• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Marvel Cinematic Universe | We had a good run, and now it's over

Status
Not open for further replies.
luca

luca

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,505
okdakor said:
The Guardians could dump him in the first five minutes, because he's bored, or find a new mission (leading to Thor 4), or Starlord abandons him behind...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Blader said:
This is what I'm thinking too. My guess is that either the Guardians will be in the opening scene of Thor 4, or Thor will be in the opening scene of Guardians 3 (depending on which movie comes first), and that'll be the extent of what they do with the Asgardians of the Galaxy stuff.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is my guess too. I really don't expect Thor to play a part in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. I think James Gunn will have enough on his plate with ending the current team's arc; finding Gamora-from-another-timeline and what it amounts to in regards to Quill and her who have never had a relationship, possibly digging into Rocket's background, dealing with Drax's emotions after not getting the final blow on Thanos, and we know Kraglin is out there doing something on his own. And then we possibly have Adam Warlock, OG team and new additions (Mark Hamill's character).
 
luca

luca

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,505
I need him to go complete nuts with Thor 4. Give me SERPENTS! Beta Rey Bill. Throg. The helmet. Bring back Valkyrie and her pegasus. Go crazy with the cosmos. Make it an expansive adventure through space. To differentiate it from Ragnarok which was mostly stuck on Sakaar and Asgard. Make this movie like it was the last Thor movie to ever grace the cinema.
 
Last edited:
jph139

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,365
Yeah, I have no idea what Waititi would do for Thor 4. I mean, Ragnarok ended up mostly being an adaptation of Planet Hulk of all things with a twist of Simonson's Hela arc in there. I think Beta Ray Bill is one of the more obvious directions they could go, but Ragnarok + Infinity War pretty much wiped the Thor slate clean, so there's no real compass pointing to what's next.

I could see Godbomb, but I think it would be less about Thor shouldering the weight of godhood and more of a Young Thor + Old Thor + Modern Thor team-up movie. I feel like that's what would resonate with Waititi, with the whole question of "worthiness" as an undercurrent again.

Like, Endgame ends with Thor realizing he was never cut out to be king, quitting, and going to fuck off with the Guardians - which completely undoes the ending of Ragnarok. What better way to get him "back on course" than by having him team up with King Thor from the end of time?
 
luca

luca

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,505
jph139 said:
What better way to get him "back on course" than by having him team up with King Thor from the end of time?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I like this. While I don't agree that Endgame undoes Ragnarok. He was ready to be King, what his people needed. But he encountered a pretty huge blow right after, by losing 75% of his people. And then he goes on to be responsible for half the universe disappearing. Guilt that grows within him for the next five years. He doesn't feel like being King anymore. In a talk with his mother and everything he experiences from then on out he learns that Valkyrie is in a better place to lead New Asgard, and he himself have to take time off to learn what he wants. He have finally let go of the idea that he need to be what others wants him to be.
 
Last edited:
Muitnorts

Muitnorts

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,141
I'm so game for Thor 4. And Gunn's guardians 3. I'm interested to see how they deal with Thor being with the Guardians considering Thor will likely be before Guardians 4.
So far the only upcoming movie I'm uninterested in is Black Widow. I love her as a supporting character but her story's done and I don't particularly care to delve into her past now. I have faith her film will surprise me though.
 
ThorHammerstein

ThorHammerstein

Revenger
Member
Nov 19, 2017
3,500
jph139 said:
Like, Endgame ends with Thor realizing he was never cut out to be king, quitting, and going to fuck off with the Guardians - which completely undoes the ending of Ragnarok. What better way to get him "back on course" than by having him team up with King Thor from the end of time?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't follow. How does it undo Ragnarok's ending?
 
jph139

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,365
ThorHammerstein said:
I don't follow. How does it undo Ragnarok's ending?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

End of Ragnarok - Thor decides to finally take responsibility for his people by becoming king, taking the throne he'd forsaken in The Dark World, which ultimately led to his father's death and Asgard's destruction.

End of Endgame - Thor decides that he really isn't cut out to be king, gives the throne to Valkyrie, goes off on an adventure with the Guardians.

You can call that character development, sure, but I'm going into this assuming that Waititi's original vision (Thor should be king and should be leading the Asgardians) is what he'll be moving toward in Thor 4. But maybe I'm off base and the only reason he included the King Thor ending is because of executive orders to set things up for Infinity War, and he actually wanted an ending where Thor is bumming around the universe, so they specifically left him with the Guardians to set that up for Waititi's next movie. I couldn't say!
 
