Chris Hemsworth says it’s time for another “drastically different” version of Thor
"I think it would have to be a drastically different version in tone, everything, just for my own sanity," Hemsworth said on a recent podcast appearance
Aux News Thor
Chris Hemsworth is in press tour mode of late, doing the rounds to promote his current Nat Geo/Disney+ documentary series Limitless. (Which, tragically, is not about what would happen if someone gave Hemsworth that pill.) The ensuing slate of interviews has had revelations both somber and not—including Hemsworth revealing he carries a genetic trait that’s linked to a heightened risk of Alzheimer’s disease, and that he intends to take more time away from work to spend with his family.
But it’s also, naturally, had a whole bunch of Thor talk, including a recent appearance on Josh Horowitz’s Happy Sad Confused Podcast [h/t Screenrant] in which Hemsworth pretty bluntly stated that he’s done with the more comedic version of the character that appeared in Thor: Ragnarok and this summer’s Thor: Love And Thunder, both directed by Taika Waititi. “I don’t know if I’m even invited back,” Hemsworth hedged, echoing comments he’s made about his uncertainty with the franchise at the moment. (Love And Thunder posted a perfectly respectable $760 million at the global box office, but drew middling notices from both audiences and critics.) “But if I was, I think it would have to be a drastically different version in tone, everything, just for my own sanity…”
As Hemsworth himself notes, the reinvention of Thor has been built into the franchise at this point; it’s not for nothing that both the most brutal, and the most goofy, versions of the character appeared in Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame, after Ragnarok had already shored up the character’s comedic bona fides.
Meanwhile, Hemsworth has also talked recently about his experiences filming on George Miller’s upcoming Mad Max: Fury Road prequel Furiosa, praising Miller and saying that working with him has shaped how he wants to proceed on any future project. This is per that Vanity Fair interview he gave last week:
I’m just at the point of my life where I’m meeting with different directors and [people say] “Oh yeah, look, he’s a mad genius. He’s mad, but he’s a genius and he’ll make great films.” I’m like, “Is that who I want to spend my days with?” Four months, five months of shooting and then you’ve got press and possible reshoots and so on.
By contrast, while calling Miller “a genius,” Hemsworth said,
But not the mad type. One that is very aware of how his energy affects others, and how he has the power to make your day fantastic or shitty, and chooses for it to be a positive experience. The whole crew, everyone is in a better mood. It baffles me that some people in that position don’t understand that.
Some people, understandably, have seen Hemsworth’s comments in that interview in the context of his professional relationship with Waititi. (Despite the fact that, as far as we can tell, he’s never said a negative word about their time together, and that he was only talking about future projects in that snippet of the conversation.) The best indicator in that department, obviously, will be to see if the two men end up working together again—although it sounds like the Thor franchise won’t be the most likely place for such a reunion.
124 Comments
I mean, I don’t really know how many different directions you can go with the character. He’s a big lunk who wails on CGI monsters with a hammer/axe and I guess is kind of sad his mom/dad/brother/girlfriend died. You can either play that straight or comedically, and they’ve already done both. I still happen to think the comedic take is the superior interpretation, but…yeah, after Love and Thunder I don’t know if Waititi has anything more to offer.
Hear me out…you could have a movie that doesn’t center around Thor losing something and having to grow from it and / or accept it.
Definitely, but that’s more of a plot thing than a character thing.
“Definitely, but that’s more of a plot thing than a character thing.”
I mean, it’s VERY specifically a character thing, but OK.
I want a movie where Thor looses everything and just goes FULL BERSEKER MODE for an hour and half.Have him fighting his way out of fucking Hell or something. Absolute carnage. Pure asgardian swords and sorcery. No cameos from anyone. No “this is movie number 3 in phase 6 of the MCU” stuff. And absolutely no fucking Multiverse bullshit. A straight-up one-shot. A self contained adventure.I could deal with that.
The next film will have him find something and reject it.
If you could recapture the essence of what Thor had in the 1st film, who was immature but showed earned growth by the end (an emotional, sincere arc) and shine a lil of that Ragnarok light on him… would do good.
Thor fights crime in a city where it’s perpetually raining and filled with red lights and gets really into… let’s say Pearl Jam.
