If you'd like to join my Discord server where we chat about our writing, workshop ideas, and generally discuss the movies/shows we love, here's a link you can use to join. My Discord: discord.com/invite/aJpYPQX Keep writing! - Henry
Okay, you make a great point and I've been hearing it. It is exquisite in fact, and very true however one thing that glared with me about the movie was the very vital and missing element. A Thor movie without the character of Loki in it, isn't really a fulfilling movie. I am probably alone in this, very likely I am. However, without Loki to play off of, Thor feels incomplete. Thor is not a good character on his own without another character to play off of, and that would be Loki. Loki missing from the film is like peanut butter missing jelly. You can have just a peanut butter sandwich, and it's fine, but without the jelly, it just doesn't snap as well as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich would
Inserting the ad read in your video essay without clearly marking it as an advert used to be cute, but it's getting really really tiresome. Please stop. Have some respect for your viewers.
@@AfreenSabah Bale doesn't want to waste commiting himself to MCU project, even if Thor 4 ended to be a good movie he will still be one time movie villain.
Not to mention how the jokes basically overshadowed literally everything in the story. Which sucks because you can tell that Christian Bale and Natalie Portman are trying to make this story work. But it just can't.
@@byronsenior6499 Then thats fine, but it needs to be consistent. This same character can't turn around and suddenly stop talking about emotions when it's convenient, yknow? Thor was established as the sort of character who doesn't talk about his emotions, so that's why people are mad now that he's gone back on that
@@rileyolson6008 Still. Anime doesn’t really like play like play or skit. There is a bit over dramatization but not enough to take you out of it and it’s still subtle.
If you want an example of great subtext in an MCU movie, just look at the last scene of Captain America: First Avenger. Fury: “You gonna be okay?” Steve: “Yeah. Yeah. I just…I had a date.” How much lamer would that scene be if instead he said: “Uhhh no I’m not gonna be okay. I just woke up and I’m in the freaking future now and now my girlfriend, who is very hot by the way! She is probably dead now! And I wanted to go on a date with her! Oh bother!” Imagine if the movie ended like that.
It feels like Taika thought the idea of characters saying what they feel out loud was really funny, and it can be funny in something that is explicitly parody like Naked Gun, or as a one-off joke for a character like Drax. But for some reason he decided to have all the characters talk like this the entire movie, and it really didn't work. It just struck me that for me, the funniest part of the movie is Stormbreaker, the one "character" that can't speak, the way it just floats into the shot while Thor is gazing at Mjolnir, is way funnier than any of the dialogue.
Yeah I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like he thinks it’s funny for them to be “self aware” and explicitly state the themes of the movie which it can be but it wasn’t done well here
Gods being able to break the fourth wall and change the narrative by hitting Waititi in the nuts could be a way to make silly movie, but they mesh too much genre and it just didn't work
I think the writers and Taika are aware of this. I think they find characters over explaining things awkwardly hilarious and they are doing it on purpose. The problem is they treat EVERYTHING as a joke, so when the time comes to deliver actual drama or emotion, it fails. Ragnorok balanced this mix much better.
The Sif scene really takes the biscuit. Your life long friend is dying and you say 'hate to break it to you...but you're not going to Valhalla because you need to die like this, lol' now compare that to when Loki died or Odin or anyone else important to him did. This movie is such a parody.
You all are really giving Ragnarok a lot of credit, when it did a lot of the same shit Love and Thunder did. It was Ragnarok’s success that led to this, just reminding you.
@@shironasama0445 it did do a lot of the same things, it just did them well. Taika deserved another shot, but he had a miss here. I guess we can’t all be James Gunn.
What bothers me the most is the lack of sincerity. Everything seems like one big joke. Nothing meant to be taken seriously. Even when the lines are good, they're ruined by them not delivering it seriously.
For me the best written subtext dialogue in film is from Up. When Russell and Carl are by the campfire and Russel is opening up just a little about his dad, he say "Phyllis says I bug him too much". Carl immediately chastises "You call your mother by her first name?" And Russell replies, confused "Phyllis isn't my mom." And that's it. We never get anything further, but that's all we need to hear. That's what Thor 4 doesn't understand.
Yes. Very economical writing. In such a short exchange we learn that Russell's parents are divorced, his mom has custody, that he misses his dad who he used to be close to, his dad is remarried to a woman who wants his father to have nothing to do with him anymore and that Russell naïvely doesn't get it. In a lot of reaction videos to Up, it is surprising how many people can't read between the lines - they think his father is just working too hard to spend time with him or something.
@@dasc0yne honesty I don't think the piece of dialogue revealed that much. It could be that his parents divorced. Could be that his mother died. Could be that his father is too focused on his work. We don't know. But we do know for a fact that Russell doesn't have a reliable parental figure at the moment and that's enough to enjoy the movie.
@@hoangkienvu7572 I agree the details aren't critical, however all the information is there. If the dad was just working hard Russell would be talking about how his dad doesn't have time to spend whenever he sees him at home or that his dad comes home too late every night, but not about having to call him to talk to him. Sure, it is possible to conceive of a more convoluted scenario (e.g. Phyllis is a secretary), but Carl felt bad for Russell only when Russell said, "Phyllis isn't my mom." And that is when he stopped asking questions because he then understood the whole situation. Also you can see Russell's Asian mom at the end. She is the one who takes him to his promotion so he likely lives with her. Since Russell appears half-Asian I presume his dad is white. It is sad that his father didn't show up to ceremony, but Carl is there to be a paternal figure.
That's something I loved about No Way Home and Wakanda Forever is that when it needed to get serious it was. There were definitely still jokes but not the gratuitous amount that some mcu movies have had and it didn't make the serious scenes cheapened in my opinion.
It is a creative choice. To hear someone criticize this movie because the characters don't talk like real people (like the video's author does) is pretty stupid because THEY ARE NOT REAL PEOPLE. I mean, it's a choice that the screenwriters have made. To make everyone sound over the top silly and 'funny', yet still in line with what their characters are. You may not like this choice, I certainly don't love any Marvel movies, but I doubt it would work better for me to have silly cartoonish characters meant for children have real, grounded emotional dramas. I don't see 'serious' scenes working dramatically no matter what they do, so simply not going that route seems like one reasonable creative choice.
@@jvjjjvvv9157 if you ever saw these cartoons as a kid thry absolutely got very serious at times. thor was an absolute badass in the cartoons and seeing him in a live action he is just some silly guy is annoying af
As a screenwriter I can tell you there's a real chance the writers originally had these scenes closer to what you describe, but a studio exec may have asked them to bring those emotional sentiments out more, to make them obvious. Removing the subtext may have addressed that note and made the execs happy.
This video annoys me because he starts by asking if a Space Pirate and an Asguardian Gods dialogue sounds like something you would hear normal people say and the answer is a resounding, NO, of course not they are not normal people. Thor’s world has always been one of thespian dialogue while GOTG are just quirky and out there.
@@Byronic19134 but Starlord is indeed human. We've seen him do subtle stuff in other movies, so why not here? Thor on the other hand is somewhat understandable with your argument, but the Russo brothers still made his lines and delivery good with his somewhat awkward shakespearean way of talking in infinity war.
@@Byronic19134You completely missed the point of the video. They can have their own unique dialogue quirks, no one is saying that’s bad. The issue is that these characters are acting entirely unrealistic by spouting off their exact emotions and motivations directly to the viewer instead of using subtle queues that realistically show their inner emotions and motivations. Thor and Starlord didn’t do this in their previous movies. It’s not some dialogue quirk from their home planets - it’s a writing issue. The writers don’t trust the audience to pick up on the character’s core needs so they force them to tell it to the audience directly.
The worst thing is that Taika has explicitly stated how campy, silly, and unrealistic the dialogues sounded in Thor comics, and wanted to make them sound more like 'normal people'. Look where we are now...💀💀💀
Why Thor was humorous in first two movies is that it made sense: He is oblivious to the customs of (modern) Earth as an Asgardian, he speaks in a more eloquent and outlandish way. The third movie doesn't make any sense for his character. The thing is, Thor isn't supposed to be 'normal' like us. He is Asgardian ffs.
@@BiBiren yeah actually I'm glad I'm not alone, coz I was the one who loved the character since I like norse mythology a lot and until infinity war and ragnarok nobody I knew liked him, still I think infinity war did way better job than ragnarok and endgame to portray a great thor and lets just not talk about love and thunder
The saddest part is that beneath all the forced humor, there is a genuenly good story. But they wasted Hemsworth, Bale and Portman, who are genuenly trying to make the script work In fact, Hemsworth in particular has stated his discontent in how Thor's character has been treated lately, which says a *lot*
Wait...he did??? HA! Thats funny considering he kicked and screamed for this new direction for Thor and that shitty Ragnarok movie (which L&T is A LOT like so idk why ppl are having a problem with it NOW 🙄)
@@CUF17 there was seriously a time when I used to love ragnarok and would've probably been in like my top 5 mcu films but I don't know anymore, my recent rewatch after watching love and thunder kinda left me feeling that this is better than love and thunder but not a lot different, love and thunder was just extreme version of what worked for mcu before, honestly I think the best thor film would still be the first thor, and ragnarok is still a good film since it has small tributes to the og score of the 1st thor, let's just forget there was a 2nd one
@@sarveshbane1609 see i love the first 2 Thor movies. I loooove the Shakespeare-like drama it was with HINTS of comedic moments and it stood out from the other marvel movies. Plus i got sooo much great acting/scenes from those two movies. (Loki grieving when his mom died, thor and his father arguing etc etc) Ragnarok didnt give me shit but a butchered adaption of the comic storyline corny ass slapstick and unfunny ass "humor". L&T was more of the same just turned up to 100 and now im done with thor for good.
@@CUF17 that's because he felt that Thor's character had become boring and derivitive and that Ragnarok was a nice change of pace while not sacrificing the core of his character. The problem is that Love & Thunder went too far in that *other direction* in that the movie feels the need to *constantly* keep throwing jokes at the wall to see what sticks Which, again, is a shame because underneath it all is what could have been the best Thor movie *period*
The thing that really kills me was when Thor had the "what more could I possibly lose" moment and was on the verge of tears; that really hit me. I was the most intrigued I had been in years by anything in the MCU. Then the follow up we got was overweight-depressed Thor being the butt of a ton of jokes in Endgame and this movie.
Thor Being overweight-depressed after everything he went through made sense to me, the only alternative i could realistically see him take is attempting suicide, however constantly making him the butt of jokes in Endgame was distasteful.
I remember watching this and knew that Thor is supposed to be depressed, somewhat introverted, and unsure of himself near the beginning of the movie; however, due to the script given to the actors and how Thor's actor makes it unintentionally seem like he is faking his mood. He comes across as a teenager going through puberty without the voice cracking.
Yep, I was expecting a dark version of Thor during Endgame bcus I thought all of his ppl were slaughtered so he bcame "Ronin"-esque But they make him a punchline, ok let see what happens, then this movie is perfect........for my 10 yrs old Even an episode of Spongebob more interesting thn this shht U got mothrfckin C. Bale as a villain, come on🤦 What a waste of talent
Yeah, generally in scenes where characters speak exactly as they feel without subtext, you need some kind of element that makes them break first. Examples are furious, very drunk or some similarly mentally compromised state.
That Sif scene's dialogue (and actually a lot of the dialogue in the film) felt like it was taken from the parody play that Loki (as Odin) was watching in Ragnarok.
Christian Bale was too good for this movie. His acting and storytelling in the movie was so well done, if felt like every time his scenes came on I was watching a different movie.
@@jppitch6734 Huge waste of both Gorr and Bales talent. Now I’m hoping they don’t touch someone like Jack Nicholson, De Niro or Leo because they’ll probably just waste them.
I would like to say though that "fake/artificial" dialogue isn't necessarily a bad thing. Often times in Quentin Tarantino's movies people don't really talk like regular people, they're too witty, but it works in that case because everything they say is genuinely interesting/funny. Basically, if your dialogue isn't realistic it needs to offer something else in exchange to be worthwhile.
I have the same thoughts about Joss Whedon and Aaron Sorkin dialogue. I won't pretend for a moment that it could come from real humans, but it's still enjoyable to listen to.
Also I think when it comes to love and thunder dialogue is the least of my concern coz the story itself had flaws where if you think a little bit, everything falls apart, and yes I agree artificial dialogues aren't necessarily a bad thing
The narration in the movie literally sounds like a person reading a children's story book, like the next line will be "and they all lived happily ever after, the end."
