Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Thor: The Dark World — What Did You Think? 233

On Friday, Marvel released its latest superhero blockbuster, Thor: The Dark World. Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, and Tom Hiddleston reprise their roles as Thor, Dr. Jane Foster, and Loki. Christopher Eccleston, best known for his role as the Ninth Doctor on BBC's Doctor Who, portrays Thor's nemesis in The Dark World: Malekith, ruler of the Dark Elves of Svartalfheim. Despite a strong opening weekend at the box office, critical reception has been lackluster. The movie averaged 66/100 on Rotten Tomatoes and 54/100 on Metacritic, but user reviews rated it higher, at 86/100 and 8/10 respectively. io9's review calls the plot "completely forgettable," but also said, "at a time when superhero films are gravitating towards Christopher Nolan-style darkness, it's really nice to see a movie go swinging into adventure with a song in its heart." Comic Book Resources also commented that the movie was a lot of fun, but added, "the film doesn't quite reach its true potential due to a villain who never truly feels like much more than an amorphous bad guy." Those of you who went to see it over the weekend: what did you think?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thor: The Dark World — What Did You Think?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11, 2013 @03:57PM (#45393795)

    And the product placing could have been better as well.

  • Thor? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by xevioso ( 598654 )

    You know what this movie needed? A progressive rock track. Songs from Yes, Rush... would have been awesome.

  • Meh (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ip_freely_2000 ( 577249 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:00PM (#45393819)
    It is what it is. Not the best Marvel movie but I didn't mind the admission price. One thing though....why is it the heroes always run into the one, only and correct cave on an entire planet? Thor and Jane avoid a storm and run into the one place with a time/space wormhole. Almost as bad as Kirk getting chased into the only cave on a ice planet that had Spock sitting in it. ( First ST/reboot movie ).
    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:04PM (#45393855)

      Because in all the other possible universes in which they ran into the wrong cave, they perished and thus there was no movie?

    • The phone rings when they're outside seeking shelter. They can even keep the existing dialogue, but you get two or three quick shots of them triangulating based on signal bars. Maybe even show Thor isn't a total doofus and has more than three brain cells, by having him notice that they lose signal when they are aren't in line with that cave up on a ridge.
    • I'll see your old Kirk and Spock and raise you New Kirk getting chased into the one cave of millions on the one planet of billions that happened to have New Scotty in it.

    • Re:Meh (Score:4, Interesting)

      by crakbone ( 860662 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @05:41PM (#45394869)
      *Spoilers* Loki ran them through a portal to that world. It would make sense that other points of convergence on the planet would be in the same area. Similar to the overlaying of the portals above Greenwich. The chances of something coming through a portal would be extremely low and they might have crossed a couple of them and not known as they are invisible. As it was they were only able to track the earth portal by her cell phone signal. Of course you are talking about a movie based off a comic book about a mythical demi god, on another planet, that the main characters only got too by riding a rainbow and running away from elves.
    • by Zumbs ( 1241138 )
      Yeah, and when the minions of the evil minions open fire in the general direction of the hero and manages to hit everything *but* the hero ... It follows that the major ability of the hero is not their courage, strength or brilliance, but rather simple, dumb luck.
  • Funny that (Score:5, Funny)

    by bob_super ( 3391281 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:01PM (#45393825)

    I thought I had disabled the slashdot advertisements a while back.

  • I haven't been to the movies theater in four years and just went this past weekend... to see Ender's Game.

    • I haven't been to the movies theater in four years and just went this past weekend... to see Ender's Game.

      That was fairly good, but you should have seen Gravity instead - in IMAX. Just my $.02.

      • I heard Gravity was a special effects masterpiece. However, I can't stand Sandra Bullock so I'll probably wait for the DVD.

        • Re:missed it (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SteveFoerster ( 136027 ) <steve AT stevefoerster DOT com> on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:36PM (#45394167) Homepage

          Seeing it on DVD won't make you like Sandra Bullock better but it will greatly diminish the amazing immersive experience of this particular movie. Seriously, see it on the largest screen you can find and see it in 3-D (and I'm usually a 3-D hater). You won't be sorry.

          • Yes, yes I will be sorry. I'd rather have the $14 extra PER TICKET from seeing it on whatever screen it is playing on at the cheap-seats than going OOOOOOHHH for two hours.

            I'm made plenty of mistakes with money. One that I no longer make is on entertainment, movies in particular. I'll get 95% of the enjoyment from seeing it on the small screen as I would on the large, and for a whole lot less. And, really, since I don't waste money on 3D, I really don't know what I'm missing, nor do I care.

            Priorities: We al

            • I'd rather have the $14 extra PER TICKET from seeing it on whatever screen it is playing on at the cheap-seats than going OOOOOOHHH for two hours.

