or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thor 2 - Page 4

post #91 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I think I'll go for the 3D while it's in the theaters.
Flying Superheroes are the perfect situation for 3D, IMO.

I'm a huge 3D fan, but just be aware that the director is quoted as saying this was not filmed with 3D in mind (even though he should have known it would be converted).
That can make a big difference in the quality of the conversion.

Just sayin...
post #92 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

My wife and I are going to see it today. Sneaking my own liquor in since, for some silly ass reason, they don't sell it.
You simply are not going to the RIGHT theaters, my friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

There are no problems, only solutions. biggrin.gif

Probably good to bring your own anyway. Considering what a Coke costs at the movies, could you imagine what they would charge for a Rum and Coke? eek.gif
BYOB and spike your Coke....easy solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I'm a huge 3D fan, but just be aware that the director is quoted as saying this was not filmed with 3D in mind (even though he should have known it would be converted).
That can make a big difference in the quality of the conversion.

Just sayin...
I guess I'll wait for some reports before deciding.
post #93 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

There are no problems, only solutions. biggrin.gif

Probably good to bring your own anyway. Considering what a Coke costs at the movies, could you imagine what they would charge for a Rum and Coke? eek.gif

Report back on how you liked the movie.
I liked it very much. Couple of contrived and goofy things I could have done without (what movie doesn't have those?), but all in all I enjoyed the hell out of if. It was worth a theater trip to me, which is rare (2D, of course).
post #94 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I liked it very much. Couple of contrived and goofy things I could have done without (what movie doesn't have those?), but all in all I enjoyed the hell out of if. It was worth a theater trip to me, which is rare (2D, of course).
You enjoyed that is all that matters smile.gif
post #95 of 356
I watched Thor: Dark World 2D Digital last night. Enjoyed it. But one must watch the first Thor movie and The Avengers in order to appreciate what happened here.

By the way, stay for the 2 scenes in the end credits.

I'm already looking forward to the next movie, Captain America: Winter Soldier !

:-)
post #96 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by adpayne View Post

I'm a huge 3D fan, but just be aware that the director is quoted as saying this was not filmed with 3D in mind (even though he should have known it would be converted).
That can make a big difference in the quality of the conversion.

Just sayin...

I thought the 3d was quite good. There are a few of the expected Thor hammer flying at you and the multidimensional openings were effective in 3d...
post #97 of 356
Saw Thor 2 yesterday and enjoyed it very much. I don't go out to the movies as much as I used to, and this one was well worth the trip. Looking forward to the next one.
post #98 of 356
Seven Second Smudge Assessment - Good film, great FX, humor I could live with, and solid action. Story is a solid "B." Now for today's quandry: do you recycle your 3d glasses in the blue box or keep 'em?
post #99 of 356
Late to the party. Rented episode 1 last night. Simply did not know how good it is; nearly on-par w The Avengers. Will likely see 2 in theater.
post #100 of 356
Saw this today and loved it. Fantastic job and better than the first. My only complaint is Natalie Portman... her acting was just weak and emotionless. The little one-liners from her and her little side-kick were annoying and lame. Fortunately we had some proper comic relief in a few scenes with Loki. Great movie though and I may try to catch it again. I only caught the first post credits scene can anyone fill me in on the meaning and what was in the second? Thanks.
post #101 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Kenobi View Post

Saw this today and loved it. Fantastic job and better than the first. My only complaint is Natalie Portman... her acting was just weak and emotionless. The little one-liners from her and her little side-kick were annoying and lame. Fortunately we had some proper comic relief in a few scenes with Loki. Great movie though and I may try to catch it again. I only caught the first post credits scene can anyone fill me in on the meaning and what was in the second? Thanks.
Did you see the 3D?
post #102 of 356
Bummed big time! Didn't get to see this over the weekend as planned. My youngest son was the odd man out stating that he wanted to see Free Birds more than Thor. So my wife took the oldest to see Thor while I got the immense pleasure of watching g Free Birds. Loved the time with my son! Having an entire theater to ourselves was a first time cool for me! But man did that movie stink in every possible way! Our show was over before Thor so when the other half of the family walked out, their faces told all! If I'm lucky I'll get to go maybe Thursday night. Bummed!
post #103 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Did you see the 3D?
Yes, it was pretty solid. Not a lot of pop-out effects but good quality image with excellent depth dripping with detail.
post #104 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Kenobi View Post

Saw this today and loved it. Fantastic job and better than the first. My only complaint is Natalie Portman... her acting was just weak and emotionless. The little one-liners from her and her little side-kick were annoying and lame. Fortunately we had some proper comic relief in a few scenes with Loki. Great movie though and I may try to catch it again. I only caught the first post credits scene can anyone fill me in on the meaning and what was in the second? Thanks.