How about Thor fights Pearl Jam?
I’m already in line!
Just Jeff Ament, and Ament can only fight in that stupid fucking hat and the jerseys he wore during Ten. There’s no way that’s not a villain’s costume.
Thor is Ticketmaster?
Oooh, Thor has been brainwashed by the Ticket Master!
Bettergod.
His girlfriend didn’t “die,” as in the movie sense, since she ended up in Valhalla. So, if Natalie Portman wants to do it, she could come back as the new Thor.Of course, would Portman want to do it? I suspect that as long as it’s her movie and not “the girlfriend” roll, she would do it. But who knows.
I honestly don’t get how people love Ragnarok, but hate Love and Thunder. They’re so similar.
Wait till the next one comes out and then there will be wave of ackshullys
That’s the problem – it felt like an old-school sequel, doing the same again as a cash-grab.
I maintain Love and Thunder improved on what Ragnarok did. Ragnarok had a few moments where the comedy undercut the drama, whereas Love and Thunder juxtaposed the two really effectively in my opinion.
I actually feel the exact opposite about the exact same thing you said. Love & Thunder approaches goofiness at times, Ragnarok finds a way to be funny yet still take its action set pieces seriously. Here you had Russell Crowe wearing a dress.
Like…. what the hell is that scene where Thor summons a helmet in an attempt to one-up Jane’s costume? I mean obviously that only exists because of selling new toys in that new Thor outfit but like that scene is so stupid and only exists as like “ha isnt this bit funny”.
I disagree. Well, I agree that Ragnarok “had a few moments where comedy undercut the drama,” but I think that problem is waaay worse in Love and Thunder.
All I can say is it worked better for me. Yeah L&T was goofier, but the contrast felt more deftly handled.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Fair enough!
“I disagree. Well, I agree that Ragnarok “had a few moments where comedy undercut the drama,” but I think that problem is waaay worse in Love and Thunder.”This was my issue. Ragnarok had a couple cringy moments like that (the jokiness about Asgard blowing up leaps to mind), Love and Thunder felt way too rushed and unfocused to let the emotional moments hit before zooming to a joke or winky moment.
Yup. I love them both … but Love and Thunder really seemed like it burnished the formula, to an even better effect. Couple that with the welcome return of Natalie Portman, and a compelling villain, and Love and Thunder was pretty damn good.THAT being said … I do agree that it might be time to lean in a bit of a different direction. I couldn’t help but think, oddly, of Thor a bit when watching Wakanda Forever, in that, much like Ramonda, Thor has lost everyone in his life, AND his home world. I’m not looking for a searing meditation of grief and loss in the next Thor, but maybe spend a bit more time on that aspect of his life?
Brace yourselves, I preferred Thor 2 to Thor 3 and took one look at Thor 4 promotions and thought “Yeah, I’m not touching that.”
Who hurt you?
It must be hard to live with a mind broken like that. 🙁
Ah, the rarest of breeds—a Thor 2 defender!
Thor 2 has Chris O’Dowd who is technically best Marvel Chris .So there’s that.
Thor 2 is like a bowl of mud, by far the worst single mcu movie
you must be the only person who liked Thor 2, that movie was the biggest piece of shit ever.
That’s not what I said and you’d have seen that if you’d had both your eyes open. Or in your case, a second eye in the first place. Isn’t that right, Scott?
what didnt you say? i thought you said you liked Thor 2. You preferred it to 3.
I also liked Thor 2 as a dark fantasy film, especially with the Loki/Thor interactions and the gravity of Freya’s murder.But I wouldn’t go so far as to argue that it was good.
If Ragnarok had come out in the past two years it would have been savaged for being woke, LGBTQ-adjacent, kiddie bullshit that “ruined Thor’s deep Viking heritage and lore.” It caught a nice dip where angry men were at least stoked that Trump was president and the last Thor movie was so mediocre no one really cared.
This comment is hysterical.
I read the Jane Foster books so initially I really liked Love & Thunder. The people I saw it with said they preferred Ragnarok. This week I decided to re-watch Ragnarok… it is a lot better than I remember. Definitely better. There was like a handful of jokes in Ragnarok that Taika just did bad sequels to those jokes in Love & Thunder.
