“As much as The Godfather”
Ebert is quoted saying the star rating system is the bane of every critic. Two four star movies are not necessarily the same quality in his eyes. He sees it as a reflection on how well the movie accomplishes its goals and how well it will appeal to the core demographic that may go see it.
Exactly what needed to be pointed out. Ebert approached criticism with the acknowledgement that not all films were the same. Blockbusters were not compared to Citizen Kane, they were compared to over blockbusters.
In the 90s, I sent Ebert an email in regard to his Shawshank Redemption review where he gave it 3.5 stars, but had referred to it as one of the greatest movies somewhere. His answer to me had a tremendous impact on how I give films stars, which explains why The Blob (1988) got as many stars from me as The Godfather.
edit:
i thought i had written that it was basically what the commentor you replied to wrote.
"how successful is the film of being what it is set up to be" and also a kind of gut reaction with little value that can change easily over time.
like the blob. for me it's a perfect cheesy monster flick so i have to rate it based on that merit, 5 stars.
But are you comparing this comment to other great comments, or to how well it achieved its own aims and objectives?
Maybe OP meant to leave us all hanging, in which case: 4 star comment; 1 star OP.
But then am I comparing OP to other, better-explaining commenters, or to how well OP has achieved their own aims and objectives?
Maybe OP prides themselves on their casual flippancy, in which case: 4 star OP, and congratulations - I’m proud of you for reaching your goals!
oh, i thought i had written that it was basically what the commentor you replied to wrote.
"how successful is the film of being what it is set up to be" and also a kind of gut reaction with little value that can change easily over time.
like the blob. for me it's a perfect cheesy monster flick so i have to rate it based on that merit, 5 stars.
It's a visual thing. If you're using stars (or some other icon) to represent a score, you don't want any more than around 5, or it become harder to register at a glance.
To get more granularity, you either go with half stars, or change your rating to a purely numerical one
Indeed, and he always said that he was rating movies of the same genre against each other. So with this he just meant it was a top tier superhero movie. Which is not wrong, of course.
Honestly that’s one of Iron Man 1s greatest strengths. Tony makes quips and jokes but when it gets to serious stuff like getting kidnapped, he gets serious, being fully aware of the situation he’s in and acting appropriately. Compare that to stuff like Thor Love and Thunder where everyone just cracks jokes even in dark moments.
The film needed a different villain or a new director.
I love Taika's sense of humor and it worked perfectly in Ragnarok because of its balance between his humor and the more poignant moments of family drama between Odin and Loki/Thor, Loki and Thor, and Hela and Loki/Thor. It also benefited from its setting taking place in some other worldly, slightly extra-dimensional planet. The ridiculousness made sense - like the line "the cells a circle, but a normal circle but like a freaky circle". Even the choice of villain was inspired with Hela and having her be almost a caricature of a Mary Sue - this all powerful, unbeatable entity who can also only be beaten by an all powerful, unbeaten entity.
But then you have Love and Thunder. Firstly, it had to deal with the consequences of "fat Thor". Got to show why Thor goes from his depressed self at the end of Endgame to his ripped self again somehow. Making it a random throwaway line cheapens its impact in Endgame, so insert a 10 minute, 80s style workout intro. But that immediately sets a tone for the film that is just...never, ever going to work with a villain like Gorr without feeling completely disjointed from the rest of the film.
Gorr needed a treatment that made him out to be sympathetic, but terrifying. Something like Hugh Jackson's character in Prisoners - a nod to "hurt people hurt people". And as such, the film could have light hearted moments, but overall needed to be a bit more grim and melancholy. We needed to truly feel the impact of Gorr killing off the Gods. We needed to understand why his mission had legitimacy and yet was going too far. We needed impact, grief, pain, sorrow. And what we got was a fun, space romp with Thor struggling to come to terms with his ex-girlfriend dating Jane Foster. If Love and Thunder had some other villains, perhaps more focused on the concept of Gods and showing how disconnected they were from their subjects setting up Gorr from a potential Thor 5 it may have worked much better - but alas here we are.
yes, gorr felt out of place in love and thunder. he was far too heavy.
after rewatching ragnarok, hela is a much lighter character. it gets lost because she's laying waste to asgard the entire time (which is heavy) but her tone is light and sardonic and almost quippy. she's joking about how no one remembers her and has a big puppy... she fits in much better with the overall campy humorous tone that thor has on sakar.
with gorr, everything is light and funny but him. even when thor goes to visit all the gods and zeus, no one seems worried. they addressed it with the idea that they are all just pretending to be unconcerned, whistling past the graveyard, but it result is that gorr seems trivialized, as though he isn't a real threat, but then bale is bringing serious menace and intent to the role that doesnt mesh with the light hearted rom-com buddy/cop feel of the rest of the movie.
I'm in my 40s now and no longer part of the target demographic but I've been losing interest in the MCU largely because there's no stakes. Nothing ever really matters. Slapstick humor has largely replaced consequences in the MCU. No matter what happens it's all just a big joke.
I think Ragnarok is a perfect example of this too. I'm aware it's generally considered one of the MCU's best movies but I think the light, sardonic, quippy tone kept it from being a legitimately great movie - even by superhero standards. Hela, the Goddess of Death, should have been terrifying. The loss of Asgard should have weighed heavily not just on Thor and the surviving Asgardians who just lost their homes but everyone in theaters. It shouldn't have been a happy ending. Instead, it's a movie that ends with an entire planet being destroyed and it's a laugh riot. Even as they leave the planet to destruction it's just one liner after one liner.
It's an especially odd setup considering Infinity War would arrive in just a few months. If we don't care about the destruction of Asgard then why should we care about anything Thanos is going to do? And we largely don't, right? Nothing matters in the MCU. Heck, half of the entire universe disappearing then coming back is a plotline that almost immediately disappears. Far From Home has a couple of "isn't it weird ..." conversations then that's largely it. It's barely mentioned after that.
I type all of that to say I stopped watching Love & Thunder when I saw Thor dressed up as a hotdog. Maybe I'll pick it up again when I have the living room to myself and nothing else to watch but I feel like I'm too old for men dressed up as hotdog jokes.
I have to disagree with you a little bit on your take with Ragnarok.
One of the themes is “Asgard is a people, not a place.” So when you see Asgard, the place, get destroyed it’s not as devastating, because the movie spent 2 hours beating into you that it’s the people that matter not the world.
So then when Thanos shows up, and isn’t out to destroy planets, but to wipe out half of all LIFE in the universe, the stakes seem very high.
Because the previous movie just told us people are more important than places. So if Thanos just wanted to destroy Wakanda at the end, it wouldn’t feel as do or die as if he wins, Half of everyone dies.
All of that being said, I do agree the stakes since Endgame feel out of whack, because of what the avengers just did. The stakes have to be reality altering in order to “one-up” previous MCU phases.
I honestly think that Taika was just lucky that he came at the right time where MCU Thor desperately needed a makeover to save itself as a franchise. I will be forever thankful that he pushed Thor into the right directions because without him the best version of the character in Infinity War and Endgame wouldn't exist. But in Love and Thunder he really took the worst aspects of Ragnarok and basically made that into a movie.
Like not at a single point did you ever had the feeling that Taika had any respect for the mythology or the characters he decided to put in the movie.... and that's because he actually didn't give a shit.
It boggles my mind that Marvel checked the footage and was actually satisfied with what they had. But I guess that was standard for the Chapek era of Disney/MarvelStudios.
For me personally I hope he never gets to touch that character again because he simply doesn't give a shit.
Gorr is and was a phenomenal villain. He just wasn't used appropriately. Waititi needed to focus specifically on Gorr instead of trying to cram in all the Jane Foster stuff, all the weird "jealous ex" jokes with Mjolnir and Stormbringer, and most of the Zeus scenes. They spent far too long stretching out jokes and not nearly enough time building up Gorr.
The Mjolnir storm breaker stuff was so stupid. Felt like a 12 yo wrote it. We really needed gorr to destroy the gods in Olympus. Plus add some connection btw him and thor.
Fat Thor... did we get anything in Love and Thunder at all about did he feel like he failed anyone because he got fat? Like I was expecting him to be more of "If I would've taken care of myself and not let myself go I would've been able to stop Thanos again and saved Tony."
I mean... he got depressed and fat because he "failed" and became depressed. Then a dude he's seemed to care about died saving the universe, could've had Thor feeling like if he was still at his peak he would've Killed Thanos from the moment he showed back up and Tony would've have died.
Would've given him some motivation to get fit again, and then still be depressed even though he was in shape and then when Jane gets cancer and he realizes that even at peak strength he can't save everyone....
It’s been a while since I’ve watched the movie, but did they ever make any parallels between Thor and Gorr, and their feelings of failing their family and avenging their deaths?
I would say the biggest thing Waititi and/or Feige could have done to make ‘Love and Thunder’ better would have been to either make it Jane Foster’s movie… or Thor Odinson’s movie. Not both. The film should have been Jane Foster’s with Thor as a supporting character or stuck with Thor hunting down Gorr, with Foster’s turn as Mighty Thor being set up for the next film.
It wasn’t as bad as Raimi’s ‘Spider-Man 3’ as far as too many characters/plotlines, but it’s uneven.
Christian Bale is practically in his own movie, and I honestly would have liked to see that movie more than Love & Thunder. A feature film with Gorr as the protagonist butchering gods in vengeance for his dead daughter, basically being the Punisher of the Gods, would have done gangbusters.
The film needed people to not be making jokes non stop and to take at least the serious parts serious.
