In keeping with the theme this video ends with, I've tried my best to offer a fair and balanced critique of the film. I'm not really interested in labelling the film as good or bad - I think there's some really great, powerful stuff, and there's also some weak elements, and choices I feel to be misjudged. I think it's interesting that the great can coexist with the weak with such ease, and I think that weird liminal quality makes the film an interesting target for analysis :)

I think what bugged me about Gorr was that he didn't really challenge Thor's worldview at all, when he would've been a perfect way to extend Ragnarok's themes. Hela challenged Thor's perception of his community, Gorr could've challenged Thor's perception of himself. Could've been a great way to analyze Thor's privilege as a god, and by proxy, analyze the privilege of the "gods" of real life, in other words, those in power.

Personally I felt that potential of Gorr of the God Butcher with an Actor as Christian Bale in role was wasted. I wished they removed the plot regarding the kids being kidnapped and focused on Gorr's mission. They could have remove for this as well as Jane having cancer storyline. The children being kidnapped was a distraction.

I mean I knew from the beginning that Gorr wouldn’t work with a story like “Love and Thunder” purely based on the fact that the focus and point of the story has less to do with Gorr and more to do with Thor’s life crisis. In the story of L and T, Gorr’s shown his sympathetic origin from the start, and the usual redemption arc kinda plays from there, where he gets over his “hate” and decides to resurrect his daughter since Thor “isn’t like the other gods”. Pretty straightforward character, even the writers decided not to really give him any spotlight until the third act. Comic Gorr is something else entirely. He *is* the story, Thor’s purpose in the 2013 storyline is to hunt down an enemy that not only is killing gods that Thor considers his friends, but also because Gorr was someone who had nearly killed him back when Thor was younger and was considered a god on Midgard. The focus of *that* story was over the question of “Is Gorr right?”, with Thor himself opening his eyes to the arrogance and selfishness of the gods, and the story less a romantic-comedy and more a murder-mystery-thriller. One of the things I liked most about the 2013 storyline was that Gorr wasn’t introduced as one who lost everything, wronged by the gods, but first as a unseen and unstoppable monster who left the corpses of gods wherever he went, and the lack of focus of his character in L and T (especially to a character with a story like this) makes me think that his character didn’t belong in a story like this at all.

I’m a firm believer in judging a story on its own terms, however I *also* believe when adapting something beloved it’s important to maintain the themes that made the original story so powerful, otherwise why adapt that specific story or character and not a different one that would better suit the story you want to tell? I believe adaptations have a right to deviate significantly from the source material, but they still have to work with the themes present in said source material. Also, from what you’ve described, I think a more faithful adaptation of comic Gorr could have been phenomenal for the maturity of mcu Thor. Whereas comic Thor showed that Gorr’s ideology was flawed, MCU Thor could’ve been used to show that he was right, and then Thor would have to step up to the plate and accept responsibility to disprove him, which could still lead to Gorr abandoning his quest at the end.

Amora the enchantress would've suited themes of choosing love over violence SO much better and she'd be a better fit for taika's style. Gorr is such a serious villain that I think he needs the shakespearian style of the first thor film

Here's something of a missed opportunity for the MCU. We have this movie, Eternals, and Moon Knight. While I don't consider the Celestials as space gods, the Eternals themselves worship them. And Moon Knight has gods on a more earthly scale. And then there's the Bast cameo in this Thor movie. Could (should) the MCU have played more with its concept of gods, their pros and cons, and their place currently in the MCU? In my head and (based on your excellent critique of the movie) in a different adaptation of the Gorr storyline, MCU movie watchers could have had discussions bordering on the "Cyclops/Gorr was right" and examples to back up or discredit that belief.

I think the Russo's left Thor without direction and without purpose at the end of Endgame. Should have gone darker and more serious. They should have made Thor an overprotective King, and married to Lady Sif. Then in the 4th film Thor could have children of his own, and also have to face off against Gorr. Really focusing on the theme of fatherhood, and having the emotional depth to payoff a character like Gorr.

Loved the part where Gorr said “It’s God-Butcherin’ Time!!!”

What if I never read the comics and walked away from the movie feeling like Gor was wasted? I honestly felt this movie had twice the jokes as Ragnarok but I laughed half as much. They tried to force the humor and cut out any ability to setup meaning to Gor's character. It's like you said they played the Gods off as perfect justification for Gor's crusade even Thor. Then at the end of the movie for some reason Gor seen Thor loved Jane and changed his whole as mind in an instant. Rushed ending to cluster of a film that was mostly jokes falling flat. This is definitely on the lower tier of marvel movies.

When I finished the film I had one thing in mind and that was just... why did taika watiti tell this story. What I mean by that is just... what a weird thing for the tone of his stories. Ragnarock was really loved but mostly for the fun stuff. A lot of fun in sakaar, thor and hulks dynamic, loki shenanigans. It pulled of some serious moments too, the tragedy of valkariye, thor and loki's relationship. It manages to pause from comedy for this moment but it felt like the focus there was the internal problem of the characters, their past trauma and relationship. But when you add things as cancer, god butchering, it just feels weird. In ragnarock people didn't like hela much because she felt off. She was more serious, but also with some jokes that didn't land. So why adapt gorr? It feels like this movie should have been dark, it should have been more serious but its just not. On the other hand the movie ends with the teaser for hercules... and I just wondered why wasn't he and zeus the bad guys? Wouldn't it make more sense for taika to go into the lighthearted direction with a lighthearted villain? Embracing the silly stuff and leaving gorr for another time? Its not that gorr being different is so wrong... but I feel like in general the movie as a whole would benefit from him being replaced with a villain that would fit more with the tone.

