#1 Edited by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

For the most part, Iron Man is considered by many as the best origin story ever in live action. But after watching thor for a second time, I've realized something. This movie is EXTREMELY underrated. I not only believe that this is a fantastic origin story, but it is in fact the best origin comic book story ever made. Now i'm just not going to state a claim, and hope you agree. I'll state the reasons why I believe this to be so down below.

Chris Hemsworth as Thor

Ok tell me that wasn't BADASS!! Aside from the fact that you were probably cringing from Thor's arrogance, which displays hemsworth's excellent portrayal as young thor. Marvel has done an amazing job in casting the right actors for their comic book characters. From Robert Downey jr as tony stark and Chris Evans as Captain America. Chris Hemsworth is perfect for this role. From his young arrogant days to growing up to be the god of thunder we know, Chris Hemsworth nails both excellently. He may not be as appealing to the masses as robert downey jr. is to most, due to personality differences. But as far as nailing his character down, he is equally as good.

The Acting

In all honesty, this movie has the best acting of all the origin stories, and it also has some of the best acting in all superhero movies in general. I've already touched on Hemsworth's thor performance, but Tom Hiddleston's had an AMAZING Loki performance. And Anthony Hopkins as Odin was breathtaking. He was excellent as Odin, and had some of the most chilling scenes and speeches in the entire movie. When all of these 3 characters were in the same scene, it was extremely satisfying.

Character Development

Whats an origin story without character development? Tony Stark had the single greatest character development in Iron Man 1 of all origin story heroes. But lets take a look at Thor. As a young arrogant boy, on the way to becoming king, he gets cast out and is humbled as a result by this, as well as the humans that he meets. The fact that he was willing to sacrifice himself, when he was mortal, to save the people he loved, shows us just how Thor the boy became Thor the God of Thunder. Arrogant Thor would not have done this. But this alone does not put this movie's character development over Iron Man, there is another dynamic within thor the movie that puts it over the top, Loki.

Tom Hiddleston/ Loki was the star of the show, and when a villain takes that claim, its a good thing! Loki shines in this movie better than I would have thought. Throughout the entire Thor movie, you watch two completely different men evolve into 2 completely different people. Loki, after finding out he isn't Odin's real son, begins a downward spiral. You understand loki's desire to make his father proud and prove he can be a king, and in the end, you might even feel sorry for him. This is an EXTREMELY deep and emotional piece that heightens this movie's quality. The fact that you have two parallel, distinct, and equally amazing character developments in one storyline, and intersect in an extremely climactic ending, makes this movie's character development unmatched by Iron Man or any other.

(remember to up the quality)

Thoughts Summed Up & Thor 2

Thor has some of the best acting in all superhero comics, it has perfectly executed, and the most dynamic character development, than any other origin story. Asgard and the entire film itself is aesthetically beautiful, and the movie's third act was extremely satisfying and triggered emotion for a character (loki) who only wanted to make his father proud. It is for these reasons that I believe Thor is the best origin story made in live action to date.

With Game of Thrones director Alan Taylor directing Thor 2 (WOW!!!). And comic book & animation writer Christopher Yost screen writing the movie, who was a writer on X-Men Evolution, Wolverine and the Xmen, and lead writer on Iron Man Armored Adventures and Avengers: Earths Mightiest heroes (WOW!!!). Makes me EXTREMELY psyched for the movie. This seems to be the perfect collection of creators for this. I wouldn't be surprised if its the best comic book movie of the year. Look out for the trailer next week.

So what do you all think? Will you try re-watching Thor from an objective standpoint while thinking about what i've said? Do you agree, disagree? Your feedback would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks for reading! =)

#2 Posted by Reignmaker (2224 posts) - - Show Bio

For the most part, Iron Man is considered by many as the best origin story ever in live action.

Uh...maybe by many...but not most. My vote would be Batman Begins - not only on the quality of the effort itself, but because of the effect it had on the entire movie industry, superhero or otherwise.

Thor actually got a lot of good buzz. Maybe not as much as Iron Man, but it did slightly better at the box office than Captain America: First Avenger. It was a surprise hit, because a lot of people thought that the subject matter would bomb. Thor's villain even made it into the Avengers movie, so I don't know if I'd agree with the underrated label.