Its just confusing why movies nowadays feel the need to verbally explain thoughts and feelings instead of having people think and infer them for themselves instead
This comment has got me thinking, maybe it's because of the quantity of media we are consuming? We are more used to being fed information at rapid speeds and are seeing more media than we used to. So many people walked away from Jordan Peele's Nope, not understanding why the Gordy storyline existed. They weren't used to having to think during a movie, play detective, draw connections, aka work for their media. I was left investigating Nope for weeks because I don't consume movies often, and I also deleted my social media. I had nothing new to fill the thought gap and spur me onwards, so I was left to ponder. It could also have something to do with our lack of nuance nowadays because of political strife and division. Maybe writers are scared of audiences not getting the joke if it's too subtle or not understanding character arcs if they aren't clearly evil and good.
There are many reasons: 1) It's easier. Writing subtext requires basically writing two dialogues at once. 2) It's faster. You do not have to think too hard about it and in a month you git the script down so people can start filming and in about a year you got a movie 3) You make sure the audience doesn't get confused. Have you ever seen a movie and had to rewatch a scene because you didn't understand why characters were doing what they were doing? That is when a writer wants to add subtext but goes overboard and forgets to tell the audience important things.
@@OcrimMirco I've seen some hot takes that Arcane's character motivations make no sense, so I think I see why so many screenwriters just blatantly spell it out, sadly.
I actually really loved how you fixed the dialogue and the scene between Thor and Peter, other than it just made it look better, but also we got to see the guardians bonding even more which I love so much since they are my favorite found family
I watched an interview with Taika where he discussed his writing technique which is to write a script then put it away for two years then come back and completely rewrite it with a fresh mind and "only the good parts" from the first draft that he can recall after the two years. While watching this movie all I was thinking was how there is no way marvel would let him do that, especially with all their last minute changes and trying to fit this into the larger mcu. We've seen his other works. we know what he can do. I wonder what this movie would have looked like if he was given the time (and also not just cashing in that marvel paycheck, respectfully).
He messed up a lot of the backstory for the sake of jokes. For example, korg now has two dads instead of what was mentioned in Ragnarok, all to make that Dwayne the Rock joke at the end.
Yes, we've seen Thor Ragnajoke, an absolute abomination of a movie, which has one of the dumbest plot holes ever committed to a film, which could've been solved had anyone who was making this nonsense bothered to watch the first Thor movie, and then on top of that have character assassinated Thor beyond repair.
@@antona.1327 Thor ragnarok saved the thor franchise, best thor movie with good balance of fun and being serious, but sadly followed by the worst movie.
The script to Jojo Rabbit shows that Taika is a skilled storyteller (i.e., the buildup and the actual ‘red shoe’ scene). He was rewarded with an Oscar for his skill. That makes Love and Thunder even more disappointing since Taika has the ability to do better.
tbh, it doesnt feel like he gave a shit this time. I love Taika's other movies when he actually cares for the project.
Год назад+516
The thing about Marvel movies is that they have to be written very fast. So there's no revisions, no second drafts - that's also why there's so much reports of huge chunks of footage being cut in the final edit.
His best work imo jjr and hftw were both fairly faithfully adapted from nevels by remarkable writers, hes an excellent director but im not sure about his writing abilities really, after his god aweful mandalorian episodes too yikes, even what we do in the shadows was co written by jermain clemant
I don't think Taika is flawless, but I think disney might take some important creative freedoms from writers that shouldn't ever be taken. The short times the writers have also play a part in this. Jon Favreau is a skilled storyteller as well, but some Mando storylines feel like Jon wanted to do more with it, but had too little time to properly do it. I think disney should take a step back. The thing that made Rogue One one of the greatest Star Wars movies was that the writers were free to do whatever the hell they wanted. I think that disneys end stage capitalism essentially is what is responsible for the drops in quality. Taika is incredibly talented and Jojo Rabbit was one of the best movies I have ever seen which makes it even more sad that L&T turned out the way it is
I remember in an interview Christian bale said he gets so immersed in character because if a director ever goes “ this scene is bad, we’re doing our own thing” he wants to be able to improv the dialogue on the spot. Imagine if he’d done that.
@@na.meless The original Iron Man was made without a script. They had to improvise most of it and yet it ended up being one of the best MCU movies. However as the MCU became really popular, the studio executives had more control over the films (Mickey Rourke from IM2 complained that his character was reduced to a one dimensional villain despite the fact he learned fluent Russian and researched Russian criminal mannerisms for the role). After Disney bought Marvel, the directors are basically hired hands. One director said that the action scenes were already shot by someone else before they even started the film and the producers wouldn't let them change anything in the script. Strangely though, Taika seems to have had complete creative freedom - the first cut of Thor 4 was four hours long.
@@JonnyEarthquake can't remember who made the video but someone was explaining that although Taika is a talented director he actually needs to be kept on a leash so to speak. He can obviously make good movies. Ragnarok is a good example. But he needs to have some of that creativity in check, otherwise it runs rampant and you get a mess like this.
honestly they could have had korg talk about how thor and the guardians went on amazing adventures and talk to us about how it was super fun and epic but what we actually see on screen is Thor getting more and more sad. could have been a cool little thing about how korg idolizes Thor and didn't even realize that Thor was feeling down etc
wow that's a great idea! that would've been amazing writing as we go from smiling to start feeling something off and then feeling more uncomfortable by the two different messages. The gradual lead up to that understanding would've been fantastic
The irony of that first little scene rewrite was that it genuinely felt like how the better parts of the MCU are usually written. Bits of levity with the weight of emotion heavy in the subtext. Or, y’know, how the DCAU is usually written.
As someone who’s been studying screenwriting for nearly a decade now, almost all of Marvel needs to reevaluate their approach to writing. The problem they have is that they intend to craft scenes around jokes or absurd/awkward moments. That’s not how you write a proper story, and that’s why they’ve fallen short in the emotional aspect of their stories in recent years. Your first draft in any story should work to ensure that the film’s plot is strong enough to carry out all character arcs, subplots, etc. to fruition. From there, your second draft adds more personality to the characters and fine-tunes any interactions so that those arcs, subplots, etc. are strengthened. Then your final revisions should deal with making sure that those moments you just strengthened still allow the story to flow properly. No portion of this film should have been focused on making a joke, especially since so much of it lacked in real character development as well.
There are so many times I watch movies these days where I feel like I'm watching a first draft. You watch a scene that you swear was supposed to be a "placeholder" to get from point A to point C, but then they never went back and rewrote a polished point B scene.
Interesting that you brought up Andrew Stanton when talking about hiding exposition as apparently you can watch the entirety of Wall-E in an unknown language and still perfectly understand the story. Pretty cool
@@UnitSe7en Well filmmaking is the combination of visual and audio to tell a story. So anything is a go to hide exposition as long as it's still functionally a movie. Anyways it still illustrates how godly Andrew Stanton is if he manages to hide basically all of the exposition in a film.
Didn't realize Wall-E was essentially a silent movie. One advantage of the old silents tho - they had to show not tell, if they didn't want to bore audiences with a ton of intertitles.
0:30 I was convinced that that was the joke though, that Thor speaks really formally and dramatically whilst Peter is trying to mimic his way of speaking in order to seem as cool as him
Problem is that it doesn't seem that way. If Peter wanted to sound overly formal, he should've sounded and look more awkward and Thor should've looked at him with a "Here we go again" as a call back to Infinity war when he tried to do the same. Would've also added some subtext on how Peter has been acting around Thor during the time he joined them.
It's really sad cause the characters and emotions and compelling story is right within reach. It just seems that Taika wasn't really trying. It's the frustrating mishandling of great stories that has plagued phase 4.
I wouldn't say its necessarily a matter of taika not trying, so much as him being rushed. Taika has always had the same process, write the script, abandon it for a year or so, come back to it, say "who wrote this?" And rewrite it entirely. It's a whole process. While it's super possible he had the time, I heard him talk about editing thor 4 on set the set of our flag means death, still in costume. It's very possible we skipped the "who wrote this?" Step whole sale
There must have been something huge that happened behind the scenes to mess up the production. *Everything* about Love & Thunder felt so sloppy. Like he mentioned in the video, there are some awful dialogue edits, and also some equally bad visual edits or obvious missing/cut scenes. Plus the over-reliance on narration to carry the story. A well-planned film doesn't look like this.
@@moonlightshadow9390 Here's how you do it in writing. Tell: "He's my best friend since we were kids." Show: "I've been stuck with him even before my voice dropped." See the difference?
i really liked how you mentioned the three brothers scene. I think that is probably one of the best uses of narration ever, as well as one of my favorite sequences in any film i've scene, too
It’s also completely unrelated to anything else going on in the movie. Like all it does is set up another set of McGuffins to hunt for the team, in a film about hunting the McGuffins already. However it works as a short “in universe” children’s story, that is meant to teach humility. Like a Fable of Grimm It’s kind of a larger problem of Harry Potter world building. There are a lot of cool things in it, but nothing ever goes anywhere or connects to anything else beyond its function at the koment
Exactly! Not enough review channels do this!! It might be fun to pick apart a movie and point out everything that’s wrong, but it takes thought and skill to actually give a genuine critique and provide solutions. You have to say, “This is how I would have done it, given the chance.” And then you explain why.
@@TheCloserLook I also love that you give examples of other projects who did it right. That way we the audience can examine why we liked one thing and didn't like the other.
I'm not going to lie, this movie has way more problems than just bad dialogue. But it was nice that you pointed it out. I just hope this movie doesn't impede Christian Bale's reputation in any way.
Yeah right I'm like this movie's dialogues are the least of my problems and I think christian bale is one of those actors who've proved themselves already even a project worse than love and thunder won't have an effect in his reputation, it's like de niro doing that stupid grandpa film, I'm sure nobody thought of him as any less of an actor
Pretty much every review of this movie praises his acting as the best part of the movie, so I'd say he's alright. It's to the point that it feels like he's in a completely different movie altogether.
Thor Sif's valhalla exchange was already done better in the first thor move. Sif: "Leave me, I shall die a warrior's death. Stories shall be told of this day!" Thor: "Live, and tell those stories yourself"
Dialogue is the one thing I always make sure to spend a lot of time on; my story might not be expertly crafted, but you can guarantee that the conversations will always feel natural!
Watching these well thought-out and constructive criticisms, I kept thinking, "Yeah, that would be better if Love and Thunder wanted to be a genuinely dramatic movie, but it just wanted to be an awkward improv parody thing." I just imagine Taika responding to any of these criticisms with, "Yes, exactly! It's terrible and stupid, and it makes me laugh." Only issue is he's one of very few actually laughing!
Don’t you think that opening scene could’ve been even more impactful if Star Lord was Rocket ? Since they’ve already had this type of conversation before in infinity war It’d be interesting if after everything with Thanos to establish Thor is still in the place of ‘what more could I lose?’ Although maybe that would’ve been a slightly different movie
It'd be a much more impactful movie had the Guardians stuck around much longer. There are parallels between the team and Thor, and even parallels between Quill and Jane, that were too good to miss and yet, they were.
I think that's why I loved Everything Everywhere All at Once so much was because it was demanding from the first couple minutes it started. It didn't dumb anything down and it made you pay attention and work for the information. And it was complicated, fun, bonkers creative and I loved it and as soon as I left the theaters I not only wanted to see it again but I wanted to tell everybody about it.
Really? I thought Everything Everywhre All at Once just spelled out everything (after the first scene) a million times and just tried to beat your head with the message.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 It's not beating YOU with the message, it's beating the mom over the head with the message. Early on, we learn the main character doesn't understand English well. She doesn't understand anything particularly well. Everything is beating her on the head with the message hoping to make her understand. She doesn't understand what's wrong with her relationship with her daughter. She doesn't understand why her husband wants to divorce. She doesn't understand. So the movie has to beat her on the head with it. Only when it's arguably too late does she start to understand, and only sort of. And then she has to forge her path.
In Avengers Infinity War, Thor is first contact with the Guardians Of The Galaxy makes them realize they’re in presence of someone from a superior level, physically majestic. Waititi makes them annoyed and almost disgusted of having him around, a cretin. And now Star Lord has to teach him about sacrifice and finding himself to the god who lost everyone?
1:30 oh my god, that's genius! It would've significantly been less awkward, and for the fans who've been following the mcu's timeline for a while now, that "long silence" would've practically been a nod to the 2 characters' dynamic; both had loved greatly, both had lost greatly. They both understand each other, and that "silence" would've given long-time fans enough information to basically, in a way, "see" the original dialogue exchange between them in the actual movie. Genius.
