Thor: Ragnarok (2017)

Lyrical_sl said:

Bullshit. They took the character from being able to withstand multi nuclear bomb blasts, to making him weaker than Loki. I can't name a more drastic power change in any of the other movies (unless you are counting Mandarin). Whenever Thor and the Destroyer fought in the comics, it could have gone two or three issues non-stop. Not one hit.

Click to expand...

Hulk Buster armor actually beating the Hulk is pretty significant. Anything stopping the Hulk actually. But as everyone else says... MCU != Marvel Comics. It's just like the stupid Spider-Man argument from the Civil War thread. It's like going to see Transformers 4 and complaining that they got Galvatron's motivation wrong. It's inspired by the character but it sure as shit isn't the same. Not to mention it falls into the MCU cursed-realm of being a villain, from which none but Loki have escaped.

T4 had a ton of issues. The whole crew from the producer to director down to the writers needs to be shot.....twice in public with a live streaming feed after boiling their skin off! Seems only 1 person on the set knew about Transformers, what they knew was from a time as a kid when they walked down a toy store aisle where the transformers toys were in 1987 and never watched the cartoon or read the comics....ever!

Twilight Sparkle_sl said:

I'd pay good money to see a road trip movie with Sam, Cap, and Bucky.

Click to expand...

This.

I'd also pay good money to never see Lyrical crying about power levels again. Waaaah they depowered Firestorm. Waaaah they depowered the Destroyer. WAAAAAAAAAAAH

That post was so nerdy that Lyrical's hymen just rebuilt itself to make him a virgin again.

Lyrical_sl said:

Did the Hulkbuster one shot Hulk?



No, it's not. Spider Man had just gained his powers and didn't know how to use them. Forget the comics, in the movie, it's established by Odin that the Destroyer was forged to be his perfect weapon, just like Mjolnir. The movie wasn't even continuous with itself.

Click to expand...

Well. In the movie (you can see it in all the scenes where Destroyer opens its eye-laser holes) the armor surrounding the spirit inhabiting the Destroyer is pretty thin. Mjolnir is a solid block of of said metal, and much smaller. At the speeds being traveled, the force presented by the small impact area that Mjolnir makes on the Destroyer means that the force transition from momentum as it collides with a small part of the Destroyer is a -huge- differential in force over a small area. Hence him being "one shot."

It's not really a discontinuity; it's application of jr. level physics actually sort of making sense in a movie. Same reason a bullet penetrates flesh when the masses are so different.

Granted! It's a comic book movie using comic book science. Shit happens for plot reasons literally in almost every comic written ever. That scene needed Thor to one shot Destroyer (technically he hit destroyer a couple of times before that, with Mjolnir, however) so Thor one shot the Destroyer. The same type of shit happens in comics.

He didn't get destroyed; watch the scene, he gets knocked down/out/whatever spirits do when they get large impacts over a small area near their "head." It doesn't even show Mjolnir piercing the head area (which is what most likely would have happened in "the real world")

edit: I get the comic Destroyer. Literally a plot device to kick the shit out of Thor when the story needs Thor's shit kicked out. When it was "possessed" by the spirit of Sif, and beat him retarded, it made sense within the story. It served the -exact- same purpose in the movie. It kicked the shit out of Thor to prove that Thor wasn't jack without his will and his hammer. Once proved, it had served its purpose, so Thor beat it to progress the story in a couple of moves. Pretty much exactly used as the same application it fits in the comics.

Itlan_sl said:

Why the Natalie Portman hate? I love that little Bagel Eater.

Click to expand...

Mostly because for whatever reason she really was not liking the role and the movie and was becoming very difficult to work with in regards to these films. Better to just let her go.

Tuco_sl said:

I missed the spiderman argument in civil war, what was it>?

Click to expand...

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SPIDERMAN COULD SOLO EVERYONE IN CIVIL WAR REEEEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES RUINED HIM

Spider-Man was supposed to just be starting out and owned everyone with relative ease despite his awkwardness.

I didn't have a problem with it. These movies are supposed to be fun. When they forget that, we get BvS. Also those people need to recognize Spider-Mans role was really a 45 minute commercial to launch his franchise. They did good.

Lyrical_sl said:

The only thing that makes me nerd rage more is when Darwin died in Xmen. He's immortal and will be the next universe's Galactus.

Click to expand...

Jait_sl said:

You forgot the best part.

No NATALIE FUCKING PORTMAN.

Click to expand...

I don't dislike Natalie Portman. I didn't really even dislike her character. But I definitely think she was the weakest part of Thor 2 and ended up dragging the movie down. It really felt like the writers had no idea what to do with her character, resulting in a plot that felt disjointed in a lot of places. I'm hoping Marvel is starting to move in a direction where they don't feel the need to force a romance in every one of their movies.