Why Thor Ragnarok was not as good as the other Thor movies (SPOILER ALERT)

8 replies [Last post]
Supreme Viking Champion
Joined: 08/18/2016

First off, SPOILER ALERT! This thread is FULL of spoilers from the third Thor movie-threrefore precede with your own caution, as im not responsible for spoiling it for anyone who has not seen it yet.


Second, admins, this is not a thread to cause unrest in the forums-it is a discussion page. (i said on a previous thread i would post this btw )(its not like the previous threads posted by others last week)



Third, let me begin!


Ok, so...first, Thor Ragnarok was NOT ORGINAL from the comics, as the first two previous Thors were. Its new director took a different turn and thats where Marvel went wrong. Why it wasnt orginal? let me give  an entire list of scenes where Marvel took from other movies....(please feel free to comment if you see any other movies scenes taken from other movies)


Star Wars- hmm well, at the beginning when Thor got captured by a bunch of alien dessert  looking people who threw a net over him  and was going to be dragged off....sound familar? BB8 gets captured my a net by a group of desert aliens...


Willy Wonka- im pretty sure everyone caught that. The willy wonka music along with the wild ( Marvel twisted it into something dark btw) ride on the chair Thor was sitting in...exactly the same scene from  the wild boat ride in Willy Wonka.



 Some mummy movies (i say some because i havent watched any, but i had a friend tell me the simularity so...)- resericting the .d.e.a.d- sounds too much like the typical ancient egypt mummy thing.



Moses (story and movies)- so we have Heimdall and the Asgardian people, who sorta look like Israelites, being hunted down by He.lla- moving from place to place to escape her. The key scene is when they start crossing the long bi-frost bridge just above the ocean to get to safety-following them in are h.ella and her warrior group. They obviosely took that from the scenes where Moses and his people are trying to escape pharaoh and his mens grasp-eventually God parted the waters and Moses and the Israelites crossed a long path to safety.



Moana- come on! too obvious Marvel, too obvious. A giant-lava monter ( that looked very simular to the one in Moana) : O that was unleashed and strated destroying Asgard at the end other movie!  Technicaly, the only difference between those two scenes in Moana and Thor was that the lava monster succeded in destroying  Asgard.



Star Trek- the scene where someone in Thor says " Where to now, captain?" on Asgards new spaceship.......Someon asks captain Kirk the same thing in Star Trek. 




Besides taking from other movies, marvels Thor Ragnarok was just "not a Thor movie."


melodic, beat.ing  classical mussic  that fit extremely well with the previous Thor movies- changed to "space junkie"  and video-game music.


The envirement that quite a few scenes of thor ragnarok took took place in was literally like a gaming world- it doesnt have to be the Asgardian or earth placing (as seen in the two other thor movies). but im not sure it fit with the Thor franchiese.


im not sure Skurg with the two g.uns (from America ) slamming down the enemys was a good scene.  not in Thor especially.


The characters were pretty much thier usual- selves, except they acted more like the characters from Guardians of the Galaxy than in other thor movies.




The characters that were excluded from the film for really no good reason , WHAT HAPPEND TO JANE, DARCY AND ERIK SELVIK???? AND THE JANExTHOR stuff? Thats kinda was what the other two movies were building on.. Although the actress Natalie Portman refused to play in this movie, they could have animated her in the movie (like star wars did with Leia) or chosen another actress for the spot.  Darcy was a great character to...


On the more positive side of things, yes, it was a funny comedy movie and it had good teamwork. If u are happy with it being a comedy, then great! but if your expectations were that of Thor being like the other two (like me) then.....ehhh, you might not like it.






I’m sorry for everything I’ve done.

Wolf and Star's picture
Wolf and Star
Supreme Viking Champion
Joined: 03/14/2014
A wild post appeared!!!

Some of those are Easter Eggs, not nessicarily copyright.



Profile photo by Aukane Min


Friend code: Not accepting

Clan: The Phantom Lords

Trophy Count (about): 8,500

by Tosi

chameishida's picture
Supreme Viking Champion
Joined: 08/01/2014
Thor ragnarok is not a

Thor ragnarok is not a perfect movie or anythi flawless, there's something that bugged me off as well, one being the stuff you've said about the characters from the previous movie, i get the censored that they're going for the distruction of the old and rebuilding a new kind of direction, to acompany the falls of asgard story but geez killing off three warriors like they're fodder/not important character of the previous movie is kind of rude and you're right about the human/scientist crew (which i really like) plus Lady Siff, i feel like they've left them out for either not being relate to the story arc they're trying to tell(they might just get in the way so they cut them out entirely for the story to flow better) or that they admit these characters are kind of the low point of the movie(not what people watch this movie for) which may sound harsh because i like them but i can see why people would think that. But yeah they end the second movie with Thor and Jane kissing then they broke up off screen? Kind of a rude move.