Rocket’s scene with Thor in ‘Infinity War’ where they talk about what Thor’s been through and his chances against Thanos is perfect: Somber, has subtext, and has character development. Plus it ends with the fake eye bit which nicely cuts the tension.
Another thing lack of subtext does is make it feel like the writers don't trust the actors' abilities. I believe Chris Hemsworth is capable of showing us how distanced from society his character feels through his expressions and tone. It kind of feels like Waititi doesn't.
It’s especially egregious in the first scene because someone insecure and socially awkward would not explain their feelings easily and make all subtext text. It might work for Drax because his character is supposed to say everything literally and openly. As for narration, the director must ask “is there a way to show this? Is there a way for one character to explain it to another?” And most of all “Is this information necessary to convey to the audience?”
4:30 I honestly think a combination between what was in the movie and your proposal would have been best for having the joke. "Leave me to die my warrior's death.... I wish to claim my place in Valhalla." Also thank you for making this argument from the angle of subtext rather than using the phrase "show don't tell" because like... sometimes you do need to be told things. Remembering that subtext is a thing promotes a balance, and that's real nice.
A lot of times when you see a film you realize they went to shooting too soon. The script was not quite ready. These things could have been ironed out in another pass or two. But studios are in a rush to produce. Taika is actually a really good screenwriter. You see what he can do when he has the time. He spent years thinking about JoJo Rabbit. Same with M. Night Shyamalan. The Sixth Sense went through 17 drafts. Nobody was watching their calendar waiting for him. All the movies after that, he's usually been on a tight schedule.
Great nod to Wall-e. It's almost a polar opposite to the Thor film, it manages to convey so much through expression and context where so much of the movie is dialogue free. Imagine Taika had access to just a 10th of the skill of those writers.
@@Vesdus what a weird take. This film reeks of Waititi from start to finish, it's all him, it's just...bad. There is history in cinema of films being released that the directors hate the final edit for, this is not one of those films.
@@ozoakI think it’s a combination of both. He does have talent, when he’s placed in the right work environment where he has time to work out the kinks, and other people to stop him when he goes too far. Jojo Rabbit is incredible and What We Do in the Shadows is really very funny, he can create good work, but he isn’t a good fit for Marvel. Marvel need writers who can write a first draft and make it into an instant product. He definitely isn’t one of those.
I think one problem is modern screenwriters might be less versed in dramatic history; i.e: plays. Read enough plays , and you are in a world of dialogue. it's all dialogue and subtext. They need to study the masters more. Also, a lot of mainstream comics writing isn't all that great either.
I think there is some confusion between bland dialogue and unrealistic dialogue, though they can overlap sometimes. Indeed this film's dialogue is painfully inhuman to the point that the screenplay needed at least three more drafts, but its issue is in how disconnected it is emotionally in the movie, not just that it's unrealistic. Film characters speak unrealistically all the time, especially in great films (Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, anyone?) but they work to serve the purpose of the whole film, and they are both supported by and complement the story. Thor: Love & Thunder is trying to be 4 movies at once, and the dialogue reflects that: dull, poor, emotionally detached, and yet unwarrantedly bonkers. It just doesn't work.
Thank you for saying this! I keep listening to the first example and (admittedly) I don't know if I hear what makes it more tell than show, as much as it feels stiff -- and I'm guessing that stiffness (based on your comment) is bc there's no real emotion behind it
I didnt mind the bonkers bit. It suggested the idea that for all of Thor's attempts at being in control of his life, he really wasn't and chaos followed him everywhere. I liked that because it reminded me of times in my own life where I wasn't in control of anything, it just happened around me and sometimes I remembered to react to it.
I think it is a trope in many movies that characters kinda drop their personalities during a dramatic moment, and have this weird dramatic sentimental personality that makes them seem like they're schizophrenic or that another character is talking through them. If they had dialogue and behavior during those scenes, that kept in line more with the personality that had been carefully established beforehand, then it might be way less stilted and even more expansive and a stretching of their personality to see how they would uniquely react to a dramatic or climactic moment.
I've always hated the quips, because they show that the characters don't take the threats seriously. So of course the viewers can't take them seriously either. Viewers loved the quips for a while, but now they've realized that they destroy all the dramatic tension.
Makes sense considering any movie was made by adults, and is the passion of those adults, so you’d hope anyone would be able to enjoy it, not just kids
Children’s stories need to have depth, for the sake of the kids and their adults who bring them. If it’s all brain dead rubbish, we’ll be left with loads of brain dead adults in a decade or so. If they’re challenging and have layers to benefit all ages then you get adults who can enjoy films and might be more empathetic to other view points. Adult movies just need to keep our mind occupied for two hours, kids movies should be developing theirs.
I believe giving too much creative freedom to Taika it what actually killed the movie. Let me explain- Taika has a unique sense of humor, but it works WAY better in his original work. He clearly isn't that much familiar with Thor, his first movie was a happy accident, but I do believe he was far more guided by the rest of the creative team on Ragnarök than in Love and Thunder. And I don't like Ragnarök, I think he crossed some lines that it's not Thor there, it's a random goofy man disguised as Thor. I love What we do in the shadows and Jojo Rabbit, but it's because they are 100% original, no prior lore needed, not studio demand. Is Taika Waititi a creative person? Yes, but in my opinion, he should continue to do his original characters and world, it looks like he is way more comfortable doing that. And I'm saying this as a fellow creative person, what killed Thor Love and Thunder, was something that started on Ragnarök, people loved the humor of Ragnarök so Disney said to Taika- PUT IT MORE! And now the house is full of soap and everything is wet, and it's not going to be easy to clean up this mess.
I was watching LOTR The Two Towers in theaters today and came across a good example of subtext. It's the scene where Sam bad-mouths Gollum and Frodo asks him why he does that and why he's so judgemental against Gollum. Sam says it's because Gollum's redemption is hopeless but Sam's not picking up on how Frodo sees himself as possibly turning into another Gollum and this needs to believe that he himself won't be judged like that and that redemption is still possible
Idk, Ragnarok seemed to do well with him having their hand on the wheel as well. Reigned him in a bit. Love & Thunder it seems they just let him go full Watiti.
@@existentialnihilbut his style isn’t necessarily the issue, jojo rabbit was both funny and dramatic with good writing. Even thought what we do in the shadows was in no means dramatic it was still well written. This entire movie felt like a caricature of wiatiti’s own style or like some cheap imitation.
@@ghiggs8389 See everyone seems to think they gave him more freedom for this one and that’s what ruined it. But based on his past stuff, I almost believe it could be the opposite. Like the studio mandated he overemphasized the comedic aspects of his style for this one after seeing the success of Ragnarok. I mean, if you’re Taika, you wouldn’t get someone like Cristian Bale if this is the type of movie you *set out* to direct.
@@tevenpowell8023 They couldn't even come up with a new concept, they just repeated the purposefully crap play again. At least Top Gun switched the beach volleyball for football to make it more unique for an essentially identical scene
It's crazy to be that professional writers and a crazy budgeted movie, can screw up basic writing techniques. Like, I'm not a writer, but I know that 'show, don't tell' is like a fundamental concept.
I HATE when games tell you how to solve a problem when you're figuring it out. Or when you're about to use a skill or attack or shoot a weak spot and right as you're about to do it, the game tells you what to do. That's always irked me. It's like, "come on, man. give me a chance to figure it out on my own!"
With the “plumber” line, it can also indicate that she’s in need of some “good news” to picker her up after a bad day of work. The lady in that example is unconsciously giving her partner a chance to lift her spirits with something positive.
Thor 4 seemed so tantalizingly close to being actually really good. Like, a well-considered 5% extra amount of effort could have fixed the dialogue and plot issues and given the actors a chance to really shine through their roles.
Portman and Bale, and even Hemsforth were very very good. An interesting premise, a pathetically written script. Yep, the rewrite would have come in handy. I think, Waititi was indulged too much. By studio, by himself. Just no one told him to take it more seriously. Completely wasted time it was for me.
The interesting bit about narration in films - the narration also has to add something to the story. If someone is expositing a story where you can clearly see and hear what is going on, it feels redundant and boring. If the narration, however, tells us, the viewer, something about the characters that the characters don't want to confront or is not revealed in character dialogue or expression, then it becomes witty and adds another layer of dimension to the story. Character A: "I like red wine," he said to the pretty girl beside him. *Face is grinning, excited while he orders a glass of red* Narrator: [Character A] Did not in fact like red wine, but he recalled the first time he'd ever looked at a beautiful woman. The lady across the street who always drank red wine matching her lipstick. It wasn't the wine that held his attention. It was her lips. The same lips he now found on the woman across from him he so desperately wanted to please. The dialogue above is garbage, so forgive me, but the narrator in this example gives us insight to Character A's memories we were not privy to before. Thus adding to the story.
The lack of subtext sometimes feels like being held in contempt by the writer. Almost like they're convinced that the audience in general, and me in particular, couldn't possibly be smart enough to understand their masterpiece without having my hand held the whole way through.
@@nalday2534 Very much agree, so refreshing to hear someone else share this sentiment. 3rd movie was bad, just like the 4th. I won't even mention Dark World lol. 1st was the only movie worth a damn.
Third was a good comedy. But most of the issues in the 4th were present in the third, except the humor was better and its flaws therefore much less egregious.
This entire movie is an exercise in not trusting the audience. I believe Hemsworth said something about this being a story written by a 7 year old. I don't know if that was supposed to be a slight jab at Waititi (even though he seemed to be saying it as praise), but I posit that this is a story written _for_ 7 year olds. Characters are constantly explaining what they're feeling, as if conveying emotion was not possible in any other way. Scenes have to stop so characters can describe the events that are happening on the screen out of fear that the audience might not understand the incredibly simplistic story. Poor attempts at humor are constantly breaking the flow under the impression that the audience won't be able to keep their attention otherwise. I've ranted before about this being an issue in MCU movies since Phase 3, but this movie is where it's at its most prevalent.
I would like to highlight something my friend told me that really changes how I look at the movie. Korg isn't just the narrator in parts where there is narration, Korg is telling the story the whole time, and Korg is a somewhat unreliable narrator who is a bit silly, and importantly here doesn't really do subtext. I really think that's what the writers were going for, and that's why this movie is as zany as it is, Korg is telling the whole story, however I also think that was a mistake. They nailed it, they achieved what they wanted really effectively in this scenario, but overall for the audience it just isn't good
I just had an idea. What if the writers cut the silly story at half time and started describing a very very dark reality for the restbof the movie? I mean the vilain is literally killing gods.
I've heard this explanation before, but I think it's just copium to cover for the film's weaknesses. Too many jokes? Korg is a silly, unreliable narrator. Thor acted like a total dumbass? Korg is a silly, unreliable narrator. None of the drama ever landed with any impact? Korg is, again, a silly, unreliable narrator. I saw people using this same hand-waving when it came to the Birds of Prey movie, where some people felt they could just explain away anything dumb in the film as "Oh, Harley is an unreliable narrator." And, if that was actually the case, then it would be a really lame way to cover your ass as a writer. If people like the film, hoorah! Oh but if they don't, the writer can just take refuge in "Oh, that was told by an unreliable narrator, the REAL story wasn't quite as silly." It's a unique take, but is little more than a theory meant to explain away any deficiencies the film had.
@@empiricalsmut9419 I totally agree. Even if movie is actually supposed to be unreliably narrated by Korg (which it obviously wasn't), then how about producers find some competent and reliable narrators instead? We don't need explanations, we need a good movie with a solid storytelling. I don't give a spit if it's by Korg or David Fincher, I just need it to be good.
The thing that bugs me most about this movie was the tonal inconsistencies; ragnorok was funny to be a one off and make things dark when infinity wars hits, it worked and marvel just said "lets do that again" after thor lost everyone in his family, (especially his recently reconsiled brother) and half the universe because he didnt "aim for the head" Marvel also realized how strong thor should be, they didn't put him in civil war, they only had him fight hulk for a second and he started annihilating him, he took on thanos and the full power of the stones in seconds, because hes op. When he showed up to wakanda, everyone knew the fight was over. But then they thought "ragnarok was fun lets do that again" and they just completely leave his history
Arcane does an amazing job of this throughout the series, but perhaps especially in the beginning. In a matter of a couple minutes we are introduced to the overarching conflict of the show, the main characters and their history with the conflict, the relationships between these characters, and we even get hints at the toll it all has taken on them. Spoilers: Another great example is the Jinx vs Echo fight. Two characters who previously had little interaction are given a fairly fleshed out relationship during a fight scene!
