![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kindkitI finally saw Thor 2 this afternoon.
I . . . sorta feel like my $8.50 could have been better spent. I didn't hate it or anything, and visually it was often stunning, but as a story it did nothing for me. A lot of the plot was the less interesting bits of the first movie recycled, while the things I really enjoyed about the first movie (which I liked a lot) were downplayed here: the ensemble aspect (Erik and Darcy were reduced to comic relief, and Jane, even though the Jane/Thor romance was central, felt less complex and much, much less competent than in the first movie), the unusual moral complexity for a superhero movie (there was sort of a nod to "genocide is bad mmmkay?", but I wanted there to be a solution where Asgard and the Dark Elves worked together to let the Dark Elves head off for a nice, dark alternate universe, rather than the solution being Genocide Round 2), and there wasn't enough Loki. To the extent that Loki did get to be in the movie, everything he did was predictable and the Loki-Thor tension and love were, again, just a rehash of the first movie. And, just like I wanted to know why the Dark Elves couldn't just be magicked off somewhere dark, at the end of the movie I wanted to know why we're supposed to believe Loki shouldn't be king. The first movie made it clear enough, but in this one Loki is much more rational, less driven by his rivalry with Thor, and honestly, Thor himself says Loki would be a better king than he would, so why not try it? The fact that Loki wants that power and is willing to kill, deceive, and make war to gain it is by the standards of people in modern democracies quite horrifying, but historically, these are not necessarily bad traits for an absolute monarch.
I watched the post-credits sequences, so I know that Loki is king now, sort of (where has the real Odin gone?). But, as I said, I'd have much preferred the movie where Thor said, "Okay, Loki, I don't want to be king and you do, and you're crafty enough to maybe make a go of it, so good luck." And then the Dark Elves attack and Thor fights them off while Loki figures out a way to help them off to Alternate Lightless Universe and everybody's happy.
Yes, for some reason I wanted a superhero movie where people behave like rational adults. Silly of me. But in a way, the first Thor movie was that, with people doing normally intelligent and sensible things (like evacuating civilians from the battle ground) and trying to compromise and thinking about consequences and morality. This one, not so much.
ETA: One problem with Thor 2, in dramatic terms, is that reducing the ensemble element and Loki's role meant that much more of the movie rested on Chris Hemsworth. And Hemsworth, bless his little godly socks, is not much of an actor.
ETA2: The best thing about the whole experience was seeing the trailer for Days of Future Past, which looks fantastic. Not one of the other trailers, and there were about ten of them, appealed to me in the least. (Homefront, seriously? How is this not a TV movie-of-the-week? Apart from the $200 million special effects budget, I suppose.)
I . . . sorta feel like my $8.50 could have been better spent. I didn't hate it or anything, and visually it was often stunning, but as a story it did nothing for me. A lot of the plot was the less interesting bits of the first movie recycled, while the things I really enjoyed about the first movie (which I liked a lot) were downplayed here: the ensemble aspect (Erik and Darcy were reduced to comic relief, and Jane, even though the Jane/Thor romance was central, felt less complex and much, much less competent than in the first movie), the unusual moral complexity for a superhero movie (there was sort of a nod to "genocide is bad mmmkay?", but I wanted there to be a solution where Asgard and the Dark Elves worked together to let the Dark Elves head off for a nice, dark alternate universe, rather than the solution being Genocide Round 2), and there wasn't enough Loki. To the extent that Loki did get to be in the movie, everything he did was predictable and the Loki-Thor tension and love were, again, just a rehash of the first movie. And, just like I wanted to know why the Dark Elves couldn't just be magicked off somewhere dark, at the end of the movie I wanted to know why we're supposed to believe Loki shouldn't be king. The first movie made it clear enough, but in this one Loki is much more rational, less driven by his rivalry with Thor, and honestly, Thor himself says Loki would be a better king than he would, so why not try it? The fact that Loki wants that power and is willing to kill, deceive, and make war to gain it is by the standards of people in modern democracies quite horrifying, but historically, these are not necessarily bad traits for an absolute monarch.
I watched the post-credits sequences, so I know that Loki is king now, sort of (where has the real Odin gone?). But, as I said, I'd have much preferred the movie where Thor said, "Okay, Loki, I don't want to be king and you do, and you're crafty enough to maybe make a go of it, so good luck." And then the Dark Elves attack and Thor fights them off while Loki figures out a way to help them off to Alternate Lightless Universe and everybody's happy.
Yes, for some reason I wanted a superhero movie where people behave like rational adults. Silly of me. But in a way, the first Thor movie was that, with people doing normally intelligent and sensible things (like evacuating civilians from the battle ground) and trying to compromise and thinking about consequences and morality. This one, not so much.
ETA: One problem with Thor 2, in dramatic terms, is that reducing the ensemble element and Loki's role meant that much more of the movie rested on Chris Hemsworth. And Hemsworth, bless his little godly socks, is not much of an actor.
ETA2: The best thing about the whole experience was seeing the trailer for Days of Future Past, which looks fantastic. Not one of the other trailers, and there were about ten of them, appealed to me in the least. (Homefront, seriously? How is this not a TV movie-of-the-week? Apart from the $200 million special effects budget, I suppose.)
no subject
Date: 2013-11-22 07:49 am (UTC)The same goes for the Avengers movie - Nick Fury can't be *too* much in charge because then he wouldn't be cool. He had to get the World Council people to fight against. And Iron Man is all about Tony getting away from his business responsibilities (which Pepper handles) in order to make big exciting projects and run personal vendettas. Which again, fine, he's a superhero and a bit of a dick sometimes. But why go to all those lengths to talk about leadership and kingship and so on only to abdicate from the whole conversation at the end?