This movie sucks - Thor: Tales of Asgard (2011) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zzyxx 13 years ago

was considering this as it's available on freemediatv for streaming now -- though it did look a bit like childish US animu -- is this kids' stuff jumping on the 'thor' bandwagon or something else?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zzyxx 13 years ago

thanks i'll give it a go. have had a few surprises in the last couple of months with US animation -- the dead space adaptation in particular was quite decent, so i'll give this a chance before ripping it to shreds.

reply

[–] ikarinokami 13 years ago

i agree this movie was boring. no other word i can use, but boring

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snakeyez86 13 years ago

No, half my post was abou how Marvel Animated is garbage compared to DC. And the HULK is fkin stupid. He cant be killed, he only gets bigger madder and stronger, unless u wait till hes human in which case he turns into a little pussy. . In HULK vs Thor he beats the *beep* out of Thor. Who is the GOD OF THUNDER! Yeah right! Wolverine can peirce the Hulks skin but billions of volts of lightning does nothing.. And on top of that the HULK was able to pick up Mjolnir and throw it when only the God of Thunder can wield it.. But even than theanimation was decent, ive watched every Marvel movie ever made, so I can easily say this was the worst imho

You're dumb enough to think the Hulk is a good concept.

So I can see why u like this movie. Bad Taste

So STFU

The only waste of time was releasing this garbage to the public after I waited so long for it.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snakeyez86 13 years ago

Bruce banner is a pussy.. Dr Jekyll Mr Hyde meets Frankenstein is a retarded idea. If u can pierce his skin than he wouldve died from the lightning, explosion style.. Not just be slowed down.

And considering all ur giving is your opinion on the movie, as I am. Im not gonna say im wrong to not like the childish animation and poor story.

If ur such a fan make a new thread instead of trying to argue ur opinion to someone who doesnt care.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Snakeyez86 13 years ago

You didnt bother me at all theres just no debating with Fan Boys like you.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mligorio 13 years ago

<<Hulk:
"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" meets Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein", and made into a tragic hero.
Yeah, I can see how a person without a thought in his head could perceive this as a bad concept.>>

Or, we can think of it as showing how the forces or nature are beyond humanity's control. In which case, we can compare the Hulk to, for example, Jurassic Park. When we get to Thor vs the Hulk, we have the impression that humankind has corrupted nature to such an extent that it is even beyond the ability of God to control.

reply

[–] Snakeyez86 13 years ago

Lol and you didnt even post an opinion on the movie, you just jumped to Marvels defense and called me an idiot, instead of stating a reason why im "wrong" other than the fact that you liked the movie. Youre obviously not smart enough to know how to debate so dont post unless u can state why im wrong about the bad animation. And the fact that they ruined a potentially epic Thor movie. Otherwise u just come off as a troll.. "The Hulk is awesome, and if you dont think so youre an idiot and if you dont like the Thor movie youre stupid." That may as well be ur argument, how old are you?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jbart321 13 years ago

I'd have to agree with orinanime02. You are a complete moron. You suck the tit of anything DC and complain about Marvel fanboys? Really? This isn't politics it's comic books. Grow up a little.

reply

[–] zzyxx 13 years ago

so i've watched it now. wtf is wrong with you two? it was decent enough -- "marvel vs. dc"? f$&*ing get a life!

oops sry jbart didnt mean to reply to you

reply

[–] mic7440 13 years ago

I totally agree with you. If you watch the DC movies there is a lot more detail in the battles, the animation, and the characters. There is way more depth, interaction, and interconnection between the characters and their individual plight.
"Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths"
"Superman/Batman: Apocalypse"
"All-Star Superman"
"Superman/Batman: Public Enemies"
"Batman: Under the Red Hood"
"Batman: Gotham Knight"
"Superman/Shazam!: The Return of Black Adam"

Watch either on of those movies and compare that to "Thor: Tales of Asgard". It is plain to see and a matter of simple truth that the DC films are by far superior to this one. This film was even ridiculous compared to "Hulk vs Thor" and "Planet Hulk" and even those two films are no match for the DC films. I am a Marvel fan. Of my comics stash maybe 5 percent are DC. Yet I hate Marvel animation. This movie was just a quick way to draw more attention to the new movie...either that or they just wanted to draw a little money out of fans. They threw it together and used amateur animation at best compared to what is available these days.

