?!

Same here; I'm one of the only people I know who thinks Thor was, pound for pound, better than Captain America - and I fully expected it to be the other way around. The Hemsworth/Hiddleston combo is a big part of why I feel the way I do, as well as the fact that Loki's Big Plan made more sense to me than the Red Skull's.

 

That said, I was never a Thor fan and think the sequel will have an uphill battle. I just don't think there's anywhere for Thor to go character-wise now that his big redemptive arc is complete. Maybe it could be about redeeming Loki or something, I dunno.

I personally prefer Captain America, but Thor isn't too shabby either.  Catching it last night on DVD, some issues - namely, the pairing between Hemsworth and Portman, which is rather flat, and the repetitive cinematography - still irked me, but the design of Asgard is still rather fun and Hiddleston is a good dramatic Marvel villain.

I thought Thor totally stomped Captain America. I know chud as a whole was hot on Cap, but my impression was the general consensus was that it was much more of a pick'em between the two.

Both are very good, to me. Thor takes the cake because it doesn't fumble important story beats as badly as Cap, nails a few really impressively, and has a great ending, while Cap's ending is borderline awful. I also don't find the first Iron Man to be the unassailable near-classic some people do -- I'd put Cap and Thor about equal with it. The Marvel standard of quality is pretty consistent.

I don't think Iron Man is seen as unassailable.  Everyone likes it, but no one really calls it a masterpiece.

 

I liked Captain America a little more than Thor, but the latter was actually a greater accomplishment since I always hated the character and it had a tougher road integrating the fantastical Asgard stuff into the Marvel Universe.

 

I wouldn't say masterpiece, but it is certainly considered the best Marvel movie by a wide margin. At least that's my understanding of the majority opinion.

It's love is widespread, but not so intense that you can't get away with knocking it.   It is considered the best mostly because it kicked off the whole shebang, I think.  IM2 is the low point, but other than that Marvel's flicks have been solid B+'s across the board, imo.  The Avengers will take the cake pretty much by default just by putting the excellent cast together in one movie.

I liked Thor quite a bit more than Iron Man, specifically because of the magic fantasy stuff trumping Iron Man's questionable politics. Tony Stark has the tech, and the armor, and he finally wants to improve the world. And he's going to do that by... flying to a random village in the Middle East and beating up the obvious bad guys!

Stark's goals start out even narrower than that - he's only going after the bad guys who are using his weapons! How dare they!

I think Thor is better than Captain America just on the fact it doesn't ruin the ending and it doesn't have the forced tie ins to the Avengers. The build ups to that film feel more natural in the 1st Iron Man, Hulk, and Thor. They were able to stand as individual films because of it. Now let me explain why I don't like an overtly Avenger build up.

Iron Man 2 seemed to have a lot of potentially good ideas, with none of them coming out coherently. I loved the Tony Stark and his dad setup, and it could of had a whole film dedicated to that dynamic. With his "heart" failing, we should of felt the sequel was a race against time as well. Of course a film needs a villain of importance in his quest, and Vanko's exile at the hands of his father seemed perfect. Needless to say, a lot of potential for a dramatic film was there, along with Downey's charm and wit, could of made a good sequel.

Then comes the Avenger setup for it's film, bringing in Black Widow and Fury. Now while these are fine characters, their inclusion bloats the film, and with previous story ideas in play, nothing could be juggled properly. The result feels like an unfinished film. In the sense of building up to the Avengers, that makes sense, but it takes time away from our main protagonist's mission of rebirth. With more wink and miss it moments on the Avenger build up, more time would be allocated to the characters of the specific title, and further contribute to making a film standalone on it self.

So hear comes Captain America. Oh look the Stark Expo. Oh look it's a Stark relative. Oh look Oden got mentioned. Wait was that the noise from Iron Man? The film has once again great ideas, but again has to build to the Avengers so it hurts it. The easiest is the ending. With a timeline in place, Captain America has to be frozen fast so he can show up in the present time. So he decides to crash the plane...

... my answer to that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruMO9SXto0Q (link for those with browsers with issues)

Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed Stark Sr. in Captain America.  He was put into the story more smoothly than I would have guessed before the film's release.  Sure, in the end he was basically the Q for the military's projects, but he was interesting to watch and, in one of my favorite moments of the film, debunks the possibility of a love triangle with just a bit of movie self-awareness.