What bugged me about Gorr is that he is painted as this terrible God killer. But we didn't really see any of that..... we got this neat story about Thor going and saving some kids. It was fun and hilarious and I really liked it, but Gorr doesn't spend any time challenging Thor.... well not in any real meaningful way, Thors world view isn't changed in a way it should have.

I think the Necrosword being Hela’s sword would’ve helped to set up the theme of the movie. If this sword is Hela’s it means that Gorr is the consequence of Odin’s arrogance and Thor’s inability to save Asgard and turn Hela. Gorr’s idea that gods are selfish and careless is literally the exact reason that he becomes a problem, this not only gives a nice through line between Ragnarok and L&T but also means that this HAS to be Thor’s problem because he is partially responsible for Gorr’s claim to power. The film should’ve forfeited the same Thor arc and the unnecessary side plots and unfunny jokes. We’ve had 3 thor solo movies and 4 avengers where Thor has learned to be the antithesis to Gorr’s view of gods, so lets use that. Thor realizes Gorr is right because he knows he was selfish and exactly what Gorr hated once upon a time. Instead of making Thor learn the same lesson again, lets have Thor teach the other gods the lessons he has learned to prove that while Gorr is wrong, his view that the gods can never change is naive. This is great pay off for Thor’s journey along all the MCU. We can have conflict and jealousy from the other gods like Zeus as they are jealous that Thor is worshipped by choice and not by force, with Thor teaching them how to be better and be like him. For Gorr, he believes mortals are held basically at gunpoint by immortals and don’t worship them by desire but necessity. So lets show mortals standing up for Thor when he is beaten by Gorr to defend him. This once again challenges Gorr and creates good conflict, with Thor being the exception to Gorr’s beliefs at this time. Finally have Thor being benevolent and selfless by the end, making some form of sacrifice to be the final nail in the coffin for Gorr’s view, solving the conflict, showing the other gods that they will gain belief and worship by acting selflessly and giving Thor one final test to show all he has built up to through the whole MCU. Thor has taught the other gods what it means to be a true god and gets to rest in Valhalla and return to his family after solving the problems of Odin and the gods. Not all the gods will listen to Thor and choose nobility, but the possibility that some of them can change proves that Gorr indiscriminately killing them all will kill people who are capable of change, making a difference and saving people. It gives the moral dilemma an ending without necessarily being a closed case - is it worth all the beings having absolute power if only some will choose to use it for good? Who knows, that is the takeaway of the whole story there are benefits and drawbacks, there is no right answer and neither Thor believing every god can be changed and be a hero like him or Gorr believing they are all evil is right. Life is not black and white, there is always a choice and Gorr is defeated simply by learning gods have a choice not by hitting him with stormbreaker and mjolnir concluding his and Thors journey while also leaving an interesting message of whether absolute power should exist or not

[Warning: Long comment.] The big problem with all stories about someone trying to kill God or gods is (With the exception from what I'm told, God of War) they tend to confuse the gods and religion. Movie Gorr wasted his life worshiping a god who didn't care about him. Unless we know specifically the God in question had a hand in creating Gorr's religion he could just say "What were you worshiping me for? I never asked for it. If a group of ants in your house started worshiping you would you dedicate your life to looking after them?" And Gorr would have lost the argument. In both versions the actual injustice is that mortals worship gods who can't or won't help them. Gorr would be far more justified going after the heads of religion. Even if he kills all the gods. The gods will still be worshiped because the news of their death cannot be spread universe wide. Meaning Gorr's actions have solved nothing. His Dark Materials has the same problem. Both this film and the comic it's based on both suffer from conflating two very different strains of thought. Christianity and the paganism it replaced. Classical paganism never claimed its gods we're all good or all powerful. The gods were the rightful masters of the world and you prayed to them because you were subject to their will whether that was good or bad. So just as a slave obeyed it's master, humans prayed to the gods in the hope that their wills would be benevolent rather than cruel. Christianity on the other hand stated that God is good and is all powerful. But we live in a fallen world of our own choice, and that this will be corrected in this world or the next. While one can pray to God to have things happen like the pagans, that's not the point of prayer in Christianity. God will not spare you from suffering because this life is a small shadow of the real world. You pray to God to experience his presence. And those who have been taught well in prayer find suffering no longer has any hold on them because they say they feel God's love at all times. Even when life should be unbearable (I speak from some experience. Having visited a Christian Monastery). Whether you believe in God or not. That is the point of prayer in Christianity. Marvel's Thor is neither all good or all powerful. Nor do he and the other gods exert their will on the world whether mortals ask for it or not. It is closest to the idea put forward in Epicurus, that the Gods aren't involved human affairs, their concerns are beyond our understanding. So Humans should simply trust the Gods are doing there own thing and live our own lives. Only this Thor does take an interest in the lives of mortals because he has a Christian like belief that he should help all people. Even if they don't worship him. Both stories take a pagan Thor and blame him for not hitting the standards of the Christian God. When a simple Epicurean disinterest in religion on the part of mortals would solve the problems the mortals bring on themselves. TL;DR: Here is the question people should consider. The gods in Marvel are not the most powerful beings, not even close. The Celestials, Eternity, Galactus, Lord Order and Master Chaos, The Beyonder and many others put even gods like Odin and Zeus to shame. And like in Epicurus, they are all far to wrapped up in cosmic problems to care about us. Why should the Gods alone bare Gorr's wrath, when they aren't even close to being the most powerful beings out there?

