• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

MCU Love & Thunder Spoiler Thread

Valiant_Abyss said:
Sorry to interrupt all the scaling talk but I just got around to watching the movie.

The cinematography were stunning like most marvel movies (especially the shadow planet fight). CGI was also solid throughout the film (aside from the floating head) and the fight choreography and action was really solid as well. And they left that Thor ass uncensored.

But a lot of the issues I've seen people talk about are totally justified. The tone was all over the place and timing of quips and upbeat moments were waaaaaaaay way off. Its ironic the way the movie begins with Gorr being horribly wronged by the god he worshipped so much and then the very next god we see after Rapu is Thor acting in an uncaring and reckless manner on the battlefield. Insane how the scenes will jump from a suffering man who lost everything > "Funny" scene > Major character has stage 4 cancer > "Funny" scene.

Sometimes they don't even separate the somber from humor with scene switches like when there's a room full of terrified Asgardians who don't know where there kids are and then the writers decide to have Thor crack a few jokes with everyone's full attention paired with some weapon jealousy humor before and after Thor's speech. They even double down when Thor is directly speaking to said kids who have been kidnapped by ******* shadow monsters to a desolate, dark planet by having Thor crack up a good joke.

The movie does a better job of managing the tone in the later acts but the piss poor consistency in the first half is too atrocious to ignore. Its almost like there was blatant regression with Thor's character. You think that all the loss he's gone through in phase 3 that he'd be more empathetic and serious about this stuff, but nah. It almost feels like I'm watching his character right after the events of Thor 1. The character regression was so bad that they really had to remind us of the suffering that Thor went through, through the use of recaps by Korg and a few back tattoos.

This isn't to say that Disney isn't allowed to use Thor in a comedic manner, but maybe don't try to do it in a movie where the antagonist is someone who went through similar pain as Thor as a result of negligence from the gods, and then have Thor nonchalantly try to make everyone laugh for most of the movie.
Click to expand...
Taika Waititi won the screenwriting Academy Award two years ago for a comedy about Hitler-as-imaginary-friend to a kid during the Nazi Holocaust in Germany, which had many jokes mixed with a Jewish sympathizer being hanged to death and ends with children watching invading Allied troops kill their countrymen. So I'm not sure the tonal criticisms of Love and Thunder add up. I think the real issue is that the MCU is changing how it tells stories and that annoys people.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/02/oscars-2020-adapted-screenplay-taika-waititi

 
ParkerKent007 said:
Taika Waititi won the screenwriting Academy Award two years ago for a comedy about Hitler-as-imaginary-friend to a kid during the Nazi Holocaust in Germany, which had many jokes mixed with a Jewish sympathizer being hanged to death and ends with children watching invading Allied troops kill their countrymen. So I'm not sure the tonal criticisms of Love and Thunder add up. I think the real issue is that the MCU is changing how it tells stories and that annoys people.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/02/oscars-2020-adapted-screenplay-taika-waititi

Click to expand...

From what I've heard of people who have seen both JoJo Rabbit (I think that's the movie you're referencing) and Thor: Love and Thunder, I've heard that the comedy actually was handled really well in that film, but they didn't think the same of L&T. Love and Thunder suffers from trying too hard to be funny with unfunny jokes about screaming goats. On top of that, it's a far cry from Ragnarok, where even though humor was introduced, it still knew when to take itself seriously when necessary. For example, in Thor: Ragnarok, the sendoff of Odin was originally supposed to be a funnier scene, with Odin being portrayed like a homeless man, but this idea was abandoned for a more serious tone of film. Even then, Ragnarok felt like two different movies, with the buddy comedy film on Skaar, and the darker storyline with Hela on Asgard. Love and Thunder has that problem on steroids and crack cocaine, since it appears as if no one takes the main antagonist, Gorr, seriously. There's no urgency from them, and that time is spent cracking jokes. Oh yeah, and screaming goats.