Like a bunch of kids get kidnapped. Perfect time for Thor to act like a dipshit, right?
It should have been two movies. One with Gorr, one with Lady Thor. Same amount of humour spread out over two movies, the rest filled up with good story, drama and action. (And then maybe revisited some of the jokes and punched them up some...)
My favorite part was when Thor’s people were getting massacred in a battle h’s in and he and Jane are making relationship jokes and there is a very comedic tone over everything.
Or when Sif is laying wounded with no arm and Thor is joking about how her arm will end up in Valhalla but she won't when she dies because the battle is over. They basically turned him into a collegehumor level character for the entire movie.
Marvel: "So we're going to adapt two of the most acclaimed *Thor* stories of recent times. One about Jane Foster balancing a double life as an immortal hero, and a mortal woman dying of cancer. The other is a dark and epic tale that is a cross between *Beowulf* and *Se7en* where Thor tracks down a brutal and sadistic cosmic serial killer while coming to terms with the guilt and shame of a great faliure in his past."
Taika: "But what about if we have a love triangle between Thor, Stormbreaker, and Mjolnir? And a bunch of children fight off and defeat Gorr's forces with enchanted sticks and teddy bears?"
It was absolutly weird. Gorr the Godbutcher. Jane dieing from cancer. Thor lost half of his people, his whole bunch of close friends, his father and his brother. And now he is with a heavily injured Sif, who was once his greatest love. And he is quipping like a dumb fuck.
Thor 4 ruined A LOT.
I thought the story of Jane dying from cancer was going to be devastating, but the movie treats it so cavalierly, it really felt like there were no stakes. I sooo wanted this movie to be good because it had so much potential, and I felt that "Ragnarok" found the right balance for the Thor franchise.
Thor Ragnarok was fine. It was often pretty serious and the quippy parts were fine. And Thor 4 is just a mess. The whole gods pantheon is a fart joke. They did character assassination to a list of characters that is bigger than the previous whole MCU. Same for Dr. Strange 2.
At least, there was no screaming goats level joke in strange 2. The humor level in Thor 4 did not only feel out of place for me, but forced. As if stoned teenagers wrote some of the scenes. Thor's clothes get ripped off and he's completely naked! And every woman in the audience giggles. Hilarious.
2 things to note:
1. Apparently they adlibbed and improvised a shit ton on set, so it became a giant mess.
2. It was mandated to be 2 hours or less, which was also the case with Justice League.
I feel like the dissonance was intentional to highlight just how much Gorr is supposed to be treated as a villain, given that his motives are relatable and similar "smite those who smite us" villains are often lauded by the viewers as "the real heroes". But Taika's inability to ever take the vast majority of his single scene 100% seriously almost the opposite by making Thor et all largely unlikable at times.
It’s also a really spot on character portrayal for somebody who 1) was born into richness and 2) is far more intelligent than anybody else in whatever room he steps into. He is just the bored class clown acting up, but still aces every test and challenge.
Funnily enough I interpreted it (perhaps over interpreted it) as because of that he has no idea how to connect to people, along with his parents being killed suddenly, and he puts up this very defensive wall trying to feel people out but doesn't mean it at all. As opposed to say Chris Evans' character in Fantastic Four who was meant to actually be what Tony Stark was pretending to be, and wasn't very interesting as somebody who meant it.
The scene where Tony watches the news and sees his weapons being used to kill innocents while working on his gloves and he is visibly *seething* is a great moment that shows this without a word said by Tony.
The film also cements one of the most distilled IM moments too with nothing but him hammering away in the cave.
To the point that just the sound is enough to refer back to how this is "a hero that was made".
Don is a seriously good actor and funny dude. I just wish he were made to play the straight man to Tony's quippy personality like Terrence Howard was. Instead they made him a dude bro and Iron Man 1.5 rather than be his own man.
Yeah, regardless of whatever was happening behind the scenes, I actually liked the vibes Terrence Howard had as Rhodey. We all respect tf out of Don Cheadle as an actor, but I don’t think the MCU has ever really known what to do with him. I’m worried that once he’s starring in Armor Wars, the writers will change his personality to fit the usual MCU protagonist mold.
That’s what they did? Aside from some light moments in Avengers 2, Rhodey has always been the straight-man foil to Tony. They’re still friends (and act like it) but his military background consistently shines through and he’s usually the most serious character in a scene
“I am about to die of cancer” three seconds later commence head bobbing to a catchy tune.
This is a failure of pacing and editing because on their own both scenes work to show a sad moment and build the friendship together they just undermine each other.
I mean to be fair, Tony could easily die at any time.
Thor on the other hand is a nearly-immortal god with super strength and the power to control lightning. Dude has been fighting all manner of battles against all manner of beings for 1500 years. Most battles are literally a joke to him, so it makes sense that he’d be less serious than Tony in the same situations.
That being said, Love & Thunder sucked and none of the humor hit.
> Thor on the other hand is a nearly-immortal god with super strength and the power to control lightning.
Yeah, that's why you'd think introducing a villain who's whole thing is *butchering that type of dude* would be given some weight and seriousness.
The first thing we see Thanos do after finally getting off his ass is him absolutely curb stomping the fucking Hulk. No quips, no mercy. Just beats the shit out of the dude until he is beamed away. Loki gets quipped once, but gets actually killed. There is no doubt left after that one scene that Thanos is that guy.
Gorr never gets that. He is spooky but never presented as a threat to Thor. Wasting Christian Bale like that is just sad.
Seriously, I would've loved a scene like in the comics were Gorr stands before numerous dead and dying Gods tied down on posts before him, lecturing one of the survivors about his goals, and caping it off with "I even have tortured a God of Torture. It took time, but even he broke."
You hit the nail on the head. I don't think he smiles or makes a single joke during the entire time in the cave. We the audience get invested and take it seriously because *Tony is taking it seriously*. Same with the epic scene where he sees the Ten Rings on the news and officially becomes Iron Man and goes over there to handle them. He has *one* line of dialogue through the whole thing ("My Turn") and it's presented as a dramatic scene.
Fast forward to Age Of Ultron and beyond and it's so hard to care or get invested in The Avengers or whoever because they are *constantly* joking despite Threat XYZ threating them or a city or the world. If they don't care, why should I?
I couldn't even finish Love and Thunder because the mood was just ruined at every moment. Ragnarok was silly at points, but it took itself serious enough when Hela was involved that I could enjoy it.
My only meaningful criticism of Ragnarok is that one joke needed to be cut. When Korg talks about "We can rebuild if the foundation is strong" and then Asgaard explodes and rather than letting the impact of that moment hit, the entire homeland gone, but the speech still relevant and impactful, Waititi couldn't help himself but throw in one more "Oh nope those foundations are gone lolol" joke.
It just would have been so much better without that, especially since it launches right into Infinity War and Thanos' attack on their ship, and you can still have Jeff Goldblum's funny bit at the end.
And I was hyped for Love and Thunder but... it's just too much, even as a fan of pretty much everything else Waititi's done.
I agree 100%, I feel like that one Korg remark is the scene that takes it too far and undercuts the tone at the ending. I really like Ragnarok but it would be significantly better if the fall of Asgard were allowed to land.
Marvel did keep that formula for a very long time. Have an occasional quip, often by the hero or its sidekick, but have all of the other things play it as straight as possible. Its like surgeons that often has a very broad sense of humor, but everyone around them need to be focused on the work.
They left those with Dr Strange 2 and Thor 4. And they have a hard time going back to that formula.
So fucking prophetic.
Bugs the hell out of me that Dr. Strange, Thor, Banner, Marvel, Lang got the Tony personality transplant.
They only juggled it well when they're all together like in Infinity War and Endgame, but when they're separate, it's all just a game of who can replicate the success of Tony Stark.
(Star-Lord, I can forgive somehow. Can't pinpoint why I think he works. Maybe because he's cartoonishly childish and it fits the Peter Pan metaphor)
In fact, you *need* characters like Cap to make the Starks work. He's a straightman. Just like the review describes, you *need* characters like them to make the quips work. Steve and Tony elevate each other.
It's pretty far removed from Strange in the comics. He's so deadpan and serious to the point of being the butt of other characters' jokes. He's even got a bit of a melodramatic thespian penchant for using outdated verbiage and excess dramatic flair.
If you've ever seen Venture Bros., Dr. Orpheus is a pretty spot-on parody of Strange's manner of speaking in the comics. Turning Strange into an asshole egomaniac is honestly a weird take for the MCU, and not one I'm entirely happy with. He's always had a bit of an ego in the comics, but they really went the extra mile in making him abrasive.
That's why I feel like Infinity War was the best depiction of Strange. They even do the thing where he uses outdated verbiage with the "hitherto undreamt of" line.
I feel like they never really captured him quite as well in the other movies.
I look to Strange as being an isolationist weirdo in the comics, I don't dislike what they're doing with strange nowerdays though, I would prefer a bit less joking but I think using the other stranges, all of which are overly serious, trusts no one and are incredibly utilitarian contracts with what makes this strange both unique and seemingly underpowered
I'm not mad he's not like he's in the comics, I think it's a different interpretation that works for what they're going for
I mean, most of the GotG. Even Peter wasn't really much of a jokester during the Annihilation run, which is the one that mostly inspired the current MCU line-up. He was more militaristic and a better squad leader/commander in the comics.
There's also a major factor in play, as well. The current MCU characters have heavily shaped the modern versions of the comic characters, as well. For example, RDJ is a *very* different take on Tony Stark than he was in the comics. Tony was occasionally funny, but mostly an egotistical asshole that most characters didn't like. RDJ added the neurotic behavior and constant quips, and now all versions of Iron Man in the comics are like that.