I also feel like amoung the bombarment of the joke this movie delever non stop, not all of them work. There're some very funny joke ans some that's just not as funny as they might have want it to be

However the first stuff you said about it not being original is kind of objective, like wolf and star said it was meant to be as easter egg or something so blalant it meant to get people recognize and get a laugh out of it but some of it i don't thing it's even intentional, Moana is not the only story with big bad lava monster. I can find the monster design more. And other stuff that's more like a trope than a reference.

Skurge with two guns is a paid off to the joke they have made early on in the movie about the gun named dis and troy. The contrast between norse armor wearing warriors and present human weapon was intentional, one of the joke that work best in the history of film is the misdirection of the expectation, you are expecting the armored warrior to uses sort? Well now you have gun inatead! The contrast so vast was meant for hilarity


All That being said


Thor ragnarok is probably one of my favourite movie this year, and probably my favourite thor movie and up there amoug top ten of my favourite mcu movie. I feel like the stepping into the new direction is a breath of flesh air and somehow work very very well, yeah it doesn't feel like thor movie which i think this is why i like it so much.(but please not that i didn't not like the previous thor movie, i like them especially the second one which get a lot of flag but i like ibecause of the comedy and with the third one's comedy being clang up to the top, of course it's going to end up being my  favorite) there's my friend who like the character but never like the previous thor standalone movie then really reay love the third one because of the new direction it takes. Of course that meant the fan of the previous movie who lit for the seriousness and aesthetic will suffer from it. Which is understandable, my other friend who watch it with me hate this movie for its silliness, unfortunately he's kind of being a jerk about it and scolding my other friend en she laugh in the theather.


If anything i feel like thor ragnarok is an entertaining mindless movie(okay mindless might be a bit of a strong word becse the plot is seriously good) someing you go to watch to enjoy and take your mind of things without much expectatn and you walk out of the theather all happy and hype up and keep talking about it for days. The comedy is noe only strong suit(but it probably the movie that get laugh out of me the most of this year)  of this movie too, the action and the characters, especially the characters. The developement of bothor and loki is something i really really pleased and the new characters are very likable. Valkyrie, what ever your true name  is, i love you, baby.




I've been login in the game more usaul lately so, Hi! My Viking's name is 'Tahno'. I'm in Zesty's Humbanger Studio clan now. Come say Hi! Friend Request is A okay but need to notify me outside of game first otherwise I will ignore.

(Both Renders in this signature are done by LPS100! Thank you!)


 Chameishida's Book of Fan Dragons  l Chamemeishida's Book of Fan Hybrids and Varients l Chameishida's Book of Spin-off Dragons


Fan dragons Customizables


(grey means closed)


Come get your random Dragon Pixels!



Wooly Razor adoptable l Deathly Singflyer Adoptable 

Swiftwing and Relentless Razorwing Customization l Laxing Blizzadorn Adoptable

 HTTYD Dragon Quiz l Titan Comparison l Hybrids Comparison l Hybrids Skin 

Modern SOD Info Thread l Rescue Riders Tierlist l Dragon Fusion Generator


Red Wind123's picture
Red Wind123
Supreme Viking Champion
Joined: 09/07/2014
le bloop

(Thor Ragnarok is canon in the comics and it happened more or less like the movie) 


Supreme Viking Champion
Joined: 08/18/2016
A-hem......toothless and dirtpaw what are you doing?

You misread my first post. Im not calling marvel out for breaking copyright laws...its just that one after another "easter eggs" (the ones the director put in) can make the movie jump around alot-when u put that many easter eggs in a movie where all the previous movies were more orginal then...

As i said in previous post, if you like it as a marvel comedy movie,and it makes you laugh, then great! But there are those (as in the entire cannaon of the movie) who did expect it to be more like the other movies.

Little Reindeer's picture
Little Reindeer
Joined: 07/12/2017
For Asgard!

Tracking :) I'm in the middle of writing my thoughts on this, so I'll post them tomorrow sometime. 

realsteel's picture
Supreme Viking Champion
Joined: 03/10/2014
I highly disagree. The things

I highly disagree. The things you mentioned, as some others already said, were mere easter eggs and despite you not enjoying their addition, the majority of people seem to like them. Also, the "lava monster" has nothing to do with the one in Moana, heck, Surtur had his debut back in 1963 or so, which means there's no way they could copy Moana if he existed first.

While you are right, the first two movies were pretty much original, but that doesn't necessarily make them better. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that they (Dark World mostly) are quite mediocre, or below average, at least compared to the stuff Marvel has produced recently, like Avengers or GOTG. It's also obvious that those are the movies where the inspiration for the newest Thor came from.

So yes, the movie went in a different direction than the previous ones, but in my opinion, that was actually a very smart move. The character development was top notch, and I found the humorous tone to be far better than the "gritty" one in Thor and Thor Dark World. Just throwing in my two cents.




Music? My religion.

Metal? My church.

Judas? My priest.

 ̶H̶o̶t̶e̶l̶?̶ ̶T̶r̶i̶v̶a̶g̶o̶.̶


I don't consider myself an elitist.

Still feel compelled to mention that just because you played Steve Vai's signature guitar during Superbowl and spent a few years judging the way people sing on a reality show doesn't mean you'll ever come close to having moves like Jagger.




