In keeping with the theme this video ends with, I've tried my best to offer a fair and balanced critique of the film. I'm not really interested in labelling the film as good or bad - I think there's some really great, powerful stuff, and there's also some weak elements, and choices I feel to be misjudged. I think it's interesting that the great can coexist with the weak with such ease, and I think that weird liminal quality makes the film an interesting target for analysis :)
I appreciate your honesty. I personally enjoyed Love and Thunder, but I also agree with a lot of the critiques you presented, and felt that Gorr was underutilized as the antagonist. Christian Bale still did an awesome job with what he was given, though, and I’m glad you were able to give him credit.
@@halfmettlealchemist8076 it's sad they cut so many of his scenes out, likely for the sake of adding in more comedy. Gorr should have had more screen time than Thor to truly flesh him out.
I think what bugged me about Gorr was that he didn't really challenge Thor's worldview at all, when he would've been a perfect way to extend Ragnarok's themes. Hela challenged Thor's perception of his community, Gorr could've challenged Thor's perception of himself. Could've been a great way to analyze Thor's privilege as a god, and by proxy, analyze the privilege of the "gods" of real life, in other words, those in power.
Yeah the film raises an essential question about the dangers and injustices of heirarchy and privilege, but in typical fashion doesn't do anything to challenge the status quo and instead says, we need to just "like love each other, man" And don't get me started on the child soldiers... Wtf was up with that?
This Thor is still the same goofy ass man child he was at the start, who in turn is the same goofy man child from Ragnarok without any development. Gorr could have been any villain
Personally I felt that potential of Gorr of the God Butcher with an Actor as Christian Bale in role was wasted. I wished they removed the plot regarding the kids being kidnapped and focused on Gorr's mission. They could have remove for this as well as Jane having cancer storyline. The children being kidnapped was a distraction.
I think there’s a better idea with Gorr, have him be kind of the children. Show them compassion and remorse on what he had to do and possibly try and persuade them that his way is right. With probably the biggest story he could come up with, Asgard’s buried past of slaughter and war.
@@snelldor1474 He did do that.... he didnt mention the past wars and shit yea (although hes not asgardian and an alien so how would he know that?) But he tried to convince the kids. The shots are very menacing for Gor so you think he's gonna kill the kids when all he does is tell them stories and try to persuade them that the gods arent good. He was never gonna kids because his whole mission revolved around the loss of his kid. He wanted to kill Thor. And then in the end a God relinquishes physical power and dominance and persuades Gor to revive his kid. Thor and Jane saved his kid with human compassion not godly strength. Dont you think I also thought It was a little cheesy for the kids to be fighting? But at that point that scene is for THE KIDS WATCHING THE MOVIE. The movie is challenging kids perspectives on super heroes.
The killing off of Jane makes be go "Why did you even comeback?" Especially now Jane Foster is Valkyrie they could have skipped that WHOLE plot to focus in on Gorr. Love and Thunder is just a mess like how Rangarok was, Honestly there hasn't Thor movie that's objectively good. It's often quite bad with some good points here and there.
I mean I knew from the beginning that Gorr wouldn’t work with a story like “Love and Thunder” purely based on the fact that the focus and point of the story has less to do with Gorr and more to do with Thor’s life crisis. In the story of L and T, Gorr’s shown his sympathetic origin from the start, and the usual redemption arc kinda plays from there, where he gets over his “hate” and decides to resurrect his daughter since Thor “isn’t like the other gods”. Pretty straightforward character, even the writers decided not to really give him any spotlight until the third act. Comic Gorr is something else entirely. He *is* the story, Thor’s purpose in the 2013 storyline is to hunt down an enemy that not only is killing gods that Thor considers his friends, but also because Gorr was someone who had nearly killed him back when Thor was younger and was considered a god on Midgard. The focus of *that* story was over the question of “Is Gorr right?”, with Thor himself opening his eyes to the arrogance and selfishness of the gods, and the story less a romantic-comedy and more a murder-mystery-thriller. One of the things I liked most about the 2013 storyline was that Gorr wasn’t introduced as one who lost everything, wronged by the gods, but first as a unseen and unstoppable monster who left the corpses of gods wherever he went, and the lack of focus of his character in L and T (especially to a character with a story like this) makes me think that his character didn’t belong in a story like this at all.
They should've used Amora as the villain here. This would tie in with the theme and title better, allow for romantic tension and set up the Enchantress as a threat moving forward.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp Oh wait, you're right. She'd be ruined by The Message, poorly written and ultimately would either die, or be not considered as evil.
Gor doesn't get over his hate until the very last second. And when he does it also results in the death of Jane Foster WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO SAVED HIS KIDS LIFE thus finally ending his rage. Maybe they couldve put more Gor in the film but you cant just gloss over everything the movie is trying to say.
I’m a firm believer in judging a story on its own terms, however I *also* believe when adapting something beloved it’s important to maintain the themes that made the original story so powerful, otherwise why adapt that specific story or character and not a different one that would better suit the story you want to tell? I believe adaptations have a right to deviate significantly from the source material, but they still have to work with the themes present in said source material. Also, from what you’ve described, I think a more faithful adaptation of comic Gorr could have been phenomenal for the maturity of mcu Thor. Whereas comic Thor showed that Gorr’s ideology was flawed, MCU Thor could’ve been used to show that he was right, and then Thor would have to step up to the plate and accept responsibility to disprove him, which could still lead to Gorr abandoning his quest at the end.
Right - I think Love and Thunder really teeters on the edge of maintaining the spirit of the source material, and I’d be interested to hear opinions of others as to whether or not there’s enough of Aaron’s Gorr in the film to justify the inclusion. A more faithful Gorr adaptation would have undoubtedly provided the basis for a masterful Thor film - but honestly I’m not certain Taika is the filmmaker to do it. Maybe we’ll see another shot at the story in a few years if Marvel ever gives Animated Features another go!
@@PillarofGarbage I mean, Taika has told a bunch of stories with incredible emotional maturity. I think that’s part of the reason there was so much disappointment with this film. I mean ragnarok was funny, sure, but it also had an extremely compelling emotional core, and that’s far from his best work (mostly thanks to the comedy undermining a few of the more poignant moments-though arguably not as many as people tend to say)
@@adammyers7383 oh, I’ve no doubt he *could* do it - but from the ways he’s approached this world and the way he likes to utilise these characters, I just can’t see him wanting to.
@@adammyers7383 Ragnorok is a weak defense for Taika. He didn't have full control and influence of that movie. It's not a great representation of his skills as a film maker. Love and Thunder is...
I think the Russo's left Thor without direction and without purpose at the end of Endgame. Should have gone darker and more serious. They should have made Thor an overprotective King, and married to Lady Sif. Then in the 4th film Thor could have children of his own, and also have to face off against Gorr. Really focusing on the theme of fatherhood, and having the emotional depth to payoff a character like Gorr.
@@theserpent8667 felt like a logical next step after Ragnorak set up Thor to accept his role as king to the Asgardians, and learning about the importance of Asgard as a people and not just a place. And he usually ends up with Lady Sif or Enchantress in the comics. Don't know where the heck Russo's were going with Thor. Felt like Endgame was made by completely different people.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp Indeed. Gorr was the wrong villain for this film. And if Thor ended up with Amora, that could be interesting. Then in Thor 5, one of his children is slain by Gorr, prompting Thor to take action.
Here's something of a missed opportunity for the MCU. We have this movie, Eternals, and Moon Knight. While I don't consider the Celestials as space gods, the Eternals themselves worship them. And Moon Knight has gods on a more earthly scale. And then there's the Bast cameo in this Thor movie. Could (should) the MCU have played more with its concept of gods, their pros and cons, and their place currently in the MCU? In my head and (based on your excellent critique of the movie) in a different adaptation of the Gorr storyline, MCU movie watchers could have had discussions bordering on the "Cyclops/Gorr was right" and examples to back up or discredit that belief.
Yeah, it’s fun and kinda depressing to imagine other adaptations of the story which tie more closely into the MCU’s theogony. And I know everyone loved that Moon Knight didn’t tie into the wider MCU, but I can’t help but wish we got a post-credits scene of Osiris or whoever getting Gorr’d. Would have helped the butchering feel a little more serious!
This would be cool Zeus could be an argument for Gorr but the Eternals or Khonshu could be arguments against; Gods or godlike beings who are flawed but actually try to do what they can to make life better
@@ItsButterBean1020 Furthermore, Gorr's logic wasn't really fleshed out... How did he define "godhood"? He was begging Eternity to erase gods, but was he going to kill Eternity after the deal was done? From his perspective, Eternity was also a god... In fact, a god of a much much higher level... The God of time itself...
@@陳潔明-w6y to be fair, even fairly popular philosophers such as Daniel Dennett are pretty wonky with their definition of godhood. There's no way to really know, but it would make sense that they are using polytheism. In which gods are just people with super human power. Power over some aspect of reality nature or civilization. In Greek mythology primordial deities, the first titans, are technically gods but arent really considered gods. Or at least not usually. I think eternity fits pretty well in that category. He technically is a god due to his power. But he isnt personified like thor or zeus are, and because of it, he is also not worshipped.
Amora the enchantress would've suited themes of choosing love over violence SO much better and she'd be a better fit for taika's style. Gorr is such a serious villain that I think he needs the shakespearian style of the first thor film
@@ShadowSonic2 But that one storyline was pretty awesome. Him being in the comics for such a short time and yet having a great writing and storyline is a perfect example of quality over quantity.
When I finished the film I had one thing in mind and that was just... why did taika watiti tell this story. What I mean by that is just... what a weird thing for the tone of his stories. Ragnarock was really loved but mostly for the fun stuff. A lot of fun in sakaar, thor and hulks dynamic, loki shenanigans. It pulled of some serious moments too, the tragedy of valkariye, thor and loki's relationship. It manages to pause from comedy for this moment but it felt like the focus there was the internal problem of the characters, their past trauma and relationship. But when you add things as cancer, god butchering, it just feels weird. In ragnarock people didn't like hela much because she felt off. She was more serious, but also with some jokes that didn't land. So why adapt gorr? It feels like this movie should have been dark, it should have been more serious but its just not. On the other hand the movie ends with the teaser for hercules... and I just wondered why wasn't he and zeus the bad guys? Wouldn't it make more sense for taika to go into the lighthearted direction with a lighthearted villain? Embracing the silly stuff and leaving gorr for another time? Its not that gorr being different is so wrong... but I feel like in general the movie as a whole would benefit from him being replaced with a villain that would fit more with the tone.
Why have a villain at all? Gorr was always a perfect fit for thor. Also, Gorr was an easier sell. If, as you contend, the villain could be cut and paste with another, why have a named one? The role could be filled with any of Thor's rogues. The reasons Gorr for so perfectly were because of Thor's state at the start of the film. He's listless and questions his worth. Gorr existing asks not only if Thor is worthy, but are the gods. As the video states, in this way Gorr is perfect for Thor's development. Lastly, selling Thor versus anyone else would be a tough sell. Thor killed and then helped defeat Thanos. Hercules wouldn't make for a compelling next challenge. I would like to point out that Gorr in the MCU was always going to pale compared to the comic book run. He has to be a one shot foil. Why would anyone else care about a God slaying enemy? That isn't a threat to mortals. Nor to most aliens. Also, Disney isn't going to touch the idea of Gorr confronting Yahweh, Allah, or Buddah.
What bugged me about Gorr is that he is painted as this terrible God killer. But we didn't really see any of that..... we got this neat story about Thor going and saving some kids. It was fun and hilarious and I really liked it, but Gorr doesn't spend any time challenging Thor.... well not in any real meaningful way, Thors world view isn't changed in a way it should have.
The bigger problem is that there were probably cut scenes of him butchering gods. Interviews with Christian Bale show that he worked with Peter Dinkledge and Jeff Goldblum. This implies that he most likely killed both the Grandmaster and Eitri the Dwarf, which would have been great to see
@dougpouncey I mean, I kinda get why they didn't kill the grandmaster cause they likely still want him to meet the collector.... but I don't get why they cut Etri aside from wanting to keep Dinklage as an actor. I'd still much rather have been interested in seeing Gorr attack the god's city directly.
Well, all of Olympus is afraid of him with the way they hide away and ignore his existence (Though I think there might have been extra scenes cut for time) and while gorrs logic is sound and exaggerated by grief he still just assumes that every God is uncaring, even when he sees Thor doing everything possible to save civilians. That's why taking the kids is actually an interesting plot-point. Not only is he aware that Thor at least somewhat cares, he also gives Thor an unselfish motivation to challenge him. Because the other gods wouldn't have cared for some mortal children, but Thor does. The fact that no one wants to help changes his view of his childhood hero (though the fallout from that could have been handled a little better ) And the reason Gorr doesn't challenge Thor directly could be attributed to him just not caring for a gods opinion. After all, he directly confronts Valkyrie and Jane on their suffering by these gods.
What if I never read the comics and walked away from the movie feeling like Gor was wasted? I honestly felt this movie had twice the jokes as Ragnarok but I laughed half as much. They tried to force the humor and cut out any ability to setup meaning to Gor's character. It's like you said they played the Gods off as perfect justification for Gor's crusade even Thor. Then at the end of the movie for some reason Gor seen Thor loved Jane and changed his whole as mind in an instant. Rushed ending to cluster of a film that was mostly jokes falling flat. This is definitely on the lower tier of marvel movies.
I think the Necrosword being Hela’s sword would’ve helped to set up the theme of the movie. If this sword is Hela’s it means that Gorr is the consequence of Odin’s arrogance and Thor’s inability to save Asgard and turn Hela. Gorr’s idea that gods are selfish and careless is literally the exact reason that he becomes a problem, this not only gives a nice through line between Ragnarok and L&T but also means that this HAS to be Thor’s problem because he is partially responsible for Gorr’s claim to power. The film should’ve forfeited the same Thor arc and the unnecessary side plots and unfunny jokes. We’ve had 3 thor solo movies and 4 avengers where Thor has learned to be the antithesis to Gorr’s view of gods, so lets use that. Thor realizes Gorr is right because he knows he was selfish and exactly what Gorr hated once upon a time. Instead of making Thor learn the same lesson again, lets have Thor teach the other gods the lessons he has learned to prove that while Gorr is wrong, his view that the gods can never change is naive. This is great pay off for Thor’s journey along all the MCU. We can have conflict and jealousy from the other gods like Zeus as they are jealous that Thor is worshipped by choice and not by force, with Thor teaching them how to be better and be like him. For Gorr, he believes mortals are held basically at gunpoint by immortals and don’t worship them by desire but necessity. So lets show mortals standing up for Thor when he is beaten by Gorr to defend him. This once again challenges Gorr and creates good conflict, with Thor being the exception to Gorr’s beliefs at this time. Finally have Thor being benevolent and selfless by the end, making some form of sacrifice to be the final nail in the coffin for Gorr’s view, solving the conflict, showing the other gods that they will gain belief and worship by acting selflessly and giving Thor one final test to show all he has built up to through the whole MCU. Thor has taught the other gods what it means to be a true god and gets to rest in Valhalla and return to his family after solving the problems of Odin and the gods. Not all the gods will listen to Thor and choose nobility, but the possibility that some of them can change proves that Gorr indiscriminately killing them all will kill people who are capable of change, making a difference and saving people. It gives the moral dilemma an ending without necessarily being a closed case - is it worth all the beings having absolute power if only some will choose to use it for good? Who knows, that is the takeaway of the whole story there are benefits and drawbacks, there is no right answer and neither Thor believing every god can be changed and be a hero like him or Gorr believing they are all evil is right. Life is not black and white, there is always a choice and Gorr is defeated simply by learning gods have a choice not by hitting him with stormbreaker and mjolnir concluding his and Thors journey while also leaving an interesting message of whether absolute power should exist or not
[Warning: Long comment.] The big problem with all stories about someone trying to kill God or gods is (With the exception from what I'm told, God of War) they tend to confuse the gods and religion. Movie Gorr wasted his life worshiping a god who didn't care about him. Unless we know specifically the God in question had a hand in creating Gorr's religion he could just say "What were you worshiping me for? I never asked for it. If a group of ants in your house started worshiping you would you dedicate your life to looking after them?" And Gorr would have lost the argument. In both versions the actual injustice is that mortals worship gods who can't or won't help them. Gorr would be far more justified going after the heads of religion. Even if he kills all the gods. The gods will still be worshiped because the news of their death cannot be spread universe wide. Meaning Gorr's actions have solved nothing. His Dark Materials has the same problem. Both this film and the comic it's based on both suffer from conflating two very different strains of thought. Christianity and the paganism it replaced. Classical paganism never claimed its gods we're all good or all powerful. The gods were the rightful masters of the world and you prayed to them because you were subject to their will whether that was good or bad. So just as a slave obeyed it's master, humans prayed to the gods in the hope that their wills would be benevolent rather than cruel. Christianity on the other hand stated that God is good and is all powerful. But we live in a fallen world of our own choice, and that this will be corrected in this world or the next. While one can pray to God to have things happen like the pagans, that's not the point of prayer in Christianity. God will not spare you from suffering because this life is a small shadow of the real world. You pray to God to experience his presence. And those who have been taught well in prayer find suffering no longer has any hold on them because they say they feel God's love at all times. Even when life should be unbearable (I speak from some experience. Having visited a Christian Monastery). Whether you believe in God or not. That is the point of prayer in Christianity. Marvel's Thor is neither all good or all powerful. Nor do he and the other gods exert their will on the world whether mortals ask for it or not. It is closest to the idea put forward in Epicurus, that the Gods aren't involved human affairs, their concerns are beyond our understanding. So Humans should simply trust the Gods are doing there own thing and live our own lives. Only this Thor does take an interest in the lives of mortals because he has a Christian like belief that he should help all people. Even if they don't worship him. Both stories take a pagan Thor and blame him for not hitting the standards of the Christian God. When a simple Epicurean disinterest in religion on the part of mortals would solve the problems the mortals bring on themselves. TL;DR: Here is the question people should consider. The gods in Marvel are not the most powerful beings, not even close. The Celestials, Eternity, Galactus, Lord Order and Master Chaos, The Beyonder and many others put even gods like Odin and Zeus to shame. And like in Epicurus, they are all far to wrapped up in cosmic problems to care about us. Why should the Gods alone bare Gorr's wrath, when they aren't even close to being the most powerful beings out there?
