Perfect thank you!
They need the padding for Disney+.
It's objectively true that there's more amount of comedy in L&T.
No really, I was asking seriously, is it all just silly jokes after silly jokes? I enjoyed Ragnarok but felt the jokey jokey jokes were too much at times, if this is worse, I think I won't see it.
www.cbr.com
There’s some serious stuff too. Like a character has stage 4 cancer and the villain is the way he is because his daughter died. But everything is constantly being undercut by jokes.
No really, I was asking seriously, is it all just silly jokes after silly jokes? I enjoyed Ragnarok but felt the jokey jokey jokes were too much at times, if this is worse, I think I won't see it.
Very debatable: at one point he like mentally tortures children he has in captivity which should seem uncharacteristic of him having lost a child himself. He kills gods that leads to more suffering of their followers which IMO should raise an eye brow of him if he saw every god as bad. You could say it's the sword corrupting him or he always had this evil streak in him, who knows for sure. Disney seems to like play fast and lose with their "evil" characters motivations these days.
He’s the villain. His actions aren’t meant to be morally justified. I just meant that the story has serious elements, like a child dying at the start which serves as the villain’s initial push into his descent.
You could assume he's evil from the get go but that makes him less interesting IMO. He like immediately completes his mission, killing the god he prayed to who ignored his pleas and was a jerk. He makes a strange leap of wanting to kill all the gods afterwards (could be the sword pushing him but the movie is vague in that regard which makes the villain less interesting IMO).
Why would you assume he’s evil from the get go? The film explains why he’s acting the way he is. Have you seen it?
I don't but you say he's the villain and so he does villainous things like the torture. I was hinting at that it's a big leap from where he started in the movie and the movie is vague if it's because of the sword or if there's a part of him that's willingly going along with it.
Yeh, that’s the point. The leap is what makes him the villain. It’s a guy driven mad by grief past action you could argue is reasonable into being corrupted, both literally and metaphorically.
No I haven't seen the film yet. I've heard the scenes described, commentated and critiqued on. And this "journey" of the villain seems very rushed to the point of being simplistic(it's the sword corrupting him).
deadline.com
Those youtubers are illiterate.
Feel free to point out details that change the context of what I described and make Gorr's descent into villainy less of a big leap.
Because he thinks that all gods are just as shitty as his own, and that the universe would be a more just place, if he took it upon himself to kill them all. The sword also amps up his already present anger to 11.
Unless I missed it I think they could have done a better job at explaining the sword. Is it sentient? Who made it? How can it kill gods? You would think the gods would have destroyed it long ago.
Indeed, but he also ends up killing gods who were good for their followers and who without got plunged into chaos. That should've given him pause about his belief that all gods were jerks/bad.
A movie with the Infinity War Thor?
Why the villain has a flawed motivation and course of action is something that feels so self-evident. This approach that's become more and more common in recent years that every character needs to act with complete logic at all times or else it's a plothole makes for such hollow, dull storytelling, people don't act like that. Of course the villain didn't stop their course of action at a reasonable point, he's beyond the point of reason.
Judging by the way many of the gods were more concerned with orgies and superficial revelry, the movie does go out of its way to show that a lot of the gods have lost their way and are kinda dicks.
Do they need to though? A lot of times movies over explain things and it ruins the mystery.
A little something would have worked. Maybe they could have setup a future big bad with it. It didn't work for me. It didn't ruin the whole movie or anything.
I don’t think the MCU is lacking for elements that set up other films. Eternals even did this with a sword as well.
The sword's corruption is what muddies the waters here. But leaving that out of the picture, how logical is it for someone who lost a child to go out and kidnap and torture other children(yeah he did it to lure the heroes but that torturing pushes it too much into being bad for the sake of being bad IMO)? Same with Reva joining the inquisitors that hunt Jedi to ultimately kill Vader for killing Jedi and younglings.
I know he doesn't accidently stumble across the sword but hears whispers guiding him to it. I said it was very convenient he was within walking distance with the god he has grievances with nearby. Zeus and co appearing here does hurt the infinity saga IMO. Where were they and what were they doing? Half of life disappearing should affect them too.
This is where the sword's corruption muddies the water, if Gorr made all these decisions on his own and later saw the errors of his ways would've been a stronger message IMO. Now it was the sword pushing him all along till it was destroyed and we can't be sure of a lot of Gorr's personality.
An important plot device like that I do think would benefit from some lore info and it would also help with the world building if done right. It's a bit too easy how these new Marvel movies come up with things like this sword, the Book of Vishanti, Eternity wish granter(things greater than the infinity stones) only to also be rendered unusable in the same movie and can't affect future stories anymore.
It's not logical. That's the point. The villain is doing something which explicitly exposes him as a hypocrite, which is what he directly claims to not be. I feel like I'm going round in circles here.
He doesn't just happen to be within walking distance of the god and the sword. The oasis wasn't there and then it was. Clearly the sword provided him a path to that realm after its previous holder fell. It identified him as a suitable replacement because of what had happened to him and brought him to it. This is the issue with you not having seen the film and relying on moronic YouTubers to relate the story to you. They have no ability to infer anything that isn't spelled out in giant letters for them. It's genuinely sad to see people adopting their overly simplistic approach.
Because that's the point where he goes off the deep end. There was something within him that was corruptible and the sword seizes upon that and amplifies it. It takes his pain and literally weaponises it, taking him on a path of destruction far beyond his initial intent. I realise you haven't seen the film so you have a limited perspective but I do not get what's hard to understand about this.
It being very old storytelling is precisely my point. The legend of Arthur is one of the most enduring stories in human existence. It must be doing something right to have resonated with people for over a thousand years. Dismissing it as a product of more superstitious times is incredibly short-sighted. People are people and effective storytelling is effective storytelling. If Excalibur is an idea that has lasted that long without needing some in depth backstory then surely it's a demonstration of how an elaborate backstory isn't required for everything. But in this "content era" we'd probably have a spinoff series about the guy who forged Excalibur and one about the underwater adventures of the Lady of the Lake. This endless desire to have every vein of plot strip-mined for everything it can offer takes away so much soul and mystique from stories.
Muddies the water in a film you haven't seen. At the very least, consider that your initial limited impression may be an incomplete one.
DKehoe
you are fanwanking the movie into something that makes sense. It's a POSSIBLE explanation but the film as presented in theater very little of what you describe is actually on screen and explained.
Maybe there'll be a directors cut with more footage to make it more clear what is the sword's will and what was just Gorrs dysfunction. Maybe the nature of these weapons will come to light later on. Maybe he had an entire guerilla warfar plan to kill God's to draw out Thor to get stormbringer but it seems like he could have saved a lot of time by hitting new Asgard right off the bat if his ultimate goal was Eternia.
