Thor 4 Reveals the MCU's Biggest Problem
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 янв 2023
- Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/nandovmovies
Thor Four was full of problems. Here's the one that I can't get over.
The Nando v Movies Merch Store - store.nebula.app/collections/...
MOSTLY NITPICKING PODCAST
iTunes I apple.co/2lMcoVv
Google I tinyurl.com/y6nnxte5
Stitcher I bit.ly/2NbZFZ4
Spotify I spoti.fi/2Oc5Qg4
OTHER STUFF
Patreon I / nandovmovies
Discord I / discord
Reddit I / nandovmovies
Twitter I / nandovmovies
Facebook I / nandovmovies
Instagram I / nandovmovies
Music by Epidemic Sound 
Развлечения
![PADDINGTON IN PERU - Official Trailer [4K] - Paddington Bear is back!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lKgitu25ZAg/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m seriously dissatisfied with how well adjusted the MCU populace seems to be after half the population disappeared and reappeared. I know it’s too complex to delve into in a franchise like this, but it’s really understated how such a monumental thing occurred yet the in-universe characters treat such a traumatic thing nonchalantly and call it “the blip”
that's the worst thing the mcu has done in my mind. why should we care when all the impactful events will be made into a punchline 2 months later
@@nameynamename3758 "Stakes and impact are too hard to keep account of. I just want to write something that's not gonna matter in two films and get a billion dollars for it..."
I was feeling the same, but I missed most of the MCU shows and recently got a blip of the falcon and winter soldier, which made me take some stock.
The Flag-breakers are a terrorist organization of those who oppose policies to reincorporate those who were gone.
Dr. Strange dealt with the love of his life finally moving on over the 5 years he was gone.
Tiamats timetable being paused and rapidly accelerated by the population changes is a weaker one.
I'd need to rewatch to confirm, but I think the kid at the end of Black Panther was born near the start of the blip.
Looks like Scott will be dealing with Casey growing up without him.
I've only heard about Far From Home, but sounds like the story writers didn't account for it taking place after the blip.
I haven't checked out most of the rest of the stories, but I feel like they are addressing it, even if it feels more like garnishing than an entree.
It's weird because Kevin Feige said that phase 4 will be about dealing with the blib, but Spiderman 2 and Falcon and the winter soldier are the only ones that mentioned it in more than throw away lines
Didn’t 5 years pass? Humanity is very resilient and forgetful. This is a very real response to the blip I think.
In America we had a riot at our nations capital, and the entire world shut down for months during a global pandemic. Now just a year or 2 later, life has gone on.
You just start to forget
I loved your highlight of how Disney’s unwillingness to change marvel’s status quo mirrors their unwillingness to relinquish the rights to content they’ve made billions off of for decades.
I remember when the mcu actually made things change. Sokovia accords. Shield. It was compelling.
@@alexpick518 they were still building their empire. After endgame, they were on top of the world, and their concern now is staying there.
@@alexpick518 sokovia accords was barely focused on
exactly!
They seem very possessive don’t you think
By Endgame, Thor knows humility, sacrifice, perseverance and is worthy of Mjolnir several times over. He needed to finally step up as a leader if not as a king and demonstrate all he's learned and pay it forward.
Hopefully phase 5 will be better cause for me phase 4 was a bit of a mixed bag.
@@kdusel1991 doubt it. They're bringing back the same writers from Phase 4. It'll be more of the same.
He should've stepped up as king to his people back in Endgame. They needed to show him maturing across the films. Stepping up as a leader, especially after he just learned about the importance of Asgard as a people and not just a place. Thor would never hide and abandon his people. Though, it's a little too late now. If they were to try to make him serious now, it would be completely out of character.
Infinity War should have started his path towards Old King Thor, at least in temperament.I realize that's a far future comic timeline, but still in the movies everyone he loves dies just like that comic arc. He could have had a destroyer arm, grows more cantankerous but still with a humorous, but barbed tongue, but no. He had to find himself and behave like an idiot child for the THIRD TIME. Stop resetting his growth! Maybe we'll still get a Grumpy Old Man King Thor movie one day when Hemsworth is ready to exit the role.
@@kdusel1991 they're already king if the hill, so there's no reason for them to "make it better," unfortunately.
I think the main problem is that they choose the story they want to tell based on the movie character’s journey so far, and then choose a villain that is popular from the comics, and attempt to work that into the story. Every once in a while, it just doesn’t work.
FINALLY! SOMEONE DISCUSSING GODS OF THE MCU!!
This sounds like you're excusing bad writing as if there wasn't anything Waititi could've done. Don't excuse bad writing.
@@BioshadowX there was something he could've done. Walk away and not direct the movie. He works better on Indie projects, and clearly has no passion for superhero movies. Should've been a one and done director.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp yes, I am arguing that he could have either wrote it better or left the project. The original comment makes it sounds like his hands were tied and it was always doomed to be bad because of bad luck when that's total horseshit
@@BioshadowX oh, then I agree. But I also think Hemsworth had a role as well. He never seemed to understand the character and wanted to constantly reinvent him, leading to him being treated as a joke and an internet.
Gorr took too much pleasure scaring the Asgardian children for a guy whose entire motivation was the grief of losing his little girl. That, for me, was the bigger complaint than the lack of acknowledging changes to the status quo of the franchise universe or Thor's own characterization. I still enjoy Love & Thunder, Bale's performance in particular, even though those shifts in tone were too big imho.
