jedispyder wrote:Watching 3D is just too difficult with regular glasses. And half the time it seems you have to look at an angle to see it clearly it gets frustrating. I prefer 2D, but know that 3D is big with most people. The movie itself was definitely awesome! And when you see it, Arn, don't forget to stay til the end of the credits.
My girlfriend and I saw it, and we both wear glasses. It was fine for both of us.
We both have a pretty basic prescription though, and the glasses Cineplex gives out are large enough to easily fit over our regular glasses.
"French is like anal, exotic but oh so unnecessary."
Just got back from seeing it, and it was absolutely awesome. Both my girlfriend and I thought it was much better than Iron Man, and she loves that movie.
I didn't see it in 3D because neither one of us care for 3D movies at all. But seeing Thor was fantastic.
I was laughing at all the little jokes and hints, but when I did, I was the only person out of maybe 150 laughing in the theater. When she pulled off the 'Donald Blake, M.D.' name tag I burst out laughing pretty hard but no one else got it.
And I nearly yelled 'HELL YES!' when they said 'we need firepower in the sky' and you know who grabbed a you know what. Because I knew instantly who it was supposed to be.
Really great movie, and I hope this just builds me up for Captain America even more.
Also, I was THRILLED by how much screen time the Warriors Three and Sif got in the movie. I was afraid they'd be kind of tossed to the side once the plot got rolling but Loved when they were in it throughout. When they arrived on Midgard I was dying.
Also, the actor playing Fandral NEEDS to play Oliver Queen at some point. He had the look and some of the attitude down. If he shifted from British demeanor to American Liberal he'd be perfect.
The guy playing Fandral seemed like a brilliant dead ringer for Fandral.
My recent interest in Thor has come from Peter Milligan and Matt Fraction one-shots. So, I'm not too familiar with Thor books. But, I was a bit surprised to see Balder's omission. What did you think of this?
I can see why they would leave him out, since having a third Odin son in a film where a big part of the plot is the jealously of one brother to another would make a third brother superfluous. However, shame they couldn't squeeze him in.
The majority of my Thor interest and knowledge comes from the JMS and Coipel relaunch when they brought him back after the whole "Disassembled" story-arch, where Thor rebuilt Asgard over Oklahoma. I only stayed on it for 12 issues I think, and that did included the one shots by Fraction as well at the time. All of them were great, but the delayed schedule caused me to loose some interest.
And yes, I was incredibly surprised by the omission of Balder. I really thought he'd be in the film. I mean, having the Warrior's Three, Sif, and Heimdal play such big parts, but not even having him in the film surprised me greatly. Everyone else seemed to wear the same helmet he does so I was surprised. If they did put him in it, I doubt they'd have done the story with him as a son of Odin. That'd be saved for a sequel or two that they could work up to. But not having him really caught me off guard. I think they replaced him with a mother for Thor and Loki, who I've never heard of or seen before.
Maybe they'll include him in a sequel, and I'd love to see someone like the Enchantress and Executioner be the primary villains in a future film. Which would be good if they did that, and had a Baron Zemo villain in a Cap sequel to set up a Masters of Evil for a future Avengers film too.
That's all of course speculative and on the fact that all of the future movies succeed as well as these have.
God that was pure joy!
The cameos! I saw 2 comics writers and well, that character "firepower from the sky", was there anything else?
And the post credit sequence! Very njice.
Total success except for the 3D but that's cause I don't like it.
JMS (think he was the first who tried to pick up the Mjlonir)and then Walt and Louise Simonson (both were Asgardians dressed in garb in the background, not very noticeable but still awesome to hear them talk about it).
ha I totally did not catch that. I had completely forgotten to keep an eye out for him. I remember that scene a lot, but not it being him. I was really into the actions of the movie rather than looking for certain people I suppose!
The ones I missed were the Simonsons. I blame the 3D.
Also it seems lots of people have no clue what that was in Fury's briefcase at the postcredit scene. It's even written on imdb that it's a piece of Bifrost. Fools! I say thee nay.
One thing I wish they had in the movie were lines of dialogue "I say thee nay" and "Have at thee!!".
I saw Thor last friday in 3D and, like many others, I agree it was a great film. I didn't catch any of the writer cameos (JMS, or the Simonses).
This is the first time I've seen a film in theatres in 3D and it was a great experience. The action scenes popped out in a really noticable fashion but I wasn't jumping back in my seat or anything like they show in commercials.
The movie itself was fantastic: lots of humor and action and not-too-cheesy dialog. While the movie is first and foremost an action film and Thor is obviously the star, I felt this was much more of a character driven film and really as much (if not more) about Loki than Thor.
Thor is front and center learning humility and trying to find his way after Odin banishes him, but as Thor is learning how to be a true hero & warrior we see Loki very subtley descending into madness and then outright evil. Loki isn't a throwaway "evil" villain like Iron Monger. Loki starts off as very sympathetic character and is depicted as nothing more than a little mishcevious and jealous of his brother. However, Loki becomes unhinged as he learns of his true parentage and from there he descends furhter & further into evil. Even after he betrays Thor, he doesn't make an alliegence with the Frost Giants to take over Asgard but tricks them before killing Laufey (his father), and does it for Odin, just as Thor tried to do. Loki recieved a surprisng amount of screen time for a bad guy and it paid off. He was one of the best (if not the best) characters in the film
I think they showed Loki so much because they wanted to show him go through a legit transformation from "sibling" to "villain" and make it actually mean something. And Loki is usually a big supporting character, albeit a lot of times a villain, in the comic. I think he did a perfect job as the trickster...
Plus, giving him all of that screen time and showing the transformation really sets him up for a return, most likely in Avengers of course. Seeing him that often makes you (hopefully) want to see more of him later on to see what else he can do, so that when he does return fans aren't scratching their head trying to remember what his motivation and history are.
Yeah, but I just don't think it would've worked with any other villain from the other movies because, as it was said, you had the most character work done with Loki.