But they had to show up their relationship through the animation of the fight -- A lot of people watched that and were confused bc it felt like "why are we supposed to care that they played as kids when this is the first time we're seeing it -- they could have shown us a hint of that somewhere in the first three episodes")
@milkflavored Good point. We did know they were all friends, but I don't disagree, though I do think it has a certain unique impact, or flavor, by revealing it the way it did.
There's a hidden element to writing subtext that most writers don't think will be a problem for them until they try it. . . and that's trusting the audience. Subtext leaves things open to audience interpretation. Some writers just can't handle the idea of someone misinterpreting their story beats. Taika Waititi's narration reeks of this insecurity (and this is my biggest flaw as a storyteller as well!)
You beat me to it. I was gonna post "This is happening because the Target Audience is dumb as rocks for those 2 hours and just wants to turn their brain off and be spoon-fed the story... probably while trying to keep their preteen child quiet, or while thinking about if the kids are OK with the new babysitter"... but your explanation sounds better and more polite 😅 This is "Thor 4", not "Oppenheimer" nor "The Irishman".
It's justifiable, Disney marvel fans are mostly stupid - especially lacking emotional intelligence. They're mostly narcissists and sociopaths, not normal people. Gotta spell feelings out for them. Subtext will fall flat.
@@ChineduOpara I think of of the main issues is that the audience got indoctrinated into this state throughout the years by show writing. US shows were rather dumb for decades, if you ask me. They basically would show you in a flashback who comitted the crime and later have some dialog retcon this information. The issue becomes rather obvious if your average US viewer tries to watch a show like Netflix' DARK in which most of the information is conveyed non-verbally. Up to the point where these viewers even claim that something clearly visible in frame was a spoiler because it is later played out in scenes and more important in dialog.
The funny thing is, he keeps saying "this dialogue is not exactly Shakespeare", and Shakespeare was actually very, very explicit in his writing (specially on the monologues). It was great though, and there's a reason why it's still relevant today. But... the complexity of his writing wasn't just because it was subtle. Quite on the contrary.
Sure, it's because it was layered. The language is all florid and elaborate, but that's not where the magic is. It's in the story structures, which draw incredible complexity out of clear, direct events. Two families are feuding, and then two teenagers from those families fall in love. So simple and, in the hands of most writers, unremarkable. But look how much complex emotion Shakespeare could tease out of it.
The first (and only) time I saw TLAT, I remember wondering if Chris Pratt and Chris Hemsworth shot scenes separately and the dialogue was edited together later, it felt THAT unnatural.
from your voice to knowledge of movies to your ability to find the examples and teach, you are so soothing and nice to listen to. when I'm doing other things that don't require brain power but I want to think or listen [e.g. driving] I'm starting to turn to you, thank you for what you post. also normally I don't get engrossed in movies and just watch them as if it's a job but going through what your videos you help me get engrossed in the movies and it brings a new light to lift and entertainment thank you
Really interesting take on this. I think if Korg had narrated the Sixth Sense he would have started the film with "He thought he was alive, but he was actually dead..."
I enjoyed that "Thor Four falls for this problem and it falls for it hard" there's something about poetic devices that immediately commands one's attention
Aside from Wall-E, one of the best films at subtext is the 2005 Pride & Prejudice. They did a great job of visually translating Jane Austen's theme of problems arising through characters that are bad at communication. The subtext when Lizzy and Mr Darcy meet again at his home is so on point. Also watch how Lizzy and Mr Darcy react non-verbally to their bare hands touching for the first time. It's simply electric. Watching this video essay also made me remember a review of the Eragon film, which pointed out that Saphira's emotional beats might have come across stronger if they removed her mental voice, relying instead on the existing animators' work. Watching the clips of Thor 4 presented, it's astounding to me there was narration put in those scenes, because they're actually giving plentiful information from visuals and camera-work alone. One can tell what was going on with Thor in those montages of fights and dating all too easily. Though it sounds like the Korg narration might have been purely so Taika could put himself more front and center, his own ego getting in the way of the storytelling.
I'm sure that having to work for Disney played a role in this... Whether because his heart wasn't in it and/or their meddling... Because anyone who's ever seen his works like Boy or Hunt for the Wilder people or Jojo Rabbit know that Taika is MORE THAN CAPABLE of writing with subtext beautifully.
For a great example of working-for-your-meal dialogue, watch Better Call Saul. I’m watching season six and I’m in awe at how many times characters warp dialogue and fake emotions to manipulate each other. It’s such a fun game to guess why they are saying or doing things and what their endgame is. And when it comes, it’s so satisfying.
3:00 definite respect for the point you just made here, and i totally agree, that would have felt much more authentic to those two specific characters, etc thank you!!!
LITERALLYY!!! you completely explained that first scene so good. I was watching it in the movie theatres and didn’t understand wtf I felt. The scene happened so fast and it felt rushed and random. He was all of the sudden “sad”. It through me off. And as soon as it ended I talked about it to my friend cause I couldn’t let it go
I do think, though, that every single scene being layered with subtext could eventually become exhausting for the audience. Sometimes, giving an answer or two directly in strategic moments can keep the audience engaged. I even noticed this from working at an escape room. Even when I get a group that doesn't want hints, giving them one every now and again keeps them engaged and stops them from getting frustrated because they don't understand something.
@@TheGreatPM1 He said himself he's not Shakespeare. These are just example one off lines for a youtube video. You can have sequences with more dialogue that also use subtext.
@@CarbonComs I never said he was Shakespeare nor did I say that you can not do both of them at the same time. I was just saying not ever scene should have subtext
@@TheGreatPM1i don't think that should be a rule. it always depends on the scene what you should use but in general, it should always be a conscious decision to decide against subtext.
Because the humour around the narration was that of a 4 year old humour that simply points out what you're already seeing is not funny, it completely kills the joke when I see something funny and someone else simply just repeats what happened that everyone clearly saw
Exactly great subtext is worked out instantly by the viewer most of the time subconsciously you only notice a lack of subtext or poor subtext, take rings of power for example the subtext behind galadriel is that because shes the main character she's pretty much no matter what she does is never her fault and she's a good person this leads to a lot of scenes of her being the most vile person on the show but the subtext from the scene such as the music the shots her facial expressions and overall portrayal of her makes it seem like we're supposed to sympathise and pity her yet she'll then go on to do some more vile shit soon after, but because she's the protagonist the writers just want her to be seen as the good person the subtext in that show is god awful, the subtext tries to say one thing but how the character is written says the complete opposite
9:13 I've never seen a dialogue put it in that way that it changes my point of view of the scene, it's a deeper level of understand basic human emotion and social cues in a subtle way. You have to be there and see it in a real life conversation to know that the woman dont want to talk about it further therefore changing the topic by shifting the focus to the guy back, but to write it in a story, using your imagination the visualize the scenario while also making them as humanly as possible is that its like real people are are actually talking is Amazing. Truly this channel is amazing in ways that makes you analyze the scene in different stands, different in how others perceive it
If you'd like to join my Discord server where we chat about our writing, workshop ideas, and generally discuss the movies/shows we love, here's a link you can use to join.
My Discord: discord.com/invite/aJpYPQX
Keep writing!
- Henry
@The Closer Look, have you seen the new film 'Devotion' yet? Future review of that movie sometime maybe?
Okay, you make a great point and I've been hearing it. It is exquisite in fact, and very true however one thing that glared with me about the movie was the very vital and missing element. A Thor movie without the character of Loki in it, isn't really a fulfilling movie. I am probably alone in this, very likely I am. However, without Loki to play off of, Thor feels incomplete. Thor is not a good character on his own without another character to play off of, and that would be Loki. Loki missing from the film is like peanut butter missing jelly. You can have just a peanut butter sandwich, and it's fine, but without the jelly, it just doesn't snap as well as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich would
Inserting the ad read in your video essay without clearly marking it as an advert used to be cute, but it's getting really really tiresome. Please stop. Have some respect for your viewers.
Link expired.
Feminism ruined Thor
It was just kind of jarring to see Christian Bale acting like his life depended on it then cut to Thor's naked buttcheeks the next scene.
Bale was wasted on this film.
@@TheCloserLook Thor 4 is so bad. The best part about the movie ended being wasted potential.
🤮good I didn't watch it then..
I adore the MCU, but it's depressing to see Bale join the long list of wasted talents as one time villains.
@@AfreenSabah Bale doesn't want to waste commiting himself to MCU project, even if Thor 4 ended to be a good movie he will still be one time movie villain.
Not to mention how the jokes basically overshadowed literally everything in the story. Which sucks because you can tell that Christian Bale and Natalie Portman are trying to make this story work. But it just can't.
Yeah, I did consider making that the main angle, but everyone's already pointed it out so I wanted to say something different
They nerfed Christian Bale.
@@liamphibia I wanted more of him. Still good performance. For me this makes it better than Thor 2 with that desastrous Malikith.
I would have loved to see Christian Bale in a more serious take on the story
it also doesn't help that most of the jokes were kinda bad. like the screaming goats made me audibly groan in the theater
There is a reason why "Show don't tell" is one of the biggest principles of filmmaking and story telling.
Yup, because we're watching, not reading a book.
@@Bloodhurl67it's the same rule in writing. Arguably more important, actually.
lol reminds me of the so many weird expositions on live action ATLA.
In the words of Futurama, “You can’t just have your characters say how they feel! That makes me feel angry!”
Glad someone said it
But what if the character IS someone who's openly emotive?
The music's bad and you should feel bad!
I WANT MY HANDS BACK
@@byronsenior6499 Then thats fine, but it needs to be consistent. This same character can't turn around and suddenly stop talking about emotions when it's convenient, yknow? Thor was established as the sort of character who doesn't talk about his emotions, so that's why people are mad now that he's gone back on that
the worst part about the narration is that it's *literally* Taika Waititi telling the audience exactly what's happening in the movie HE MADE
Big Leo energy there!
It’s too anime 😂
@@rileyolson6008 Still. Anime doesn’t really like play like play or skit. There is a bit over dramatization but not enough to take you out of it and it’s still subtle.
I had this video playing in the background, and you’re right, it didn’t sound like korg, it’s literally taika waititi.
@@rileyolson6008
Anime has way higher standards than most of the MCU the f k you on?
Why putting a whole medium on the same bag?
If you want an example of great subtext in an MCU movie, just look at the last scene of Captain America: First Avenger.
Fury: “You gonna be okay?”
Steve: “Yeah. Yeah. I just…I had a date.”
How much lamer would that scene be if instead he said:
“Uhhh no I’m not gonna be okay. I just woke up and I’m in the freaking future now and now my girlfriend, who is very hot by the way! She is probably dead now! And I wanted to go on a date with her! Oh bother!”
Imagine if the movie ended like that.
Oh not hard to imagine, just so like how Strange 2 and Antman 3 ended
It feels like Taika thought the idea of characters saying what they feel out loud was really funny, and it can be funny in something that is explicitly parody like Naked Gun, or as a one-off joke for a character like Drax. But for some reason he decided to have all the characters talk like this the entire movie, and it really didn't work.
It just struck me that for me, the funniest part of the movie is Stormbreaker, the one "character" that can't speak, the way it just floats into the shot while Thor is gazing at Mjolnir, is way funnier than any of the dialogue.
"You can't have characters just say how they feel! That makes me feel angry!"
Yeah I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like he thinks it’s funny for them to be “self aware” and explicitly state the themes of the movie which it can be but it wasn’t done well here
That’s exactly it
Gods being able to break the fourth wall and change the narrative by hitting Waititi in the nuts could be a way to make silly movie, but they mesh too much genre and it just didn't work
@@typhonviserys8288 Great way to jeopardize the serious parts of the story: Have the characters behave comically all the time
I think the writers and Taika are aware of this. I think they find characters over explaining things awkwardly hilarious and they are doing it on purpose. The problem is they treat EVERYTHING as a joke, so when the time comes to deliver actual drama or emotion, it fails. Ragnorok balanced this mix much better.
I agree.
The Sif scene really takes the biscuit. Your life long friend is dying and you say 'hate to break it to you...but you're not going to Valhalla because you need to die like this, lol' now compare that to when Loki died or Odin or anyone else important to him did. This movie is such a parody.
Exactly. I think Taika made the film like this on purpose. I guess we will know in the future, the next time we see Thor in an MCU Movie.
You all are really giving Ragnarok a lot of credit, when it did a lot of the same shit Love and Thunder did. It was Ragnarok’s success that led to this, just reminding you.