#3 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines said:

For the most part, Iron Man is considered by many as the best origin story ever in live action.

Uh...maybe by many...but not most. My vote would be Batman Begins - not only on the quality of the effort itself, but because of the effect it had on the entire movie industry, superhero or otherwise.

Thor actually got a lot of good buzz. Maybe not as much as Iron Man, but it did slightly better at the box office than Captain America: First Avenger. It was a surprise hit, because a lot of people thought that the subject matter would bomb. Thor's villain even made it into the Avengers movie, so I don't know if I'd agree with the underrated label.

Well opinions differ. I don't think Begins had even close to as much of an impact on superhero movies as iron man did. Dark knight definitely took it to another level. But Iron Man one was much more influential. At least in my opinion.

#4 Posted by RustyRoy (9239 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman Begins is the best origin story in my opinion, It also influenced Iron-man, Star trek and many other movies.

#5 Posted by Shark_Repellent_Bat_Spray (745 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman Begins is a far better origin.

#6 Posted by vandinejd_1991 (220 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't know if you can technically consider Thor an origin story in the first place. With movies like Iron Man, Batman Begins, and Spiderman one has to watch the character become the hero that they are known as. The only thing that has changed about Thor is his attitude as the author noted, but I don't think a change in attitude necessarily can be considered an origin story. For this reason I think Thor is one of the best superhero movies I've seen because I am not overly fond of origin stories since the hero only dominates the screen for the last hour or so of the movie. I particularly like sequels the best like The Dark Knight, Spiderman 2, and Iron Man 2. I also particularly like the last movie of a trilogy if that is what the series ends up being because they are the most epic (and yes I do include Spiderman 3 in this as well).

#7 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy said:

Batman Begins is the best origin story in my opinion, It also influenced Iron-man, Star trek and many other movies.

How did it influence iron man? Lol 2 completely different films in every conceivable way. Except the insanely rich part. lol

#8 Posted by ThatGuyWithHeadPhones (7832 posts) - - Show Bio

Honest I LOVED Thor my only real problem was the romance storyline...It felt ...force they should have just gone with the Thor x Sif route but hey It Was awesome

#9 Posted by sagejonathan (1645 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman Begins and then Iron Man as the best origin stories. As a Thor fan, the movie was honestly good. However, there was something to it that didn't make it as good as it could have been.

#10 Posted by JediXMan (27953 posts) - - Show Bio

... no, most people think that Batman Begins is the best origin story, not Iron Man.

And they'd be right. Batman Begins > Iron Man > Thor.

@rustyroy said:

Batman Begins is the best origin story in my opinion, It also influenced Iron-man, Star trek and many other movies.

How did it influence iron man? Lol 2 completely different films in every conceivable way. Except the insanely rich part. lol

To be fair, Marvel didn't get started really taking their movies seriously until they saw how good Batman Begins turned out. Could be a coincidence that the "Marvel revolution" came out after Batman Begins... and the same year as the Dark Knight.

Online
#11 Posted by NorrinBoltagonPrime21 (4686 posts) - - Show Bio

@reignmaker: loki was the only villain alive at the time they can use. Iron monger, whiplash, and red skull are dead. Abomination is held in us/shield custody meaning he isnt usable. Loki is the only option left, and loki was the reason the avengers formed like in the comics

#12 Posted by RustyRoy (9239 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

... no, most people think that Batman Begins is the best origin story, not Iron Man.

And they'd be right. Batman Begins > Iron Man > Thor.

@novi_homines said:

@rustyroy said:

Batman Begins is the best origin story in my opinion, It also influenced Iron-man, Star trek and many other movies.

How did it influence iron man? Lol 2 completely different films in every conceivable way. Except the insanely rich part. lol

To be fair, Marvel didn't get started really taking their movies seriously until they saw how good Batman Begins turned out. Could be a coincidence that the "Marvel revolution" came out after Batman Begins... and the same year as the Dark Knight.

