Which do you prefer Thor (2011) or Thor TDW (2013) ? Explain it to a non-Thor fan

[Batmannerism]

Help me out here Thor fans, why are people insisting Thor (2011) is the better film ?

Hey Asgardi-fans. I'm not really a Thor fan, but enjoyed Thor (2011),
and had an absolute blast with Thor TDW (2013).
However, it seems like a lot of Thor fans think the first film is far superior.
Personally, I thought Thor TDW was the better movie for a bunch of reasons.
It was that rare thing, a sequel that exceeds the original (e.g. Terminator 2,
even better than Terminator).

What's going on ? You guys dig Thor, so explain it to me ? I'm really interested in
your opinions.


So, from my point of view, the plot of Thor (2011) boils down to this:
Thor learns not to be such a ******** by getting himself killed, and Loki tries to impress his fake dad, by having his real dad nearly kill him, and then killing his real dad, to save his fake dad.

Okay, that's a huge reduction, and some of you are probably twirling your hammers, but TDW's plot is nice and simple = The old "enemy wants to wipe out the world/universe/7-Eleven" story.

That might be a cliché, but it WORKS ! Which is why it shows up so often.
Everything else in TDW was subplot. Also, TDW has far superior pacing, the story takes short, but natural pauses, and otherwise flows along at a brisk pace that keeps the audience engaged.


Naturally, the visuals are far improved, Asgard interiors look wicked, and the Dark Elves' technology/spaceships had a sinister but cool aesthetic.
I noticed on my second viewing that the sun on Svartalfheim is in perpetual
eclipse.

Malekith was a credible villain, Kurse (a bit one-dimensional) but a credible threat to Thor, and Loki, Loki, Loki, Hiddleston owns every scene he's in.
Every time we see him as Loki, the character goes a step further - he certainly could carry a film.

Plus, Hemsthor plays a bit more grown up, he's not the rash, stubborn dumbass from the first film, he's a bit more serious and thoughtful -and that makes the comedy work (especially on the subway, nice touch).
He holds his own onscreen with Anthony Hopkins, arguably one of the greatest living actors (and who owns the role of Odin, especially when he's being grumpy !) and does okay. Nice job to the big guy.


It's like everyone was comfortable in the roles, so they could let rip.

I felt like it had a bit of a Star Wars vibe (particularly with the Svartalfarian technology ), but that worked.

My only gripe was that Portman and Hemsthor didn't have a lot of chemistry. but that's IMO, and I didn't go to see a romantic comedy. I went to see lots of action and drama, and got both.



To put things in perspective, I'm a hard-core Superman fan, and I rate TDW as the second best superhero film this year (guess which one comes first), but not by much. I vastly preferred TDW to Avengers, as I thought the cast had more chemistry, and the peripheral characters in Avengers (Hawkeye, Black Widow, Agent Smulders etc) are kind of annoying and kind of get in the way of the story, whereas the Warriors three and Sif have small but significant roles (and are generally likeable, come on who can't like Ray Stevenson as Volstag ?)
Also, the humour in TDW seems less forced, and when the gags come up, they work within the context of the story ( "I'd better find my pants." )


As far as fun, entertaining super-hero films go, Thor TDW delivered.

My question is, why does there seem to be a significant number of Thor fans,
who disagree ? What am I missing ?

BTW this is not meant to be a "vs" thread, and if this has been covered in a different thread, my bad.

 

[Moonwing]

Hmm for me it`s the feel of the movie - it`s generic action flick vibe while the first one was theatrical and "cheap" and soap opera like - it was quiet unique in it. More of a Dark Cristal, Never Ending Story type of a fairy tale than LoTR- make me warm and fuzzy. The sequel is just bland, plot holes filled product made just to fill it`s slot in a "great scheme of things" aka MCU. First movie has it`s problems too but for me atmosphere and feel of of it compensated the downsides.

And don't me start about "Loki was sooo good he can carry his own movie!" (he was there 21 min and 80% of his time was shared with Thor-he is void without him). Nop - he was good only because he, for some strange reason, is the only one character in this product who had a coherent character ark! Main character, aka Thor, did not, or more fairly his ark was mudded and unclear and its not a character or actor fault. The ending looked like he forsake his home to f***c some human female, I know that the reason is different but it`s not clear why he decided what he decided(we know-he should be available on earth full time during AoU)- it come out of nowhere.

And another thing first movie showed us male characters being emotional and vulnerable while female characters were strong and in control-that was new and refreshing. TDW bring standards of stoic male characters with females as damsels in distress with only love on their minds back.

And even more Darcy, and even more humans, aaaad even less "magic" aaaaand even more "we are not Gods! please we adore our Christean overlords!".

 

[herolee10]

I just feel like Thor had a more compelling and driving arc in the first film than he did in the second film.

I mean, if you were to take the story elements and acting direction from Kenneth, then mix it with the visuals, production value, and actions sequences with the second film, then that would be a pretty epic Thor film right there.

My biggest problem with Thor: TDW, and even with the first film when it had came out in theaters, was that I always felt that the Thor films could have been easily more better than what we ultimately got.

I mean don't get me wrong, I enjoy both films for what they are, but they also had some rich material that i feel that they didn't fully tap into.

