# Thor: The Dark World



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 8, 2013)

I would like to report a crime.  Thor was in a movie and Loki stole it and ran away into the night, laughing maniacally!

Thor: The Dark World delivers the awesome.  Even with an antagonist who is two dimensional at best (like to the point where I'm was at points kind of wondering why he was even there), Loki more than makes up for it as you're caught between laughing at his antics (and there's a lot to laugh at) and trying to puzzle out what he's really up to.

And then there are Chris Hemsworth's shoulders.  I just really can't say enough about those... and except maybe to mention his blue eyes, but I'm a girl and can get away with being all squee like that.

Good acting, good score, good writing (as long as you're not expecting much from the primary antagonist), and we have a sequel that tops the first movie.  Well done, Marvel.


----------



## Chilari (Nov 8, 2013)

I loved it. Epic. Hiddleston really showed he can act. Brilliant, subtle, funny and the whole things looked incredible. My only gripe is that yet again, all the weird is happening in a major city, recognisable the world over. It could have happened anywhere in the world. Why not in a quiet suburb of Leicester or five miles off the coast of Portugal or whatever? Always alien attacks happen in London. Or Cardiff when the Doctor is involved.


----------



## CupofJoe (Nov 8, 2013)

Chilari said:


> Always alien attacks happen in London. Or Cardiff when the Doctor is involved.


The government gives the aliens a tax break for their "redevelopment and inward investment"...


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Nov 8, 2013)

I think major cities get involved because more people have emotional attachments to major cities than smaller ones - larger populations = greater chance of an audience member to say, "I can see my house from here!"  They're societal landmarks.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 8, 2013)

I totally agree, maybe better than the first. Nice balance of all the elements.

Marvel keeps churning out quality movies with their characters, and best DC can do is Batman, and SuperBatman.


----------



## Chilari (Nov 11, 2013)

Yeah, Marvel are going all out and they're bringing a bit of comedy in, but not so much it becomes a comedy movie, just a great action movie with some absolute gems of funny lines. DC seems to have gone the other direction, full angst and all grim, and I don't find that appealling. Marvel has characters who are truly entertaining to watch, while DC relies on high drama, leaving the characters at the whim of the story instead of shaping it.

I must say, I'm seriously looking forward to Chris Hemsworth appearing in Agents of SHIELD, it'll be totally epic (not to mention a very nice view indeed).


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 11, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> I totally agree, maybe better than the first. Nice balance of all the elements.
> 
> Marvel keeps churning out quality movies with their characters, and best DC can do is Batman, and SuperBatman.



To be fair, Marvel has a dedicated movie studio to make their films and nothing but their films, so the people involved are more invested in every single film. If the Marvel films fail, Marvel Studios fails. Plus, Disney takes a mostly hands off approach to their Marvel division. DC, on the other hand, is nothing more than a single appendage of the hekatonkheire that is Warner Brothers. To WB, DC is just one more cash-generating IP, of which they have many, so they don't care as much about the films themselves, per ce, and there tends to be more Executive Meddling. If DC got their own studio like Marvel has, the overall quality of their films would increase, likely to the same level as their animated stuff, which is consistently good. In fact, if the DC animated stuff was live action instead, they'd be really competing with if not dominating Marvel.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 11, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> DC, on the other hand, is nothing more than a single appendage of the hekatonkheire that is Warner Brothers. To WB, DC is just one more cash-generating IP, of which they have many, so they don't care as much about the films themselves, per ce, and there tends to be more Executive Meddling.



That side of things I did not know. I guess it's the exceptions that stand out more; the Nolan Batman films were, well, Nolan-level, while _SHIELD_ has been making _Dollhouse_ look like a blank check to Joss in comparison. Sigh.



Mindfire said:


> If DC got their own studio like Marvel has, the overall quality of their films would increase, likely to the same level as their animated stuff, which is consistently good. In fact, if the DC animated stuff was live action instead, they'd be really competing with if not dominating Marvel.



A-flippin'-men.


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

I'm looking forward to seeing Thor this weekend.




Mindfire said:


> To be fair, Marvel has a dedicated movie studio to make their films and nothing but their films, so the people involved are more invested in every single film.  If the Marvel films fail, Marvel Studios fails.



