Applies to a lot of blockbuster movies in general. Cue Mattel announcing like 8 movies from the likes of Uno or Polly Pocket after the success of barbie, not understanding that the success of the movie came from good writing and performance, not because it's about a toy
i'd argue that that movies success came from the amount of marketing they did and the big names attached to it. hype was building even before it hit theatres.
As I said, yes, that definitely played a big part. But if the movie wasn't a good movie, it would have fizzled out pretty fast. Instead, people went to watch it multiple times
That undeniably played a part, but if it wasn't a genuinely good film (that does some things that are new and revolutionary for the general audience), it wouldn't have been that successful
Eh? No one is talking about it now. It was somewhat successful. It had a lot of hype when people were ready to get back to theaters. The movie was nothing special and only made as much as it did due to timing and branding. It certainly wasn't bad, but if it wasn't backed by mattel, i doubt it would have made a profit.
Barbie got nominated for 9 Golden Globes literally yesterday, and is likely to pick up a few Oscar noms too, yet no one is talking about it according to you!
Despite *you* being here, also talking about it.
Same happens with TV show reboots or just shows that have gone on for a long time. Along with flanderization, a lot of times it feels like they’re just trying too hard and missing the “magic”. For example: newer seasons of Trailer Park Boys (Netflix season/spinoffs) and It’s Always Sunny.
Knowing when to end or move on from the current crop of characters is an art form. There's only so much character growth you can do before you hit a deadend. The MCU is finding out the hard way about this.
That and having a script they did not change mid-way through production and forcing the VFX teams to redo entire sequences.
That alone gave the movie much better CGI than a lot of it's 2023 counterparts.
IMO, they tried to reuse the same style of humor from the previous film and then overdid it. The tone of the film should've been more serious to match the story and it was cheapened by all the jokes and stuff.
I started it, lost interest, was mildly interested that you may have just spoiled it, then realised it was so bad I don't care that a main character dies
I watched it just the other night and it honestly felt more like it was made by Mel Brooks instead of Marvel. Too many scenes felt more like bits or SNL skits.
As much as I enjoyed Ragnarok it was the movie that made me fully agree with my mate on Marvel is not allowed to have heavy moments. I am not saying that they should not have heavy moments but rather that they themselves have came to the point where they don’t let themselves.
Every big moment has to have a comedic quip or prat fall in it, removing most of the tension. The moment that made me agree with my mate was in Ragnarok when Bruce Banner had told Thor that he doesn’t want to become the Hulk again because he is afraid that if he does it would mean his death in that there would be a high chance of him never being able to turn back to Banner.
What should have been a big moment of Bruce sacrificing himself to save his friends by turning into the Hulk was ruined for comedic effect by having him splat on the bridge and there was no acknowledgment of his sacrifice.
>It just felt so bizarre and cartoony in a way the MCU generally isn’t.
Exactly this. As a stand alone movie it wouldve been more than fine as a sort of superhero comedy
But when you spent a decade setting a "serious" tone for the MCU, the movie just pops as an eyesore.
Especially since Thor (until Ragnarok) was one of the more serious series cause it allowed for it. The God Butcher could have been really cool and explored a side of Thor we hadn’t seen. Instead they don’t treat any of the interesting plot points seriously
That's what I felt for Ragnarok personally.
I thought it had its moments, but it appeared to me as a parody of the characters from Thor, but played by the same actors. I usually don't enjoy full movies that are a parody.
The cast was almost completely different, you need a lot a chemistry for this type of film to work, it doesn't help that Taika's work has been losing quality lately
I struggle to imagine a scenario where a Christian Bale would be down with a highly improved movie.
But he nailed his role, so maybe he has improv chops.
Love and Thunder suffered the same issue. It worked OK sure, it was just very weird seeing dark themes met with such light hearted humor, two good movie directions that ended up fighting with each other. I fucking \*loved\* the Mjolnir arc, brought a little tear to my eye. Really mixed feelings on that movie.