This is interesting, although it's worth noting that the author did think about that! In King Thor (2019 - 2020), when he was resurrected by All-Black the Necrosword, Gorr did recognized that mortals were just too "indoctrinated " by deities to abandon them once and for all, and that he would have to exterminate them all too to create new forms of living beings, that would live their lives on their own without worshiping anyone (and thus he would do a very "godly" thing, by creating creatures to his image...) Also, you gotta consider that Gorr is not necessarily the most rational character in the Universe. His hatred for gods is drastically aggravated by All-Black, that pushes him to murder anything of divine essence. I don't think he was really reflecting on "How could I separate them from mortals forever?", much more on "How could I exterminate them all to satisfy my hatred?"
I think that, with adaptations, you should understand the themes and story and adaptation is trying to show while understanding the things they are adapting and using as inspirations.
See I was aware of Gorr for a long time and loved him as a villain who is never aware of his own hypocrisy. The movie Gorr I'm mad at for two reason, one is design wise. Just disappointed that Taka had these amazing concept artist at their disposal, and yet you chose the most downgraded design of Gorr giving us another humanoid looking alien in the MCU. Second they never show him slaughtering any more Gods, just one in the opening scene. We don't see more of his ideology and how he express, and without that we don't see any counterpoints to his beliefs. The movie just seemes more one sided to Gorr, they miss the point of what makes Gorr so special. You understand comic Gorr's pain but you also realize, he's making worlds that need Gods godless. Causing more pain and suffering, hes even slaughtering children. The weapon didn't make him evil, it was all Gorr's choices as he followed down his dark path.
It’s weird too because there so much CGI in this that you could justify using Gorr Why have CGI helmets when you could actually make Gorr the comic design
His design is what killed it for me too. I mean Gorr looked menacing af in the comics and I know they could have done it because Ebony Maw existed. They didn't make him scary enough either. Gorr was BRUTAL in combat and he should have had them on their heels the entire battle... by himself. They also should have showed him kill more gods on screen to cement the fact he was a threat. I actually really liked the kid element though. It will be a good lead up to the next phase I think. But Gorr... yeah, I was disappointed.
@@cosmicriptid I've been seeing the reason a lot, I understand why people say that but CGI characters can work if you play your cards right. Bill Nigh was unrecognizable as Davy Jones, but that didn't matter casue his voice work was amazing. Bale has voice acted before and he does a good job.
When I finished the movie I thought it would have been cool for Gorr to use Heimdalls kid in order to spy on Thor and learn of the location of Omnipotence City and then arrive to slaughter the gods that way we couod have gotten a look at Gorr doing his thing and would tie in the children subplot better. But that of course goes against the tone of the movie
Cant believe Im saying this. Ebony Maw from Infinity War looked, felt and spoke more like Gorr the God Butcher than Christian Bale's portrayal. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor but he's not given a clear vision or direction on who this character really is, what is his personality that matches his mission. He is the most fun to watch and consequently more enjoyable part of the film but his character was incredibly inconsistent for a God Butcher and so I dont exactly know what exactly his performance was meant to illicit.The comics not only takes him seriously but gives him a nuance and gravitas, and as many great Marvel villians like Magneto, Sebastian Shaw, Wilson Fisk, an immense hypocrite that essentially becomes a God himself with how much power he accumulates. Where is all this nuance, characters that challenge this, the secular view of abandoning dependence, submission to a higher power and being a God of your own self. Any talented director would've had a treat working with this kind of complex character.
Man, I’ve only watched a couple of your videos, but you are instantly one of my favorite video essayists. I love how thoughtful you are and how, although you present your own opinions, you also do your best to weigh opposing arguments with relative impartiality. I also appreciate that your discussion is almost entirely auditory, with the visuals just being a nice bonus; it makes it super easy to focus on and digest while I’m doing other things. Up til now, I’ve regarded Love And Thunder the same sort of way I viewed Rise of Skywalker: just pure trash with some redeeming visual qualities. But this essay makes me really think and force me to evaluate the movie on its own terms, not on what I wanted it to be. Will be binging your content a lot over the coming days and eagerly awaiting your future videos!
I didn't really know the character of Gorr the God-Killer beyond "he has a magick sword that can kill gods," so, I really went into it carrying little expectations. Now, you've gotten me interested in reading that comic.
I feel like this is relevant enough to the conversation of adaptation to bear mentioning here; the lesson that I learned from Stephen King's novel The Shining and Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film adaptation was that a poor and/or inaccurate adaptation of a novel doesn't equal a bad film. Neither does a particularly faithful adaptation automatically mean that it's a GOOD film.
I agree with the take on appreciating films and comics as separate. Though I think it's worth keeping in mind shot of the giant dead god taken straight from comic. I think a lot of us saw that and incorrectly concluded the story would be equally inspired
1 thing I missed in the video is that an entity that is being worshipped, that is unable to help, unwilling to help and unaware of the faithful. Does not automatically deserve to die, apathetic isn't necessarily evil and the death penalty usually is.
True in general, but in that moment when the Rapu was killing Gorr, sucker stabbing the guy shocking you to death before you do die is usually justified self-defence.
I agree it doesn’t mean those entities deserve to die. But I think it does mean those entities aren’t deserving of existing *as Gods*, as figures above mortality and consequence - and in a sense, Gorr’s crusade is perhaps the only way that these divine beings can ever experience these qualities. I’m not saying this is the precise moral position I’d take - more that there’s a pretty strong argument in there somewhere. Nevertheless, a good point, and a distinction I should have made overt in the video.
@@PillarofGarbage I gotta say though, your definition of gods is plenty Abrahamic/Christian, even for a broad generalization. Down to incorrectly calling them Gods rather than gods, which is only capitalized for the Abrahamic one since in their conception not only is he the only one but also that is one of his names, so capital. Not exactly holding that against you, this isnt an accusatory "you bad", plenty sure that is what you grew up with, just stating what it seems like. It is just a "don't think that thing you said ia accurate". Anyway, these standards you are using here seem quite innacurate to many non Abrahamic religions. For example, for what we can tell of Old Norse belief, gods as space aliens who also just so happen to have shapped the world we live in amd us (they weren't even the first or created matter itself) is plenty good. It is a whole cluster fuck mess including just lack of surviving information, but youncan easily see they don't hold the aesor and vanir to those standards. Heck, divine mortality us entirely backed into the story, and most gods are expected to die including the creator of humanity. They see them as failable beings, and not all good. They must have, after all the myth of Ragnarok is not just everyone dies, but that only after Ragnarok and the death of their gods it would be possible for a perfect (or at least better) to emerge. Just as a teaser, kind of a tangent and minor critic (within your own frame your points were consistent and let's be real, most western audiences grew up with that same sort of perspective, that is what most people will be using when reading the movie anyway). I am trying to keep the comment "TED talks" to a minimum.
@@louisvictor3473 I see your point but coming at this from a broadly Abrahamic viewpoint was sort of intentional; I really got the sense that’s broadly the cultural context the Gorr story from the comics was playing with. Jason Aaron was raised in a Baptist environment after all, and it’s often been noted that this background influences the religious themes in his work. Obviously I could be totally wrong here - and there’s probably some interesting takes on the film’s version of the story to be produced if you come at it from a non-abrahamic lens - but that’s the reason for why this video’s the way it is :)
@@PillarofGarbage There is that, just saying, the way you presented the concept of gods in the video did sound a bit more like a general definition that holds true across most religions/cultures/faiths/things, rather than "this is one view I chose to use this time" situation. That is what I am nitpicking about, not so much that you analysed it from this particular view specifically, because it is as valid a lens as any other. Then again, if the goal is to try and take a peak from the creators' pov, Aaron might have been raised a bapitist, but he himself claims to be atheist (and if you ask me this also shows on his work, maybe even too much). And that is just for the comics, but the movie itself is ultimately Taika's. Maybe also Hemsworth's, he seems to have a lot of say on things, but I don't know how far it goes so I won't claim that. Taika has a mixed background, but also says to be atheist himself "I don’t believe in man-made religions/gods". For the goal of trying to put together the authoral pov, wouldn't it be desireable to consider different povs for each work/author, and include their present non belief angles as well? Again, not saying your pov in the video is not valid, that is beyond question for me that it is valid.
5:15 Actually, that God was protecting his Flock, considering that it was Knull that he just killed... which means that Golden God saved more lives than Gorr ever did.
This is a really great discussion. Personally, I thought the film fell down because it was played for laughs. Ragnarok did a much better job with its comedy and tone but asking Waititi to do the same thing but with some, well, really quite serious subjects just doesn't work. Jane's illness, the concepts of what is a God and what it means to be a god in the Marvel Universe, whether the Gods deserved to be saved and who / what Eternity is (and why are they trapped behind an asgardian door offering wishes to whomever opens it) are either glossed over or almost entirely sidestepped. If the film had been more serious and had had an open discussion of these topics through Gorr, I guarantee that he would have become almost as memorable a villain as Thanos and the film would have been much better received. However, the film was filling the Summer blockbuster MCU slot and so tonally, was meant to be light and breezy thus it ended up as a surface level analysis and concentrating on Thor's character arc. It wasn't a bad film and there's a lot to like, however, it just will end up on the bottom half of the list of MCU movies rather than the top half which every likes.
I did find it interesting that there was far more god killings in other MCU movies than here. Not that I want to see any faith's gods dismissively and disrespectful killed off, but I think it would've had a bit more weight added to Gorr's threat for me. Also, it would've been cool to see live-action depictions of a few more well known gods and gods of some fairly different cultures (beyond the blink and miss them audience pans) and body types, as we got to see with Moonknight's Egyptian gods.
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Definitely, far more than the Asgardians; that's why I refered to them as "well known". But also I meant also them for the depictions shown there being examples of more than just the common 'human but in old-fashioned clothee', like how the Asgardians and Olympians are usually depicted.
I actually think the movie design works better for the character. In the comics, Gorr is a muscular, nearly-naked alien, but I think that actually detracts from the main concept of the character: of a mortal who judges and kills the gods. Christian Bale is, by contrast, a (relatively) normal-looking human man in humble white cloth. He looks so much lesser than the gods he kills, which I think goes further in driving home the idea behind the character. He's the antithesis to Thor in almost every way, including their physiques and outfits. Gorr in the comics is a monster, while Christian Bale's Gorr is just a man, which I think is all the more effective. But that's just to critique their appearances. They totally fucking squandered him in the movie, the only redeeming quality being Bale's performance (when you actually get to see him on-screen). He could have been the new Loki. I mean, come on, we don't even get to see him butcher any gods.
Yeah, I actually agree with this take. I think the fact that MCU Gorr has a visual design that makes him seem like an ascetic monk, a simple mortal fully committed to his vow, in contrast to the grandeur of the gods works very well. I also don’t think making Gorr look more alien really adds anything of substance to his character thematically or visually, other than I guess make the villain look more villainous, but when he’s being played by Christian fucking Bale making him look very human is definitely the best choice. The one thing I dislike about MCU Gorr’s design is the lack of any contrasting color; his design works thematically, but is visually boring. I just wish they had kept some of the flair from comic Gorr, even if it was very toned down. I think the contrast of a pale white-skinned character with a pitch black cloak, weapon, and body markings makes him visually pop a lot more.
@@AlphynKing I mean, they still could have made him look more like an alien (they even admitted that the reason they didn't was to avoid comparisons to a certain other bald, pale villain with no nose and a genocide boner). But I actually think they went in the right direction by slimming him down and giving him a robe. Even though that, too, was basically just a result of circumstances: Bale was caught between productions thanks to the coof and couldn't bulk up to properly portray comic Gorr, so they went with a different approach. And yeah, they could have gone a little further with how the Necrosword is basically a godlike symbiote that can create all kinds of crazy weapons and armor, but that wouldn't leave enough time for more hilarious screaming goat gags.
Making a movie is really difficult. That's why you need to have a team that keeps each other in check. Love and Thunder was a desaster. It seems like the costume department, the writers, the directers and the actors never talked to each other and everyone pulled in their own direction and everybody just said: "Meh, people are going to watch it anyway"
This was the movie that kind of killed my hype going forward. I was really looking forward to seeing Aarons run on the big screen ( it was my first ever comic purchase, a week before the movie) and the excitement was crazy. At first I thought the movie was ok, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized they fumbled it. It felt like Thor regressed as a character, the mighty Thor was half baked, and they didn't convey Gorr's power or ambitions in a meaningful way. I love Marvel and I will be watching the movies, but damn I really wanted this one to be hit.
I love this movie but i completely agree with the point of Gorr's waste... but I think there are very many impossible dilemmas they had to contend with. Not least of all, being too deeply critical of theism in a largely theistic society could alienate an unjustifiable number of watchers. Though I think this MCU Thor, is not like contemporary comic Thor. Instead he's more like the young dumb Thor that met Gorr in Norway
I don't think they even remotely cared about not to be too critical of theism while making this movie. This movie is already way more critical of gods than it's source material. Gorr was never once justified in the comics and the gods were never portrayed in a bad light but the movie takes a completely different direction portraying every God as a joke, a**hole, or both.
My expectations weren't hurt. Because I didn't have any. I saw what this "director" did with Thor in his first attempt. He took the tragic and melancholic story of Ragnarok, as well as Planet Hulk, and turned it into schlock Mel Brooks would even call too silly. So yeah, I wasn't expecting a high-stake space thriller with Man of Steel levels of action from Mr. Waititi. I got exactly what I knew I was getting - trash.
Comic gorr felt like a monster, constantly looming over the plot, effecting it in everyway, and yet he had quite a developed and humane backstory. While movie gorr kinda feels all over the place and only appears every once and again, and his backstory is limited to 1 scene.
You know with the rise of superhero subversion represented in the boys and invincible given gorrs nature it’s amazing they didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to have gorr not only critique the gods but also critiquing by extension marvels hero’s. At this point marvels typical film format is really well known so having a character critique and criticize said formula is such a narrative playground to play around with.
To say that many felt Gorr was wasted because it was a bad adaptation of the comic book is too easy of an answer. Gorr felt wasted because he was the only serious character in a movie that was overbalanced with hit-or-miss humor. He felt wasted because we never really got to see any God Butchering. He felt wasted because Christian Bale, the dark knight himself, brought so much to any role and we didn't spend much time with him. Gorr felt wasted because he felt like a quality character in a movie that didn't want to take concepts seriously and really explore them. I suppose he works for the movie as you point out and the MCU has never fully adapted any comic run exactly as is, but when the movie doesn't work for me, neither do the characters.
I really liked Bales version of Gorr as it worked in this universe, though I'm definitely one of those who feels there wasn't enough of him in the movie and wanted to see some actual God Butchering. Was still a fantastic film in my opinion
I am pretty sure that Waititi also borrowed from a Thor v1 arch called "Blood and Thunder" (I mean, just look at those names), or at the very least the general gist of it and some visuals from the arc's prelude (basically Thor 460 to maybe 463, then there is a gap for Infinity Crusade, and then they get back right and it turns into the arc that is now still collected under that name). TL;DR Thor is all about this journey of self discovery, that is how it starts. And Odin gives him a space faring viking boat too (it isnl't literally pulled by boats, but it does have two wood carved goat figureheads), there is a fight on a small moon/planetoid as well (some reminiscent visuals there), and there is a former Thor GF (Sif in this case), a "second Thor" (motherfucking BRB), and a Valkyrie of sorts (Thor's mental issues that eventually take physical form). There is a fight against some Olympians, Zeus surrouned by women in a Throne, Zeus swearing Thor will pay, Hercules shows up, there is the Infinity Watch (basically a precursor to the current comics incarnation of the Guardians of the Galaxy, including OG Gamora and Drax). You could even argue they end the fight in Thor's shadown realm (the psychological kind). I could go on with the parallels, but I think you get the gist. But why do I bring it up? Because the whole arc is about Thor dealing with his traumas and mental pain, and his lost self of identity. In that arc, it is partially explored through that imaginary Valkyrie character he creates. And I think this movie does that too, and it does help to understand a whole bunch of it through a similar lens. Many of these characters are reflections of Thor. Thor who has been, Thor who could have been, Thor who he thought he was, Thor who he thought he wished he would become, etc. Many flavors, if you will. This includes Gorr. Thor can be and ahs been taken over and blinded by vengeance. See Infinity War his entire thing. Sure he helps save some people, he tries to stop Thanos and all, and while those happen to be good things, that isn't why Thor was doing it. It wasn't to protect, it wasn't to save, it wasn't even for some sense of "an eye for an eye" sorta justice. It was purely vengeance. See early in End Game, again, he doesnt decapitate Thanos for a sense of justice at all, just angry blind violent vengeance - and now Thanos cannot live to see the pain he caused, that his solution didn't work, he could no longer be questioned for useful information to perhaps find another way to undo what he did, and he for sure could not be made to mitgate even a fraction of any of his harm as penance. Sure, maybe none of those would be possible or useful anyway, and maybe they would all arrive at the idea that killing Thanos is the best course of action. Doesn't matter, Thor single handedly decided to end even the evaluation of any of those options or others because he wanted blood. And see Zeus chest hole for not even actually killing Korg (I think that is played as a joke, but it has meaning looked at it this way - Thor didn't even confirm the death, he wonder if Zeus being a big deal god among gods could have access to the means to bring Korg back, he just saw red). When it came up, Thor many times just gave in completely to his shadow aspect/represed id. Then we get to Eternity, at the center of it all. Only there, finally Thor realized he had been Gorr, and he could yet be Gorr, a mindless killer who gave in to maybe once just vengeance but completely derrailed from there by hate. Thor was beaten, depowered and basically a dying body. Thor could have chosen to just lightining speed kill Gorr (I presume also wasting eternity's one wish thingy, as Thor was not the first to enter the realm). But that is when he let go of his blind rage and hate (exactly the sort of thing that was blinding him in Blood and Thunder), he realizes that is a hurt man that was wronged (his wrongs don't change that), and now without the influence of the sword could be talked to. Thor realized he couldnt be all jury, judge and executioner based solely on his painful emotions, and right now, the love of his life had only a few minutes and being with her for her was the most important thing in the universe, not his anger or his hatred, and he could still help a hurt man to to right at least one wrong that day. And in a way, that is also Thor figuring if he did deserve to live or die. He put it up to Gorr, this shadow version of himself he sometimes turns into. If Gorr could chose to right a wrong instead of giving in to his hatred and vengeance, so could Thor. If he couldn't, then perhaps is best that Thor and the other jerk gods who too have the same sort of issue to die then and there. When even Thor's shadow showed the ability to ride the pain and chose benevolence, to not let the pain take over and go beyond it, Thor learned not only that he could, but that he must. So, TL;DR; Nearly every character in this movie reflects aspects of Thor, including Gorr who is a his ego's shadow, the darkest parts of himself he does not admit. And it is an interesting idea to analyse Gorr and the movie through this lens of everyone here is in a way teaching Thor to become a better self, to acknowledge his own darkness, and learn to not be let it take over him again as it has before.