Most of the first-round Avenger films were produced out of house.  So are Spider-Man and X-Men - both of which are blockbuster mega-successes.  Marvel Studios is big and operates independently because Marvel was able to prove the viability of their live action movies, in ways that are close enough to the source material, letting them attract the best talent.

There are plenty of movie studios which routinely produce bad films.  There's no reason to think DC wouldn't be one of them.




> Plus, Disney takes a mostly hands off approach to their Marvel division. DC, on the other hand, is nothing more than a single appendage of the hekatonkheire that is Warner Brothers. To WB, DC is just one more cash-generating IP, of which they have many, so they don't care as much about the films themselves, per ce, and there tends to be more Executive Meddling. If DC got their own studio like Marvel has, the overall quality of their films would increase, likely to the same level as their animated stuff, which is consistently good. In fact, if the DC animated stuff was live action instead, they'd be really competing with if not dominating Marvel.



Wouldn't the animated stuff have been subjected to the same executive meddling?  The animated shows were some of DC's best work.  But it's not very representative of DC's other efforts, even before the new 52.  I'm not sure executive meddling isn't how they got to their success - all of their animated works have had far more success than their movies.

But even the animated series still had problems.  Batman's a phenomenal character, and people want to see a good superman movie.  But I'm really not sure their other characters are compelling enough to do what Marvel's doing, at least without some heavy handed meddling.  The animated shows conveniently left out the origin stories for Wonder Woman, Flash Gordon, Hawk Girl, and the Green Lantern.  And even the team's origin story?  "Summoned by a telepathic Martian" just doesn't compare to the badassery of what Nick Fury did in the Avengers.

DC could easily figure out a way to launch Batman and Superman into something that leads into a successful Justice League franchise and keep them closer to the comics.  I think they could do better than what they're doing.  But they couldn't follow Marvel's path and expect Marvel's success.  Even Batman and Superman have been overexposed - there aren't as many surprises left in the source material.  Their other characters aren't even close to being as compelling as their top two.

It's hard to get to Justice League being true to the source material, except as an extension of Batman or Superman.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 11, 2013)

Devor said:


> Most of the first-round Avenger films were produced out of house.  So are Spider-Man and X-Men - both of which are blockbuster mega-successes.  Marvel Studios is big and operates independently because Marvel was able to prove the viability of their live action movies, in ways that are close enough to the source material, letting them attract the best talent.
> 
> There are plenty of movie studios which routinely produce bad films.  There's no reason to think DC wouldn't be one of them.



That's just it. DC isn't a studio. The movies are made by WB. DC itself has very little say in how they turn out.



Devor said:


> Wouldn't the animated stuff have been subjected to the same executive meddling?  The animated shows were some of DC's best work.  But it's not very representative of DC's other efforts, even before the new 52.  I'm not sure executive meddling isn't how they got to their success - all of their animated works have had far more success than their movies.



Not really. WB has teased/greenlighted and then canned so many DC film projects over the years they cannot be counted. Numerous films for Batman, Superman, Justice League, Aquaman, etc. have been "developed" or "discussed" and then ultimately consigned to the depths of development hell- because films are a relatively large monetary investment and WB seems to be very timid when it comes to putting out comic book movies. They're not willing to take the risk with most of DC's characters. There's been talk of a Justice League movie for like a decade now. But if Avengers had never come out, there wouldn't be any serious steps toward making it, like we're beginning to see now. Compare that to the animated division, which has put out stunning DC stuff consistently. Batman, Superman, Teen Titans, Justice League, Green Lantern, Young Justice, etc. plus their excellent direct-to-DVD animated films like every other year. With these smaller projects, there's less risk involved so there's less hand wringing from WB. I maintain that DC is not the problem. DC barely has any say-so in these movies. It's WB that's holding the whole thing back.



Devor said:


> But even the animated series still had problems.  Batman's a phenomenal character, and people want to see a good superman movie.  But I'm really not sure their other characters are compelling enough to do what Marvel's doing, at least without some heavy handed meddling.  The animated shows conveniently left out the origin stories for Wonder Woman, Flash Gordon, Hawk Girl, and the Green Lantern.  And even the team's origin story?  "Summoned by a telepathic Martian" just doesn't compare to the badassery of what Nick Fury did in the Avengers.