I remember thinking they were focussing on Axl a lot, maybe him and gorr would bond in some sort of way in captivity, show another side of gorr.
But nah, chop off magic snake head that's better
He was cursed by the sword. He wasn't Gore again until Jane destroyed it. Then Thor and Jane reached him.
@@DSWYFT I actually thought he kidnapped the children to get Axl to use his power" All seeing ability". Gorr would try to convince him and other children that gods are bad.
But no Gorr scares the kids because he is a bad guy.
Him kidnapping the Asgard kids is probably based on the comics, where he kidnapped the descendants of gods (including Thor's) over thousands of years, to work on the Godbomb.
I though it was clear that the sword corrupted him, which is why they’re able to kind of get through to him after it’s destroyed.
It was missing the two comic book writers (Kyle/Yost) who wrote Ragnarok and clearly understood the world and characters and narrative cohesion, and not letting Taika write it all by himself like L&T
I wish Yost was able to continue Avengers: Earth's mightiest heroes. That's still the best version of Thor that I've seen.
but they still allowed watiti to turn it into a comedy.
@@johnymustacio yup. People can praise it for being something new and fresh, but all it did was bring comedy with no drama to balance it out. I felt nothing when Odin died and I felt nothing when Asgard was destroyed because Taiki never made it matter. He quickly moved on from both to get the next action sequence or to tell a joke. James Gunn brought comedy, but he also brought drama to balance it out. Giving us some of the most emotional moments in the MCU. That's what was missing from Ragnorak. Drama to help take it seriously.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp agreed! I understand the rebrand but the emotional weight of Thor series was wiped Too much to the point where nothing matters at all
Understood the characters??? They destroyed Thor and Hulk in their MCU versions, and also destroyed Valkyrie and Grandmaster, to name just two more. They killed the warriors three and that had no weight at all in Thor's emotions ever. Ragnarok was a disaster, but many people bought it just for a handful of cheap laughs.
My problem with the movie can be summed up in one scene. Thor quietens an entire room with one word. He could deliver a heartfelt speech from hero and their former king, assuring them he will get their children back, but he didn't. Thor, the vetran of countless wars, founding member of the Avengers stumbled over his words, as a bad joke, that just wasn't even a little funny. It should have been a serious moment, but it wasn't
That's Thor's character now though. If they were to make him serious now, it would seem out of character.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp Thor was serious in Infinity War which takes place 0 minutes after Ragnorok that's just not a reasonable suggestion.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp Whatever they did to him in this movie is more out of character. Thor's never been this care-free and an absolute bumbling fool. Being comedic is not an excuse for this "development".
@@Whispernyan Yes, and then he became a joke again in Endgame and remained a joke in Thor 4. That's what the MCU has turned him into, comic relief. That's 2 movies in a row of his being made into a complete joke and an idiot. That's the character now. They could've done something serious with Thor in starting in Endgame, but the Russo's blew it to chase after the joke.
@@peterfrank3365 I agree, it feels like they made Thor go backwards. It also feels like they got rid of the character's main conflict between his loyalty to Earth and his duties in Asgard. He's become dumber and I think this was set up starting in Endgame. That's one of the reasons it's my least favorite MCU film. It started forming the cracks that lead to the disastrous Phase 4.
All I can think of is Ultron's "you want to save the world but you don't want it to change" monologue.
I had no idea ultron was talking about neoliberalism, haha
@@SolarFlareAmerica um what now
yeah kind of@@SolarFlareAmerica
You touched on something that immediately bothered me about the movie: what are gods? After seeing L&T I went back to watch the first couple of Thor movies and they establish they are not gods, just long living, uber powerful humanoid aliens. So L&T immediately retcon (whether on purpose or not) a very big detail about one of their biggest characters and world building. I don't have a problem with them showing other "gods" or pantheons, but I would have preferred if they kept them all as powerful aliens, like the Asgardians, that have gone mad and cynical from the worship or make them like the Celestials who are powerful enough to shape the world around them or even like Khonshu or Bast who appear to operate on a different plain/level.
The retcon starts in Ragnarok, tbh.
It'd be interesting to actually get that definition, or at least some legible way to deal with different pantheons. Is godhood an ability or a title or both? Does the norse pantheon lack it, or have it (in the sense zeus does) but reject it? for either of these, why? Some falling out with the greeks or all pantheons that include earth as its domain. Not gonna lie that last one would make an interesting movie, how do all the pantheons share a planet now (E.X. thats the only reason demanding followers exists, territory), if thats unliked then some event leading to the potential of pantheon wars.
Every review channel I watch always has someone screaming half an hour about how a movie is "Trash" or "Masterpiece". So it's a breath of fresh air to have videos of someone talking calmly and concisely, pointing out the positives and negatives alike.
Yeah, it is refreshing indeed.
Missed opportunities is a far more sensible feeling here. Definately makes it not great, but far better than "this is garbade, heres a slideshow of scenes that look terrible. the end"
Preach
This analysis is so interesting. Marvel's themes are surface level, they're afraid or unwilling to explore the theme's consequences. They're just there for decoration.
I think you and the pop culture detective really nailed the fact that the heroes are essentially protecting the status quo (for a multitude of reasons)
When I first watched the movie I really felt like they didn’t embrace Gor and what he stood for as much as they should have. This man is KILLING GODS and people don’t seem to care.
Oh no, they were, but it was only briefly mentioned in the meeting of the gods scene that everyone was gathered there under the premise that the meeting place will keep them safe from Gorr, it's just it was delivered as a quick side comment, and then it was back to the jokes.
