THOR The Movie

Movie was decent.

Many laughs in the theater. Too many dutch angles. Thor's entourage from Asgard felt like 2011 actors dressing up and having fun. I didn't believe they were from another place. Not thrilled with the casting/direction.

The 3D... yuck. What a lame excuse to pay extra at the theater. This is the big problem with shooting a film that is meant for both 2D and 3D. Shallow depth of field? What's the point of 3D then. But if you shoot everything deep, might not be good for the 2D viewers. These types of movies need to be shot two ways IMO.
 
Finally gonna see it this weekend . I had low expectations then high hopes, now they are low again...go Nathalie Portman :)
 
The 3D... yuck. What a lame excuse to pay extra at the theater. This is the big problem with shooting a film that is meant for both 2D and 3D. Shallow depth of field? What's the point of 3D then. But if you shoot everything deep, might not be good for the 2D viewers. These types of movies need to be shot two ways IMO.

IIRC 'Thor' was shot flat and posted for 3-d. Although I might have that wrong.
 
I believe it. I didn't dig the 3D at all. But this does post a problem for anyone who intends to produce something that is intended to be released in both 3D and 2D. Although the majority of moviegoers won't give a rats behind.
 
3D->2D is not problematic, so if there's intent beforehand to release both stereo and flat and one shoots accordingly, no worries. It's 2D->3D that creates the suckfulness.
 
I thought the movie was not terrible. Kind of fell apart towards the end w/o a big climatic battle; and don't tell me it was the fight with Loki. There is no way he should have been able to hold his own against Thor.

BTW, did anyone get the after the credits scene w/Nick Fury?

Was that the cosmic cube in the briefcase?
 
Sad Max said:
3D->2D is not problematic, so if there's intent beforehand to release both stereo and flat and one shoots accordingly, no worries. It's 2D->3D that creates the suckfulness.
Click to expand...

The problem I have isn't the fake 3D, it's the general use of Shallow depth of field for any and all 3D shots. Your eyes do this naturally when you focus on the foreground, there is no need for any blur in background of shots. But then the issue if you do this is that all those experiencing the film in 2D will have very deep shots with everything in focus. So what I would love to see happen is have filmmakers use both deep and shallow depth of field for the same shot for the respective 2D and 3D films. Then this causes another issue of having to have more light for the deep depth of field with tighter lenses... Sigh, so many issues.
 
Last edited:
jkc123 said:
I thought the movie was not terrible. Kind of fell apart towards the end w/o a big climatic battle; and don't tell me it was the fight with Loki. There is no way he should have been able to hold his own against Thor.

BTW, did anyone get the after the credits scene w/Nick Fury?

Was that the cosmic cube in the briefcase?
Click to expand...

That's the only thing I can think of. I assume it will be the object of Red Skull's desire in CAP. But, if not, then it's just Thor 2 / Or Avengers.

I loved seeing the hammer at the end of Iron Man 2. At the time, I had vaguely heard that Thor was going to be made into a movie. Then the hammer shows up, and it was EPIC.

This after the credits bit was kind of lame IMHO.
 
I enjoyed it. It was fun. We watched it in 2D. It only sucked because it was digital projection... ugh... looked like was watching it on a standard TV.

PaPa said:
The problem I have isn't the fake 3D, it's the general use of Shallow depth of field for any and all 3D shots. Your eyes do this naturally when you focus on the foreground, there is no need for any blur in background of shots. But then the issue if you do this is that all those experiencing the film in 2D will have very deep shots with everything in focus. So what I would love to see happen is have filmmakers use both deep and shallow depth of field for the same shot for the respective 2D and 3D films. Then this causes another issue of having to have more light for the deep depth of field with tighter lenses... Sigh, so many issues.
Click to expand...

One issue that's been brought up when discussing 3D on these boards is the fact that when you have 3D, you may end up focusing more on the background and scenery than the main subjects in the foreground. So in fact, blurring the background would (just as in 2d) draw attention to where the filmmaker wants you to look. But then I guess it takes away some of the effect of 3D, making me question it's purpose in the first place to help tell a story.

Heh, I can't imagine how much longer it would take to shoot a film when shooting it two ways. Then to make the plans match when switching lenses and lighting all throughout. So many directors already don't want to shoot in 3D as it's much more expensive and laborious. That's why they still convert 2D in post, even now when they have the tech for it.
 
I didn't think the 3D was too bad for the most part. There were a couple shots when Thor was about to be crowned king that looked pretty unnatural with the separation or fore and b.g but other than that it was alright.

My ripoff cinema only gets 3d versions of some films now, that's gonna happen more and more I bet.

Did anyone find facebook girl Kat Jennings a bit silly in this? Not her fault but the scripts. I'm thinking she was maybe written in later for a plot point (Thor's ID)?
 
Jon Starr said:
I enjoyed it. It was fun. We watched it in 2D. It only sucked because it was digital projection... ugh... looked like was watching it on a standard TV.



