Thor: The Dark World

Started by The Laughing Fish, Tue, 23 Apr 2013, 08:10

Previous topic - Next topic
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 Aug  2013, 14:21
I like Jane punching Loki 'for New York'.  But it does beggar the question, why would Thor et al ever trust Loki again?
I don't think it's a matter of trust. I believe Thor reluctantly seeks Loki's help under desperate circumstances that will unfold at some point in the plot, and Thor might believe that Loki may have encountered the new threat before. That's my assumption at least.
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Fri, 9 Aug 2013, 00:58 #21 Last Edit: Fri, 9 Aug 2013, 01:10 by riddler
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  8 Aug  2013, 15:36
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu,  8 Aug  2013, 14:21
I like Jane punching Loki 'for New York'.  But it does beggar the question, why would Thor et al ever trust Loki again?
I don't think it's a matter of trust. I believe Thor reluctantly seeks Loki's help under desperate circumstances that will unfold at some point in the plot, and Thor might believe that Loki may have encountered the new threat before. That's my assumption at least.


I think of Loki as Victor Creeds character in Wolverine; remember Creed saving Wolverine from Wade Wilson using the line "nobody kills you but me".  And yes Thor is that desperate that he would seek Loki.



Also I'll clarify my above statement to say the Hulk is the worst 21st century marvel film; the original captain america is definitely worse, the 1994 fantastic four is on youtube. I've seen clips of it, maybe one day when i'm in a silly mood or bored I will see it. Haven't seen Howard the duck but I've seen the nostalgia critic review.

But the 2003 hulk film is terrible. I saw it in theatres and again in 2011. Unless I'm forced to, I don't ever plan on seeing it again. There really is nothing redeemable about it, the story is flat, the 'psychology' to it is half assed, the plot goes nowhere and the little action that is there is poorly done (mutant poodles....)

The modern fantastic four films are okay; I liked Evans and Chilikis. I only saw them once but they are kind of flat. They got half right with Ben Grimm and Johnny Storm but the other half felt like a bad soap opera. Though to be honest I wouldnt put the fantastic 4 in my top ten comics.

Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 00:58But the 2003 hulk film is terrible. I saw it in theatres and again in 2011. Unless I'm forced to, I don't ever plan on seeing it again. There really is nothing redeemable about it, the story is flat, the 'psychology' to it is half assed, the plot goes nowhere and the little action that is there is poorly done (mutant poodles....)
Agreed. The viewer is constantly 20 or 30 minutes ahead in the narrative. I kept thinking to myself "yes, I get it, NOW MOVE ON ALREADY!"

The other thing is that this is the GI Joe version of the Hulk. Funny how a lot of Hulk's tantrums conveniently never hurt anybody. He always remembers to shake the occupants out of the tank before he smashes it to bits. It's not like seeing people get mashed up is my idea of fun but at the same time I just didn't buy that aspect of the character. It was revoltingly stupid.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 03:27
Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 00:58But the 2003 hulk film is terrible. I saw it in theatres and again in 2011. Unless I'm forced to, I don't ever plan on seeing it again. There really is nothing redeemable about it, the story is flat, the 'psychology' to it is half assed, the plot goes nowhere and the little action that is there is poorly done (mutant poodles....)
Agreed. The viewer is constantly 20 or 30 minutes ahead in the narrative. I kept thinking to myself "yes, I get it, NOW MOVE ON ALREADY!"

The other thing is that this is the GI Joe version of the Hulk. Funny how a lot of Hulk's tantrums conveniently never hurt anybody. He always remembers to shake the occupants out of the tank before he smashes it to bits. It's not like seeing people get mashed up is my idea of fun but at the same time I just didn't buy that aspect of the character. It was revoltingly stupid.
Hulk is at least an anti-hero if not an outright hero colors.  You'd root for a Hulk that killed or maimed members of the US army?  Hmm...I'm not sure I would.
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 03:55
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 03:27
Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 00:58But the 2003 hulk film is terrible. I saw it in theatres and again in 2011. Unless I'm forced to, I don't ever plan on seeing it again. There really is nothing redeemable about it, the story is flat, the 'psychology' to it is half assed, the plot goes nowhere and the little action that is there is poorly done (mutant poodles....)
Agreed. The viewer is constantly 20 or 30 minutes ahead in the narrative. I kept thinking to myself "yes, I get it, NOW MOVE ON ALREADY!"

The other thing is that this is the GI Joe version of the Hulk. Funny how a lot of Hulk's tantrums conveniently never hurt anybody. He always remembers to shake the occupants out of the tank before he smashes it to bits. It's not like seeing people get mashed up is my idea of fun but at the same time I just didn't buy that aspect of the character. It was revoltingly stupid.
Hulk is at least an anti-hero if not an outright hero colors.  You'd root for a Hulk that killed or maimed members of the US army?  Hmm...I'm not sure I would.
"Hulk smash puny human". What, did you think he was kidding or something?