So it wasn't exactly given the gravitas it needed.
It's something Ultron brought up in the second avengers movie. "You wanna protect the world but you don't want it to change." The "heroes" only exist to keep everything as it is and prevent any potential forwards movement
@@Draco-9158 In other words they win wars but never help the aftermath
This video highlights an excellent reason why a film like Winter Soldier is so top tier. Marvel has been missing big opportunities with the Blip to tell extremely fascinating world-building stories. It seems too far gone now, but I hope that they take a last minute opportunity to use the special presentations to tell more stories in and around that 5 year time period, post-snap.
I feel like the other problem too is that by Falcon and the Winter Soldier people were (at least online) constantly complaining about being tired of people talking about the blip.
@@agiammarco94 That’s interesting; I never saw that discourse. Given how it was handled in the show, though, that doesn’t surprise me. There wasn’t much depth in the writing, beyond it being referenced as an event that occurred.
yeah, hopefully the special presentations are used well to connect some of these threads, since they're now publicly admitting to going with looser contracts for directors and big movie actors. i'd imagine the ruffalo in ironman 3, cap in thor 2 and rdj in incredible hulk type cameos are gonna get even harder to pull off now.
winter soldier is a terrible film
I think the issue is there isn't actually a lot you can do with the blip. The most interesting outcomes are the wacky situations people got up to 5 years off screen, or uh oh someone I cared about died while I was gone. And focusing on stuff like how people were separated for 5 years, that's just such an inconceivable amount of time to be able take seriously and way too much time to tell any interesting stories focusing solely on that time frame.
"Thor, Bast and to a lesser extent Loki..."
It's insane that Loki can come in number 3 on a list of gods helping to save the universe.
I've been mulling it over recently, but I think part of the issue is that superheroes protect the status quo. They stop crime, but don't address the reasons why crime happens. Same as the examples you mentioned about tech and medical advancements. Problem is, when you start addressing these issues, you start asking uncomfortable questions about society, power and responsibility.
I feel like phase 4 especially though is asking these questions but just not seeing it through. They all bring up very fascinating ideas, commentary about society etcetera. But then they turn around and bury it all under a rock. You can make stories that avoid such effects but marvel is very fond of raising questions to garner interest but never actually exploring it further, instead sidelining that intrigue for something simple.
If you havent seen it already, you'd really like the video by Pop Culture Detective called Marvel's Defenders of the Status Quo.
@@icantnotthink3282 I'll see if I can check it out, thanks
One of the comments I enjoyed on that Pop Culture Detective video is that is that they enjoy X-men particularly because their mission is to change the status quo. They are fighting against discrimination, oppression, and pushing for not only legal protection but social acceptance among a variety of factors. They are trying to be active agents of change for the world which they felt was more compelling.
They didn't phrase it exactly like that but it made me appreciate the X-men a little bit more despite me never really finding them all that interesting.
@@haruhirogrimgar6047 The problem is that the X-Men are really bad at their mission. They rarely DO go out and try to actually change things, most of the time they just hide in their fancy mansion and just go out to fight other evil mutants and that's it.
I feel that the MCU should have a system like Neil Gaiman’s American Gods where gods only protect and serve where they worship and are powered by people’s beliefs in them.
That makes sense in that world, where the supernatural is a thing, but in the MCU it's been established over and over that all "magic" is just different flavors of weird advanced technology, and all gods are just any powerful beings who've been around long enough to be worshipped. That's what makes L&T so frustrating is that it attempts to establish ANY godly rules for these so-called pantheons when they're all just supposed to be people with crazy powers.
I adore American God's take on divinity! I was thinking about it during this whole movie
I can narrow it down to one thing: Goals, Stakes & Urgency. A lot of people tend to think character & plot are separate things but they are as intertwined as Jack Sparrow & Johnny Depp, or Robert Downey Jr & Iron Man. Can't have one without the other, can't imagine one without the other. And if you don't have solid goals for your characters, there's no stakes, if you don't have stakes, there's no sense of urgency, if there's no sense of urgency, the last 2hrs just felt like absolute white noise. Why should WE care, when the CHARACTERS don't?
But... those are 3 things...
jokes aside, totally agree
@@timbatale7526 shhhhhhhh lol three things one package deal XD
"Our chief weapon is fear - fear, and surprise..." -- Monty Python
Side note,
I dont think there has ever been a thread of regular street level crimes taking place with the use of vultures super weapons.
Like they address it in homecoming, and i think in luke cage someone uses a super bullet to hurt him, but like there havent been regular criminals with like ultron arm cannons or chitauri spear guns running around robbing banks outside of spiderman homecoming.
We gotta assume vulture sold a lot considering he had a beautiful home like 4/5 years later so he was well off financially.
The closest thing was in she hulk sort of.
Hopefully spider-man 4 touches on this. Its a soft reboot of Tom Hollands Spiderman so now he can actually have a street level villain (kingpin) with the alien weapons as opposed to cosmic storyline after cosmic storyline.
To your point, it would have been great if mysterio wasn't just some Tony stark engineer who used arc reactor tech to super power his hologram tech, but he used the chitauri alien tech as well...one throw away line would at least keep the events of NY in mind given how world impacting it SHOULD be
Interesting analysis of gods in the MCU. This is why I kind of wish we weren't trying to make the movies resemble the comics - things get woo-woo and complicated, and it's harder to suspend disbelief with a film series than with comics that disparate works belong in the same universe. The explanation for Thor and the Asgardians from the first one worked fine - they're powerful extraplanar humans worshipped as gods. You start bringing Zeus in and it gets weird.