I agree with Pillar, I absolutely loved your take here and analysis. I also think Gorr works through this lens? So I suppose my only peeve is just like… I don’t know who the villain was in that run (which arguably seems to be the primary source material tbh, and makes it sound like the Gorr stuff is just tacked on in this film) but I’d have preferred if they’d had them opposing Thor and honing in on challenging his emotional strife (rather than half-heartedly alluding to divinity). Kinda sounds like there might not have been one in the comic run, which I might try to read if I get the chance, I’m intrigued. I’d have loved to see Gorr and the question of divinity in a dedicated, more serious-toned Thor film if Hemsworth were to hypothetically agree to it (…trying not to get sidetracked so bad here, with what I’ve heard around. Why can’t the execs just treat their directors and casts with basic respect). They could more closely adapt the Gorr stuff using their more developed Thor, one whose doing his very best to be that righteous divinity, whilst haunted and plagued by that likelihood to slip from it, and the memory of darker times when he was just like Gorr/the gods who he’s slaughtering. Where he questions saving potentially unjust gods because, they’re doing more harm than good, and if Gorr wasn’t being Gorr wouldn’t Thor have fought them himself if provoked? Like… he “killed” Zeus out of revenge IN the film where ig in the back of his head was “gods bad”. He’s fought plenty of people for less. Thoughts for a different film ig. To me it kinda just feels like what I mentioned before, Gorr feels kinda… tacked on. Like Waititi had a vision clearly and he adapted Gorr to fit the emotional drive of the final film, an imperfect but IMO perfectly enjoyable film (I can def see how it won’t mesh with everyone tho). I do wonder if bc of the nature of the MCU, which certainly has plenty a fault that I’d argue are just becoming more and more prominent, we got this Gorr instead of, say, a villain in this one more based in its themes, and Gorr in another. If they sat down for a Thor film and went “…well, we’ve used up Loki and our version of Hela” “hmhmm” “the Dark Elves were a disaster” “yeah not doing that again” “so what’s a prominent Thor villain?” and they all looked across at Jerry, who’s a fan of Thor comics, who immediately tells them the basic gist of Gorr, a very iconic and well-received villain. Inevitably it’s smn every MCU hero is dealing with, is that bc actors only go so long (in theory ig) there’s only so much that can be adapted, and that’s WITH the MCU’s demanding and breakneck pace. Certain things aren’t going to see the big screen. Ig they just really wanted to get a version of Gorr in. (Sorry if my ramblings are in any way incoherent or messy, thanks for reading :) )
@@crystallion1269 That is the beauty of works of fiction. As long as readings don't conflict with what is on screen, they're all simultaneously valid readings (if they conflict, they could be a valid something, but let's keep it simple :P) without a need to agree with one another. Though they can and they can compliment one another. If anything, there has been a problem with intellectual honesty on this front "lately", people keep trying to pass their favorite reading as the only true one, like they're trying to decipher the absolute and one true correct reading of religious texts (and even in that context the "one and only true reading of words of non human life experiences/existences" version is usually a scam and never the intended attitude to the text). It just isn't how reading works, we interact with the text, we fill in the gaps. That is why we have been so passionate about fiction in multiple media since we have been humans, as far as we can tell. The act of reading (or listening, or watching a performance, etc.) a story inherently makes it personal because of this gap filling each of us do. And when we share with others, and they ressonate in a form or another, we form bonds, we form connections, we form common understandings. Also why sometimes we hate (love and hate are very related) people because of fiction, because it is not the fiction, it is that strong truth about their inner self which we may strongly disagree with, to put it kindly. Sorry, I got carried away here. Of course, we have 3 "works" in one here, so that can also complicate things. You have the movie itself, it can be seen as a work on its own. We can see the Taika's Thor duology as a work in two parts. We can see Thor's movies as one work. And we can see the MCU so far as one work. Personally I think my view fits the last one... but I haven't been re-watching all MCU, so in reality it is mostly the first one + my own memory which is not fresh. " I don’t know who the villain was in that run" Do you mean in Blood and Thunder? Yeah, the villain was "Valkyrie" (the Thor subconscious made hallucination and manifestation of his identity crisis, more or less), which fundamentally makes it Thor, family, friends, allies and Thanos (yes, he is there, gets gangsta checked by Odin too, I find it hilarious) against... Thor. But anyway, it is an early 90s comic so it still has a 90s comic quality to it. I generally like it, I like the more phylosophical stuff and meta, super grander than life, giving physical representation to one's mind space and all, but I get it is not for everyone. Does have Thor beating the shit out of a lot of people though. Still, if you're interested, there is a trade paper back collecting most of it (it bounces between a couple of titles at that poitn), but it only collects from Thor v1 #468 forward, missing some of the good stuff where the thing really beings, which is just Thor v1 #460-467, I don't think it bounces titles before that. To tie this all up back to our ol' @Pillar of Garbage theme, the version of Thor and Gorr you're "asking" for, you know, there has been another audiovisual and motion media version of Thor that would fit that perfectly. Maybe not that exact version in that exact universe, but using it as a template and maybe even his (voice) actor there too.. Yes, EMH's Thor is what I am talking about. An Thor EMH's style (at least narrative- and character-wise) animated movie, I think that would fit it like a T.
I haven't read these comics myself, but it seems to me that if you want Gorr in the MCU, it's gotta be in a Thor movie, and the Thor movies simply aren't the right tone to do Gorr right. I don't know if we could have gotten a much better adaptation than this.
The tone of the thor movies is the problem not to mention it's now directed by a guy with the mindset of a 5 year old. Would have been a great movie if thor still kept his darker character from infinity war, there was no korg and valkyrie in it and a new director maybe zack snider or Sam raimi.
@@MrShadowSmith I have to disagree there mate. I personally really like Thor 3 and 4 and Love and Thunder was the most fun I've had watching a movie. I don't think I'm alone in that. If you don't like them, that's fine, but don't stop something that other people like so you might get something you like.
@@Drawoon You must be a casual. The movie was pretty bad imo. If I just wanted to laugh I would have watched some other comedy shows or cartoon instead not a thor movie. The jokes were cringe targeted for kids. 90% of audience don't like it. Its the worst live adaptation of a brilliant comic book story. Those who know about comics know the real potential this had. Sure I did laugh at some jokes then forgot about them the next day that's the point of this movie switch off your brains, giggle and forget about it there's no story or good characters. Ragnarok was ok but LaT was a mess. You just can't make batman a clown to appeal to kids the same works in thor's case there are other characters for that. If you enjoyed it good for you then 😃
@@MrShadowSmith Aight dude. Sorry if I got angry. I just really liked this movie. Come on though, no need to talk down to me. The movie has a 78% audience score on rotten tomatoes. It's low for a marvel movie, but it's not "90% doesn't like it". As for the missed potential, yes that sucks. It would be great if they just adapted the stories accurately, pretty much only changing things to fit the new format. I don't know why they don't. It's not like they can't do it again though. They've got a multiverse to play with and they can always do a reboot. And then the batman example. If I remember correctly, they didn't make him a clown, he already was one. Remember the rainbow suit? He only got more serious later. I do want the Waititi movies to continue, but I think I see where you're coming from. Perhaps it would be better if they gave him a different series, and let Thor be written by someone who would do the comics justice.
@@Drawoon waititi simply isn't the director for a thor movie he can't handle serious characters. I think if they hired him for a Deadpool movie it would have been a better choice. Thor isn't a parody character he's supposed to be taken seriously. And gorr they should have never chosen a villain like that. You can't force a dark theme to fit in a light movie. With the comic book story they had plus they also had Christian bale to play gorr this film should have done much better than 78%. I personally see this as a big missed opportunity. I guess casual fans who aren't really familiar with comics didn't hate the movie too much. But overall majority of fans didn't like it either. I hope we get a better thor movie next time.
My 2 cents: Gorr in the comics was a GREAT villain, but his story has already been told. And I, personally, am fine with getting not a faithful re-telling but an altogether new story here. And neitiher does the epic scale of the orgininal God Butcher arc really "fit into" the MCU as a whole, I guess, nor does it work for MCU's Thor (as also explained in the video). That does not necessarily make the MCU storytelling worse per se. Gorr functions as a means to set the stage for what comes next here. This movie was not so much a clash between Gorr and Thor but a clash between Thor and his former idol, Zeus. How Love - as Gorrs legacy - will fit into the grand picture and what kind of god and man Thor will come out as in the end is yet to be told. This was a story about healing the many, many wounds Thor had gotten in the past movies. A much needed journey for his character developement. I really am interested in where we go from here... Did this "waste Gorr"? Maybe. But we can always grab the original and discuss that and still enjoy the story of the MCU. Personally, I am still very intrigued and a bit awed by the fact that we have been following ONE BIG STORY for over a decade now and I still really wanna know what they are cooking up here...
MCU is too normie these days and have to dumb down the designs for the mainstream to embrace. Sad but its how they sell. Even I was put off with Gorr's god in his prologue cos he looks like a white man cosplaying as a mayan god or someshit. 🤣
@@regidio5083 welll that just sounds stupid i wish they just used more alien like designs and less humanoid cause i feel like if aliens did exist they wouldnt look like humans at all they would have spikes,claws,tails and would be massive
@@godzillaisbetterthenyou9762 I am with you 1000% on alien designs but given that these guys had limited years to brainstorm designs in contrast to say James Cameron and his Avatar project or Ridley Scott and the Xenomorphs with the og author? Taika and the others had limited time to craft some aesthetics or make any substantial species. I dont excuse this because they had comic books and they intentionally got rid of Gorr's design to make him sympathetic to normie audiences. It is a hard sell for normies to embrace exotic designs which is why they were lazy as fuck with the aliens here.
@@regidio5083 true but I kinda wish there was more alien and monsterous aliens out their in movies instead of humanoid like the Xeno morph or a lot of the ultraman aliens.Honestly they shouldve used gorr for another movie maybe a Thor 5.they should’ve used enchantresses for this movie instead she fits more for this movie.then in Thor 5 make it completely dark.give gorr his comic design and have him kill a lot of gods.I just hope that in future mcu movies they use more alien like aliens instead of humanoid cause it just seems boring to me
@@godzillaisbetterthenyou9762 I am willing to settle with rubber forehead aliens trope like the yautja or xenomorphs as a step towards our aesthetic of foreign life forms. I write often with friends and have the same issue as you with media in portraying alien life, the true difficulty is to make a true alien lifeform in concept. 🤣 I simply settle for "Just dont make them look like human to me and I wont be snoozing". I already had my fill with human aliens via Star Trek.
I have to disagree, I found this to be a very poor adaptation and overall a mess of a film. I would actually put this film lower than Thor the Dark World honestly. Imagine a film where Thor actually has to admit that Gorr is right. Imagine a film where Thor tries to defend the idea of Gods only for Gorr to ask him why he wasn't there to save this daughter either? That would've rhymed nicely with the end of the film where he helps to resurrect her and then adopts her. Imagine a final battle where Thor tells Gorr he was right about the Gods but instead of murder being the solution Thor promises to be the God the universe needs and says that he will raise Gorrs daughter to be the same and that Gorr won't be remembered as a killer but as the man who loved his daughter and made the Gods better people. This film could've had so many amazing philosophical arguments and explored so many ideas about Gods and religion. But instead they turned it into a sitcom, a bad sitcom, a bad 90's sitcom even. Oh and Jane's story should've been either it's own film or a Disney + show because it's woefully underdeveloped in this film and basically turned into a cheap joke.
Great video! Thor: Love and Thunder is a very complicated movie for me. There’s a ton there to love (namely Christian Bale), but there’s also a lot I’m not so fond of (I don’t really like Thor’s characterization in this film, it feels like it’s a bit too close to being an SNL sketch). Oddly enough this video made me dislike this movie a lot more and then by the end like it more, ironically leaving me liking it the same amount as before but for entirely different reasons. Oh, and yeah I kinda wish Love and Thunder had more Gorr and took more of his characterization from the comics, but for what it’s worth I think Gorr is one of Phase 4’s best villains (Wenwu is quite hard to top).
This is a well thought out review. I have been looking for such channels lately. Focusing too much on the negatives of a film draws away from the minute efforts of everyone who put work towards it. I like this balance of criticism
Agreed. I think the film had some moments where the Gorr and Jane stuff worked, but it did suffer from too much comedy and cut scenes fleshing out stuff.
Personally I think you have a lot of people adapting works for films in genres across the board from screenwriters to directors to studios that really have little respect for those genres let alone the source material. This has been the case in several genres not just comics. When you realize that a lot of adaptations make a lot more sense.
I honestly enjoyed the movie mostly but the issue I have with Gorr gives a point and Thor doesn’t really give a counterpoint of “why shouldn’t the gods be taken out because they are selfish and don’t care about their people?” Which I would have liked to see. Make Thor and Gorr more of representing opposite ideals instead of Thor kinda affirming Gorr’s point but we just need to stop him. Hell even if Thor just learned and became a better person caring for more others that would have been fine too… really I think the Thor comedy is what causes this issue. If we had less of it and more of him learning and becoming a better person, then this movie would be near great for me. Still fun and good though.
As Thor came to us imperfect it would’ve been hard to portray him as he was in Aaron’s run. Taika didn’t get to make his own Thor, he got a Thor we’ve seen be consistently imperfect so it’d be a detriment to his character to make him the god he’d need to be to make a divine Thor work.
The fact of the matter is, Thor: Love and Thunder is a romantic comedy more than anything else. It doesn’t focus on Gorr or take things as seriously as Gorr’s story in the comics does, but it doesn’t have to. The comics told a deep and thought-provoking story about gods, while the movie told a fun and personal story about love. They weren’t even supposed to be the same thing, though I can’t blame people for comparing them or preferring one over the other.
I hadn't seen Aaron's run so I didn't have it in mind when I watched Love and Thunder so the idea Gorr's interpretation was off didn't enter my mind. I thought his scenes and particularly the very end really worked. I think I might have said Gorr was wasted but that was more I thought his arc really worked and the movie isn't as good as it should be, given main idea hit and the climax works. I think has more to do with the tonal messiness of the film you mention and the way it constantly undercuts the emotion and diverts us from the tragic story. I think part of that is there is a lack of thought about how elements build. Like I liked that both Jane and Gorr's power is coming from weapon's that are killing them and why the continue on and how reveals a great deal about both of their character. I also liked that Thor imbued Mjolnir with his love for Jane and that love is part of why it reaches out to her.... but those two don't work together do they? That's the story of the movie for me, that doesn't work together does it.
At this point I know what the MCU is about, I know these characters will change drastically for the big screen, and I am ok with that. Personally I think Gorr is one of the best villans we have gotten in the MCU, while he may not be very present in the movie, the times he appears he is menacing and intimidating, and personally i think he does a good job as the antagonist of this movie. While I would love to get to see the Gorr from the comics, I like this version of him, and at least in first watching I enjoyed the movie
Kevin Feige also missed a huge opportunity with Gorr's connection with symbiotes and their god, who would be a much better "new Thanos-level threat" than whatever Feige is trying with the multiverse and Kang. But then again, Kevin Feige also missed opportunity to leave on a high note after the success of Endgame, so...
my take on this is that it felt like 3 movies crammed into one, jane needed her own movie to set up her being thor, Thor's emotional journey and showing how much the gods do not deserved the prayer they believe they do, finally the movie that shows Gorr and why we love this villian, I believe Bale did a very good job because he puts his all into every movie he is in, but it just felt like he was underutilized as a hole.
as someone who has never read the comics, and just seen the movie, i think breaking it down the way you have was great. i was curious as to why there was such a backlash from comic fans but it makes sense when compared to the source material. it made me question how characters in the MCU work as a whole vs the comics. and if i had began in the comics first, i'd probably be among the people who were torn on this and many other mcu movies. this makes me want to go back and read the comics related to the stories now at least. i enjoyed the movie as its' own thing, but now i'm very curious to dive into the comic stories
Tl;Dr: Gorr Movie works for the story it wants to tell, the thing is the audience (aka most Aaron's run fans such as myself) didnt heard the story they wanted to hear Ngl this video is a blessing (no pun intended), and Im not sure if my intentions of what I wanted for this movie are justified or not, the objective answer is that it works for what it was achieving, and im humble to agree on that
I read the comic immediately before watching the movie. This video is exactly everything I was thinking about the movie expanded on. This movie coming after Thor's arc dealing with failure from Thanos could have been a perfect connection with his failure to stop Thanos relating with Gorr's idea of God's being incompetant. And like this video states, the movie could have explored the discussion of Gods and the purpose for what they serve and deconstruction of them like how people irl discuss about when it comes to actual religions.
