The God Butcher comic was great, really dark and pushes Thor beyond his previous limits. There's some time travelling/alternate Thor's but you could tell a similar story without that. I think the problem was the point of his MCU chronology, it's all been darkness for him so he's entering a brighter way of life. That's partially Disney takeover and definitely Watiti's hyperbolising but it's a shame they used one of the darker arcs to tell an essentially bright irreverant nonchalant look forwards when it could have been a cathartic death of a character who's already lost everything else. Wouldn't need to kill him just kill who he was in the darkness of Gorr. Instead that Thor's already dead and it's more like a new infant Thor has replaced him.
So much this. The God Butcher story-arc is legitimately one of the best stories Marvel's ever published, and I would love (though doubt ever happens) a more accurate on-screen interpretation of that story. But I agree, given how much Thor had already been through in the MCU between Ragnarok and Infinity War, it would've been better to go with something lighter. An Enchantress based story or even the Hercules story this one teases would've been better then bringing in Gorr so soon.
The protagonists being reactive and the antagonists being proactive is the main reason why I never connected with superheroes in general. I just don't like that dynamic. Sure, there are outliers, but that seems to be the standard hero/villain setup.
So... why do we still only get one shot at movies? Instead of all these remakes and reboots, I would happily go to the theater 5 years later to re-watch a film that was originally just 'ok' transform into a better film through new editing, resolving plot holes, the addition of re-shooting scenes, etc. I feel like the studios don't see this as an option because so many films rely on the element of surprise to get people to show up to theaters. Films are a product to them and not a collaboration with the audience in the way anciently story-telling was. It's not even seen as an art-form by many of them, just an investment project. But with streaming services, there's no better time to fix and re-release your movie, making it worth-wile to revisit. And that doesn't mean the new version is now the ONLY version -talking to you Mr. Lucas who doesn't let us watch the original SW without all the extra CGI added. Release both and clearly label the new version. I just think there are so many movies that would benefit from some tweaking. And wouldn't it be far less expensive to re-release a new version including edits the community has requested than an all-new movie? When a film is released, TH-camrs do a great job of analyzing the work and making suggestions.... for free! I just don't get it, especially in animated or highly CGI films where sets and actors don't need to be recreated. Deep fakes are getting pretty good. Some TH-camrs are outlining storyboard images with AI models. You'd think 'recycling' under-performing films would be a shoe-in in Hollywood where they only seem to care about their ROI. Anyways. That's my rant. I hate to see movies with decent potential get tossed aside in our culture because they were just OK in execution.
That is an interesting idea. Oftentimes, writers don't see the problems with their movies until after they're released and given the proper feedback and criticisms from audiences. If this movie in particular was remade, it would garaurantee improvements since the makers already know what didn't work.
Rlly bothered how they just casually ignored Synbiotes for the whole movie. Y’know lets not talk about how the God Butcher’s sword is not just alive but is literally a multiverse consuming celestial eating parasite hive mind.
@@Sisanf IRON MAN 3 is the only MCU movie I choose not to watch again. They dropped a narrative ball they could have easily passed to Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
I personally thing they could've used this chance to first Introduce the Lady Thor and have her be this mysterious savior that helps Thor against the villains(Not God Butcher because I think God Butcher deserves an entire Phase, so maybe like The Enchantress or Mangog, one because she represents the False Love and another because its Pure hatred towards Gods), And then we can show Thor found out Jane had cancer and visit her, not knowing she is the mysterious figure that help him in battles, and then When the two Thors finally face the villain we can finally reveal that Lady Thor is Jane
@@NotMe-bk9oi Yes And I Think Comic version is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Better than the shit Taika did
I was truly disappointed that they butchered Gorr’s character and his 🗡!!! His 🗡 was a symbiot welded by the symbiot god… WTF DID THEY TAKE THAT OUT?!!!!!