See I was aware of Gorr for a long time and loved him as a villain who is never aware of his own hypocrisy. The movie Gorr I'm mad at for two reason, one is design wise. Just disappointed that Taka had these amazing concept artist at their disposal, and yet you chose the most downgraded design of Gorr giving us another humanoid looking alien in the MCU. Second they never show him slaughtering any more Gods, just one in the opening scene. We don't see more of his ideology and how he express, and without that we don't see any counterpoints to his beliefs. The movie just seemes more one sided to Gorr, they miss the point of what makes Gorr so special. You understand comic Gorr's pain but you also realize, he's making worlds that need Gods godless. Causing more pain and suffering, hes even slaughtering children. The weapon didn't make him evil, it was all Gorr's choices as he followed down his dark path.

Cant believe Im saying this. Ebony Maw from Infinity War looked, felt and spoke more like Gorr the God Butcher than Christian Bale's portrayal. Christian Bale is a phenomenal actor but he's not given a clear vision or direction on who this character really is, what is his personality that matches his mission. He is the most fun to watch and consequently more enjoyable part of the film but his character was incredibly inconsistent for a God Butcher and so I dont exactly know what exactly his performance was meant to illicit.The comics not only takes him seriously but gives him a nuance and gravitas, and as many great Marvel villians like Magneto, Sebastian Shaw, Wilson Fisk, an immense hypocrite that essentially becomes a God himself with how much power he accumulates. Where is all this nuance, characters that challenge this, the secular view of abandoning dependence, submission to a higher power and being a God of your own self. Any talented director would've had a treat working with this kind of complex character.

I think that, with adaptations, you should understand the themes and story and adaptation is trying to show while understanding the things they are adapting and using as inspirations.

I didn't really know the character of Gorr the God-Killer beyond "he has a magick sword that can kill gods," so, I really went into it carrying little expectations. Now, you've gotten me interested in reading that comic.

When I finished the movie I thought it would have been cool for Gorr to use Heimdalls kid in order to spy on Thor and learn of the location of Omnipotence City and then arrive to slaughter the gods that way we couod have gotten a look at Gorr doing his thing and would tie in the children subplot better. But that of course goes against the tone of the movie

I feel like this is relevant enough to the conversation of adaptation to bear mentioning here; the lesson that I learned from Stephen King's novel The Shining and Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film adaptation was that a poor and/or inaccurate adaptation of a novel doesn't equal a bad film. Neither does a particularly faithful adaptation automatically mean that it's a GOOD film.

I did find it interesting that there was far more god killings in other MCU movies than here. Not that I want to see any faith's gods dismissively and disrespectful killed off, but I think it would've had a bit more weight added to Gorr's threat for me. Also, it would've been cool to see live-action depictions of a few more well known gods and gods of some fairly different cultures (beyond the blink and miss them audience pans) and body types, as we got to see with Moonknight's Egyptian gods.

I agree with the take on appreciating films and comics as separate. Though I think it's worth keeping in mind shot of the giant dead god taken straight from comic. I think a lot of us saw that and incorrectly concluded the story would be equally inspired

This is a really great discussion. Personally, I thought the film fell down because it was played for laughs. Ragnarok did a much better job with its comedy and tone but asking Waititi to do the same thing but with some, well, really quite serious subjects just doesn't work. Jane's illness, the concepts of what is a God and what it means to be a god in the Marvel Universe, whether the Gods deserved to be saved and who / what Eternity is (and why are they trapped behind an asgardian door offering wishes to whomever opens it) are either glossed over or almost entirely sidestepped. If the film had been more serious and had had an open discussion of these topics through Gorr, I guarantee that he would have become almost as memorable a villain as Thanos and the film would have been much better received. However, the film was filling the Summer blockbuster MCU slot and so tonally, was meant to be light and breezy thus it ended up as a surface level analysis and concentrating on Thor's character arc. It wasn't a bad film and there's a lot to like, however, it just will end up on the bottom half of the list of MCU movies rather than the top half which every likes.

Man, I’ve only watched a couple of your videos, but you are instantly one of my favorite video essayists. I love how thoughtful you are and how, although you present your own opinions, you also do your best to weigh opposing arguments with relative impartiality. I also appreciate that your discussion is almost entirely auditory, with the visuals just being a nice bonus; it makes it super easy to focus on and digest while I’m doing other things. Up til now, I’ve regarded Love And Thunder the same sort of way I viewed Rise of Skywalker: just pure trash with some redeeming visual qualities. But this essay makes me really think and force me to evaluate the movie on its own terms, not on what I wanted it to be. Will be binging your content a lot over the coming days and eagerly awaiting your future videos!

5:15 Actually, that God was protecting his Flock, considering that it was Knull that he just killed... which means that Golden God saved more lives than Gorr ever did.

👍

This was the movie that kind of killed my hype going forward. I was really looking forward to seeing Aarons run on the big screen ( it was my first ever comic purchase, a week before the movie) and the excitement was crazy. At first I thought the movie was ok, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized they fumbled it. It felt like Thor regressed as a character, the mighty Thor was half baked, and they didn't convey Gorr's power or ambitions in a meaningful way. I love Marvel and I will be watching the movies, but damn I really wanted this one to be hit.

My favorite part of Love and Thunder was when Gorr said “it’s Gorrbing time!” And then gorrbed all over Thor and the other gods.

To say that many felt Gorr was wasted because it was a bad adaptation of the comic book is too easy of an answer. Gorr felt wasted because he was the only serious character in a movie that was overbalanced with hit-or-miss humor. He felt wasted because we never really got to see any God Butchering. He felt wasted because Christian Bale, the dark knight himself, brought so much to any role and we didn't spend much time with him. Gorr felt wasted because he felt like a quality character in a movie that didn't want to take concepts seriously and really explore them. I suppose he works for the movie as you point out and the MCU has never fully adapted any comic run exactly as is, but when the movie doesn't work for me, neither do the characters.