This and also from wikipedia

Shawn Adler of MTV stated Batman Begins heralded a trend of darker genre films, that either retold back-stories or rebooted them altogether. Examples he cited were Casino Royale, as well as the in-development RoboCop, Red Sonja, and Grayskull.[86] Filmmakers, screenwriters and producers who have mentioned Batman Begins or The Dark Knight to describe their projects include:Jon Favreau and Iron Man,[87]Edward Norton and The Incredible Hulk,[88]McG and Terminator Salvation (which also stars Bale),[89]Damon Lindelof and Star Trek,[90]Star Trek Into Darkness,[91]Robert Downey, Jr. and Sherlock Holmes,[92]Lorenzo di Bonaventura and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra,[93]Hugh Jackman and X-Men Origins: Wolverine,[94]Matthew Vaughn andX-Men: First Class,[95]Rupert Wyatt and Rise of the Planet of the Apes,[96]Kevin Tancharoen and Mortal Kombat,[97]Sam Mendes and Skyfall,[98]Alex Kurtzman and Van Helsing,[99]Andrew Kreisberg and Arrow,[100] and Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton with a potential adaptation of God of War.[101]Entertainment Weekly has cited Batman Begins as an inspiration for both the reinventing, as well as the tone for the recently released The Amazing Spider-Man.[102]

It became the model inspiration for origin movies just like the Dark Knight became model inspiration for sequels.

#13 Edited by AllStarSuperman (15778 posts) - - Show Bio

The best movie origin stories are in this order:

  1. Batman Begins
  2. Kick-Ass
  3. Spiderman
  4. First Class
  5. Superman the movie, but im sure MoS will he high if not the top of this list.
  6. Captain America
  7. Super (The Crimson Bolt)
  8. Ironman
  9. Wolverine
  10. Daredevil
  11. Punisher
  12. Thor
  13. Amazing Spiderman/Hulk

Yes, im aware that nobody will agree with this list, but its all my opinion.

#14 Posted by Saren (24340 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman Begins would have words with thee.

Moderator Online
#15 Edited by deaditegonzo (3380 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman Begins > Iron Man. Superman: The Movie > Iron Man.

#16 Posted by joshmightbe (24101 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor would have been fantastic if they'd cut down on the Earth stuff

#17 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

... no, most people think that Batman Begins is the best origin story, not Iron Man.

And they'd be right. Batman Begins > Iron Man > Thor.

@novi_homines said:

@rustyroy said:

Batman Begins is the best origin story in my opinion, It also influenced Iron-man, Star trek and many other movies.

How did it influence iron man? Lol 2 completely different films in every conceivable way. Except the insanely rich part. lol

To be fair, Marvel didn't get started really taking their movies seriously until they saw how good Batman Begins turned out. Could be a coincidence that the "Marvel revolution" came out after Batman Begins... and the same year as the Dark Knight.

Lol spiderman was pretty damn serious. So was x men 1 and 2. So I don't necessarily agree with that statement. And the marvel revolution started before Batman Begins. Marvel put out amazing movies before Begins came out. See spiderman 1 & 2 and X men 1 & 2.

#18 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

Ok, so as far as gross income goes, Iron Man beats Batman Begins $318,412,101, to $205,343,774. As far as critical reception goes, on rotten tomatoes' top critics and Metacritic, Iron Man beats Batman Begins 7.4 and 79 , to a 6.8 and 70 respectively. As far as fan reception, Iron Man beats Batman on rotten tomatoes with a 4.2/5 to a 3.9/5. And washes on metacritic with a Metacritic with a 83%and 85% respectively. I thought I may be in the minority in thinking Iron Man was better and more influential, due to the comments. But after looking at the data, I realized that this simply isn't the case.

#19 Edited by TheCowman (461 posts) - - Show Bio

I was actually pretty lukewarm on Batman Begins.

It was a good movie, but the action was kinda lackluster and the villain showdowns were disappointing.

Also, I've always felt that good superhero comics always have an underlying feeling of wonder to them and that good superhero movies were the same. Batman Begins (and it's sequels to some extent) didn't really give me any sense of wonder. They seemed too busy trying their hardest to be realistic; giving it more of a spy/crime drama feel to it.

And that's not a bad thing in and of itself; just not what I look for in a superhero movie. So I DO tend to gravitate more toward the Marvel movies since that feeling of wonder is very much evident. Hopefully 'Man of Steel' will change that.

But on topic, I really liked the Thor movie. I'm not sure if it's the best, but it was good enough for me.

#20 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

I was actually pretty lukewarm on Batman Begins.