I did quite like how the movie didn’t get hung up on the philosophy of Gorr and his views of divinity. That even Thor had to admit that Gorr was right by the end seemed to settle it and allowed us to get the really juicy emotional part of Gorr’s story and how it ties to Thor.
I have respect for the different direction, but the emotional weight is meaningless when the film makes no sense. If the film actually focused on Gorr as a character and as a force of the movie’s themes actively, then I would be more inclined to agree.
Side note: should’ve left out Jane Foster or not make her Thor. It would be much more emotionally investing if we got reintroduced to Jane and have you become Thor in the next film fighting Hercules.
I feel that Gorr and his motivation makes sense in the movie. Gorr lost his child and his own god laughed in his face as a reward for his loyalty. The movie wastes no time in showing Gorr’s argument without feeling like it’s taking forever to get to the point or whatever. And honestly? I always hated the “Gorr’s wrong because Thor is one of the good ones” because it implies Thor is just some perfect paragon of goodness and a beacon of virtue for other gods and just… *no* XD Thor started off as an arrogant, hot headed, prideful brat of Odin. Exactly the sort of god that Gorr in both the comics and the movie would have used to prove their point about how awful gods truly are. Thor at the end didn’t defeat Gorr by proving him wrong or overpowering him, he helped to remind him that he was only doing this out of pain and wanting to feel loved. That’s presumably why Gorr was so loyal to his god, he thought they loved him and his people and put so much faith in them, only to end up hurt and left emotionally guarded. And while Thor didn’t quite have that experience, he had been put through the wringer emotionally many times for the last half decade of the MCU. so when Gorr remembers *why* he’s doing this, he decides to use his wish to bring his daughter back, and places his trust in the one god who convinced him to change his mind. Thor’s new role as a father figure is his own way of proving to Gorr that not all gods are evil. Which I think is a really sweet idea.
@@thewoollyviking5928 lol Comic Gorr lost EVERYTHING. He lost his family from different tragedies and was exiled by his own people for loosing faith in the Gods. Gorr was a religious extremist mortal who turned a anti-religious extremist God. I hate it when movies make a villain a villains just because of one bad thing. It implies that only bad thing makes a person bad and not a mix of other bad things that screwed them up. The fact Thor 4 implies Gorr is only bad because he lost his daughter is so ridiculous to the character
@@petermj1098 I don't think it was simply implying that the loss of his daughter alone was what made him snap. It was only after meeting his god and finding that his pain and suffering meant nothing to him that drove him over the edge. It wasn't just his personal loss, it was finding out that such a loss meant nothing to what was basically the embodiment of a cold, uncaring universe.
Going to University and starting to read academic dissertations and writing essays and research papers has made me really appreciate video essays more. Especially when they’re well written and well made and its made it so easy to pick out the really bad ones. This is a very well argued video essay
"So long as the project works in its own terms". That is the magic phrase. The project was total shit with pretty colors. Maybe THAT is why people say Gorr was better in the comics. Because that story didnt suck but this one did.
As a big fan of both the comic and the movie, I want to thank you for giving both a chance. I just knew the original comic would be hard to adapt because of how complicated the time travel element is, to say nothing of the 3 Thors-so I expected pretty much what I got in this movie, and was able to see the beauty in both! And where the movies are concerned: I think Taika has gotten Marvel's table scaps for both Thors. I really hope more MCU writers actually build on what he does instead of erasing his character growth
I think it would probably suit my approach better to make individual videos on certain godly characters or movies, rather than one super-wide video on the general topic - but it’s certainly an area of the MCU I’ll keep talking about!
I like that you can critique work but still see the good in it. I'm sick of the angry reviewer/fandom menace just concluding something sucks with no grey area
Movie was fine. It was my typical rating for a Marvel film: glad I saw it, no reason to rewatch it. My only criticism is that Bale was underutilized. For as much screen time as Gorr got, anyone could have played him just fine. It was a waste to use Bale here when you could have had him play a villain where you'd actually get a lot of use out of him. At least that's my opinion.
Perhaps Taika realized that he exists within the social class of "gods" (millionaires) that this story originally criticized as needing to be destroyed, and decided he wanted to water down the story a bit.
holy shit, I actually never even realized that Gorr's gods could have died to the previous god butcher, that makes so much sense and adds to the hypocrisy/cycle of violence angle. they just completely ignored that in the movie
The question you pose was if Gorr in this version was suited for the story and if we should disregard the original in a need to have the character suit the role necessary, and in that, I'll say "mostly..." with the caveat that doing away with the original interpretation of the character further asks why even bother using it if such departures are going to be tasked to it. But further, even outside the subjective nature of enjoyment, I'll expand that question that I'm having to look at: Was there any part of this story that had an actual personal vision behind it, or was it made because of mandate? The Thor character certainly needed and benefitted from the growth, but from my perspective Taika made it because they told him to come up with something and gave him a day cheque, not because he really had anything to say. The movie fails not because of it's message, but because it's made insincere and hollowly. The tons of comedy and tone deaf, tone dumb, and tone blindness of it drips off the screen. And I feel certain that Taika didn't give all that much of a crap about what he made because I've seen what he can do when he actually cares. Jojo Rabbit is that kind of movie. So, I don't think Thor is bad (well, I do, but that is beside this point) but rather, I don't think it justifies its creation. It isn't a film, it's a product. Most marvel things are, but there was a time when the likes of John Favreua and the Russo Brothers gave a damn about what they were making.
I don’t think there’s much use speculating about whether or not Waititi cared about the film, or how much it reflects his personal vision, since we’ll probably never know. People are saying Marvel gave him more creative freedom this time around - so make of that what you will!
They had a better connection in the trailer when Thor said his fighting days were done but then Korg says he never stopped fighting and sure he’s a bit lazy now but he still helps out after a while, Gorr could have challenged the entirety of Selfish gods that Thor was becoming much like Zeus and in the end Thor realises “with great power comes great responsibility” and accepts his duty to help the universe and be a good God, but no. I still like the movie but they made a change that lessened their own message I was also kinda disappointed I expected Gorr to massacre Omnipotencity.
I feel like both Gorrs are great. Comic!Gorr is less sympathetic, but his backstory is fleshed out more, and you can understand why he does what he does, how he came to think the way he does, and the hypocrisy of him becoming a god to destroy the gods is pointed out. Screen!Gorr's hatred for the gods comes more from Rapu being an dick than a badly-wounded god pleading for help, having been too busy fighting (and losing) against Knull the Symbiote King to save Gorr's family, making him more sympathetic. Also, Screen!Gorr is proven to have a point, because while Thor, the Asgardians, and the Gods of Centauri-V are shown to be doing their jobs and concerned about mortals, Rapu and the gods in Omnipotence City have proven themselves unworthy of any faith.
Really the thing that gets me is it seemed to me Thor's arc in Ragnarok, Infinity War, and Endgame was becoming the more humble responsible Thor of Aaron's run, but instead we go back to jokester Thor from Ragnarok. What's the point of having an arc if your just going to pretend it didn't happen? I just think that would've made for a better film for the same reasons it worked in the comics. AND because that's what it felt like it was leading up to, IMO.
I don't know that excusing the movies faults for not being a straight adaptation is necessarily a good argument. A shit movie is a shit movie. At no point in marvel history has their been a straight adaptation. Logan was an amazing movie and yet shared very little in common with old man logan. Anyone who walked into the cinema thinking thor 4 was going to follow the comic only to be disappointed would have to be an idiot because we all know the building blocks weren't there. To truly service the Canon we would have had to be introduced in some way shape or form to knull, which would be ridiculous given we're only two venom movies in. I don't think this version of Gorr is shit I just think he was wasted as a one and done villain. Imagine a final thor movie ( preferably with a few others in between to undo waititi's damage) based on king thor, in the vein of Logan and made as a sort of space mad max style. Imagine those final beautiful panels of the king thor run, converted into a cinematic goodbye letter. Hemsworths thor, ancient and wiser, riding his ship to the edge of what is left of the universe, vowing to hold back entropy as long as he can so what's left of humanity can thrive. And back on earth a father tells of the glory of thor to his children as lightning strikes outside.
If an "adaptation" of a work wants to use the source to promote itself, it needs to hold to its source more directly. If it's just loosely based on it, or just borrows names and "some" themes... they're better off creating new characters and stories.
Great video! I can see since the movie is condensing the comic, there would have to be many things removed. I also like how they treat Thor. In the MCU where there are other superheroes, he not not need to do everything.
My problem was that he doesn’t fit in the movie whatsoever,and his adaptation while moderately good still is a very muted and nurtured adaptation. And this movie is just another example of waisted source material.
Maybe they wasted Gorr, maybe they didn't (I think they did), but they definitely wasted Christian Bale's performance by quipping in serious situations. It really cheapened the villain because the heroes rarely seemed to take him seriously. It was like Bale stumbled in from a much better film whenever he was on screen.
I've just given up on Marvel Studios adapting anything well. Gorr was just another bite at the apple of the hero being the same as the villain, but he's juxtaposed with Jane. You can go as far back as the Hulk's movie to see changes from the original origin and A LOT of characters since have had varying degrees of changes, but someone like the Hulk is still mostly the same character. I have yet to watch the Ms. Marvel show and my main hang up seems to be the utter wrecking done to Carol Danvers. She like Hawkeye has the name of a Marvel Comics character, but is not that character in any way, shape, or form. Now, not only does she have a horrible introductory movie that ends with knowing nothing about her or her goals, dreams, or aspirations, but she's also never on the planet. I kind of find in hard to believe that someone the general public knows nothing about and has probably never seen would have fans. People need to know who you are for that. Then again, this is the MCU and every random person seems to know everything that goes on on Earth. Remember the conversation in WandaVision about Wanda's fight with Thanos, by people who weren't there and at least one of whom was dust 2 weeks before. Or how about the random dude that asks Dr. Strange if this was the only option at the beginning of Multi verse of Madness. Sorry, went on a tangent only to say if you use comic book logic to judge the MCU you will only give yourself an aneurysm.
Ehh I think, based on the description you've given, Gorr's justification for killing all gods only works if all three conditions presented are met. Sure he may have a valid point in the gods not deserving worship but it's quite a leap to kill all gods because of their inability to do so (as opposed to killing them because they can help but choose not to). I think the film handles this better by making it clear that all three conditions are met. Edit: Great video though and you made a lot of valid and thought-provoking points. Subscribed.
I thought Gorr might look like his comic counterpart but he would be dangerous like his comic counterpart but Taika Waititi & Jennifer Kaitlyn Robinson just blew it! Gorr had 7-8 screen time! Also he is a child kidnapper in the movie not a God Butcher! Christian Bale himself said “A lot of gold was left at the editing table to make it family friendly”! I didn’t feel Gorr when his daughter died as much I felt for Wenwu when his wife was killed! Also even when Jane Foster I didn’t feel sad. Taika just blew it.
In my opinion, Gorr deserved his own origin story which could tie into Thor Love and Thunder. Imagine a Joker style movie focusing on Gorr's descent from faithful acolyte to dissalusioned killer with the movie ending with him killing the Gods of his world and becoming the God butcher.
Really interesting comparison. As someone who never really felt all that interested in the Marvel movies or comic books, I'm actually curious to pick up the Thor issues you mentioned. Not only the story seems to have much more depth than most of the Marvel movies in general (and especially the post-Endgame, or even post-Infinity War ones) , but the art also looks fantastic.
I recommend it - and yeah, as it you note, the art is spectacular. Most of the story’s illustrated by Esad Ribić, who’s just a straight up awesome artist.
I think "Love & Thunder" embraces the fact that the questions regarding the morality of Gorr can't be easily answered, there's some ambiguity. The heroes saw how self-absorbed and awful many gods are, but are still determined to stop Gorr because there is no such thing as an ethical genocide. The MCU takes this approach a lot, like with Thanos and the Flag Smashers. Whether they're right or not is irrelevant when so many lives are in danger.
You hear more calls for comic accuracy when the movie falls flat: It wasn't good and if only they'd stuck to the source material more closely, it might have been. Good movies, even if inaccurate, rarely have the complaints about source material accuracy be so loud or gain such traction. Jurassic Park deviates greatly from the book. Civil War is very different from the comics. Yet the comparisons to source material are more academic than bemoaning some loss. Thor: Love and Thunder was not a good movie, so more complaints about inaccuracy resound. Simple as that.
Personally, Gorr should've... Actually, let me first say that they (Marvel) should've hired you to write the script for this movie, or at least to proof read. Your interpretation of Gorr's first meeting with gods was delicious. I would love to see a movie try to do something like that. Back to my comment... Gorr should have been the focus of a new trilogy for Thor. Not some villain of the week like he was in the movie. As you pointed out, he asks some very serious and heavy questions that just get swept under the rug in the name of comedy.
No one complained when thanos motives were changed I think when a change from the source material is a good uplifting choice made with love for the original story its usually great but if a change makes a character or story lesser in some aspect then it usualy shows a lack of love and care for the source The latter which I think this movie had in spades.
I don't really agree with this. Good and bad decisions can be made, and most of the time it has nothing to do with love and care for source material. You can ADORE a comic book and still make a flawed adaptation of it.
I really enjoy your analysis and examples, specially since you are critiquing based on narrative and the themes on both comic and movie as different pieces rather than butchering one to elevate the other one
The theologian Michael Heiser argues that the Hebrew term Elohim, commonly translated as god, can be applied to any inhabitant of the spiritual realm. The God of Israel, gods of other nations, angels, demons even disembodied human spirits can be referred to as Elohim. The God of Israel is unique in being the creator and source of all life (the benevolent onipotent being you describe) but He isn't an Elohim because he has those traits, in fact there are other Elohim and they are not all benevolent and they aren't eternal or the creator. Ps 82 depicts the God of Israel sitting in judgement over the corrupt Elohim who have practiced injustice amoung the nations. By this definition Thor wouldn't be a god. He is a powerful being but he does not inhabitant a spiritual realm. Asgard appears to be just another planet rather then a place in another dimension. The gods of Moonlight on the other hand do appear to be depicted as spiritual beings that inhabit a spiritual realm. Ms Marvel also seemed to claim Thor wasn't really a god and he would have been called something else if he had been encountered by another ancient culture. It's interesting that they chose to depict the god Gorr meets in the film as a human figure. In the Hebrew Scriptures there are awesome encounters with God such as the visions of Isaiah or the fire at Sinai but people also encounter Him as a human figure and don't always know they are taking with God right away.
I'm just excited that the film teases Zeus as a possible villain in a upcoming movie, it's so rare to find a pop culture depiction of him that is not un-ambiguously good
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
In keeping with the theme this video ends with, I've tried my best to offer a fair and balanced critique of the film. I'm not really interested in labelling the film as good or bad - I think there's some really great, powerful stuff, and there's also some weak elements, and choices I feel to be misjudged. I think it's interesting that the great can coexist with the weak with such ease, and I think that weird liminal quality makes the film an interesting target for analysis :)
Opinion on the floating head?
I appreciate your honesty. I personally enjoyed Love and Thunder, but I also agree with a lot of the critiques you presented, and felt that Gorr was underutilized as the antagonist. Christian Bale still did an awesome job with what he was given, though, and I’m glad you were able to give him credit.
You should pin this
@@sonicspider5415 which floating head?
@@halfmettlealchemist8076 it's sad they cut so many of his scenes out, likely for the sake of adding in more comedy. Gorr should have had more screen time than Thor to truly flesh him out.
I think what bugged me about Gorr was that he didn't really challenge Thor's worldview at all, when he would've been a perfect way to extend Ragnarok's themes. Hela challenged Thor's perception of his community, Gorr could've challenged Thor's perception of himself. Could've been a great way to analyze Thor's privilege as a god, and by proxy, analyze the privilege of the "gods" of real life, in other words, those in power.
Yeah, good luck getting Waititi to think of something this complex and deep. Feature length SNL skits is the best you can hope for.
Yeah the film raises an essential question about the dangers and injustices of heirarchy and privilege, but in typical fashion doesn't do anything to challenge the status quo and instead says, we need to just "like love each other, man"
And don't get me started on the child soldiers... Wtf was up with that?
The movie had Zeus do that. Zeus’s arrogance is what makes Thor realize that the gods are self-serving and don’t care.
@@FischerFilmStudio thus Zeus should have been the villain, not Gorr. It would have been MUCH better.
This
Thor is still the same goofy ass man child he was at the start, who in turn is the same goofy man child from Ragnarok without any development. Gorr could have been any villain
Personally I felt that potential of Gorr of the God Butcher with an Actor as Christian Bale in role was wasted. I wished they removed the plot regarding the kids being kidnapped and focused on Gorr's mission. They could have remove for this as well as Jane having cancer storyline. The children being kidnapped was a distraction.
I think there’s a better idea with Gorr, have him be kind of the children. Show them compassion and remorse on what he had to do and possibly try and persuade them that his way is right. With probably the biggest story he could come up with, Asgard’s buried past of slaughter and war.