@@SCRIPTMONK I do think these megafranchise movies can present an extra complication for a channel like this though. The commercial success of these movies are so tied into the franchise as a whole that it adds a huge extra complicating factor to the already difficult business in judging how intrinsically "successful" a screenplay has been on its own merits. So it's a lot more speculative, and you're a lot more dependent on opinions. Which of course don't indeed "matter" for their own sake. No screenwriter or aspiring screenwriter is going to care much if someone turns their nose up at Twilight or Dude Where's My Car; it is obvious that their writing "worked" all the way from pitch to Blu-Ray and we all want to better understand why if it's not apparent to us--it's something that's actually interesting and useful even if we have no expectation of writing anything remotely close to that kind of film ever!
@@SCRIPTMONK I would also add that while you're not a jokewriter and you did mention the comedy as a major problem, I think the Waititi Thors are so heavily comedic that the comedy might be damn near 30-40% of what went wrong here. This time, compared to last, it was _so_ bad and _so_ intrusively deployed that I really don't think you can just say it's a matter of the raw quantity as the video suggests. I've always marveled (no pun intended) at how almost uniquely good Tarantino is at comedy. Most films, even when it's completely successful, you do feel that as you say it inherently distances and works again emotion, tension, etc.; it's just that the movie is successful enough to overcome that and get back on track. With Tarantino I actually feel it's not even doing that; that he's deploying hilarious comedy in a way that doesn't work against the emotional tension at all in the first place. Maybe you can address this in a future video, perhaps as a collaboration with a comedy writer if need be.
The God Butcher comic was great, really dark and pushes Thor beyond his previous limits. There's some time travelling/alternate Thor's but you could tell a similar story without that. I think the problem was the point of his MCU chronology, it's all been darkness for him so he's entering a brighter way of life. That's partially Disney takeover and definitely Watiti's hyperbolising but it's a shame they used one of the darker arcs to tell an essentially bright irreverant nonchalant look forwards when it could have been a cathartic death of a character who's already lost everything else. Wouldn't need to kill him just kill who he was in the darkness of Gorr. Instead that Thor's already dead and it's more like a new infant Thor has replaced him.
So much this. The God Butcher story-arc is legitimately one of the best stories Marvel's ever published, and I would love (though doubt ever happens) a more accurate on-screen interpretation of that story. But I agree, given how much Thor had already been through in the MCU between Ragnarok and Infinity War, it would've been better to go with something lighter. An Enchantress based story or even the Hercules story this one teases would've been better then bringing in Gorr so soon.
The protagonists being reactive and the antagonists being proactive is the main reason why I never connected with superheroes in general. I just don't like that dynamic. Sure, there are outliers, but that seems to be the standard hero/villain setup.
I am honoured to be among the first 500 subscribers.
If only they did a few more passes on the script 😭
Loved that ashy larry joke. Shout out to dave Chapelle
Much better than #Screencrush evaluation of #ThorLoveAndThunder.
Love it,dude!
That was good. I like how you show where the problems could be fixed 👍
So... why do we still only get one shot at movies?
Instead of all these remakes and reboots, I would happily go to the theater 5 years later to re-watch a film that was originally just 'ok' transform into a better film through new editing, resolving plot holes, the addition of re-shooting scenes, etc.
I feel like the studios don't see this as an option because so many films rely on the element of surprise to get people to show up to theaters. Films are a product to them and not a collaboration with the audience in the way anciently story-telling was. It's not even seen as an art-form by many of them, just an investment project.
But with streaming services, there's no better time to fix and re-release your movie, making it worth-wile to revisit. And that doesn't mean the new version is now the ONLY version -talking to you Mr. Lucas who doesn't let us watch the original SW without all the extra CGI added. Release both and clearly label the new version.
I just think there are so many movies that would benefit from some tweaking. And wouldn't it be far less expensive to re-release a new version including edits the community has requested than an all-new movie?
When a film is released, TH-camrs do a great job of analyzing the work and making suggestions.... for free! I just don't get it, especially in animated or highly CGI films where sets and actors don't need to be recreated. Deep fakes are getting pretty good. Some TH-camrs are outlining storyboard images with AI models. You'd think 'recycling' under-performing films would be a shoe-in in Hollywood where they only seem to care about their ROI.
Anyways. That's my rant. I hate to see movies with decent potential get tossed aside in our culture because they were just OK in execution.
That is an interesting idea. Oftentimes, writers don't see the problems with their movies until after they're released and given the proper feedback and criticisms from audiences. If this movie in particular was remade, it would garaurantee improvements since the makers already know what didn't work.