              Isn't that basically the point of seeing a movie? Y'know... to go "ooooooohhh" for as long as possible? Admittedly different things make different people go "ooohh", but the point remains. If you're actively avoiding an experience that would've been "ooooooohhhh"-worthy, you're Doing It Wrong.

              It's like going to a 5-star restaurant to dumpster-dive.

              You know, I could've skipped the ticket price I paid in 1994 to watch Pink Floyd's last concert tour. I could've just listened to their CDs a couple mor

          • by Daetrin ( 576516 )
            I actually went to see Gravity twice. Once in 2D, and then again in 3D because my company organized a trip. If i'd actually had to pay for the 3D version i would have been sorry. I stopped noticing the 3D effect about 5 minutes in. Then during the ISS scene a couple things flew directly at my face and made me flinch (which i do not count as a positive experience) and then i stopped noticing it again for the entire rest of the movie.

            To be fair i've said the same thing about every other 3D movie i've seen (
        • I heard Gravity was a special effects masterpiece. However, I can't stand Sandra Bullock so I'll probably wait for the DVD.

          I don't share your dislike of Sandra Bullock, and I'd be curious as to what that dislike is, but she does a pretty good job in this role portraying a strong, smart, yet vulnerable character in an impossible situation -- and I agree with fellow poster SteveFoerster [slashdot.org] about the experience of the movie:

          Seeing it on DVD won't make you like Sandra Bullock better but it will greatly diminish the amazing immerse experience of this particular movie. Seriously, see it on the largest screen you can find and see it in 3-D (and I'm usually a 3-D hater). You won't be sorry.

          I generally don't see things in 3-D, but didn't mind for this. In any case, the 3-D is less important than IMAX (though they're usually combined for this movie), and the visual clarity and sound quality of an I

    • Re: missed it (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Enders game was far better. Enders game was far better than its peers at making you think. The psychology of Bender vs his siblings vs the academy and his peers were all well done.

      Even Loki (played by Tom Hiddleston) was flat and not his usual standard. The absence of a solid story didn't help.

      Seriously, go see Enders Game ... Much better than Thor.

  • by wcrowe ( 94389 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:02PM (#45393833)

    Except for Kat Dennings. I can watch her all day long.

  • Things went fast, caught fire, and exploded, over and over again. My basic needs were well met by this film. I plan to see it again.

    • by godrik ( 1287354 )

      Pretty much the same here. You leave your brain outside the theater and then stuff happens, some funny parts are funny; some not funny parts aren't so funny. Overall I had a good time.

  • by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:08PM (#45393891)
    If it did not have the love sequences between Portman and Hemsworth it would have been *cough* worth it.

    Leave it to Hollywood to make dialogue awkward and cringe-worthy. It got good once the action started rolling, but there really was no chemistry between the two lovers, and Kat Dennings' character felt so forced I felt uncomfortable in the chair.

    Special mention to Skarsgård for doing perhaps the best scene in the movie in which he uses shoes to explain the coming convergence. It looks like he had a lot of fun doing that and he seemed quite relaxed and confident in his role, unlike Portman who seemed off the whole time.
  • by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:10PM (#45393905) Homepage
    The movie itself was interesting.

    I just wished it concentrated more on the actual hero, instead of Thor and his love interest.

    After all, all the girl did was free the aether, and most of what Thor did was deliver the girl/aether to the bad guy.

    The real hero was Eric No Pants, who created the weapon that killed the bad guys.

    Oh, Thor had to actually use it, but honestly, that's the least he could do after he and his girlfriend gave the Aether to the bad guy in the first place.

    The movie was exciting, but I really wish they had told us more of the real story - how Naked Eric saved the universe!

  • by Bardez ( 915334 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:11PM (#45393911) Homepage
    I liked Thor 2 better.

    I found the character development with Thor 2 to be much more believable than that in Thor. In the first, he couldn't pick up his hammer and suddenly was humbled outright. In this, he slowly comes to realize that he cannot put his feelings for Earth (and Jane) aside and act as a ruler would, and must instead act as a guardian/soldier.
    • by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @05:19PM (#45394639) Homepage Journal

      An interesting aside, if one for a moment suspends disbelief and takes the plot as something real, and isn't that what we're supposed to do in fiction books and movies???

      The Asgardians had technology... Jane Foster and her cohorts had science. When she was on the medical table in Asgard, those working on her explained what they were doing, but it was more of a "work-the-machine" level explanation. Jane understood what was happening.

      Ultimately the Asgard machines weren't able to do the trick, because they didn't really understand them or know what any underlying capabilities might have been. The duck-taped-together things did the trick, because there was knowledge there, if not craftsmanship.

      Also, Thor did what Jane needed him to do at the end. Without question he accepted her competence. My wife liked that.

  • That's... Brilliant!