@@snelldor1474 He did do that.... he didnt mention the past wars and shit yea (although hes not asgardian and an alien so how would he know that?) But he tried to convince the kids. The shots are very menacing for Gor so you think he's gonna kill the kids when all he does is tell them stories and try to persuade them that the gods arent good.
He was never gonna kids because his whole mission revolved around the loss of his kid. He wanted to kill Thor. And then in the end a God relinquishes physical power and dominance and persuades Gor to revive his kid. Thor and Jane saved his kid with human compassion not godly strength.
Dont you think I also thought It was a little cheesy for the kids to be fighting? But at that point that scene is for THE KIDS WATCHING THE MOVIE. The movie is challenging kids perspectives on super heroes.
The killing off of Jane makes be go "Why did you even comeback?" Especially now Jane Foster is Valkyrie they could have skipped that WHOLE plot to focus in on Gorr. Love and Thunder is just a mess like how Rangarok was, Honestly there hasn't Thor movie that's objectively good. It's often quite bad with some good points here and there.
Waste of a great villain.
@@ExeErdna i'm still trying to find out what's so bad about Thor 1 and 2...
I mean I knew from the beginning that Gorr wouldn’t work with a story like “Love and Thunder” purely based on the fact that the focus and point of the story has less to do with Gorr and more to do with Thor’s life crisis.
In the story of L and T, Gorr’s shown his sympathetic origin from the start, and the usual redemption arc kinda plays from there, where he gets over his “hate” and decides to resurrect his daughter since Thor “isn’t like the other gods”. Pretty straightforward character, even the writers decided not to really give him any spotlight until the third act.
Comic Gorr is something else entirely. He *is* the story, Thor’s purpose in the 2013 storyline is to hunt down an enemy that not only is killing gods that Thor considers his friends, but also because Gorr was someone who had nearly killed him back when Thor was younger and was considered a god on Midgard.
The focus of *that* story was over the question of “Is Gorr right?”, with Thor himself opening his eyes to the arrogance and selfishness of the gods, and the story less a romantic-comedy and more a murder-mystery-thriller. One of the things I liked most about the 2013 storyline was that Gorr wasn’t introduced as one who lost everything, wronged by the gods, but first as a unseen and unstoppable monster who left the corpses of gods wherever he went, and the lack of focus of his character in L and T (especially to a character with a story like this) makes me think that his character didn’t belong in a story like this at all.
This would have been the movie to give Gorr more screen time than Thor similar to Joker having more screen time than Batman in The Dark Knight movie.
They should've used Amora as the villain here. This would tie in with the theme and title better, allow for romantic tension and set up the Enchantress as a threat moving forward.
@@theserpent8667 i don't think they could do her character justice.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp Oh wait, you're right. She'd be ruined by The Message, poorly written and ultimately would either die, or be not considered as evil.
Gor doesn't get over his hate until the very last second. And when he does it also results in the death of Jane Foster WHO WAS THE PERSON WHO SAVED HIS KIDS LIFE thus finally ending his rage.
Maybe they couldve put more Gor in the film but you cant just gloss over everything the movie is trying to say.
I’m a firm believer in judging a story on its own terms, however I *also* believe when adapting something beloved it’s important to maintain the themes that made the original story so powerful, otherwise why adapt that specific story or character and not a different one that would better suit the story you want to tell? I believe adaptations have a right to deviate significantly from the source material, but they still have to work with the themes present in said source material.
Also, from what you’ve described, I think a more faithful adaptation of comic Gorr could have been phenomenal for the maturity of mcu Thor. Whereas comic Thor showed that Gorr’s ideology was flawed, MCU Thor could’ve been used to show that he was right, and then Thor would have to step up to the plate and accept responsibility to disprove him, which could still lead to Gorr abandoning his quest at the end.
Right - I think Love and Thunder really teeters on the edge of maintaining the spirit of the source material, and I’d be interested to hear opinions of others as to whether or not there’s enough of Aaron’s Gorr in the film to justify the inclusion.
A more faithful Gorr adaptation would have undoubtedly provided the basis for a masterful Thor film - but honestly I’m not certain Taika is the filmmaker to do it. Maybe we’ll see another shot at the story in a few years if Marvel ever gives Animated Features another go!
@@PillarofGarbage I mean, Taika has told a bunch of stories with incredible emotional maturity. I think that’s part of the reason there was so much disappointment with this film. I mean ragnarok was funny, sure, but it also had an extremely compelling emotional core, and that’s far from his best work (mostly thanks to the comedy undermining a few of the more poignant moments-though arguably not as many as people tend to say)
@@adammyers7383 oh, I’ve no doubt he *could* do it - but from the ways he’s approached this world and the way he likes to utilise these characters, I just can’t see him wanting to.
@@PillarofGarbage ah I see, I misinterpreted you saying he “wasn’t the right director” for it
@@adammyers7383 Ragnorok is a weak defense for Taika. He didn't have full control and influence of that movie. It's not a great representation of his skills as a film maker. Love and Thunder is...
I think the Russo's left Thor without direction and without purpose at the end of Endgame. Should have gone darker and more serious. They should have made Thor an overprotective King, and married to Lady Sif. Then in the 4th film Thor could have children of his own, and also have to face off against Gorr. Really focusing on the theme of fatherhood, and having the emotional depth to payoff a character like Gorr.
Sounds like an interesting direction!
Sounds like you put thought and effort into this, unlike the Russo brothers and Taika.
@@theserpent8667 felt like a logical next step after Ragnorak set up Thor to accept his role as king to the Asgardians, and learning about the importance of Asgard as a people and not just a place. And he usually ends up with Lady Sif or Enchantress in the comics. Don't know where the heck Russo's were going with Thor. Felt like Endgame was made by completely different people.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp Indeed. Gorr was the wrong villain for this film. And if Thor ended up with Amora, that could be interesting. Then in Thor 5, one of his children is slain by Gorr, prompting Thor to take action.
@@theserpent8667 now that would be interesting. So many directions to take him without making him into a joke. Such a shame.
Here's something of a missed opportunity for the MCU. We have this movie, Eternals, and Moon Knight. While I don't consider the Celestials as space gods, the Eternals themselves worship them. And Moon Knight has gods on a more earthly scale. And then there's the Bast cameo in this Thor movie. Could (should) the MCU have played more with its concept of gods, their pros and cons, and their place currently in the MCU? In my head and (based on your excellent critique of the movie) in a different adaptation of the Gorr storyline, MCU movie watchers could have had discussions bordering on the "Cyclops/Gorr was right" and examples to back up or discredit that belief.
Yeah, it’s fun and kinda depressing to imagine other adaptations of the story which tie more closely into the MCU’s theogony. And I know everyone loved that Moon Knight didn’t tie into the wider MCU, but I can’t help but wish we got a post-credits scene of Osiris or whoever getting Gorr’d. Would have helped the butchering feel a little more serious!
This would be cool
Zeus could be an argument for Gorr but the Eternals or Khonshu could be arguments against; Gods or godlike beings who are flawed but actually try to do what they can to make life better
@@ItsButterBean1020
Furthermore, Gorr's logic wasn't really fleshed out...
How did he define "godhood"?
He was begging Eternity to erase gods, but was he going to kill Eternity after the deal was done?
From his perspective, Eternity was also a god... In fact, a god of a much much higher level... The God of time itself...
@@陳潔明-w6y yeah that I agree with
I’m not sure what he was doing
@@陳潔明-w6y to be fair, even fairly popular philosophers such as Daniel Dennett are pretty wonky with their definition of godhood.
There's no way to really know, but it would make sense that they are using polytheism. In which gods are just people with super human power. Power over some aspect of reality nature or civilization.
In Greek mythology primordial deities, the first titans, are technically gods but arent really considered gods. Or at least not usually.
I think eternity fits pretty well in that category. He technically is a god due to his power. But he isnt personified like thor or zeus are, and because of it, he is also not worshipped.
Amora the enchantress would've suited themes of choosing love over violence SO much better and she'd be a better fit for taika's style. Gorr is such a serious villain that I think he needs the shakespearian style of the first thor film
Gorr was really just a glorified oneshot villain in the comics. He had one storyline and that was it.
@@ShadowSonic2 But that one storyline was pretty awesome. Him being in the comics for such a short time and yet having a great writing and storyline is a perfect example of quality over quantity.
When I finished the film I had one thing in mind and that was just... why did taika watiti tell this story. What I mean by that is just... what a weird thing for the tone of his stories. Ragnarock was really loved but mostly for the fun stuff. A lot of fun in sakaar, thor and hulks dynamic, loki shenanigans. It pulled of some serious moments too, the tragedy of valkariye, thor and loki's relationship. It manages to pause from comedy for this moment but it felt like the focus there was the internal problem of the characters, their past trauma and relationship. But when you add things as cancer, god butchering, it just feels weird. In ragnarock people didn't like hela much because she felt off. She was more serious, but also with some jokes that didn't land. So why adapt gorr? It feels like this movie should have been dark, it should have been more serious but its just not. On the other hand the movie ends with the teaser for hercules... and I just wondered why wasn't he and zeus the bad guys? Wouldn't it make more sense for taika to go into the lighthearted direction with a lighthearted villain? Embracing the silly stuff and leaving gorr for another time? Its not that gorr being different is so wrong... but I feel like in general the movie as a whole would benefit from him being replaced with a villain that would fit more with the tone.
I do see your point - an odd choice indeed!
Like Amora?
Hell Zeus and Hercules are way more interesting choices then the Gorr we see in the MCU
If anything Gorr should’ve been teased on a mid credits scene of this movie with Zeus and Hercules being the main villains of love and thunder
Why have a villain at all? Gorr was always a perfect fit for thor. Also, Gorr was an easier sell.
If, as you contend, the villain could be cut and paste with another, why have a named one? The role could be filled with any of Thor's rogues.
The reasons Gorr for so perfectly were because of Thor's state at the start of the film. He's listless and questions his worth. Gorr existing asks not only if Thor is worthy, but are the gods. As the video states, in this way Gorr is perfect for Thor's development.
Lastly, selling Thor versus anyone else would be a tough sell. Thor killed and then helped defeat Thanos. Hercules wouldn't make for a compelling next challenge.
I would like to point out that Gorr in the MCU was always going to pale compared to the comic book run. He has to be a one shot foil. Why would anyone else care about a God slaying enemy? That isn't a threat to mortals. Nor to most aliens. Also, Disney isn't going to touch the idea of Gorr confronting Yahweh, Allah, or Buddah.
Loved the part where Gorr said “It’s God-Butcherin’ Time!!!”
Prepare to get morbed, Gorr
I liked when he just gorrbed all of those guys
Gorr killed Morbius
Gorrbin ain't easy
It’s Gorrin’ Time!
What bugged me about Gorr is that he is painted as this terrible God killer. But we didn't really see any of that..... we got this neat story about Thor going and saving some kids. It was fun and hilarious and I really liked it, but Gorr doesn't spend any time challenging Thor.... well not in any real meaningful way, Thors world view isn't changed in a way it should have.
This would be great
Show more collateral to Gorr’s actions
The bigger problem is that there were probably cut scenes of him butchering gods. Interviews with Christian Bale show that he worked with Peter Dinkledge and Jeff Goldblum. This implies that he most likely killed both the Grandmaster and Eitri the Dwarf, which would have been great to see
@@dougpouncey exactly. its a damn shame. movie should have been 30 minutes longer so they could explore more of this.
@dougpouncey
I mean, I kinda get why they didn't kill the grandmaster cause they likely still want him to meet the collector.... but I don't get why they cut Etri aside from wanting to keep Dinklage as an actor.
I'd still much rather have been interested in seeing Gorr attack the god's city directly.
Well, all of Olympus is afraid of him with the way they hide away and ignore his existence (Though I think there might have been extra scenes cut for time) and while gorrs logic is sound and exaggerated by grief he still just assumes that every God is uncaring, even when he sees Thor doing everything possible to save civilians.
That's why taking the kids is actually an interesting plot-point. Not only is he aware that Thor at least somewhat cares, he also gives Thor an unselfish motivation to challenge him. Because the other gods wouldn't have cared for some mortal children, but Thor does.
The fact that no one wants to help changes his view of his childhood hero (though the fallout from that could have been handled a little better )
And the reason Gorr doesn't challenge Thor directly could be attributed to him just not caring for a gods opinion. After all, he directly confronts Valkyrie and Jane on their suffering by these gods.
What if I never read the comics and walked away from the movie feeling like Gor was wasted? I honestly felt this movie had twice the jokes as Ragnarok but I laughed half as much. They tried to force the humor and cut out any ability to setup meaning to Gor's character. It's like you said they played the Gods off as perfect justification for Gor's crusade even Thor. Then at the end of the movie for some reason Gor seen Thor loved Jane and changed his whole as mind in an instant. Rushed ending to cluster of a film that was mostly jokes falling flat. This is definitely on the lower tier of marvel movies.
I think the Necrosword being Hela’s sword would’ve helped to set up the theme of the movie. If this sword is Hela’s it means that Gorr is the consequence of Odin’s arrogance and Thor’s inability to save Asgard and turn Hela. Gorr’s idea that gods are selfish and careless is literally the exact reason that he becomes a problem, this not only gives a nice through line between Ragnarok and L&T but also means that this HAS to be Thor’s problem because he is partially responsible for Gorr’s claim to power.
The film should’ve forfeited the same Thor arc and the unnecessary side plots and unfunny jokes. We’ve had 3 thor solo movies and 4 avengers where Thor has learned to be the antithesis to Gorr’s view of gods, so lets use that. Thor realizes Gorr is right because he knows he was selfish and exactly what Gorr hated once upon a time. Instead of making Thor learn the same lesson again, lets have Thor teach the other gods the lessons he has learned to prove that while Gorr is wrong, his view that the gods can never change is naive. This is great pay off for Thor’s journey along all the MCU. We can have conflict and jealousy from the other gods like Zeus as they are jealous that Thor is worshipped by choice and not by force, with Thor teaching them how to be better and be like him.
For Gorr, he believes mortals are held basically at gunpoint by immortals and don’t worship them by desire but necessity. So lets show mortals standing up for Thor when he is beaten by Gorr to defend him. This once again challenges Gorr and creates good conflict, with Thor being the exception to Gorr’s beliefs at this time.
Finally have Thor being benevolent and selfless by the end, making some form of sacrifice to be the final nail in the coffin for Gorr’s view, solving the conflict, showing the other gods that they will gain belief and worship by acting selflessly and giving Thor one final test to show all he has built up to through the whole MCU. Thor has taught the other gods what it means to be a true god and gets to rest in Valhalla and return to his family after solving the problems of Odin and the gods. Not all the gods will listen to Thor and choose nobility, but the possibility that some of them can change proves that Gorr indiscriminately killing them all will kill people who are capable of change, making a difference and saving people. It gives the moral dilemma an ending without necessarily being a closed case - is it worth all the beings having absolute power if only some will choose to use it for good? Who knows, that is the takeaway of the whole story there are benefits and drawbacks, there is no right answer and neither Thor believing every god can be changed and be a hero like him or Gorr believing they are all evil is right. Life is not black and white, there is always a choice and Gorr is defeated simply by learning gods have a choice not by hitting him with stormbreaker and mjolnir concluding his and Thors journey while also leaving an interesting message of whether absolute power should exist or not
I like this. Very well said!
This is amazing! wish this was it, this would've made it a truly great film
[Warning: Long comment.] The big problem with all stories about someone trying to kill God or gods is (With the exception from what I'm told, God of War) they tend to confuse the gods and religion.
Movie Gorr wasted his life worshiping a god who didn't care about him. Unless we know specifically the God in question had a hand in creating Gorr's religion he could just say "What were you worshiping me for? I never asked for it. If a group of ants in your house started worshiping you would you dedicate your life to looking after them?" And Gorr would have lost the argument.
In both versions the actual injustice is that mortals worship gods who can't or won't help them. Gorr would be far more justified going after the heads of religion. Even if he kills all the gods. The gods will still be worshiped because the news of their death cannot be spread universe wide. Meaning Gorr's actions have solved nothing. His Dark Materials has the same problem.
Both this film and the comic it's based on both suffer from conflating two very different strains of thought. Christianity and the paganism it replaced. Classical paganism never claimed its gods we're all good or all powerful. The gods were the rightful masters of the world and you prayed to them because you were subject to their will whether that was good or bad. So just as a slave obeyed it's master, humans prayed to the gods in the hope that their wills would be benevolent rather than cruel.
Christianity on the other hand stated that God is good and is all powerful. But we live in a fallen world of our own choice, and that this will be corrected in this world or the next.
While one can pray to God to have things happen like the pagans, that's not the point of prayer in Christianity. God will not spare you from suffering because this life is a small shadow of the real world. You pray to God to experience his presence. And those who have been taught well in prayer find suffering no longer has any hold on them because they say they feel God's love at all times. Even when life should be unbearable (I speak from some experience. Having visited a Christian Monastery). Whether you believe in God or not. That is the point of prayer in Christianity.
Marvel's Thor is neither all good or all powerful. Nor do he and the other gods exert their will on the world whether mortals ask for it or not. It is closest to the idea put forward in Epicurus, that the Gods aren't involved human affairs, their concerns are beyond our understanding. So Humans should simply trust the Gods are doing there own thing and live our own lives. Only this Thor does take an interest in the lives of mortals because he has a Christian like belief that he should help all people. Even if they don't worship him.
Both stories take a pagan Thor and blame him for not hitting the standards of the Christian God. When a simple Epicurean disinterest in religion on the part of mortals would solve the problems the mortals bring on themselves.
TL;DR: Here is the question people should consider. The gods in Marvel are not the most powerful beings, not even close. The Celestials, Eternity, Galactus, Lord Order and Master Chaos, The Beyonder and many others put even gods like Odin and Zeus to shame. And like in Epicurus, they are all far to wrapped up in cosmic problems to care about us. Why should the Gods alone bare Gorr's wrath, when they aren't even close to being the most powerful beings out there?