@@shironasama0445 it did do a lot of the same things, it just did them well. Taika deserved another shot, but he had a miss here. I guess we can’t all be James Gunn.
What bothers me the most is the lack of sincerity. Everything seems like one big joke. Nothing meant to be taken seriously. Even when the lines are good, they're ruined by them not delivering it seriously.
For me the best written subtext dialogue in film is from Up. When Russell and Carl are by the campfire and Russel is opening up just a little about his dad, he say "Phyllis says I bug him too much". Carl immediately chastises "You call your mother by her first name?" And Russell replies, confused "Phyllis isn't my mom." And that's it. We never get anything further, but that's all we need to hear. That's what Thor 4 doesn't understand.
Pixar is amazing with subtext. Incredibles, up, and finding Nemo are amazing with it
I see u… fellow cinema therapy viewer…
Yes. Very economical writing. In such a short exchange we learn that Russell's parents are divorced, his mom has custody, that he misses his dad who he used to be close to, his dad is remarried to a woman who wants his father to have nothing to do with him anymore and that Russell naïvely doesn't get it.
In a lot of reaction videos to Up, it is surprising how many people can't read between the lines - they think his father is just working too hard to spend time with him or something.
@@dasc0yne honesty I don't think the piece of dialogue revealed that much. It could be that his parents divorced. Could be that his mother died. Could be that his father is too focused on his work. We don't know. But we do know for a fact that Russell doesn't have a reliable parental figure at the moment and that's enough to enjoy the movie.
@@hoangkienvu7572 I agree the details aren't critical, however all the information is there. If the dad was just working hard Russell would be talking about how his dad doesn't have time to spend whenever he sees him at home or that his dad comes home too late every night, but not about having to call him to talk to him. Sure, it is possible to conceive of a more convoluted scenario (e.g. Phyllis is a secretary), but Carl felt bad for Russell only when Russell said, "Phyllis isn't my mom." And that is when he stopped asking questions because he then understood the whole situation.
Also you can see Russell's Asian mom at the end. She is the one who takes him to his promotion so he likely lives with her. Since Russell appears half-Asian I presume his dad is white. It is sad that his father didn't show up to ceremony, but Carl is there to be a paternal figure.
I also hate how every other line in most modern MCU movies has to be a joke. Completely kills the mood in serious and emotional scenes.
Also... Disney in general
That's something I loved about No Way Home and Wakanda Forever is that when it needed to get serious it was. There were definitely still jokes but not the gratuitous amount that some mcu movies have had and it didn't make the serious scenes cheapened in my opinion.
I feel like this is more of a Thor problem after the 2nd movie. They wanted a complete tonal shift I guess.
It is a creative choice. To hear someone criticize this movie because the characters don't talk like real people (like the video's author does) is pretty stupid because THEY ARE NOT REAL PEOPLE. I mean, it's a choice that the screenwriters have made. To make everyone sound over the top silly and 'funny', yet still in line with what their characters are. You may not like this choice, I certainly don't love any Marvel movies, but I doubt it would work better for me to have silly cartoonish characters meant for children have real, grounded emotional dramas. I don't see 'serious' scenes working dramatically no matter what they do, so simply not going that route seems like one reasonable creative choice.
@@jvjjjvvv9157 if you ever saw these cartoons as a kid thry absolutely got very serious at times. thor was an absolute badass in the cartoons and seeing him in a live action he is just some silly guy is annoying af
As a screenwriter I can tell you there's a real chance the writers originally had these scenes closer to what you describe, but a studio exec may have asked them to bring those emotional sentiments out more, to make them obvious. Removing the subtext may have addressed that note and made the execs happy.
As a fan, I say this is Korg's point of view. He sees things fom his point of view. Let's start a revolution.
Hopefully the Sequel is the same movie but 'What Actually Happened'.@@GothamClive
This video annoys me because he starts by asking if a Space Pirate and an Asguardian Gods dialogue sounds like something you would hear normal people say and the answer is a resounding, NO, of course not they are not normal people. Thor’s world has always been one of thespian dialogue while GOTG are just quirky and out there.
@@Byronic19134 but Starlord is indeed human. We've seen him do subtle stuff in other movies, so why not here? Thor on the other hand is somewhat understandable with your argument, but the Russo brothers still made his lines and delivery good with his somewhat awkward shakespearean way of talking in infinity war.
@@Byronic19134You completely missed the point of the video. They can have their own unique dialogue quirks, no one is saying that’s bad. The issue is that these characters are acting entirely unrealistic by spouting off their exact emotions and motivations directly to the viewer instead of using subtle queues that realistically show their inner emotions and motivations.
Thor and Starlord didn’t do this in their previous movies. It’s not some dialogue quirk from their home planets - it’s a writing issue. The writers don’t trust the audience to pick up on the character’s core needs so they force them to tell it to the audience directly.
The worst thing is that Taika has explicitly stated how campy, silly, and unrealistic the dialogues sounded in Thor comics, and wanted to make them sound more like 'normal people'. Look where we are now...💀💀💀
Because taika thinks the old Norse talk that Thor fans love is silly and unrealistic.
*inserts Thanos monologue about failures coming back to him*
Why Thor was humorous in first two movies is that it made sense: He is oblivious to the customs of (modern) Earth as an Asgardian, he speaks in a more eloquent and outlandish way. The third movie doesn't make any sense for his character.
The thing is, Thor isn't supposed to be 'normal' like us. He is Asgardian ffs.
@@BiBiren yah fr, I agree
@@BiBiren yeah actually I'm glad I'm not alone, coz I was the one who loved the character since I like norse mythology a lot and until infinity war and ragnarok nobody I knew liked him, still I think infinity war did way better job than ragnarok and endgame to portray a great thor and lets just not talk about love and thunder
The saddest part is that beneath all the forced humor, there is a genuenly good story. But they wasted Hemsworth, Bale and Portman, who are genuenly trying to make the script work
In fact, Hemsworth in particular has stated his discontent in how Thor's character has been treated lately, which says a *lot*
Wait...he did??? HA! Thats funny considering he kicked and screamed for this new direction for Thor and that shitty Ragnarok movie (which L&T is A LOT like so idk why ppl are having a problem with it NOW 🙄)
@@CUF17 there was seriously a time when I used to love ragnarok and would've probably been in like my top 5 mcu films but I don't know anymore, my recent rewatch after watching love and thunder kinda left me feeling that this is better than love and thunder but not a lot different, love and thunder was just extreme version of what worked for mcu before, honestly I think the best thor film would still be the first thor, and ragnarok is still a good film since it has small tributes to the og score of the 1st thor, let's just forget there was a 2nd one
@@CUF17 there happened iw and endgame between both movies
@@sarveshbane1609 see i love the first 2 Thor movies. I loooove the Shakespeare-like drama it was with HINTS of comedic moments and it stood out from the other marvel movies. Plus i got sooo much great acting/scenes from those two movies. (Loki grieving when his mom died, thor and his father arguing etc etc)
Ragnarok didnt give me shit but a butchered adaption of the comic storyline corny ass slapstick and unfunny ass "humor". L&T was more of the same just turned up to 100 and now im done with thor for good.
@@CUF17 that's because he felt that Thor's character had become boring and derivitive and that Ragnarok was a nice change of pace while not sacrificing the core of his character.
The problem is that Love & Thunder went too far in that *other direction* in that the movie feels the need to *constantly* keep throwing jokes at the wall to see what sticks
Which, again, is a shame because underneath it all is what could have been the best Thor movie *period*
"I want to die a warrior's death."
"The battle's over."
*Realization*
"Well, come on, help me up."
Yay bad dialogue fixed
That got a laugh out of me👍
Dying of wounds after the battle still counts.
That’s actually pretty funny.
that would've been so much more funnier.
The thing that really kills me was when Thor had the "what more could I possibly lose" moment and was on the verge of tears; that really hit me. I was the most intrigued I had been in years by anything in the MCU. Then the follow up we got was overweight-depressed Thor being the butt of a ton of jokes in Endgame and this movie.
Thor Being overweight-depressed after everything he went through made sense to me, the only alternative i could realistically see him take is attempting suicide, however constantly making him the butt of jokes in Endgame was distasteful.
@@jturner2577 yeah like for me, it wasn't that he was fat and depressed, I was mad that it was 'just SO funny'
Thanks for pointing that out, I feel like Endgame got away with a LOT of dumb shit just because it was Endgame.
Agreed 👍
@@Icerope-km9lu agreed, hell even I didn't see the flaws until my probably 5th rewatch last year, haven't been interested in a rewatch since then
I remember watching this and knew that Thor is supposed to be depressed, somewhat introverted, and unsure of himself near the beginning of the movie; however, due to the script given to the actors and how Thor's actor makes it unintentionally seem like he is faking his mood. He comes across as a teenager going through puberty without the voice cracking.
Yes exactly. It doesn't feel real.
very true
Yep, I was expecting a dark version of Thor during Endgame bcus I thought all of his ppl were slaughtered so he bcame "Ronin"-esque
But they make him a punchline, ok let see what happens, then this movie is perfect........for my 10 yrs old
Even an episode of Spongebob more interesting thn this shht
U got mothrfckin C. Bale as a villain, come on🤦
What a waste of talent
Yeah, generally in scenes where characters speak exactly as they feel without subtext, you need some kind of element that makes them break first. Examples are furious, very drunk or some similarly mentally compromised state.
Yeah I couldn't even tell if thor actually had an arc. The first one may be boring for some but he did have an arc
That Sif scene's dialogue (and actually a lot of the dialogue in the film) felt like it was taken from the parody play that Loki (as Odin) was watching in Ragnarok.
What if Loki didn't die and this movie is actually him trolling us?
Christian Bale was too good for this movie. His acting and storytelling in the movie was so well done, if felt like every time his scenes came on I was watching a different movie.
By far the best part of the whole movie
Haha you worded my thoughts!!
He made a very compelling Marvel villain and was absolutely wasted.
The Gorr character felt like he was from a different movie.
@@jppitch6734
Huge waste of both Gorr and Bales talent.
Now I’m hoping they don’t touch someone like Jack Nicholson, De Niro or Leo because they’ll probably just waste them.
I would like to say though that "fake/artificial" dialogue isn't necessarily a bad thing. Often times in Quentin Tarantino's movies people don't really talk like regular people, they're too witty, but it works in that case because everything they say is genuinely interesting/funny.
Basically, if your dialogue isn't realistic it needs to offer something else in exchange to be worthwhile.
It helps that the writing itself in his work plays with your expectations.
I have the same thoughts about Joss Whedon and Aaron Sorkin dialogue. I won't pretend for a moment that it could come from real humans, but it's still enjoyable to listen to.
Also I think when it comes to love and thunder dialogue is the least of my concern coz the story itself had flaws where if you think a little bit, everything falls apart, and yes I agree artificial dialogues aren't necessarily a bad thing
Yeah, Nolan's dialogue is very theatrical as well but I do love it
Fr
The narration in the movie literally sounds like a person reading a children's story book, like the next line will be "and they all lived happily ever after, the end."
"Don't give them 4; give them 2 + 2." That's one of the best explanations of subtext I've ever heard. 👍
Its just confusing why movies nowadays feel the need to verbally explain thoughts and feelings instead of having people think and infer them for themselves instead
This comment has got me thinking, maybe it's because of the quantity of media we are consuming? We are more used to being fed information at rapid speeds and are seeing more media than we used to. So many people walked away from Jordan Peele's Nope, not understanding why the Gordy storyline existed. They weren't used to having to think during a movie, play detective, draw connections, aka work for their media. I was left investigating Nope for weeks because I don't consume movies often, and I also deleted my social media. I had nothing new to fill the thought gap and spur me onwards, so I was left to ponder.
It could also have something to do with our lack of nuance nowadays because of political strife and division. Maybe writers are scared of audiences not getting the joke if it's too subtle or not understanding character arcs if they aren't clearly evil and good.
There are many reasons:
1) It's easier. Writing subtext requires basically writing two dialogues at once.
2) It's faster. You do not have to think too hard about it and in a month you git the script down so people can start filming and in about a year you got a movie
3) You make sure the audience doesn't get confused. Have you ever seen a movie and had to rewatch a scene because you didn't understand why characters were doing what they were doing? That is when a writer wants to add subtext but goes overboard and forgets to tell the audience important things.
Because they actively hate the audience, they think all are dumb white racist.
@@OcrimMirco I've seen some hot takes that Arcane's character motivations make no sense, so I think I see why so many screenwriters just blatantly spell it out, sadly.
