Thor: The Dark World

[Flightpath07]

No Spoilers Here! Spoiler-Free!

So, I watched Thor: The Dark World yesterday.

I didn't think i was going to like it.

I was surprised at how good it was. I actually like it a lot more than the first Thor movie. Like, a LOT more. Has been a while since I was glued to a screen during a movie (next time, I will just use masking tape).

I'd recommend it, to anyone who has not seen it.

[Le Messor]

I've seen it, and I enjoyed it.

Never had much more to say about it than that.

[Flightpath07]

Annnnnnddd...

...I just (like, JUST) finished watching Man Of Steel.

To which i will use one word to describe; EPIC.

Man Of Steel was the Superman movie that all the other Superman movies should have been.

Next up on my to-be-watched list: Justice League War !

Oh, one more thought about Man Of Steel; I really appreciated the inclusion of Canada and Canadian soil in the (new) mythos of Superman.

[Le Messor]

Man Of Steel, on the other hand, I'm not a fan of. I've never seen anything so brutal, joyless, colourless, humourless, and just plain not fun call itself 'Superman' (sort of).

It's got all the excesses of modern filmmaking that I love to complain about, including making me complain about one I never bothered with before - what's with the shaky-cam in the council scene? A bunch of people talking on a stable floor, no action or anything, and suddenly the camera shakes. (Krypton council scene; well before the planet starts breaking apart.) For no reason. Have you ever heard anybody leaving a theatre saying 'I'm so glad they shook the camera all the time. It made the movie so much more enjoyable.'? I haven't.

And why was it so important to Kal El to kill that family that he did that controversial thing at the end?

~ Le Messor
"Medical bosses in Naples are investigating allegations that ambulance drivers are using their vehicles to deliver pizzas."

[Flightpath07]

The answer to your last question, Le Messor, has to do with what happened to his father (earthly) and the fact that he did nothing about it.

I thought the movie was good. It explained how one man (alien) could come to care so much about the planet he called home, in away that no other Superman movie had yet to do.

I will say this, though; the death and destruction was on a HUGE scale, on par with the Avengers movie. I have a real problem with skyscrapers being destroyed and believing that there was nobody in them.

[Jason Eberly]

I'm with Mik on this one. Better put some...

s

p

o

i

l

e

r

space in here.

Johnathon Kent suggesting Clark should let people die (including himself) rather than doing anything he can to save them. What is that?! "With great power, comes great paranoia"? With an upbringing like that, it's no wonder Clark was so petty and spiteful to that trucker. "Hey, I'll show my restraint by not popping the obnoxious trucker's head off like a dandelion, but instead I'll ruin his means of making a living! I'm a hero!"

And, as mentioned before, the fact that Superman and the evil Kryptonians destroy a small town and a good chunk of a major city without Superman seeming to be too worried about the obvious (probably significant) loss of life (did he try to pull the fight out of these populated areas to a desert or anything?), yet is so broken up about Zod trying to kill one family that he's willing to betray one of the traditional core Superman credos. It's like if Nolan had had Batman just running around Gotham mowing down criminals with a machine gun.

If they had called this movie (or its hero) something else like, Powerguy, I think it would have been more okay. But they called it Superman, which carries with it a certain level of responsibility.

Oh, and I thought Thor: The Dark World was much better than the first one, though I still detest Portman's Jane Foster. I would have been much more pleased if the actress who played the assistant (the one from 2 Broke Girls) had played Jane Foster with that same snarkiness.

[Flightpath07]

Jason, I thought Ms Portman did an okay job. I DO wish, however, that Jane Foster had been a nurse, like i believe she originally was in the comics.

And, Justice League War was another awesome movie (this one animated), the banter between the heroes (GL and Batman in particular) was hilarious.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S


As far as Man Of Steel goes, the fact that Clark destroyed the trucker's rig made PLENTY of sense, and it was BECAUSE of how Jonathan taught him to hide himself away. That puts this variation (new 52, I guess) of Superman at more of a distance from humanity than his previous incarnation, in this movie he is always trying to hide himself because he thinks humanity won't accept him. In the movie, we get to see how he gradually moves past that, putting his faith in humanity when pressured to make choices between the two races. It is a darker version of Supes, to be sure, he is more of a loner, more of a moody and unsure hero than what we are used to.

Incidentally, if I had his power...I consider myself a really nice guy, someone who frequently backs down in order to not see other people get hurt...but I would have caved that trucker's skull in. I don't think we can compare property damage with death; his choice of action may not have been the most heroic one (but he wasn't a hero then), but it was realistic at least.

[Flightpath07]

Also happy to note: the two Canadian Airmen in Man Of Steel were both played by Canadian actors!

[Le Messor]

I would have been much more pleased if the actress who played the assistant (the one from 2 Broke Girls) had played Jane Foster with that same snarkiness.

Yep. She would've been a much better girlfriend.
And, FP, you're right, Jane was a nurse in the comics (and Donald Blake a doctor).
There's a whole trope of turning comics characters to scientists for screen. There are two in The Incredible Hulk, and Heather Hudson in the X-Men cartoon.