I agree 100%
This is interesting, although it's worth noting that the author did think about that! In King Thor (2019 - 2020), when he was resurrected by All-Black the Necrosword, Gorr did recognized that mortals were just too "indoctrinated " by deities to abandon them once and for all, and that he would have to exterminate them all too to create new forms of living beings, that would live their lives on their own without worshiping anyone (and thus he would do a very "godly" thing, by creating creatures to his image...)
Also, you gotta consider that Gorr is not necessarily the most rational character in the Universe. His hatred for gods is drastically aggravated by All-Black, that pushes him to murder anything of divine essence. I don't think he was really reflecting on "How could I separate them from mortals forever?", much more on "How could I exterminate them all to satisfy my hatred?"
I think that, with adaptations, you should understand the themes and story and adaptation is trying to show while understanding the things they are adapting and using as inspirations.
See I was aware of Gorr for a long time and loved him as a villain who is never aware of his own hypocrisy. The movie Gorr I'm mad at for two reason, one is design wise. Just disappointed that Taka had these amazing concept artist at their disposal, and yet you chose the most downgraded design of Gorr giving us another humanoid looking alien in the MCU.
Second they never show him slaughtering any more Gods, just one in the opening scene. We don't see more of his ideology and how he express, and without that we don't see any counterpoints to his beliefs. The movie just seemes more one sided to Gorr, they miss the point of what makes Gorr so special. You understand comic Gorr's pain but you also realize, he's making worlds that need Gods godless. Causing more pain and suffering, hes even slaughtering children. The weapon didn't make him evil, it was all Gorr's choices as he followed down his dark path.
It’s weird too because there so much CGI in this that you could justify using Gorr
Why have CGI helmets when you could actually make Gorr the comic design
Considering how comic accurate the majority of the other characters are in the MCU, it's kinda strange to make Gorr noticeably different...
His design is what killed it for me too. I mean Gorr looked menacing af in the comics and I know they could have done it because Ebony Maw existed. They didn't make him scary enough either. Gorr was BRUTAL in combat and he should have had them on their heels the entire battle... by himself. They also should have showed him kill more gods on screen to cement the fact he was a threat. I actually really liked the kid element though. It will be a good lead up to the next phase I think. But Gorr... yeah, I was disappointed.
I think they did that to allow Bale's performance to be the focus but I understand the issue.
@@cosmicriptid I've been seeing the reason a lot, I understand why people say that but CGI characters can work if you play your cards right. Bill Nigh was unrecognizable as Davy Jones, but that didn't matter casue his voice work was amazing. Bale has voice acted before and he does a good job.
When I finished the movie I thought it would have been cool for Gorr to use Heimdalls kid in order to spy on Thor and learn of the location of Omnipotence City and then arrive to slaughter the gods that way we couod have gotten a look at Gorr doing his thing and would tie in the children subplot better. But that of course goes against the tone of the movie
Cant believe Im saying this. Ebony Maw from Infinity War looked, felt and spoke more like Gorr the God Butcher than Christian Bale's portrayal. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor but he's not given a clear vision or direction on who this character really is, what is his personality that matches his mission. He is the most fun to watch and consequently more enjoyable part of the film but his character was incredibly inconsistent for a God Butcher and so I dont exactly know what exactly his performance was meant to illicit.The comics not only takes him seriously but gives him a nuance and gravitas, and as many great Marvel villians like Magneto, Sebastian Shaw, Wilson Fisk, an immense hypocrite that essentially becomes a God himself with how much power he accumulates. Where is all this nuance, characters that challenge this, the secular view of abandoning dependence, submission to a higher power and being a God of your own self. Any talented director would've had a treat working with this kind of complex character.
Man, I’ve only watched a couple of your videos, but you are instantly one of my favorite video essayists. I love how thoughtful you are and how, although you present your own opinions, you also do your best to weigh opposing arguments with relative impartiality. I also appreciate that your discussion is almost entirely auditory, with the visuals just being a nice bonus; it makes it super easy to focus on and digest while I’m doing other things.
Up til now, I’ve regarded Love And Thunder the same sort of way I viewed Rise of Skywalker: just pure trash with some redeeming visual qualities. But this essay makes me really think and force me to evaluate the movie on its own terms, not on what I wanted it to be. Will be binging your content a lot over the coming days and eagerly awaiting your future videos!
Thanks so much! Hope you continue to enjoy!
I didn't really know the character of Gorr the God-Killer beyond "he has a magick sword that can kill gods," so, I really went into it carrying little expectations. Now, you've gotten me interested in reading that comic.
I feel like this is relevant enough to the conversation of adaptation to bear mentioning here; the lesson that I learned from Stephen King's novel The Shining and Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film adaptation was that a poor and/or inaccurate adaptation of a novel doesn't equal a bad film. Neither does a particularly faithful adaptation automatically mean that it's a GOOD film.
I agree with the take on appreciating films and comics as separate. Though I think it's worth keeping in mind shot of the giant dead god taken straight from comic. I think a lot of us saw that and incorrectly concluded the story would be equally inspired
1 thing I missed in the video is that an entity that is being worshipped, that is unable to help, unwilling to help and unaware of the faithful. Does not automatically deserve to die, apathetic isn't necessarily evil and the death penalty usually is.
True in general, but in that moment when the Rapu was killing Gorr, sucker stabbing the guy shocking you to death before you do die is usually justified self-defence.
I agree it doesn’t mean those entities deserve to die. But I think it does mean those entities aren’t deserving of existing *as Gods*, as figures above mortality and consequence - and in a sense, Gorr’s crusade is perhaps the only way that these divine beings can ever experience these qualities. I’m not saying this is the precise moral position I’d take - more that there’s a pretty strong argument in there somewhere.
Nevertheless, a good point, and a distinction I should have made overt in the video.
@@PillarofGarbage I gotta say though, your definition of gods is plenty Abrahamic/Christian, even for a broad generalization. Down to incorrectly calling them Gods rather than gods, which is only capitalized for the Abrahamic one since in their conception not only is he the only one but also that is one of his names, so capital. Not exactly holding that against you, this isnt an accusatory "you bad", plenty sure that is what you grew up with, just stating what it seems like. It is just a "don't think that thing you said ia accurate".
Anyway, these standards you are using here seem quite innacurate to many non Abrahamic religions. For example, for what we can tell of Old Norse belief, gods as space aliens who also just so happen to have shapped the world we live in amd us (they weren't even the first or created matter itself) is plenty good. It is a whole cluster fuck mess including just lack of surviving information, but youncan easily see they don't hold the aesor and vanir to those standards. Heck, divine mortality us entirely backed into the story, and most gods are expected to die including the creator of humanity. They see them as failable beings, and not all good. They must have, after all the myth of Ragnarok is not just everyone dies, but that only after Ragnarok and the death of their gods it would be possible for a perfect (or at least better) to emerge.
Just as a teaser, kind of a tangent and minor critic (within your own frame your points were consistent and let's be real, most western audiences grew up with that same sort of perspective, that is what most people will be using when reading the movie anyway). I am trying to keep the comment "TED talks" to a minimum.
@@louisvictor3473 I see your point but coming at this from a broadly Abrahamic viewpoint was sort of intentional; I really got the sense that’s broadly the cultural context the Gorr story from the comics was playing with. Jason Aaron was raised in a Baptist environment after all, and it’s often been noted that this background influences the religious themes in his work.
Obviously I could be totally wrong here - and there’s probably some interesting takes on the film’s version of the story to be produced if you come at it from a non-abrahamic lens - but that’s the reason for why this video’s the way it is :)
@@PillarofGarbage There is that, just saying, the way you presented the concept of gods in the video did sound a bit more like a general definition that holds true across most religions/cultures/faiths/things, rather than "this is one view I chose to use this time" situation. That is what I am nitpicking about, not so much that you analysed it from this particular view specifically, because it is as valid a lens as any other.
Then again, if the goal is to try and take a peak from the creators' pov, Aaron might have been raised a bapitist, but he himself claims to be atheist (and if you ask me this also shows on his work, maybe even too much). And that is just for the comics, but the movie itself is ultimately Taika's. Maybe also Hemsworth's, he seems to have a lot of say on things, but I don't know how far it goes so I won't claim that. Taika has a mixed background, but also says to be atheist himself "I don’t believe in man-made religions/gods". For the goal of trying to put together the authoral pov, wouldn't it be desireable to consider different povs for each work/author, and include their present non belief angles as well? Again, not saying your pov in the video is not valid, that is beyond question for me that it is valid.
5:15
Actually, that God was protecting his Flock, considering that it was Knull that he just killed... which means that Golden God saved more lives than Gorr ever did.
This is a really great discussion.
Personally, I thought the film fell down because it was played for laughs. Ragnarok did a much better job with its comedy and tone but asking Waititi to do the same thing but with some, well, really quite serious subjects just doesn't work.
Jane's illness, the concepts of what is a God and what it means to be a god in the Marvel Universe, whether the Gods deserved to be saved and who / what Eternity is (and why are they trapped behind an asgardian door offering wishes to whomever opens it) are either glossed over or almost entirely sidestepped.
If the film had been more serious and had had an open discussion of these topics through Gorr, I guarantee that he would have become almost as memorable a villain as Thanos and the film would have been much better received. However, the film was filling the Summer blockbuster MCU slot and so tonally, was meant to be light and breezy thus it ended up as a surface level analysis and concentrating on Thor's character arc.
It wasn't a bad film and there's a lot to like, however, it just will end up on the bottom half of the list of MCU movies rather than the top half which every likes.
My favorite part of Love and Thunder was when Gorr said “it’s Gorrbing time!” And then gorrbed all over Thor and the other gods.
I did find it interesting that there was far more god killings in other MCU movies than here. Not that I want to see any faith's gods dismissively and disrespectful killed off, but I think it would've had a bit more weight added to Gorr's threat for me. Also, it would've been cool to see live-action depictions of a few more well known gods and gods of some fairly different cultures (beyond the blink and miss them audience pans) and body types, as we got to see with Moonknight's Egyptian gods.
Egyptian gods are famous
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Definitely, far more than the Asgardians; that's why I refered to them as "well known". But also I meant also them for the depictions shown there being examples of more than just the common 'human but in old-fashioned clothee', like how the Asgardians and Olympians are usually depicted.
I actually think the movie design works better for the character. In the comics, Gorr is a muscular, nearly-naked alien, but I think that actually detracts from the main concept of the character: of a mortal who judges and kills the gods. Christian Bale is, by contrast, a (relatively) normal-looking human man in humble white cloth. He looks so much lesser than the gods he kills, which I think goes further in driving home the idea behind the character. He's the antithesis to Thor in almost every way, including their physiques and outfits. Gorr in the comics is a monster, while Christian Bale's Gorr is just a man, which I think is all the more effective.
But that's just to critique their appearances. They totally fucking squandered him in the movie, the only redeeming quality being Bale's performance (when you actually get to see him on-screen). He could have been the new Loki. I mean, come on, we don't even get to see him butcher any gods.
Just curious, but did you see that original film design they had for Gorr? It makes the comics look human in comparison
Meh we have enough bald white guys in movies give me an alien they didn’t even have to do tentacles just make him look alien not valdamort jr
He looks like a fuckin mime that was also a Greek philosopher. Lame af
Yeah, I actually agree with this take. I think the fact that MCU Gorr has a visual design that makes him seem like an ascetic monk, a simple mortal fully committed to his vow, in contrast to the grandeur of the gods works very well. I also don’t think making Gorr look more alien really adds anything of substance to his character thematically or visually, other than I guess make the villain look more villainous, but when he’s being played by Christian fucking Bale making him look very human is definitely the best choice. The one thing I dislike about MCU Gorr’s design is the lack of any contrasting color; his design works thematically, but is visually boring. I just wish they had kept some of the flair from comic Gorr, even if it was very toned down. I think the contrast of a pale white-skinned character with a pitch black cloak, weapon, and body markings makes him visually pop a lot more.
@@AlphynKing I mean, they still could have made him look more like an alien (they even admitted that the reason they didn't was to avoid comparisons to a certain other bald, pale villain with no nose and a genocide boner). But I actually think they went in the right direction by slimming him down and giving him a robe. Even though that, too, was basically just a result of circumstances: Bale was caught between productions thanks to the coof and couldn't bulk up to properly portray comic Gorr, so they went with a different approach. And yeah, they could have gone a little further with how the Necrosword is basically a godlike symbiote that can create all kinds of crazy weapons and armor, but that wouldn't leave enough time for more hilarious screaming goat gags.
Making a movie is really difficult. That's why you need to have a team that keeps each other in check. Love and Thunder was a desaster. It seems like the costume department, the writers, the directers and the actors never talked to each other and everyone pulled in their own direction and everybody just said: "Meh, people are going to watch it anyway"
This was the movie that kind of killed my hype going forward. I was really looking forward to seeing Aarons run on the big screen ( it was my first ever comic purchase, a week before the movie) and the excitement was crazy. At first I thought the movie was ok, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized they fumbled it. It felt like Thor regressed as a character, the mighty Thor was half baked, and they didn't convey Gorr's power or ambitions in a meaningful way. I love Marvel and I will be watching the movies, but damn I really wanted this one to be hit.
I love this movie but i completely agree with the point of Gorr's waste... but I think there are very many impossible dilemmas they had to contend with. Not least of all, being too deeply critical of theism in a largely theistic society could alienate an unjustifiable number of watchers. Though I think this MCU Thor, is not like contemporary comic Thor. Instead he's more like the young dumb Thor that met Gorr in Norway
I don't think they even remotely cared about not to be too critical of theism while making this movie. This movie is already way more critical of gods than it's source material. Gorr was never once justified in the comics and the gods were never portrayed in a bad light but the movie takes a completely different direction portraying every God as a joke, a**hole, or both.
My expectations weren't hurt. Because I didn't have any. I saw what this "director" did with Thor in his first attempt. He took the tragic and melancholic story of Ragnarok, as well as Planet Hulk, and turned it into schlock Mel Brooks would even call too silly. So yeah, I wasn't expecting a high-stake space thriller with Man of Steel levels of action from Mr. Waititi. I got exactly what I knew I was getting - trash.
Comic gorr felt like a monster, constantly looming over the plot, effecting it in everyway, and yet he had quite a developed and humane backstory.
While movie gorr kinda feels all over the place and only appears every once and again, and his backstory is limited to 1 scene.
You know with the rise of superhero subversion represented in the boys and invincible given gorrs nature it’s amazing they didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to have gorr not only critique the gods but also critiquing by extension marvels hero’s. At this point marvels typical film format is really well known so having a character critique and criticize said formula is such a narrative playground to play around with.
Yo I remember when your channel was only at 8k Subs and now you’re at almost 21k, your videos are awesome keep grinding!
Thanks for the support!
To say that many felt Gorr was wasted because it was a bad adaptation of the comic book is too easy of an answer. Gorr felt wasted because he was the only serious character in a movie that was overbalanced with hit-or-miss humor. He felt wasted because we never really got to see any God Butchering. He felt wasted because Christian Bale, the dark knight himself, brought so much to any role and we didn't spend much time with him. Gorr felt wasted because he felt like a quality character in a movie that didn't want to take concepts seriously and really explore them. I suppose he works for the movie as you point out and the MCU has never fully adapted any comic run exactly as is, but when the movie doesn't work for me, neither do the characters.
I'm surprised this hadn't gotten more views, this is one of your best videos yet
Really glad you think so! Views seem to be picking up a bit today so hopefully that trend can continue :D
I really liked Bales version of Gorr as it worked in this universe, though I'm definitely one of those who feels there wasn't enough of him in the movie and wanted to see some actual God Butchering. Was still a fantastic film in my opinion
He didn't work in the MCU, he sucked because they made him to suck!
how was it a fantastic film
The only thing I can say being definitely sure of it is that the moment we accept mediocrity is the moment we deny ourselves any sort of progress.
I am pretty sure that Waititi also borrowed from a Thor v1 arch called "Blood and Thunder" (I mean, just look at those names), or at the very least the general gist of it and some visuals from the arc's prelude (basically Thor 460 to maybe 463, then there is a gap for Infinity Crusade, and then they get back right and it turns into the arc that is now still collected under that name). TL;DR Thor is all about this journey of self discovery, that is how it starts. And Odin gives him a space faring viking boat too (it isnl't literally pulled by boats, but it does have two wood carved goat figureheads), there is a fight on a small moon/planetoid as well (some reminiscent visuals there), and there is a former Thor GF (Sif in this case), a "second Thor" (motherfucking BRB), and a Valkyrie of sorts (Thor's mental issues that eventually take physical form). There is a fight against some Olympians, Zeus surrouned by women in a Throne, Zeus swearing Thor will pay, Hercules shows up, there is the Infinity Watch (basically a precursor to the current comics incarnation of the Guardians of the Galaxy, including OG Gamora and Drax). You could even argue they end the fight in Thor's shadown realm (the psychological kind). I could go on with the parallels, but I think you get the gist.