ThorHammerstein

ThorHammerstein

Revenger
Member
Nov 19, 2017
3,500
I didn't see that as undoing anything but rather his journey. I'm enjoying it so I guess I'm good.
I hope he gets a decent role in GotG or an Asguardians side story along with Thor IV.
 
GAMEPROFF

GAMEPROFF

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,582
Germany
jph139 said:
End of Ragnarok - Thor decides to finally take responsibility for his people by becoming king, taking the throne he'd forsaken in The Dark World, which ultimately led to his father's death and Asgard's destruction.

End of Endgame - Thor decides that he really isn't cut out to be king, gives the throne to Valkyrie, goes off on an adventure with the Guardians.

You can call that character development, sure, but I'm going into this assuming that Waititi's original vision (Thor should be king and should be leading the Asgardians) is what he'll be moving toward in Thor 4. But maybe I'm off base and the only reason he included the King Thor ending is because of executive orders to set things up for Infinity War, and he actually wanted an ending where Thor is bumming around the universe, so they specifically left him with the Guardians to set that up for Waititi's next movie. I couldn't say!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But he takes responsibility in the way that he comes and saves them... Not in the way that he becomes king. He becomes king only because Odin is dead and the next in line is Thor.
 
manchego obfuscator

manchego obfuscator

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,123
Brooklyn, NY
jph139 said:
End of Ragnarok - Thor decides to finally take responsibility for his people by becoming king, taking the throne he'd forsaken in The Dark World, which ultimately led to his father's death and Asgard's destruction.

End of Endgame - Thor decides that he really isn't cut out to be king, gives the throne to Valkyrie, goes off on an adventure with the Guardians.

You can call that character development, sure, but I'm going into this assuming that Waititi's original vision (Thor should be king and should be leading the Asgardians) is what he'll be moving toward in Thor 4. But maybe I'm off base and the only reason he included the King Thor ending is because of executive orders to set things up for Infinity War, and he actually wanted an ending where Thor is bumming around the universe, so they specifically left him with the Guardians to set that up for Waititi's next movie. I couldn't say!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Relatedly, there's a really nice moment of musical continuity at the very end of Ragnarok where Patrick Doyle's theme from Thor 1 kicks in as Thor assumes the throne of Asgard. It does a lot to sell the idea of the film's ending as the culmination of a three-film arc, which is why I was disappointed that IW and Endgame discarded most of the character development, down to Thor getting his eye back and him needing a hammer again.
 
Trup1aya

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,323
manchego obfuscator said:
Relatedly, there's a really nice moment of musical continuity at the very end of Ragnarok where Patrick Doyle's theme from Thor 1 kicks in as Thor assumes the throne of Asgard. It does a lot to sell the idea of the film's ending as the culmination of a three-film arc, which is why I was disappointed that IW and Endgame discarded most of the character development, down to Thor getting his eye back and him needing a hammer again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

When people use the hammer as evidence that Thor's development was undone, it bothers me.

In Ragnorok, Thor finally accepted the Hammer wasn't the source of his strength. It was a tool for channeling what was already inside. This lesson wasnt forgotten. In fact, it was utilized when he took on the energy of a star in order to smelt Storm Breaker.

The takeaway was never that he could/should go through any and all future challenges without a weapon.

As for his losing his eye - that was never really used to develop his character. We never explored what effect eye loss had on his thoughts or actions. It was just a thing that happened that was ultimately inconsequential.
 
Last edited:
manchego obfuscator

manchego obfuscator

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,123
Brooklyn, NY
Trup1aya said:
As for his losing his eye - that was never really used to develop his character. We never explored what effect eye loss had on his thoughts or actions. It was just a thing that happened that was ultimately inconsequential.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agree to disagree on the hammer, really don't think that's how it was played in Ragnarok at all.

as for the eye, I agree it wasn't terribly consequential in and of itself, but as Thor getting an eye back was completely unnecessary to the plot of either Infinity War or Endgame, it's nicely emblematic of the lengths those films went to toss a lot of what Ragnarok did aside.
 