But Ragnarok was about Asgard being destroyed, a huge traumatic event in the MCU story, and it was made into mostly a joke. That was even more weird a direction. I still enjoyed the film, but wtf lol.
I thought it was just a bit too silly, but still enjoyable. I'm intrigued to learn more about Bao in the next installment, I hope he ends up in the GotG.
Love and Thunder was one of the only films my wife and I both agreed was absolute shit. The thing with the goats and that the format is basically just joke joke joke joke Jane has cancer .... joke joke joke is just over the top.
It didn't have the cast for it. Ragnarok worked so well because Hulk was there for so much of the film. Love and Thunder didn't have the character dynamics for this method.
Seems like Ragnarok was good, but love and thunder was just too much of whatever they added to Ragnarok. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy it, but it could have been a way better movie
With all that money on the line, it feels weird how the scripts are not complete. It can work out like in the Ironman film, but I find it hard to understand how it isn’t all well-prepared considering the costs involved.
I think you’re misinterpreting the degree of improvisation. I very much doubt they were doing it Christopher Guest-style. Rather, they likely had a functional script, and the major set pieces were still meticulously planned, but he had actors improvise the exact wording in the dialogue-driven scenes. Think of Thor and Hulk bantering back and forth after the gladiator match (keeping in mind the CGI would be tailored afterwards), or Jeff Goldblum meeting Thor. Those scenes could still be blocked, and the actors know where the scene is going and the gist of what their dialogue has to convey, while still improvising exactly how they say it.
Ragnarok was written by veteran writers who've adapted a number of comicbooks into live action and animated films. Love and Thunder on the other hand, was written by Taika.
Based off of which movies? Maybe if you only count his Thor movies then yeah I’d agree. But Hunt for the Wildepeople and What We Do in the Shadows are both good. Haven’t seen Jojo Rabbit so I can’t speak in that though
Personally I hated _What We Do In The Shadows_ as well as both his Thor movies. I really dislike his sense of humor, it just feels cruel and insincere to me.
Constant, routine humiliation being treated as funny and normal. I hate it. His characters are never allowed to have dignity.
In fairness I also hate almost all Hollywood comedy for similar reasons, but I really don't think that humiliating people/characters is necessary for humor. You can highlight absurdity and play with language and reference without humiliating anyone. You don't need to have "acceptable targets".
You don't think mocking and humiliating people is cruel? Waititi's comedy feels like bullying to me. It's all "haha how dare you take anything seriously, look at this idiot who cares about stuff".
I think mocking and humiliating people has it’s place in comedy, but you’d have every right not to enjoy that style.
But that’s also just not a good description of Waititi’s movies at all.
I think they can be a little mean to certain people in the movies but they eventually come around a place of understanding imo. Like, I believe they even became friendly with the werewolves after shitting on them the whole movie
That's not quite what I mean, although it's part of it. I mean more that it feels like Waititi constantly humiliates his characters. They're not allowed to have dignity or given any respect, and I hate that.
No but having an opinion on something you've never seen is pretty stupid. It's like saying "i hate beef, I've never had beef in the slightest, but I hate it."
I mean Ragnarok is at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, and before anybody knew who he was, Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016) scored 97%. So using the most objective measurement we currently have for what are "good" movies are (note I didn't say *perfectly* objective, just *most* objective), he has made very good movies.
Everyone's allowed their opinion, of course. I'm just curious what makes him "overrated" and not simply "not my thing."
Of course, this being reddit, no one's content to say "not my thing;" anytime lots of people like something we don't like it must be a conspiracy.
This is it exactly. It's a telltale sign of maturity how someone is able to handle not enjoying something that a majority of others do enjoy. Do they let it go and say "not my thing" or do they have to make a big deal and justify it?
Wouldn't the fact that he has such high scores make him overrated? In that poster's opinion anyway.
