In the entire Marvel MCU movie system, the most special one is the "Thor" series. Due to the early development, the first two films of "Thor" appeared very ridiculous after exploring the immature style. The first film directed by Kenneth Branagh was successful in shaping the tension of characters and drama, but it left several important hidden dangers unsolved. First, as the title character, Chris Hemsworth’s image and performance are not problematic, but the silly character lacks enough charm, which is as interesting and lacking as a real hand, which also makes Tom Hiddleston’s Rocky can stand out from the crowd; second, the description of Asgard in God’s Domain is an absolute failure. Kenneth Branagh’s highly staged approach makes this full of potential The alien (feudal) world has become a blank, paper-like background board (the same problem is more deadly in "Inhumans"), so that the role of Thor hasn't got a foothold, so he sent to the earth town to fall in love. This problem has not changed in the sequel. The whole movie is exhausted between a few scenes, failing to establish a unified and energetic worldview.
After more than a dozen movies, the Disney-Marvel system has finally narrowed the breakthrough point of creation. In the early films of the series, it played a role of embellishment and adjustment of the atmosphere of the comedy bridge, after the second stage of "Guardians of the Galaxy", the main goal is to revert to the guest. Compared with the "X-Men" next door, which played new things with mutants, the creators of Marvel were eager to shrink their stalls, changing from personal adventures to infinite gem battles, which led to the movie's story clues and characters. It was destroyed and filled with a lot of comedy content to please the audience. In the entire MCU movie series, the most watchable ones often have nothing to do with Infinite Gems ("Iron Man" and "Captain America 2"), and are not so keen to entertain the audience, and have relatively serious thematic discussions.
This makes the future direction of the "Thor" series a bit embarrassing. After the two unsuccessful films, should we go on to the concavity-shaped alien Shakespeare show, or should we learn how to make the alien brothers have no lower limit?
Marvel chose the latter, and the MCU became schizophrenic again.
Kevin Fitch and Marvel are no strangers to selling dog meat. "Iron Man 3" used the Mandarins to smash all the audience, "Thor 3" turned into a comedy by remakes, making the serious tone set by "Avengers 2" become tomorrow's yellow flower-shelving in the title What about "Twilight of the Gods"? What about the death of thousands of people and the whole family? Is it enough to play high enough?
Of course not.
The form of superheroes is advancing with the times. From Robin Hood to modern comic book heroes, the righteous act of supporting justice and maintaining social order has evolved from robbing the rich and helping the poor to fighting against the extinction of the outsiders. But the reason why superheroes are superheroes is not because they excel and can't, but because of the corresponding social responsibilities they bear. Peter Parker being bitten by a spider did not make him a Spider-Man. It really made him a good neighbor in New York. It was Uncle Ben who made him aware of his responsibility. The responsibility involved in his life and death is so great that it can change a person's soul (Speedball in the "Civil War" comics). But under the Disney-Marvel system (especially the comedy-overloaded non-Jos Weeden/Russell Brothers movies), the cartoonized worldview relieves superheroes of this heavy social responsibility, abuses violence and ignores life and death, and is highly entertaining. With lack of seriousness, the entire MCU has become a playground bombarded by superpowers, and it has also opened a sufficient "safe distance" from the audience, which is very dangerous.
Of course, Marvel movies can achieve entertainment and commercial success by being detached from reality, but detachment from reality will never make a movie a good movie.
Of course, as far as "Thor 3" is concerned, this movie is not as inspiring as the first two, and is in the same line as most movies in the second phase of MCU, and has similar advantages and disadvantages. In terms of advantages, Marvel finally corrected the problem of weak villain's image, and sent two at a time. With the successful experience of "Guardians of the Galaxy", Thor finally stopped being bitter and bitter, and finally had some fun. In the second stage of the entire MCU, the movie also faces the problem of limited innovation. In short, the audiovisual experience we got in "Thor 3" (video game-like cauldron of popular culture), in two "Avengers", two "Guardians of the Galaxy", one "Doctor Strange" I've seen it all in China.
In other words, in terms of the increasingly narrowing Marvel-style innovation, "Thor 3" is nothing new, but its existence is enough to save some face, especially in the performance of secondary actors. Jeff Goldblum’s masters are just as suitable as tailor-made, and the external personality is full of charm, even more eye-catching than Cate Blanchett. And the small group surrounding Thor finally had a reasonable display space and got rid of the fate of the human background of the first two movies (although the rank is much higher than the Guardians of the Galaxy). The narrative transition from Shakespeare's play to Buddy Comedy makes Thor finally look relaxed and fashionable.
Although successfully transformed into an entertainment product, "Thor 3" did not completely repair the series' original problems in the protagonist settings.
If we compare a series of middle-aged and elderly action films by Liam Neeson such as "British Showdown" and "Hurricane Rescue", we will find that the reason why the former brings a refreshing feeling lies in the development of the protagonist's identity. The same special forces/agents. In Liam Neeson's movie, we will subconsciously feel that it is reasonable for the danger to appear around the protagonist, but it is quite different in Jackie Chan's. In the narrative form of the movie, he is first a father, and second, a fighter. This allows the audience to empathize with the scene where the protagonist is in, and gives him a deep meaning to his battle.
But for most of the time in the "Thor" series, we hardly remember that Thor was still an alien crown prince-even he has hardly done anything in line with this identity. The more the film emphasizes that he cannot rely on brute force to become king, the more he has to show his raw power. This is one of the negative effects brought about by the background of God's Domain. During the protagonist's adventure, his behavior lacks original motivation. In most (Marvel) action movies, there is always a personal grievance between the protagonist and the villain, because this is the most effective way to achieve persuasiveness-no matter how the sky falls, annihilating the invaders of the five major planets in the galaxy is It's far more absurd than the drug dealers next door come to seek revenge.
Although rudimentary, but effective. However, the connection between Thor's personal motives and heroic identity is very vague. In the first two movies, the image of lovers who were forcibly arranged in order to unfold the story on the earth is so weak that we have never seen it in other MCU movies. In "Thor 3" directed by Taiga Viditi, although this situation has improved, not only is it difficult for us to see the earth, even Asgard has to abdicate to the virtuous.
The Guardians of the Galaxy can be groundless, hippy smiling cosmic swingers, but Thor can't. Otherwise, Thor is not Thor, but Drax, another brainless destroyer. In the entire MCU, Chris Hemsworth’s joy often comes from other people’s simple reactions to his muscular mind. In Thor 3, he seems to have found a suitable outlet for self-awareness. To some extent, it absorbed the charm of Iron Man and obtained a fresh dramatic expression. But whether this new style of joy fits Thor's previous image and positioning is a matter of opinion.
Saturated CGI effects, exaggerated action design, and lack of suspense plots, these important elements that constitute MCU movies, have once again been fully displayed in Thor 3. Compared with the second third of the film, which is out of reality and the customary battle between gods and monsters, the first two thirds of the film are more watchable.
Although "Thor 3" is the best movie in the series, it is not the credit of director Taiga Viditi alone, but the collective creative solution of Marvel Studios in the post-"Guardians of the Galaxy" era. Today, when the Marvel blockbuster can still be domineering, we can't find any reason to reject such a fast food movie that will not have any major problems or surprises. But the desire for surprises, of course, has never been too much.
View more about Thor: Ragnarok reviews