Comic gorr felt like a monster, constantly looming over the plot, effecting it in everyway, and yet he had quite a developed and humane backstory. While movie gorr kinda feels all over the place and only appears every once and again, and his backstory is limited to 1 scene.

I love this movie but i completely agree with the point of Gorr's waste... but I think there are very many impossible dilemmas they had to contend with. Not least of all, being too deeply critical of theism in a largely theistic society could alienate an unjustifiable number of watchers. Though I think this MCU Thor, is not like contemporary comic Thor. Instead he's more like the young dumb Thor that met Gorr in Norway

My problem wasn't that Gorr didn't work, it was that he worked too well and the film didn't want to deal with it

Making a movie is really difficult. That's why you need to have a team that keeps each other in check. Love and Thunder was a desaster. It seems like the costume department, the writers, the directers and the actors never talked to each other and everyone pulled in their own direction and everybody just said: "Meh, people are going to watch it anyway"

1 thing I missed in the video is that an entity that is being worshipped, that is unable to help, unwilling to help and unaware of the faithful. Does not automatically deserve to die, apathetic isn't necessarily evil and the death penalty usually is.

I am pretty sure that Waititi also borrowed from a Thor v1 arch called "Blood and Thunder" (I mean, just look at those names), or at the very least the general gist of it and some visuals from the arc's prelude (basically Thor 460 to maybe 463, then there is a gap for Infinity Crusade, and then they get back right and it turns into the arc that is now still collected under that name). TL;DR Thor is all about this journey of self discovery, that is how it starts. And Odin gives him a space faring viking boat too (it isnl't literally pulled by boats, but it does have two wood carved goat figureheads), there is a fight on a small moon/planetoid as well (some reminiscent visuals there), and there is a former Thor GF (Sif in this case), a "second Thor" (motherfucking BRB), and a Valkyrie of sorts (Thor's mental issues that eventually take physical form). There is a fight against some Olympians, Zeus surrouned by women in a Throne, Zeus swearing Thor will pay, Hercules shows up, there is the Infinity Watch (basically a precursor to the current comics incarnation of the Guardians of the Galaxy, including OG Gamora and Drax). You could even argue they end the fight in Thor's shadown realm (the psychological kind). I could go on with the parallels, but I think you get the gist. But why do I bring it up? Because the whole arc is about Thor dealing with his traumas and mental pain, and his lost self of identity. In that arc, it is partially explored through that imaginary Valkyrie character he creates. And I think this movie does that too, and it does help to understand a whole bunch of it through a similar lens. Many of these characters are reflections of Thor. Thor who has been, Thor who could have been, Thor who he thought he was, Thor who he thought he wished he would become, etc. Many flavors, if you will. This includes Gorr. Thor can be and ahs been taken over and blinded by vengeance. See Infinity War his entire thing. Sure he helps save some people, he tries to stop Thanos and all, and while those happen to be good things, that isn't why Thor was doing it. It wasn't to protect, it wasn't to save, it wasn't even for some sense of "an eye for an eye" sorta justice. It was purely vengeance. See early in End Game, again, he doesnt decapitate Thanos for a sense of justice at all, just angry blind violent vengeance - and now Thanos cannot live to see the pain he caused, that his solution didn't work, he could no longer be questioned for useful information to perhaps find another way to undo what he did, and he for sure could not be made to mitgate even a fraction of any of his harm as penance. Sure, maybe none of those would be possible or useful anyway, and maybe they would all arrive at the idea that killing Thanos is the best course of action. Doesn't matter, Thor single handedly decided to end even the evaluation of any of those options or others because he wanted blood. And see Zeus chest hole for not even actually killing Korg (I think that is played as a joke, but it has meaning looked at it this way - Thor didn't even confirm the death, he wonder if Zeus being a big deal god among gods could have access to the means to bring Korg back, he just saw red). When it came up, Thor many times just gave in completely to his shadow aspect/represed id. Then we get to Eternity, at the center of it all. Only there, finally Thor realized he had been Gorr, and he could yet be Gorr, a mindless killer who gave in to maybe once just vengeance but completely derrailed from there by hate. Thor was beaten, depowered and basically a dying body. Thor could have chosen to just lightining speed kill Gorr (I presume also wasting eternity's one wish thingy, as Thor was not the first to enter the realm). But that is when he let go of his blind rage and hate (exactly the sort of thing that was blinding him in Blood and Thunder), he realizes that is a hurt man that was wronged (his wrongs don't change that), and now without the influence of the sword could be talked to. Thor realized he couldnt be all jury, judge and executioner based solely on his painful emotions, and right now, the love of his life had only a few minutes and being with her for her was the most important thing in the universe, not his anger or his hatred, and he could still help a hurt man to to right at least one wrong that day. And in a way, that is also Thor figuring if he did deserve to live or die. He put it up to Gorr, this shadow version of himself he sometimes turns into. If Gorr could chose to right a wrong instead of giving in to his hatred and vengeance, so could Thor. If he couldn't, then perhaps is best that Thor and the other jerk gods who too have the same sort of issue to die then and there. When even Thor's shadow showed the ability to ride the pain and chose benevolence, to not let the pain take over and go beyond it, Thor learned not only that he could, but that he must. So, TL;DR; Nearly every character in this movie reflects aspects of Thor, including Gorr who is a his ego's shadow, the darkest parts of himself he does not admit. And it is an interesting idea to analyse Gorr and the movie through this lens of everyone here is in a way teaching Thor to become a better self, to acknowledge his own darkness, and learn to not be let it take over him again as it has before.