Maybe it's the anime influence. I have always the feeling in anime it's extremly common.
I actually really loved how you fixed the dialogue and the scene between Thor and Peter, other than it just made it look better, but also we got to see the guardians bonding even more which I love so much since they are my favorite found family
I watched an interview with Taika where he discussed his writing technique which is to write a script then put it away for two years then come back and completely rewrite it with a fresh mind and "only the good parts" from the first draft that he can recall after the two years. While watching this movie all I was thinking was how there is no way marvel would let him do that, especially with all their last minute changes and trying to fit this into the larger mcu. We've seen his other works. we know what he can do. I wonder what this movie would have looked like if he was given the time (and also not just cashing in that marvel paycheck, respectfully).
He messed up a lot of the backstory for the sake of jokes. For example, korg now has two dads instead of what was mentioned in Ragnarok, all to make that Dwayne the Rock joke at the end.
Yes, we've seen Thor Ragnajoke, an absolute abomination of a movie, which has one of the dumbest plot holes ever committed to a film, which could've been solved had anyone who was making this nonsense bothered to watch the first Thor movie, and then on top of that have character assassinated Thor beyond repair.
@@antona.1327chill out bro you’re under every comment talking shit on Thor ragnarok. It’s just a movie. It can’t hurt you
@@Chhjmmkg Racknarock was the story from Thor's point of view. This was from Korg's point of view.
@@antona.1327 Thor ragnarok saved the thor franchise, best thor movie with good balance of fun and being serious, but sadly followed by the worst movie.
The script to Jojo Rabbit shows that Taika is a skilled storyteller (i.e., the buildup and the actual ‘red shoe’ scene). He was rewarded with an Oscar for his skill. That makes Love and Thunder even more disappointing since Taika has the ability to do better.
tbh, it doesnt feel like he gave a shit this time. I love Taika's other movies when he actually cares for the project.
The thing about Marvel movies is that they have to be written very fast. So there's no revisions, no second drafts - that's also why there's so much reports of huge chunks of footage being cut in the final edit.
His best work imo jjr and hftw were both fairly faithfully adapted from nevels by remarkable writers, hes an excellent director but im not sure about his writing abilities really, after his god aweful mandalorian episodes too yikes, even what we do in the shadows was co written by jermain clemant
I don't think Taika is flawless, but I think disney might take some important creative freedoms from writers that shouldn't ever be taken. The short times the writers have also play a part in this. Jon Favreau is a skilled storyteller as well, but some Mando storylines feel like Jon wanted to do more with it, but had too little time to properly do it. I think disney should take a step back. The thing that made Rogue One one of the greatest Star Wars movies was that the writers were free to do whatever the hell they wanted. I think that disneys end stage capitalism essentially is what is responsible for the drops in quality. Taika is incredibly talented and Jojo Rabbit was one of the best movies I have ever seen which makes it even more sad that L&T turned out the way it is
@@mondsgesandter I think L&T turned out bad either because disney fiddled too much or/and Taika wasn't 100% on board or interested
Having the sponsor ad at the end of the video deserves a like on its own. Great video!
I remember in an interview Christian bale said he gets so immersed in character because if a director ever goes “ this scene is bad, we’re doing our own thing” he wants to be able to improv the dialogue on the spot. Imagine if he’d done that.
you should do a research about ironman and you will know MCU won't allowed to make real movies
@@boboboy8189 interesting wdym
@@na.meless The original Iron Man was made without a script. They had to improvise most of it and yet it ended up being one of the best MCU movies. However as the MCU became really popular, the studio executives had more control over the films (Mickey Rourke from IM2 complained that his character was reduced to a one dimensional villain despite the fact he learned fluent Russian and researched Russian criminal mannerisms for the role).
After Disney bought Marvel, the directors are basically hired hands. One director said that the action scenes were already shot by someone else before they even started the film and the producers wouldn't let them change anything in the script. Strangely though, Taika seems to have had complete creative freedom - the first cut of Thor 4 was four hours long.
@@JonnyEarthquake can't remember who made the video but someone was explaining that although Taika is a talented director he actually needs to be kept on a leash so to speak. He can obviously make good movies. Ragnarok is a good example. But he needs to have some of that creativity in check, otherwise it runs rampant and you get a mess like this.
@@JonnyEarthquake really interesting
honestly they could have had korg talk about how thor and the guardians went on amazing adventures and talk to us about how it was super fun and epic but what we actually see on screen is Thor getting more and more sad. could have been a cool little thing about how korg idolizes Thor and didn't even realize that Thor was feeling down etc
yes!! parallel structure can be just as telling as a point-blank statement. i think that having something that contrasting would have been wonderful
Wait a second you are an absolute genius
wow that's a great idea! that would've been amazing writing as we go from smiling to start feeling something off and then feeling more uncomfortable by the two different messages. The gradual lead up to that understanding would've been fantastic
Am I crazy or is that what happened
You are so creative, I love that concept so much💛
Btw your profile picture is awesome, Lost Marimo, as epic as your name✌
The irony of that first little scene rewrite was that it genuinely felt like how the better parts of the MCU are usually written. Bits of levity with the weight of emotion heavy in the subtext.
Or, y’know, how the DCAU is usually written.
As someone who’s been studying screenwriting for nearly a decade now, almost all of Marvel needs to reevaluate their approach to writing. The problem they have is that they intend to craft scenes around jokes or absurd/awkward moments. That’s not how you write a proper story, and that’s why they’ve fallen short in the emotional aspect of their stories in recent years. Your first draft in any story should work to ensure that the film’s plot is strong enough to carry out all character arcs, subplots, etc. to fruition. From there, your second draft adds more personality to the characters and fine-tunes any interactions so that those arcs, subplots, etc. are strengthened. Then your final revisions should deal with making sure that those moments you just strengthened still allow the story to flow properly. No portion of this film should have been focused on making a joke, especially since so much of it lacked in real character development as well.
Cheers for that story
There are so many times I watch movies these days where I feel like I'm watching a first draft. You watch a scene that you swear was supposed to be a "placeholder" to get from point A to point C, but then they never went back and rewrote a polished point B scene.
Early MCU did subtext well, but new MCU isn't the same. I lost interest after Endgame.
May I ask what you are doing now though… I always wanted to write stories but feel terrified ….
@@resonanceytv If it makes you feel better, you're under no obligation to show your writing to anyone else. Just have fun with it.
Interesting that you brought up Andrew Stanton when talking about hiding exposition as apparently you can watch the entirety of Wall-E in an unknown language and still perfectly understand the story.
Pretty cool
That's not hidden exposition, that's visual storytelling. Different things.
@@UnitSe7en Well filmmaking is the combination of visual and audio to tell a story. So anything is a go to hide exposition as long as it's still functionally a movie.
Anyways it still illustrates how godly Andrew Stanton is if he manages to hide basically all of the exposition in a film.
Didn't realize Wall-E was essentially a silent movie. One advantage of the old silents tho - they had to show not tell, if they didn't want to bore audiences with a ton of intertitles.
0:30 I was convinced that that was the joke though, that Thor speaks really formally and dramatically whilst Peter is trying to mimic his way of speaking in order to seem as cool as him
Problem is that it doesn't seem that way. If Peter wanted to sound overly formal, he should've sounded and look more awkward and Thor should've looked at him with a "Here we go again" as a call back to Infinity war when he tried to do the same. Would've also added some subtext on how Peter has been acting around Thor during the time he joined them.
It's really sad cause the characters and emotions and compelling story is right within reach. It just seems that Taika wasn't really trying. It's the frustrating mishandling of great stories that has plagued phase 4.
I wouldn't say its necessarily a matter of taika not trying, so much as him being rushed. Taika has always had the same process, write the script, abandon it for a year or so, come back to it, say "who wrote this?" And rewrite it entirely. It's a whole process. While it's super possible he had the time, I heard him talk about editing thor 4 on set the set of our flag means death, still in costume. It's very possible we skipped the "who wrote this?" Step whole sale
There must have been something huge that happened behind the scenes to mess up the production. *Everything* about Love & Thunder felt so sloppy. Like he mentioned in the video, there are some awful dialogue edits, and also some equally bad visual edits or obvious missing/cut scenes. Plus the over-reliance on narration to carry the story. A well-planned film doesn't look like this.
This is a prime example of one of the most important rules in writing: Show, not tell.
1000% THIS
i get it but hehe how can you show in writing since its words
@@moonlightshadow9390 Here's how you do it in writing.
Tell: "He's my best friend since we were kids."
Show: "I've been stuck with him even before my voice dropped."
See the difference?
@@mashupotato How to show with "words"
arrange words to form a picture?XD
@@mashupotato Nah dw I understand the point
I just found the saying funny when I thought about it
i really liked how you mentioned the three brothers scene. I think that is probably one of the best uses of narration ever, as well as one of my favorite sequences in any film i've scene, too
It’s also completely unrelated to anything else going on in the movie. Like all it does is set up another set of McGuffins to hunt for the team, in a film about hunting the McGuffins already.
However it works as a short “in universe” children’s story, that is meant to teach humility. Like a Fable of Grimm
It’s kind of a larger problem of Harry Potter world building. There are a lot of cool things in it, but nothing ever goes anywhere or connects to anything else beyond its function at the koment
I love how you not only critique things but actually always add your own (better) version. That's how it should always be done
Thanks, glad you like it!
Examples, I have started to say, are the life of an essay or disquisition.
@@TheCloserLook Putting 'constructive' in constructive criticism!
Exactly! Not enough review channels do this!! It might be fun to pick apart a movie and point out everything that’s wrong, but it takes thought and skill to actually give a genuine critique and provide solutions. You have to say, “This is how I would have done it, given the chance.” And then you explain why.
@@TheCloserLook I also love that you give examples of other projects who did it right. That way we the audience can examine why we liked one thing and didn't like the other.
I'm not going to lie, this movie has way more problems than just bad dialogue. But it was nice that you pointed it out.
I just hope this movie doesn't impede Christian Bale's reputation in any way.
I doubt it will, bale is an accomplished actor and he was easily the best part of the movie
Bale as Gorr was one the best things about Love and Thunder, so I wouldn't worry too much
Yeah right I'm like this movie's dialogues are the least of my problems and I think christian bale is one of those actors who've proved themselves already even a project worse than love and thunder won't have an effect in his reputation, it's like de niro doing that stupid grandpa film, I'm sure nobody thought of him as any less of an actor
@@ea6102 You're probably right.
Pretty much every review of this movie praises his acting as the best part of the movie, so I'd say he's alright. It's to the point that it feels like he's in a completely different movie altogether.
Thor Sif's valhalla exchange was already done better in the first thor move.
Sif: "Leave me, I shall die a warrior's death. Stories shall be told of this day!"
Thor: "Live, and tell those stories yourself"
Dialogue is the one thing I always make sure to spend a lot of time on; my story might not be expertly crafted, but you can guarantee that the conversations will always feel natural!
Watching these well thought-out and constructive criticisms, I kept thinking, "Yeah, that would be better if Love and Thunder wanted to be a genuinely dramatic movie, but it just wanted to be an awkward improv parody thing."
I just imagine Taika responding to any of these criticisms with, "Yes, exactly! It's terrible and stupid, and it makes me laugh."
Only issue is he's one of very few actually laughing!
0:20 ngl, the scrip sounds like a first draft of what the writer wanted to convey in the later revision.
Don’t you think that opening scene could’ve been even more impactful if Star Lord was Rocket ?
Since they’ve already had this type of conversation before in infinity war
It’d be interesting if after everything with Thanos to establish Thor is still in the place of ‘what more could I lose?’
Although maybe that would’ve been a slightly different movie
Oh, yeah that would be a great idea.
Taika doesn't care about past meaningful relationships characters built. Sigh
It'd be a much more impactful movie had the Guardians stuck around much longer. There are parallels between the team and Thor, and even parallels between Quill and Jane, that were too good to miss and yet, they were.
That would be assuming that Taika cares about Thor and Rocket's friendship, which he clearly does not.
@@peterfrank3365 But I was happy that the Guardians got to escape this horrible movie and useless manchild Thor. Good for them.
I think that's why I loved Everything Everywhere All at Once so much was because it was demanding from the first couple minutes it started. It didn't dumb anything down and it made you pay attention and work for the information. And it was complicated, fun, bonkers creative and I loved it and as soon as I left the theaters I not only wanted to see it again but I wanted to tell everybody about it.
Bruh that movie is so stupid felt like a 4yo watching it what u on about.