I disagree that the characters are not compelling. How anyone could watch Justice League and Justice League Unlimited and say the characters are not compelling with a straight face is beyond me. If anything, DC has better starting material to work with than Marvel did. Iron Man and Thor were boring B-listers before their movies came out. Black Widow and Hawkeye were unknown to the general public. Captain America was more whitebread than Superman. But they made the characters work onscreen (mostly out of necessity since their more widely known and popular characters were tied up in other studios). There's no reason DC can't do the same with the Justice League who, thanks to the animated shows, are reasonably well-known to any kid who's watched TV at all for the last two decades.



Devor said:


> DC could easily figure out a way to launch Batman and Superman into something that leads into a successful Justice League franchise and keep them closer to the comics.  I think they could do better than what they're doing.  But they couldn't follow Marvel's path and expect Marvel's success.  Even Batman and Superman have been overexposed - there aren't as many surprises left in the source material.  Their other characters aren't even close to being as compelling as their top two.
> 
> It's hard to get to Justice League being true to the source material, except as an extension of Batman or Superman.



To be fair, it's hard to find comic book characters _anywhere_ who are as popular and compelling as Batman and Superman. Batman is almost universally hailed as the #1 or #2 comic book hero of all time, depending on who you ask. He's so popular that there's a scale to measure comic book sales- in units of Batmans. I'm not kidding. Superman's shield is the 2nd most recognizable symbol on the planet, second only to the Christian cross. These two characters (along with Wonder Woman) survived in publication even after the huge drop in superhero popularity after the Golden Age caused the deaths of countless other characters and have remained strong sellers for over 70 years. So of course DC's other characters can't match their popularity. No one can. It's not really a fair comparison. But can DC's other characters match the popularity of Marvel's roster before the MCU was produced? Definitely. In fact they surpassed it. But the difference now is that Disney/Marvel are taking risks, planning ahead, and putting effort into every film. WB simply isn't. They don't have a phase-by-phase plan like Marvel does. Their current plan is: put out a movie, see if it does well, then figure out what to do next. So yeah, Marvel is beating them. Because planning beats no planning every time.


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> So of course DC's other characters can't match their popularity. No one can. It's not really a fair comparison. But can DC's other characters match the popularity of Marvel's roster before the MCU was produced? Definitely. In fact they surpassed it.



Maybe WB is holding them back.  But Marvel characters have more down-to-earth qualities that make them more filmable than DC's characters.  I don't think managerial structure is the issue.  They could do better than they are, sure, but I think WB sees the same problems I see.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 11, 2013)

Devor said:


> Maybe WB is holding them back.  But Marvel characters have more down-to-earth qualities that make them more filmable than DC's characters.  I don't think managerial structure is the issue.  They could do better than they are, sure, but I think WB sees the same problems I see.



Elaborate?


----------



## Devor (Nov 11, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Elaborate?



If you start a new thread I'll get into it when I have a little more time.  I don't want to hijack this one, or have time for a super-lengthy back and forth.  Also, we've had this conversation before.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 11, 2013)

Devor said:


> If you start a new thread I'll get into it when I have a little more time.  I don't want to hijack this one, or have time for a super-lengthy back and forth.  Also, we've had this conversation before.



I have a short memory about these things.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it.  Wow, I was kind of overselling the DC side of things, just a smidge. But I really do love those shows. lol


----------



## Telcontar (Nov 11, 2013)

Also enjoyed the hell out of Thor 2, especially given that I though the first movie was pretty lackluster.

The writing of this movie struck a great comic-book-movie balance, having the great big "end of the world" (actually, "end of all worlds") plot without taking itself too seriously. Some seriously hilarious moments in there.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Nov 15, 2013)

I have watched _Thor: The Dark World_ last Wednesday, and I must say that the movie is very entertaining, visually fantastic, exciting and in general a great value for your money.

The comedy elements were a lot of fun, well balanced so that they do not ruin the serious moments and still you can enjoy a good laugh. Loki is perhaps the best character in the movie (I was wondering what his real intentions would be) and now I cannot wait to see what is he going to do in Thor 3.

The only bad thing is that I left the theater before watching the post-credits scenes because I was in a hurry to get back home, but that also means that I will go and watch the movie again =)

What do you think will happen in the next _Thor_ movie?