It’s classic sequelitis. Liked that thing from the first movie? Well, here’s precisely that same thing…but more!
See, I didn’t like Love and Thunder precisely because I was such a fan of the Jane Foster books. It just rushed her storyline so much, and had so many other subplots competing with it.
I honestly don’t see what the point was of having Hemsworth’s Thor in this at all. His arc was pretty much over in Endgame, as much as Captain America and Iron Man’s. For him to stick around with those two gone seems like it needs much more justification than what we got here. The movie would have been much stronger had it just focused on Jane’s Thor learning what it means to be a God while also dealing with this huge human problem. As it was, we don’t really get much of her perspective on Gorr or any actual thematic contrast between those two characters. It just felt like a waste.
Asked and answered. Ragnarok was kind of lightning (har har) in a bottle, and Love and Thunder was such a sweaty and obvious attempt to recreate that magic that it fell flat.
I’m going to put forth a bold and unconventional theory:Ragnarok has Loki in it, a lot of Loki. Love and Thunder has no Loki in it. That’s why a lot of people like Ragnarok better.Also: L&T was by far my favorite Jane Foster appearance in any of the films, but her love affair with Thor has always been the weakest story element, and the sitcom-y treatment of it in this final film (especially underlining it with the “love triangle” between Mjolnir and Stormbreaker, which for me was a weak chuckle that didn’t need repeating after the first gag) didn’t do a lot to redeem it. And then she dies, so it’s kind of just an awkward bummer all around.
But there’s plenty of Valkyrie being awesome and Jane being awesome and stuffed bunnies with laser eyes and, indeed, Russell Crowe being a ridiculous sweaty Vegas act of a Zeus, so that’s all fun and I like it just fine.
Ragnarok had Cate Blanchett’s Hela in it . Therefore its the best Thor film…nay the best Marvel film.( Also if Loki got a TV show , Hela deserves one too)
a weak chuckle that didn’t need repeating after the first gag
This sums up every running gag in the movie. There were plenty of good one-off jokes, but the harder the movie committed to a bit the worse that bit turned out to be. Ragnarok, for all the issues it shared with this one, didn’t have that problem.
Thats it exactly.
This is how I felt. Ragnarok was the first Marvel movie I watched in theatres because the trailer for it, with him and Hulk trash talking each other, felt so perfect. It was weird and quirky but it felt totally natural. Love and Thunder just felt like it was trying to do camp for the sake of doing camp. It felt stuttered and unnatural and forced.
I think Love and Thunder is a pretty big step down but overall an enjoyable film. The hate for it seemed overblown.
Yeah, Ragnarok is my favorite MCU film, so if Love and Thunder is noticeably worse, that doesn’t necessarily make it bad.
“They’re so similar.”
They’re not. The tone of Bale’s character is at 100% odds with the tone of the rest of the movie. The Crowe scenes are ridiculous and stupid, not charming and funny like most of Ragnarok is.
Ragnarok is funny, Love & Thunder is not.
I honestly don’t get how people love Ragnarok but weren’t deeply, deeply disappointed in L&T.
They are similar except that Ragnorock knew when to stop trying to be funny. The Valkyrie massacre, the scene where Odin dies. Zero undercutting jokes there.
Personally I just feel like L&T just ramped up the comedy to a scale that was just too much. Maybe because Thor spends the first part of Ragnarok (before Sakaar) in kind of a serious mode while the jokes more kind of come from Loki or Dr. Strange’s cameo and that the big final battle is cooler imo, as opposed to L&T actually working comedy into its finale with a bunch of powered up thunder-kiddies.I guess if I had to make it more succinct, Ragnarok felt like an action-comedy and L&T felt like comedy-action and it just didn’t mesh as well. Or maybe it’s just that Loki and the Hulk were much better comedic partners than Jane, who can say?
Love and Thunder was dialed to 11, but I admit didn’t dislike Ragnarok as much.
They’re similar, but everything in Love and Thunder is varying degrees of worse by comparison to Ragnarok. I don’t know what to say if you think that the writing, pacing, characters, and plot are on equal footing.