Also that all of these projects are worked on at the same time and the different teams probably dont all talk about how all the mechanics work between one another and well.....we get all these inconsistencies
I remember about the time this came out discovering that it had gone through some somewhat significant rewrites and tone shifts. Definitely felt the movie could've been better
This movie was the best on paper movie MCU had in their bag. It is weird it was not able to execute upon which it needed.
I think it lacked any of the more serious scenes to balance out the comedy that Thor Ragnarok, Guardians 1 & 2, and even the two Deadpool movies had
Yeah because I think Gorr came from a different movie since he is a horror movie monster.
I only made it through about 30 minutes. It felt like a half hour long gag, and I kept waiting for it to end the joke and snap into a real movie but that never happened. It felt like I was watching one of the theater plays in the Thor franchise with Matt Damon as Loki and Liam Hemsworth as Thor and Melissa McCarthy as Hela. Like it was a fake Thor movie. I can't quite put my finger on it or explain what made me feel that way, but after 30 minutes I couldn't take it anymore and turned it off. Maybe it was the dialogue? Idk? Should I give it another shot?
Alastor! Fancy seeing you here. Can't wait to see you, Charlie, and friends at Hazbin Hotel this summer!
Another thing is that those movies are actually funny. 'Love and Thunder' seemed as if Waititi lost his sense of humour. And his creativity.
I agree.
There was a video by Pop Culture Detective that explored what Nando talked about around the end there. The video's called Marvel's Defenders of the Status Quo. Highly recommend
The thing is, all Superheroes end up as Status Quo Defenders. Including the X-Men.
Even "The Boys" end up that way.
My BIGGEST gripe with phase 4 as a whole, is its inconsistency issues. Once one of the movies or tv shows was done, you never had any connection or reference or side remark about any of the events that transpired. So instantly, those tv shows and movies suddenly had an extreme forgettability problem.
The movie was missing consistency. Love and Thunder felt like two entirely different movies mixed in one. The first was about introspective journeys and compelling drama such as Gorr's war against the gods, Jane Foster's stuggle with cancer, and Thor trying to find himself after realizing Guardianship wasn't for him. The second movie was about being a goofy, comic book-style theme park ride with scenes that feel like they came from early drafts of Thor: Ragnarok. The movie needed to stick with a tone.
Because Taikita was the worst director for this movie. If the movie took itself seriously, It would've been amazing.
I feel like Gorr came from a different movie because he does look like a horror movie monster and I think they should have introduced Amora the Enchantress in this as the same for the Silver Swan (Helen Alexandros) and Veronica Cale for Wonder Woman 1984
YES!!! That’s what I was thinking. Gorr is far too serious for the movie they seemed to want to tell. Plus, amora would fit with the title of “LOVE and thunder”
oh definitely, like the film was about love and adding enchantress would’ve total wrecked things up
I think Gorr in the sense like he's coming from a different movie could've work. But that requires the storyteller to care enough about tonal balance.
The thing is that the jane foster/ mighty thor cancer plotline and the stuff with gorr were the best parts of the film to me.
@@dexterthielhelm4342 they would've ruined her too. Should've never brought back Waititi. He needed to be a one and done director.
Yeah, the problem is that Thor 4 wasn't _about_ anything. It was mainly a goofy comedy, and if it had JUST stuck to that, I think it could have been great. Remove Gor ENTIRELY from the plot, just have the "enemy" be some undefined shadow creatures, but mainly it's just an excuse to goof around for 90 minutes. By putting Gor and his serious world into the story, the plot was writing checks that the movie could not cash.
Which is why I don't like Ragnarok as well. Why all the comedy!!???
The premise of this movie had so much potential. If it was written by a better writer it could have been one of the best epics in recent years. The problem is they barely touched on the theme, it was just there as decoration.
Agents of shield was almost groundbreaking in its following story season to season then it got cut from canon for logistics readons
in conjunction with your last point and to paraphrase Pop Culture Detective’s video “Marvel’s Defenders of the Status Quo”: ‘By setting its villains as the only characters in their stories willing to change the world in any way, Marvel tells us that changing the world is not only harmful or misled, but specifically evil”
An actual arc for Thor. Having Thor mature over across the films instead of him being treated as a complete joke and an idiot. Should've been much more serious starting in Endgame.
Yes, exactly. Thor can still be a little goofy and a bit of a himbo, but he should have already learned to take responsibility for his people and how to be a better leader (even if that means stepping back and letting Valkyrie deal with the minutiae of everyday governance). He should be trying to change systemic problems on a larger scale now that he’s not in charge of New Asgard. Wasn’t his whole character arc about how being a leader isn’t just punching stuff?
I always thought it was a sort of act to hide his depression from losing literally everything. He's the single most tragic character in the MCU, he just doesn't want anyone to know that and tries to convince himself that he isn't.
Thor's characterization/arc in L&T is much more defined than any of his other solo movies. Not serious / "complete joke and idiot" ≠ no actual character arc
@@Koopkiris that wasn't the case until the 3rd movie, so that really doesn't make sense. He lost and failed before but reacted way differently in the first 2 movies.
