u/AlphaBladeYiII

To explain why, I have to start at the beginning: Kenneth Branaugh's Thor. This film is kind of middle of the road in terms of MCU quality. And yet to me, it is still the best portrayal of the god of thunder.

Thor's arc here is far from unique, but it is handled better than most people give it credit imo. When we first meet Thor, he is a spoiled god-prince drunk on power and the glory of victory. Things he took for granted as he thought his martial accomplishments qualified him to be a king. He is entitled, bull-headed, reckless, battle-hungry, arrogant and disconnected. But he makes mistakes and pays a price too heavy (from his prospective): he is banished. He loses his godly power that he took for granted. His father dies. His mother forsakes him. He is unworthy.

So what's next for him? He begins to connect, not simply with Jane, but also with mortals in general like Selvig. He is forced to rely on said mortals as he comes to see that he isn't very different from them. He no longer thinks he is superior and has a right to shepard. He is lost, but finds consolation and begins to move forward and find a new path. He ultimately returns to Asgard as a kinder and wiser individual after learning humility. He makes a great sacrifice to save the lives he once didn't value very much.

And that is The Mighty Thor, as written by Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Walter Simonson and J Michael Straczynski. It is pure Thor.

Unfortunately, his next four appearances don't do him justice. In both of Joss Wheadon's Avengers films, Thor kind of draws the short end of the stick as far as character work goes compared to the other original avengers. Thor: The Dark World is an interesting case. It is widely regarded as among the worst MCU films, but to me it was simply mediocre, yet inoffensive. It didn't mischaracterise Thor, but it didn't do much with him either aside from him deciding to explore himself more at the end.

And then we got Ragnarok.

It is probably among the most fun films I ever saw in theatres. Ragnarok is the film that got me into the MCU after a friend dragged me to see it, and the MCU in turn got me into reading Marvel comics. But hindsight is 20/20 and with it's benefits, I find the film to be a mixed bag.

There are some incredible moments in it. Odin's death, Thor and Loki's interactions as usual, Loki's redemption, Thor's conversation with his father's spirit and him tapping into his abilities on a new level....all amazing and wrapped in a good enough general story. However, it suffers from the worst case of tonal clash I ever saw. Every serious moment is immediately undercut by a hit-or-miss joke, dulling and sometimes killing the impact. A film about the destruction of Asgard is made into a comedy and even the destruction of Asgard is played for a corny joke. I get that "Asgard is a people, not a place", but it's still the only home those people ever knew. Compare that to the destruction of the similarly empty Tipoca city in Star Wars: The Bad Batch, where the destruction of the location was made into a somber moment signifying the end of an era.

And Thor himself....is kind of made into a goofy clown with a lot of physical jokes. There was potential for a poignant arc about Thor realizing he rejected becoming a king partially because of his mother's death, feeling that if he couldn't protect her, how could he protect the entirety of Asgard? Feeling he couldn't do as good a job as his father. Feeling afraid that he would become disconnected from regular people again. But he has to overcome these doubts and step up once Odin dies. We get glimpses of this arc here and there, but it's buried under excessive humor that doesn't always fit the dark story or the regal character.

This isn't to say Thor can't have humor. He has plenty in the comics. But every character has its own brand. Spider-Man has awkward corny jokes and a lot of talkative quips for multiple reasons. Cap works best when you remind the audience that he's from the 40s like in Weadon's The Avengers or Mark Waid's Man Out of Time

Thor's humor stems not from making him act human, but contrasting his nature as an Asgardian god-prince with the way he interacts with us. For example, in Donny Cates' Thor run, there is a really funny bit where Thor uses a New York accent to order a hotdog, utterly confusing Jane. But Thor then reminds her that he's been around for centuries, and has been in New York longer than anyone. He's more of a New Yorker than anyone and speaks every language and dialect due to his heritage, so it makes sense to adapt whatever voice needed. Some jokes in Ragnarok works for Thor ("I know him, he is a friend from work") but many didn't. And Thor's rise to the throne feels disappointing for it.

