So say he goes from killing one god he had a direct connection with, to then going on a campaign to kill all gods to then explicit hypocrisy with him kidnapping children despite being motivated by the loss of his own child. There's your escalation. But you haven't seen the film.
If other gods were responsible for the drought then I could see Gorr wanting to deal with those gods too, now to just conclude every god anywhere is evil is such a big leap to make. I'd fix it with the god mentioning other gods in other places who're like him, jerks, at least that would make it easier to buy Gorr going after those too.
Or better yet, have the sword give Gorr visions of other gods mistreating/ignoring their followers in need. Whether those visions are true could be a question that would become more clear as the story progresses.
I never said it was a given that people who are grieving turn to villains. As I said like a lot of villains Gorr is set up to be a counterpoint to the hero. Thor's response to loss is established as a theme early on in the film. Gorr shows how badly that can go. He's a potential path. That there are alternatives is kind of the point. The contrast in the two characters is what it's about, not the origin of the magic sword.
Which would've been more powerful if the corrupting sword wasn't in the picture. We don't really know what agency Gorr has when he wields that sword.
It's convenient that the god was arrogant? Throughout the film we see a bunch of arrogant gods who are detached from the lives of regular people. It's a consistent aspect of the film. The obvious example being Zeus. Here's this guy who is Thor's hero, someone he looked up to and modeled himself after. But the reality is Zeus is more concerned with organising an orgy than looking out for the wellbeing of others and is too arrogant to consider the possibility that someone could pose a threat to him or, from how he urges Thor to remain in the safety of his city, perhaps too scared to face a serious challenge. Again he's a character positioned in contrast to Thor. Thor may have looked up to this guy but as a person he's surpassed him, and it's his willingness to get out there, engage with people and make a difference that does that.
Yes, when there's a weapon nearby that can kill you I'd take steps to dispose of it. The gods are played a bit one note in this movie, surely there's some variation in their characters. Thor not letting his disillusion in the gods detract from his heroism is not something I have any issues with and wouldn't expect him to have issues with if you've watched all other MCU movies with Thor.
There was a sequence where the sword laid out its plan. It might be you missed it because you haven't seen this film. Or would you have preferred an extended section about people who wouldn't feature in the rest of the film? Would that have helped you better enjoy a film you haven't seen?
If it fixes any of the issues I described I'm sure you'd let me know. But I suspect it doesn't since the sword's origin isn't in the movie. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Did your enjoyment of Star Wars benefit from having midichlorians explained to you? Is that what we as a modern audience need?
Nothing wrong with a simple plot device. Hitchcock used MacGuffins all the time.
It demystified the force sure but it didn't retroactively ruin the OT one bit for me. No movie/series does that. The Last Jedi didn't ruin Luke in OT for me either.
The sword represents the corruption. So it's once he's away from that and is then challenged to face the choice of what he wants (his daughter) or what the pain wants (to lash out) that you see the change. It's simple really
We see clips from his campaign across the galaxy and the corpse of one of the giant gods he kills. You maybe weren't aware of that since you haven't seen this film.
And up to that point he went along just fine with the sword, it devalues his "hard choice" at the end IMO.
So we don't see the actual slaying, just the aftermath. I wasn't mistaken.
The theme of Thor needing to not close himself after loss is something that is explicitly talked about on multiple occasions. Acting as if the writers didn't mean for that to come up as a theme at the end when it had been so clearly established earlier on would seem to be acting in bad faith, especially since you haven't even seen the film so acting as if you know what they might have intended is strange. You say I'm acting in good faith towards the writers but again I actually didn't like the film so I have no reason to do so. I think the problems with it lie elsewhere than some of the lazy criticism I'm seeing.
Thor has dealt with loss plenty of times before this movie, so that theme is a bit redundant if you've watched the other Thor movies and the Infinity Saga.
I was talking about your interpretation on how the sword uses pain/grief to corrupt and make its wielder do evil things. All we know for sure the swords corrupts, how (and why), was something you provided an explanation for which isn't really in the movie.
Character development in a villain? What character development is there for Darth Vader in A New Hope or Hans Gruber in Die Hard.
Jesus.
Conveniently leaving out TESB and ROTJ, are we?
Vader has little character in ANH because that movie was initially made as a one off. The other movies fleshed him out a lot more to the point he became an iconic villain with a redemption arc.
Hans Gruber was just a plain villain looking to rob a lot of money, not really a sympathetic motivation. Die Hard didn't try to make us feel something for him at the end other than "yeah, you got what you deserve.". Gorr has his prayers unanswered and loses a daughter at the beginning, that invokes some sympathy initially at least. That is a decent setup for antagonist but it goes off the deep end real quick.