You really have a gift for script doctoring. If I'd never watched any of your videos and someone described to me a youtuber who proposes extensive, structural rewrites for major blockbuster movies, I would be very skeptical that their ideas for how to "fix" these movies would actually be better than the existing movies, more than once in a while. And yet I have very rarely disliked your ideas for structural rewrites. You have a real knack for looking at a movie and seeing how to bring it conceptually, thematically, and tonally into focus, and I think that is very dope of you.
It was missing a better, more focused script. Instead it’s the MCU version of Batman & Robin.
I agree you
Oh yeah and speaking of you know that Michael Keaton hated Batman Forever especially the title of the movie?
no one has ever mentioned my bigest hang up with the movie, mainly how they sacrify characters and seriousness for humor most of the time. And, yes, it was deliberate but that doesn't make it right.
Remember when Thor finds Sif after her fight with Gorn and they make this big deal about her asking to left to die so she would go to Valhalla and Thor has to remind her that you only go to Valhalla by dying in battle, and then they play it off as a joke with her being fine all of the sudden?
Thor has to *remind* Sif, someone his own age, that was born and raised in his same culture, a culture centered around a single religion and afterlife, has to *remind* her about the *one and only way* to enter Valhalla. And they did it for a joke
Great take. My origianl take was this movie ONLY needed to do things: A) show Jane BECOMING Lady Thor (why was Natalie robbed of that honor). B) show the Gorr vs Sif and Big White Monster fight it out.
The average review would have been higher rated. As a follower, getting to a scene change and hearing tha 'oh, well, this happened' instaed of showing us was majorly unsettling. Which, in return, made me question plot and motives even further.
12:02 funny you should mention that. I'm not sure if this is canon or not, but in an episode of Agents of SHIELD, it showed how first responders at the Chitauri site all got killed by an alien virus.
The pivot explaining Disney's strategy 2/3 of the way through is just perfect
I assume Ares didn't appear because DC already used Ares as a major villain in Wonder Woman too recently (not that any of them have a monopoly on using mythological gods, but it's more of a brand confusion thing - like I imagine even if the name 'Captain Marvel' was public domain, DC still would've called their movie 'Shazam' to avoid confusion with the Marvel Captain Marvel). Having one of the biggest recent film appearances of Ares be in one of the more successful movies from Marvel's biggest superhero competitor probably made them averse to prominently featuring him in their own movie that included Greek gods only a few years after.
The thing about Marvel Ares is he’s an antihero and doesn’t employ the same tactics as his DC counterpart. That being said he could’ve still been used. I imagine we will eventually see him somewhere down the line.
This is a problem I've had with comics as well, like every world problem could/would be solved. Global warming? Send Iceman to the north pole for a day to shoot some ice. no access to clean water? Go send hydro man to fill up some water jugs. Idk it's weird but I also understand that the comics are supposed to tell stories that can relate to us.
Using the gor storyline and meshing it with Jane Foster Thor was a mistake. The Gore arc had the makings to be Thor's own No Way Home and would have been an amazing send off.
No Way Home was nothing but gutless fanservice.
I think it’s probably most likely that all these different creative teams on these different projects, just don’t communicate with each other. And they’re being made/written at different times.
So yeah it becomes a mess when Maeve doesn’t keep track of it all either.
The Status Quo is preserved because the Movies are made by Corporations who need the Status Quo to stay the same. That is why so many villains in Marvel and other stories, "Have something to teach the Hero BUT have "Bad Methods"TM."
My big issue with Love and Thunder is that its a movie full of Screwballs... without a SINGLE true Straight Man in sight. It's all nonsense with no one to truly ground it or tie the levity back to any sort of reality. Its NUTS how sorely Bruce and Loki, or at least a character like them, are missing from this movie.
That sweeps the legs out from under a lot of the comedy, and honestly I could have forgiven the flimsy plot and themes if it was actually funny.
They should have retained the short hair and eye patch look. They finally made Thor look cool and then threw it away and went back to Space Fabio
Status quo is the foundation of comics. The character’s arc is their origin story. Then every story is take a character, put him/her in a situation, and have the character be right back where they started. That’s how serialized storytelling works. And that’s exactly what the people want, as evidenced by comic sales every time they shake things up too much.
You give such an interesting, and probably very true, perspective on this. This is where the danger of a never ending interconnected universe comes in. You can’t make any big picture changes that’ll factor in in the long term, at the expense of a lot of stories. The MCU is a groundbreaking idea that sometimes comes up with amazing stories, but those stories can easily fall short because they hardly ever have the ability to make lasting change in the world.
Thor should have retired as King of Asgard at the end of Endgame. Half his people are dead, their realm destroyed & he's learned lessons from phase 1 until Endgame. It would have been the perfect send-off.
The missed opportunities you mention in the video (e.g. have Thor guide the Gods to better ways) are stories I would consume and would love to see you further develop!
I feel like the writers and producers were thinking of all of these things. Then they get on set and Taika just wants jokes. Everything must be sacrificed for jokes
Taika was the writer lol. That was the problem.
@@c-bee2904 Yeah, he should've been a one and done director. Should've shown Thor maturing across the films. Waititi and even Hemsworth just didn't understand the character, and only wanted to do more comedy with him.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp he didn’t have to be a one and done they just needed to understand why their collaboration with him for Ragnarok worked for most people. I think that it worked because others wrote it and he just directed. Also it was a mistake to give, or allow him two serious Thor stories to combine for one film.