Also, there's a weird dynamic with some directors where they can have devices they use in their original works and receive praise for them, but not so much when they work on projects with an already established mythos. One example of this Rian Johnson's work on another Disney owned property: Star Wars, specifically, Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Rian Johnson typically uses the practice of subverting expectations in his works, something that was done in TLJ, and the majority of fans disliked it. However, he uses the same practice of subverting expectations in his own movie Knives Out, and the movie was generally well received. Just because a director has a particular niche that gives them success with their own entirely original work, it doesn't guarantee that it will always transfer over to an established franchise or mythos. If you want an example of a device or niche that transfers well to an established mythos, I would give the example of Sam Raimi's experience with horror, such as with his own works like Evil Dead transferring relatively well to things like Spider-Man 2. In that movie, there was a scene where Doc Ock kills a bunch of people in an operating room, well, his mechanical arms do. This is great at showcasing that Otto is no longer in control, his arms are, and it shows what lengths they'll go to in order to accomplish their goals.

So yeah, those are my thoughts on it, at least.
 
ZoroNotZolo said:
From what I've heard of people who have seen both JoJo Rabbit (I think that's the movie you're referencing) and Thor: Love and Thunder, I've heard that the comedy actually was handled really well in that film, but they didn't think the same of L&T. Love and Thunder suffers from trying too hard to be funny with unfunny jokes about screaming goats. On top of that, it's a far cry from Ragnarok, where even though humor was introduced, it still knew when to take itself seriously when necessary. For example, in Thor: Ragnarok, the sendoff of Odin was originally supposed to be a funnier scene, with Odin being portrayed like a homeless man, but this idea was abandoned for a more serious tone of film. Even then, Ragnarok felt like two different movies, with the buddy comedy film on Skaar, and the darker storyline with Hela on Asgard. Love and Thunder has that problem on steroids and crack cocaine, since it appears as if no one takes the main antagonist, Gorr, seriously. There's no urgency from them, and that time is spent cracking jokes. Oh yeah, and screaming goats.

Also, there's a weird dynamic with some directors where they can have devices they use in their original works and receive praise for them, but not so much when they work on projects with an already established mythos. One example of this Rian Johnson's work on another Disney owned property: Star Wars, specifically, Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Rian Johnson typically uses the practice of subverting expectations in his works, something that was done in TLJ, and the majority of fans disliked it. However, he uses the same practice of subverting expectations in his own movie Knives Out, and the movie was generally well received. Just because a director has a particular niche that gives them success with their own entirely original work, it doesn't guarantee that it will always transfer over to an established franchise or mythos. If you want an example of a device or niche that transfers well to an established mythos, I would give the example of Sam Raimi's experience with horror, such as with his own works like Evil Dead transferring relatively well to things like Spider-Man 2. In that movie, there was a scene where Doc Ock kills a bunch of people in an operating room, well, his mechanical arms do. This is great at showcasing that Otto is no longer in control, his arms are, and it shows what lengths they'll go to in order to accomplish their goals.

So yeah, those are my thoughts on it, at least.
Click to expand...
Kinda nailed it but it's literally to a OD'd extent in LaT, it's as Hemsworth said "the story was sacrificed for jokes" which is very apparent from how ass and tone death that film was
 
Last edited:
Dalesean027 said:
Kinda nailed it but it's literally to a OD'd extent in LaT, it's as Hemsworth said "the story was sacrificed for jokes" which is very apparent from how ass and tone death that film was
Click to expand...
Just for accuracy, Hemsworth said this about a four-hour cut that was never in theaters:

https://collider.com/thor-love-and-thunder-extended-cut-chris-hemsworth-taika-waititi-comments/


So I've heard the movie has a lot of deleted scenes. You guys are two for two. I love the way you guys work together. I'm speaking for all fans when I say that. The movie's about two hours. I would've taken a four-hour movie. So how long was your first cut? Are there a lot of deleted scenes?

WAITITI: It was about four hours. And a lot of time on set ... We were talking about this before, like when, in the moment, you're like, "This is the greatest thing that anyone's ever filmed in the history of filming things." And you get into the edit. You're like, "I still kind of like it." And then, after about six months of it being in the movie, you realize it was fun on the day but it doesn't have any business being in the movie.