But why do I bring it up? Because the whole arc is about Thor dealing with his traumas and mental pain, and his lost self of identity. In that arc, it is partially explored through that imaginary Valkyrie character he creates. And I think this movie does that too, and it does help to understand a whole bunch of it through a similar lens. Many of these characters are reflections of Thor. Thor who has been, Thor who could have been, Thor who he thought he was, Thor who he thought he wished he would become, etc. Many flavors, if you will. This includes Gorr. Thor can be and ahs been taken over and blinded by vengeance. See Infinity War his entire thing. Sure he helps save some people, he tries to stop Thanos and all, and while those happen to be good things, that isn't why Thor was doing it. It wasn't to protect, it wasn't to save, it wasn't even for some sense of "an eye for an eye" sorta justice. It was purely vengeance. See early in End Game, again, he doesnt decapitate Thanos for a sense of justice at all, just angry blind violent vengeance - and now Thanos cannot live to see the pain he caused, that his solution didn't work, he could no longer be questioned for useful information to perhaps find another way to undo what he did, and he for sure could not be made to mitgate even a fraction of any of his harm as penance. Sure, maybe none of those would be possible or useful anyway, and maybe they would all arrive at the idea that killing Thanos is the best course of action. Doesn't matter, Thor single handedly decided to end even the evaluation of any of those options or others because he wanted blood. And see Zeus chest hole for not even actually killing Korg (I think that is played as a joke, but it has meaning looked at it this way - Thor didn't even confirm the death, he wonder if Zeus being a big deal god among gods could have access to the means to bring Korg back, he just saw red). When it came up, Thor many times just gave in completely to his shadow aspect/represed id. Then we get to Eternity, at the center of it all. Only there, finally Thor realized he had been Gorr, and he could yet be Gorr, a mindless killer who gave in to maybe once just vengeance but completely derrailed from there by hate. Thor was beaten, depowered and basically a dying body. Thor could have chosen to just lightining speed kill Gorr (I presume also wasting eternity's one wish thingy, as Thor was not the first to enter the realm). But that is when he let go of his blind rage and hate (exactly the sort of thing that was blinding him in Blood and Thunder), he realizes that is a hurt man that was wronged (his wrongs don't change that), and now without the influence of the sword could be talked to. Thor realized he couldnt be all jury, judge and executioner based solely on his painful emotions, and right now, the love of his life had only a few minutes and being with her for her was the most important thing in the universe, not his anger or his hatred, and he could still help a hurt man to to right at least one wrong that day. And in a way, that is also Thor figuring if he did deserve to live or die. He put it up to Gorr, this shadow version of himself he sometimes turns into. If Gorr could chose to right a wrong instead of giving in to his hatred and vengeance, so could Thor. If he couldn't, then perhaps is best that Thor and the other jerk gods who too have the same sort of issue to die then and there. When even Thor's shadow showed the ability to ride the pain and chose benevolence, to not let the pain take over and go beyond it, Thor learned not only that he could, but that he must.
So, TL;DR; Nearly every character in this movie reflects aspects of Thor, including Gorr who is a his ego's shadow, the darkest parts of himself he does not admit. And it is an interesting idea to analyse Gorr and the movie through this lens of everyone here is in a way teaching Thor to become a better self, to acknowledge his own darkness, and learn to not be let it take over him again as it has before.
Great points, thanks for sharing!
I agree with Pillar, I absolutely loved your take here and analysis. I also think Gorr works through this lens? So I suppose my only peeve is just like… I don’t know who the villain was in that run (which arguably seems to be the primary source material tbh, and makes it sound like the Gorr stuff is just tacked on in this film) but I’d have preferred if they’d had them opposing Thor and honing in on challenging his emotional strife (rather than half-heartedly alluding to divinity). Kinda sounds like there might not have been one in the comic run, which I might try to read if I get the chance, I’m intrigued.
I’d have loved to see Gorr and the question of divinity in a dedicated, more serious-toned Thor film if Hemsworth were to hypothetically agree to it (…trying not to get sidetracked so bad here, with what I’ve heard around. Why can’t the execs just treat their directors and casts with basic respect). They could more closely adapt the Gorr stuff using their more developed Thor, one whose doing his very best to be that righteous divinity, whilst haunted and plagued by that likelihood to slip from it, and the memory of darker times when he was just like Gorr/the gods who he’s slaughtering. Where he questions saving potentially unjust gods because, they’re doing more harm than good, and if Gorr wasn’t being Gorr wouldn’t Thor have fought them himself if provoked? Like… he “killed” Zeus out of revenge IN the film where ig in the back of his head was “gods bad”. He’s fought plenty of people for less. Thoughts for a different film ig.
To me it kinda just feels like what I mentioned before, Gorr feels kinda… tacked on. Like Waititi had a vision clearly and he adapted Gorr to fit the emotional drive of the final film, an imperfect but IMO perfectly enjoyable film (I can def see how it won’t mesh with everyone tho). I do wonder if bc of the nature of the MCU, which certainly has plenty a fault that I’d argue are just becoming more and more prominent, we got this Gorr instead of, say, a villain in this one more based in its themes, and Gorr in another. If they sat down for a Thor film and went “…well, we’ve used up Loki and our version of Hela” “hmhmm” “the Dark Elves were a disaster” “yeah not doing that again” “so what’s a prominent Thor villain?” and they all looked across at Jerry, who’s a fan of Thor comics, who immediately tells them the basic gist of Gorr, a very iconic and well-received villain. Inevitably it’s smn every MCU hero is dealing with, is that bc actors only go so long (in theory ig) there’s only so much that can be adapted, and that’s WITH the MCU’s demanding and breakneck pace. Certain things aren’t going to see the big screen. Ig they just really wanted to get a version of Gorr in.
(Sorry if my ramblings are in any way incoherent or messy, thanks for reading :) )
@@crystallion1269 That is the beauty of works of fiction. As long as readings don't conflict with what is on screen, they're all simultaneously valid readings (if they conflict, they could be a valid something, but let's keep it simple :P) without a need to agree with one another. Though they can and they can compliment one another. If anything, there has been a problem with intellectual honesty on this front "lately", people keep trying to pass their favorite reading as the only true one, like they're trying to decipher the absolute and one true correct reading of religious texts (and even in that context the "one and only true reading of words of non human life experiences/existences" version is usually a scam and never the intended attitude to the text). It just isn't how reading works, we interact with the text, we fill in the gaps. That is why we have been so passionate about fiction in multiple media since we have been humans, as far as we can tell. The act of reading (or listening, or watching a performance, etc.) a story inherently makes it personal because of this gap filling each of us do. And when we share with others, and they ressonate in a form or another, we form bonds, we form connections, we form common understandings. Also why sometimes we hate (love and hate are very related) people because of fiction, because it is not the fiction, it is that strong truth about their inner self which we may strongly disagree with, to put it kindly. Sorry, I got carried away here.
Of course, we have 3 "works" in one here, so that can also complicate things. You have the movie itself, it can be seen as a work on its own. We can see the Taika's Thor duology as a work in two parts. We can see Thor's movies as one work. And we can see the MCU so far as one work. Personally I think my view fits the last one... but I haven't been re-watching all MCU, so in reality it is mostly the first one + my own memory which is not fresh.
" I don’t know who the villain was in that run" Do you mean in Blood and Thunder? Yeah, the villain was "Valkyrie" (the Thor subconscious made hallucination and manifestation of his identity crisis, more or less), which fundamentally makes it Thor, family, friends, allies and Thanos (yes, he is there, gets gangsta checked by Odin too, I find it hilarious) against... Thor. But anyway, it is an early 90s comic so it still has a 90s comic quality to it. I generally like it, I like the more phylosophical stuff and meta, super grander than life, giving physical representation to one's mind space and all, but I get it is not for everyone. Does have Thor beating the shit out of a lot of people though. Still, if you're interested, there is a trade paper back collecting most of it (it bounces between a couple of titles at that poitn), but it only collects from Thor v1 #468 forward, missing some of the good stuff where the thing really beings, which is just Thor v1 #460-467, I don't think it bounces titles before that.
To tie this all up back to our ol' @Pillar of Garbage theme, the version of Thor and Gorr you're "asking" for, you know, there has been another audiovisual and motion media version of Thor that would fit that perfectly. Maybe not that exact version in that exact universe, but using it as a template and maybe even his (voice) actor there too.. Yes, EMH's Thor is what I am talking about. An Thor EMH's style (at least narrative- and character-wise) animated movie, I think that would fit it like a T.
I haven't read these comics myself, but it seems to me that if you want Gorr in the MCU, it's gotta be in a Thor movie, and the Thor movies simply aren't the right tone to do Gorr right. I don't know if we could have gotten a much better adaptation than this.
The tone of the thor movies is the problem not to mention it's now directed by a guy with the mindset of a 5 year old. Would have been a great movie if thor still kept his darker character from infinity war, there was no korg and valkyrie in it and a new director maybe zack snider or Sam raimi.
@@MrShadowSmith I have to disagree there mate. I personally really like Thor 3 and 4 and Love and Thunder was the most fun I've had watching a movie. I don't think I'm alone in that. If you don't like them, that's fine, but don't stop something that other people like so you might get something you like.
@@Drawoon You must be a casual. The movie was pretty bad imo. If I just wanted to laugh I would have watched some other comedy shows or cartoon instead not a thor movie. The jokes were cringe targeted for kids. 90% of audience don't like it. Its the worst live adaptation of a brilliant comic book story. Those who know about comics know the real potential this had. Sure I did laugh at some jokes then forgot about them the next day that's the point of this movie switch off your brains, giggle and forget about it there's no story or good characters. Ragnarok was ok but LaT was a mess. You just can't make batman a clown to appeal to kids the same works in thor's case there are other characters for that. If you enjoyed it good for you then 😃
@@MrShadowSmith Aight dude. Sorry if I got angry. I just really liked this movie. Come on though, no need to talk down to me.
The movie has a 78% audience score on rotten tomatoes. It's low for a marvel movie, but it's not "90% doesn't like it".
As for the missed potential, yes that sucks. It would be great if they just adapted the stories accurately, pretty much only changing things to fit the new format. I don't know why they don't. It's not like they can't do it again though. They've got a multiverse to play with and they can always do a reboot.
And then the batman example. If I remember correctly, they didn't make him a clown, he already was one. Remember the rainbow suit? He only got more serious later.
I do want the Waititi movies to continue, but I think I see where you're coming from. Perhaps it would be better if they gave him a different series, and let Thor be written by someone who would do the comics justice.
@@Drawoon waititi simply isn't the director for a thor movie he can't handle serious characters. I think if they hired him for a Deadpool movie it would have been a better choice. Thor isn't a parody character he's supposed to be taken seriously. And gorr they should have never chosen a villain like that. You can't force a dark theme to fit in a light movie. With the comic book story they had plus they also had Christian bale to play gorr this film should have done much better than 78%. I personally see this as a big missed opportunity. I guess casual fans who aren't really familiar with comics didn't hate the movie too much. But overall majority of fans didn't like it either. I hope we get a better thor movie next time.
👍
Well this made my day
@@PillarofGarbage no its made my day now >:) steals ur happiness
My 2 cents: Gorr in the comics was a GREAT villain, but his story has already been told. And I, personally, am fine with getting not a faithful re-telling but an altogether new story here. And neitiher does the epic scale of the orgininal God Butcher arc really "fit into" the MCU as a whole, I guess, nor does it work for MCU's Thor (as also explained in the video). That does not necessarily make the MCU storytelling worse per se. Gorr functions as a means to set the stage for what comes next here. This movie was not so much a clash between Gorr and Thor but a clash between Thor and his former idol, Zeus. How Love - as Gorrs legacy - will fit into the grand picture and what kind of god and man Thor will come out as in the end is yet to be told. This was a story about healing the many, many wounds Thor had gotten in the past movies. A much needed journey for his character developement. I really am interested in where we go from here... Did this "waste Gorr"? Maybe. But we can always grab the original and discuss that and still enjoy the story of the MCU. Personally, I am still very intrigued and a bit awed by the fact that we have been following ONE BIG STORY for over a decade now and I still really wanna know what they are cooking up here...
Im Honestly Tired of Humanoid Aliens I wish we saw more alien and monstrous types of Aliens
MCU is too normie these days and have to dumb down the designs for the mainstream to embrace. Sad but its how they sell. Even I was put off with Gorr's god in his prologue cos he looks like a white man cosplaying as a mayan god or someshit. 🤣
@@regidio5083 welll that just sounds stupid i wish they just used more alien like designs and less humanoid cause i feel like if aliens did exist they wouldnt look like humans at all they would have spikes,claws,tails and would be massive
@@godzillaisbetterthenyou9762 I am with you 1000% on alien designs but given that these guys had limited years to brainstorm designs in contrast to say James Cameron and his Avatar project or Ridley Scott and the Xenomorphs with the og author? Taika and the others had limited time to craft some aesthetics or make any substantial species. I dont excuse this because they had comic books and they intentionally got rid of Gorr's design to make him sympathetic to normie audiences. It is a hard sell for normies to embrace exotic designs which is why they were lazy as fuck with the aliens here.
@@regidio5083 true but I kinda wish there was more alien and monsterous aliens out their in movies instead of humanoid like the Xeno morph or a lot of the ultraman aliens.Honestly they shouldve used gorr for another movie maybe a Thor 5.they should’ve used enchantresses for this movie instead she fits more for this movie.then in Thor 5 make it completely dark.give gorr his comic design and have him kill a lot of gods.I just hope that in future mcu movies they use more alien like aliens instead of humanoid cause it just seems boring to me
@@godzillaisbetterthenyou9762 I am willing to settle with rubber forehead aliens trope like the yautja or xenomorphs as a step towards our aesthetic of foreign life forms. I write often with friends and have the same issue as you with media in portraying alien life, the true difficulty is to make a true alien lifeform in concept. 🤣 I simply settle for "Just dont make them look like human to me and I wont be snoozing". I already had my fill with human aliens via Star Trek.
My problem wasn't that Gorr didn't work, it was that he worked too well and the film didn't want to deal with it
I have to disagree, I found this to be a very poor adaptation and overall a mess of a film. I would actually put this film lower than Thor the Dark World honestly.
Imagine a film where Thor actually has to admit that Gorr is right. Imagine a film where Thor tries to defend the idea of Gods only for Gorr to ask him why he wasn't there to save this daughter either? That would've rhymed nicely with the end of the film where he helps to resurrect her and then adopts her.
Imagine a final battle where Thor tells Gorr he was right about the Gods but instead of murder being the solution Thor promises to be the God the universe needs and says that he will raise Gorrs daughter to be the same and that Gorr won't be remembered as a killer but as the man who loved his daughter and made the Gods better people.
This film could've had so many amazing philosophical arguments and explored so many ideas about Gods and religion. But instead they turned it into a sitcom, a bad sitcom, a bad 90's sitcom even.
Oh and Jane's story should've been either it's own film or a Disney + show because it's woefully underdeveloped in this film and basically turned into a cheap joke.
Great video! Thor: Love and Thunder is a very complicated movie for me. There’s a ton there to love (namely Christian Bale), but there’s also a lot I’m not so fond of (I don’t really like Thor’s characterization in this film, it feels like it’s a bit too close to being an SNL sketch). Oddly enough this video made me dislike this movie a lot more and then by the end like it more, ironically leaving me liking it the same amount as before but for entirely different reasons. Oh, and yeah I kinda wish Love and Thunder had more Gorr and took more of his characterization from the comics, but for what it’s worth I think Gorr is one of Phase 4’s best villains (Wenwu is quite hard to top).
This is a well thought out review. I have been looking for such channels lately. Focusing too much on the negatives of a film draws away from the minute efforts of everyone who put work towards it. I like this balance of criticism
Agreed. I think the film had some moments where the Gorr and Jane stuff worked, but it did suffer from too much comedy and cut scenes fleshing out stuff.
Personally I think you have a lot of people adapting works for films in genres across the board from screenwriters to directors to studios that really have little respect for those genres let alone the source material. This has been the case in several genres not just comics. When you realize that a lot of adaptations make a lot more sense.
The gorr story could have been it’s own trilogy.
I honestly enjoyed the movie mostly but the issue I have with Gorr gives a point and Thor doesn’t really give a counterpoint of “why shouldn’t the gods be taken out because they are selfish and don’t care about their people?” Which I would have liked to see. Make Thor and Gorr more of representing opposite ideals instead of Thor kinda affirming Gorr’s point but we just need to stop him. Hell even if Thor just learned and became a better person caring for more others that would have been fine too… really I think the Thor comedy is what causes this issue. If we had less of it and more of him learning and becoming a better person, then this movie would be near great for me. Still fun and good though.
As Thor came to us imperfect it would’ve been hard to portray him as he was in Aaron’s run. Taika didn’t get to make his own Thor, he got a Thor we’ve seen be consistently imperfect so it’d be a detriment to his character to make him the god he’d need to be to make a divine Thor work.
The fact of the matter is, Thor: Love and Thunder is a romantic comedy more than anything else. It doesn’t focus on Gorr or take things as seriously as Gorr’s story in the comics does, but it doesn’t have to. The comics told a deep and thought-provoking story about gods, while the movie told a fun and personal story about love. They weren’t even supposed to be the same thing, though I can’t blame people for comparing them or preferring one over the other.
I hadn't seen Aaron's run so I didn't have it in mind when I watched Love and Thunder so the idea Gorr's interpretation was off didn't enter my mind. I thought his scenes and particularly the very end really worked. I think I might have said Gorr was wasted but that was more I thought his arc really worked and the movie isn't as good as it should be, given main idea hit and the climax works. I think has more to do with the tonal messiness of the film you mention and the way it constantly undercuts the emotion and diverts us from the tragic story. I think part of that is there is a lack of thought about how elements build. Like I liked that both Jane and Gorr's power is coming from weapon's that are killing them and why the continue on and how reveals a great deal about both of their character. I also liked that Thor imbued Mjolnir with his love for Jane and that love is part of why it reaches out to her.... but those two don't work together do they? That's the story of the movie for me, that doesn't work together does it.
Thank to pillar for describing me correctly infort of my comic book counterpart
Big change from this video. One of the first I watched. The newer videos have a certain bent, but glad ya found a paying audience.
Salute.
At this point I know what the MCU is about, I know these characters will change drastically for the big screen, and I am ok with that. Personally I think Gorr is one of the best villans we have gotten in the MCU, while he may not be very present in the movie, the times he appears he is menacing and intimidating, and personally i think he does a good job as the antagonist of this movie.