@@c-bee2904 The only person who understood how to handle a character like Thor was the director of the first Thor movie. Made it into a Shakespearearian tragedy, while still using Thor as a fish out of water for comedy. It was balanced. Ragnorak was all comedy. I felt nothing when Odin died, and I felt nothing when Asgard was destroyed. After both they distracted you and moved on quickly from the drama.
Taiki's vision for Thor isn't what the character needs. The only thing they got right was allowing Thor to finally accept his role as King of Asgard. Then they immediately did away with that, and Endgame destroyed any chance of that happening.
An Andor-esque ground level story during and post-blip could be amazing
The whole "status quo" thing is enforced again through Eternals. A giant stone being rose out of the middle of the ocean, almost ending the entire world, and everyone knows about it... and it's only mentioned once or twice outside the movie.
This movie is a trainwreck, but when you spoke about Thor being changed at the end it made me think that they could have closed the loop by having Thor help rebuild the temple he destroyed.
Funny enough the reason Iron man (2008) had the holographic projection tech is because they were literally sponsored by the military to show stuff like that. It was referenced in the original director's commentary track which for some reason was removed from all physical copies after its initial release.
As for Thor "killing" Zeus. It turns out those were reshoots. There is a deleted scene, that is fully completed including SFX meaning it was in the original cut of the film, where Zues gives Thor the Lightning Bolt, so yet again, Disney ruins another product over unecessary reshoots.
This video ended so abruptly that when I saw it on Nebula I thought it was broken or that maybe sometimes you don't put the whole video on there lol
I think there was a better way to characterize the gods in a way that clarifies their role in MCU: alien species enhanced and modeled after the object of worship of the mortals by Eternity itself. Their purpose? Fight away the Elder Gods, malevolent entities from the dark corners of the Multiverse.
This solves aliens or gods dilemma, and the redundant characters problems: Thena inspired Athena, and then an Olympian was born, embodying that character.
This "old war of the gods" would achieve three purposes:
- resonate with ancient theogonies: the Olympians fought the Titans, the Asgardians killed Ymir, the Ennead fought Apophis
- give the gods a reason to stop caring about the rest of the Universe after they felt their job was done
- set up Chaos War as the next and final Thor installment.
What do you guys think?
"We are not gods. We are born, we live, we die, same as humans do." -Odin, Thor: The Dark World
Give or take 5000 years.-Loki
The "building of winning heads" killed me 😅🤣😅
Another thing is, in the antman films, Hank Pym was so against a stark having his technology for it falling into the wrong hands, yet they used his technology to bring back half the universe and now hanks tech is out there, will they explore this in antman 3 I doubt it, the mcu sets up things then just forgets them
Somehow I didn't subscribe after your video in the One Marvelous Scene playlist many years ago, but now I have binged all the pitch videos over the past 3 days. Thanks so much for infusing your knowledge and creativity with enthusiasm I share!
The world of the gods and what they are seems to be as clear as they are in the comics.
That said, I like your way to thinking in that Thor acts as a reformer of the divine. They hadn't done their job so something needs to change.
Even adopting Gor's daughter could work in that she is the next generation of gods.
This hesitancy to change, in my mind, was exactly why they were moving into a multiverse realm while expanding to D+. Allow a ton of new shows and movies to coexist, then Feige can see the fan reaction, then decide in the big event team up movies to reveal that some of those lesser stories are a different universe. Or timeline in Loki’s case.
It's simple for me. I could not take their world seriously when even the characters didn't take it seriously. For ex, each possible death scene is just brushed off or treated as a joke
It's been a while since I saw Love and Thunder but from what I recall I was felt the movie didn't take the characters seriously. I would have preferred some of the serious moments play out and explore the characters rather than fill that time with more jokes.
What's missing is the filmmakers' will. They don't seem to care about the movie. It rejected what were established in previous movies and avoids the potential conflicts its own premise set up. The only thing that worked, I say, is Bale's performance.
I did a re-write on this movie which is intended to highlight just what the filmmakers had and could've done. I could post a summary of it here if you may. I could be biting more than I could chew with it, but can't be worse than the movie.
Do post it! There are so many ways to tell a better version of this story. I'm curious about how you did it!
Well at least Gorr was fun to watch but I think he’s from a different movie
I would say the biggest issue the MCU is facing is continued continuity. The stories and world are practically growing at an exponential rate and they do not have nearly enough resources dedicated to keeping things in line with one another. That's not to mention having some of the more overarching concepts like Nando mentioned in this video fleshed out that need to be considered to properly steer projects in the direction.
I still love the MCU but I've found myself beginning to lose interest and become more and more disappointed. Basically the MCU is like a successful business that grew to a few locations and did significantly well (Phase 1-Phase 3 or so). Then they chose to franchise to continue growth but did not keep a proper handle on this franchised growth (allowing creators to pretty much do whatever they want [see Thor: Love & Thunder, She-Hulk, etc.]) which led to a tarnished reputation (Phase 4). They need to retake control of this growth and manage it properly (which thankfully appears to be their plan going forward) or they are going to end up going out of business or becoming unpopular.
