I HATE RAGNAROK

Why man? Ragnarok is the best Thor movie

I politely disagree, if you wanna see my response you can refer to the (insanely long) comment thread above 😂

That is a hot take. Both from a screenwriting perspective and a viewing experience perspective, Ragnarok is insanely good.

Yeah I know it's a hot take, but I stand by it completely. If you don't mind me asking, why do feel that it's so amazing?

OOoooh *warming up typing fingers* I'm so glad you asked.

So, Thor: Ragnarok has a lot of things going for it: humor, exciting action scenes, great visual design, spot-on music -- but all of those things are icing on the cake. The real excellence of the movie is that it's a powerful story of character perfectly delivered by a well-structured (brilliantly? yes, brilliantly is more accurate) plot.

At its heart, Ragnarok is the story of how Thor, who is heroic but believes that he is a hero for all the wrong reasons, develops into a real hero. His progress is mirrored by the three main supporting characters: Loki, Valkyrie, and Bruce Banner. Each one of them is also a partly evolved or partly lacking hero whose journey mirrors and sheds light on Thor's journey into heroism, and by the end, they have also developed into the most heroic version of themselves in complement to his development. His growth is highlighted particularly effectively through his repeated use of the phrase, "That's what heroes do."

That sentence is a single, but very telling instance of the use of structure and repetition to show the development of the plot and the characters. The plot itself is a textbook-perfect three act structure. In the first act, we see Thor and his world, learning about the conflicts he faces and his character. We see his skills, but also his willful ignorance and reliance on the use of brute force. Think of the way he lets Mjolnir smash up Dr. Strange's Sanctum and ignores the fact that Loki was trapped in freefall, essentially tortured, for the length of a couple of scenes: first act Thor wants to be a hero, but is also destructive and foolish. The first act comes to an abrupt and satisfying end with the appearance of Hel, who destroys Thor's hammer and flings him into a planet in the outer reaches of the galaxy.

The hammer -- of course the hammer is important: with his strength and his flowing golden hair, it's what he thinks makes him a hero. So to discover the deeper meaning of heroism, he has to be separated from it. Different characters point out the disconnect to him in a variety of ways throughouth the second and early third acts: Korg's reflection on his speech about the hammer; having his hair trimmed against his will; the way he gets shocked again and again, essentially having his own power turned against him; and his rivalry with the Hulk to be the "strongest Avenger".

I'll have to finish in another comment if you're interested. (hit the limit)

I would very much like to hear more! However, before you do so, I have a something for you to ponder: is this *really* a Thor movie? Look at the setting, the mood, the characters of this as opposed to the first two films. It's entirely different.
This isn't to say a movie cannot be good just because it's a unique take on a story; but personally, this movie feels more like a Guardians film with Thor characters subbed in. Think about the over-the-top humor; the choice of music; and the emphasis on high-tech. All of these would fit perfectly in a GotG film, but are suddenly thrown in as a replacement to Thor's more subtle humor; orchestral music; and Asgard.
I could go on, but I will let you add more of your thoughts before tearing your opinion to shreds (I jest, of course. I will make counterarguments but I will also attempt to remain respectful and stay true to the spirit of the debate! 😊)

Well, of course the Marvel characters are often treated in different styles without that destroying the continuity. The gloomy tone of Thor 2 didn't match the more epic tone of Thor 1, but they're both Thor movies.

Don't worry, I'm not worried about counterarguments. Here follows the rest of the (rough draft) essay:

Thor thinks that being the strongest is the key aspect of his heroism, and that’s what’s driving his insistence on the title. Tony Stark’s title for him, “Point Break,” emphasizes this flawed understanding by highlighting more of the inessential aspects of his heroic identity: his hair and his physique. They are trademarks of Thor, but they are not what make him a hero.

During the second act, Thor has his false notions of heroism literally and repeatedly beaten out of him, until he is willing to take a desperate chance to escape and return to save Asgard. To do this, he has to cooperate with two people he rather despises: Loki and Bruce Banner. He also has to outthink Loki by understanding his brother and his motivations. For the god who has thought “Get Help” is the last word in humor for 1500 years without understanding why Loki doesn’t like it, this represents considerable growth. Similarly, his ability to really understand and negotiate with Bruce, to whom he has been a “bad friend,” is the key to their escape.* Finally, Thor and his companions have to fly up “the Devil’s anus”, a degrading choice of exit that first act Thor might have rejected as beneath him. So we can see that the Thor of the second act has gained both an understanding of others and some humility, necessary qualities if he’s going to be a hero who actually serves others rather than his own ego.