In order not to spoil the 2 end credit scenes especially the 1st one, you can try to google search its meaning. It has to do with 1 of the next Marvel movies. :-)
post #105 of 356
I walked away from this film wishing I had seen something else. It isn't that the film was bad per se it just felt very average to me. The action didn't wow me and the humor felt stilted and existed often to try and bring life to otherwise boring scenes (for example the "I think better without pants" scene). The biggest issue was the villain was just kind of there, he wasn't threatening and his motives where about as bare bones as possible. Disappointed but not entirely surprised.
post #106 of 356
Solid comic book movie. Action, Humor and bigger then life action. If i had any complaint it that it needed to develop Thor more. Everyone developed but Thor not so much. Still Thumbs up!
post #107 of 356
Thread Starter 
post #108 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

My wife and I are going to see it today. Sneaking my own liquor in since, for some silly ass reason, they don't sell it.
SB1 check your area but you should have a place like this http://www.thetheatres.com/ somewhere. Food and drinks and no on under 18 (21 in other places). I was told AMC has a high end place like this so maybe you are in luck!

Until I looked I did not know it was here. and it has been in my area for years!

Good luck!
post #109 of 356
Okay, so for those who have seen it (I have not), I have a couple of general questions. How does the movie compare to the first Thor? How does it compare to the superhero movies from earlier in the year?

When the first Thor movie came out I thought it was so so. The minimum of what you would expect a superhero movie to be. But my wife liked it best (at that time) and my kids were really into it so I got wrangled into watching it a few more times. The more I watched it the more I liked it to the point of calling it a quality superhero movie at least in terms of solidifying its place in the Marvel franchise. When The Avengers came out it was an extension of Thor concept so overall that tied things up a bit more and further established a strong foothold (for Thor). Moving ahead, when Iron Man 3 came out it just didn't excite me a whole lot. I won't call it bad but I certainly wasn't saying "Aw man, I gotta go back and see that one again!" nor was it a go out of my way for a day one purchase on BD when it was released. I eventually go around to picking it up and have only watched it once. Man of Steel, likewise, I can't say it was bad but not what I expected, which I still don't know if that's good or bad yet. But forever fight scene along with the destruction really just made me disinterested to buy it on BD let alone go back to the theater to watch it a second time. Perhaps when it comes on HBO (or whatever) I'll give it another try and maybe consideration for purchase. I didn't see Wolverine but based on the reviews and comments out here, it was pretty much on par with the other releases.

So in the back of my mind (earlier in the year) I was wondering if there is a "superhero decline" occurring where interest is fading. Or perhaps the ideas are weaker resulting in fading interest of moviegoers. I also said that because of this, there was a lot riding on Thor 2 IMO and it sounds like it not only bettered itself but is also sustaining the superhero phase. So that's the background to my questions because I'm very much interested where the whole thing is going (industry trend wise).
post #110 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Okay, so for those who have seen it (I have not), I have a couple of general questions. How does the movie compare to the first Thor? How does it compare to the superhero movies from earlier in the year?

When the first Thor movie came out I thought it was so so. The minimum of what you would expect a superhero movie to be. But my wife liked it best (at that time) and my kids were really into it so I got wrangled into watching it a few more times. The more I watched it the more I liked it to the point of calling it a quality superhero movie at least in terms of solidifying its place in the Marvel franchise. When The Avengers came out it was an extension of Thor concept so overall that tied things up a bit more and further established a strong foothold (for Thor). Moving ahead, when Iron Man 3 came out it just didn't excite me a whole lot. I won't call it bad but I certainly wasn't saying "Aw man, I gotta go back and see that one again!" nor was it a go out of my way for a day one purchase on BD when it was released. I eventually go around to picking it up and have only watched it once. Man of Steel, likewise, I can't say it was bad but not what I expected, which I still don't know if that's good or bad yet. But forever fight scene along with the destruction really just made me disinterested to buy it on BD let alone go back to the theater to watch it a second time. Perhaps when it comes on HBO (or whatever) I'll give it another try and maybe consideration for purchase. I didn't see Wolverine but based on the reviews and comments out here, it was pretty much on par with the other releases.