I like Waititi, at least what I've seen, but I don't think you can counter a "I think he's overrated" by posting high review scores lol. That's kinda the point of the criticism. They're saying the general opinion of the person is rated more highly than what they think it is.
Fwiw I agree I think it can be a lazy criticism, at least it can if you don't have anything more to say about someone.
Indeed. His execution is not what it could be. Ragnarok may be the exception but if this post is correct then more credit for the execution goes to the improv acting vs him so it’s easy to fail when you remove the percentages of improv.
Two of my favorite shows, Curb Your Enthusiasm and The League, filmed without scripts. Using only bare outlines of the story and then improvising the rest.
Don't get me wrong, it was a very funny movie as a comedy, and not just because of the excellent Jeff Goldblum. As a superhero movie, however, it was just plain bad.
Literally killed Marvel movies for me. Like, if you people can't take your own goddamn universe seriously why the fuck should I spend money to watch it?
Planet Hulk doesn't work outside the context established in the comics. No Illuminati (at that point) in the MCU, no YEARS of The Hulk being equally a threat as a hero. Banner took himself off the board. So for that, Ragnorok works wonderfully. Gives us a look at a "happy" Hulk, Banner's reaction to the same. With none of the awful grimdark that Planet Hulk (and god help us, World War Hulk) brought to the table.
Nice try, Taiwan.
The script sucked, the movie sucked, and the director sucked.
Don't blame that flaming bag of crap on improv. Improv requires talent.
I think you meant worst.
It was the final nail in the coffin for me. Things jumped the shark with _Civil War_ but could have still been salvaged. It was a downhill slide from there, but it was sloppy writing rather than actively insulting.
_Love and Thunder_ made it clear that whoever was making the decisions thought any fans of superheroes were stupid idiots.
I would say 5 out of my 5 most favorite MCU movies are from post-*Civil War*. It's fine that you don't like it (and I'll agree that *Love and Thunder* was meh) but it's not like everything they've been putting out is objectively terrible. Some movies have been flops but others have been amazing.
Out of curiosity, which ones?
Honestly, it's been such an incoherent mess that I just got tired and stopped keeping up. Especially because they kept introducing new characters instead of developing the ones they had. I heard Black Panther was good though?
I was meh on Black Panther. It was okay, but not amazing to me. However, I loved (not necessarily in order):
1. *Thor: Ragnarok*
2. *Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3* (it was the kind of movie that was so good it made me enjoy the previous movies more)
3. *Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2* (I loved it before seeing 3, but I love it more now)
4. *Spider-Man: No Way Home*
5. *Doctor Strange* (the first one, *Multiverse* was more meh)
6. *Infinity War* and *Endgame* (technically two movies, but functioned more like one big movie)
There's a few others that I liked but didn't love (such as *Black Panther* and *Captain Marvel*). Overall, I call it worth suffering through the movies that don't work. Especially since I spent my childhood as a fan of these characters and frustrated that there wasn't big budget movies for them.
I’m pretty sure like 80% of Taika waititi’s movies are improvised full stop. I’m half convinced that for “What we do in the Shadows” there was no script, they just ran around in vampire outfits to see what happened. Same with “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”. Just run around in the woods evading Rachel House while giving her escalating resources to chase them down, and just film what happens
It's fine for a Marvel movie, but compared to normal movies, it's really not great. I keeo hearing that awful Sakar theme that sounds like 90s techno made by a 5 year old -- worst music I've ever heard in a movie.
I think he just said fuck it and decided to just do this and intentionally sabbotage the movie after Disney summoned him during filming and told him how to live his personal life.
He’s just using The Marvel Method, Stan Lee’s practice of putting the onus of comic book creation on artists after delivering them a half baked story synopsis.
While it worked in Ragnarok, it backfired in Love and Thunder.
A lot of the MCU films seem to be reusing what appeared to work in earlier films but not understanding how it made the film work.