You know with the rise of superhero subversion represented in the boys and invincible given gorrs nature it’s amazing they didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to have gorr not only critique the gods but also critiquing by extension marvels hero’s. At this point marvels typical film format is really well known so having a character critique and criticize said formula is such a narrative playground to play around with.

The only thing I can say being definitely sure of it is that the moment we accept mediocrity is the moment we deny ourselves any sort of progress.

I really liked Bales version of Gorr as it worked in this universe, though I'm definitely one of those who feels there wasn't enough of him in the movie and wanted to see some actual God Butchering. Was still a fantastic film in my opinion

Great video! Thor: Love and Thunder is a very complicated movie for me. There’s a ton there to love (namely Christian Bale), but there’s also a lot I’m not so fond of (I don’t really like Thor’s characterization in this film, it feels like it’s a bit too close to being an SNL sketch). Oddly enough this video made me dislike this movie a lot more and then by the end like it more, ironically leaving me liking it the same amount as before but for entirely different reasons. Oh, and yeah I kinda wish Love and Thunder had more Gorr and took more of his characterization from the comics, but for what it’s worth I think Gorr is one of Phase 4’s best villains (Wenwu is quite hard to top).

The fact of the matter is, Thor: Love and Thunder is a romantic comedy more than anything else. It doesn’t focus on Gorr or take things as seriously as Gorr’s story in the comics does, but it doesn’t have to. The comics told a deep and thought-provoking story about gods, while the movie told a fun and personal story about love. They weren’t even supposed to be the same thing, though I can’t blame people for comparing them or preferring one over the other.

I actually think the movie design works better for the character. In the comics, Gorr is a muscular, nearly-naked alien, but I think that actually detracts from the main concept of the character: of a mortal who judges and kills the gods. Christian Bale is, by contrast, a (relatively) normal-looking human man in humble white cloth. He looks so much lesser than the gods he kills, which I think goes further in driving home the idea behind the character. He's the antithesis to Thor in almost every way, including their physiques and outfits. Gorr in the comics is a monster, while Christian Bale's Gorr is just a man, which I think is all the more effective. But that's just to critique their appearances. They totally fucking squandered him in the movie, the only redeeming quality being Bale's performance (when you actually get to see him on-screen). He could have been the new Loki. I mean, come on, we don't even get to see him butcher any gods.

Yo I remember when your channel was only at 8k Subs and now you’re at almost 21k, your videos are awesome keep grinding!

I haven't read these comics myself, but it seems to me that if you want Gorr in the MCU, it's gotta be in a Thor movie, and the Thor movies simply aren't the right tone to do Gorr right. I don't know if we could have gotten a much better adaptation than this.

My 2 cents: Gorr in the comics was a GREAT villain, but his story has already been told. And I, personally, am fine with getting not a faithful re-telling but an altogether new story here. And neitiher does the epic scale of the orgininal God Butcher arc really "fit into" the MCU as a whole, I guess, nor does it work for MCU's Thor (as also explained in the video). That does not necessarily make the MCU storytelling worse per se. Gorr functions as a means to set the stage for what comes next here. This movie was not so much a clash between Gorr and Thor but a clash between Thor and his former idol, Zeus. How Love - as Gorrs legacy - will fit into the grand picture and what kind of god and man Thor will come out as in the end is yet to be told. This was a story about healing the many, many wounds Thor had gotten in the past movies. A much needed journey for his character developement. I really am interested in where we go from here... Did this "waste Gorr"? Maybe. But we can always grab the original and discuss that and still enjoy the story of the MCU. Personally, I am still very intrigued and a bit awed by the fact that we have been following ONE BIG STORY for over a decade now and I still really wanna know what they are cooking up here...

I'm surprised this hadn't gotten more views, this is one of your best videos yet

Thank to pillar for describing me correctly infort of my comic book counterpart

"So long as the project works in its own terms". That is the magic phrase. The project was total shit with pretty colors. Maybe THAT is why people say Gorr was better in the comics. Because that story didnt suck but this one did.

This is a well thought out review. I have been looking for such channels lately. Focusing too much on the negatives of a film draws away from the minute efforts of everyone who put work towards it. I like this balance of criticism

Personally I think you have a lot of people adapting works for films in genres across the board from screenwriters to directors to studios that really have little respect for those genres let alone the source material. This has been the case in several genres not just comics. When you realize that a lot of adaptations make a lot more sense.

I have to disagree, I found this to be a very poor adaptation and overall a mess of a film. I would actually put this film lower than Thor the Dark World honestly. Imagine a film where Thor actually has to admit that Gorr is right. Imagine a film where Thor tries to defend the idea of Gods only for Gorr to ask him why he wasn't there to save this daughter either? That would've rhymed nicely with the end of the film where he helps to resurrect her and then adopts her. Imagine a final battle where Thor tells Gorr he was right about the Gods but instead of murder being the solution Thor promises to be the God the universe needs and says that he will raise Gorrs daughter to be the same and that Gorr won't be remembered as a killer but as the man who loved his daughter and made the Gods better people. This film could've had so many amazing philosophical arguments and explored so many ideas about Gods and religion. But instead they turned it into a sitcom, a bad sitcom, a bad 90's sitcom even. Oh and Jane's story should've been either it's own film or a Disney + show because it's woefully underdeveloped in this film and basically turned into a cheap joke.

Big change from this video. One of the first I watched. The newer videos have a certain bent, but glad ya found a paying audience. Salute.