In this movie Thor was the stereotypical teenager rebelling against his dad. Boring, we've all seen this millions of times. Sif was his love interest which she still is as they are grown ups. Makes you wonder if he ever met another girl at all in his life. Loki is his brother who is not yet evil. That was the only redeeming quality for this movie in my opinion. To see how much they cared for each other and backed each other up when they were kids. Odin was extremely weak compared to the comic version. He manages to defeat Surter easily but gets his butt kicked by Algrim. WTF? He has gone toe to toe with Galactus and numerous other high level cosmic beings. He has shown to be all but invincible while on Asgard. Yet his battle had no intensity or ferocity.

All the battle scenes were cheap and cheesy. In the bar fight scene there was no depth at all to the battle. As a matter of fact, ALL the battles had no depth. It was like one character punches another and that character gets knocked out. There was no depth to the sorcery or the weaponry of Asgard. They just had large wooden things that shot large arrows while the Frost Giants had large machines that shot large snowballs...gimme a break. The story is typical. Thor sets out to find a mysterious object that no other traveler or adventurer had ever been able to find. And he easily finds it in a matter of hours by reciting a story that every child in Asgard has been made to memorize. He finds it and accidentally kills some Frost Giants, invades a Themyscira-like land of warrior females, ignites a fierce battle between 2 lands, almost gets his father killed, and at the end everything is fine. THAT was the story.

This movie was indiscernible. The only thing recognizable are the characters names. Other than that it could have been just your average ordinary coming of age, father vs son, youthful mischief turns into deadly mayhem, with a bunch of no name characters. Pitiful.

reply

[–] Snakeyez86 13 years ago

Very well put mic, my whole point was that this.movie was a huge disappointment. Im a DC fan.but like I said I love all animated comic movies. And from what ive seen Marvel has a very poor style compared to DCU movies even though I still enjoyed majority of them. Just look at the IMDB Ratings for every Marvel Animated movie, and than look at the ratings of the movies mic listed. With the addition of Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Mask of the Phantasm, Batman/Superman worlds finest, Superman last son of kryton. There is no contest, the highest Marvel rating I found was a 7.0

reply

[–] mligorio 13 years ago

<<It is plain to see and a matter of simple truth that the DC films are by far superior to this one.>>

It isn't a fact that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate, which one you prefer is simply a matter or TASTE. I saw Batman/Superman Apocalypse, and its a FACT that I like Tales from Asgard better.

<<In this movie Thor was the stereotypical teenager rebelling against his dad. Boring, we've all seen this millions of times.>>

It seems to me that the boring theme that we've all seen a million times is common to both Marvel, DC, Swords & Sorcery, and Sci-Fi, notably that POWER CORRUPTS.

Dune
Star Wars
Lord of Rings
Harry Potter
Jurassic Park
Batman/Superman Apocalypse
Thor Tales from Asgard
Spiderman
Fantastic Four

And you if you made a complete list, it would go from the floor to the ceiling. In fact, I would be more impressed if you could find a superhero story that doesn't fit this mold. As the story writer you have to find a way to present the same moral from a fresh perspective.

The idea is actually very simple. Power and corruption are old ideas to you and me, but they are new ideas to someone who is still young. The writers hoped that by letting us see the same power struggle from young Thor's naive perspective it would also seem new to those of us for which the theme has long since become 'old hat'. They also hoped that you would be more impressed not with how well we wields a sword but how well he uses what is between his two ears, namely his BRAIN. It was realizing that swords DO kill people, that made Thor a man. It was taking responsibility for his own actions, placing his own life at risk, and finally showing his enemies compassion that made Thor the great hero that we know him to be today. It is not great power that makes a hero it is CHARACTER, and THAT is why Thor made his father proud and THAT is why its a good story.

<<Sif was his love interest which she still is as they are grown ups. Makes you wonder if he ever met another girl at all in his life.>>

Where I come from a 50 year golden anniversary is the ultimate success, whereas, getting divorced after only one year is a typical failure. How many of us have been lucky enough to find true love? Certainly not you, if you believe that chasing after every women in Asgard is more heroic.

<<Loki is his brother who is not yet evil. That was the only redeeming quality for this movie in my opinion. To see how much they cared for each other and backed each other up when they were kids.>>

I found this perspective fascinating. It is interesting to note how they both share the same struggle but, in the end, they turn out to be different. Notice how Thor spared his enemy's life, but Lochi didn't.