    (note: If you don't know Doctor Who, first... why are you here? second... you won't get this joke)

    • But not fantastic?

  • by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:12PM (#45393929)

    It's a comic action flick that will earn a crapload of money for the investors. Great special effects, great final boss battle, great job putting Asgard on film, though the other realms were disappointing. I enjoyed it, but don't expect anything original. These movies are basically cookie cutter by now. Hell, they even used the comedic "so glad to see you...SLAP!" gag 2X.

    Women will appreciate the lead. He goes shirtless and the women in the audience practically soiled their seats.

  • by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:14PM (#45393953) Journal

    (Which is quite over rated)

    I would give them both about a 6/10.
    Second one has a very slow start but ultimately, not too bad. I saw it in 2D and honestly I expected much worse, it's not a shabby movie to be honest - not entirely deep or great but not bad.

    I'm not into the whole comic book thing, so I look at them as regular action movies, I don't care if they "fucked up" a character or any of that. I think the best comic book movie in the last few years was probably Iron Man 1, it's just done fairly well - good story, decent effects, it's not bad.

    • This was pretty much my take on it. It lived up to the first one, but the first Thor was near or at the bottom of Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, so that doesn't say a whole lot. I enjoyed it as a cheap, action flick, but you really do have to work hard to suspend your disbelief when the writers were lazy enough to rely on the random deus ex machina portals, not just once, but twice to move the plot forward. MINOR SPOILERS First, at the start of the film when a portal opens to the location no on

  • Overall I liked the movie, but I thought some of the humor was forced at times. Or badly timed. And I would have liked to see more character development on the Jane Foster character. Mostly she is reactive. Tom Hiddleston carried the movie.
    The final scene with the collector was miserable and should have been cut from the movie completely.

  • There's a scene at the end where everyone blinks into existence, and then Mjolnir zooms by and Dennings chirps out "Mjolnir!" like she was talking to Scooby Doo or some other cartoon mascot. Low point of the film. I wish they had explained the change in Mjolnir's behavior, too. In Avengers, it blasts through multiple levels of helicarrier to get into Thor's hand just in time for him to knock the shit out of the Hulk. Here it's going around corners and shit, fast enough to be effective, slow enough so Denni
    • Actually, she says "Mew Mew" which was a call back to a gag in the first film where she can't remember what the actual name is whenever she has to refer to it in conversation.

    • Obviously just fanboi-rationalizing here, but I prefer to think that it was taking the fastest route. Going through metal sheets is perhaps faster than going through a bunch of corridors. However, whizzing around a building might be faster than going through thick chunks of concrete or granite.
    • Maybe Thor recalibrated it when Nick Fury sent Asgard the repair bill.

  • by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:34PM (#45394157) Journal

    I had read a very negative review before seeing it, so had very low expectations, and ended up being pleasantly surprised. I thought The Avengers was better made, but Thor (the film) didn't suck. There was some clever dialog, a reasonably coherent plot, good characterization of Loki, and Thor (the character) ended up being not quite so one-dimensional as he was in the first film. Tom Hiddleston stole the show by far, but Rene Russo as Frigga was surprisingly fun to watch for the few moments she was on the screen.

    I thought the last action sequence was muddy and could probably have been re-edited to make it more coherent. I thought Thor's final speech showed more character development in a few minutes than the character had shown in three films, but that was probably by design. I mean, in the comics, Thor isn't exactly a complicated guy.

    It's not my favorite film, but I'll probably see it again when it comes out on video.

    There is a mid-credit scene and an after-credit scene. The mid-credit scene is in a word, bizarre. Comics geeks know The Collector, and understand that this leads up to The Infinity Gauntlet, which must be a plot point in a future film, but the scene was, I dunno, just really weird. I've read that it was done by a different director.

    The after credit scene follows a trend I'm not sure I like -- that of changing the ending in a scene after the credits. I first noticed this in The Grey. If it becomes too prevalent it'll be more motivation to wait until the video, so I can fast forward through the credits to see the real end of the film.

    • The after credit scene follows a trend I'm not sure I like -- that of changing the ending in a scene after the credits. I first noticed this in The Grey. If it becomes too prevalent it'll be more motivation to wait until the video, so I can fast forward through the credits to see the real end of the film.

      I actually like how they're handling these scenes now. Back when Marvel first started dropping stingers at the end of each movie, you had to sit through *ALL* of the credits... all that scrolling text, calling out every single key grip that ever boomed a mic, before you heard Samual L Jackson say the word Avengers. But now, any plot-relevant scenes are put near the front of the credits (i.e. Thanos and the Collector) while the very very end is reserved for a little joke or funny riff (shwarma, Bruce Banne

      • You're right, it's good to have the plot-important scene towards the front of the credits, but if there's a scene after the credits, how could you not sit through them?