Also happy to note: the two Canadian Airmen in Man Of Steel were both played by Canadian actors!

Woot!

s

p

o

i

l

e

r

space

The answer to your last question, Le Messor, has to do with what happened to his father (earthly) and the fact that he did nothing about it.

So, yet again, why was he so determined to slaughter that family? That hasn't answered the question; unless he's so cut up about letting his own father die, that he wants to kill everyone else, too. But why hide behind Zod to do it?

I thought the movie was good. It explained how one man (alien) could come to care so much about the planet he called home, in away that no other Superman movie had yet to do.

Personally, for me, I've always felt having a good pair of Kents does that far better than anything else we've seen; like the ones in the Donner version, or in Wolverine: Origins. You said movies, but I thought Smallville handled that real well.

Johnathon Kent suggesting Clark should let people die (including himself) rather than doing anything he can to save them.

Ugh, yeah, that was awful. What kind of person would ever even give the slightest consideration to letting a busload of kids die?

And, as mentioned before, the fact that Superman and the evil Kryptonians destroy a small town and a good chunk of a major city without Superman seeming to be too worried about the obvious (probably significant) loss of life

And that's the big and important point to me that most defenders of the movie forget - it isn't the existence of the destruction that bugs me, but Kal's lack of concern about it. The Avengers, and again, the Donner version show that care. This one doesn't.

yet is so broken up about Zod trying to kill one family that he's willing to betray one of the traditional core Superman credos.

That's just it; Kal was trying to kill that family, too.
If he'd wanted to save them, he'd have to have turned Zod's head in the exact opposite direction. The way he did it would have swept Zod's heat beam right across the Krispy Kritter family.

If they had called this movie (or its hero) something else like, Powerguy, I think it would have been more okay. But they called it Superman, which carries with it a certain level of responsibility.

Yep.

~ Le Messor
"Me and Billy the Kid we never got along, I didn't like the way he cocked his hat and he wore his gun all wrong."
~ Joe Ely

[Flightpath07]

Some


S
P
O
I
L
E
R


S
P
A
C
E

So, yet again, why was he so determined to slaughter that family? That hasn't answered the question.

I'm starting to wonder if we watched the same movie. I'm confused.

That's just it; Kal was trying to kill that family, too.
If he'd wanted to save them, he'd have to have turned Zod's head in the exact opposite direction. The way he did it would have swept Zod's heat beam right across the Krispy Kritter family.

Okay, I see the difficulty here. Um, as far as I know, the family survived, i seem to recall them huddled up by the wall shaking and moaning after Zod died.

And i have no recollection of Supes wanting them dead. He killed Zod to keep him from destroying them.

Never thought about the angle of the neck-snap. Just something they missed in the editing process, i guess. (Also, it would suck to break his neck, and have his head pointed away from the camera afterward).

[Le Messor]

I borrowed your

S
P
O
I
L
E
R


S
P
A
C
E

I'm starting to wonder if we watched the same movie. I'm confused.

We did. I just observed it more - I knew what was coming, and was watching for it. When Kal was holding Zod's neck, I couldn't see any way he could snap it (as I knew he was going to) away from the family instead of towards them. When it happened, he snapped the neck towards the family, not away from them.
Hence, he would have killed them. Hence my (sarcastic) conclusion that that's what he was trying to do.

Um, as far as I know, the family survived, i seem to recall them huddled up by the wall shaking and moaning after Zod died.
And i have no recollection of Supes wanting them dead. He killed Zod to keep him from destroying them.

That's what they'd have you believe!
But in this "Ultra-realistic" "awesomecoolthat'swhatIwatchsuperheroesforadocumen taryaboutreallifewar" "symbolism!BBQ!" take on the concept, I don't believe it for a second. See above re: angles.

(Also, it would suck to break his neck, and have his head pointed away from the camera afterward).

They could've moved the camera.
So... your theory is, he wasn't after that family but the camera man!

~ Le Messor
"Members of the faculty, faculty members. Students of Huxley and Huxley's students. Well I guess that covers everything."
~ Groucho in Horse Feathers

[Flightpath07]

I think it was all a conspiracy. Zod wanted more screen time, so they got him that extra two seconds at the expense of the family.

[Le Messor]

Of Course!

[Alphan East]

There seems to be a disproportionate amount of Superman talk for a Thor thread.
I've had the pleasure of seeing both and, in my humble opinion, Thor: the Dark World was a much better film.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed parts of Man of Steel and thought it was a slightly above average superhero movie (really liked the Canadian references), but The Dark World was an incredibly entertaining film. Once again Loki stands out as the true star but, compared with the first Thor, the supporting cast did a much better job. Especially Kat Dennings... absolutely love watching her.

[Flightpath07]

AE, I've loved Kat Dennings since seeing her in Defendor. I've always been more a fan of the B-movie superhero films (Defendor, Mystery Men, etc) than the big blockbusters, so my surprise at liking Man Of Steel was huge. Oh yeah, and that Thor sequel as well.