Trup1aya

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,323
manchego obfuscator said:
Agree to disagree on the hammer, really don't think that's how it was played in Ragnarok at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thor: She's too strong, without my hammer I can't."
Odin: "Are you Thor the god of hammers? That hammer was to help you control your power; to focus it. It was never your source of strength."
Thor: "It's too late; She's already taken Asgard."
Odin: "Asgard is not a place; never was. This could be Asgard. Asgard is where our peoplestand. Even now, right now, those people need your help."
Thor: "I'm not as strong as you."
Odin: "No, you're stronger.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Where did you gather that the message was that hammers would be useless to Thor in any future conflict?

as for the eye, I agree it wasn't terribly consequential in and of itself, but as Thor getting an eye back was completely unnecessary to the plot of either Infinity War or Endgame, it's nicely emblematic of the lengths those films went to toss a lot of what Ragnarok did aside.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'd argue that Thor losing an eye wasn't necessary to the plot of Ragnorok either- it amounted to nothing in that movie as well. If anything, that act was for the purpose of demonstrating Hela's character, not developing Thor's.
 
jph139

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,365
Thor losing his eye was to represent him inheriting his father's mantle - "becoming the new Odin" who is iconically one-eyed. King Thor in the comics has an eyepatch for the same reason.

In practical terms though I think Hemsworth just didn't like having one eye covered all the time.
 
manchego obfuscator

manchego obfuscator

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,123
Brooklyn, NY
Trup1aya said:
Where did you gather that the message was that hammers would be useless to Thor in any future conflict?



I'd argue that Thor losing an eye wasn't necessary to the plot of Ragnorok either- it amounted to nothing in that movie as well. If anything, that act was for the purpose of demonstrating Hela's character, not developing Thor's.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

think that's just semantic hair-splitting: Odin didn't literally say the words "you will never need a hammer again," so I guess that's supposed to prove that the use of Stormbreaker/Mjolnir in IW/Endgame didn't contradict that? Again, agree to disagree.

And it's not that the eye was essential to the plot of Ragnarok, it's that keeping it would have been a straightforward way to show that Ragnarok had lasting consequences for Thor's character, and the Russos/Markus/McFeely couldn't even bring themselves to do that.
 
luca

luca

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,505
Trup1aya

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,323
manchego obfuscator said:
think that's just semantic hair-splitting: Odin didn't literally say the words "you will never need a hammer again," so I guess that's supposed to prove that the use of Stormbreaker/Mjolnir in IW/Endgame didn't contradict that? Again, agree to disagree.

And it's not that the eye was essential to the plot of Ragnarok, it's that keeping it would have been a straightforward way to show that Ragnarok had lasting consequences for Thor's character, and the Russos/Markus/McFeely couldn't even bring themselves to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

We can agree to disagree that's fine.... But to better understand your POV I'm just wandering what scene, act or quote lead you to believe that the takeaway was that hammers will forever be of no use to Thor after Ragnorok. To me, It's not just that Odin didn't literally, say it, it's that I dont recall it ever being implied at all.

As for the missing eye- using THAT as a symbol of lasting consequence on Thor's character would have been pretty shallow, because the eye loss, was, itself, inconsequential to his character.

I think the lasting consequence of Thor's trials in Ragnorok is that the constant loss of so many people dear to him continues to Take a toll, despite his inherent Strength.
 
Last edited:
Cocamantis

Cocamantis

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
922
I think that y'all are missing the point of Thor getting back his hammer in "Endgame". When he summoned Mjolnir, he didn't do it because he need it, it was because he thought he wasn't worthy anymore and needed to know.
I think that was the point all along, rather than "he needs his hammer cuz of reasons". He was defeated, couldn't save jack shit and gave up completely. Depression took him down HARD. It was obvious to him (and perhaps) the audience that he wasn't worth it anymore. Turns out he still was.
 
LL_Decitrig

LL_Decitrig

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,334
Sunderland
Thinking about the significance of Thor losing an eye before realising that only Ragnarok can stop Hela, I looked up the Marvel adaptation of Odin see how the comics account for the Allfather's loss of his eye. And it turns out he sacrifices it to Mimir in return for the wisdom to, among other things, stop Ragnarok.

So there's a symmetry, with father and son each sacrificing his right eye in order to save Asgard. That's all it is. The minute he needs both his eyes he gets a new right eye from Rocket.
 
Trup1aya

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,323
Cocamantis said:
I think that y'all are missing the point of Thor getting back his hammer in "Endgame". When he summoned Mjolnir, he didn't do it because he need it, it was because he thought he wasn't worthy anymore and needed to know.
I think that was the point all along, rather than "he needs his hammer cuz of reasons". He was defeated, couldn't save jack shit and gave up completely. Depression took him down HARD. It was obvious to him (and perhaps) the audience that he wasn't worth it anymore. Turns out he still was.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is all true, but people also point to Storm Breaker to argue IW erases Ragnorok's character development.

They think that him learning that the source of his strength is internal = he's internally strong enough to, without powerful weapons, handle ANY threat the universe throws his way, even Titan's with Infinity stones.

I don't think Rangorak implied the latter at all.
 