Infinity War was likely the best Thor since his origin film for me. Endgame Thor...was a mixed bag. There's more substance here because his personality shift is actually explained and has believable build-up, and there's a good arc about overcoming grief and seeing that his failures don't make him less heroic or worthy. But the tone could've fit the character more (no fornite) and the ending was disappointing. He ascends to the throne only to abdicate it and end where he always ends: on a journey of self-discovery. It had gotten boring at this point.

As for Love and Thunder....let's just say I intensely dislike that film and what it did with Thor. I don't go to Marvel for high art, but it felt almost utterly devoid of substance for me and just....empty. It was everything I didn't like about Ragnarok turned up fo eleven with very little of what I did like. The jokes were unfunny for me, and the serious moments failed to land. Thor was made into an even goofier clown and didn't feel at all like Thor. Again, there's potential. I liked the explanation of how Thor and Jane broke up due to a fear of losing each other. Thor moving on and no longer keeping people at arms length due to a fear of loss is a good arc, but again reduced to a moment because of the weak build-up.

I like the idea of dad!Thor as I'm a big fan of dad!heroes in general (I know you're in here Marvel ya big fucking nerd. Where's my goddamn One More Day Reversal? I wanna see Peter and MJ raising a little wall-crawler, dammit). But it feels a bit underwhelming because it comes at the end with no build-up for the relationship with his adopted daughter.

I could probably go on a side rant regrading the mistreatment of Lady Sif and the Warriors Three in Waititi's films, but I'll settle for this wall of text that most likely won't read. LoL. Looking back on J Michael Straczynski's seminal run, I can't help but feel sad that we didn't get that Thor. (That showdown with Iron Man after Civil War was chilling). Thor is regal, prideful and a powerful badass you don't mess with. But there's more to him than that, and he learns humility time and time again.

I mainly write this to vent and gather my thoughts in one place. My opinion is purely subjective and I understand that many connect with the lighter, more humanized Thor and enjoy him better. I don't wish to discredit that Thor. These are simply my views.

.

For context, I'm someone who grew up reading thousands of comics stories featuring Disney characters, from the works of certified legends Carl Barks and Don Rosa, to the stories by the various European creators from Italy, Holland,...etc. And I honestly think many of those stories are ripe for animated adaptation. I know we had two solid DuckTales shows, with the original adapting multiple Barks stories, but I think a series that properly adapts "The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck" would be a smash hit given how amazing the graphic novel is.

Another thing that I think has potential is the Duck Avenger/Paperinik stories. I've been reading PK's New Adventures lately, and I'm suprised by how good they are. They're quite different from your regular Duck Comics, considering they're essentially "what if Donald Duck was a Marvel supehero", but they're also legitimately solid sci-fi/superhero stories that manage to keep the main character recognizable somehow. They had a modest game called "PK: Out of the Shadows" for the Nintendo GameCube, but I believe a show based on them could be amazing. I genuinely believe they should be bigger internationally and outside of Italy.

Also, while the recent Three Caballeros show wasn't amazing, I thought it was quite fun and deserved another season. And even outside of Duck stories, I believe the old Floyd Gottfredson stories for Mickey, and the comics about private eye Mickey in general, can translate nicely to a show.

It's honestly a shame that Disney is largely uninterested in the original characters these days because they can be so much more than mascots. I can't help but miss their classic shorts and 2D animation in general, but I think a theatrical release featuring them in the vein of something like the Fantasia films is a far dream these days. Unfortunately, I don't think kids nowadays care about these characters, and IDK if the adults form enough of a market, but I do hope to see more of the classic characters someday. After all, it all started with a mouse!