HEMSWORTH: Batshit crazy, wild, four-hour cut I've ever seen.

WAITITI: Yeah.

You actually saw it?

WAITITI: Yeah, he saw it too. There are so many things in there. I mean, one day it will ... It should be ...

HEMSWORTH: We need a director's cut, or the whatever you want to call it cut.

WAITITI: It's like "the anyone's cut."

HEMSWORTH: "The anyone's cut." Yeah.

WAITITI: The everything bagel.

HEMSWORTH: It was about four hours. It was like a Monty Python sketch.

WAITITI: Yeah.

When people say the four-hour cut, I'm like, "Oh, that's the assembly. People are never going to see it, but it was an actual... So it's a four-hour actual movie."

HEMSWORTH: Pretty much. I wouldn't call it a movie.

WAITITI: I would feel like it's more of an assembly. I think you're right. It's more of an assembly.

HEMSWORTH: An assembly of, like, madness.

WAITITI: Really, about five times, it just gives up on the story and just like just for like 10, 15 minutes of just telling jokes.

HEMSWORTH: The story was sacrificed for jokes.
 
Honestly I get why a lot of people don't like Love and Thunder. It's a huge tonal departure from his franchise, his comic book characterization, and anything else in the MCU. Personally I love it. And I think the most accurate gauge of its performance is a combination of the 77% Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score and the $341M+ domestic box office. The former means a clear majority of the audience liked it and the latter means it's the most financially successful Thor movie in Disney's most profitable market. (Omitting China and Russia, where this movie did not show, it's the biggest Thor box office total.) Taken in isolation, either data point is useless. But taken together, they do mean that a solo character movie that is 4-deep into a franchise is still making a lot of people happy.
 
ZoroNotZolo said:
From what I've heard of people who have seen both JoJo Rabbit (I think that's the movie you're referencing) and Thor: Love and Thunder, I've heard that the comedy actually was handled really well in that film, but they didn't think the same of L&T. Love and Thunder suffers from trying too hard to be funny with unfunny jokes about screaming goats. On top of that, it's a far cry from Ragnarok, where even though humor was introduced, it still knew when to take itself seriously when necessary. For example, in Thor: Ragnarok, the sendoff of Odin was originally supposed to be a funnier scene, with Odin being portrayed like a homeless man, but this idea was abandoned for a more serious tone of film. Even then, Ragnarok felt like two different movies, with the buddy comedy film on Skaar, and the darker storyline with Hela on Asgard. Love and Thunder has that problem on steroids and crack cocaine, since it appears as if no one takes the main antagonist, Gorr, seriously. There's no urgency from them, and that time is spent cracking jokes. Oh yeah, and screaming goats.

Also, there's a weird dynamic with some directors where they can have devices they use in their original works and receive praise for them, but not so much when they work on projects with an already established mythos. One example of this Rian Johnson's work on another Disney owned property: Star Wars, specifically, Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Rian Johnson typically uses the practice of subverting expectations in his works, something that was done in TLJ, and the majority of fans disliked it. However, he uses the same practice of subverting expectations in his own movie Knives Out, and the movie was generally well received. Just because a director has a particular niche that gives them success with their own entirely original work, it doesn't guarantee that it will always transfer over to an established franchise or mythos. If you want an example of a device or niche that transfers well to an established mythos, I would give the example of Sam Raimi's experience with horror, such as with his own works like Evil Dead transferring relatively well to things like Spider-Man 2. In that movie, there was a scene where Doc Ock kills a bunch of people in an operating room, well, his mechanical arms do. This is great at showcasing that Otto is no longer in control, his arms are, and it shows what lengths they'll go to in order to accomplish their goals.