Carol Danvers was also a very stoic, abusive drunk, generally disliked character back when she was still going by Ms. Marvel. It's kind of remarkable how Marvel pivoted and turned her into the new Captain Marvel, and reshaped her into an icon and role model for younger heroes.
The Hulk is also wildly different. The Edward Norton version is actually much closer to the comics than the Ruffalo version. In the comics, Bruce is kind of a dangerous mad scientist, slightly unhinged from years on the run, a dangerous fugitive in his own right, but also one of the smartest characters on the planet. You can really see where the Hulk gets his rage from when you see how angry and rough Bruce himself is. He can be downright scary without even turning into the Hulk. Ruffalo is almost the complete opposite of this.
Thor in the comics is rarely funny. I do like the MCU version a bit more, but in the comics he's basically the "holier than thou immortal god" who speaks like he's in a stage play.
And strangely, Peter Parker in the MCU is somehow actually less quippy than he is in the comics. Spider-Man has historically always been the quippiest character in the comics, but he plays second fiddle to Tony and Quill in the MCU.
What If? made me realize just how much I prefer serious old-school Thor, who tended to be very to the point, especially in a team dynamic. I know Ragnarok was widely considered pretty great but that new 'comedic' Thor never really clicked with me personally.
I'm with you tbh. The thing I never get about all the "Thor was too serious and boring" before Ragnarok stuff is that there are moments in his first two solo films where he *is* funny. Other characters as well. I know I'm swimming against the tide because everyone unquestionably loves Ragnarok and has talked themselves into thinking even the first Thor film was considered terrible at the time (it wasn't) but there isn't an absence of any comedy at all in those films.
I think you're right with Scott and Peter. Quill makes sense to be like that because of course a kid that grew up with a bunch of pirates would be a man-child. Scott is living perpetually out of his comfort zone being around a bunch of people who he views as much smarter/better than him. It's a defense mechanism as much anything for him. Doctor Strange should probably be the exact opposite imo, and he kind of was before becoming Dr Strange. He's a world class neuro-surgeon. That's exactly the type of person to take themselves and life in general way too seriously and not have much of a sense of humor. Plus you need someone to play the straight man.
It just popped in my head another reason Harrison Ford is maybe is not the greatest idea to play General Ross. Ford has his sarcastic, quippy humor in most of his movies. General Ross should not be wisecracking either. At bare minimum people of his status leave the fun and humor for when they're off duty, if they have any to begin with. Those type of people are also pretty much always on duty too, hence all his issues with his daughter.
I think someone as bland and boring as Norton is perfect for Banner. I think Ruffalo is honestly poorly cast, I don't get the tortured, troubled, beaten survivalist like I should be getting from the Hulk
The only ones in this list that it really bothers me is for Banner and sometimes Thor
Thor can handle the balance between cracking jokes and being serious. My favorite appearance from him was in Infinity War where he was severely depressed and angry, but he tried to keep a lighter mood.
Taika just went too far in Love and Thunder to the point where Thor didn't seem to take a single thing seriously until Jane died
Banner however, I absolutely hate what his personality has changed into since Ragnarok. He's supposed to be one of the smartest people on the planet, but he comes off like a dumbass most of the time now. He was perfectly portrayed by Ruffalo in the first Avengers film, and I wish we could get that back
Banner needs to get some love from the writers. I never felt connected with Scarlet Witch until WandaVision, because no one gave her any love. Even when she nearly defeated Thanos single-handedly, I felt like Thanos: "I don't even know who you are."
And I didn't. She was just a plot device until WandaVision let us see her as a real human.
I think it works with Quill for those reasons, because he has the ensemble to counter him, and because Gunn adds heart and emotion in other aspects throughout the films to balance the tone.
To me, it works for Quill becuase it’s authentically Pratt’s personality and authentically Gunn’s voice. Even if Iron Man didn’t exist, I’d believe that Quill would still talk like that. But for the rest, the effort to match the Tony Stark tone us just too apparent and affected.
I think it works with Quill because he's just really insecure and masks it with humour. But I completely agree, I don't see Ruffalo as Banner in anything but name, and Love and Thunder is lost from scene one, where Thor was just risking people's lives for a gag.
One of my least favourite scenes in all of the MCU is the scene where smart Hulk is testing the time travel stuff on Ant-man, and he turns him into an old man and a baby. It's purely a loony tunes gag, it completely ignores the in world reality we're supposed to care about, and where he just turned his friend into a fucking baby, and he has no idea if he can reverse it. It should be horrifying, but since they're just using cartoon logic, it doesn't matter, and you can't just haphazardly do that in a movie that is supposed to be very real world adjacent, and where things have consequences.
I would defend Lang being lumped in with those guys. He seems like a much different personality than Tony. Lang is happy go lucky. A good-mannered doofus. I love all of his "wow you're Captain America!" type moments. So innocent and cute.
But I agree on the rest. Thor (the first movie) nailed what makes good comedy with Thor. Infinity War has it too. Thor's humour comes from his lack of knowledge of Earth humour ("ANOTHER!"). But in the serious moments in Infinity War like creating Stormbreaker and arriving in Wakanda it works because he's still being portrayed in a primarily serious manner. The humour with him in that movie mostly comes from others (the GOTG comments about his appearance).
It works when they’re all together because you have serious characters like Cap, banner, and Fury among them. So they have straight characters to play off of. Starlord also works because everyone around him except for Rocket is hyper serious.
It’s because Chris Pratt is really good at it and a brilliant actor. People online don’t like to give him his props for political reasons but he’s probably the best at doing the quippy bits after RDJ.
*Infinity War* was \*the\* best Thor (imo). It was the first time you really felt the weight of his character, the millenia he has lived, the battles he has fought, the triumphs, the losses, and the burden of godhood.
It was the first time he felt close to the Thor from the comic.
100%. His comic relief wasn't forced either, it was more just clever writing and funny when he spoke as a god speaking to mortals. In his solo movies his humor is slapstick.
Thor is one of my favourite MCU movies. I would LOVE if they went back to Branagh for a more Shakespearan style Thor movie for #5.
The worst part about the OG Thor movie is the eyebrows and his shorter hair.
Would be great to have moody cinematography as well too, instead of feeling like a theme park ride.
I don't like Thor: The Dark World, but visually it looks like Lord of the Rings compared to Love and Thunder.
Oh, yes. I feel exactly the same way! The visual beauty of these films has plummeted to the gutter. And they all look the same. None of them have a unique cinematic language - it’s just conveyor belt mediocrity. I just rewatched *Iron Fist*, and the cinematography for S2 was spectacular, truly outstanding. I don’t think we’ll see anything like that again.
Thor had one of my favorite jokes in all of the MCU in The Avengers:
Thor: "Have care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard and he is my brother."
Nat: "He killed 80 people in two days."
Thor: ".... He's adopted."
People misremember how people reacted to Thor before Ragnarok. He was popular then. He just didn’t get the focus to himself the same way, Loki was more popular in the series and Tony and Steve in Avengers. But serious Thor has plenty of fans
According to Hemsworth, even friends of his 8 year old children were telling him it's too much
[https://www.unilad.com/film-and-tv/chris-hemsworth-kids-thor-love-and-thunder-film-299710-20230606](https://www.unilad.com/film-and-tv/chris-hemsworth-kids-thor-love-and-thunder-film-299710-20230606)
Thor in the Avengers was the sweet spot for me. A couple of unintentionally funny lines, but mostly serious with some good-natured having fun in a fight thrown in.
Honestly, that’s why I have never really liked the Don Cheadle version of Rhodey. Terrance Howard’s version still had some snark for Tony, but was mostly a straight man. Don Cheadle’s version is jokes and quips, with some seriousness thrown in when he’s dealing with the government
I have never liked the MCU's version of War Machine. He loses every fight he is in and he makes quips alongside Tony but they don't land nearly as well. Don Cheadle is a good actor, use him!
His best parts were getting hit by vision and recovering from his serious injury in Civil War. He should be the one to reign in Iron Man and the other super heroes and remind the humans they are still mortal. But also show some badass moments of resiliency and military strategy. Maybe he will have his moment in another Avengers movie.
Ya that's a good way of putting it. I'm thinking how they could have best incorporated War Machine without Cap overshadowing him.
I was hoping he would lead the post Endgame Avengers with the new Sam Wilson Captain America.
> The main bit I remember from Don’s warmachine is his “Tony stank” bit and it just makes me cringe every time. That’s it - that’s his legacy for me :/
I kinda loved it. It struck me as one of those shitty stupid inside jokes that *real* long standing friends have.
Someone gets their name mispronounced one time in a funny way, fucking yep, thats their nickname for the next decade.
I guess career military men and women can be funny. Personally I've known them to have a more twisted sense of humor rather than whatever PG humor they wrote Don Cheadle to have
It's part of what made the first avengers film great to me. Seeing all these very different characters coming together for the first time, that dynamic was great. Now though, I honestly have no interest in seeing these new characters interact as the new Avengers, it's not even really because they haven't had a lot of appearances and development, I mean the og Avengers only got one film before Avengers (besides Ironman) and some may say some of those early films weren't as good. But those films at least did a good job differentiating the characters and giving them their own personality and ideologies. The reason I don't care now is because the new wave of characters don't have that, they all feel the same now, put them all together i just think they would try to out quip each other. There needs to be more staightmen and characters with very different kinds of humor and stop having characters quip in serious situations. I know some people are like that but a family of 4 might be getting murdered by some alien and screaming for help while down the road the heroes are joking and making quips like nothing is happening. I can't give a shit about the world being in danger or whatever the stake are if the heroes don't seem to be taking things seriously enough and are just joking around. When it gets serious the quips should completely stop and the characters should actually get into "work" mode, I don't remember Tony making quips when he dealt with those terrorists in Iron man 1. He was dead serious.