Lady sif loses her arm and the first thing he does is tell a joke seriously
the MCU phase 4 is a joke
Rlly bothered how they just casually ignored Synbiotes for the whole movie. Y’know lets not talk about how the God Butcher’s sword is not just alive but is literally a multiverse consuming celestial eating parasite hive mind.
Depends on if MARVEL regained the cinematic rights to Venom like they did Spider-Man.
8:08 didn't the "power of love" give Jane access to Mjolnir?
TLAT was easily the worst movie I've seen in a decade and an embarrassment to the MCU
It’s mediocre at best. I feel like the 3rd Ant-Man is worse, it completely fell apart in the the climax
@@Sisanf IRON MAN 3 is the only MCU movie I choose not to watch again. They dropped a narrative ball they could have easily passed to Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
My guy. The movie does everything you suggest it needs fixing for. This shouty character thing worked in 2013 but idk man....
Somewhere in the infinite multiverse exists a version of Love&Thunder that is actually great.
We just didnt happen to be in it...
I personally thing they could've used this chance to first Introduce the Lady Thor and have her be this mysterious savior that helps Thor against the villains(Not God Butcher because I think God Butcher deserves an entire Phase, so maybe like The Enchantress or Mangog, one because she represents the False Love and another because its Pure hatred towards Gods), And then we can show Thor found out Jane had cancer and visit her, not knowing she is the mysterious figure that help him in battles, and then When the two Thors finally face the villain we can finally reveal that Lady Thor is Jane
@@NotMe-bk9oi Yes And I Think Comic version is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Better than the shit Taika did
You forgot to add beta ray bill
(I actually had to look that one up) :)
Where would he fit in?
Save him for the Netflix series.
I liked the film but agree it could have been better.
I was truly disappointed that they butchered Gorr’s character and his 🗡!!!
His 🗡 was a symbiot welded by the symbiot god… WTF DID THEY TAKE THAT OUT?!!!!!
I forget: did they make the symbiite connection to the Necro sword at the time of its debut in the comics, or well after it?
Tbh this movie is just about what all Taika movies are about,- Taika...
Well your options don't matter
I have plenty of options. Life is full of them.
@@SCRIPTMONK I do think these megafranchise movies can present an extra complication for a channel like this though. The commercial success of these movies are so tied into the franchise as a whole that it adds a huge extra complicating factor to the already difficult business in judging how intrinsically "successful" a screenplay has been on its own merits. So it's a lot more speculative, and you're a lot more dependent on opinions. Which of course don't indeed "matter" for their own sake. No screenwriter or aspiring screenwriter is going to care much if someone turns their nose up at Twilight or Dude Where's My Car; it is obvious that their writing "worked" all the way from pitch to Blu-Ray and we all want to better understand why if it's not apparent to us--it's something that's actually interesting and useful even if we have no expectation of writing anything remotely close to that kind of film ever!
@@SCRIPTMONK I would also add that while you're not a jokewriter and you did mention the comedy as a major problem, I think the Waititi Thors are so heavily comedic that the comedy might be damn near 30-40% of what went wrong here. This time, compared to last, it was _so_ bad and _so_ intrusively deployed that I really don't think you can just say it's a matter of the raw quantity as the video suggests. I've always marveled (no pun intended) at how almost uniquely good Tarantino is at comedy. Most films, even when it's completely successful, you do feel that as you say it inherently distances and works again emotion, tension, etc.; it's just that the movie is successful enough to overcome that and get back on track. With Tarantino I actually feel it's not even doing that; that he's deploying hilarious comedy in a way that doesn't work against the emotional tension at all in the first place. Maybe you can address this in a future video, perhaps as a collaboration with a comedy writer if need be.
They didn't say opinions. They said "options." And my options DO MATTER!
@@SCRIPTMONK Correct; they didn't say opinions. I did.
You fix it ... for you.
Will do!
that iron man 3 quip was uncalled for. its a Christmas movie damnit.
And it’s one of the most underrated marvel movies ngl
Yep. A Christmas movie released in May. Just...why?
it takes place during Christmas. die hard is a Christmas movie too @@SCRIPTMONK