The theme of attachment within the Star Wars saga is divisive, largely because people tend to define attachment differently. However, both the Jedi and George Lucas tend to define attachment in a way rooted within eastern philosophies. Attachment, in this case, isn't about love, connection, or relationships, rather it is about the ego, greed and possessiveness. In Anakin's case, it becomes about how his love for his relationship with Padmé comes to supersede his love for Padmé herself, which is made apparent when he commits horrible acts that she'd rather die than see him commit. Ultimately, Anakin's actions were for his own sake, not for hers, which is explicitly highlighted in Mattew Stover's novelization of *Revenge of the Sith*.

Within the original trilogy, it is emphasized in both *The Empire Strikes Back* and *Return of the Jedi* that Luke's feelings towards his friends can be used against him. Yoda tells him that he might need to choose between the lives of his loved ones and honoring their own choices, sacrifices, and what the rebellion fought for. Bespin is largely framed as Luke's big failure, because he's acting recklessly out of fear without planning or asking for aid. And while his actions help i.e distracting Vader and bringing R2, he ultimately gets beaten, has to be saved by his friends, and is unable to rescue Han.

In *Return of the Jedi*, the same threat and warnings return. The Emperor overconfidently attempts to speed run Anakin's fall with Luke, and a key part of that is the Sith offering to spare Luke's loved ones should he join them, (I may be giving Lucas and co too much credit with that one, but I believe that the reason that one Trooper didn't immediately gun down Han and Leia during the battle when they were cornered at the bunker was because the Sith needed them as a bargaining chip), but Luke doesn't play the game. Instead, he does everything Anakin should've done. He accepts that he has no control over that situation and surrenders the fate of his friends and himself to The Force, with his faith in them becoming his strength rather than his weakness. He does what Yoda asked him to do and honors what they would choose and want, because he knows they'd rather die than see him corrupted. In that moment when he throws down his saber, Luke rejects selfish attachment and embraces selfless, unconditional love for his father and his friends. And in doing so, he finds victory and passes the test his father failed.

Ultimately, I never really understood why the ascetic, monastic order based on Buddhist monks and medieval knights get so much criticism for....adopting a monastic lifestyle. Many people from many faith systems walk the path of detachment to attach to something higher and gain enlightenment. But in the west, where self, desire, and passion are often celebrated highly, people think this is weird and undesirable. I've spoken to many monks in my time, and they aren't weirdos incapable of loving others or connecting with them. In fact, loving others is usually an integral part of their way of life.

Which isn't to say that the Jedi can't be criticized for *how* they implemented their monastic ways. While there's nothing wrong with the Jedi faith and way of life - quite the opposite - Qui-Gon highlights that it's a hard life, and it requires sacrifices. While there's nothing wrong with growing up in a faith system, such a tough path imo is best chosen by people who understand the sacrifices. The Jedi weren't baby kidnappers, and them raising younglings definitely helped them adapt to the Jedi way, and likely did increase resistance to the dark side and minimize falling. Many great Jedi were raised by the order, but there is something compelling about Jedi like Luke Skywalker or Ezra Bridger, who chose to walk this path knowing what they were getting into. Really, Anakin pretty much came into the order at the worst time possible. Lucas said he would've been fine if he'd been found earlier, and if he'd been older, he'd be making an informed choice that he'd be capable of making. Instead, he came with all the baggage and none of the true agency. I also believing that the parents not being allowed contact with their children growing up was wrong, as many of those monks I mentioned very much kept regular contact with their families after joining their monasteries.

One could make a case that detachment as implemented by the PT era Jedi isn't integral to being a Jedi. Indeed, The order had different attitudes regarding how to approach their monasticism, between the Tales of the Jedi-era order, Luke's New Jedi Order, and even jedi like Kanan. It's probably harder to reject unhealthy attachments, but various jedi showed that you can reject the dark side and attachment without some of the restrictions of the PT Jedi. However, I don't believe that the prequel Jedi's brand of monasticism was bad or flawed. It can be argued that they took it for somewhat questionable reasons i.e fear of the dark side and temptations, but I do believe that they were very correct about attachment and that their ways had several valid merits and reasonings behind them. I don't believe there is one correct way when it comes to the topic of these restrictions, but rather pros and cons.

