Thor 1 and 2 were some of the lowest earning / critically lukewarm MCU films.
So they gave Thor a brand new costume, wiped out Asgard, wiped out his entire supporting cast, brought in The Hulk to attract some more interest to the film, and jarringly made Thor a comedian ala Guardians of the Galaxy (also borrowing the alien planet settings).
This film isn't a director's fresh vision. It's studio-remanded reboot of an under-performing film series.
Looking at it this way, I think like it's more of a wrap up of Thor's whole storyline than a reboot. After all, are they even going to make any more Thor solo movies?
shareYeah, but it was a fun reboot!
The motto of the writers seems to have been "What the hell just try anything, it can't possibly be worse than the last one". That's definitely the correct approach for a comic book movie about a big meathead.
Thor: The Dark World made more than both Iron Man 1 and 2, even though it was shit. Thor 2011 however was a great movie, directed by the legendary Kenneth Branagh. It was also received better than Iron Man 2 and 3 by critics, and was only the 4th Marvel movie (including The Incredible Hulk). Your explanation about "lowest earning / critically lukewarm" doesn't match up with the facts I'm sorry to say.
shareI wouldn't call this a reboot, its just an extension of what we were seeing in Avengers, particularly the dynamic between Hulk and Thor. They may have taken it a bit far, on one hand though the interaction of Thor and Hulk and the building up of the comedy we were already seeing in small bits worked well for the movie. However I still hold that the villain was harmed by this take.
share