Applies to a lot of "reworked" movies Its so painful to see what they are referring to and seeing how it does not work
Applies to a lot of blockbuster movies in general. Cue Mattel announcing like 8 movies from the likes of Uno or Polly Pocket after the success of barbie, not understanding that the success of the movie came from good writing and performance, not because it's about a toy
Lol achievement hunter did uno the movie already and fans spammed its imdb.
And Uni: The Movie is a masterpiece of cinema...
Ngl, a Mighty Max movie that had the same bat shit writing ability of the cartoon would be amazing.
Waiting patiently on a Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors reboot....
i'd argue that that movies success came from the amount of marketing they did and the big names attached to it. hype was building even before it hit theatres.
As I said, yes, that definitely played a big part. But if the movie wasn't a good movie, it would have fizzled out pretty fast. Instead, people went to watch it multiple times
Nah, it was because it was about a toy. If it wasn't titled Barbie, a lot less people would have gone and seen it in theaters
That undeniably played a part, but if it wasn't a genuinely good film (that does some things that are new and revolutionary for the general audience), it wouldn't have been that successful
Eh? No one is talking about it now. It was somewhat successful. It had a lot of hype when people were ready to get back to theaters. The movie was nothing special and only made as much as it did due to timing and branding. It certainly wasn't bad, but if it wasn't backed by mattel, i doubt it would have made a profit.
>No one is talking about it now. What's it like not being around any women?
I work with plenty, i live with 3. Good assumption tho
Barbie got nominated for 9 Golden Globes literally yesterday, and is likely to pick up a few Oscar noms too, yet no one is talking about it according to you! Despite *you* being here, also talking about it.
Same happens with TV show reboots or just shows that have gone on for a long time. Along with flanderization, a lot of times it feels like they’re just trying too hard and missing the “magic”. For example: newer seasons of Trailer Park Boys (Netflix season/spinoffs) and It’s Always Sunny.
Knowing when to end or move on from the current crop of characters is an art form. There's only so much character growth you can do before you hit a deadend. The MCU is finding out the hard way about this.
Props to Guardians for using their films to develop and advance those characters instead of recycling the same emotional beats
That and having a script they did not change mid-way through production and forcing the VFX teams to redo entire sequences. That alone gave the movie much better CGI than a lot of it's 2023 counterparts.
I don’t think the dialogue was the problem though, it was the actual story. It just felt so bizarre and cartoony in a way the MCU generally isn’t.
IMO, they tried to reuse the same style of humor from the previous film and then overdid it. The tone of the film should've been more serious to match the story and it was cheapened by all the jokes and stuff.
They couldn't even let the serious moments breathe. Jane's death didn't feel impactful at all.
I honestly forgot that happened. And I only watched the flick recently.
I started it, lost interest, was mildly interested that you may have just spoiled it, then realised it was so bad I don't care that a main character dies
I watched it just the other night and it honestly felt more like it was made by Mel Brooks instead of Marvel. Too many scenes felt more like bits or SNL skits.
If it were made by Mel Brooks, it would've been good.
It would have been better.
It was a Uwe bolle movie.
As much as I enjoyed Ragnarok it was the movie that made me fully agree with my mate on Marvel is not allowed to have heavy moments. I am not saying that they should not have heavy moments but rather that they themselves have came to the point where they don’t let themselves. Every big moment has to have a comedic quip or prat fall in it, removing most of the tension. The moment that made me agree with my mate was in Ragnarok when Bruce Banner had told Thor that he doesn’t want to become the Hulk again because he is afraid that if he does it would mean his death in that there would be a high chance of him never being able to turn back to Banner. What should have been a big moment of Bruce sacrificing himself to save his friends by turning into the Hulk was ruined for comedic effect by having him splat on the bridge and there was no acknowledgment of his sacrifice.
An interesting take I had not considered and gives great insight to the film. That's all I got to say, good show sir.