This wasn't even an adaptation... they simply stole the name and made a character after what they thought it meant - It's not 1/1000th the real Gorr. The real Gorr was a vicious, ruthless God killer that wasn't throwing a tantrum that his daughter died - he was a time traveling assassin set on wiping gods - all gods - from reality just for existing; because they done DESERVE to be worshipped. It took three Thors (Current Thor, young Thor and Old King Thor) to have a CHANCE at defeating him. If he was presented with a macguffin wish machine, he'd laugh and destroy it because he'd want to kill them by his own hand(and probably try to kill Eternity). He killed his own wife and baby mama because she referred to Gorr as "her God", which ironically leads to his downfall, as his son sees it happen and decides to betray and help kill his father. MCU Gorr didn't change Thor or his worldview at all... in the comic, the reason Thor initially became unworthy is because Fury whispered into his ear that, "Gorr was right" about Gods being vain, egotistical and never really there for the everyday, little struggles - just the glorious ones. He becomes worthy again by coming to terms with this fact and humbling himself as Old King Thor The MCU Gorr is mad his daughter died and a God was big mean to him. By the end, he's a misunderstood guy that was "corrupted" by the necrosword and his daughter's death and not all that bad outside of that and can even be redeemed. Waititi is a hack that should've never been given such a serious storyline - he's incapable of directing a legitimately dark and serious, philosophical story The MCU is incapable of making an actual villain - they're all just misunderstood.

I honestly enjoyed the movie mostly but the issue I have with Gorr gives a point and Thor doesn’t really give a counterpoint of “why shouldn’t the gods be taken out because they are selfish and don’t care about their people?” Which I would have liked to see. Make Thor and Gorr more of representing opposite ideals instead of Thor kinda affirming Gorr’s point but we just need to stop him. Hell even if Thor just learned and became a better person caring for more others that would have been fine too… really I think the Thor comedy is what causes this issue. If we had less of it and more of him learning and becoming a better person, then this movie would be near great for me. Still fun and good though.

Im Honestly Tired of Humanoid Aliens I wish we saw more alien and monstrous types of Aliens

Kevin Feige also missed a huge opportunity with Gorr's connection with symbiotes and their god, who would be a much better "new Thanos-level threat" than whatever Feige is trying with the multiverse and Kang. But then again, Kevin Feige also missed opportunity to leave on a high note after the success of Endgame, so...

Love your vids homie keep it up

My expectations weren't hurt. Because I didn't have any. I saw what this "director" did with Thor in his first attempt. He took the tragic and melancholic story of Ragnarok, as well as Planet Hulk, and turned it into schlock Mel Brooks would even call too silly. So yeah, I wasn't expecting a high-stake space thriller with Man of Steel levels of action from Mr. Waititi. I got exactly what I knew I was getting - trash.

Tl;Dr: Gorr Movie works for the story it wants to tell, the thing is the audience (aka most Aaron's run fans such as myself) didnt heard the story they wanted to hear Ngl this video is a blessing (no pun intended), and Im not sure if my intentions of what I wanted for this movie are justified or not, the objective answer is that it works for what it was achieving, and im humble to agree on that

as someone who has never read the comics, and just seen the movie, i think breaking it down the way you have was great. i was curious as to why there was such a backlash from comic fans but it makes sense when compared to the source material. it made me question how characters in the MCU work as a whole vs the comics. and if i had began in the comics first, i'd probably be among the people who were torn on this and many other mcu movies. this makes me want to go back and read the comics related to the stories now at least. i enjoyed the movie as its' own thing, but now i'm very curious to dive into the comic stories

As Thor came to us imperfect it would’ve been hard to portray him as he was in Aaron’s run. Taika didn’t get to make his own Thor, he got a Thor we’ve seen be consistently imperfect so it’d be a detriment to his character to make him the god he’d need to be to make a divine Thor work.

Perhaps Taika realized that he exists within the social class of "gods" (millionaires) that this story originally criticized as needing to be destroyed, and decided he wanted to water down the story a bit.

my take on this is that it felt like 3 movies crammed into one, jane needed her own movie to set up her being thor, Thor's emotional journey and showing how much the gods do not deserved the prayer they believe they do, finally the movie that shows Gorr and why we love this villian, I believe Bale did a very good job because he puts his all into every movie he is in, but it just felt like he was underutilized as a hole.

They had a better connection in the trailer when Thor said his fighting days were done but then Korg says he never stopped fighting and sure he’s a bit lazy now but he still helps out after a while, Gorr could have challenged the entirety of Selfish gods that Thor was becoming much like Zeus and in the end Thor realises “with great power comes great responsibility” and accepts his duty to help the universe and be a good God, but no. I still like the movie but they made a change that lessened their own message I was also kinda disappointed I expected Gorr to massacre Omnipotencity.

I read the comic immediately before watching the movie. This video is exactly everything I was thinking about the movie expanded on. This movie coming after Thor's arc dealing with failure from Thanos could have been a perfect connection with his failure to stop Thanos relating with Gorr's idea of God's being incompetant. And like this video states, the movie could have explored the discussion of Gods and the purpose for what they serve and deconstruction of them like how people irl discuss about when it comes to actual religions.

I don't know that excusing the movies faults for not being a straight adaptation is necessarily a good argument. A shit movie is a shit movie. At no point in marvel history has their been a straight adaptation. Logan was an amazing movie and yet shared very little in common with old man logan. Anyone who walked into the cinema thinking thor 4 was going to follow the comic only to be disappointed would have to be an idiot because we all know the building blocks weren't there. To truly service the Canon we would have had to be introduced in some way shape or form to knull, which would be ridiculous given we're only two venom movies in. I don't think this version of Gorr is shit I just think he was wasted as a one and done villain. Imagine a final thor movie ( preferably with a few others in between to undo waititi's damage) based on king thor, in the vein of Logan and made as a sort of space mad max style. Imagine those final beautiful panels of the king thor run, converted into a cinematic goodbye letter. Hemsworths thor, ancient and wiser, riding his ship to the edge of what is left of the universe, vowing to hold back entropy as long as he can so what's left of humanity can thrive. And back on earth a father tells of the glory of thor to his children as lightning strikes outside.

