Rules: explain why
Ready player one.
That has to be one of the cringiest movies I’ve seen, is tries so hard, too hard with it’s “WE LOVE YOU NERD, YOU’RE SO COOL FOR PLAYING GAMES AND GETTING THIS 80S REFERENCE” message and the whole “corporation bad, the people good” narrative seems written for toddlers… The fan service feels cheap and adds nothing to the story.
Finally, they trying to make the people believe that very attractive girl with a barely visible red tint spot on her face is “ugly”… Like wtf?
Yet it received decent reviews plus being one of the most successful movies of that year.
I’m sorry but all the previous Thor movies (and the one after this) are ASS. Ragnarok is the only good Thor movie.
Sorry, and you’re entitled to enjoy what you enjoy, but it’s just not good. Fundamentally undermining your own characters within your own story, let alone undermining arcs that have built up over multiple movies before you, at the climax of those characters’ arcs, does not a good movie make.
When your main character is shit and the side characters are almost all worthless? Ragnarok was the right call
deleted by creator
I really don’t like this sentiment. First of all because it doesn’t match my experience on the ground, where many of the most highly-regarded superhero films do take themselves quite seriously. The first two Toby Maguire Spiderman films. First two X-Men films. (And, the third of each of those trilogies also takes itself seriously but is not as good. But the point isn’t that being serious is automatically good, but that being serious is in no way a detriment to being a good film.) The Nolan Batman trilogy and The Batman, as well as The Penguin from a live-action TV perspective. Logan received widespread critical acclaim even outside of the comic book world. Or we can leave the live action realm and look at cartoons like BTAS, whose excellent dark tone basically defined what the title character should be like, and whose early crossover with STAS often received favourable comparisons to the far inferior Batman v Superman live action film two decades later.
But even if there weren’t good counter-examples, I wouldn’t like that sentiment, because it’s essentially admitting “it’s impossible to make a superhero film that is also good”. And I fundamentally do not agree with that defeatist message. The superhero genre is one that is capable of a great range of tones and subject matter and of instilling a wide range of emotions in its audience.
Ragnarok was good though? Entertaining and overall engaging. The original was a snooze fest, dark world is AWFUL and ugly looking. The last one is as bad only with bad jokes and unfinished CGI
While I still just fundamentally disagree with your assessment that “Ragnarok was good though”, what’s definitely true is that calling Ragnarok good is utterly irrelevant in response to this specific comment.
Because this isn’t about Ragnarok. It’s about the notion that comic book adaptations can be taken seriously at all.
How is that any different than Ragnarok?
Most of the jokes landed in Ragnarok and you don’t see Thor jumping like an idiot, he actually has badass moments
Some of the jokes land, “most” is debatable. The few badass and dramatic moments are ruined by being immediately followed by some slapstick bullshit.