Thor: Love and Thunder **BEWARE SPOILERS**

[Khev]

That's a pretty cynical way to look at it...

Is it? We just got 22 films culminating in not just half but literally every single living being in the universe across countless planets, solar systems, and galaxies being in danger to Thanos' wrath. Character arcs spanning 8-11 years. Something that no film series can ever hope to replicate. I think it's safe to say that as a "super narrative" nothing in any future superhero films, certainly not within Marvel itself, can ever top or match what we just saw play out.

Which means they're just churning out new movies for the fun of it and for the sake of milking additional millions out of the franchise before it's no longer profitable. And that's fine. And like SMFFH I might enjoy some or even all of the new entries. But the MCU will forever be a separate "post-EG" universe from here on out, of that I have no doubt.

 

[Wor-Gar]

New Thor...

 

[e30ernest]

Is it? We just got 22 films culminating in not just half but literally every single living being in the universe across countless planets, solar systems, and galaxies being in danger to Thanos' wrath. Character arcs spanning 8-11 years. Something that no film series can ever hope to replicate. I think it's safe to say that as a "super narrative" nothing in any future superhero films, certainly not within Marvel itself, can ever top or match what we just saw play out.

Which means they're just churning out new movies for the fun of it and for the sake of milking additional millions out of the franchise before it's no longer profitable. And that's fine. And like SMFFH I might enjoy some or even all of the new entries. But the MCU will forever be a separate "post-EG" universe from here on out, of that I have no doubt.

I remember many of us saying the same thing when Avengers Assemble came out. It's Marvel, I think I've learned to give them lots of leeway in creating something spectacular when I thought they'd topped out.

 

[Meiii]

He was on stage during the presentation:

View attachment 462017

Yay! Thanks for the photo [emoji4] He's so handsome [emoji7][emoji28]

Sent from my SM-G531H using Tapatalk

 

[punisher1974]

New Thor...

I would be on board with that. She would fill out the armor nicely. She could be Valkyrie's love interest.

 

[jimcap]

Just wait and see. It will be good...............Possibly ...................Maybe.

 

[Sassafras]

Just wait and see. It will be good...............Possibly ...................Maybe.

LOL. IMO Portman has credentials but have nasty suspicion she's back - maybe - 'coz actresses have a short shelf life in Hollywood $$$. Not always, but not everyone is Cate Blanchett. I mean, Portman was more fussed about the director than the part in the Thor films? Zero chemistry with Hemsworth.

It'll be alright tho 'coz big baby my-hair/costume is-too-heavy-for-me Hemsworth is back with his bro Taika.

 

[Sachiel]

Hopefully they call her "Thordis" as a throwback to the 70's, lol.

I do think she should have her own superheroine name.

 

[MegaPrime33]

I do think she should have her own superheroine name.

Janithor.

 

[Chapter 2099]

I prefer Thor.

 

[Reefer Shark]

While Im not onboard with all the hardcore feminism stuff, Jane Foster as Thor was a thing, and there was a pretty lengthy storyline in the comics which seemed to be pretty popular among readers. Hopefully the flick remains true to the source, and Disney doesn't make this a “grrl power” thing.

 

[Chapter 2099]

While Im not onboard with all the hardcore feminism stuff, Jane Foster as Thor was a thing, and there was a pretty lengthy storyline in the comics which seemed to be pretty popular among readers. Hopefully the flick remains true to the source, and Disney doesn't make this a “grrl power” thing.

And that’s the thing. Just remain faithful to the comics and you’ll be fine. That arc/story was so beautifully written, IMO.

I don’t quite understand why that’s so difficult for Hollywood to do when the source material is already written - but alas it apparently is. Obviously, I’m not in the loop, so I get they have reasons but aside from $$$, I don’t understand why they go so far out of their way to bring a character to the big screen and then radically change their story/history in a big way. It makes no sense to me, when it was their comic origin/story/look, etc. that created the character’s popularity to begin with. If it’s THAT bad/not PC/whatever, why bother?

 

[ZE_501]

Is it? We just got 22 films culminating in not just half but literally every single living being in the universe across countless planets, solar systems, and galaxies being in danger to Thanos' wrath. Character arcs spanning 8-11 years. Something that no film series can ever hope to replicate. I think it's safe to say that as a "super narrative" nothing in any future superhero films, certainly not within Marvel itself, can ever top or match what we just saw play out.