While I would love to get to see the Gorr from the comics, I like this version of him, and at least in first watching I enjoyed the movie
Kevin Feige also missed a huge opportunity with Gorr's connection with symbiotes and their god, who would be a much better "new Thanos-level threat" than whatever Feige is trying with the multiverse and Kang.
But then again, Kevin Feige also missed opportunity to leave on a high note after the success of Endgame, so...
my take on this is that it felt like 3 movies crammed into one, jane needed her own movie to set up her being thor, Thor's emotional journey and showing how much the gods do not deserved the prayer they believe they do, finally the movie that shows Gorr and why we love this villian, I believe Bale did a very good job because he puts his all into every movie he is in, but it just felt like he was underutilized as a hole.
as someone who has never read the comics, and just seen the movie, i think breaking it down the way you have was great. i was curious as to why there was such a backlash from comic fans but it makes sense when compared to the source material. it made me question how characters in the MCU work as a whole vs the comics. and if i had began in the comics first, i'd probably be among the people who were torn on this and many other mcu movies. this makes me want to go back and read the comics related to the stories now at least. i enjoyed the movie as its' own thing, but now i'm very curious to dive into the comic stories
Tl;Dr: Gorr Movie works for the story it wants to tell, the thing is the audience (aka most Aaron's run fans such as myself) didnt heard the story they wanted to hear
Ngl this video is a blessing (no pun intended), and Im not sure if my intentions of what I wanted for this movie are justified or not, the objective answer is that it works for what it was achieving, and im humble to agree on that
I read the comic immediately before watching the movie.
This video is exactly everything I was thinking about the movie expanded on.
This movie coming after Thor's arc dealing with failure from Thanos could have been a perfect connection with his failure to stop Thanos relating with Gorr's idea of God's being incompetant.
And like this video states, the movie could have explored the discussion of Gods and the purpose for what they serve and deconstruction of them like how people irl discuss about when it comes to actual religions.
I did quite like how the movie didn’t get hung up on the philosophy of Gorr and his views of divinity. That even Thor had to admit that Gorr was right by the end seemed to settle it and allowed us to get the really juicy emotional part of Gorr’s story and how it ties to Thor.
I have respect for the different direction, but the emotional weight is meaningless when the film makes no sense. If the film actually focused on Gorr as a character and as a force of the movie’s themes actively, then I would be more inclined to agree.
Side note: should’ve left out Jane Foster or not make her Thor. It would be much more emotionally investing if we got reintroduced to Jane and have you become Thor in the next film fighting Hercules.
I feel that Gorr and his motivation makes sense in the movie. Gorr lost his child and his own god laughed in his face as a reward for his loyalty. The movie wastes no time in showing Gorr’s argument without feeling like it’s taking forever to get to the point or whatever.
And honestly? I always hated the “Gorr’s wrong because Thor is one of the good ones” because it implies Thor is just some perfect paragon of goodness and a beacon of virtue for other gods and just… *no* XD
Thor started off as an arrogant, hot headed, prideful brat of Odin. Exactly the sort of god that Gorr in both the comics and the movie would have used to prove their point about how awful gods truly are.
Thor at the end didn’t defeat Gorr by proving him wrong or overpowering him, he helped to remind him that he was only doing this out of pain and wanting to feel loved. That’s presumably why Gorr was so loyal to his god, he thought they loved him and his people and put so much faith in them, only to end up hurt and left emotionally guarded.
And while Thor didn’t quite have that experience, he had been put through the wringer emotionally many times for the last half decade of the MCU.
so when Gorr remembers *why* he’s doing this, he decides to use his wish to bring his daughter back, and places his trust in the one god who convinced him to change his mind. Thor’s new role as a father figure is his own way of proving to Gorr that not all gods are evil. Which I think is a really sweet idea.
@@thewoollyviking5928 lol Comic Gorr lost EVERYTHING. He lost his family from different tragedies and was exiled by his own people for loosing faith in the Gods.
Gorr was a religious extremist mortal who turned a anti-religious extremist God.
I hate it when movies make a villain a villains just because of one bad thing. It implies that only bad thing makes a person bad and not a mix of other bad things that screwed them up. The fact Thor 4 implies Gorr is only bad because he lost his daughter is so ridiculous to the character
@@petermj1098 I don't think it was simply implying that the loss of his daughter alone was what made him snap. It was only after meeting his god and finding that his pain and suffering meant nothing to him that drove him over the edge. It wasn't just his personal loss, it was finding out that such a loss meant nothing to what was basically the embodiment of a cold, uncaring universe.
Going to University and starting to read academic dissertations and writing essays and research papers has made me really appreciate video essays more. Especially when they’re well written and well made and its made it so easy to pick out the really bad ones. This is a very well argued video essay
"So long as the project works in its own terms". That is the magic phrase. The project was total shit with pretty colors. Maybe THAT is why people say Gorr was better in the comics. Because that story didnt suck but this one did.
As a big fan of both the comic and the movie, I want to thank you for giving both a chance.
I just knew the original comic would be hard to adapt because of how complicated the time travel element is, to say nothing of the 3 Thors-so I expected pretty much what I got in this movie, and was able to see the beauty in both!
And where the movies are concerned: I think Taika has gotten Marvel's table scaps for both Thors. I really hope more MCU writers actually build on what he does instead of erasing his character growth
Will you be able to make a video on explaining the gods’ importance in the mcu their meaning and possible arcs/stories
I think it would probably suit my approach better to make individual videos on certain godly characters or movies, rather than one super-wide video on the general topic - but it’s certainly an area of the MCU I’ll keep talking about!
@@PillarofGarbage thx cuz I love your opinion on gods in the mcu and the real world history, meaning, philosophy etc behind them
I like that you can critique work but still see the good in it. I'm sick of the angry reviewer/fandom menace just concluding something sucks with no grey area
Movie was fine. It was my typical rating for a Marvel film: glad I saw it, no reason to rewatch it. My only criticism is that Bale was underutilized. For as much screen time as Gorr got, anyone could have played him just fine. It was a waste to use Bale here when you could have had him play a villain where you'd actually get a lot of use out of him. At least that's my opinion.
I appreciate that you called this movie "Thor 4: More Thor" :)
Perhaps Taika realized that he exists within the social class of "gods" (millionaires) that this story originally criticized as needing to be destroyed, and decided he wanted to water down the story a bit.
Probably not the case because the movie criticizes gods a hell of a lot more than the comic does.
holy shit, I actually never even realized that Gorr's gods could have died to the previous god butcher, that makes so much sense and adds to the hypocrisy/cycle of violence angle. they just completely ignored that in the movie
The question you pose was if Gorr in this version was suited for the story and if we should disregard the original in a need to have the character suit the role necessary, and in that, I'll say "mostly..." with the caveat that doing away with the original interpretation of the character further asks why even bother using it if such departures are going to be tasked to it.
But further, even outside the subjective nature of enjoyment, I'll expand that question that I'm having to look at: Was there any part of this story that had an actual personal vision behind it, or was it made because of mandate?
The Thor character certainly needed and benefitted from the growth, but from my perspective Taika made it because they told him to come up with something and gave him a day cheque, not because he really had anything to say.
The movie fails not because of it's message, but because it's made insincere and hollowly. The tons of comedy and tone deaf, tone dumb, and tone blindness of it drips off the screen.
And I feel certain that Taika didn't give all that much of a crap about what he made because I've seen what he can do when he actually cares. Jojo Rabbit is that kind of movie.
So, I don't think Thor is bad (well, I do, but that is beside this point) but rather, I don't think it justifies its creation. It isn't a film, it's a product. Most marvel things are, but there was a time when the likes of John Favreua and the Russo Brothers gave a damn about what they were making.
I don’t think there’s much use speculating about whether or not Waititi cared about the film, or how much it reflects his personal vision, since we’ll probably never know. People are saying Marvel gave him more creative freedom this time around - so make of that what you will!
They had a better connection in the trailer when Thor said his fighting days were done but then Korg says he never stopped fighting and sure he’s a bit lazy now but he still helps out after a while, Gorr could have challenged the entirety of Selfish gods that Thor was becoming much like Zeus and in the end Thor realises “with great power comes great responsibility” and accepts his duty to help the universe and be a good God, but no. I still like the movie but they made a change that lessened their own message
I was also kinda disappointed I expected Gorr to massacre Omnipotencity.
I feel like both Gorrs are great. Comic!Gorr is less sympathetic, but his backstory is fleshed out more, and you can understand why he does what he does, how he came to think the way he does, and the hypocrisy of him becoming a god to destroy the gods is pointed out. Screen!Gorr's hatred for the gods comes more from Rapu being an dick than a badly-wounded god pleading for help, having been too busy fighting (and losing) against Knull the Symbiote King to save Gorr's family, making him more sympathetic. Also, Screen!Gorr is proven to have a point, because while Thor, the Asgardians, and the Gods of Centauri-V are shown to be doing their jobs and concerned about mortals, Rapu and the gods in Omnipotence City have proven themselves unworthy of any faith.
Really the thing that gets me is it seemed to me Thor's arc in Ragnarok, Infinity War, and Endgame was becoming the more humble responsible Thor of Aaron's run, but instead we go back to jokester Thor from Ragnarok. What's the point of having an arc if your just going to pretend it didn't happen? I just think that would've made for a better film for the same reasons it worked in the comics. AND because that's what it felt like it was leading up to, IMO.
I don't know that excusing the movies faults for not being a straight adaptation is necessarily a good argument. A shit movie is a shit movie. At no point in marvel history has their been a straight adaptation. Logan was an amazing movie and yet shared very little in common with old man logan. Anyone who walked into the cinema thinking thor 4 was going to follow the comic only to be disappointed would have to be an idiot because we all know the building blocks weren't there. To truly service the Canon we would have had to be introduced in some way shape or form to knull, which would be ridiculous given we're only two venom movies in. I don't think this version of Gorr is shit I just think he was wasted as a one and done villain.
Imagine a final thor movie ( preferably with a few others in between to undo waititi's damage) based on king thor, in the vein of Logan and made as a sort of space mad max style. Imagine those final beautiful panels of the king thor run, converted into a cinematic goodbye letter. Hemsworths thor, ancient and wiser, riding his ship to the edge of what is left of the universe, vowing to hold back entropy as long as he can so what's left of humanity can thrive. And back on earth a father tells of the glory of thor to his children as lightning strikes outside.
I wish that Thor after his experience with Zeus came to least understand Gorr's actions, to realize he's not wrong about most of the gods.
Great video, man!
Thank you!
There’s two types of audiences. Comic book fans and people who only know the characters from the movies
If an "adaptation" of a work wants to use the source to promote itself, it needs to hold to its source more directly. If it's just loosely based on it, or just borrows names and "some" themes... they're better off creating new characters and stories.
Great video! I can see since the movie is condensing the comic, there would have to be many things removed. I also like how they treat Thor. In the MCU where there are other superheroes, he not not need to do everything.
i think the comic gorr is way way better then movie gorr honestly
i fucking HATE it when they get my comic guys wrong , its like go to hell stop trying make my comic guys as movies guys
My problem was that he doesn’t fit in the movie whatsoever,and his adaptation while moderately good still is a very muted and nurtured adaptation. And this movie is just another example of waisted source material.
My crew of voice actors actually adapted the God Butcher saga into two motion comic movies on my channel🤘
Sounds awesome!
Maybe they wasted Gorr, maybe they didn't (I think they did), but they definitely wasted Christian Bale's performance by quipping in serious situations. It really cheapened the villain because the heroes rarely seemed to take him seriously. It was like Bale stumbled in from a much better film whenever he was on screen.
Christian Bale is great in any film he’s in.
I've just given up on Marvel Studios adapting anything well. Gorr was just another bite at the apple of the hero being the same as the villain, but he's juxtaposed with Jane. You can go as far back as the Hulk's movie to see changes from the original origin and A LOT of characters since have had varying degrees of changes, but someone like the Hulk is still mostly the same character. I have yet to watch the Ms. Marvel show and my main hang up seems to be the utter wrecking done to Carol Danvers. She like Hawkeye has the name of a Marvel Comics character, but is not that character in any way, shape, or form. Now, not only does she have a horrible introductory movie that ends with knowing nothing about her or her goals, dreams, or aspirations, but she's also never on the planet. I kind of find in hard to believe that someone the general public knows nothing about and has probably never seen would have fans. People need to know who you are for that. Then again, this is the MCU and every random person seems to know everything that goes on on Earth. Remember the conversation in WandaVision about Wanda's fight with Thanos, by people who weren't there and at least one of whom was dust 2 weeks before. Or how about the random dude that asks Dr. Strange if this was the only option at the beginning of Multi verse of Madness. Sorry, went on a tangent only to say if you use comic book logic to judge the MCU you will only give yourself an aneurysm.
Ehh I think, based on the description you've given, Gorr's justification for killing all gods only works if all three conditions presented are met. Sure he may have a valid point in the gods not deserving worship but it's quite a leap to kill all gods because of their inability to do so (as opposed to killing them because they can help but choose not to). I think the film handles this better by making it clear that all three conditions are met.
Edit: Great video though and you made a lot of valid and thought-provoking points. Subscribed.
I thought Gorr might look like his comic counterpart but he would be dangerous like his comic counterpart but Taika Waititi & Jennifer Kaitlyn Robinson just blew it! Gorr had 7-8 screen time! Also he is a child kidnapper in the movie not a God Butcher!
Christian Bale himself said “A lot of gold was left at the editing table to make it family friendly”! I didn’t feel Gorr when his daughter died as much I felt for Wenwu
when his wife was killed! Also even when
Jane Foster I didn’t feel sad. Taika just blew it.
In my opinion, Gorr deserved his own origin story which could tie into Thor Love and Thunder. Imagine a Joker style movie focusing on Gorr's descent from faithful acolyte to dissalusioned killer with the movie ending with him killing the Gods of his world and becoming the God butcher.
That would have been phenomenal.
Really interesting comparison. As someone who never really felt all that interested in the Marvel movies or comic books, I'm actually curious to pick up the Thor issues you mentioned. Not only the story seems to have much more depth than most of the Marvel movies in general (and especially the post-Endgame, or even post-Infinity War ones) , but the art also looks fantastic.
I recommend it - and yeah, as it you note, the art is spectacular. Most of the story’s illustrated by Esad Ribić, who’s just a straight up awesome artist.
I think "Love & Thunder" embraces the fact that the questions regarding the morality of Gorr can't be easily answered, there's some ambiguity. The heroes saw how self-absorbed and awful many gods are, but are still determined to stop Gorr because there is no such thing as an ethical genocide.
The MCU takes this approach a lot, like with Thanos and the Flag Smashers. Whether they're right or not is irrelevant when so many lives are in danger.
You hear more calls for comic accuracy when the movie falls flat: It wasn't good and if only they'd stuck to the source material more closely, it might have been.
Good movies, even if inaccurate, rarely have the complaints about source material accuracy be so loud or gain such traction. Jurassic Park deviates greatly from the book. Civil War is very different from the comics. Yet the comparisons to source material are more academic than bemoaning some loss.
Thor: Love and Thunder was not a good movie, so more complaints about inaccuracy resound. Simple as that.
I loved bale as gorr but i feel he was underused
Personally, Gorr should've... Actually, let me first say that they (Marvel) should've hired you to write the script for this movie, or at least to proof read. Your interpretation of Gorr's first meeting with gods was delicious. I would love to see a movie try to do something like that.
Back to my comment... Gorr should have been the focus of a new trilogy for Thor. Not some villain of the week like he was in the movie. As you pointed out, he asks some very serious and heavy questions that just get swept under the rug in the name of comedy.
No one complained when thanos motives were changed I think when a change from the source material is a good uplifting choice made with love for the original story its usually great but if a change makes a character or story lesser in some aspect then it usualy shows a lack of love and care for the source
The latter which I think this movie had in spades.
Also gohrr was not faithful in the original run he was agnostic at best guessing it was a over sight.
Thanos is a bad villain in the MCU.
But many people thought he was well written and interesting whilst having a lot of setup and scenes fleshing him out.
I don't really agree with this. Good and bad decisions can be made, and most of the time it has nothing to do with love and care for source material. You can ADORE a comic book and still make a flawed adaptation of it.
I really enjoy your analysis and examples, specially since you are critiquing based on narrative and the themes on both comic and movie as different pieces rather than butchering one to elevate the other one
Thank you!
The theologian Michael Heiser argues that the Hebrew term Elohim, commonly translated as god, can be applied to any inhabitant of the spiritual realm. The God of Israel, gods of other nations, angels, demons even disembodied human spirits can be referred to as Elohim. The God of Israel is unique in being the creator and source of all life (the benevolent onipotent being you describe) but He isn't an Elohim because he has those traits, in fact there are other Elohim and they are not all benevolent and they aren't eternal or the creator. Ps 82 depicts the God of Israel sitting in judgement over the corrupt Elohim who have practiced injustice amoung the nations.
By this definition Thor wouldn't be a god. He is a powerful being but he does not inhabitant a spiritual realm. Asgard appears to be just another planet rather then a place in another dimension. The gods of Moonlight on the other hand do appear to be depicted as spiritual beings that inhabit a spiritual realm.
Ms Marvel also seemed to claim Thor wasn't really a god and he would have been called something else if he had been encountered by another ancient culture.
It's interesting that they chose to depict the god Gorr meets in the film as a human figure. In the Hebrew Scriptures there are awesome encounters with God such as the visions of Isaiah or the fire at Sinai but people also encounter Him as a human figure and don't always know they are taking with God right away.
I'm just excited that the film teases Zeus as a possible villain in a upcoming movie, it's so rare to find a pop culture depiction of him that is not un-ambiguously good