----------



## Devor (Nov 16, 2013)

Sheilawisz said:


> What do you think will happen in the next _Thor_ movie?



There may not be a Thor 3.  It's my understanding that Hemsworth almost didn't sign up for Avengers 2 because he doesn't like the training workout they put him through.


----------



## saellys (Nov 16, 2013)

I'm torn. On the one hand, when it comes to juggling the stories of a dozen or so secondary characters and giving everyone adequate screentime and a chance to be awesome in their various ways, _The Dark World_ did a far more artful job than _Avengers_. 

On the other, there were so many missed opportunities. *SPOILERS AHEAD*. Am I the only one who thought, when the dark elves created their own Balrog and Malekith said no weapon the Asgardians possessed could stop him, that was the ideal setup for Jane? She had Aether in her veins and everything that threatened her got blown up. She could have snuck back into the room while Frigga distracted the dark elves and just touched the Balrog. Or even smacked him, since she seemed to be fond of doing that in this movie.

Of course, the fact that she literally saved the universe with a scientific Etch-a-Sketch went a long way toward making up for her being a swooning damsel for the first hour and a half, who had absolutely nothing to do during the fight on Svartalfheim. Didn't make up for Frigga, though.


----------



## Quillstine (Nov 17, 2013)

I just got back from watching THOR 2. Fantastic, lot of fun and plenty of action. As everyone else has said, Marvel is doing a fantastic job of mixing good comedic relief in with their action. I have really enjoyed this line of movies leading to Avengers and now Avengers 2 (except maybe the hulk line and Iron man 3!). Imagine the movie marathon nights you’ll be able to hold by the end of it….EPIC!
To hold true to being a critic though… it was perhaps a little predictable. Mind you every Marvel movie to date has been and it’s not effected the enjoyment in viewing. Somehow they make the corniness work so well. 
Also for me, as someone who never could sink his teeth into graphic novels and comics, I felt the Dark Elves a little lacking. They looked like they would be such awesome villains, but in the end I felt they were a little under developed. Something that is probably covered if you follow the comics.


saellys said:


> *SPOILERS AHEAD*. Am I the only one who thought, when the dark elves created their own Balrog and Malekith said no weapon the Asgardians possessed could stop him, that was the ideal setup for Jane? She had Aether in her veins and everything that threatened her got blown up. She could have snuck back into the room while Frigga distracted the dark elves and just touched the Balrog. Or even smacked him, since she seemed to be fond of doing that in this movie.


I get what you are saying saellys, but I think Frigga’s death was needed as the Catalyst for Thor, Loki reunion. That and the scene were Loki vanquished the Kursed Elf…that rocked!


----------



## saellys (Nov 17, 2013)

Quillstine said:


> I get what you are saying saellys, but I think Frigga’s death was needed as the Catalyst for Thor, Loki reunion. That and the scene were Loki vanquished the Kursed Elf…that rocked!



That would be valid if anything that happened after Frigga's death required Frigga's death to happen. Loki was the only person who knew how to get off Asgard without the Bifrost. That wouldn't have changed if Frigga was still alive. Thor and Loki still would have had to trust each other and come up with a plan. We didn't even see Thor and Loki interact before Frigga died, so there's really no telling what their relationship was like; as of the end of _Avengers_, Thor still thought his brother was in there somewhere. The only thing Frigga's death changed is that they now had to do the things they would have had to do anyway with an extra layer of grief. 

I've also been told that Frigga "needed" to die so the audience would have something to connect with emotionally. I'm not sure how much emotional connecting anyone had a chance to do in the short time they had to establish her as a character. My reaction was more disappointment at losing a potentially great character than sadness. Frankly, I think the emotional impact would have been much greater for the vast majority of _Thor_'s audience (especially the Tumblr contingent) if Loki had been the only major character death... and he stayed dead. 

Even if Frigga's death was somehow necessary, robbing Jane of agency for the first two acts of the movie was not.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 18, 2013)

Interesting point, Saellys: is a plot point ever "unnecessary"?