Ragnarok was funny and Love and Thunder wasn’t. That’s the difference.
I enjoyed ‘Love and Thunder’ more than most. The one issue I have with it, which is perhaps an issue more with the MCU as a whole, is I still don’t understand what a god is in this universe. I thought Thor and the Asgardians were just powerful aliens, but now they’re in a class of beings that exist across the universe in all different societies, but are somehow the same. And are they related to the gods we saw in ‘Moon Knight’, who appear to be bound to earth? Does Konshu ever go to that big golden city and speak to Zeus?
You’re right on the nose: similar…but lacking any sort of life.It 100% felt like Waititi was just checking boxes and phoning it in, despite it definitely being a “Waititi” movie.
I think Love & Thunder just had 25% too much Taika (and I’m a fan)
The big difference to me was that in Love and Thunder Thor just felt too dumb. In Ragnarok, he was obviously somewhat silly, but the character felt more grounding for the film; it seemed like he was reacting to ridiculous events and emotions as a more reasonable person, even though he was also a bit silly as a defense mechanism and had a sense of humor and whimsy. In L&T, by contrast, it felt much more like he was just oblivious, and the humor came a lot from him reacting impossibly stupidly to a lot of what was happening around him. As a result, the film lost its center, and became zaniness for the sake of being zany, without anything really giving it weight (aside from the Jane cancer storyline, which was dark but almost secondary). It made the whole thing feel emphemeral. I don’t even mind the silliness, but for a movie to go from sporadically amusing to great it needs to have something that gives it weight, and L&T lacked that. (I didn’t mind it – I actually rather enjoyed the film, just not as much as many other MCU offerings.)That’s why I like Ragnarok much more – it (like the GotG films) did a great job balancing real pathos with utter absurdity, whereas L&T seemed to sacrifice the former in favor of just doing more of the latter.
They’re similar but the overall stakes are totally different.With Ragnarok, we’re hit with Odin’s death from the start, the casual ‘destruction’ of Mjolnir, and then the death of the Warriors Three in quick succession. Then Hela gets ready to start executing people to get the Bifrost key while also revealing that Odin had a total tyrant period that he hid from everyone. The humor is there but the stakes are set in that Hela has no problems killing Asgardians warriors and civilians alike. We’re also clearly shown that she lives up to her hype considering she dismisses the Tesseract entirely and uses the Eternal Flame to resurrect her followers instead of for personal power. She’s such a threat that the only way to deal with her is to summon a bigger threat and run away while hoping it stops her.
Something that also isn’t made really clear is how much grief is molding Thor’s actions in Love and Thunder. At the start of the film, he’s lost his entire family, most of his friends, his relationship with Jane, and Mjolnir while also deeming himself unfit to rule his people and appointing Valkyrie as King instead. The entire film (and most of MCU Phase 4 films) seems to be focused on how to deal with loss. Gorr dealt with it by going on an offscreen God murdering spree. Thor dealt with it by going on adventures with the Guardians of the Galaxy. Jane dealt with it (and her own mortality) by becoming The Mighty Thor. When Jane and Thor reunite, they get into spats that take away from the film because it just seems juvenile and the film focuses on that more than the villain.
For all that Gorr is perceived as a threat, I think we only see him kill a single throwaway god
who was totally unlikable. Some of the leaked concept art and
storyboard stuff makes it seem like he could’ve been irredeemably evil
on screen at one point but they either cut a lot of his
actions out of the film or had a major rewrite to tone him down. It’s like Love and Thunder couldn’t decide what it wanted the focal point to be and went too far into the Thor and Jane relationship and keeping things lighthearted to the point where it hurt the overall narrative.
Foster’s Thor should’ve been the main focus in Love and Thunder. That was their first mistake. Most of the movie felt like a parody because of how over the top was with its comedic value. Yes Ragnorok was very comedic, but they didn’t undercut the serious moments by immediately following it up with a joke. Too many moments in Love and Thunder weren’t allowed to be serious because it was all done with tongue in cheek.