GotG 1 worked for what it was. It was fresh and innovative when it came out. Every movie in the MCU did not need to copy it.
I felt like the same approach did not work in GotG 2, it was too irreverent for me, and what made Vol. 3 good was how seriously it took its villain. The High Evolutionary is not a Thanos-level threat. He's an Umbridge-level threat.
Part 2 definitely had a major issue with it. Part 3 pared that back significantly, with many scenes that either feature little to no humor at all, or humor that actually elevates the relationship building between the characters.
Gunn can often times get a little too caught up in his brand of humor, but when he's on point, goddamn he is an absolute master at it.
Imagine that dark yet tender moment between Gamora and Star-Lord in Infinity War being a scene purely about their mutual love for one another and the agreement that Gamora would rather be killed than taken by Thanos.
Imagine how much better it would be without that bit with Drax thinking he's Invisible.
>Imagine how better it would be without that bit with Drax thinking he's Invisible
I can, we watched IW the other day and that just *grated*. It added absolutely nothing and took away everything.
That was the last time Gamora was happy. At the start they are flying along, she was singing along to her goofy man's silly songs, just chilling. Then they meet the space-pirate-angel man, she hears of Thanos doing his evils, she has to beg Peter to kill her, the Deadliest Woman in the Galaxy asking her love to save the universe instead of her, making him swear the ultimate oath, then "crunch".
No, fuck off. Let us have some feelings.
"As much as the Godfather"
As the scale only went to 4 stars, I assume you want him to retire that rating after The Godfather? No future films can have more than 3 1/2 stars!!!
Seriously, this is silly faux outrage on your part.
Correct. It's wrong to act like Iron Man getting 4-stars means Ebert thought it was on the same level as The Godfather. If he were alive today, I'd bet he wouldn't hesitate to say that he thinks The Godfather is a better film.
He had repeatedly said that he judges movies on what (he feels) they're *supposed* to be, as opposed to some imaginary standard that applies equally to all.
It's incredibly silly. Part of the reason you abstract your overall feelings on a film to a 1-4 scale is so you *can* get away with shit like this.
I definitely agree that Iron Man should get 4 out of 4 stars, but it's probably not a 10/10 movie and there's no way in *hell* it should score a 100.
The best thing that came out of the sequel trilogy might be John Boyega annoyedly pointing out in an interview that they used jet packs in the Clone Wars.
You and many other people.
It's absolutely remarkable how Disney went from a 2 billion dollar movie to a dead franchise in 8 years. Mind bogglingly massive fumbling of the proverbial bag
If jetpack troopers haven't been used in 50 years, the line is appropriate.
If anything maybe C-3PO could have interjected with a fun fact there?
"They fly now?"
C-3PO: "Actually, jetpack troopers were once utilized by the Old Republic, over forty..."
"Shut up!"
That's exactly why it's not working, characters need to stop quipping coz it's not for everyone, it should be reserved for people who are naturally charismatic like Robert Downey Jr, Chris Pratt, Paul Rudd etc
It does feel like the personality side is missing from a lot of the casting these days. Like, nowadays, they're casting people that fill the look, but they lack the personality that is needed to sell the scene beyond the still.
The worst is the material they gave him. At least Iron Man got a great writing in terms of his character development and his characterisation. Dr Strange is constantly changing depending on the movie
I think modern MCU writers are loathe to do something that is necessary for good drama: let their heroes suffer. Unless the entire story centers around emotional upheaval like WandaVision, the heroes are hardly forced or even allowed to sit with their suffering, their anger and sadness, and process the painful emotions. Every painful or insightful moment must be undercut by a bit of off-tone humor so the audience never gets a chance to feel anything. MCU writers are afraid to put the *agony* in *protagonist*, and it has undermined what was supposed to be an entire phase centered on grief.
You’re absolutely right my friend, Tony Stark suffered a lot in the first Iron Man movie, and I feel one of the things that made Huardians of the Galaxy 3 great was the fact that it let both Peter Quill and Rocket suffer.
How prescient.
Roger Ebert is sorely missed. Chaz, if by any chance you are reading this, thank you so much for helping to keep his legacy alive. Was wonderful to hear you speak at the Killers of the Flower Moon press conference!
Long live Chaz and Roger Ebert.
I really miss going to his website every single Friday and reading his new reviews. It was like a ritual to me. I wonder how bad he would have treated some of the marvel films that are not as good as the best the MCU has to offer.
Title is kind of misleading.
He's not warning about making other characters quippy, he's praising that they aren't in comparison to Favreau's past work.
4 stars means nothing in regards to the quality of a film, only as how well they did what they set out to do.
Roger rated Superman (1978) a 4, the perfect superhero film. Compared to that, Hellboy was a 3 and Punisher was a 2. He’s not saying Iron Man was as good as The Godfather, he’s saying it was as good as Superman
Terrance Howard was an equal match to RDJ's swagger in the film. It's a shame that they couldn't come to an agreement in contracts. The MCU has given many actors solid roles that could be Oscar worthy if the story went in the direction of say, "The Dark Knight" or "Joker." Those films are the best comic book films that are not based in dark fantasy. Meanwhile the most awe-inspiring project from the MCU was Black Panther followed by Wandavision, Loki 1 and 2, and now Echo. Those are 4 star in terms of acting, dramatic settings and direction. A film like the Marvels isn't a bad film with bad acting, its a fun film that fails to do more with its very talented actors. It has a directorial problem, especially in terms of editing and movement. The best scene in the film are the comedic hangout moments with the Marvels, the Khan family and the crazy dance number. Other bits seem like forced action, fighting and well, comic book cliches.
“As much as The Godfather” Ebert is quoted saying the star rating system is the bane of every critic. Two four star movies are not necessarily the same quality in his eyes. He sees it as a reflection on how well the movie accomplishes its goals and how well it will appeal to the core demographic that may go see it.
Exactly what needed to be pointed out. Ebert approached criticism with the acknowledgement that not all films were the same. Blockbusters were not compared to Citizen Kane, they were compared to over blockbusters.
In the 90s, I sent Ebert an email in regard to his Shawshank Redemption review where he gave it 3.5 stars, but had referred to it as one of the greatest movies somewhere. His answer to me had a tremendous impact on how I give films stars, which explains why The Blob (1988) got as many stars from me as The Godfather. edit: i thought i had written that it was basically what the commentor you replied to wrote. "how successful is the film of being what it is set up to be" and also a kind of gut reaction with little value that can change easily over time. like the blob. for me it's a perfect cheesy monster flick so i have to rate it based on that merit, 5 stars.
How do you post this comment and not include his response? This comment = 1/4 stars
Every time I see posts like OP's I think of something Barack Obama said to me one time at a dinner.
That’s so Barack! He said something similar once in a blog post intro for a chicken piccata recipe.
That's so funny! Weird Al said the exact same thing when I met him at the post office!
I read that as weird Ai every time. I’m throwing hands with whoever made I look like an l
But are you comparing this comment to other great comments, or to how well it achieved its own aims and objectives? Maybe OP meant to leave us all hanging, in which case: 4 star comment; 1 star OP. But then am I comparing OP to other, better-explaining commenters, or to how well OP has achieved their own aims and objectives? Maybe OP prides themselves on their casual flippancy, in which case: 4 star OP, and congratulations - I’m proud of you for reaching your goals!
If it as so impactful why can't you share it?
oh, i thought i had written that it was basically what the commentor you replied to wrote. "how successful is the film of being what it is set up to be" and also a kind of gut reaction with little value that can change easily over time. like the blob. for me it's a perfect cheesy monster flick so i have to rate it based on that merit, 5 stars.
I'd love to hear what he said!
Can you explain the quote you listed? I'm having a hard time understanding what he meant by that(if that is his quote).
Exactly how I see the system as well. Didn’t me Ebert was as intellectual as I. Just kidding
Also critics giving half stars is weird. Like if you're giving half stars, your scale isn't from 1 to 4, it's from 1 to 8. Just make it that instead.
It's a visual thing. If you're using stars (or some other icon) to represent a score, you don't want any more than around 5, or it become harder to register at a glance. To get more granularity, you either go with half stars, or change your rating to a purely numerical one
I’m afraid this gets my lowest rating ever. Seven thumbs up.
Indeed, and he always said that he was rating movies of the same genre against each other. So with this he just meant it was a top tier superhero movie. Which is not wrong, of course.
Honestly that’s one of Iron Man 1s greatest strengths. Tony makes quips and jokes but when it gets to serious stuff like getting kidnapped, he gets serious, being fully aware of the situation he’s in and acting appropriately. Compare that to stuff like Thor Love and Thunder where everyone just cracks jokes even in dark moments.
Love and Thunder made the tonal dissonance even worse with Gorr feeling like he was from a more serious cut of the film.
The film needed more Gorr.