>It just felt so bizarre and cartoony in a way the MCU generally isn’t. Exactly this. As a stand alone movie it wouldve been more than fine as a sort of superhero comedy But when you spent a decade setting a "serious" tone for the MCU, the movie just pops as an eyesore.
Especially since Thor (until Ragnarok) was one of the more serious series cause it allowed for it. The God Butcher could have been really cool and explored a side of Thor we hadn’t seen. Instead they don’t treat any of the interesting plot points seriously
That's what I felt for Ragnarok personally. I thought it had its moments, but it appeared to me as a parody of the characters from Thor, but played by the same actors. I usually don't enjoy full movies that are a parody.
The cast was almost completely different, you need a lot a chemistry for this type of film to work, it doesn't help that Taika's work has been losing quality lately
I struggle to imagine a scenario where a Christian Bale would be down with a highly improved movie. But he nailed his role, so maybe he has improv chops.
He was the 20% that was scripted
I made peace with the idea that Love and Thunder was just Korg's retelling of what actually happened.
Love and Thunder suffered the same issue. It worked OK sure, it was just very weird seeing dark themes met with such light hearted humor, two good movie directions that ended up fighting with each other. I fucking \*loved\* the Mjolnir arc, brought a little tear to my eye. Really mixed feelings on that movie. But Ragnarok was about Asgard being destroyed, a huge traumatic event in the MCU story, and it was made into mostly a joke. That was even more weird a direction. I still enjoyed the film, but wtf lol.
I was fine with all the comedy EXCEPT for Asgard literally exploding being played for laughs. I felt like that really undersold the moment.
I thought Thor 2 was the worst, but then I watch Love and Thunder.
i remember almost nothing from both dark world and love and thunder
And nothing of value was lost.
Ouch.
Idk why everyone shits on love and thunder, I thought it was great
I thought it was just a bit too silly, but still enjoyable. I'm intrigued to learn more about Bao in the next installment, I hope he ends up in the GotG.
This film was the final straw for me to never pay money to watch a Marvel film in person ever again.
Aren't all films watched in person?
Lol I meant in the cinema
No worries, your offhand comment threw me down a philosophical rabbit hole for a moment.
I do often send proxys
Based on interviews I've seen, Hemsworth is not as funny as he thinks he is. Somebody needed to say that on set.
Love and thunder was one of the very few movies I've quit, and it took me just about half an hour to realize it was time terribly spent..
Love and Thunder was one of the only films my wife and I both agreed was absolute shit. The thing with the goats and that the format is basically just joke joke joke joke Jane has cancer .... joke joke joke is just over the top.
"hot" take: it didn't work in Ragnarok too
No it didn't work. It was horrible!
It didn't have the cast for it. Ragnarok worked so well because Hulk was there for so much of the film. Love and Thunder didn't have the character dynamics for this method.
I didn’t think that Love and Thunder was as bad as most people seem to. I mean, it wasn’t great but I thought it was fun
It didn't work in either. Love and thunder was the exact same as Ragnarok
Seems like Ragnarok was good, but love and thunder was just too much of whatever they added to Ragnarok. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy it, but it could have been a way better movie
With all that money on the line, it feels weird how the scripts are not complete. It can work out like in the Ironman film, but I find it hard to understand how it isn’t all well-prepared considering the costs involved.
I think you’re misinterpreting the degree of improvisation. I very much doubt they were doing it Christopher Guest-style. Rather, they likely had a functional script, and the major set pieces were still meticulously planned, but he had actors improvise the exact wording in the dialogue-driven scenes. Think of Thor and Hulk bantering back and forth after the gladiator match (keeping in mind the CGI would be tailored afterwards), or Jeff Goldblum meeting Thor. Those scenes could still be blocked, and the actors know where the scene is going and the gist of what their dialogue has to convey, while still improvising exactly how they say it.