So in the back of my mind (earlier in the year) I was wondering if there is a "superhero decline" occurring where interest is fading. Or perhaps the ideas are weaker resulting in fading interest of moviegoers. I also said that because of this, there was a lot riding on Thor 2 IMO and it sounds like it not only bettered itself but is also sustaining the superhero phase. So that's the background to my questions because I'm very much interested where the whole thing is going (industry trend wise).
I liked the first Thor but I went in expecting it to be stooopid and it was good because it did not take itself too seriously. After seeing that and Avengers I felt this was a very solid sequel, better than the first Thor. It did have less humor, or less good humor, more of a sci-fi feel, and the villain was a bit blah. There needed to be more of a historical element connecting the villain to other characters in a way that makes him viable.

I also was very much underwhelmed with MOS and IM3 but IMO Thor 2 was better than both. Hemsworth and Hiddleston deliver in spades, the 3d presentation was very solid, the action sequences are fantastic (without being completely overcooked *cough MOS), and it will serve as an excellent building block for films to come. It does have some faults but I would and may see it again in the theater if that says anything and it will be a day one bluray purchase for me.
post #111 of 356
General Kenobi - Thanks for the response.
post #112 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Okay, so for those who have seen it (I have not), I have a couple of general questions. How does the movie compare to the first Thor?

I saw it last friday (in 2D because as the great Matt once said, 3D can kiss my a$$ biggrin.gifwink.gif - more precisely since it's a conversion, I wasn't interested in the first place)

...I think it's better than the first one mainly for 2 reasons (I won't spoil anything about the story): it has an "epic" feel that I thought wasn't completely there the first time, and the complicated relationship between Loki and Thor is explored even more in The Dark World. I liked the pacing, the humor (and particularly Loki's lines were really funny). Tom Hiddleston shines in his role and steals the show every time he's on screen. Not to take anything from Chris Hemsworth or Natalie Portman or anyone else, but when Loki appears, you always end up thinking the scene was too short smile.gif. He's more prominent as a character too. I've seen complaints about the villain, not being villain enough, or not being very important, maybe it's true, but to me the film is not just about Thor vs. one guy, it's much more than that. So yes, in a way, the villain is not that important, but there are many other things to keep Thor and his friends busy. The music was more "precise" this time around, I don't really know how to say it, but it felt assured, and worked better as well.

Natalie Portman has also a more important role in this story, and dare I say, she's even more beautiful as well. She's absolutely gorgeous. I've read more than a few criticisms about her and her character, and frankly, I don't understand; is it some sort of Anne Hathaway syndrome? I don't know but from my angle she's fine in her role.

It's also a visual treat and Asgard appears even more spectacular and impressive than it was in the first film.

How does the film compare to the other 2 major super-hero films this year? I liked Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 very much as well so I refuse to rank them and make comparisons wink.gif ...But Thor 2 is a very strong film. Like I said, there's some kind of "cinematic grandeur", that gives the film a truly epic nature, at times even an LOTR feel of sorts.


The ending sets the stage for the third film in a great, great way (although I saw it coming).


Be sure to stay until the very end of the credits.....
post #113 of 356
Gottta say I was underwhelmed by the Atmos mix :/
post #114 of 356
Thanks Morph! I like your comment about the "epic feel" or lack there of for the first Thor. I couldn't put my finger on that description but that's exactly what it was for me. Now I can sleep wink.gif It sounds like this is a good installment then both building on the first movie and setting up future movies. But most importantly (relative to my concerns anyway) there doesn't appear to be a comic book/superhero downturn as I had feared earlier in the year. Not that I think or want all movies to be about supes but I am very much enjoying them right now and would like to see it continue for a while, or at least play out completely in a few story lines.
post #115 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

Gottta say I was underwhelmed by the Atmos mix :/

I have a feeling Atmos is turning out to the the evil sibling of 3D and LieMAX these days. I'm feeling that producers are just taking shortcuts by post processing plain jane material into 3D and Atmos to make a quick buck through ticket premiums. I've only missed Oblivion in the theater out of the Atmos releases so far, and felt that only The Hobbit and Gravity had effective implementation of Atmos.