Richiek

Richiek

Member
Nov 2, 2017
12,063
Updated Daily Bugle at Disney California Adventure:

pih46s0h2xa31.jpg
 
Vibranium

Vibranium

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,523
Thor 4 should be Thor leaving the Guardians and going an insane adventure through the realms and space far away from Asgard. Beta Ray Bill is absolutely going to appear, he is the sort of character Taika loves. But for the love of Odin, can we please have Sif come back for the next movie? I'm interested in seeing Waititi having fun with her character, maybe she could team with Bill and Valkyrie.
 
Last edited:
Cocamantis

Cocamantis

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
922
Trup1aya said:
This is all true, but people also point to Storm Breaker to argue IW erases Ragnorok's character development.

They think that him learning that the source of his strength is internal = he's internally strong enough to, without powerful weapons, handle ANY threat the universe throws his way, even Titan's with Infinity stones.

I don't think Rangorak implied the latter at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Exactly. I mean he was all powerful and shit by the end of Ragnarok and then 5 minutes later gets completely rekt by Thanos and his goons. That alone should clarify any doubt. And then in Endgame even with his axe got quite a challenge against Thanos (and thanks Cap for being worthy because Thor would be dead as fuck right now). So yeah, his strength is internal and he doesn't really need a weapon but he sure as hell could use some every now and then.
 
MetalMagus

MetalMagus

Avenger
Oct 16, 2018
1,645
Maine
Trup1aya said:
This is all true, but people also point to Storm Breaker to argue IW erases Ragnorok's character development.

They think that him learning that the source of his strength is internal = he's internally strong enough to, without powerful weapons, handle ANY threat the universe throws his way, even Titan's with Infinity stones.

I don't think Rangorak implied the latter at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To add my 2 cents in. Eitri explicitly calls Stormbreaker a "King's weapon" - it's meant for the leader of the Asgardians. Also, Odin himself owns a weapon - Gugnir - which we see him wield in Thor 1 and 2 (and Thor uses vs. Hela in the Throneroom in Ragnarok). There's nothing lesser about a god who uses a weapon.

You can own your power, but even that might not be enough, which Thor learns the hard way at the start of Infinity War. Thor wielding Stormbreaker isn't "oh, I actually do need a hammer after all" it's "I'm swearing a blood oath to kill this man and I need the best tool to do it."

Mjolnir was a crutch, meant to teach Thor about how to best use his powers. Stormbreaker is a knuckle duster, mean to amplify what's there to effect maximum damage.
 
ty_hot

ty_hot

Banned
Dec 14, 2017
7,176
Just watched the first Guardians of the Galaxy (yes, I am late! started the whole thing after Endgame was in the theaters). Really like the characters, all of them are fun and they are great together. Movie was also good (but I kinda slept in the end, which happens in most super hero movies tbh). Only the first Avengers was a better movie, Ironman 2 was the second best tied with Guardians for me. Next up is the second Avengers. I am enjoying watching, didn't expect to not drop the whole thing after 2 or 3 movies...
 
Trup1aya

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,323
Cocamantis said:
Exactly. I mean he was all powerful and shit by the end of Ragnarok and then 5 minutes later gets completely rekt by Thanos and his goons. That alone should clarify any doubt. And then in Endgame even with his axe got quite a challenge against Thanos (and thanks Cap for being worthy because Thor would be dead as fuck right now). So yeah, his strength is internal and he doesn't really need a weapon but he sure as hell could use some every now and then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

MetalMagus said:
To add my 2 cents in. Eitri explicitly calls Stormbreaker a "King's weapon" - it's meant for the leader of the Asgardians. Also, Odin himself owns a weapon - Gugnir - which we see him wield in Thor 1 and 2 (and Thor uses vs. Hela in the Throneroom in Ragnarok). There's nothing lesser about a god who uses a weapon.

You can own your power, but even that might not be enough, which Thor learns the hard way at the start of Infinity War. Thor wielding Stormbreaker isn't "oh, I actually do need a hammer after all" it's "I'm swearing a blood oath to kill this man and I need the best tool to do it."

Mjolnir was a crutch, meant to teach Thor about how to best use his powers. Stormbreaker is a knuckle duster, mean to amplify what's there to effect maximum damage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Right,

Even at the end of Ragnorok, immediately after learning the power was within him, he still wasn't even as powerful as Hela. He "hit her with the biggest lightening bolt in the history of lightning bolts and it did nothing".

She whoops Thor & Valkerie's collective asses, then boasts to Thor "you can't beat me" and Thor's response is "I know, but he can"

His power play was sending Loki to unleash Surtur, to destroy the entire planet with Hela on it, while he ran away from the fight with his people.