Maybe it's just a personal view of mine, but I feel like some of the best comic book stories can be complex, multi-layered, and yet compelling and fun to follow...so I honestly don't get it when people try to justify the faults that these films have had by saying that it's just a comic book film and that you shouldn't expect more. I would think that as fans, we should expect the best that they can possibly deliver, and imho..I feel like they haven't given us the absolute best that they could have delivered.

Darcy is slowly but surely becoming the Jar Jar Binks of the series, with more important and interesting characters being sidetracked and ignored because of her lousy increased screen time.

Thor was essentially the same person from the beginning to the end of the second film. You could say that he gave up being the crown prince at the end, hence that being the development, but it's clear from early on in the film that he doesn't seem interested in being the ruler of Asgard anymore and has his priorities and sights set elsewhere.

 

[one4smoke]

As in the other thread:

To me, Thor was much better. It wasn't quite as "visual" as the Dark World, but wasn't nearly as flawed. The subway scene in TDW was absolutely embarrassing.

The first movie was much more emotionally powerful. Thor being restored to power after unselfishly giving his life, was one of the great feel-good scenes of all time. Also, I love the battle with the Frost Giants. IMO, the best Thor battle in the movies ...yet.

When it comes to movies, I base it on if I want to watch it again. TDW, I may see just one more time. Thor I could watch over and over many times ...and have.

 

[Batmannerism]

Thanks for the posts people, sorry if I inadvertently duplicated the other thread.

It's great to hear from Thor fans, the things they perceived as problematic.

Thor, much like Superman, certainly brings out strong opinions.

 

[psylockolussus]

I liked the first Thor film more. I actually enjoyed that watching in theater. And the story is much more stronger than story of The Dark World. In this movie, you could really see the journey of Thor, from a boy to a man and I felt his journey in this movie is much more meaningful than his journey in The Dark World. Loki also had more depth in this movie and he's much better as a lead villain than Malekith.

 

[RoryTate]

I mentioned this in the other Thor 1 vs Thor 2 thread: I do like both movies about the same, but for very different reasons. Where Thor 1 falls short, TDW really shines: better Asgard, Hemsworth really owning the role, Jane being more active and being part of the battles, etc. Basically, reading through the OP highlights, I agree with almost everything you identify that was better in the sequel.

However, Thor 1 had a much better flow as a film. And it has stood up over several years (I've rewatched it about 8 times now without losing enjoyment of it), and that staying power remains to be seen for TDW. Don't get me wrong...I think that TDW is good, and will be well-liked for a long time. However, I do believe that finally being able to see Thor kick some butt is blinding many to the movie's issues (similar to the MOS positive reactions unfortunately). Again, don't get me wrong, TDW is nowhere near as unlikeable as MOS for me (that movie unfortunately lost me right when hammed up Zod was given a scar on his face (how condescending to the audience can you get?), and then given a free ride off a dying planet as a supposed punishment, and then it got so bad that I started to cheer for the female henchman and hoped that she would kill everyone and take over the planet herself), but I do think TDW completely missed out on using the Warriors 3 and Sif well; it didn't move the Thor/Jane relationship forward like it should (they weren't in love at the end of Thor 1, but there was at least a decently established romantic interest that TDW didn't use right at all); and it didn't establish enough near the beginning to pay off the big action scenes later on (the battles were well done, but I felt they lacked the extra drama required to make them great). The first Thor did all of these things much better in comparison.

However, it is actually tough for me to compare the movies, as they almost depend on what I'm in the mood to see: a well structured film that feels a little small, or a movie that jumps around and cuts awkwardly from scene to scene for the first act but overall feels very epic and grand.

 

[Bert]

I prefer Thor TDW ... I prefer my heroes to actually have a sense of danger. When your hero is out there smashing frost giants with reckless abandon, they proclaims 'at least make it a challenge for me' I wanted to yell back 'at least make this interesting!' at least Alan Taylor had the good sense to make feature a character named Kurse who beat the holy hell out of our hero, which is what a hero needs. It makes him better. Not that silly frost giant stuff. Not fighting Loki and holding back...

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Hmm for me it`s the feel of the movie - it`s generic action flick vibe while the first one was theatrical and "cheap" and soap opera like - it was quiet unique in it. More of a Dark Cristal, Never Ending Story type of a fairy tale than LoTR- make me warm and fuzzy. The sequel is just bland, plot holes filled product made just to fill it`s slot in a "great scheme of things" aka MCU. First movie has it`s problems too but for me atmosphere and feel of of it compensated the downsides.

And don't me start about "Loki was sooo good he can carry his own movie!" (he was there 21 min and 80% of his time was shared with Thor-he is void without him). Nop - he was good only because he, for some strange reason, is the only one character in this product who had a coherent character ark! Main character, aka Thor, did not, or more fairly his ark was mudded and unclear and its not a character or actor fault. The ending looked like he forsake his home to f***c some human female, I know that the reason is different but it`s not clear why he decided what he decided(we know-he should be available on earth full time during AoU)- it come out of nowhere.

And another thing first movie showed us male characters being emotional and vulnerable while female characters were strong and in control-that was new and refreshing. TDW bring standards of stoic male characters with females as damsels in distress with only love on their minds back.

And even more Darcy, and even more humans, aaaad even less "magic" aaaaand even more "we are not Gods! please we adore our Christean overlords!".

You're saying The Dark World had less magic? That's just not true.