So yeah, those are my thoughts on it, at least.
Click to expand...
Yep, you nailed it
 
ParkerKent007 said:
Honestly I get why a lot of people don't like Love and Thunder. It's a huge tonal departure from his franchise, his comic book characterization, and anything else in the MCU. Personally I love it. And I think the most accurate gauge of its performance is a combination of the 77% Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score and the $341M+ domestic box office. The former means a clear majority of the audience liked it and the latter means it's the most financially successful Thor movie in Disney's most profitable market. (Omitting China and Russia, where this movie did not show, it's the biggest Thor box office total.) Taken in isolation, either data point is useless. But taken together, they do mean that a solo character movie that is 4-deep into a franchise is still making a lot of people happy.
Click to expand...
I mean, if it pleased you, then it's okay, that's the most important, having fun. I didn't hate it but I didn't really like it either but that's just my opinion
 

Jesus Christ Nearly Made a Cameo in Thor: Love and Thunder

As crazy as it is to say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase Four has brought us a lot of divisive projects but nothing has been more talked about online than Thor: Love and Thunder which has torn the fandom. While some thought it was an overall good follow-up to 2017's Thor: Ragnarok, others...
epicstream.com epicstream.com

Friendly reminder that Thor briefly mentions a God of Carpenters in Omnipotence City and Zeus mentions a prize going to the god who has received the most human sacrifices. Now, can you guess wich God exactly would be receiving mass human sacrifices in the 21st century?
 
Last edited:
ArkhamDC06 said:

Jesus Christ Nearly Made a Cameo in Thor: Love and Thunder

As crazy as it is to say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase Four has brought us a lot of divisive projects but nothing has been more talked about online than Thor: Love and Thunder which has torn the fandom. While some thought it was an overall good follow-up to 2017's Thor: Ragnarok, others...
epicstream.com epicstream.com

Friendly reminder that Thor briefly mentions a God of Carpenters in Omnipotence City and Zeus mentions a prize going to the god who has received the most human sacrifices. Now, can you guess which God exactly would be receiving mass human sacrifices in the 21st century?
Click to expand...
No wonder Thor was dressing like him in the movie
 
ArkhamDC06 said:

Jesus Christ Nearly Made a Cameo in Thor: Love and Thunder

As crazy as it is to say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase Four has brought us a lot of divisive projects but nothing has been more talked about online than Thor: Love and Thunder which has torn the fandom. While some thought it was an overall good follow-up to 2017's Thor: Ragnarok, others...
epicstream.com epicstream.com

Friendly reminder that Thor briefly mentions a God of Carpenters in Omnipotence City and Zeus mentions a prize going to the god who has received the most human sacrifices. Now, can you guess which God exactly would be receiving mass human sacrifices in the 21st century?
Click to expand...
Naw, bruh. That would've been outta pocket.
 
Do we count deleted scenes for profiles? Cause in the deleted scene wher he gives the Thunderbolt to Thor, Zeus turns a branch into another Thunderbolt and then teleports by himself, so he would get Transmutation and Teleportation if we count this



Also, can we all agree this scene is MUCH better than almost the entire movie?
 
ArkhamDC06 said:
Do we count deleted scenes for profiles? Cause in the deleted scene wher he gives the Thunderbolt to Thor, Zeus turns a branch into another Thunderbolt and then teleports by himself, so he would get Transmutation and Teleportation if we count this



Also, can we all agree this scene is MUCH better than almost the entire movie?
Click to expand...

I don't think we count deleted scenes as abilities
 
ArkhamDC06 said:
Do we count deleted scenes for profiles? Cause in the deleted scene wher he gives the Thunderbolt to Thor, Zeus turns a branch into another Thunderbolt and then teleports by himself, so he would get Transmutation and Teleportation if we count this



Also, can we all agree this scene is MUCH better than almost the entire movie?
Click to expand...

Tbh the movie wasn't even bad but the formulaic MCU schick has long gotten stale I shouldn't be able to accurately predict how most of the film will play out, a quarter of the way through. After rewatching it on Disney+, L&T (like most of Phase 4) is hard carried by teasers, Easter eggs and references (ofc we don't know how much Covid impacted filming but come one! Sif was reduced to a blatant cameo just to remind the audience that the MCU does still "remember" her if you didn't watch Loki).

That said I am really getting annoyed by the "humour" now, the fact L&T made fun of Thor's suffering and trauma was insulting (he literally loses another loved one at the end of the film WTF!?!) but Gorr was definitely mistreated by the script too, "The god-butcher" yet he only killed one deity on screen and spent most of the film as a child-napper just ugh...