Finally, the third act brings it all together. [Wow . . . character limits be real.]

[Because every trilogy deserves a third part]

Thor returns to Asgard ready to serve and to save his people rather than his ego. He’s still the brash hero: his taunts to Hel show that he hasn’t lost his braggadocio. However, in the third act, his performance of bragging and insults is just a performance: he knows that she is more powerful than he is, and is actually risking his own life to distract her so that the people of Asgard can escape. He is now more genuinely heroic and willing to sacrifice himself for others. And the crux of the third act is at his moment of greatest sacrifice, when Hel has beaten him and is gouging out his eye. He is ready to give up, and has a near death vision of his father, who spells out the whole point of Thor’s journey in the – brilliant, right? – line: “Are you Thor, God of Hammers?”

The Thor of the climax understands that he is not the “god of hammers”. His heroism does not come from his hair, or his physical perfection, or having an admiring audience. This is a moment to think back to the way Thor was playing the hero for an audience in the arena, and even in the delightful opening scene, where he’s performing for Surtr the fire giant. And of course, Surtr is important: it’s only through Thor’s new, deeper understanding that he understands the real meaning of Surtr’s prophesied role as the destroyer of Asgard, and gains the ability to save what really matters of Asgard – its people – at the cost of its golden exterior.

All of that carefully-crafted structure and serious character development comes packaged in such a deft blend of humor, action, and sheer audio-visual splendor that it can be easy to miss. But the excellence of the work holds up equally well under the lens of the ancient writer Aristotle or the modern Sid Fields.*** Every piece of the story is serving the plot, and the plot is serving the characters’ growth.

Let me just say, I appreciate you going so in depth! A lot of folks with whom I have debated this topic quickly nosedive into using insults or vague remarks to ward off any disagreement.

I have to admit, you have given me a new perspective on the film's overarching narrative. The story that it tells is compelling and well paced, as a general rule. However, to enjoy it, I feel that one must either turn off their mind and enjoy the jokes, or focus in and search for the deeper meaning. As you showed, there is a lot of depth to Thor and his compatriots. However, I do still have some issues with the film.

Firstly, while the story does have many admirable story beats, and amazing character moments, as you pointed out, it also has some very blunt humor. Unfortunately, I don't feel that it balances the two very well. (The following may be incorrect as I haven't seen theovie in a year or so, but the concept is the important part, so keep that in mind)

The story will jump from a scene on Asgard where hundreds of soldiers are slaughtered by Hela, including one of the Warriors Three, directly to Bruce Banner accidentally turning on the party mode for Sakaar's, er, promiscuous spaceship. Both humor and heart can be present in a film, but they must be balanced well, with smooth transitions between the two, or at least use the lack of similarity between scenes to create a comedic juxtaposition. Instead, it jumps between styles so rapidly that the viewer is left with a sense of whiplash. It's difficult to know if a given scene is truly supposed to be taken seriously because at any moment it could be derailed by Bruce finding a condom.

[see next comment]

Additionally, while the side character are interesting, they don't have a much depth as I would like. For example, while Bruce and Loki are both used fairly well as supporting characters to Thor, they don't have as much of an arch of their own to fully justify their place in the film. Loki falls into this trap less so than Bruce, but Savage Hulk almost entirely seems to exist for comeic relief.

Additionally, Valkyrie is one of the most disappointing characters in the film, in my opinion. She is initially shown as a devil-may-care drunk serving as opposition to the main characters. However, we are then given some backstory on her, showing that she is this way due to her tragic life. Unfortunately, while this is fine in concept, it almost feels as though her trauma from the past and her personality in the present exist apart from one another. Yes, she drinks to forget the pain, but her drunkenness is used as a comedic bit, where during a fight she collapses or some such slapstick-esque humor. She doesn't seem to add much to the plot as a whole, and instead feels like comic relief, a plot device, and a tragic character all at once; while still having each part clash with the others, and never really tying them together cohesively.

Finally, let's talk about Hela. A lot of folks tell me that she is the best villain, because she poses more of a threat than Loki or Malvick (I think that's the wrong name lol) did. However, this is mainly because she is overpowered.

I understand that she is the Goddess of Death. Of course she has immense strength. However, while they technically display this by having her destroy Mjolnir and defeat horses of Asgardian soldiers, not to mention the Warriors Three (don't get me started on the disservice done to them in this film lol), it feels like we are being forced to understand her power, rather than it simply being shown to us in a natural way. She doesn't feel powerful because she is a worthy foe; she feels powerful because the plot demanded a difficult road for Thor.