 

 

In the name of getting Captain America to the present, they ditch a lot of potential WWII stories.

Stark being there, did it add anything to his character? Let alone if we start thinking how old he is then, how old is Tony Stark then?

If I'm not mistaken, it has been said that sequels could easily slip back into the period setting due to the film skipping ahead through months of time at points.  Although it's more likely for them to go the route of the modern-day setting since bringing Capt. back to the past would have an air of inevitability about it, plenty of great stories for the character have been told in the present.  They could incorporate his period background into those stories well enough, if they were so inclined.

 

As for the matter of a time line with Stark's father, nothing seemed terribly out of place to me.   If you do the math, I'm sure you could arrive at something that reconciles Howard's age in Captain America with how he appears in Iron Man 2...or at least come close enough that it's not much of a bother, really.

 

EDIT:  And it's been stated in interviews, possibly by Evans, that Rogers knowing Stark's father will cause some friction between the two.  It may not add anything to Howard specifically, but it works.

They establish in the first twenty minutes of IM that Howard Stark worked on the Manhattan Project. I'm not seeing any problems timeline wise with Howard's age in Cap and Tony's age in IM 1 and 2.

I don't know anything about the comics, but I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't turn out that Hayley Atwell is Tony Stark's mom.

I kind of thought the same thing.... That would had a little tiff between Cap and Iron Man

And if he gets it on with Sharon Carter, Cap could become Tony Stark's grandson in-law.

neoolong, That would bring some...STARK, reality to the Assemblage of Avengers!

Hayley Atwell>Natalie Portman

 

CAP wins

 

The movie... not the hero,,, cause Cap never gets to... nevermind.

Brother in law (or first cousin once removed in-law). Unless the Stark family tree has a crazy loop in it.

Finally saw this, sort of as 'homework' going into "The Avengers". It was the only standalone movie of the Avengers members that I hadn't seen. I had low expectations after how savagely Ebert lambasted it (I agree with him often). I think he was a little too hard on it, but I understand why he was so unimpressed.

 

Generally, I thought it was a little too CGI-heavy, and the tone was a little weird. It cut back and forth between all the stuff going on in Asgard that's so grave and meant to be taken seriously, and the stuff on earth that's often more comedic. It reminded me of how people complained about "Star Trek: First Contact" cutting back and forth between comedic stuff on earth (which some thought was too slapstick-y) and serious suspenseful action on the ship.

 

In that movie, however, I found the comedy and action/suspense equally enthralling and spot on. Here, I didn't think either of the parallel story lines were completely satisfying. Portman and Hemsworth had some nice moments, but their romance felt a bit undercooked, especially compared to the one in "Captain America".

 

Thor as a character was really boring at the beginning - a one-dimensional warrior-type in Asgrad. Then, he came to earth and become a one-dimensional clueless fish out of water meathead. Fortunately, he became marginally more likable as the movie went on. Hemsworth certainly showed an admirable amount of charm and charisma once his character calmed down and lightened up a bit. Hiddleson as Loki was better than I expected. I was worried that he might not be a weighty enough villain for "The Avengers", but he definitely showed potential.

 

The mid-section of the movie was decent, but the beginning in Asgard was surprisingly dull sub-Lord of the Rings lameness (all portentous speeches and forgettable CGI mayhem). It was also surprising how dull both climaxes were. Really didn't care for the Destroyer's weakass assault on the town or the incoherent showdown between Loki and Thor. The CGI really overwhelmed everything way too much in this. I would have appreciated a little more humanity and emotionally resonant moments instead of overblown special effects and goofy comic relief.

Just caught this again last night.  Still like it, even though it has its uninspired moments (the post-prequels Frost Giant Monster is as terrible as modern monster design in movies gets) and Branagh's overuse of dutch angles irked me just as much as it did when I first saw the movie.  He tilts the camera for an exterior shot of a hospital.  The fuck?

Thors my favorite of the current crop of marvel films - so when you walk, through a storm, hold your head up high and don't be afraid of the dark...