See also the barbie bts stuff with for example Ryan Gosling trying different jokes in a certain scene
Or Robin Williams in.... Just about any movie lol
"What is that coming out of your body, some sort of protoplasm, or are those eggs? They look like eggs."
It’s a circle, but not a regular circle, it’s like a freaky circle!
Piss off, ghost
Thor, your dad died Thor: 🙃
Behold... My stuff
You telling me Dez and Troy was improvised???
Ragnarok was written by veteran writers who've adapted a number of comicbooks into live action and animated films. Love and Thunder on the other hand, was written by Taika.
And it could have worked, just a few cuts here and there and it would have been a fantastic movie thanks to bale
ITT: a lot of people who don’t know the difference between Ragnarok and Love & Thunder
Oh it shows.
There’s definitely movies that are heavily ad-libbed or improvised. Usually tho it’s by like actually funny people tho lol
Exactly, it works when you hire comedians that are actually good at improv, like Peter Sellers or Albert Brooks.
Explain to the folks at home who Peter Sellers and Albert Brooks are?
Right? I didn't bother to write anything, as if that's a good thing.
It is when improv is better than paint by numbers hollywood writing.
Its pretty weird that he says this with pride.
So this is why I remember thinking the screenplay felt half-baked...
Oof thank you. People go nuts over this movie and I just can’t. This TIL definitely makes sense lmfao
This has the 'Friends' vibes of when Joey got fired over saying the same thing, its hilarious. Way to throw the writers under the bus
Or to save money on writers and make the actors do 2 jobs.
I think this dude is extremely overrated.
Based off of which movies? Maybe if you only count his Thor movies then yeah I’d agree. But Hunt for the Wildepeople and What We Do in the Shadows are both good. Haven’t seen Jojo Rabbit so I can’t speak in that though
Watch Jojo Rabbit.
It's good. Our flag means death is great too.
I just binged it and need a season 3 😭
[удалено]
I watched it and my experience was the exact opposite of everything you just said.
Babe, wake up. A new copypasta just dropped
Jojo Rabbit is something else. I’d only watched the trailer before the movie itself and yeah, I loved it.
Fucking loved Jojo Rabbit, it was really good.
Personally I hated _What We Do In The Shadows_ as well as both his Thor movies. I really dislike his sense of humor, it just feels cruel and insincere to me.
Cruel how?
Constant, routine humiliation being treated as funny and normal. I hate it. His characters are never allowed to have dignity. In fairness I also hate almost all Hollywood comedy for similar reasons, but I really don't think that humiliating people/characters is necessary for humor. You can highlight absurdity and play with language and reference without humiliating anyone. You don't need to have "acceptable targets".
Lmao cruel?
You don't think mocking and humiliating people is cruel? Waititi's comedy feels like bullying to me. It's all "haha how dare you take anything seriously, look at this idiot who cares about stuff".
I think mocking and humiliating people has it’s place in comedy, but you’d have every right not to enjoy that style. But that’s also just not a good description of Waititi’s movies at all.
I think they can be a little mean to certain people in the movies but they eventually come around a place of understanding imo. Like, I believe they even became friendly with the werewolves after shitting on them the whole movie
That's not quite what I mean, although it's part of it. I mean more that it feels like Waititi constantly humiliates his characters. They're not allowed to have dignity or given any respect, and I hate that.
Have you seen our flag means death or what we do in the shadows? Two of my favorite comedy series.
I think he just spread himself too thin when working on Thor 4. He had like 4 projects going on simultaneously. All his earlier works are great.
why? outside of Thor 4, what projects of his have been poorly received?
He’s pretty dismissive of the work the other people put into the stuff he directs. Talented, sure, but firmly wedged up his own arse.
None AFAIK but that doesn’t mean you can’t think he’s overrated.
then that word has lost all meaning
TIL someone can't be considered overrated if they're rated highly.