The question you pose was if Gorr in this version was suited for the story and if we should disregard the original in a need to have the character suit the role necessary, and in that, I'll say "mostly..." with the caveat that doing away with the original interpretation of the character further asks why even bother using it if such departures are going to be tasked to it. But further, even outside the subjective nature of enjoyment, I'll expand that question that I'm having to look at: Was there any part of this story that had an actual personal vision behind it, or was it made because of mandate? The Thor character certainly needed and benefitted from the growth, but from my perspective Taika made it because they told him to come up with something and gave him a day cheque, not because he really had anything to say. The movie fails not because of it's message, but because it's made insincere and hollowly. The tons of comedy and tone deaf, tone dumb, and tone blindness of it drips off the screen. And I feel certain that Taika didn't give all that much of a crap about what he made because I've seen what he can do when he actually cares. Jojo Rabbit is that kind of movie. So, I don't think Thor is bad (well, I do, but that is beside this point) but rather, I don't think it justifies its creation. It isn't a film, it's a product. Most marvel things are, but there was a time when the likes of John Favreua and the Russo Brothers gave a damn about what they were making.

I hadn't seen Aaron's run so I didn't have it in mind when I watched Love and Thunder so the idea Gorr's interpretation was off didn't enter my mind. I thought his scenes and particularly the very end really worked. I think I might have said Gorr was wasted but that was more I thought his arc really worked and the movie isn't as good as it should be, given main idea hit and the climax works. I think has more to do with the tonal messiness of the film you mention and the way it constantly undercuts the emotion and diverts us from the tragic story. I think part of that is there is a lack of thought about how elements build. Like I liked that both Jane and Gorr's power is coming from weapon's that are killing them and why the continue on and how reveals a great deal about both of their character. I also liked that Thor imbued Mjolnir with his love for Jane and that love is part of why it reaches out to her.... but those two don't work together do they? That's the story of the movie for me, that doesn't work together does it.

There’s two types of audiences. Comic book fans and people who only know the characters from the movies

Will you be able to make a video on explaining the gods’ importance in the mcu their meaning and possible arcs/stories

I feel like both Gorrs are great. Comic!Gorr is less sympathetic, but his backstory is fleshed out more, and you can understand why he does what he does, how he came to think the way he does, and the hypocrisy of him becoming a god to destroy the gods is pointed out. Screen!Gorr's hatred for the gods comes more from Rapu being an dick than a badly-wounded god pleading for help, having been too busy fighting (and losing) against Knull the Symbiote King to save Gorr's family, making him more sympathetic. Also, Screen!Gorr is proven to have a point, because while Thor, the Asgardians, and the Gods of Centauri-V are shown to be doing their jobs and concerned about mortals, Rapu and the gods in Omnipotence City have proven themselves unworthy of any faith.

Really interesting comparison. As someone who never really felt all that interested in the Marvel movies or comic books, I'm actually curious to pick up the Thor issues you mentioned. Not only the story seems to have much more depth than most of the Marvel movies in general (and especially the post-Endgame, or even post-Infinity War ones) , but the art also looks fantastic.

I very much appreciate this analysis.

My problem was that he doesn’t fit in the movie whatsoever,and his adaptation while moderately good still is a very muted and nurtured adaptation. And this movie is just another example of waisted source material.

Great video, man!

As a big fan of both the comic and the movie, I want to thank you for giving both a chance. I just knew the original comic would be hard to adapt because of how complicated the time travel element is, to say nothing of the 3 Thors-so I expected pretty much what I got in this movie, and was able to see the beauty in both! And where the movies are concerned: I think Taika has gotten Marvel's table scaps for both Thors. I really hope more MCU writers actually build on what he does instead of erasing his character growth

Did you notice Gorr in Werewolf By Night? He was shown being slain in the art on the walls… I think the bloodstone is a souls stone from another universe. One where Gorr was subdued by the stone…if this took place after Loki.

If an "adaptation" of a work wants to use the source to promote itself, it needs to hold to its source more directly. If it's just loosely based on it, or just borrows names and "some" themes... they're better off creating new characters and stories.

I did quite like how the movie didn’t get hung up on the philosophy of Gorr and his views of divinity. That even Thor had to admit that Gorr was right by the end seemed to settle it and allowed us to get the really juicy emotional part of Gorr’s story and how it ties to Thor.

Very good analysis! I agree with you

Really the thing that gets me is it seemed to me Thor's arc in Ragnarok, Infinity War, and Endgame was becoming the more humble responsible Thor of Aaron's run, but instead we go back to jokester Thor from Ragnarok. What's the point of having an arc if your just going to pretend it didn't happen? I just think that would've made for a better film for the same reasons it worked in the comics. AND because that's what it felt like it was leading up to, IMO.

I'm honestly convenced because they want to keep that PG13 rating they'll NEVER make a good villain in the MCU that's like their trueself. The only one that was close was Ultron and that's because he's really easy to pull off. Gorr's storyline is just that a STORYLINE not something for a movie yet for a series. We see Gorr kicking ass and Thor as a god isn't really helping people still. Pretty much Love and Thunder wasted time trying to be three storylines in one.

Movie was fine. It was my typical rating for a Marvel film: glad I saw it, no reason to rewatch it. My only criticism is that Bale was underutilized. For as much screen time as Gorr got, anyone could have played him just fine. It was a waste to use Bale here when you could have had him play a villain where you'd actually get a lot of use out of him. At least that's my opinion.