Which means they're just churning out new movies for the fun of it and for the sake of milking additional millions out of the franchise before it's no longer profitable. And that's fine. And like SMFFH I might enjoy some or even all of the new entries. But the MCU will forever be a separate "post-EG" universe from here on out, of that I have no doubt.

Well...World War II was a real life struggle with the fate of the world in the balance.

But I’m still invested in whether or not I get mugged on the street.

A story doesn’t need to be big to be resonant and important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Khev]

Well...World War II was a real life struggle with the fate of the world in the balance.

But I’m still invested in whether or not I get mugged on the street.

A story doesn’t need to be big to be resonant and important.

Well yes but if there was a movie about you facing the entirety of the Third Reich armed forces and defeating Hitler himself and then a follow-up movie with you dodging pickpockets in Madison, Wisconsin I'm not sure that I as a member of the audience would be as invested in the outcome of the latter.

 

[Craig Walker]

Valkyrie and Capt Marvelous will move in together and build their palace.

No studs allowed.

All joints must be tongue-n-groove.

 

[Wor-Gar]

I prefer Thor.

Gay man with a lisp: I'm so Thor.

 

[jye4ever]

Tell you one thing Marvel is still on fire because Female Thor-Jane Thor trended like a mofo coming out of SDCC.

Even during Wonder Woman and JL Amazonian never even broke into the top 15 trending list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[screamingmetal]

And that’s the thing. Just remain faithful to the comics and you’ll be fine. That arc/story was so beautifully written, IMO.

I don’t quite understand why that’s so difficult for Hollywood to do when the source material is already written - but alas it apparently is. Obviously, I’m not in the loop, so I get they have reasons but aside from $$$, I don’t understand why they go so far out of their way to bring a character to the big screen and then radically change their story/history in a big way. It makes no sense to me, when it was their comic origin/story/look, etc. that created the character’s popularity to begin with. If it’s THAT bad/not PC/whatever, why bother?

If Hollywood was faithful to the comics, then you wouldn't have had your MCU. The Tony Stark in comics was very different from Robert Downey Jr.'s version. Now, they've changed the comic character to be more like the MCU counterpart, which I think is a good decision. I liked some of the Iron Man books but the character came across as a bit bland.

From those that have read the Foster female Thor comics, the reviews have been mixed, it might benefit from being rewritten.

 

[matticus]

Marvel is going to have to do a real bad*** villain to get me to watch this one.

 

[screamingmetal]

I was a bit indifferent to the news that Foster was going to be the new Thor, I never got into Thor comics and from what I do know, they've established that whoever picks up the hammer, if they're worthy, will have the power of Thor, so I guess she could.... Then I was reading up on Beta Ray Bill and came across this quote from the great Walt Simonson:

One of the cool things about Thor was the enchantment around Mjolnir and the original inscription on it. So I thought, well that means someone else can pick up this hammer and get this power, if they're worthy! So since then, some other big characters, people's favorites, have picked up the hammer, Captain America, Superman, whoever. But at this point, no one had ever picked up the hammer. I liked the idea of Cap walking to the bathroom and seeing it, and grabbing and just tugging, not being able to. So this had to be someone new. This is the most powerful weapon of the Norse gods. This hammer is a killing weapon. It's used to kill Frost Giants and others. So, Superman couldn't pick it up, cause he's never going to kill anyone, and the hammer knows that. Captain America, he's too patriotic. He's too much a symbol of America to be chosen by this Norse artifact. So he couldn't get it. So I created Bill because he's noble, and he's designed to kill. He's got a great purpose as a warrior, and also the noble ability. That makes him "worthy" whatever that may be.

That makes total sense to me. The Hammer has a purpose and what makes a person worthy is that they share that purpose, which is being a noble warrior and willing to kill for the greater good.

Then thinking about Jane Foster, she is neither noble or a warrior, she's the opposite of those things, why would she ever get to have the power of Thor? It just doesn't fit with the concept to me. She shouldn't get the power of Thor but I think the people in charge of that don't give a f- about staying true to the fiction, they just want a woman to have Thor's power. Makes more sense to give Thor's power to Valkyrie in hindsight.