<<Odin was extremely weak compared to the comic version. He manages to defeat Surter easily but gets his butt kicked by Algrim. WTF? He has gone toe to toe with Galactus and numerous other high level cosmic beings. He has shown to be all but invincible while on Asgard. Yet his battle had no intensity or ferocity.>>

For once I agree with you. Its obviously an attempt to make Thor the hero of the story. I have the same problem with 'Harry Potter' and any hero who is the 'be-all, do-all'.

<<The story is typical. Thor sets out to find a mysterious object that no other traveler or adventurer had ever been able to find. And he easily finds it in a matter of hours by reciting a story that every child in Asgard has been made to memorize.>>

We agree once again. And, once again this same concept annoyed me in 'Harry Potter'.

So we agree that the story has logical flaws. In my opinion, having Thor perform the most important tasks is an attempt to make him an even greater hero, but is it not realistic, nor is it the team-work concept they try to push in their Fantastic Four stories.

We don't agree on what makes a story entertaining. Evidently, you favor more intense combat scenes, which I like too, but I believe that theme, plot and character development are more important than special effects.

So a popular movie like Jurassic Park, not withstanding the great special effects, basically sucks from my perspective. Spielberg seems to telling me (a scientist) that the forces of nature are beyond humanity's control, and we would be better off not to open up any more of Pandora's Boxes. However, what would Spielberg do without a movie camera?

reply

[–] mic7440 13 years ago

Very well said. However, flavor of ice cream depends on the person and individual taste. When I said the DC movies were better, I was really talking about things that we can look at, compare, and judge regardless of individual taste.

I said "If you watch the DC movies there is a lot more detail in the battles, the animation, and the characters. There is way more depth, interaction, and interconnection between the characters and their individual plight". A critic can look for and decide whether or not these components are present or which movie displays these better. Individual taste will still decide which movie you will personally like better. My stance is that from what we can see, rate, and compare, the DC movies are better. Some fans may like the Marvel movies better, but anyone who gives a non-partial comparison will have to admit that DC makes better quality of animated movies. It is proven since they always have higher ratings and more approval. But I am still a Marvel fan. I just wish Marvel would step their animation game up. It was too sloppy compared to what can be done with animation. Especially when the flying horses were moving and when the Frost Giant king was walking down the stairs.

You are correct in your take on the story line. Perhaps I was a bit nitpicky. I would just like to see some fresh ideas for the typical "teenager/young adult with power" stories. Even when I was a kid I was like "not this again" haha.

On a side note, I think Marvel makes better non-animated movies. DC is stuck in the same old boring Batman vs Joker/ Superman vs Luthor stories they been pushing forever. At least Marvel pulls a variety of enemies outta their comics. And Marvel uses better special effects.

reply

[–] mligorio 13 years ago

So, I checked out one DC animation, Apocalypse, and compared that to Tales of Asgard. I looked carefully at the animation this time. The most obvious difference between the two styles was how muscular the men were. I scored Thor as having a physique you would see on a young man in a gym near you. I scored Superman has having the physique of an elite bodybuilder. Other than this difference, the illustrations looked very similar, with DC using slightly more detail. I see no reason to state that DC's animation is clearly superior. If you prefer guys who are more muscular, well then you prefer guys who are muscular, but that is still a matter of taste.

Interestingly, both stories seem to present the same angle, that is, both stories are about how an adolescent superhero learns to use his/her power. And, I still prefer the Thor story, because I identify better with the main character. I was once a rebellious youth, and sneaking out the window in the middle of the night was a routine procedure. If the best Supergirl can do to show rebellion is to put on a hot looking dress AGAINST daddy Superman's orders, well frankly I ain't impressed. She shows almost no signs of being independent until the very end of the movie, when she finally decides to become a superheroine. Thor, on the other hand, is making his own decisions from the very beginning. And, it is this very same process of making his own choices and learning from his own mistakes that builds his character. And that is EXACTLY what the story writers were trying to point out.

The one thing I did prefer about the DC animation was the combat scenes. The fighting in Tales of Asgard was more of 'Robin Hood' style: knock the sword out of his hand and run him trough. At first the fighting seems a bit too 'playful', but you have to realize that Thor starts out as a boy. When he makes the transition to a man the struggles quickly become a matter of life and death. In fact, I found this transition to be rather dramatic, presumably done intentionally. Even so, I prefer more of 'Conan' style of fighting: lop the guys head off and watch the blood come out of his severed neck.