I'm really not understanding why anyone's takeaway would be that Thor's character would no longer see a need for a weapon. At the end of Ragnorok, he realizes he's out matched, and sends for something bigger to even the odds. There's clearly still threats that are well beyond his natural capabilities alone, and he'll reach outward when necessary.

The takeaway from Ragnorok is clearly that the source of his strength is internal - not that he has no need for a hammer.
 
Last edited:
ZattMurdock

ZattMurdock

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,333
Earth 616
ty_hot said:
Just watched the first Guardians of the Galaxy (yes, I am late! started the whole thing after Endgame was in the theaters). Really like the characters, all of them are fun and they are great together. Movie was also good (but I kinda slept in the end, which happens in most super hero movies tbh). Only the first Avengers was a better movie, Ironman 2 was the second best tied with Guardians for me. Next up is the second Avengers. I am enjoying watching, didn't expect to not drop the whole thing after 2 or 3 movies...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I always enjoy to watch stories like this. I'll likely try to initiate the @ that I like in all the MCU craziness, haha.
 
luca

luca

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,505
ty_hot said:
Just watched the first Guardians of the Galaxy (yes, I am late! started the whole thing after Endgame was in the theaters). Really like the characters, all of them are fun and they are great together. Movie was also good (but I kinda slept in the end, which happens in most super hero movies tbh). Only the first Avengers was a better movie, Ironman 2 was the second best tied with Guardians for me. Next up is the second Avengers. I am enjoying watching, didn't expect to not drop the whole thing after 2 or 3 movies...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Have you seen every MCU movie up till Guardians of the Galaxy? It's a rare sight that somebody ranks Iron Man 2 that high up, but it's great to see. It's the one movie I have a soft spot for.

Trup1aya said:
Right,

Even at the end of Ragnorok, immediately after learning the power was within him, he still wasn't even as powerful as Hela. He "hit her with the biggest lightening bolt in the history of lightning bolts and it did nothing".

She whoops Thor & Valkerie's collective asses, then boasts to Thor "you can't beat me" and Thor's response is "I know, but he can"

His power play was sending Loki to unleash Surtur, to destroy the entire planet with Hela on it, while he ran away from the fight with his people.

I'm really not understanding why anyone's takeaway would be that Thor's character would no longer see a need for a weapon. At the end of Ragnorok, he realizes he's out matched, and sends for something bigger to even the odds. There's clearly still threats that are well beyond his natural capabilities alone, and he'll reach outward when necessary.

The takeaway from Ragnorok is clearly that the source of his strength is internal - not that he has no need for a hammer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Your posts about Thor nails it.
 
Einchy

Einchy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
42,659
I feel like they won't actually announce the entire phase 4 but goddamn so I hope they do. I WANNA KNOW EVERYTHING
 
Bloodarmz

Bloodarmz

Member
Jul 11, 2018
705
I was curious about the last reveal so I looked it up.

It happened at the end of October 2014, and the films that were already known at that point were Age of Ultron and Ant-Man (both 2015).
Announced were:
Captain America: Civil War (6th May 2016)
Doctor Strange (4th November 2016)
Guardians of the Galaxy v2 (5th May 2017)
Thor: Ragnarok (28th July 2017 - was actually released on 3rd November 2017)
Black Panther (3rd November 2017 - was actually released on 16th February 2018)
Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 (4th May 2018 - was actually released a week earlier on 27th April 2018)
Captain Marvel (6th July 2018 - was actually released on 8th March 2019)
Inhumans (2nd November 2018 - we all know what happened to that)
Avengers: Infinity War Part 2 (3rd May 2019 - was actually released a week earlier on 26th April 2019 as Avengers: Endgame)

The ones that were not mentioned were the Spider-Man films for obvious reasons (Homecoming came between GotG2 and Thor 3, taking the July 2017 slot), and Ant-Man and the Wasp, which came out on 6th July 2018, the original slot for Captain Marvel.

According to this page here (pdf at the bottom), the future Marvel releases are on:
1st May 2020
6th November 2020
12th February 2021
7th May 2021
5th November 2021
18th February 2022
6th May 2022
29th July 2022
This is all after the Fox stuff so I don't think there will be a Spider-Man style disruption. So a minimum of 8 films to be announced. Last time they did this the furthest planned release date was 4 and a half years. I feel like F4 and X-Men would be around the 2023 stage if not further.
Just to note, James Gunn's Suicide Squad is set to be released on 6th August 2021, so I'm going to guess that GotG3 won't come out until 2023 at the earliest.
Not too long to go now!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.