Probably has something to do with the fact that Ragnarok was a tonal shift. If I had to pick which one I liked more I would go with Ragnarok, but at the same time I enjoyed Love and Thunder immensely. But I also went into Love and Thunder with the understanding that it wasn’t going to hit me like Ragnarok did. Ragnarok took Thor from being this weirdly Shakespearean god-viking and turned him into a heavy metal space viking, which for my money is a hell of a lot more interesting than Shakespeare. Love and Thunder was just more of that and while more of that isn’t a bad thing it’s certainly not as striking.
I think that the humor in Love and Thunder is just way over the top. In Ragnarok it’s a little bit more restrained.Ragnarok is balanced out by Odin’s death and Hela’s arrival in Asgard where she proceeds to kill everyone.It isn’t till Thor lands on the Gamemaster’s planet that the humor gets cranked up.Love and Thunder is a straight up comedy to me. Crowe was practically channeling Monty Python’s Life of Brian. And it doesn’t help that Gorr the God Butcher is the worst villain thus far. How different might that movie have been if he had appeared in Omnipotence City and lived up to his name by wiping out half of the Gods gathered there?
I think it’s a pretty easy thing to see: Ragnarok had a much stronger dedication to plot. All the funny stuff like Hulk wound up being in service of that plot. In Love and Thunder, despite the again apocalyptic plotline, they’re just fucking around for a REALLY long time.
I guess everyone has their own take, but I personally felt that L&T leaned into the zaniness WAY too hard, while also trying to make us care about the “god killer” without much development. The end result is a mess. Ragnarok seemed to hit a much better balance.
If you think about it, Jane’s Mighty Thor arc is a long poignant arc, and the whole God Killer story is a long somber, brutal arc. Smashing the two together as an action comedy is not a great choice IMO.
Ragnarok is actually funny and strikes just the right balance. L&T is just unfunny farce. Also Ragnarok has a killer soundtrack by that Devo dude.
Ragnarok was really refreshing. Love and Thunder was a complete repeat. Plus plot holes. Plus a feeling of “I really want to put these comic pages on screen, and I don’t really care what it does to the movie”. I admire their energy but found the film quite disappointing because Ragnarok was so satisfying.
Hate’s a strong word, but seeing as Ragnarok is the MCU’s second best Hulk film, it does elevate it a bit.
Probably because Ragnarok benefited from Tom Hiddelston as Loki, much like Adam Driver’s Kylo Ren, the driving reason to watch any of those films because let’s face it, none of the Thor movies or Star Wars sequels are particularly any good but at least that one particular character is enjoyable.Also Jeff Goldblum
Yeah they are an I enjoyed both. Frankly the funny Thor is better than the non funy Thor.
I’m a big fan of Raknarok, and Love & Thunder is the most I’ve enjoyed anything from Marvel since the first Iron Man and Captain America: First Avenger. But a change in direction for Thor sounds good too.It’s entirely possible that Hemsworth isn’t saying anything negative because while he likes Waititi, he just doesn’t want to deal with him and/or his work style every day. I certainly know people like that. Also likely that he’s just a classy guy and an actual adult who doesn’t want to shit-talk him or air professional grievances in public.
Depending on how the Loki show plays out in S2 I would like to see him return for Thors final movie. Close the circle/book on those two just to have a smidge of happy ending.But I’m also fine with how Love and Thunder left it, Dad Thor traveling the universe and doing good while raising his “adopted” daughter.
They could always, you know, have someone else take a shot at playing the character.
He’s also going to be closer to forty-five than forty by the time another slot for a solo Thor movie comes around, and keeping in Thor shape has got to take a toll.
… all the more reason to perhaps look at the King Thor storylines from the comics.
He wants Thor to die. And I get that.
Personally I get the vibe that he wants out but doesn’t want the character to die (which I get because that’s just a bummer and it’d be silly if they started making it so the only way out of this franchise is as a corpse). So if he can’t leave but wants to do other non-goofball characters, well then might as well make Thor into less of a goofball.
If they do kill him off, it amuses me that the last living original MCU Avengers would be Hulk and Hawkeye, and at that point I’d be rooting for Hawkeye to win that tontine.
(googles “tontine”)
Exactly
Hawkeye has won that, I think. Norton’s Incredible Hulk is still canon, or at least in continuity with the She-Hulk show.
Better call Kenny Loggins.