So, if I now understand the situation correctly what YOU want is more macho physiques and more intense physical combat. Personally, Thor's physique was good enough for me; I prefer a more 'natural' look. But I certainly wouldn't object to better combat scenes. I would also change the plot so that other characters besides Thor would perform important acts of heroism. Watching one of the mightiest beings in the universe (Odin) get knocked out in short-order didn't sit too well with me either.

reply

[–] mic7440 13 years ago

Well at least you checked it out. It is not about any characters physique. Remember I also compared the DC movies with other Marvel movies (Hulk vs Thor/ Planet Hulk). The main characters of those movies had similar physiques to Superman in "Apocalypse".

They are both similar stories but there are more differences than similarities. Supergirl crashes to Earth and her destructive powers emerge. Clark takes her in and tries to help her rein in those powers. Yet there are generation and gender gaps that quickly become evident. The generation gap is more evident in this movie because Superman grew up on Earth in Smallville. Kara just got here, ends up in Metropolis, and is basically a baby (comparatively) in a teenage females body with devastating and deadly power. Because of this the Amazons take her by force to train her since they obviously are better suited for the job. Thus making her feel abandoned or passed off by Clark. During her training she is kidnapped by Darkseid and her best friend is killed. She is then subjected to all the torture and brainwashing that Darkseid and Granny Goodness can throw at her. Side note, Thank GOD Desaad didn't get his hands on her. Once again Superman comes to rescue her. Yet her brain is soo warped from all the different cultures she has been assimilated into along with being tortured that she ends up fighting with Superman. In the final scene we see that she has learned to control her powers quite well. She also realizes that power is abused and many seek to do just that. The movie was not about a young kid gaining powers and becoming rebellious. And nowhere in the movie was she trying to assert her adulthood or independence. If anything she was happy to stay and learn with her older cousin because he went through the same things she was going through. Yet she had no say in what the other characters decided for her. Every decision was forced on her with nobody listening to what her desires were.

Thor was about a kid who grew up on Asgard and was not allowed to leave his home grounds. He had no destructive powers (at the time). He thought he was better than he really was. Hence the reason his father made the warriors concede public training battles to him. Thor took this as a lack of faith and sets out for an ill-fated adventure. The only gap here is that he is a young boy while his father is an adult. They are both Asgardian, they are both royalty, and they both have been such their entire life. Thor sets out because he figures that if he finds an item such as the sword in one night and comes back unscathed then he will earn respect and ultimately more freedom. Thor was allowed a lot of freedom and decision making. His only restriction is that he cannot leave Asgard ONLY because of an uneasy truce with the Frost Giants. His royal status makes him too much of a liability and forceful bargaining weapon for the enemies should he be caught. Also as heir to the throne his and Loki's death would be devastating to Asgard.

Thus the major differences. Thor: coming of age/rites of passage/supression of some choices/assertion of independence. Kara: vulnerability/multiple culture shock/gender differences/taken advantage of/lack of free will.

I presented the stories as neutrally as possible. Neither story is better than the other so I apologize if I gave you that impression. Still a matter of choice on which one you prefer. But you cannot deny the fact that DC animated movies are constantly rated better than Marvel animation. They also get consistently better user reviews. And those ratings/reviews usually mention the same things I said in my first comment to this topic. Even tho, once again I am still a Marvel fan.

reply

[–] mligorio 13 years ago

All I could see in Supergirl was a scared, confused lil girl who, through no fault of her own, was stuck in a typical, average American household custody dispute. First her daddy (Superman), then her mommy (Wonder Woman), and finally, god forbid, her evil uncle (Darkseid)! At the end of the story, just like Thor, she too recognizes the same old adage 'With great power comes great responsibility', but I was just not content with her being in the 'backseat' for the whole film. On the flip-side, Thor became too much of a hero in the end, practically reducing the other characters to bit roles. I am not quite satisfied with either perspective, but if I had to choose, I would rather call the shots and be Thor, than be a passive bystander like Supergirl was.

And, yes, I have noticed that DC is more popular than Marvel, but I am new to DC/Marvel animated films. In fact, other than these the two films, I can't even remember the last time I have seen one. Nor have watched a superhero TV series in years. So, I am still not sure just why that is the case. So far my understanding is that most of the voting is being done by young men between the age of 18-29, with a respectable showing for 30-44 old men. At the moment, all I can see is that younger men prefer more macho looking heros and more graphic violence. However, my opinion may change if I see more.

reply

[–] mic7440 13 years ago

Yea the films seem quite hard to come by. When Blockbuster had 3 stores in my area they only carried 1 or 2 of them and each of those were for blu-ray. I've mainly seen them in the vendor machines. I might just have to do the Netfix thing. Anyway, hey man I def appreciate reading your opinion and take on the films..