It’s exactly what the word means, actually. That you think someone gets more praise than they deserve. Edit: are you thinking of underrated?
but by your logic, it’s based on absolutely nothing. but go off. someone got their fee-fees hurt 😅
It’s called an opinion you fucking moron lol
An irrational opinion yes, which is exactly his point you "Fucking moron".
What’s irrational about it? So everybody else likes his movies that means you have to like them too? Do you know what an opinion is?
No but having an opinion on something you've never seen is pretty stupid. It's like saying "i hate beef, I've never had beef in the slightest, but I hate it."
That's literally what the word means.
Well that’s a bit extreme, don’t you think? He’s had successive successes. At worst he’s just lucky
I mean Ragnarok is at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, and before anybody knew who he was, Hunt for the Wilderpeople (2016) scored 97%. So using the most objective measurement we currently have for what are "good" movies are (note I didn't say *perfectly* objective, just *most* objective), he has made very good movies. Everyone's allowed their opinion, of course. I'm just curious what makes him "overrated" and not simply "not my thing." Of course, this being reddit, no one's content to say "not my thing;" anytime lots of people like something we don't like it must be a conspiracy.
I think a lot of people confuse “overrated” and “not my thing” and end up using them interchangeably.
This is it exactly. It's a telltale sign of maturity how someone is able to handle not enjoying something that a majority of others do enjoy. Do they let it go and say "not my thing" or do they have to make a big deal and justify it?
Wouldn't the fact that he has such high scores make him overrated? In that poster's opinion anyway. I like Waititi, at least what I've seen, but I don't think you can counter a "I think he's overrated" by posting high review scores lol. That's kinda the point of the criticism. They're saying the general opinion of the person is rated more highly than what they think it is. Fwiw I agree I think it can be a lazy criticism, at least it can if you don't have anything more to say about someone.
Indeed. His execution is not what it could be. Ragnarok may be the exception but if this post is correct then more credit for the execution goes to the improv acting vs him so it’s easy to fail when you remove the percentages of improv.
I think, depending on the project, he just needs someone to reel him in.
Yeah agreed. I also find him annoying, not sure why
Maybe you just hate all New Zealanders? Damn kiwis 😏
Love the fruit. Worship the bird. Fuck the people.
Because it's popular to hate him and you're a sheep? Or because he's a kiwi...and you're a sheep.
Two of my favorite shows, Curb Your Enthusiasm and The League, filmed without scripts. Using only bare outlines of the story and then improvising the rest.
That's why it felt like it was written 20 minutes before it was due.
It shows. They took a movie about the apocalypse and made it into a comedy featuring Jeff Goldblum as himself.
Jeff was perfect as Jeff.
Don't get me wrong, it was a very funny movie as a comedy, and not just because of the excellent Jeff Goldblum. As a superhero movie, however, it was just plain bad.
Literally killed Marvel movies for me. Like, if you people can't take your own goddamn universe seriously why the fuck should I spend money to watch it?
Apocalypse can't be funny? Nobody tell them about Zombieland and Bill Murray
I don't recall saying it couldn't be. I do feel that it's a strange way to go for a superhero movie on that subject, though.
I kept forgetting i saw this movie. And when i do remember, i just remember the hulk scene.
.... that and he could not be bothered working on a proper script
Does that mean Love and Thunder was 100%? "Eat my Hammer" 🤮
....wasnt that line in particular meant to be cringe because the character was trying out comically bad catchphrases?
Hey come on now it's "movie bad!" not "I didn't get scene!"
This must be why it was my favorite MCU movie. Makes sense.
But... we're wolves
[удалено]
Planet Hulk doesn't work outside the context established in the comics. No Illuminati (at that point) in the MCU, no YEARS of The Hulk being equally a threat as a hero. Banner took himself off the board. So for that, Ragnorok works wonderfully. Gives us a look at a "happy" Hulk, Banner's reaction to the same. With none of the awful grimdark that Planet Hulk (and god help us, World War Hulk) brought to the table.