We don’t know Cap is dead. We just know he’s really old.
He became president.
But he’s only 1500 years old, he has so much life ahead of him
I can understand Hemsworth as an actor wanting Thor to go into another direction. He’s played the role about a dozen times both live action and voice over. Given the general response to Love and Thunder and where he is with his life now, it make sense that he’s hesitant to return. Or he would like to kind of finally have his own swan song and move on. I felt for most general audiences who saw Love and Thunder felt that unlike Ragnarok, Love and Thunder went overboard with the silliness.Thor had a middling reputation at the box office when he went solo compared to the Avengers. Thor 2 wasn’t as loved and everyone pretty much had the same feeling they need to try something different with Thor if he’s in a non-avenger movie.Ragnarok was a breath of fresh air for many viewers. They weren’t expecting Thor to have more fun with itself, so it was a pleasant surprise. Yes it undercut the serious drama that could’ve been when Bruce found out he was Hulk for years and never reverted. But, as one critic said, it’s a Thor movie, not a hulk movie so just enjoy the ride. Another reason I felt Ragnarok was successful, because it knew how to balance the silliness and the serious moments. And it came off as a fun ride.However maybe Taika Waititi misinterpret why the general audience loved Ragnarok and thought everyone just wanted goofy Thor to the max. And it just went way too far with the goofiness to the point it felt more like a gimmick shoehorned in the story. So whenever it did get serious with Jane or Christian Bale I thought the movie felt more interesting, but then it would quickly go back to it’s slapstick comedy that general audiences weren’t feeling it like before.From what I’ve seen from both critics and comments from viewer is that they didn’t hate it. It was just the equivalent at trying to have fun at a party while there’s that one person so drunk they kind of ruined it from being an epic party.
I think this is an astute observation. I’m reminded of when our favorite bands / singers release a breakthrough album, and then for various reasons the followup is more of the same.Nothing wrong with that, but it’s the same reason we’ll all be tired of leftovers by Saturday — what was once new and exciting is now repetitive.I’d also add in the usual qualifications about the pandemic and its effects on well, everything.
So Franz Kafka, “A Hunger Artist.”
https://www.kafka-online.info/a-hunger-artist.html
For years fans have (unjustly) called Thor 2 – which is dark and somber – the worst mcu film. So they overcorrected and made him a sitcom goofball. By the time he gave Stormbreaker his first beer I’m like, Is he supposed to have a concussion or something?
I kinda took it as a existential/mid life-type crisis affecting his behavior. He lost literally everything and is kinda jumping at whatever new thing he thinks will be interesting. (like traveling with the Guardians)
But he knows an axe… can’t drink, right? Like, what the hell?
Yeah but like I said, he lost everything, his father, his sister, his world, most of his close Asgard battle friends, the people of Asgard he was supposed to to protect in his father’s stead and failed to protect, including Loki his brother, Jane (twice), also got overconfident and allowed Thanos to complete the snap because he didn’t go for the head shot. He gained weight and became a alcoholic gamer with a potbelly. I think talking to his weapons is pretty reasonable for the trauma he’s gone through.
Maybe if he felt more traumatized in this movie that would work — although it sounds incredibly sad. But he seems pretty zen at this point.And again, talking to it is one thing, but he POURED A BEER OVER IT SO THE AXE COULD HAVE ITS FIRST BEER. So Thor is either too wacky or, as you suggest, his brain has been broken by grief. And if that’s the case, I feel the overall tone of the film should have been way more somber.
Zen or overcompensating (he bulked the fuck up for the movie) and is more then overly excited to put his past losses behind him. Hence his treating basically his closest friend, a weapon, as a person.
idk I’m not convinced. I thought it was another try-hard joke in a sea of try-hard jokes. Like when Valykrie was tickling Thor’s nose while he’s trying to comfort the scared children.
Maybe. But I think it was really his only friend at that point and Thor is a party God and considered his weapons his best friend. Why not gift him some beer. I mean, the weapon IS alive.
idk about stormbreaker being his only friend. What about Korg and Valkyrie? I bet they like beer. Look, axes don’t drink. I’ll die on this hill.
Okay, I meant more then just a friend. He’s a part of Thor.Obviously Thor has regular friends.