It was a good movie, but the action was kinda lackluster and the villain showdowns were disappointing.

Also, I've always felt that good superhero comics always have an underlying feeling of wonder to them and that good superhero movies were the same. Batman Begins (and it's sequels to some extent) didn't really give me any sense of wonder. They seemed too busy trying their hardest to be realistic; giving it more of a spy/crime drama feel to it.

And that's not a bad thing in and of itself; just not what I look for in a superhero movie. So I DO tend to gravitate more toward the Marvel movies since that feeling of wonder is very much evident. Hopefully 'Man of Steel' will change that.

But on topic, I really liked the Thor movie. I'm not sure if it's the best, but it was good enough for me.

No not the best. But in terms of setting up the character, and the character's beginnings as a hero, yeah I personally think its the best.

#21 Posted by JediXMan (27953 posts) - - Show Bio

Lol spiderman was pretty damn serious. So was x men 1 and 2. So I don't necessarily agree with that statement. And the marvel revolution started before Batman Begins. Marvel put out amazing movies before Begins came out. See spiderman 1 & 2 and X men 1 & 2.

... really? Spider-Man was... "pretty damn serious?" I don't know how seriously I can take you after that statement...

And no, it didn't. Marvel's "revolution" refers to when they made their own movies. Spider-Man was made by and is still owned by Sony; X-Men was made by and still owned by Fox. Marvel had no input on those movies. Iron Man was the first movie that Marvel made themselves (Hulk may have actually been the first, come to think of it, but nobody acknowledges that movie).

Online
#22 Edited by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines said:

Lol spiderman was pretty damn serious. So was x men 1 and 2. So I don't necessarily agree with that statement. And the marvel revolution started before Batman Begins. Marvel put out amazing movies before Begins came out. See spiderman 1 & 2 and X men 1 & 2.

... really? Spider-Man was... "pretty damn serious?" I don't know how seriously I can take you after that statement...

And no, it didn't. Marvel's "revolution" refers to when they made their own movies. Spider-Man was made by and is still owned by Sony; X-Men was made by and still owned by Fox. Marvel had no input on those movies. Iron Man was the first movie that Marvel made themselves (Hulk may have actually been the first, come to think of it, but nobody acknowledges that movie).

So because marvel did not produce those movies, its not the Marvel revolution, even though marvel has put out successful comic book characters in live action? Lol sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Looks like we just have different opinions on what this "Marvel revolution" entails.

#23 Posted by JediXMan (27953 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines:

... the Marvel Revolution refers to when Marvel began producing their own movies with their own production company, not under another studio. It refers to the movies that led to the Avengers and the movies Marvel still puts out. Marvel does not put out the X-Men or Spider-Man, because Marvel does not own the movie rights to those characters or their affiliates.

It's not an alien concept.

Online
#25 Edited by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines:

... the Marvel Revolution refers to when Marvel began producing their own movies with their own production company, not under another studio. It refers to the movies that led to the Avengers and the movies Marvel still puts out. Marvel does not put out the X-Men or Spider-Man, because Marvel does not own the movie rights to those characters or their affiliates.

It's not an alien concept.

Yet Marvel created these characters, who are ultimately what's important. Yeah I got you. Makes perfectly logical sense. By the way, where is this official definition coming from?

#26 Edited by JediXMan (27953 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines:

This is just silly. There's no point trying to explain these little things to you.

Online
#27 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines:

This is just silly. There's no point trying to explain these little things to you.

ok. Thanks for trying! =]

#28 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines:

... the Marvel Revolution refers to when Marvel began producing their own movies with their own production company, not under another studio. It refers to the movies that led to the Avengers and the movies Marvel still puts out. Marvel does not put out the X-Men or Spider-Man, because Marvel does not own the movie rights to those characters or their affiliates.

It's not an alien concept.

Also, the link you provided includes X-men as a marvel studio film. Soooo yeah....

#29 Posted by JediXMan (27953 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines:

... the Marvel Revolution refers to when Marvel began producing their own movies with their own production company, not under another studio. It refers to the movies that led to the Avengers and the movies Marvel still puts out. Marvel does not put out the X-Men or Spider-Man, because Marvel does not own the movie rights to those characters or their affiliates.

It's not an alien concept.