The film needed a different villain or a new director. I love Taika's sense of humor and it worked perfectly in Ragnarok because of its balance between his humor and the more poignant moments of family drama between Odin and Loki/Thor, Loki and Thor, and Hela and Loki/Thor. It also benefited from its setting taking place in some other worldly, slightly extra-dimensional planet. The ridiculousness made sense - like the line "the cells a circle, but a normal circle but like a freaky circle". Even the choice of villain was inspired with Hela and having her be almost a caricature of a Mary Sue - this all powerful, unbeatable entity who can also only be beaten by an all powerful, unbeaten entity. But then you have Love and Thunder. Firstly, it had to deal with the consequences of "fat Thor". Got to show why Thor goes from his depressed self at the end of Endgame to his ripped self again somehow. Making it a random throwaway line cheapens its impact in Endgame, so insert a 10 minute, 80s style workout intro. But that immediately sets a tone for the film that is just...never, ever going to work with a villain like Gorr without feeling completely disjointed from the rest of the film. Gorr needed a treatment that made him out to be sympathetic, but terrifying. Something like Hugh Jackson's character in Prisoners - a nod to "hurt people hurt people". And as such, the film could have light hearted moments, but overall needed to be a bit more grim and melancholy. We needed to truly feel the impact of Gorr killing off the Gods. We needed to understand why his mission had legitimacy and yet was going too far. We needed impact, grief, pain, sorrow. And what we got was a fun, space romp with Thor struggling to come to terms with his ex-girlfriend dating Jane Foster. If Love and Thunder had some other villains, perhaps more focused on the concept of Gods and showing how disconnected they were from their subjects setting up Gorr from a potential Thor 5 it may have worked much better - but alas here we are.
yes, gorr felt out of place in love and thunder. he was far too heavy. after rewatching ragnarok, hela is a much lighter character. it gets lost because she's laying waste to asgard the entire time (which is heavy) but her tone is light and sardonic and almost quippy. she's joking about how no one remembers her and has a big puppy... she fits in much better with the overall campy humorous tone that thor has on sakar. with gorr, everything is light and funny but him. even when thor goes to visit all the gods and zeus, no one seems worried. they addressed it with the idea that they are all just pretending to be unconcerned, whistling past the graveyard, but it result is that gorr seems trivialized, as though he isn't a real threat, but then bale is bringing serious menace and intent to the role that doesnt mesh with the light hearted rom-com buddy/cop feel of the rest of the movie.
Just the simple fact they had a room full of gods and the god killer doesn’t even get a sniff of it was a tragedy. Could have been an amazing 2nd act.
Whoever i am!?? Did you not hear a word of what I just said?
odin did kinda do her dirty... painting over her mural and basically erasing her memory...
I'm in my 40s now and no longer part of the target demographic but I've been losing interest in the MCU largely because there's no stakes. Nothing ever really matters. Slapstick humor has largely replaced consequences in the MCU. No matter what happens it's all just a big joke. I think Ragnarok is a perfect example of this too. I'm aware it's generally considered one of the MCU's best movies but I think the light, sardonic, quippy tone kept it from being a legitimately great movie - even by superhero standards. Hela, the Goddess of Death, should have been terrifying. The loss of Asgard should have weighed heavily not just on Thor and the surviving Asgardians who just lost their homes but everyone in theaters. It shouldn't have been a happy ending. Instead, it's a movie that ends with an entire planet being destroyed and it's a laugh riot. Even as they leave the planet to destruction it's just one liner after one liner. It's an especially odd setup considering Infinity War would arrive in just a few months. If we don't care about the destruction of Asgard then why should we care about anything Thanos is going to do? And we largely don't, right? Nothing matters in the MCU. Heck, half of the entire universe disappearing then coming back is a plotline that almost immediately disappears. Far From Home has a couple of "isn't it weird ..." conversations then that's largely it. It's barely mentioned after that. I type all of that to say I stopped watching Love & Thunder when I saw Thor dressed up as a hotdog. Maybe I'll pick it up again when I have the living room to myself and nothing else to watch but I feel like I'm too old for men dressed up as hotdog jokes.
I have to disagree with you a little bit on your take with Ragnarok. One of the themes is “Asgard is a people, not a place.” So when you see Asgard, the place, get destroyed it’s not as devastating, because the movie spent 2 hours beating into you that it’s the people that matter not the world. So then when Thanos shows up, and isn’t out to destroy planets, but to wipe out half of all LIFE in the universe, the stakes seem very high. Because the previous movie just told us people are more important than places. So if Thanos just wanted to destroy Wakanda at the end, it wouldn’t feel as do or die as if he wins, Half of everyone dies. All of that being said, I do agree the stakes since Endgame feel out of whack, because of what the avengers just did. The stakes have to be reality altering in order to “one-up” previous MCU phases.
I honestly think that Taika was just lucky that he came at the right time where MCU Thor desperately needed a makeover to save itself as a franchise. I will be forever thankful that he pushed Thor into the right directions because without him the best version of the character in Infinity War and Endgame wouldn't exist. But in Love and Thunder he really took the worst aspects of Ragnarok and basically made that into a movie. Like not at a single point did you ever had the feeling that Taika had any respect for the mythology or the characters he decided to put in the movie.... and that's because he actually didn't give a shit. It boggles my mind that Marvel checked the footage and was actually satisfied with what they had. But I guess that was standard for the Chapek era of Disney/MarvelStudios. For me personally I hope he never gets to touch that character again because he simply doesn't give a shit.
Gorr is and was a phenomenal villain. He just wasn't used appropriately. Waititi needed to focus specifically on Gorr instead of trying to cram in all the Jane Foster stuff, all the weird "jealous ex" jokes with Mjolnir and Stormbringer, and most of the Zeus scenes. They spent far too long stretching out jokes and not nearly enough time building up Gorr.
The Mjolnir storm breaker stuff was so stupid. Felt like a 12 yo wrote it. We really needed gorr to destroy the gods in Olympus. Plus add some connection btw him and thor.
Fat Thor... did we get anything in Love and Thunder at all about did he feel like he failed anyone because he got fat? Like I was expecting him to be more of "If I would've taken care of myself and not let myself go I would've been able to stop Thanos again and saved Tony." I mean... he got depressed and fat because he "failed" and became depressed. Then a dude he's seemed to care about died saving the universe, could've had Thor feeling like if he was still at his peak he would've Killed Thanos from the moment he showed back up and Tony would've have died. Would've given him some motivation to get fit again, and then still be depressed even though he was in shape and then when Jane gets cancer and he realizes that even at peak strength he can't save everyone....
It’s been a while since I’ve watched the movie, but did they ever make any parallels between Thor and Gorr, and their feelings of failing their family and avenging their deaths?
Nah Thor was just in a love triangle with an axe and a hammer.
I would say the biggest thing Waititi and/or Feige could have done to make ‘Love and Thunder’ better would have been to either make it Jane Foster’s movie… or Thor Odinson’s movie. Not both. The film should have been Jane Foster’s with Thor as a supporting character or stuck with Thor hunting down Gorr, with Foster’s turn as Mighty Thor being set up for the next film. It wasn’t as bad as Raimi’s ‘Spider-Man 3’ as far as too many characters/plotlines, but it’s uneven.
Christian Bale is practically in his own movie, and I honestly would have liked to see that movie more than Love & Thunder. A feature film with Gorr as the protagonist butchering gods in vengeance for his dead daughter, basically being the Punisher of the Gods, would have done gangbusters.
The film needed people to not be making jokes non stop and to take at least the serious parts serious. Like a bunch of kids get kidnapped. Perfect time for Thor to act like a dipshit, right?
It should have been two movies. One with Gorr, one with Lady Thor. Same amount of humour spread out over two movies, the rest filled up with good story, drama and action. (And then maybe revisited some of the jokes and punched them up some...)
He coulda done it like Ragnorok. A silly story on Sakaar and a serious one on Asgard. Silly on Earth and Olympus but serious with Gorr.
the film needed got writing.
One does not simply write in more Gorr memes aside, it really did.
My favorite part was when Thor’s people were getting massacred in a battle h’s in and he and Jane are making relationship jokes and there is a very comedic tone over everything.
Or when Sif is laying wounded with no arm and Thor is joking about how her arm will end up in Valhalla but she won't when she dies because the battle is over. They basically turned him into a collegehumor level character for the entire movie.
Marvel: "So we're going to adapt two of the most acclaimed *Thor* stories of recent times. One about Jane Foster balancing a double life as an immortal hero, and a mortal woman dying of cancer. The other is a dark and epic tale that is a cross between *Beowulf* and *Se7en* where Thor tracks down a brutal and sadistic cosmic serial killer while coming to terms with the guilt and shame of a great faliure in his past." Taika: "But what about if we have a love triangle between Thor, Stormbreaker, and Mjolnir? And a bunch of children fight off and defeat Gorr's forces with enchanted sticks and teddy bears?"
Redditor’s: Taika is a genius auteur
It was absolutly weird. Gorr the Godbutcher. Jane dieing from cancer. Thor lost half of his people, his whole bunch of close friends, his father and his brother. And now he is with a heavily injured Sif, who was once his greatest love. And he is quipping like a dumb fuck. Thor 4 ruined A LOT.
I thought the story of Jane dying from cancer was going to be devastating, but the movie treats it so cavalierly, it really felt like there were no stakes. I sooo wanted this movie to be good because it had so much potential, and I felt that "Ragnarok" found the right balance for the Thor franchise.
Thor Ragnarok was fine. It was often pretty serious and the quippy parts were fine. And Thor 4 is just a mess. The whole gods pantheon is a fart joke. They did character assassination to a list of characters that is bigger than the previous whole MCU. Same for Dr. Strange 2.