        What I was referring to was Jane sitting there doing something absolutely mundane at the end of the film, and that's where the film stopped. That's a good ending, as endings go, and give the film a certain "feel". The segment with Jane after the credits changed that "feel", which is what I was referring to by "changing the ending".

  • by Webs 101 ( 798265 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:36PM (#45394169) Homepage

    A movie can only be as great as its source material. It can almost never be greater than the sum of its parts.

    Here, the one lacking element was the screenplay, and it's a shame. The acting was superb and the direction took the script as far as it could go.

    There were too many Asgardian minor characters. Sif, Hogun, Fandral, Volstagg, Tyr, etc. None has enough to do. It feels like there was more to the Sif-Jane-Thor triangle that was left on the cutting-room floor, which is a shame. It would have been better to drop any nods to the Warriors Three.

    Another problem was the ridiculous hand-waving that got the Aether into Jane. The Portal-like... - well, portals were cool but there had to be a better way to release the Aether. Maybe there was a better way to drive the plot and forget the Aether completely.

    Speaking of handwaving, isn't it a bit ridiculous that Heimdall didn't see the dark-elf attack coming? Isn't that his job?

    It's a shame, because the small touches were all there. It was funny, adventurous, and unpredictable.

  • by djdanlib ( 732853 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:39PM (#45394193) Homepage

    The good: Visually impressive. The sound was excellent. 3D was tastefully done and not gimmicky. Special effects didn't seem to overreach and I wasn't sitting there irritated by a lens flare overload. Good cameo for Stan Lee. The extra scene at the end of the credits (like in every Marvel movie) left some interesting loose ends.

    The bad: It seems like they cut out some minor parts of the plot and various explanations/reveals for things so they could fit more action into the time allotted. At multiple points during the movie, I thought to myself, "What is this and why didn't they introduce it?" Maybe it's a movie for people more familiar with Thor's comic book history.

    I bet they will put some of the things I wanted in an extended director's cut later. So I'll probably watch for that in the stores in a few months.

    Summary: It was a pretty interesting fantasy/action movie, and is very appealing to the senses. Don't leave until ALL the credits are over. The fact that I *wanted* additional exposition is good. I am just a little bit dissatisfied. Worth it for a matinee showing at least.

    • The extra scene at the end of the credits (like in every Marvel movie) left some interesting loose ends.

      One of the loose ends is supposedly getting cleaned up in the Agents of SHIELD TV Show, in an episode where they have to go to London to deal with the aftermath of this film.

  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @04:48PM (#45394297)

    It's from Hollywood so inevitably just another in the unbroken stream of Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies where CGI is used to wallpaper over all the average acting and complete lack of any real story.

    If I'm not mistaken, this one was stock plot #4 with predictable ending #2b.

  • by tinkerton ( 199273 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @05:16PM (#45394601)

    Thor: The Dark World â" What Did You Think?

    Oh were we supposed to think then? Now they tell me.

  • by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @05:25PM (#45394681) Homepage
    Once upon a time, when a superhero movie with a budget and talent behind it came along once every few years, they were pretty exciting and entertaining. But with Marvel squeezing out films as quickly as they can turn the crank, plus Warner getting one out now and then, and fantasy/sci-fi films (e.g. Middle Earth, Transformers) being made from the same big-budget CGI-heavy dimly-lit mold, there's getting to be very little special about any of them.
    • " But with Marvel squeezing out films..."

      I think you mean *Disney* squeezing out films; considering they bought Marvel in 2009 for an epic [at the time] $4BN US.

      IMO, the Kingdom of the Perpetual Mickey should be viewed as pop culture's Microsoft. They really seem to have traded "You can design and create" for "Embrace and extend", as their core business strategy.

  • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @05:30PM (#45394727)
    Did anyone else notice that they cribbed a scene wholesale from the SWTOR "Decieved" trailer? That bit where the troop ship crashed directly in through the building was the Bioware trailer almost shot for shot and angle for angle. When the ship's doors opened, I half expected a bunch of light-sabers to light up.
  • Most of the visuals were great ; but I could not take the Dark Elf-a-tubbies seriously. "Eh oh! Time for Midgard bye-bye!"

  • by koan ( 80826 )

    The movie and the one before are complete garbage, and if your generation gets raised on this garbage, and likes it, I can only imagine what dreck your children will watch.
    Until generations later they're staring at a picture of an naked butt on the screen for 2 hours and laughing.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday November 11, 2013 @08:56PM (#45396381) Homepage Journal

    This reminds me of a joke I once heard an actress tell:

    Q:How do you tell the dumbest actress on a movie set?

    A:She's the one who's sleeping with the writer.

e-credibility: the non-guaranteeable likelihood that the electronic data you're seeing is genuine rather than somebody's made-up crap. - Karl Lehenbauer