I really liked the original Thor movie, but was really underwhelmed with this sequel. The fact that Loki outshone Thor in character progression is a baffling development. Thor remained a unidimensional character, whereas we see Loki is an always mysterious in his motives and reactions, while Thor is all "Hammer Time" most of the way. Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings are a fish out of water in their roles, lacking any gravitas Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
to play a scientist-type capable of bending the rules of gravity across the multiverse.

The special effects were also hit or miss sometimes. While Asgard is more shiny and splendid in this movie, Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the sound effects of Asgardian ships seem to be ripped off from Anakin's Pod Racer from Star Wars. The freaking multiverse-traveling space ship of the villain has "freaking rotating turbines" showing in the scene where the ship crashes into the courtyard in Greenwich.

I really expected to love this movie, but was left underwhelmed.

6/10.
post #116 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by raaj View Post

I'm feeling that producers are just taking shortcuts by post processing plain jane material into 3D and Atmos to make a quick buck through ticket premiums. I've only missed Oblivion in the theater out of the Atmos releases so far, and felt that only The Hobbit and Gravity had effective implementation of Atmos.
The producers of The Hobbit and Gravity took shortcuts by post processing a channel-based mix to Atmos to make a quick buck through ticket premiums. Surprised you found those Atmos mixes effective.
post #117 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

The producers of The Hobbit and Gravity took shortcuts by post processing a channel-based mix to Atmos to make a quick buck through ticket premiums. Surprised you found those Atmos mixes effective.

Hmm.. didn't know that. At least they did the post processing effectively, and IMO, warranted their ticket premiums. None of the other movies I've seen in Atmos really made me aware of any extra dimensionality beyond a traditional DD/DTS theatrical presentation.
post #118 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by raaj View Post

Hmm.. didn't know that.
Despite Atmos mixes having been in theatres since August 2012, the first movie that was originated in Atmos (not an upmix) was Oblivion in April 2013. Everything before and most movies after were upmixes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raaj View Post

None of the other movies I've seen in Atmos really made me aware of any extra dimensionality beyond a traditional DD/DTS theatrical presentation.
Having caught most of the Atmos releases, I've come to realize that quieter soundtracks (Oblivion, Life of Pi, Brave) or quiet moments in soundtracks (Gollum in the cave) are much better demonstrations of Atmos than loud/noisy soundtracks (Thor, GI Joe, Pacific Rim) that pound you with a wall of sound.

Gravity was the 'killer app' for Atmos, to the extent that it got audiences and people in the industry to finally hear what Atmos was capable of (even though Atmos releases had been around for 14 months). Like when the first spreadsheet program was released and showed small businesses what a personal computer could do.

There have been good and bad mixes when soundtracks were mono, stereo and discrete multi-channel. Atmos isn't some silver bullet that will make poorly mixed soundtracks a thing of the past. Object based mixing is just another tool in the toolbox. Nothing more; and certainly not some "evil" gimmick.
post #119 of 356
meh, it was ok... cant say i liked it better than the 1st ... definitely didnt like all that Portman on screen, exuding a personality lesser than Thors monotonous voice. There were some epic scenes but battle ending was borderline lame.
What was annoying was many blurry scenes (as in low rez) especially the city scapes, generally people closeups looked sharp otherwise (hair, costume details)...
post #120 of 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

...But Thor 2 is a very strong film. Like I said, there's some kind of "cinematic grandeur", that gives the film a truly epic nature, at times even an LOTR feel of sorts.


The ending sets the stage for the third film in a great, great way (although I saw it coming).


Be sure to stay until the very end of the credits.....
I got that LOTR vibe from it too, along with a little Stargate SG-1. Very impressed. smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home