I'd say it's not so much that any character "needed" to die-- there are always other ways to make things happen, unless the theme has focused on some elements so much that they're the logical choice. And it's not often that an event is just too big or too dramatic, even if it's openly redundant with other pressures; usually a problem's is if it's *under*-justifying what it's there to do (or sometimes that a big event rushes the pacing, or a character under-reacts to how much happened). Hitting harder than you might need to isn't usually a fault.

The real problem is that our patience for any "motivation" ought to be worn pretty thin when it happens to take the form of a female getting hurt. *AGAIN*.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 18, 2013)

I haven't actually seen the movie yet, but from what I can gather, wouldn't it make sense that Frigga's death was needed to get Loki to help Thor? After all, she was the only one on Asgard who he still cared the slightest bit about.


----------



## saellys (Nov 19, 2013)

wordwalker said:


> Interesting point, Saellys: is a plot point ever "unnecessary"?



Yeah, loads of times.



wordwalker said:


> I'd say it's not so much that any character "needed" to die-- there are always other ways to make things happen, unless the theme has focused on some elements so much that they're the logical choice. And it's not often that an event is just too big or too dramatic, even if it's openly redundant with other pressures; usually a problem's is if it's *under*-justifying what it's there to do (or sometimes that a big event rushes the pacing, or a character under-reacts to how much happened). Hitting harder than you might need to isn't usually a fault.
> 
> The real problem is that our patience for any "motivation" ought to be worn pretty thin when it happens to take the form of a female getting hurt. *AGAIN*.



Exactly. This is getting into fridging territory, so I'll probably discuss it more in Feo's thread rather than clog up this one, but for now suffice it to say that there are lots of reasons to kill a given character, but if the character happens to be a woman and the only thing her death accomplishes is an emotional response from the men, we as an audience need to side-eye that pretty hard.

I would just love it if the Marvel fandom denied Frigga's death as hard as they denied Coulson's and managed to get her resurrected, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen. Barring that, a prequel movie (or, hey, graphic novel!) about Frigga being the finest mage in Asgard and scoring herself a crown prince and eventually teaching her adopted son everything he knows would be pretty great.



Mindfire said:


> I haven't actually seen the movie yet, but from what I can gather, wouldn't it make sense that Frigga's death was needed to get Loki to help Thor? After all, she was the only one on Asgard who he still cared the slightest bit about.



Based on what the movie established about Frigga's relationship with Loki, it would have been just as effective if she lived and asked Loki to help Thor.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 19, 2013)

saellys said:


> Based on what the movie established about Frigga's relationship with Loki, it would have been just as effective if she lived and asked Loki to help Thor.



IMHO that wouldn't work because it would be very obvious that Loki would betray Thor the second he got the chance. An elf hurt his mother but she's OK, so his life is more or less unaffected by the dark elves. In real life, how often does Mom telling two brothers to play nice together work? From my experience, tragedy brings family together. Frigga's death gave Loki the strongest possible motivation to want to get involved in destroying the dark elves. And after all was said and done, he did his part in helping Thor taking them down and only then did he start thinking of himself.


----------



## saellys (Nov 19, 2013)

Penpilot said:


> IMHO that wouldn't work because it would be very obvious that Loki would betray Thor the second he got the chance. An elf hurt his mother but she's OK, so his life is more or less unaffected by the dark elves. In real life, how often does Mom telling two brothers to play nice together work? From my experience, tragedy brings family together. Frigga's death gave Loki the strongest possible motivation to want to get involved in destroying the dark elves. And after all was said and done, he did his part in helping Thor taking them down and only then did he start thinking of himself.



The "Loki will betray Thor the second he gets the chance" angle is exactly what they ran with anyway, and it's what he ultimately did. He was thinking of himself the whole time. It was part of a much larger con. I'm not going to get too far into Loki's overarching motivation and what it really means to occupy the trickster archetype with its chaotic neutral alignment (which Marvel itself ignores when it's convenient for them with that whole "I want to rule everyone!" thing). Suffice it to say that some measure of Loki's motivation after Frigga's death had to do with that moment when he told her she wasn't his mother. He wanted to make up for that, and if he'd been given a chance to do so without Frigga dying, he would have taken it.


----------



## Mindfire (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't think Loki is Chaotic Neutral. In the first Thor film I'd say he was actually Lawful Neutral, and then in Avengers he'd slipped into Neutral Evil.


----------