EDIT: I love this discussion.
I really enjoyed the back and forth of this conversation. Bravo you two.
Nice to have a fan.
I just came off of reading a comment section back and forth between an obvious anti-vax troll and a different kind of dummy. It’s just nice when people aren’t so rude to each other on line.
Well, now I kinda feel bad for sending him all those death threat DMs.
They could follow the comics, make it serious again, do the King Thor thing.
They’ll lose many a female and Disney Adult viewer that way which is a way to kill a franchise.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/10/06/nielsens-thor-love-and-thunder-cobra-kai-tower-over-lord-of-the-rings-rings-of-power-game-of-thrones-house-of-the-dragon/?sh=23866c52633e
lol
I would love a bit of a return to Shakespearean Thor (minus the Dutch angles). Really though, Thor is best when played off Loki so they would need to fix that.
The MCU is currently in multiverse mode, so now would be a good time to recast. If they do it right they could easily explain a new thor actor showing up.
How about Thor as a black-and-white arthouse film?Thor: I ate a tangerine yesterday. I thought it would taste like the tangerines I ate as a boy, sweet and vibrant.Valkyrie: Did it?Thor: No.*a single tear falls down his cheek*
Directed by Werner Herzog.
This is beautiful
Welp.Maybe now they can do what they should have done originally, and just copy-pasted the entire Walt Simonson run from the comic, wherein Thor has been exiled to Earth for *years* (YEARS) and has actually matured and, in fact, started his own (medical) practice as his undercover/alter ego, Donald Blake.The series starred an incredible, storied and well-fleshed-out cast of Asgardians, complete with their own back- and side-stories, not to mention GOBS of superhero-level and existential-level villains.And! An incredibly sinister, darkly humorous, intelligent and Machiavellian Loki.There’s a solid 6-movie series or 2-season TV series-worth of material to mine from.(And – to Hemsworth’s vibe: there’s an entire chapter of the saga wherein Thor loses his “Thor-ship” to an alien hero named Beta-Ray Bill for a while, and another time where Thor gets transformed into a (Thor-like) frog for a spell.)
There’s an excellent Marvel answer to a “very different” Thor.Beta Ray Bill.
But you have to consider Asian and female segments of the market.
No one wants a movie to go full ugly.
Man what?I’m pretty sure a Beta Ray Bill TV series or movie would do just fine. If you’re making some sort of oblique comment that you need a “hot dude” in it (but why “Asians” in that case lol wtf?), just supply some other hot dude to be BRB’s buddy and hang around with his shirt off (I’m sure there are plenty of random gods/demigods who would fit the bill).
Save Thor for the next Secret Wars/Kang Dynasty films. I’m okay with not seeing Thor for a while. Let his little girl grow up a little more. If they’re serious about “killing Thor”, that should be in an Avengers film, not another solo film.
Frog
Really not super complicated, he wants to play his Thor Lear. Fine, big up his beard, give him his eyepatch, and you don’t even have to kill him, just have him ride a chariot off into the distant universe to explore creation, maybe leaving behind Love to be raised by a certain awesome Korbonite.
Thor: The Glory HoleWith Taika Waititi as the Glory Hole.
Thor is Thor, he doesn’t change. Next your going to suggest Spider-man really wants to be a butterfly.
So he’s waiting for a not-terrible version. Huh.
Love and Thunder was an incredible mess. I really can’t believe it got released…I felt like I was high while I was watching it and…was I high? I don’t recall. basically Waititi took it too far, and there wasn’t enough plot to back it up and it wasn’t quite funny enough. Turning Thor comedic was a brilliant idea, and really saved the character after the glowy-cave nadir, but it has now run its course. I’m not sure how you can reinvent Thor again without displacing Valkyrie and several other characters who are now major in the Thoriverse, but that is probably the way to do it. That said, becoming self-serious again probably isn’t the best idea.
To me we never really go that much great Thor content, he spends too much time powerless or depressed/overweight and not enough time being a god.
Thor doesn’t have to be a comedy character. He can be a grim, legendary hero who smites evildoers. Viking heroics! Action. Vengeance. Some comedy is fine, but every movie doesn’t have to be a comedy