No matter how crazy or how funny, there is an underlying heart and soul that comes out in spades for the big moments. Thor's big lightning show works so well because of how his conversations with Loki, Hulk, Valkyrie, and Odin. Where it is clear he is a person with emotions and feelings. He endears characters with the funny, which is why his flicks pack such an emotional punch imo.
One thing that gets me about the apparent knock against Taika. Do those people who don't think his flicks are emotional because they are incredibly funny, think the OT and Indy are undercut by the mountains of comedy? Because they are all loaded with it. That is what made Ford so popular.
I think whatever heart and soul is being gone for in Ragnarok isn't given much emotional weight or drama, or focus.
I don't know his other movies. I don't think I've seen them. I'm only, here, talking about Ragnarok. I think his conversation with Odin is dumb (it IS dumb in one area, because Thor's not a god, not only on a moral arena, but also the movies have already established this by Odin saying they're not gods). I think the Odin scene amounts to a cheap, "the power was inside you all along" or something like, "believe in yourself", which I think has not much substance or emotional resolution to Thor's character and/or arc, as a whole.
Hulk, I think isn't much of a conversation with that, that I think has a strong emotional core, like that, to me.
I like his some of his stuff with Loki, but I think it's not given much emotional resonance.
Valkyrie, I guess. But, like with the others, I think those moments aren't developed, at least strongly, with emotional resonance to his lightning scene. Which I think is mostly cool and not much else building on that.
It's continuously amusing how Ragnarok detractors have a one dimensional view of that version of Thor, one that only exists if you don't pay attention to much of the movie.
Ragnarok Thor was only the butt of jokes? Um...what? Dude whooped Surtur alone, out-manuvered Valkyrie, Loki, and Hela, and would've likely beaten Hulk had Grandmaster not intervened. Thor is very effective in that movie. I can name a some CBM directors that should look at Ragnarok and learn how to make sure your lead hero doesn't end up being overshadowed in their own film.
I think the view you present isn't any less one dimensional. Thor winning fights doesn't he can't still be seen as the butt of jokes. I think his physical victories aren't that important in comparison to the dramatic characterization of the character, which I think doesn't get much weight, along with other aspects of the movie.
You don't think comedy can deal with real issues? Really?
The Colonialism is definitely there, but what always struct me with Ragnarok is how it deals with trauma and PTSD. Thor, Hulk and Valkyrie in particular.
I don't think that comedy in Ragnarok is really used to deal with real issues in strong dramatic ways. You bring up PTSD, but while I think the idea of those may be there, I think they're not dealt with. And the potential theme of colonialism may be there, but I think not dealt with.
I see this as similar defense of BvS: No, the idea is that Bruce sees Superman as a person because of that... I don't care. I don't think it's done well.