So, Nando, you've revealed who'd you cast as Simon Williams for the upcoming Wonder Man show. Obviously, that didn't really pan out, but have you any ideas on the show itself? Like whether Zemo or MODOK is responsible for giving Simon his powers or if Wanda should have any kind of involvement? (My personal vote on the matter is no)
On the Minerva-Athena thing, the biggest problem here is they need to establish where they are or are not the same, because, in reality they didn't start off that way- the Greeks and Romans didn't actually share religion separated only by names. They had two separate religions that mingled their stories together, so there are stories about Jupiter that likely comes from Greek stories about Zeus, but they probably weren't really seen as the same at the time (in the same way that Islam, Christianity and Judaism aren't the same, even if all of them have stories about Abraham). That's why you have the few where the claim is simply not very true- Fortuna and Tyche are supposedly cognate, but they aren't commonly depicted in the same way, or with the same family relations (Fortuna is first daughter of Jupiter, Tyche is normally daughter of Tethys and Oceanus), or even really as the gods of the same thing. Fortuna is 'Lady Luck', while Tyche is goddess of a city's fortunes, which, while related enough to allow some cross polination are definitely not the same thing- if you're gambling in Vegas, Fortuna answering your prayers will result in you winning big, while Tyche will cause you to lose all your money to the house.
This is the first MCU project to at least sort've try and explain what the gods are at a macro level (Not just Asgard, or Celestials, etc), so honestly, the movie could've ended however they wanted. The writers seemingly lost interest in them halfway through though.
Zeus's absence.... Someone didn't watch the after credits Scene... Zeus is Very Much Alive!
There's something interesting about the expectation we have for stories about powerful people to have an impact on the larger world/universe.
In a different genre (e.g., noir) the world being indifferent to our actions tends to be a given, and heroism is dependent on a character's relationship to that reality (e.g., choosing to continue to help people with the small amount of agency you have). The stakes of these stories are not often world ending threats, but rather people being harmed by the status quo, and saving them doesn't involve fundamental change in society, which could likely require/result in similar harm being done to other innocent people (e.g., the Watchmen, What's so Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?, etc.).
I think stories that recognize these themes tend to resonate with readers in ways that big "save the world" moments often don't, (e.g., Superman comforting a suicidal kid, Batman sitting on a swing set with Ace, Miles taking his leap of faith in Spider-verse so that Peter wouldn't have to sacrifice himself, etc.).
I don't think this video is wrong, as Disney's interest in maintaining the status quo is almost certainly due to production and financial interests. I just think there are ways to write stories in that world which resonate emotionally, specifically as a result of framing heroism in personal terms, rather than as a result of using great power to achieve some unreasonable goal (e.g., fundamentally changing human nature or inventing time travel).
I agree you
I like your analysis of the gods…I feel like that’s something I never even thought about before, about which ones are real and what their purpose is. I think they should’ve created a concrete definition of what is a gods purposes and which are real. I understand not wanting to touch Christianity or Muslim as to not step on the toes of any religion but they need to organize their Greek, Norse, etc. gods so there isn’t this complication of which gods inspired stories of who, who’s real, who’s a myth, stuff like that
Ofc it’s not necessary, you always leave it up to something that you’re not supposed to think about but I just think it’s interesting
Hey man, I doubt you’ll see this but you should start a series where you remake the entire dceu in your image! I know lots of people would enjoy that with your talented storytelling
Nice try Zach Snyder
Pluck Thor right out of this movie, leave it to Jane to take on Gorr and it becomes so much better.
I heard taika say in an interview what he does while writing scripts is he writes a full script and then doesn't touch it for sometimes 5 years before he reads and edits it. I feel like he wasn't allowed to do that with love and thunder
That sounds like an awful tactic.
@@jlev1028 I mean, that's not that uncommon in other realms of fiction writing. 5 years seems excessive, but "write your first draft completely, then put it away and work on other things and come back to it much later" is bog standard writing advice.
@StarryEyed0590 If you're writing novels, sure. But not when it comes to scripts for movies. Film development usually has a two or three year timespan with the first year focused on writing the script. You can't procrastinate or you'll get fired.
@@jlev1028 I don't know much about film development, but Taika's other projects are not franchise-oriented the way his Marvel work has been. Is he used to maybe writing scripts that he later decides to try to actually get made into movies, rather than writing a script for a movie that's going to be made one way or another?
The craziest thing about this problem is that Thor Ragnarok addressed it perfectly.
Because at the end of that movie it's not about saving Asgard, it's about recognizing that Asgard was built on killing and conquest, and that Hela, who represents the inherent cruelty of a golden city built off suffering, cannot be defeated without tearing down Asgard itself.
This is the last place I expected an F.D. Signifier shout out but I couldn't be happier to see it, he makes very in-depth content and I'm glad to see him making waves in the community
@NandovMovies, was the latest Pop Culture Detective video ("Defenders of the Status Quo") part of your inspiration for this? You seem to be touching on a bunch of similar ideas. Maybe an opportunity for a collab/debate?
Yup, sounds about right. Continuity is a problem and even worse, the characters actions having no consequences even in the same movie in some cases is an issue. Look at doctor strange 2, you had Wanda and strange using all these crazy spells; but they only used them because they were "cool" and suited the situation of that scene. Wanda was disintegrating people, and yet she didn't do that with wong or any other main character because those characters needed to be alive for the plot. This goes past bad story plotting and into bad world building as well. The internal consistency of the results of a movies story can not really change the overall trajectory of the greater narrative because that's already been plotted and planned out years in advance. Wanda vision and loki had to end the way they did even if their endings were wholey unsatisfying. Wanda needed to become a bad guy, even though that goes against the narrative of her own show and loki needed to introduce kang and the multiverse even if it meant forcing the audience to sit through 30 minutes of exposition just to shoe in Nathaniel Richards. I said this when the disney plus shows first started coming out, they can't make big changes to the MCU in streaming shows which are locked behind a paywall because many of their viewers will not have seen those shows. Disney decided to just hand wave any changes made by these shows with throw away lines in future movies. But this has gone beyond television shows and now is also a big part of the movies. No marvel character or world can have a meaningful arc that sticks by the end of a movie unless it's a part of the greater narrative. Thor can't suddenly grow as a person because that will mean that Thor 5 can't be as silly as Thor 4. The only characters who were allowed to have arcs were Tony stark and captain America (and to some degree spiderman since he's owned by Sony). The rest are just static and boring because they need to continue to be the same characters in the next series of movies for perpetuity.
