Thor: Ragnarok

[I'm Murrin]

I saw this last night, and it's easily among the best Marvel films to date. Lots of humour, too - it seems like they've learned from Guardians of the Galaxy's success.

It does still annoy me a little that they took a great, epic Hulk story and made it into about half of a Thor film instead, though.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Despite the good things they have done with many of their movies, Marvel Studios craps on some of their material. Why hasn't there been a solo Black Widow movie? (okay, sure, throw a couple of guest stars in it but make it primarily about her) Why haven't they done a Hulk movie?

In my opinion the slow morph of Thor from "steadfast hero/son of the king" into "good-natured frat dude with a hammer" is questionable.

We are still going to go it see it, of course.

[wayfriend]

Thanks for the scoop, Murrin.

Hulk? Too many people got burned too much for making Hulk movies, I think. I can see how people are skittish about another take on it. It's far less risky to make yet another Spiderman movie.

The first one attempted to give Hulk's too much gravitas. But that's for Batman ... people only want to see Hulk smash. The second one attempted to make Hulk a conflicted action hero. But that's for Iron Man ... people only want to see Hulk smash. But can you sustain a movie that's just Hulk smashing? Well, he's no Angry Bird, he's no Emoji. Clearly producers don't think so.

But seriously ... I think if you can get people to love Bruce Bannor, it will work. Eric Bana didn't spark a bromance with the audience. Edward Norton did not, either. Can Mark Ruffalo sustain our love? I think that Hollywood thinks that they can slowly insinuate him into our hearts.

[I'm Murrin]

I dunno, I think this film is itself a demonstration that done right, Planet Hulk would have been great. Hulk as a gladiator on an alien planet, fighting first to try and free himself and then to bring down a whole empire? Hulk can easily be a much more complex character than just "Hulk smash". Hulk's like a dumb toddler in this film, but there's depth to him and you can go way beyond that.

Have you read Planet Hulk, wayfriend? I'd highly recommend it, it's like a great epic fantasy story. (It also works without having to read any other Hulk comics.)

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The Hulk has ranged from "mostly mindless" to "dumb toddler" to "sneaky, underhanded cheater" to "Dr. Banner on ultra-steroids" during his decades of existence. The MCU version we have here with Mark Ruffalo is Banner slowly getting to the point where he can control his transformation--he does it at will in Avengers; if he controls it then Hulk can access some of Banner's higher reasoning functions (but not all...yet). So far, I think Ruffalo is doing quite well with the characterization and that the studio should greenlight a solo project (do not know who should be cast as The Leader, though).

[wayfriend]

(I haven't read Planet Hulk but I am familiar with the storyline. I agree that Hulk is an interesting character. [And, hey, if you can't handle it that Hulk's "rules" seem to change, you don't know what comics are.] Nevertheless, the first two Hulk movies were considered somewhere between Meh and Blech, and there's gotta be a reason. I believe the reason is as I described, based on what I have heard. There are probably Hulk geeks who hate those movies for different reasons, but it's the general audience who makes or breaks a movie, and the general audience didn't respond to those for what are probably very basic reasons. They didn't attach to the character, and the character didn't deliver what they [perhaps ignorantly] expected.)

I am sure you're right about Hulk's prospects after Ragnarok. I think the general audience has become more familiar with who Hulk is at this point. When you have that, you have the roots you need to branch out a bit more.

The question is, as I see it, will the industry consider it risky (because of past experiences) or worthy (because audiences want it)?

[aTOMiC]

Currently stands at 98% positive on RT after 60 reviews, if that sort of thing has any meaning for you. Fyi.

[wayfriend]

I think the general audience has become more familiar with who Hulk is at this point. When you have that, you have the roots you need to branch out a bit more.

I want to add to that. I also think that MCU Hollywood has figured out who they want Hulk to be. 2003 Hulk was angsty and a victim. 2008 Hulk was dumb and brutal. Avenger's Hulk is smart, witty, and caring. That's the one audiences seem to like -- despite the fact that that is not classic Hulk. So MCU will run with that.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Given that the 2008 Hulk is MCU canon--you can see pictures of him in Harlem in the newspaper headlines in Karen Page's office over at the New York Bulletin--it could be a combination of the serum Sterns injected into him during that movie, combined with Bruce's study of meditation and breath control (some of the more esoteric skills associated with various martial arts, including capoeira), which have mitigated the uncontrollable nature of the transformation...sometimes.

[High Lord Tolkien]

How did you guys see this movie? I thought it was Nov 2nd release.

1st Hulk movie was just miserable. Father son conflict? Who was the super villain? Mutated dogs? Why was he literally enormous at the end? It was boring as hell.
Typical pre-Iron Man superhero movie: just ignore the comics entirely mess.


Second one was ok.
Nothing memorial, no comedy that I can remember.

[wayfriend]

(In Hulk 2003, the father was the super villian. He was enormous because

In this film, the madder the Hulk gets, the larger he becomes. The first time he appears, he is 9 feet tall, the second time he is 12 feet and the third time he is 15 feet tall.

)

[High Lord Tolkien]

(In Hulk 2003, the father was the super villian. He was enormous because

In this film, the madder the Hulk gets, the larger he becomes. The first time he appears, he is 9 feet tall, the second time he is 12 feet and the third time he is 15 feet tall.

)

Sorry, I wasn't looking for an answer, just thought those were totally stupid things.

[I'm Murrin]

Ragnarok came out early last week in the UK. UK pretty often gets Marvel films 1-2 weeks earlier than US (doesn't make up for getting all the Oscar-bait 6 months late).

[High Lord Tolkien]

I also think that MCU Hollywood has figured out who they want Hulk to be. 2003 Hulk was angsty and a victim. 2008 Hulk was dumb and brutal. Avenger's Hulk is smart, witty, and caring. That's the one audiences seem to like -- despite the fact that that is not classic Hulk. So MCU will run with that.

I agree and I think it's the best move.
Keep him nice as a baseline and audiences can accept any temp changes (crazy hulk or super genius).

[aTOMiC]

Saw it. Loved it.

nuff said

[Hashi Lebwohl]

To date, Marvel Studios' highest-grossing films have been Winter Soldier, Civil War, and Guardians of the Galaxy--two political thrillers and one humorous. Trying to squeeze a political thriller plot out of Ragnarok would have been too much of a stretch so they went with the humorous plan. I suspect this will work nicely--if this movie doesn't wind up making money I will be shocked.

[Rawedge Rim]

Keep in mind that WW Hulk was essentially Banner on Mega-Steroids. Hulk in MCU is essentially what is usually called "savage Hulk", a somewhat childish, less intelligent Hulk than has been seen in the last 20 years or so. Think 1970's Hulk.

[dlbpharmd]

Ragnarok was just OK for me. It seemed a bit campy. The Thor-Hulk scene was well done, although I knew Hulk would come out on top. I've always thought Thor, as a god, should win.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

They meant for it to be campy. In the MCU, Outer Space is actually quite colorful and full of equally colorful characters. You have GotG to thank for that.

[dlbpharmd]

OK, but campy sucks.