Additionally, her actions do not support her power. On Earth, she was able to destroy Mjolnir, and her power only grows as she nears Asgard. Then, when she gets to Asgard, she destroys the entire army instantly. However, she then raises up an undead army to fight with her, despite her power clearly being enough. These soldiers never pose much of a threat to the main characters, and instead feel like dramatic, but pointless, setpieces. While of course they make battle scenes more interesting, they never feel like anything more than, say, a goombanin Bowser's Castle: they fill space but add nothing to the difficulty.

Eh, I thought Cate Blanchett was delightful. That, I will allow to be a matter of taste. Notice, however, that Hela and Loki have it in common that they are family foes, Thor's real weakness. Additionally, Hela forces Thor to question the glory of Asgard and his father's legacy, which is perfect. Just as he has had to reevaluate his own heroism, he has to reckon with the darker parts of Asgard's history.

Compared to Hela, the elves in Dark World don't even deserve a mention (I don't remember the elf king's name either, and I saw the darned movie 3 times).

For additional support, I'll defer to a squeaky voice of authority, my current favorite movie critic ( https://unshavedmouse.com/2018/05/10/piss-off-ghost/#more-11771 ), who observes:

"Firstly, have we really gotten to seventeen films without a female main antagonist? Go***amn.

Second, oh my lord but I love this. Yeah, yeah, she’s not exactly the most layered villain in the MCU (though I think Blanchett finds plenty of interesting wrinkles) but honestly WHO CARES? Hela is a RIOT. She is a wise-cracking, all-powerful dominatrix who never told the universe the safe word. She is a HOOT."

And she really is. She's much more interesting and watchable than the Warriors Three ten times over. Their deaths aren't that much of a loss to the movie lore: they haven't gotten more than Seven Dwarves-level character development in the previous movies (did you even notice or care about the recasting of the skinny one?). Scrap them and let's have Korg and Valkyrie.

Apologies for the delayed reply - life is a beast at times lol

I do have to admit, your responses have given me a good perspective, and I certainly understand why you enjoy the film. However, I do have one major issue with them. Allow me to diverge from the movie at hand and instead point to Love and Thunder.

This fourth entry in the Thor series is almost universally hated. Nonetheless, if given the general plot, it sounds great! If you want proof, take a look at the Movies in Minutes recap. Based on that alone, the film sounds like a work of art - deep themes of loss and grief with heroic sacrifice and a satisfying resolution.

Unfortunately, you and I (and the rest of the Marvel community) know that isn't the case. This film has all of those elements, but it is also plagued with out-of-place humor and bad pacing. In my opinion, Ragnarok suffers from the same issue. While it is certainly far less extreme compared to it's successor, the problems remain.

(See next comment)

Also, I'm talking about plot structure, not a plot outline. This may be a writer/reader take, but structure is beautiful.

Lastly, I would like to add something of a personal aspect to this. I didn't watch the MCU until last year, when my brother and I watched the whole Infinity Saga, just to say that we had. Both of us had heard lavish praise heaped upon Ragnarok, and given that we lived his first two films, we had high expectations. As you know by now, it did not fulfill those for me (or for him, though he is less vocal about his disdain lol). My distaste for the film, I think, also stems from the whiplash of expecting perfecting and being given (what I consider to be) a pile of undercooked mush.

On the opposing end of the spectrum lies Quantumania. This movie is heavily derided, but is also the third instalment of a series that I enjoyed. Just last week, I, my brother, and my cousins all sat down to watch it for the first time. We went in expecting nothing, and spent the film poking fun at it. Despite its flaws, we all greatly annoyed it and found a huge portion of it to be amazing - it was simply dragged down by some major errors. We all chose to overlook those in favor of a fun time.

What I think this exemplifies beautifully is how expectations have a huge influence on how something is perceived. I am in no way saying that Quantumania was a masterpiece, but I do think it is overhated. Meanwhile, although I don't think Ragnarok is total garbage, I feel that it is loved by many who cannot defend it (obviously, you are not amongst those!).

If someone likes or dislikes a given film, I won't say you are wrong just because I disagree. But I certainly will try to show you my point of view! I am so glad you were willing to legitimately discuss this film with me - seriously, most folks don't bother. It's been a pleasure, and as I have mentioned, you have shown me a new perspective on the movie - perhaps I will rewatch it sometime with that in mind!

Quantumania might have outperformed your expectations, but it was still meh, all except William Jackson Harper, who could make a masterpiece out of IKEA instructions.