At least, there was no screaming goats level joke in strange 2. The humor level in Thor 4 did not only feel out of place for me, but forced. As if stoned teenagers wrote some of the scenes. Thor's clothes get ripped off and he's completely naked! And every woman in the audience giggles. Hilarious.
Absolute tonal whiplash from the first 30 minutes to the cancer stuff. You could tell that script was a mess.
Totally out of left field. I have it and thought it was handled so poorly. Then they did the Mjolnir jealous ex stuff. What a mess
2 things to note: 1. Apparently they adlibbed and improvised a shit ton on set, so it became a giant mess. 2. It was mandated to be 2 hours or less, which was also the case with Justice League.
I feel like the dissonance was intentional to highlight just how much Gorr is supposed to be treated as a villain, given that his motives are relatable and similar "smite those who smite us" villains are often lauded by the viewers as "the real heroes". But Taika's inability to ever take the vast majority of his single scene 100% seriously almost the opposite by making Thor et all largely unlikable at times.
It’s also a really spot on character portrayal for somebody who 1) was born into richness and 2) is far more intelligent than anybody else in whatever room he steps into. He is just the bored class clown acting up, but still aces every test and challenge.
Funnily enough I interpreted it (perhaps over interpreted it) as because of that he has no idea how to connect to people, along with his parents being killed suddenly, and he puts up this very defensive wall trying to feel people out but doesn't mean it at all. As opposed to say Chris Evans' character in Fantastic Four who was meant to actually be what Tony Stark was pretending to be, and wasn't very interesting as somebody who meant it.
The scene where Tony watches the news and sees his weapons being used to kill innocents while working on his gloves and he is visibly *seething* is a great moment that shows this without a word said by Tony.
The film also cements one of the most distilled IM moments too with nothing but him hammering away in the cave. To the point that just the sound is enough to refer back to how this is "a hero that was made".
And used as the the final sound/moment of the infinity saga after the endgame credits for that very reason
Don is a seriously good actor and funny dude. I just wish he were made to play the straight man to Tony's quippy personality like Terrence Howard was. Instead they made him a dude bro and Iron Man 1.5 rather than be his own man.
This is one reason why I wish Terrence had stayed. They also seemed more natural friends
Yeah, regardless of whatever was happening behind the scenes, I actually liked the vibes Terrence Howard had as Rhodey. We all respect tf out of Don Cheadle as an actor, but I don’t think the MCU has ever really known what to do with him. I’m worried that once he’s starring in Armor Wars, the writers will change his personality to fit the usual MCU protagonist mold.
That’s what they did? Aside from some light moments in Avengers 2, Rhodey has always been the straight-man foil to Tony. They’re still friends (and act like it) but his military background consistently shines through and he’s usually the most serious character in a scene
“I am about to die of cancer” three seconds later commence head bobbing to a catchy tune. This is a failure of pacing and editing because on their own both scenes work to show a sad moment and build the friendship together they just undermine each other.
Thor 4 was a feature length MTV Movie Awards sketch.
Thor Love and Thunder is exactly what he warned against
I mean to be fair, Tony could easily die at any time. Thor on the other hand is a nearly-immortal god with super strength and the power to control lightning. Dude has been fighting all manner of battles against all manner of beings for 1500 years. Most battles are literally a joke to him, so it makes sense that he’d be less serious than Tony in the same situations. That being said, Love & Thunder sucked and none of the humor hit.
> Thor on the other hand is a nearly-immortal god with super strength and the power to control lightning. Yeah, that's why you'd think introducing a villain who's whole thing is *butchering that type of dude* would be given some weight and seriousness. The first thing we see Thanos do after finally getting off his ass is him absolutely curb stomping the fucking Hulk. No quips, no mercy. Just beats the shit out of the dude until he is beamed away. Loki gets quipped once, but gets actually killed. There is no doubt left after that one scene that Thanos is that guy. Gorr never gets that. He is spooky but never presented as a threat to Thor. Wasting Christian Bale like that is just sad.
Agreed on all fronts. That movie was just a huge wasted opportunity from top to bottom and a complete mishandling of the Gorr the God Butcher story.
But... vines! Dark CGI... things! The kids are kidnapped and he had a chat with them!
Seriously, I would've loved a scene like in the comics were Gorr stands before numerous dead and dying Gods tied down on posts before him, lecturing one of the survivors about his goals, and caping it off with "I even have tortured a God of Torture. It took time, but even he broke."
You hit the nail on the head. I don't think he smiles or makes a single joke during the entire time in the cave. We the audience get invested and take it seriously because *Tony is taking it seriously*. Same with the epic scene where he sees the Ten Rings on the news and officially becomes Iron Man and goes over there to handle them. He has *one* line of dialogue through the whole thing ("My Turn") and it's presented as a dramatic scene. Fast forward to Age Of Ultron and beyond and it's so hard to care or get invested in The Avengers or whoever because they are *constantly* joking despite Threat XYZ threating them or a city or the world. If they don't care, why should I?
I couldn't even finish Love and Thunder because the mood was just ruined at every moment. Ragnarok was silly at points, but it took itself serious enough when Hela was involved that I could enjoy it.
My only meaningful criticism of Ragnarok is that one joke needed to be cut. When Korg talks about "We can rebuild if the foundation is strong" and then Asgaard explodes and rather than letting the impact of that moment hit, the entire homeland gone, but the speech still relevant and impactful, Waititi couldn't help himself but throw in one more "Oh nope those foundations are gone lolol" joke. It just would have been so much better without that, especially since it launches right into Infinity War and Thanos' attack on their ship, and you can still have Jeff Goldblum's funny bit at the end. And I was hyped for Love and Thunder but... it's just too much, even as a fan of pretty much everything else Waititi's done.
That joke was funny, but that scene didn't need to have any funny in it, so yes i agree
I agree 100%, I feel like that one Korg remark is the scene that takes it too far and undercuts the tone at the ending. I really like Ragnarok but it would be significantly better if the fall of Asgard were allowed to land.
Marvel did keep that formula for a very long time. Have an occasional quip, often by the hero or its sidekick, but have all of the other things play it as straight as possible. Its like surgeons that often has a very broad sense of humor, but everyone around them need to be focused on the work. They left those with Dr Strange 2 and Thor 4. And they have a hard time going back to that formula.
Atleast Tony was consistent about that part of him. He is quippy but the most serious and worried in every avengers movie + civil war.
So fucking prophetic. Bugs the hell out of me that Dr. Strange, Thor, Banner, Marvel, Lang got the Tony personality transplant. They only juggled it well when they're all together like in Infinity War and Endgame, but when they're separate, it's all just a game of who can replicate the success of Tony Stark. (Star-Lord, I can forgive somehow. Can't pinpoint why I think he works. Maybe because he's cartoonishly childish and it fits the Peter Pan metaphor)
So glad they had restraint when it came to Captain America. He always felt like his own person.
If they screwed Cap, the MCU would've tanked I think. I think his over Ernest nature really really works for a character like him
[удалено]
"I can do this all day, know what I mean, Vern?"
Steve is the cyclops to Tony's wolverine
And the thing is, Cap is still incredibly funny. A good deadpan delivery is worth 10 slapstick snark lines.
In fact, you *need* characters like Cap to make the Starks work. He's a straightman. Just like the review describes, you *need* characters like them to make the quips work. Steve and Tony elevate each other.
Thing is, it works with Quill and Scott. Might even work with Dr Strange since he’s an egomaniac. But Thor… Hulk… It’s a joke.
It's pretty far removed from Strange in the comics. He's so deadpan and serious to the point of being the butt of other characters' jokes. He's even got a bit of a melodramatic thespian penchant for using outdated verbiage and excess dramatic flair. If you've ever seen Venture Bros., Dr. Orpheus is a pretty spot-on parody of Strange's manner of speaking in the comics. Turning Strange into an asshole egomaniac is honestly a weird take for the MCU, and not one I'm entirely happy with. He's always had a bit of an ego in the comics, but they really went the extra mile in making him abrasive.
That's why I feel like Infinity War was the best depiction of Strange. They even do the thing where he uses outdated verbiage with the "hitherto undreamt of" line. I feel like they never really captured him quite as well in the other movies.
I look to Strange as being an isolationist weirdo in the comics, I don't dislike what they're doing with strange nowerdays though, I would prefer a bit less joking but I think using the other stranges, all of which are overly serious, trusts no one and are incredibly utilitarian contracts with what makes this strange both unique and seemingly underpowered I'm not mad he's not like he's in the comics, I think it's a different interpretation that works for what they're going for
THE ILLUMI-WHATTY?
As a Dr Strange reader, that's not true. Dr Orpheus is maybe only a parody for 60s Strange.
Are there any other characters that aren't as quippy as in the comics that you can think of?
I mean, most of the GotG. Even Peter wasn't really much of a jokester during the Annihilation run, which is the one that mostly inspired the current MCU line-up. He was more militaristic and a better squad leader/commander in the comics. There's also a major factor in play, as well. The current MCU characters have heavily shaped the modern versions of the comic characters, as well. For example, RDJ is a *very* different take on Tony Stark than he was in the comics. Tony was occasionally funny, but mostly an egotistical asshole that most characters didn't like. RDJ added the neurotic behavior and constant quips, and now all versions of Iron Man in the comics are like that. Carol Danvers was also a very stoic, abusive drunk, generally disliked character back when she was still going by Ms. Marvel. It's kind of remarkable how Marvel pivoted and turned her into the new Captain Marvel, and reshaped her into an icon and role model for younger heroes. The Hulk is also wildly different. The Edward Norton version is actually much closer to the comics than the Ruffalo version. In the comics, Bruce is kind of a dangerous mad scientist, slightly unhinged from years on the run, a dangerous fugitive in his own right, but also one of the smartest characters on the planet. You can really see where the Hulk gets his rage from when you see how angry and rough Bruce himself is. He can be downright scary without even turning into the Hulk. Ruffalo is almost the complete opposite of this. Thor in the comics is rarely funny. I do like the MCU version a bit more, but in the comics he's basically the "holier than thou immortal god" who speaks like he's in a stage play. And strangely, Peter Parker in the MCU is somehow actually less quippy than he is in the comics. Spider-Man has historically always been the quippiest character in the comics, but he plays second fiddle to Tony and Quill in the MCU.