Still a typical average superhero film not awful but nothing impressive either, it's the kind of film you can play in the background or fall a sleep to (6/10 for me).

Also I like how L&T retroactively made Wanda an even worse person, Thor got a permanent tattoo to always remember his dead brother meanwhile Wanda in MoM "what brother?".
 
The_Axiom_of_Virgo said:
That said I am really getting annoyed by the "humour" now, the fact L&T made fun of Thor's suffering and trauma was insulting (he literally loses another loved one at the end of the film WTF!?!) but Gorr was definitely mistreated by the script too, "The god-butcher" yet he only killed one deity on screen and spent most of the film as a child-napper just ugh...
Click to expand...
This. And like I said, I think the humour was much better handled in Ragnarok
The_Axiom_of_Virgo said:
Also I like how L&T retroactively made Wanda an even worse person, Thor got a permanent tattoo to always remember his dead brother meanwhile Wanda in MoM "what brother?".
Click to expand...
Can't remember what you're referencing here
 
The_Axiom_of_Virgo said:
It's a snide reference to Wanda saying "what mouth?" in MoM after the smartest man alive told her exactly how Black Bolt's power works and how she wanted to go to a universe where her made up children (that she knew for about a week) are alive but not her brother (that she grew up with) or her husband for that matter.
Click to expand...
Oh ok, didn't understand it at first, I was like "what does Wanda have anything to do with Thor?!" lol
 
Back to scaling Thor as star-level for a minute. Why isn't it sufficient to say ... ?:

1. Zeus rules Omnipotence City, which Thor repeatedly calls home to the most powerful gods in the universe

2. Thor lists Ra, an Egyptian sun god, as among them and worthy of fighting alongside him against Gorr

3. Egyptian gods also include Khonshu, who moved countless stars onscreen after already causing a lunar eclipse also onscreen

4. Thor beat Zeus, so Thor scales above Zeus and all other known gods in pantheons with access to Omnipotence City, including Khonshu

5. It is irrelevant how Khonshu moved stars -- hax, spatial manipulation, through avatar Moon Knight, etc. Without Khonshu, Marc Spector is just a normal powerless human man. So either way, Khonshu still did it.

Why can't we just use this logic?
 
ParkerKent007 said:
Back to scaling Thor as star-level for a minute. Why isn't it sufficient to say ... ?:

1. Zeus rules Omnipotence City, which Thor repeatedly calls home to the most powerful gods in the universe

2. Thor lists Ra, an Egyptian sun god, as among them and worthy of fighting alongside him against Gorr

3. Egyptian gods also include Khonshu, who moved countless stars onscreen after already causing a lunar eclipse also onscreen

4. Thor beat Zeus, so Thor scales above Zeus and all other known gods in pantheons with access to Omnipotence City, including Khonshu

5. It is irrelevant how Khonshu moved stars -- hax, spatial manipulation, through avatar Moon Knight, etc. Without Khonshu, Marc Spector is just a normal powerless human man. So either way, Khonshu still did it.

Why can't we just use this logic?
Click to expand...
The only part is heavily disagree with is Thor being above Zeus for beating him cause he didn't do it by himself, he caught Thunderbolt and threw it back at him, essentially using Zeus's own weapon against him, it's not by himself that he defeated him so he shouldn't be considered as above Zeus

Otherwise I agree with all the rest, it's just that we need VERY solid elements to back up such a massive upgrade to make sure it will get accepted
 
ArkhamDC06 said:
The only part is heavily disagree with is Thor being above Zeus for beating him cause he didn't do it by himself, he caught Thunderbolt and threw it back at him, essentially using Zeus's own weapon against him, it's not by himself that he defeated him so he shouldn't be considered as above Zeus

Otherwise I agree with all the rest, it's just that we need VERY solid elements to back up such a massive upgrade to make sure it will get accepted
Click to expand...
Can't you just use Zeus being fearful of Gorr and Thor actually holding his own against him to argue Thor > Zeus?
 