-James Hetfield


Little Reindeer's picture
Little Reindeer
Joined: 07/12/2017
For Asgard!

I agree with realsteel. In my opinion, Thor: Ragnarok was a great movie. But before I write some stuff, I'd just like to point out this is meant as a friendly discussion, and what follows is my own personal opinion :)


Okay, so, to start with, Ragnarok was pretty original from the comics. The whole 'gaming planet' thing - Sakaar - was based on the 'Planet Hulk' storyline. The event of Ragnarok itself also appeared in the comics. Pretty much all the characters were original. While the exact storyline might be different, remember that the Avengers movies - in fact, the entire MCU, for that matter - are generally a bit different to the canon storylines of the comics.


I don't think it's a big deal that some scenes were 'similar' to other movies. It happens all the time. References and easter eggs are a thing. Take Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, for example - every episode from Season 3 had a (purposeful) Star Wars reference, or something. I would disagree with your Moana point entirely - Surtur, the 'big monster', as Hulk put it, has been around for a long, long time, even out of the comics. He is a key part of Norse mythology, as a fire-demon from Muspelheim, one of the Nine Realms. He is also known as 'the Lord of Ragnarok', so it would make complete sense for him to be in this movie. Also, Disney made Moana. Disney also owns Marvel Studios, who made the Thor films. So they can mix up their movies as much as they like XD and the same goes for Star Wars.


The environement wasn't really that different; there was just one new planet, Sakaar, which is canon anyway (Planet Hulk), and it was only about 50% of the movie. The rest was mostly Asgard, with a few scenes on Midgard/Earth - which were hilarious, and conatined a few great references, most notably the Sherlock one. This was a little nod to actor Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays Doctor Strange, but also Sherlock Holmes in the BBC TV series (funnily enough, Robert Downey Jr. plays Holmes in the movie versions, too!). Mooooving on, the design of Sakaar was influenced by Jack Kirby, one of the original MARVEL comics creators.


As for Jane Foster, it was clearly stated in the Midgard scene that she and Thor had broken up, which (kind of) explains her absence. I also don't think that Marvel Studios could have just 'animated' her in - the reason Lucasfilm did this in Star Wars was that the actor who played Princess Leia had died, and was a lot, lot, older at the time of filming, so she would have looked completely different. In regards to Thor, however, Natalie Portman is still alive, but just doesn't want to be a part of the franchise anymore, so it would be extremely disrespectful of Marvel Studios to use a CGI model of her, rather than hiring her as an actor (not to mention proably illegal and very difficult). It also doesn't make a lot of sense for Erik Selvig or Darcy Lewis to be in the film, as they aren't Asgardians or Sakaarians. 


All in all, Ragnarok was, in my opinion anyway, a brilliant movie. Just be glad we didn't get another Batman V Superman! It was intended to be more of a fun, family-friendly film, and yes, a comedy in some parts. New director (or should I say new Kronan XD) means new atmosphere. Taika Waititi directing held a lot of personal value for me, and his cameo as Korg was my favourite part (on a side note, if any of you haven't seen Hunt for the Wilderpeople, I would highly reccomend you go see it, like, right now. There's a couple of great cameos in Thor from that fabulous movie). But in the meantime...


Countdown to Black Panther: 99 days to go!

(My CAPTCHA was Black Piazza XD)


victoriae350's picture
Supreme Viking Champion
Joined: 09/22/2014

I would like to add to this conversation. I require a two see before I can properly formulate an opinion. When people rave about a movie, there are always high expectations. Nine times out of ten the first see is always a disappointment.


First, looking at a movie and finding all the similarities between it and others is not a good way to analyze it. Every movie out there will have many similarities to others. It's not fair, in any sense, to do that to anything in the entertainment industry unless it is full our copyright! The best way to analyse a movie is it's story structure. The characters, plotline, setting, etc. This story followed a Hero's Journey template


Second, Thor, in my opinion, is not a terrible movie. It has a great foundation, and changes from the normal rhythme. One could argue that the entire Thor branch is his coming of age story since in the first, he was acting like a child. And now, he's inherited his father's throne. In addition, we see different sides to many of the repeating characters, and witness some amazing character development. Yes, he isn't with Jane anymore, but Jane isn't the main focus of the movies, and the characters are suppose to have lives outside of what we see on film. We don't know what they're doing at the time. But, they may return for Infinity Part 1.


Want to know what movie was terrible? The new Pirates of the Carribean. Such a foundationless plotline. "We just me and now I love you" subplot. Too many coincidences. Somewhat boring villain (the hair is cool, as his original story and his ship). And they're over stretching their father theme. There's more but I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it.


The only thing I wasn't a fan of was Bruce not having much screen time. Even though this is a Thor movie, I was pumped that Bruce Banner was in it!! However, I almost cried when Hulk, after two years, transformed into Banner after seeing Natasha! :( Poor Banner!



Do you want art like this of your viking?




Or maybe dragons like these?

You can throw a request my way on my request thread!