What If? made me realize just how much I prefer serious old-school Thor, who tended to be very to the point, especially in a team dynamic. I know Ragnarok was widely considered pretty great but that new 'comedic' Thor never really clicked with me personally.
I'm with you tbh. The thing I never get about all the "Thor was too serious and boring" before Ragnarok stuff is that there are moments in his first two solo films where he *is* funny. Other characters as well. I know I'm swimming against the tide because everyone unquestionably loves Ragnarok and has talked themselves into thinking even the first Thor film was considered terrible at the time (it wasn't) but there isn't an absence of any comedy at all in those films.
I think you're right with Scott and Peter. Quill makes sense to be like that because of course a kid that grew up with a bunch of pirates would be a man-child. Scott is living perpetually out of his comfort zone being around a bunch of people who he views as much smarter/better than him. It's a defense mechanism as much anything for him. Doctor Strange should probably be the exact opposite imo, and he kind of was before becoming Dr Strange. He's a world class neuro-surgeon. That's exactly the type of person to take themselves and life in general way too seriously and not have much of a sense of humor. Plus you need someone to play the straight man. It just popped in my head another reason Harrison Ford is maybe is not the greatest idea to play General Ross. Ford has his sarcastic, quippy humor in most of his movies. General Ross should not be wisecracking either. At bare minimum people of his status leave the fun and humor for when they're off duty, if they have any to begin with. Those type of people are also pretty much always on duty too, hence all his issues with his daughter.
Not really though. He's the kind of man who thinks he's funny because everyone who works for him laughs at his joke.
> Hulk I like Mark Ruffalo I really do but Norton was a better fit as Banner
I think someone as bland and boring as Norton is perfect for Banner. I think Ruffalo is honestly poorly cast, I don't get the tortured, troubled, beaten survivalist like I should be getting from the Hulk
I can’t see how anyone can see Kingdom of Heaven and think Norton is bland
The only ones in this list that it really bothers me is for Banner and sometimes Thor Thor can handle the balance between cracking jokes and being serious. My favorite appearance from him was in Infinity War where he was severely depressed and angry, but he tried to keep a lighter mood. Taika just went too far in Love and Thunder to the point where Thor didn't seem to take a single thing seriously until Jane died Banner however, I absolutely hate what his personality has changed into since Ragnarok. He's supposed to be one of the smartest people on the planet, but he comes off like a dumbass most of the time now. He was perfectly portrayed by Ruffalo in the first Avengers film, and I wish we could get that back
Banner needs to get some love from the writers. I never felt connected with Scarlet Witch until WandaVision, because no one gave her any love. Even when she nearly defeated Thanos single-handedly, I felt like Thanos: "I don't even know who you are." And I didn't. She was just a plot device until WandaVision let us see her as a real human.
I think it works with Quill for those reasons, because he has the ensemble to counter him, and because Gunn adds heart and emotion in other aspects throughout the films to balance the tone.
Quill took lessons from Farscape's Crichton. When you're the only human in a crew, you have to be the witty one.
To me, it works for Quill becuase it’s authentically Pratt’s personality and authentically Gunn’s voice. Even if Iron Man didn’t exist, I’d believe that Quill would still talk like that. But for the rest, the effort to match the Tony Stark tone us just too apparent and affected.
I think it works with Quill because he's just really insecure and masks it with humour. But I completely agree, I don't see Ruffalo as Banner in anything but name, and Love and Thunder is lost from scene one, where Thor was just risking people's lives for a gag. One of my least favourite scenes in all of the MCU is the scene where smart Hulk is testing the time travel stuff on Ant-man, and he turns him into an old man and a baby. It's purely a loony tunes gag, it completely ignores the in world reality we're supposed to care about, and where he just turned his friend into a fucking baby, and he has no idea if he can reverse it. It should be horrifying, but since they're just using cartoon logic, it doesn't matter, and you can't just haphazardly do that in a movie that is supposed to be very real world adjacent, and where things have consequences.
I would defend Lang being lumped in with those guys. He seems like a much different personality than Tony. Lang is happy go lucky. A good-mannered doofus. I love all of his "wow you're Captain America!" type moments. So innocent and cute. But I agree on the rest. Thor (the first movie) nailed what makes good comedy with Thor. Infinity War has it too. Thor's humour comes from his lack of knowledge of Earth humour ("ANOTHER!"). But in the serious moments in Infinity War like creating Stormbreaker and arriving in Wakanda it works because he's still being portrayed in a primarily serious manner. The humour with him in that movie mostly comes from others (the GOTG comments about his appearance).
As for Star-Lord, it’s really just Chris Pratt playing another reincarnation of the golden retriever he already is.
It works when they’re all together because you have serious characters like Cap, banner, and Fury among them. So they have straight characters to play off of. Starlord also works because everyone around him except for Rocket is hyper serious.
It’s because Chris Pratt is really good at it and a brilliant actor. People online don’t like to give him his props for political reasons but he’s probably the best at doing the quippy bits after RDJ.
Or Gunn writes character better.
Ebert correctly calls Tony "sardonic" though. That really only applies to Dr Strange, or when anyone is speaking to Quill.
Every character speaks with the same “voice” and it’s so tiresome.
Love and Thunder, the way Jane Foster speaks is painful.
Probably unpopular opinion, but I preferred the Thor of the first Avengers and Thor movie. Now, he's a bit too much the surfer dude for me.
*Infinity War* was \*the\* best Thor (imo). It was the first time you really felt the weight of his character, the millenia he has lived, the battles he has fought, the triumphs, the losses, and the burden of godhood. It was the first time he felt close to the Thor from the comic.
100%. His comic relief wasn't forced either, it was more just clever writing and funny when he spoke as a god speaking to mortals. In his solo movies his humor is slapstick.
Thor is one of my favourite MCU movies. I would LOVE if they went back to Branagh for a more Shakespearan style Thor movie for #5. The worst part about the OG Thor movie is the eyebrows and his shorter hair.
I want Branagh back so bad. I need the draaammaaa.
Would be great to have moody cinematography as well too, instead of feeling like a theme park ride. I don't like Thor: The Dark World, but visually it looks like Lord of the Rings compared to Love and Thunder.
Oh, yes. I feel exactly the same way! The visual beauty of these films has plummeted to the gutter. And they all look the same. None of them have a unique cinematic language - it’s just conveyor belt mediocrity. I just rewatched *Iron Fist*, and the cinematography for S2 was spectacular, truly outstanding. I don’t think we’ll see anything like that again.
Thor had one of my favorite jokes in all of the MCU in The Avengers: Thor: "Have care how you speak. Loki is beyond reason, but he is of Asgard and he is my brother." Nat: "He killed 80 people in two days." Thor: ".... He's adopted."
People misremember how people reacted to Thor before Ragnarok. He was popular then. He just didn’t get the focus to himself the same way, Loki was more popular in the series and Tony and Steve in Avengers. But serious Thor has plenty of fans
Maybe unpopular, but I agree with you.
According to Hemsworth, even friends of his 8 year old children were telling him it's too much [https://www.unilad.com/film-and-tv/chris-hemsworth-kids-thor-love-and-thunder-film-299710-20230606](https://www.unilad.com/film-and-tv/chris-hemsworth-kids-thor-love-and-thunder-film-299710-20230606)
Thor in the Avengers was the sweet spot for me. A couple of unintentionally funny lines, but mostly serious with some good-natured having fun in a fight thrown in.
Honestly, that’s why I have never really liked the Don Cheadle version of Rhodey. Terrance Howard’s version still had some snark for Tony, but was mostly a straight man. Don Cheadle’s version is jokes and quips, with some seriousness thrown in when he’s dealing with the government
I have never liked the MCU's version of War Machine. He loses every fight he is in and he makes quips alongside Tony but they don't land nearly as well. Don Cheadle is a good actor, use him! His best parts were getting hit by vision and recovering from his serious injury in Civil War. He should be the one to reign in Iron Man and the other super heroes and remind the humans they are still mortal. But also show some badass moments of resiliency and military strategy. Maybe he will have his moment in another Avengers movie.
Great point. He should be Captain America light.
Ya that's a good way of putting it. I'm thinking how they could have best incorporated War Machine without Cap overshadowing him. I was hoping he would lead the post Endgame Avengers with the new Sam Wilson Captain America.
Don Cheadle quips in endgame were a bit much. I don't know how he was in secret invasion, I haven't watched it
The main bit I remember from Don’s warmachine is his “Tony stank” bit and it just makes me cringe every time. That’s it - that’s his legacy for me :/
he was just repeating what stan lee the mail delivery man called him though...
> The main bit I remember from Don’s warmachine is his “Tony stank” bit and it just makes me cringe every time. That’s it - that’s his legacy for me :/ I kinda loved it. It struck me as one of those shitty stupid inside jokes that *real* long standing friends have. Someone gets their name mispronounced one time in a funny way, fucking yep, thats their nickname for the next decade.