Plot Armor is hardly just an MCU problem.
*spits out drink* OSCAR CAMPAIGN??!😂
Hope some studio calls you up. You make great story telling points.
I remember seeing everything seem to start to change around Endgame and got really excited for the future of the MCU. Stark tech was everywhere, Wakanda tech was being rolled out everywhere, Humans had easy access to space via the knowledge shared by the Guardians of the Galaxy, Asgard was now on Earth meaning they could share their knowledge and technology and general Earth knowledge and technology had 5 years to develop. Everything seemed like it was leading to a much more futuristic universe. But now almost 5 years later everything does feel pretty much the same with the futuristic stuff being isolated to exclusive parts of the world such as Madripoor so they could be easily ignored when they wanted.
At this point DC is looking far better than Marvel and I'm really glad the new James Gunn led plan allows for projects not set in the main universe like The Batman Part II. I think both Marvel and Star Wars could really do with that sort of thing. I know they have What If but those just feel very short and stuck in the same animation format.
One thing i realy didnt get about infinity war now is why didnt the earth gods go into battle or send champions to fight thanos. Like hercules and alot of the other gods would want it to survive and if thanos snaps he takes out like alot
The MCU never changing has nothing to do with Disney. As Stan Lee famously said, “Fans don't want change. They want the illusion of change.” The 'Illusion of Change' has been the core philosophy behind Marvel's universe for decades.
You brought up problems that I didn't even have with the movie and I completely agree. Love and Thunder will go down for me as one of the worst MCU additions
It’s interesting, now that superhero movies have gotten so big they reflect the actual comics: a bunch of different people working on different stories of various size and scope to where you get these moments that don’t overlap as smoothly and need to be retconned
I prefer the alien beings theory for the Asgardians and the other “gods”. It makes much more sense in light of the many flawed and killable beings in MCU
The MCU is profoundly disinterested in exploring any interesting questions raised by its world or any implications raised by the events of earlier stories, and no other story is less interested than Thor4.
This is the first MCU movie I couldn't sit all the way through. And I finished the Eternals. This one just bummed me out too much to finish.
Just watched your next video on Nebula, and since I can’t comment there I’ll just comment here: I think it is the single most accurate video you’ve ever made and I really, REALLY hope that’s how it turns out
Quality. The answer is quality.
I have a theory that Eternity is actually a celestial named Kronos, Zeus' creator, who he lobotomised in order to enslave him and mass produce gods. This makes Zeus a prototype eternal.
It needed to be 40% less comedy & 30%+ more Gorr. Would’ve been AMAZING
Nando has stumbled on how mass media takes on the surface dressing of progress but always defends the status quo. Even when it is wrong .
As much as I love the subject of the videos Nando makes, I watch them because the guy is just really fun to listen to. Feels like a real chill hangout sesh.
tony's nanomachine would change the world But what does he do?
hmmm suits, more suits.
I agree with your point about most mcu stories fighting to maintain the status quo but I disagree with your reading of Wakanda’s isolation in Black Panther 2. Every single person in the main cast without hesitation agrees to protect Riri Williams, Wakanda has its out reach programs, Wakanda was ready and willing to make international partners and offer foreign aid. That’s what killmonger was talking about in the first film and it shows growth in the ideology of the leaders of Wakanda. However they are not being isolationist imo for not wanting the UN to get their grubby hands on vibranium. They are isolated because the international community wants to exploit them and when they refused to trade or provide access to vibranium they were targeted. That whole dilemma is in line with the anti-imperialism/colonialism themes within both black panther movies. At the end of the film they have a tentative alliance with Talokan. So they aren’t isolated, and I don’t think the story is pushing them into a status quo it’s just showing the fallout from T’Challa’s decision which won’t be changed and can’t be changed.
Edit: I just wanted to add that the excuse for the plot stating that vibranium being accessible to the rest of the world is a bad thing, is both an example in the pattern of maintaining a status quo but also does serve the story and the themes well enough to work. Other marvel properties might not work as well thematically to with that idea of “this can’t be accessible to the rest of the world”
More Gorr for Thor 4!!!
First jane can use mjolnir and became thor, now the kids can also became thor.
I think the hero thor has lost his value and become a babysitter
The way the mcu doesn’t change the status quo is very Ayn Rand, just like the incredibles i remember thinking even as a little kid, why is it bad that syndrome wants to give everyone powers? Why this need for a hierarchical structure where only the few special deserve power
This was your best video yet, unreal Nando!
This is one of my favorite videos of yours. Great concept to add. They really halved assed this movie
Even in mythology and literature, "Gods" are vaguely defined.
the one change that they didn't do anything about that annoys me the most is civil war. I mean, at the end of civil war all the heroes were supposedly controlled by the government, but we didn't see any of it in the movies that came after. Not even the biggest defender of the accords, Tony, obey them, in infinity war he deploys an armor in the middle of NY and encourages Banner to use the Hulk, again, in the middle of NY.