Also, the link you provided includes X-men as a marvel studio film. Soooo yeah....

Do research before making such a comment. The X-Men are literally owned by Fox. Marvel still has the movie rights to Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, etc. It does not have the X-Men, and therefore cannot make the X-Men.

Also, please note: it didn't call it a Marvel Studios film. It's a "Marvel Film." Not the same thing. It was involved in name, but Fox still created the X-Men movies and still owns the rights, which is why we won't see Wolverine in the Avengers for a long, long time.

I think it's quite time you put a cease to your incessant remarks.

Online
#30 Edited by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines said:

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines:

... the Marvel Revolution refers to when Marvel began producing their own movies with their own production company, not under another studio. It refers to the movies that led to the Avengers and the movies Marvel still puts out. Marvel does not put out the X-Men or Spider-Man, because Marvel does not own the movie rights to those characters or their affiliates.

It's not an alien concept.

Also, the link you provided includes X-men as a marvel studio film. Soooo yeah....

Do research before making such a comment. The X-Men are literally owned by Fox. Marvel still has the movie rights to Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, etc. It does not have the X-Men, and therefore cannot make the X-Men.

Also, please note: it didn't call it a Marvel Studios film. It's a "Marvel Film." Not the same thing. It was involved in name, but Fox still created the X-Men movies and still owns the rights, which is why we won't see Wolverine in the Avengers for a long, long time.

I think it's quite time you put a cease to your incessant remarks.

Reading comprehension can do wonders for the mind.

"By 1997, Marvel Studios was actively pursuing various film productions based on Marvel characters, including the eventual films X-Men (2000), Daredevil (2003) and Fantastic Four (2005)."........"The next blockbuster film licensed from Marvel Studios was Spider-Man by Columbia Pictures, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. The film was released on 3 May 2002, grossing $403,706,375 in the United States and Canada and $821,708,551 worldwide."

Try again.

#31 Edited by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

Licence.

Noun
A permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade

No licence = no production.

@jedixman: ... the Marvel Revolution refers to when Marvel began producing their own movies with their own production company, not under another studio.

So if Marvel enabled this production (which as a result, means they "produced" a film), what are we even debating?

#32 Edited by RustyRoy (9239 posts) - - Show Bio

Ok, so as far as gross income goes, Iron Man beats Batman Begins $318,412,101, to $205,343,774. As far as critical reception goes, on rotten tomatoes' top critics and Metacritic, Iron Man beats Batman Begins 7.4 and 79 , to a 6.8 and 70 respectively. As far as fan reception, Iron Man beats Batman on rotten tomatoes with a 4.2/5 to a 3.9/5. And washes on metacritic with a Metacritic with a 83%and 85% respectively. I thought I may be in the minority in thinking Iron Man was better and more influential, due to the comments. But after looking at the data, I realized that this simply isn't the case.

Iron-Man didn't have as much impact as Batman Begins and isn't as influential. You said Thor is the best origin movie, it had lower box office income, lower ratings in RT and metacritic than Batman Begins so does that make you feel wrong about your opinion? When MoS comes out and is able break Iron-Man 1's record in all these categories,will that change your opinion? Box office records,RT ratings are broken every year,its about the lasting affect and there Batman Begins beat most origin movies.

#33 Edited by JediXMan (27953 posts) - - Show Bio

Reading comprehension can do wonders for the mind.

"By 1997, Marvel Studios was actively pursuing various film productions based on Marvel characters, including the eventual films X-Men (2000), Daredevil (2003) and Fantastic Four (2005)."........"The next blockbuster film licensed from Marvel Studios was Spider-Man by Columbia Pictures, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. The film was released on 3 May 2002, grossing $403,706,375 in the United States and Canada and $821,708,551 worldwide."

Try again.

My reading comprehension is fine; yours needs work.

It does not say that Marvel Studios made the films. Read it again: licensed from Marvel Studios, not by Marvel studios. That little preposition is very important, you see. From means taken or originating; by is active, where it says that it was by Columbia Pictures (Sony). It means that Marvel Studios gave Columbia the rights to the characters; therefore, they lost the rights and any active participation.

Try taking a class in Copyright Law some time. Also, you put too much emphasis on Wikipedia: explains a lot. That site is worthless, considering any person can easily edit it.