Good video. Gorr is quite an interesting character, I've not read his comics featuring, but I didn't mind him in the film. He was a good villain. I may look into getting that comic if I can, but overall, I understood your points on this

Great video! I can see since the movie is condensing the comic, there would have to be many things removed. I also like how they treat Thor. In the MCU where there are other superheroes, he not not need to do everything.

Ehh I think, based on the description you've given, Gorr's justification for killing all gods only works if all three conditions presented are met. Sure he may have a valid point in the gods not deserving worship but it's quite a leap to kill all gods because of their inability to do so (as opposed to killing them because they can help but choose not to). I think the film handles this better by making it clear that all three conditions are met. Edit: Great video though and you made a lot of valid and thought-provoking points. Subscribed.

At this point I know what the MCU is about, I know these characters will change drastically for the big screen, and I am ok with that. Personally I think Gorr is one of the best villans we have gotten in the MCU, while he may not be very present in the movie, the times he appears he is menacing and intimidating, and personally i think he does a good job as the antagonist of this movie. While I would love to get to see the Gorr from the comics, I like this version of him, and at least in first watching I enjoyed the movie

what a great video, this was brilliantly explored.

Looking forward to this video.

Maybe they wasted Gorr, maybe they didn't (I think they did), but they definitely wasted Christian Bale's performance by quipping in serious situations. It really cheapened the villain because the heroes rarely seemed to take him seriously. It was like Bale stumbled in from a much better film whenever he was on screen.

I loved bale as gorr but i feel he was underused

I really enjoy your analysis and examples, specially since you are critiquing based on narrative and the themes on both comic and movie as different pieces rather than butchering one to elevate the other one

Going to University and starting to read academic dissertations and writing essays and research papers has made me really appreciate video essays more. Especially when they’re well written and well made and its made it so easy to pick out the really bad ones. This is a very well argued video essay

i think the comic gorr is way way better then movie gorr honestly

The theologian Michael Heiser argues that the Hebrew term Elohim, commonly translated as god, can be applied to any inhabitant of the spiritual realm. The God of Israel, gods of other nations, angels, demons even disembodied human spirits can be referred to as Elohim. The God of Israel is unique in being the creator and source of all life (the benevolent onipotent being you describe) but He isn't an Elohim because he has those traits, in fact there are other Elohim and they are not all benevolent and they aren't eternal or the creator. Ps 82 depicts the God of Israel sitting in judgement over the corrupt Elohim who have practiced injustice amoung the nations. By this definition Thor wouldn't be a god. He is a powerful being but he does not inhabitant a spiritual realm. Asgard appears to be just another planet rather then a place in another dimension. The gods of Moonlight on the other hand do appear to be depicted as spiritual beings that inhabit a spiritual realm. Ms Marvel also seemed to claim Thor wasn't really a god and he would have been called something else if he had been encountered by another ancient culture. It's interesting that they chose to depict the god Gorr meets in the film as a human figure. In the Hebrew Scriptures there are awesome encounters with God such as the visions of Isaiah or the fire at Sinai but people also encounter Him as a human figure and don't always know they are taking with God right away.

I've just given up on Marvel Studios adapting anything well. Gorr was just another bite at the apple of the hero being the same as the villain, but he's juxtaposed with Jane. You can go as far back as the Hulk's movie to see changes from the original origin and A LOT of characters since have had varying degrees of changes, but someone like the Hulk is still mostly the same character. I have yet to watch the Ms. Marvel show and my main hang up seems to be the utter wrecking done to Carol Danvers. She like Hawkeye has the name of a Marvel Comics character, but is not that character in any way, shape, or form. Now, not only does she have a horrible introductory movie that ends with knowing nothing about her or her goals, dreams, or aspirations, but she's also never on the planet. I kind of find in hard to believe that someone the general public knows nothing about and has probably never seen would have fans. People need to know who you are for that. Then again, this is the MCU and every random person seems to know everything that goes on on Earth. Remember the conversation in WandaVision about Wanda's fight with Thanos, by people who weren't there and at least one of whom was dust 2 weeks before. Or how about the random dude that asks Dr. Strange if this was the only option at the beginning of Multi verse of Madness. Sorry, went on a tangent only to say if you use comic book logic to judge the MCU you will only give yourself an aneurysm.

Personally, Gorr should've... Actually, let me first say that they (Marvel) should've hired you to write the script for this movie, or at least to proof read. Your interpretation of Gorr's first meeting with gods was delicious. I would love to see a movie try to do something like that. Back to my comment... Gorr should have been the focus of a new trilogy for Thor. Not some villain of the week like he was in the movie. As you pointed out, he asks some very serious and heavy questions that just get swept under the rug in the name of comedy.

Thorg: sussy and baka

In my opinion, Gorr deserved his own origin story which could tie into Thor Love and Thunder. Imagine a Joker style movie focusing on Gorr's descent from faithful acolyte to dissalusioned killer with the movie ending with him killing the Gods of his world and becoming the God butcher.

this is a really good explanation

I’d like to add, Taika or whoever wrote this, dropped a huge connective theme that could’ve not only connected it to M.o.M with an incursion but, this could’ve been done in a more serious manner. by bringing 3 different Thor variants from 2 other points in time in his life, they could’ve severely elevated the gravity of Gorr’s power. & when it was all said & done, we could’ve gotten a post credit scene of Dr. Strange & Clea, portal to where Thor was living to help fix an incursion that he caused. Or the actions that Thor took to beat Gorr could’ve been mentioned in a future film dealing more closely with incursions. I feel like that could’ve raised the level of things a bunch. But this movie, is its own thing so in that regard, it’s not bad