Really? I thought Everything Everywhre All at Once just spelled out everything (after the first scene) a million times and just tried to beat your head with the message.
Speaking of which I want to see Henry analyze something fascinating about EEAAO. It's certainly better than how Doctor strange 2 failed at magic.
@@sarasamaletdin4574 oh hardly, that's more what dr strange 2 did
@@sarasamaletdin4574 It's not beating YOU with the message, it's beating the mom over the head with the message. Early on, we learn the main character doesn't understand English well. She doesn't understand anything particularly well. Everything is beating her on the head with the message hoping to make her understand. She doesn't understand what's wrong with her relationship with her daughter. She doesn't understand why her husband wants to divorce. She doesn't understand. So the movie has to beat her on the head with it. Only when it's arguably too late does she start to understand, and only sort of. And then she has to forge her path.
In Avengers Infinity War, Thor is first contact with the Guardians Of The Galaxy makes them realize they’re in presence of someone from a superior level, physically majestic. Waititi makes them annoyed and almost disgusted of having him around, a cretin. And now Star Lord has to teach him about sacrifice and finding himself to the god who lost everyone?
1:30 oh my god, that's genius! It would've significantly been less awkward, and for the fans who've been following the mcu's timeline for a while now, that "long silence" would've practically been a nod to the 2 characters' dynamic; both had loved greatly, both had lost greatly. They both understand each other, and that "silence" would've given long-time fans enough information to basically, in a way, "see" the original dialogue exchange between them in the actual movie. Genius.
Rocket’s scene with Thor in ‘Infinity War’ where they talk about what Thor’s been through and his chances against Thanos is perfect: Somber, has subtext, and has character development. Plus it ends with the fake eye bit which nicely cuts the tension.
holy shit that first dialogue exchange between Thor and Quill was straight out of Riverdale
Another thing lack of subtext does is make it feel like the writers don't trust the actors' abilities. I believe Chris Hemsworth is capable of showing us how distanced from society his character feels through his expressions and tone. It kind of feels like Waititi doesn't.
It’s especially egregious in the first scene because someone insecure and socially awkward would not explain their feelings easily and make all subtext text. It might work for Drax because his character is supposed to say everything literally and openly.
As for narration, the director must ask “is there a way to show this? Is there a way for one character to explain it to another?” And most of all “Is this information necessary to convey to the audience?”
4:30 I honestly think a combination between what was in the movie and your proposal would have been best for having the joke. "Leave me to die my warrior's death.... I wish to claim my place in Valhalla."
Also thank you for making this argument from the angle of subtext rather than using the phrase "show don't tell" because like... sometimes you do need to be told things. Remembering that subtext is a thing promotes a balance, and that's real nice.
A lot of times when you see a film you realize they went to shooting too soon. The script was not quite ready. These things could have been ironed out in another pass or two. But studios are in a rush to produce. Taika is actually a really good screenwriter. You see what he can do when he has the time. He spent years thinking about JoJo Rabbit. Same with M. Night Shyamalan. The Sixth Sense went through 17 drafts. Nobody was watching their calendar waiting for him. All the movies after that, he's usually been on a tight schedule.
Great nod to Wall-e. It's almost a polar opposite to the Thor film, it manages to convey so much through expression and context where so much of the movie is dialogue free. Imagine Taika had access to just a 10th of the skill of those writers.
And it's expressions THROUGH ROBOTS
He does watch jojoba rabbit he just couldn't care less about this movie
Taika is skilled - I would blame this failure on Disney/Marvel execs.
@@Vesdus what a weird take. This film reeks of Waititi from start to finish, it's all him, it's just...bad. There is history in cinema of films being released that the directors hate the final edit for, this is not one of those films.
@@ozoakI think it’s a combination of both. He does have talent, when he’s placed in the right work environment where he has time to work out the kinks, and other people to stop him when he goes too far. Jojo Rabbit is incredible and What We Do in the Shadows is really very funny, he can create good work, but he isn’t a good fit for Marvel. Marvel need writers who can write a first draft and make it into an instant product. He definitely isn’t one of those.
I think one problem is modern screenwriters might be less versed in dramatic history; i.e: plays. Read enough plays , and you are in a world of dialogue. it's all dialogue and subtext. They need to study the masters more. Also, a lot of mainstream comics writing isn't all that great either.
I think there is some confusion between bland dialogue and unrealistic dialogue, though they can overlap sometimes. Indeed this film's dialogue is painfully inhuman to the point that the screenplay needed at least three more drafts, but its issue is in how disconnected it is emotionally in the movie, not just that it's unrealistic. Film characters speak unrealistically all the time, especially in great films (Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson, anyone?) but they work to serve the purpose of the whole film, and they are both supported by and complement the story. Thor: Love & Thunder is trying to be 4 movies at once, and the dialogue reflects that: dull, poor, emotionally detached, and yet unwarrantedly bonkers. It just doesn't work.
Thank you for saying this! I keep listening to the first example and (admittedly) I don't know if I hear what makes it more tell than show, as much as it feels stiff -- and I'm guessing that stiffness (based on your comment) is bc there's no real emotion behind it
I didnt mind the bonkers bit. It suggested the idea that for all of Thor's attempts at being in control of his life, he really wasn't and chaos followed him everywhere. I liked that because it reminded me of times in my own life where I wasn't in control of anything, it just happened around me and sometimes I remembered to react to it.
That example at the start had me convinced it was Korg making the dialogue up as part of his narration for a while.
In a meta way it was as Korg *is* Tika Wititi.
Look who it is
I think it is a trope in many movies that characters kinda drop their personalities during a dramatic moment, and have this weird dramatic sentimental personality that makes them seem like they're schizophrenic or that another character is talking through them. If they had dialogue and behavior during those scenes, that kept in line more with the personality that had been carefully established beforehand, then it might be way less stilted and even more expansive and a stretching of their personality to see how they would uniquely react to a dramatic or climactic moment.
It's crazy how there's children's animated movies with more depth to their characters and dialogue
Well yes because children’s stuff talks in an easy way for people to understand
I've always hated the quips, because they show that the characters don't take the threats seriously. So of course the viewers can't take them seriously either. Viewers loved the quips for a while, but now they've realized that they destroy all the dramatic tension.
Makes sense considering any movie was made by adults, and is the passion of those adults, so you’d hope anyone would be able to enjoy it, not just kids
Children’s stories need to have depth, for the sake of the kids and their adults who bring them. If it’s all brain dead rubbish, we’ll be left with loads of brain dead adults in a decade or so. If they’re challenging and have layers to benefit all ages then you get adults who can enjoy films and might be more empathetic to other view points.
Adult movies just need to keep our mind occupied for two hours, kids movies should be developing theirs.
You speak as if children's animated movies is a handicapp for character depth.
I believe giving too much creative freedom to Taika it what actually killed the movie.
Let me explain- Taika has a unique sense of humor, but it works WAY better in his original work.
He clearly isn't that much familiar with Thor, his first movie was a happy accident, but I do believe he was far more guided by the rest of the creative team on Ragnarök than in Love and Thunder.
And I don't like Ragnarök, I think he crossed some lines that it's not Thor there, it's a random goofy man disguised as Thor.
I love What we do in the shadows and Jojo Rabbit, but it's because they are 100% original, no prior lore needed, not studio demand.
Is Taika Waititi a creative person? Yes, but in my opinion, he should continue to do his original characters and world, it looks like he is way more comfortable doing that.
And I'm saying this as a fellow creative person, what killed Thor Love and Thunder, was something that started on Ragnarök, people loved the humor of Ragnarök so Disney said to Taika- PUT IT MORE!
And now the house is full of soap and everything is wet, and it's not going to be easy to clean up this mess.
I was watching LOTR The Two Towers in theaters today and came across a good example of subtext. It's the scene where Sam bad-mouths Gollum and Frodo asks him why he does that and why he's so judgemental against Gollum. Sam says it's because Gollum's redemption is hopeless but Sam's not picking up on how Frodo sees himself as possibly turning into another Gollum and this needs to believe that he himself won't be judged like that and that redemption is still possible
You can just tell that Taika is not really comfortable with non-original stuff, not without someone telling him no at least
Idk, Ragnarok seemed to do well with him having their hand on the wheel as well. Reigned him in a bit. Love & Thunder it seems they just let him go full Watiti.
@@existentialnihil he turned the movie into an epic Old Spice commercial.
@@existentialnihilbut his style isn’t necessarily the issue, jojo rabbit was both funny and dramatic with good writing. Even thought what we do in the shadows was in no means dramatic it was still well written. This entire movie felt like a caricature of wiatiti’s own style or like some cheap imitation.
@@raahimkamaal5363 He needs to stick to comedy. What We Do In The Shadows was hilarious.
@@ghiggs8389 See everyone seems to think they gave him more freedom for this one and that’s what ruined it. But based on his past stuff, I almost believe it could be the opposite.
Like the studio mandated he overemphasized the comedic aspects of his style for this one after seeing the success of Ragnarok. I mean, if you’re Taika, you wouldn’t get someone like Cristian Bale if this is the type of movie you *set out* to direct.
That scene with Sif felt like I was legit watching Superhero Movie or something, as did pretty much the entire movie
Honestly, I think even Superhero Movie took itself more seriously than this
It's like they took the "purposely crap play" joke from Ragnarok, and wrote the whole movie that way
@@tevenpowell8023 They couldn't even come up with a new concept, they just repeated the purposefully crap play again. At least Top Gun switched the beach volleyball for football to make it more unique for an essentially identical scene
12:04 this reminds me of the tv show Psych, this is probably why it’s such a joy to watch
It's crazy to be that professional writers and a crazy budgeted movie, can screw up basic writing techniques. Like, I'm not a writer, but I know that 'show, don't tell' is like a fundamental concept.
yeah lmao first thing i learnt in drama when i was in 6th grade/ year seven was show dont tell
It probably means they did it in purpose, it just didn't land
I think it was intentional, but the joke didn't work...who knows. There are some very bad writers out there lol
I think it was a combination of the rush to make a new movie and a lack of actual love for the project by the writers and director
Trouble is I suspect they adlib a lot of the "jokes" making each other laugh on the day sure but it doesn't make good storytelling.
I HATE when games tell you how to solve a problem when you're figuring it out. Or when you're about to use a skill or attack or shoot a weak spot and right as you're about to do it, the game tells you what to do. That's always irked me. It's like, "come on, man. give me a chance to figure it out on my own!"
You need to avoid Horizon Forbidden West
Thats why I liked Hitman
@@JC-rr4snfellow Hitman enjoyer
God of war lol
YES.
Also just like… Star Lord just would never talk like that? He’s so out of character here 😭😭
With the “plumber” line, it can also indicate that she’s in need of some “good news” to picker her up after a bad day of work. The lady in that example is unconsciously giving her partner a chance to lift her spirits with something positive.
Thor 4 seemed so tantalizingly close to being actually really good. Like, a well-considered 5% extra amount of effort could have fixed the dialogue and plot issues and given the actors a chance to really shine through their roles.
If the whole thing was completely rewritten and CGI scenes were polished. Yes.
Portman and Bale, and even Hemsforth were very very good. An interesting premise, a pathetically written script. Yep, the rewrite would have come in handy. I think, Waititi was indulged too much. By studio, by himself. Just no one told him to take it more seriously. Completely wasted time it was for me.
@@CATDHD I found Portman a bland non-entity. Bale was good.
Lmao that is not at all the analysis I would've gone with. It was somehow a worse Thor: Dark World, I don't know how it's supposed to be good
The interesting bit about narration in films - the narration also has to add something to the story. If someone is expositing a story where you can clearly see and hear what is going on, it feels redundant and boring. If the narration, however, tells us, the viewer, something about the characters that the characters don't want to confront or is not revealed in character dialogue or expression, then it becomes witty and adds another layer of dimension to the story.
Character A: "I like red wine," he said to the pretty girl beside him. *Face is grinning, excited while he orders a glass of red*
Narrator: [Character A] Did not in fact like red wine, but he recalled the first time he'd ever looked at a beautiful woman. The lady across the street who always drank red wine matching her lipstick. It wasn't the wine that held his attention. It was her lips. The same lips he now found on the woman across from him he so desperately wanted to please.
The dialogue above is garbage, so forgive me, but the narrator in this example gives us insight to Character A's memories we were not privy to before. Thus adding to the story.
The lack of subtext sometimes feels like being held in contempt by the writer. Almost like they're convinced that the audience in general, and me in particular, couldn't possibly be smart enough to understand their masterpiece without having my hand held the whole way through.