Now, I'm done with this trivial game.

Online
#34 Edited by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@jedixman said:

@novi_homines said:

Reading comprehension can do wonders for the mind.

"By 1997, Marvel Studios was actively pursuing various film productions based on Marvel characters, including the eventual films X-Men (2000), Daredevil (2003) and Fantastic Four (2005)."........"The next blockbuster film licensed from Marvel Studios was Spider-Man by Columbia Pictures, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man. The film was released on 3 May 2002, grossing $403,706,375 in the United States and Canada and $821,708,551 worldwide."

Try again.

My reading comprehension is fine; yours needs work.

It does not say that Marvel Studios made the films. Read it again: licensed from Marvel Studios, not by Marvel studios. That little preposition is very important, you see. From means taken or originating; by is active, where it says that it was by Columbia Pictures (Sony). It means that Marvel Studios gave Columbia the rights to the characters; therefore, they lost the rights and any active participation.

Try taking a class in Copyright Law some time. Also, you put too much emphasis on Wikipedia: explains a lot. That site is worthless, considering any person can easily edit it.

Now, I'm done with this trivial game.

"From" and "By" are both prepositions, and are both synonyms. So "that little preposition" isn't stating something different from the former. I understand the technicality in this, i've understood this for a while. Make no mistake, i'm not debating marvel movie rights. I'm simply amused by this "Marvel Revolution" statement that you consider to mean "produced by marvel studios", even though many titles previous to 2008 are "produced by marvel studios" as a result of licensing. Do you understand the meaning of "production"? If not, please, allow me.

Production: The action of making or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of being so manufactured.

#35 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

@rustyroy said:
@novi_homines said:

Ok, so as far as gross income goes, Iron Man beats Batman Begins $318,412,101, to $205,343,774. As far as critical reception goes, on rotten tomatoes' top critics and Metacritic, Iron Man beats Batman Begins 7.4 and 79 , to a 6.8 and 70 respectively. As far as fan reception, Iron Man beats Batman on rotten tomatoes with a 4.2/5 to a 3.9/5. And washes on metacritic with a Metacritic with a 83%and 85% respectively. I thought I may be in the minority in thinking Iron Man was better and more influential, due to the comments. But after looking at the data, I realized that this simply isn't the case.

Iron-Man didn't have as much impact as Batman Begins and isn't as influential. You said Thor is the best origin movie, it had lower box office income, lower ratings in RT and metacritic than Batman Begins so does that make you feel wrong about your opinion? When MoS comes out and is able break Iron-Man 1's record in all these categories,will that change your opinion? Box office records,RT ratings are broken every year,its about the lasting affect and there Batman Begins beat most origin movies.

Very true. What I got from this is opinions vary from person to person. No one is ever right when it comes to opinions. I usually tell myself this alot, thanks for reminding me and keeping me on track.

#36 Posted by BlueLantern1995 (2448 posts) - - Show Bio

Okay to summarize what I thought about Thor:

script 3/5(a.k.a. average I didn't like or dislike it)

casting 3/5 only people truly cast perfectly were Heimdall, Odin, and Loki.

I'm not saying its a bad movie I'm just saying that the movie barely had anything that made it exceptional. It was the worst movie of wave 1 Cinematic Universe in this User's opinion tied with Iron Man 2(yeah that's right I just said it).

If you want best origin movies here is the list:

  • X-Men First Class
  • Batman Begins
  • Iron Man
  • Captain America: The First Avenger
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
  • Amazing Spider-Man
  • Spider-Man
  • Incredible Hulk

#37 Posted by novi_homines (1321 posts) - - Show Bio

Okay to summarize what I thought about Thor:

script 3/5(a.k.a. average I didn't like or dislike it)

casting 3/5 only people truly cast perfectly were Heimdall, Odin, and Loki.

I'm not saying its a bad movie I'm just saying that the movie barely had anything that made it exceptional. It was the worst movie of wave 1 Cinematic Universe in this User's opinion tied with Iron Man 2(yeah that's right I just said it).

If you want best origin movies here is the list:

  • X-Men First Class
  • Batman Begins
  • Iron Man
  • Captain America: The First Avenger
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
  • Amazing Spider-Man
  • Spider-Man
  • Incredible Hulk

Ok, thats fine. I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect it.