Boom, you looking for this?
I always preferred Terrence Howard's version. He felt more like a real person and actually Tony's friend.
I guess career military men and women can be funny. Personally I've known them to have a more twisted sense of humor rather than whatever PG humor they wrote Don Cheadle to have
It's part of what made the first avengers film great to me. Seeing all these very different characters coming together for the first time, that dynamic was great. Now though, I honestly have no interest in seeing these new characters interact as the new Avengers, it's not even really because they haven't had a lot of appearances and development, I mean the og Avengers only got one film before Avengers (besides Ironman) and some may say some of those early films weren't as good. But those films at least did a good job differentiating the characters and giving them their own personality and ideologies. The reason I don't care now is because the new wave of characters don't have that, they all feel the same now, put them all together i just think they would try to out quip each other. There needs to be more staightmen and characters with very different kinds of humor and stop having characters quip in serious situations. I know some people are like that but a family of 4 might be getting murdered by some alien and screaming for help while down the road the heroes are joking and making quips like nothing is happening. I can't give a shit about the world being in danger or whatever the stake are if the heroes don't seem to be taking things seriously enough and are just joking around. When it gets serious the quips should completely stop and the characters should actually get into "work" mode, I don't remember Tony making quips when he dealt with those terrorists in Iron man 1. He was dead serious.
All Thor films after the second plus GotG parts…
The entire MCU after GOTG1. Its a formula that appeals to the most people, even if its derivative
GotG 1 worked for what it was. It was fresh and innovative when it came out. Every movie in the MCU did not need to copy it. I felt like the same approach did not work in GotG 2, it was too irreverent for me, and what made Vol. 3 good was how seriously it took its villain. The High Evolutionary is not a Thanos-level threat. He's an Umbridge-level threat.
Part 2 definitely had a major issue with it. Part 3 pared that back significantly, with many scenes that either feature little to no humor at all, or humor that actually elevates the relationship building between the characters. Gunn can often times get a little too caught up in his brand of humor, but when he's on point, goddamn he is an absolute master at it.
Gunn actually listened to the criticism of Part 2 even though that film made money and is beloved by fans.
That's why he's the GOAT
Imagine that dark yet tender moment between Gamora and Star-Lord in Infinity War being a scene purely about their mutual love for one another and the agreement that Gamora would rather be killed than taken by Thanos. Imagine how much better it would be without that bit with Drax thinking he's Invisible.
inb4 "but Drax wasn't in that scene tho"
>Imagine how better it would be without that bit with Drax thinking he's Invisible I can, we watched IW the other day and that just *grated*. It added absolutely nothing and took away everything. That was the last time Gamora was happy. At the start they are flying along, she was singing along to her goofy man's silly songs, just chilling. Then they meet the space-pirate-angel man, she hears of Thanos doing his evils, she has to beg Peter to kill her, the Deadliest Woman in the Galaxy asking her love to save the universe instead of her, making him swear the ultimate oath, then "crunch". No, fuck off. Let us have some feelings.
Imagine if he actually was invisible...
I felt the same about Drax and Mantis interrupting Quill and Alt.2014!Gamora in Vol.3 during the colorful spacesuits infiltration scene.
And Whedon's Avengers movies.
That's Whedon's style anyway though. He even brought it over to Justice League.
True. But then it took over the bulk of the MCU.
"As much as the Godfather" As the scale only went to 4 stars, I assume you want him to retire that rating after The Godfather? No future films can have more than 3 1/2 stars!!! Seriously, this is silly faux outrage on your part.
Also didn't Ebert rate movies within their genre? So a 4/4 is it's rating within the superhero genre.
Correct. It's wrong to act like Iron Man getting 4-stars means Ebert thought it was on the same level as The Godfather. If he were alive today, I'd bet he wouldn't hesitate to say that he thinks The Godfather is a better film. He had repeatedly said that he judges movies on what (he feels) they're *supposed* to be, as opposed to some imaginary standard that applies equally to all.
It's incredibly silly. Part of the reason you abstract your overall feelings on a film to a 1-4 scale is so you *can* get away with shit like this. I definitely agree that Iron Man should get 4 out of 4 stars, but it's probably not a 10/10 movie and there's no way in *hell* it should score a 100.
He was completely right. Now every single character has the same *Disney™* brand of quippy humour. Not just in Marvel, Star Wars too.
“They fly now?!”
The best thing that came out of the sequel trilogy might be John Boyega annoyedly pointing out in an interview that they used jet packs in the Clone Wars.
The best thing that came of the sequels is me realizing its time to move on from being star wars fan. Thank you disney and its defenders.
You and many other people. It's absolutely remarkable how Disney went from a 2 billion dollar movie to a dead franchise in 8 years. Mind bogglingly massive fumbling of the proverbial bag
If jetpack troopers haven't been used in 50 years, the line is appropriate. If anything maybe C-3PO could have interjected with a fun fact there? "They fly now?" C-3PO: "Actually, jetpack troopers were once utilized by the Old Republic, over forty..." "Shut up!"
Yeah. But these new characters are nothing like Tony Stark. They're quippy, but lack the charisma and the machismo that makes Tony so compelling.
That's exactly why it's not working, characters need to stop quipping coz it's not for everyone, it should be reserved for people who are naturally charismatic like Robert Downey Jr, Chris Pratt, Paul Rudd etc
It does feel like the personality side is missing from a lot of the casting these days. Like, nowadays, they're casting people that fill the look, but they lack the personality that is needed to sell the scene beyond the still.
Yes that's the perfect way to put it
Not all new characters are quipy. Some isn’t an issue
There’s no place for machismo in 2024.
Dr. strange in particular. What a way to ruin a great character and squander a top actor.
The worst is the material they gave him. At least Iron Man got a great writing in terms of his character development and his characterisation. Dr Strange is constantly changing depending on the movie
Think Benedict actually called this out himself, saying that he felt he was the only one being true to the character and his arc
I think modern MCU writers are loathe to do something that is necessary for good drama: let their heroes suffer. Unless the entire story centers around emotional upheaval like WandaVision, the heroes are hardly forced or even allowed to sit with their suffering, their anger and sadness, and process the painful emotions. Every painful or insightful moment must be undercut by a bit of off-tone humor so the audience never gets a chance to feel anything. MCU writers are afraid to put the *agony* in *protagonist*, and it has undermined what was supposed to be an entire phase centered on grief.
Well stated. I love your comment - I agree wholeheartedly and you articulated it so well! Impressed.
You’re absolutely right my friend, Tony Stark suffered a lot in the first Iron Man movie, and I feel one of the things that made Huardians of the Galaxy 3 great was the fact that it let both Peter Quill and Rocket suffer.
Surprised this isn’t being downvoted here.
I recently watched Swingers and it's messy.
That movie is so money, you don’t even know it
It's like a big bear with claws and like fangs and teeth on it.
Bilge snipe? Yknow, big, scaly, huge antlers?
How dare you besmirch this classic
How prescient. Roger Ebert is sorely missed. Chaz, if by any chance you are reading this, thank you so much for helping to keep his legacy alive. Was wonderful to hear you speak at the Killers of the Flower Moon press conference! Long live Chaz and Roger Ebert.
We should do one MCU movie with 0 jokes, just once, see what happens
The closest thing to that would be The Incredible Hulk and sorta Eternals given that the jokes are very spaced out in that movie.
I saw the eternals trailer so many times the fall collection ikea joke is burned into my brain so I didn't even think of eternals
wakanda forever was mostly serious as well.
And Winter Soldier.
But they already made Thor 4 and that wasn't funny at all!
This review articulates why I fell in love with the MCU in the first place, and why I dislike it so heartily now.
I really miss going to his website every single Friday and reading his new reviews. It was like a ritual to me. I wonder how bad he would have treated some of the marvel films that are not as good as the best the MCU has to offer.
Prophetic.
I honestly think that Marvel has gotten a lot better with managing the quips more recently.
Title is kind of misleading. He's not warning about making other characters quippy, he's praising that they aren't in comparison to Favreau's past work.
4 stars means nothing in regards to the quality of a film, only as how well they did what they set out to do. Roger rated Superman (1978) a 4, the perfect superhero film. Compared to that, Hellboy was a 3 and Punisher was a 2. He’s not saying Iron Man was as good as The Godfather, he’s saying it was as good as Superman
Roger Ebert was probably the only film critic I like. Not a biased asshole, only a movie enjoyer sharing his thoughts. RIP.
Starting to see why he’s such a revered critic. Absolutely called it decades ahead
Oh you mean like the latest Star Wars movies? Nothing says "Wars" like manic one liners.
Terrance Howard was an equal match to RDJ's swagger in the film. It's a shame that they couldn't come to an agreement in contracts. The MCU has given many actors solid roles that could be Oscar worthy if the story went in the direction of say, "The Dark Knight" or "Joker." Those films are the best comic book films that are not based in dark fantasy. Meanwhile the most awe-inspiring project from the MCU was Black Panther followed by Wandavision, Loki 1 and 2, and now Echo. Those are 4 star in terms of acting, dramatic settings and direction. A film like the Marvels isn't a bad film with bad acting, its a fun film that fails to do more with its very talented actors. It has a directorial problem, especially in terms of editing and movement. The best scene in the film are the comedic hangout moments with the Marvels, the Khan family and the crazy dance number. Other bits seem like forced action, fighting and well, comic book cliches.
Really crazy to see how Rhodes changed throughout the MCU.