I recommend watching the Justice League crises movie. If you're familiar with the Crisis storyline in the comics then this is a different spin from that. It was my favorite film of all them. If you're a hulk fan then I recommend Planet Hulk or Hulk vs. If you're a Thor/Beta Ray Bill fan then avoid those two films, haha!!

reply

[–] mligorio 13 years ago

I have had a chance to see Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths. I still like Tales of Asgard better. Why? Because the Justice League's conflict between Good and Evil takes place on the football field, but there is little happening on the chessboard. It is true that the story leaves us with a number of questions to ponder:

Is there really a difference between Good and Evil, and if so which is truly stronger?
Is humanity worth saving, or would we all be better off dead?

In contradistinction the heroes of the story did not have any difficult questions to ponder. Remember what Wonder Woman said just after the good Lex Luther asked our Justice League for help? "I can't believe we're having this discussion. Of course we're going to help." There was never any doubt about the motives of the good Lex Luther, because the Martian read his mind. And in fact, very rarely throughout the story does any character question what is really true, who really is his/her ally, or what really is the best course of action to take at a given moment. Essentially, the Justice League's decisions are no-brainers. We're the good guys, they're the bad guys, and we going to kick their butts just like we always do.

Imagine what this would be like from the point of view of a spectator, namely me. Well, Team Red, White, and Blue has always won before, therefore they are going to win now. I guess I'll change the channel and watch Star Trek.

Batman must make the most difficult decisions, but how challenging are they really? If you had a chance to save your own life would you do it? And, if you had the choice between saving the life of a cop or the saving the life of a robber, whose life are you going to save?

Now compare that to the decisions Odin and Thor made. Didn't Odin stand idle and watch the Frost Giants destroy an entire civilization? Certainly Thor would have helped the Dark Elves. Whose choice do you think is best, and why? You have to stop to think for a moment, don't you? You also have to think about who the real heroes and villains are.

Certainly I was surprised that Algrim turned out to be the villain. And he is a more interesting villain than the ones in Crisis on Two Worlds. Why? Because he has some moral ground to stand on, namely the fact that Odin refused to help his now extinct race when they were in desperate need. He is not just your average ego maniac whose lust for power makes little sense. Logically, we feel some sympathy for him. Whereas, the DC characters struck me as being complete air heads. Imagine planning to blow up the world and not stopping to think that they would blow themselves up with it. Duh. Of course, the real intellect of the group, Owlman, thinks that this will lead to perfect universal harmony. Would a Swiss watch work better if I blew it up? Duh.

When, we come to romance, once again I prefer Tales of Asgard. Given a choice between a female politician with ordinary physical abilities and Sif, the 'Valkyrie', I take Sif. As for Wonder Woman, she is pretty much just one of the boys. Even her sadistic evil counterpart, Superwoman, was more provocative. Too bad. I still don't get why DC expects us to believe that sex is 'evil'. Remember Supergirl's evil personality? She chose to wear the hot dress didn't she?

So, to sum it all up, Tales of Asgard is a chess match and Crisis on Two Earths is a football game. I prefer chess.

reply

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

Hulk vs Thor had much worse animation than this.

----------
I've been vandalized by Elvis! -Ernest, Ernest Goes to Jail (1990)

reply

[–] Dream_Demon 12 years ago

I liked this movie. I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger

reply

[–] lockon_stratos 12 years ago

Just saw it and I agree this movie was pretty boring. Sure the story is decent but the action sucks. I was sort of pleased that they didn't hurry and try to get Thor his hammer. But this is just a small growing up story so it's more fitting for the comics and not a big budget animated movie.

There is no question that DC make better animated movies. Animated series are a different matter. But Marvel win out in the live action movie department. I don't collect comics but if I did I'd favor Marvel. I favor Marvel live action movies as well. Not many DC live action movies out there. Not a fan of Nolan's movies. Burton is better. Green Lantern had nice effects and some good action that's it. Reynolds was annoying as always.

---

reply

[–] nashknight-1 11 years ago

I found it pretty decent. Animation is ok, it has some cool monsters and fight scenes and it's a good exposition of the whole universe. It's not a masterpiece, but it's very entertaining. 7/10

reply