| Doc755 said: I have yet to rewatch Thor but I had it on the lower end of the MCU rankings. I will say that I think the Thor series gets better with each entry. I really liked Ragnarok. Thor (the film) had to do a lot of setup and it’s also the first of what will be become the standard origin films that always feel more paint by numbers than organic. Even Hiddleston didn’t really come into his own in the role of Loki until Whedon provided him with a better voice (that has since perpetuated in Dark World and Ragnarok) |
Hmm, interesting. I kinda of felt like it's goes Thor 1 and 3 about the same although Thor 3 was funnier but Thor 2 was pretty poor. It was as filler as you could get but alas, that time will come. Less said about that Whedon comment the better... I'm not a fan of him. You'll find that out soon enough. :P
| Doc755 said: The problem is that for no matter how well mapped out Feige has the MCU (something I’m appreciating with this rewatch), they’re clearly just making up SHIELD as they go along. In Iron Man, SHIELD is treated as something relatively new. In Iron Man 2, Howard Stark was a founding member and he had been dead for almost twenty years by that time. In Phase I, SHIELD comes off as a US agency until Avengers when we find out, they’re run by a World Council. Can you imagine the US allowing an international organization like this operating without oversight within its borders? Not even going to get into how the series further complicates matters because it seems they’re not told what’s going to happen in the films until it’s too late. Probably why the series has largely eschewed being tied to the films in the past few seasons unless it’s after the fact |
Well said and some good point. You'd think an world protecting organisation which is has a huge base near New York is something Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (the weapon merchants) would know about. They don't seem to in Iron Man 1 or 2, not on how famous SHIELD actually in according to following films at least.
Hmm, pie.