One issue that's been brought up when discussing 3D on these boards is the fact that when you have 3D, you may end up focusing more on the background and scenery than the main subjects in the foreground. So in fact, blurring the background would (just as in 2d) draw attention to where the filmmaker wants you to look. But then I guess it takes away some of the effect of 3D, making me question it's purpose in the first place to help tell a story.

Heh, I can't imagine how much longer it would take to shoot a film when shooting it two ways. Then to make the plans match when switching lenses and lighting all throughout. So many directors already don't want to shoot in 3D as it's much more expensive and laborious. That's why they still convert 2D in post, even now when they have the tech for it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, well said. This is where I see 3D running into a few issues. Would take more money to do it the way I'm suggesting and well.. We all know that producers won't want any bit of that considering 99% of the audience won't give a rats behind.

As sad as it is, Journey to the Center of the Earth with Brendan Fraser used very deep depth of field for the majority of the film even on tight shots and that really wowed me. I loved exploring the depths with my eyes, it worked fantastically. Now watching the same thing in 2D, i would find it very distracting. Sigh.

But yeah, I fully understand the importance of concentrating your viewers attention by chosing what to focus on, but 3D is wonderful when your eye can do it on it's own. There is nothing fun about exploring depths of fuzzy out of focus bokeh.

It's been a long time Jon, how are you doing with yourself?
 
tmnt said:
I didn't think the 3D was too bad for the most part. There were a couple shots when Thor was about to be crowned king that looked pretty unnatural with the separation or fore and b.g but other than that it was alright.

My ripoff cinema only gets 3d versions of some films now, that's gonna happen more and more I bet.

Did anyone find facebook girl Kat Jennings a bit silly in this? Not her fault but the scripts. I'm thinking she was maybe written in later for a plot point (Thor's ID)?
Click to expand...

Facebook girl? I thought the casting in general was a little strange and although it's a Marvel movie, it didn't have anywhere close to the silly charm that Iron Man did. Now those were well written.
 
I thought this was a big ole bucket o'cheese, but as cheese goes it was grade A. A solid effort. Chris Hemsworth embodied the character well, and Tom Middleton was excellent as Loki. The weakest aspect for me was the romance. It felt kind of perfunctory, as did Thor's overall arc. They did the minimum amount of work to get from point A to point B with Thor learning humility, and while acceptable, it felt uninspired. Had a similar problem to Iron Man 2, where the second act was a lot of waiting around for Act 3 to happen. And can we please stop turning superhero stories into Christ allegories? They hit it pretty hard this time...with a hammer. The 3D wasn't too annoying. The only thing that felt off were the long shots. The 3D made them feel oddly small, like I was looking at a miniature.
 
Batutta said:
The 3D made them feel oddly small, like I was looking at a miniature.
Click to expand...

Im not really a comic boot fan but thats how comics sometimes feel to me...
The dutch angles did not bring much to the story as mentioned before...
Overall I like it ..loved the Gate keeper and Loki. Thor was ok Portman was cute but in movies like these I never care about the romance so it didnt bother that this didnt turn out to be my Best friends wedding :)

I felt that Stellan Skarsgård ...the older scientist ws not right for this movie he feels to real to me and should not be messing with these types of movies unless he becomes some kinda monster.
 
PaPa said:
Facebook girl? I thought the casting in general was a little strange and although it's a Marvel movie, it didn't have anywhere close to the silly charm that Iron Man did. Now those were well written.
Click to expand...

I actually thought that Loki was gonna kidnap her.... the endig feels like they were just improvising
 
I enjoyed it more than "Iron Man 2".
I couldn't believe the fat guy was Ray Stevenson. I thought Fendral was being played by Cary Elwes ala Princess Bride (or Men in Tights).

*Spoiler-ish*!!
The romance was week. It doesn't really feel like he has a reason to go back to earth.
 
Last edited:
Too many shots were set up and shot simply to show off the 3D FX. The wow factor goes out of 3D in about 30 seconds leaving all those scenes flat and boring.
 
I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but did anyone else think the CGI looked horrible? The whole time I couldn't stop thinking that it looked like late '90s CGI.


Mild spoilers
The film was entertaining and moved quickly enough, but ultimately, it didn't really gel. Not to me anyway. Everything just happened too easily. Apparently Thor fell in love with Natalie Portman's character? I guess? I didn't feel it though. And I know it's a comic book action film and not a love story, but that's kind of how I felt about every turn in the story. I just didn't buy it. Same with the scene where they get Thor out of the government compound. They're grilling this man who fought several soldiers/government agents/whatever, and when a scientist shows up and says "He's just a doctor under some stress." the agent, who skeptically pokes holes into his story, just immediately turns around and says "Meh, good enough, I guess." and they let him go. Just like that. I guess the film just felt very forced and unnatural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top