NaturalDestroyer said:
Shouldn't Thor catching a 4-C attack count?
Click to expand...
This. If the argument is that Thor needed Thunderbolt to drop Zeus, but Thor caught Thunderbolt, that means both Thunderbolt is comparable in power to Zeus and Thor is comparable in power to Thunderbolt. That is not circular logic. The logic pegs on the power of Thunderbolt. One man stopped it, the other fell to it. The one who fell to it scales above star-level Khonshu. And Thor scales above the one who fell. Hence Thor scales above star-level Khonshu.
 
Last edited:
ZoroNotZolo said:
Can't you just use Zeus being fearful of Gorr and Thor actually holding his own against him to argue Thor > Zeus?
Click to expand...
Zeus is fearful of the Necrosword, not Gorr himself, he makes it clear when he gets close to Thor "He has the Necrosword, which means he can kill us", he specifically mentions the sword, not Gorr himself, as the reason why he prefers to stay in Omnipotence City and wait for the sword to kill Gorr (yes the sword empowers Gorr but again, he precisely and specifically talks about the sword and not the man). And even then, it doesn't change the fact Thor beat him with his personal weapon, not by himself so that doesn't count. I wouldn't mind something like "Fought Gorr, who was empowered by the Necrosword, whichc even a god like Zeus feared" or something similar though
 
ArkhamDC06 said:
Zeus is fearful of the Necrosword, not Gorr himself, he makes it clear when he gets close to Thor "He has the Necrosword, which means he can kill us", he specifically mentions the sword, not Gorr himself, as the reason why he prefers to stay in Omnipotence City and wait for the sword to kill Gorr (yes the sword empowers Gorr but again, he precisely and specifically talks about the sword and not the man). And even then, it doesn't change the fact Thor beat him with his personal weapon, not by himself so that doesn't count. I wouldn't mind something like "Fought Gorr, who was empowered by the Necrosword, whichc even a god like Zeus feared" or something similar though
Click to expand...
Then Thor and Jane, who Thor empowered, destroyed the Necrosword. So the power of Thor beat the Necrosword, which Zeus feared.
 
ParkerKent007 said:
Then Thor and Jane, who Thor empowered, destroyed the Necrosword. So the power of Thor beat the Necrosword, which Zeus feared.
Click to expand...
You kind of forgot to mention Thor was using Thunderbolt, Zeus's own weapon, which he considered he needed to fight Gorr as he thought it would be a good replacement for an entire army of gods, while doing it
 
NaturalDestroyer said:
This is very valid. Also Thor did prefer Stormbreaker over Zeus' Thunderbolt, having wielded both.
Click to expand...
This not a proof of Thor's overall power honestly, Stormbreaker is his personal weapon, of course he feels better using it than the weapon of someone else, it's like how Obi-Wan feels better at using his own lightsaber than Maul's lightsaber
 
ArkhamDC06 said:
You kind of forgot to mention Thor was using Thunderbolt, Zeus's own weapon, which he considered he needed to fight Gorr as he thought it would be a good replacement for an entire army of gods, while doing it
Click to expand...
But Thor took Thunderbolt from Zeus mid-attack, when Zeus threw it with intent to harm. Zeus knew Thor as an Asgardian, and son of Odin. He was not playing with Thor there. So Thor taking Thunderbolt to use against Gorr required Thor to possess sufficient power to even stop Zeus' attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V999
Thor VS Tartaglia (0-7-0) GRACE
Replies
19
Views
2K
Woomica
Woomica
  • Locked
3-B MCU Thor (Onscreen + WoG Proofs)
Replies
3
Views
1K
Propellus
Propellus
  • Locked
18 MCU Thor High-Tier Coincidences (Not Feats!)
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
NameyMcname2024
Marvel_Champion_07
  • Locked
[MCU] Thor: Love and Thunder
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
Emirp sumitpo
Emirp sumitpo
  • Locked
2-B MCU Thor & Thanos: WoG Proofs
2 3 4
Replies
128
Views
7K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Back
Top