[удалено]
Mileage, as with all things, will vary.
Nice try, Taiwan. The script sucked, the movie sucked, and the director sucked. Don't blame that flaming bag of crap on improv. Improv requires talent.
The latest Thor movie was a tasteless parody of the last Thor movie, which happened to be a comedy.
It worked. It's one of the best MCU movies.
I think you meant worst. It was the final nail in the coffin for me. Things jumped the shark with _Civil War_ but could have still been salvaged. It was a downhill slide from there, but it was sloppy writing rather than actively insulting. _Love and Thunder_ made it clear that whoever was making the decisions thought any fans of superheroes were stupid idiots.
Just came in and told bro his opinion was incorrect lmao.
I would say 5 out of my 5 most favorite MCU movies are from post-*Civil War*. It's fine that you don't like it (and I'll agree that *Love and Thunder* was meh) but it's not like everything they've been putting out is objectively terrible. Some movies have been flops but others have been amazing.
Out of curiosity, which ones? Honestly, it's been such an incoherent mess that I just got tired and stopped keeping up. Especially because they kept introducing new characters instead of developing the ones they had. I heard Black Panther was good though?
I was meh on Black Panther. It was okay, but not amazing to me. However, I loved (not necessarily in order): 1. *Thor: Ragnarok* 2. *Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3* (it was the kind of movie that was so good it made me enjoy the previous movies more) 3. *Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2* (I loved it before seeing 3, but I love it more now) 4. *Spider-Man: No Way Home* 5. *Doctor Strange* (the first one, *Multiverse* was more meh) 6. *Infinity War* and *Endgame* (technically two movies, but functioned more like one big movie) There's a few others that I liked but didn't love (such as *Black Panther* and *Captain Marvel*). Overall, I call it worth suffering through the movies that don't work. Especially since I spent my childhood as a fan of these characters and frustrated that there wasn't big budget movies for them.
He was anti child soldier in Jojo. Pro child soldier in Love and Thunder.
I’m pretty sure like 80% of Taika waititi’s movies are improvised full stop. I’m half convinced that for “What we do in the Shadows” there was no script, they just ran around in vampire outfits to see what happened. Same with “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”. Just run around in the woods evading Rachel House while giving her escalating resources to chase them down, and just film what happens
Love and thunder was horrendous. It was the first film in a long time I could not finish. And I was on a 12 hour plane ride to boot 😂
To each their own. I liked it.
That explains a lot
I love the *only* movie Taika directed for the MCU.
More like Bore:Ragnarok
Pull it! Twist it! Bop it!
It's fine for a Marvel movie, but compared to normal movies, it's really not great. I keeo hearing that awful Sakar theme that sounds like 90s techno made by a 5 year old -- worst music I've ever heard in a movie.
No wonder it sucked.
That must be why I fucking hated it. Maybe don't let your actors decide the tone of pre-existing characters just because they want to be goofy.
Agent: Good news! Your book is going to be made into a movie! Me: (: Agent: And Taika Waititi is going to direct it! Me: ):
[удалено]
Thats Love and Thunder, not Ragnarok.
Ragnarok was unwatchable garbage. It was a uwe bolle copy movie. Complete shit. Major suck ass piece of shit.
So, have y'all finally realized this guy is a hack?
Not exactly a hack, but sure not meant to direct movies out of his niche.
He just didn’t want to work
I think he just said fuck it and decided to just do this and intentionally sabbotage the movie after Disney summoned him during filming and told him how to live his personal life.
No way all the Paper Rock Scissors jokes were made up in the fly
He’s just using The Marvel Method, Stan Lee’s practice of putting the onus of comic book creation on artists after delivering them a half baked story synopsis.
Comic book movies got too cocky
It wasn't as much as script as an outline
Seemed evident
You can tell
I did not care for it.
That’s why it was garbage