It's more laziness, first drafts often have expositional dialogue
This movie was so unbelievable bad, really sad compared to how good the third movie was.
the third was terrible too
@@nalday2534the third one was amazing compared to Thor 1 and 2
@@aperson8420nah it's garbage. first is the only decent thor movie so far
@@nalday2534 Very much agree, so refreshing to hear someone else share this sentiment. 3rd movie was bad, just like the 4th. I won't even mention Dark World lol. 1st was the only movie worth a damn.
Third was a good comedy. But most of the issues in the 4th were present in the third, except the humor was better and its flaws therefore much less egregious.
The subtext dialogue was fantastic learning tree for me. Great video.
This entire movie is an exercise in not trusting the audience. I believe Hemsworth said something about this being a story written by a 7 year old. I don't know if that was supposed to be a slight jab at Waititi (even though he seemed to be saying it as praise), but I posit that this is a story written _for_ 7 year olds. Characters are constantly explaining what they're feeling, as if conveying emotion was not possible in any other way. Scenes have to stop so characters can describe the events that are happening on the screen out of fear that the audience might not understand the incredibly simplistic story. Poor attempts at humor are constantly breaking the flow under the impression that the audience won't be able to keep their attention otherwise. I've ranted before about this being an issue in MCU movies since Phase 3, but this movie is where it's at its most prevalent.
I would like to highlight something my friend told me that really changes how I look at the movie. Korg isn't just the narrator in parts where there is narration, Korg is telling the story the whole time, and Korg is a somewhat unreliable narrator who is a bit silly, and importantly here doesn't really do subtext.
I really think that's what the writers were going for, and that's why this movie is as zany as it is, Korg is telling the whole story, however I also think that was a mistake. They nailed it, they achieved what they wanted really effectively in this scenario, but overall for the audience it just isn't good
I just had an idea. What if the writers cut the silly story at half time and started describing a very very dark reality for the restbof the movie? I mean the vilain is literally killing gods.
I've heard this explanation before, but I think it's just copium to cover for the film's weaknesses. Too many jokes? Korg is a silly, unreliable narrator. Thor acted like a total dumbass? Korg is a silly, unreliable narrator. None of the drama ever landed with any impact? Korg is, again, a silly, unreliable narrator.
I saw people using this same hand-waving when it came to the Birds of Prey movie, where some people felt they could just explain away anything dumb in the film as "Oh, Harley is an unreliable narrator."
And, if that was actually the case, then it would be a really lame way to cover your ass as a writer. If people like the film, hoorah! Oh but if they don't, the writer can just take refuge in "Oh, that was told by an unreliable narrator, the REAL story wasn't quite as silly." It's a unique take, but is little more than a theory meant to explain away any deficiencies the film had.
@@empiricalsmut9419 I totally agree. Even if movie is actually supposed to be unreliably narrated by Korg (which it obviously wasn't), then how about producers find some competent and reliable narrators instead? We don't need explanations, we need a good movie with a solid storytelling. I don't give a spit if it's by Korg or David Fincher, I just need it to be good.
Korg is literally Taika Waititi. Its not even a character. Korg being an unreliable narrator only says about how much of a shitty job Taika did.
@@empiricalsmut9419 Don’t drag B.O.P. into this!!
The thing that bugs me most about this movie was the tonal inconsistencies; ragnorok was funny to be a one off and make things dark when infinity wars hits, it worked and marvel just said "lets do that again" after thor lost everyone in his family, (especially his recently reconsiled brother) and half the universe because he didnt "aim for the head"
Marvel also realized how strong thor should be, they didn't put him in civil war, they only had him fight hulk for a second and he started annihilating him, he took on thanos and the full power of the stones in seconds, because hes op. When he showed up to wakanda, everyone knew the fight was over. But then they thought "ragnarok was fun lets do that again" and they just completely leave his history
Arcane does an amazing job of this throughout the series, but perhaps especially in the beginning. In a matter of a couple minutes we are introduced to the overarching conflict of the show, the main characters and their history with the conflict, the relationships between these characters, and we even get hints at the toll it all has taken on them.
Spoilers:
Another great example is the Jinx vs Echo fight. Two characters who previously had little interaction are given a fairly fleshed out relationship during a fight scene!
But they had to show up their relationship through the animation of the fight -- A lot of people watched that and were confused bc it felt like "why are we supposed to care that they played as kids when this is the first time we're seeing it -- they could have shown us a hint of that somewhere in the first three episodes")
@milkflavored Good point. We did know they were all friends, but I don't disagree, though I do think it has a certain unique impact, or flavor, by revealing it the way it did.
There's a hidden element to writing subtext that most writers don't think will be a problem for them until they try it. . . and that's trusting the audience.
Subtext leaves things open to audience interpretation. Some writers just can't handle the idea of someone misinterpreting their story beats. Taika Waititi's narration reeks of this insecurity (and this is my biggest flaw as a storyteller as well!)
also trusting the actors to deliver on those hidden emotions
You beat me to it. I was gonna post "This is happening because the Target Audience is dumb as rocks for those 2 hours and just wants to turn their brain off and be spoon-fed the story... probably while trying to keep their preteen child quiet, or while thinking about if the kids are OK with the new babysitter"... but your explanation sounds better and more polite 😅
This is "Thor 4", not "Oppenheimer" nor "The Irishman".
It's justifiable, Disney marvel fans are mostly stupid - especially lacking emotional intelligence. They're mostly narcissists and sociopaths, not normal people. Gotta spell feelings out for them. Subtext will fall flat.
@@ChineduOpara I think of of the main issues is that the audience got indoctrinated into this state throughout the years by show writing. US shows were rather dumb for decades, if you ask me. They basically would show you in a flashback who comitted the crime and later have some dialog retcon this information.
The issue becomes rather obvious if your average US viewer tries to watch a show like Netflix' DARK in which most of the information is conveyed non-verbally. Up to the point where these viewers even claim that something clearly visible in frame was a spoiler because it is later played out in scenes and more important in dialog.
Man you can really tell the difference with directors when the guardians don’t look or feel right
The funny thing is, he keeps saying "this dialogue is not exactly Shakespeare", and Shakespeare was actually very, very explicit in his writing (specially on the monologues). It was great though, and there's a reason why it's still relevant today. But... the complexity of his writing wasn't just because it was subtle. Quite on the contrary.
Sure, it's because it was layered. The language is all florid and elaborate, but that's not where the magic is. It's in the story structures, which draw incredible complexity out of clear, direct events. Two families are feuding, and then two teenagers from those families fall in love. So simple and, in the hands of most writers, unremarkable. But look how much complex emotion Shakespeare could tease out of it.
The first (and only) time I saw TLAT, I remember wondering if Chris Pratt and Chris Hemsworth shot scenes separately and the dialogue was edited together later, it felt THAT unnatural.
from your voice to knowledge of movies to your ability to find the examples and teach, you are so soothing and nice to listen to. when I'm doing other things that don't require brain power but I want to think or listen [e.g. driving] I'm starting to turn to you, thank you for what you post.
also normally I don't get engrossed in movies and just watch them as if it's a job but going through what your videos you help me get engrossed in the movies and it brings a new light to lift and entertainment thank you
The Closer Look: subtext
* Disney writers have left the chat *
Really interesting take on this. I think if Korg had narrated the Sixth Sense he would have started the film with "He thought he was alive, but he was actually dead..."
I enjoyed that "Thor Four falls for this problem and it falls for it hard"
there's something about poetic devices that immediately commands one's attention
Better Call Saul is a great example of a show that uses subtext masterfully.
I second that. It's not /quite/ as good as Breaking Bad, but it's an awesome example of great writing nonetheless.
Aside from Wall-E, one of the best films at subtext is the 2005 Pride & Prejudice. They did a great job of visually translating Jane Austen's theme of problems arising through characters that are bad at communication. The subtext when Lizzy and Mr Darcy meet again at his home is so on point. Also watch how Lizzy and Mr Darcy react non-verbally to their bare hands touching for the first time. It's simply electric. Watching this video essay also made me remember a review of the Eragon film, which pointed out that Saphira's emotional beats might have come across stronger if they removed her mental voice, relying instead on the existing animators' work. Watching the clips of Thor 4 presented, it's astounding to me there was narration put in those scenes, because they're actually giving plentiful information from visuals and camera-work alone. One can tell what was going on with Thor in those montages of fights and dating all too easily. Though it sounds like the Korg narration might have been purely so Taika could put himself more front and center, his own ego getting in the way of the storytelling.
I'm sure that having to work for Disney played a role in this... Whether because his heart wasn't in it and/or their meddling... Because anyone who's ever seen his works like Boy or Hunt for the Wilder people or Jojo Rabbit know that Taika is MORE THAN CAPABLE of writing with subtext beautifully.
it's sad because I can only imagine how much better Marvel would be if it weren't owned by Disney
I’ve noticed this becoming more and more prevalent in modern movies, subtext is abandoned at nearly all costs
This isn’t a Recent issue at all. Is an issue in the MCU though more than before
For a great example of working-for-your-meal dialogue, watch Better Call Saul. I’m watching season six and I’m in awe at how many times characters warp dialogue and fake emotions to manipulate each other. It’s such a fun game to guess why they are saying or doing things and what their endgame is. And when it comes, it’s so satisfying.
14:20 lmao I love the “even if you’re hyper vigilant” as you’re typing your credit card number into an email.🤣🤣🤣
As a writer myself… I found myself learning a lot from this video.
Such as the value of the good mantra, “Show don’t tell.”
I really love you giving examples of how to fix the writing problems and why it’s better. I wish more critique channels did that.
3:00 definite respect for the point you just made here, and i totally agree, that would have felt much more authentic to those two specific characters, etc thank you!!!
LITERALLYY!!! you completely explained that first scene so good. I was watching it in the movie theatres and didn’t understand wtf I felt. The scene happened so fast and it felt rushed and random. He was all of the sudden “sad”. It through me off. And as soon as it ended I talked about it to my friend cause I couldn’t let it go
I do think, though, that every single scene being layered with subtext could eventually become exhausting for the audience. Sometimes, giving an answer or two directly in strategic moments can keep the audience engaged. I even noticed this from working at an escape room. Even when I get a group that doesn't want hints, giving them one every now and again keeps them engaged and stops them from getting frustrated because they don't understand something.
I appreciate this comment -- i think writing should have a good mix
Exactly! Not everyone is meant to speak like 3 lines in a scene, the best kind of writer knows how to balance the two.
@@TheGreatPM1 He said himself he's not Shakespeare. These are just example one off lines for a youtube video. You can have sequences with more dialogue that also use subtext.
@@CarbonComs I never said he was Shakespeare nor did I say that you can not do both of them at the same time. I was just saying not ever scene should have subtext
@@TheGreatPM1i don't think that should be a rule. it always depends on the scene what you should use but in general, it should always be a conscious decision to decide against subtext.
"I shall die on the battlefield in battle" is certainly a line featured in a movie.
I feel like Taika was going for a Monty Python-like narration and it is similar, but I'm not smart enough to figure out why it doesn't work.
Monty Python is wittier.
Monty Python are funny
Because the humour around the narration was that of a 4 year old humour that simply points out what you're already seeing is not funny, it completely kills the joke when I see something funny and someone else simply just repeats what happened that everyone clearly saw
Subtext, the skill you don't notice it until it's either not there or done so poorly it's literary a slap to the face instead of subtle hints.
Show, don't tell. Or, in this case, play music and act, don't talk.
Exactly great subtext is worked out instantly by the viewer most of the time subconsciously you only notice a lack of subtext or poor subtext, take rings of power for example the subtext behind galadriel is that because shes the main character she's pretty much no matter what she does is never her fault and she's a good person this leads to a lot of scenes of her being the most vile person on the show but the subtext from the scene such as the music the shots her facial expressions and overall portrayal of her makes it seem like we're supposed to sympathise and pity her yet she'll then go on to do some more vile shit soon after, but because she's the protagonist the writers just want her to be seen as the good person the subtext in that show is god awful, the subtext tries to say one thing but how the character is written says the complete opposite
9:13 I've never seen a dialogue put it in that way that it changes my point of view of the scene, it's a deeper level of understand basic human emotion and social cues in a subtle way. You have to be there and see it in a real life conversation to know that the woman dont want to talk about it further therefore changing the topic by shifting the focus to the guy back, but to write it in a story, using your imagination the visualize the scenario while also making them as humanly as possible is that its like real people are are actually talking is Amazing. Truly this channel is amazing in ways that makes you analyze the scene in different stands, different in how others perceive it