Besides, Banner's exact moral agency is up for debate. It's kind of a non-issue anyway in a context where Hulk is acting in self-defense.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 04:03
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 03:55
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 03:27
Quote from: riddler on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 00:58But the 2003 hulk film is terrible. I saw it in theatres and again in 2011. Unless I'm forced to, I don't ever plan on seeing it again. There really is nothing redeemable about it, the story is flat, the 'psychology' to it is half assed, the plot goes nowhere and the little action that is there is poorly done (mutant poodles....)
Agreed. The viewer is constantly 20 or 30 minutes ahead in the narrative. I kept thinking to myself "yes, I get it, NOW MOVE ON ALREADY!"

The other thing is that this is the GI Joe version of the Hulk. Funny how a lot of Hulk's tantrums conveniently never hurt anybody. He always remembers to shake the occupants out of the tank before he smashes it to bits. It's not like seeing people get mashed up is my idea of fun but at the same time I just didn't buy that aspect of the character. It was revoltingly stupid.
Hulk is at least an anti-hero if not an outright hero colors.  You'd root for a Hulk that killed or maimed members of the US army?  Hmm...I'm not sure I would.
"Hulk smash puny human". What, did you think he was kidding or something?

Besides, Banner's exact moral agency is up for debate. It's kind of a non-issue anyway in a context where Hulk is acting in self-defense.

For all the over analyzing the Ang Lee film attempts to do with it's overpsychology, it never answers one fundamental question "is the hulk a protector of society or a threat?" the military is just doing their jobs there and he puts their lives in danger but he also saves Betty. Now the 2008 film gets it better; the military is at fault for Huk's existance (half the military, half Banner) and attempting to cover their own tracks. That hulk was clearly aimed by Banner and only defending himself. I also liked the humanity of Norton's hulk. Seriously Bana's hulk resembled a giant gumby on steroids or godzilla. It didn't really feel like Banner was truly in there, the only marginal connect between Banner and Hulk was the moment the Hulk recognized Betty and transformed back into Banner. I also HATE when Banner says he likes being the hulk. That goes completely against the foundation of the character.

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:41
For all the over analyzing the Ang Lee film attempts to do with it's overpsychology, it never answers one fundamental question "is the hulk a protector of society or a threat?" the military is just doing their jobs there and he puts their lives in danger but he also saves Betty. Now the 2008 film gets it better; the military is at fault for Huk's existance (half the military, half Banner) and attempting to cover their own tracks. That hulk was clearly aimed by Banner and only defending himself. I also liked the humanity of Norton's hulk. Seriously Bana's hulk resembled a giant gumby on steroids or godzilla. It didn't really feel like Banner was truly in there, the only marginal connect between Banner and Hulk was the moment the Hulk recognized Betty and transformed back into Banner. I also HATE when Banner says he likes being the hulk. That goes completely against the foundation of the character.
I don't know whether that's what the comic-book character is about or not, but speaking as a fan of the Burton Batman films which did many interesting things with the characters that were arguably at odds with much of the then comic-book canon, I thought the idea that Banner liked being the Hulk was pretty powerful, dark stuff about how people can often find themselves 'turned-on' and addicted to the darkest aspects of their nature, in this case the appeal of 'losing control'.  It also makes Banner's attempts to control his dark id all the more emotionally affecting since there's a large part of him that wants to continue being the Hulk for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe none of this it the classic Hulk but it makes for a psychologically rich and intelligent film which is the stock in trade for an auteur like Ang Lee, much like it is for the likes of Burton and Nolan, rather than a typical style-over-substance Hollywood hack.
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 08:02
Maybe none of this it the classic Hulk but it makes for a psychologically rich and intelligent film which is the stock in trade for an auteur like Ang Lee, much like it is for the likes of Burton and Nolan, rather than a typical style-over-substance Hollywood hack.

Fixed.  ;)

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.  :P
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 08:06
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 08:02
Maybe none of this it the classic Hulk but it makes for a psychologically rich and intelligent film which is the stock in trade for an auteur like Ang Lee, much like it is for the likes of Burton and Nolan, rather than a typical style-over-substance Hollywood hack.

Fixed.  ;)

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't help myself.  :P
Fair enough.  The reference to Nolan is almost besides the point.
Johnny Gobs got ripped and took a walk off a roof, alright? No big loss.

sad to say i think Thor remains the weak sister of the Avengers. I just couldn't find myself interested in any aspect of Asgard other than Loki. Loki was great in this one but I don't feel it improved on the first film, may have even been weaker. I just find gods fighting kind of boring when they have the ability re manifest. It seems always luck every time something finally works.

The earth scenes were good but there was probably less time on earth.