The theme of attachment within the Star Wars saga is divisive, largely because people tend to define attachment differently. However, both the Jedi and George Lucas tend to define attachment in a way rooted within eastern philosophies. Attachment, in this case, isn't about love, connection, or relationships, rather it is about the ego, greed and possessiveness. In Anakin's case, it becomes about how his love for his relationship with Padmé comes to supersede his love for Padmé herself, which is made apparent when he commits horrible acts that she'd rather die than see him commit. Ultimately, Anakin's actions were for his own sake, not for hers, which is explicitly highlighted in Mattew Stover's novelization of *Revenge of the Sith*.

Within the original trilogy, it is emphasized in both *The Empire Strikes Back* and *Return of the Jedi* that Luke's feelings towards his friends can be used against him. Yoda tells him that he might need to choose between the lives of his loved ones and honoring their own choices, sacrifices, and what the rebellion fought for. Bespin is largely framed as Luke's big failure, because he's acting recklessly out of fear without planning or asking for aid. And while his actions help i.e distracting Vader and bringing R2, he ultimately gets beaten, has to be saved by his friends, and is unable to rescue Han.

In *Return of the Jedi*, the same threat and warnings return. The Emperor overconfidently attempts to speed run Anakin's fall with Luke, and a key part of that is the Sith offering to spare Luke's loved ones should he join them, (I may be giving Lucas and co too much credit with that one, but I believe that the reason that one Trooper didn't immediately gun down Han and Leia during the battle when they were cornered at the bunker was because the Sith needed them as a bargaining chip), but Luke doesn't play the game. Instead, he does everything Anakin should've done. He accepts that he has no control over that situation and surrenders the fate of his friends and himself to The Force, with his faith in them becoming his strength rather than his weakness. He does what Yoda asked him to do and honors what they would choose and want, because he knows they'd rather die than see him corrupted. In that moment when he throws down his saber, Luke rejects selfish attachment and embraces selfless, unconditional love for his father and his friends. And in doing so, he finds victory and passes the test his father failed.

Ultimately, I never really understood why the ascetic, monastic order based on Buddhist monks and medieval knights get so much criticism for....adopting a monastic lifestyle. Many people from many faith systems walk the path of detachment to attach to something higher and gain enlightenment. But in the west, where self, desire, and passion are often celebrated highly, people think this is weird and undesirable. I've spoken to many monks in my time, and they aren't weirdos incapable of loving others or connecting with them. In fact, loving others is usually an integral part of their way of life.

Which isn't to say that the Jedi can't be criticized for *how* they implemented their monastic ways. While there's nothing wrong with the Jedi faith and way of life - quite the opposite - Qui-Gon highlights that it's a hard life, and it requires sacrifices. While there's nothing wrong with growing up in a faith system, such a tough path imo is best chosen by people who understand the sacrifices. The Jedi weren't baby kidnappers, and them raising younglings definitely helped them adapt to the Jedi way, and likely did increase resistance to the dark side and minimize falling. Many great Jedi were raised by the order, but there is something compelling about Jedi like Luke Skywalker or Ezra Bridger, who chose to walk this path knowing what they were getting into. Really, Anakin pretty much came into the order at the worst time possible. Lucas said he would've been fine if he'd been found earlier, and if he'd been older, he'd be making an informed choice that he'd be capable of making. Instead, he came with all the baggage and none of the true agency. I also believing that the parents not being allowed contact with their children growing up was wrong, as many of those monks I mentioned very much kept regular contact with their families after joining their monasteries.

One could make a case that detachment as implemented by the PT era Jedi isn't integral to being a Jedi. Indeed, The order had different attitudes regarding how to approach their monasticism, between the Tales of the Jedi-era order, Luke's New Jedi Order, and even jedi like Kanan. It's probably harder to reject unhealthy attachments, but various jedi showed that you can reject the dark side and attachment without some of the restrictions of the PT Jedi. However, I don't believe that the prequel Jedi's brand of monasticism was bad or flawed. It can be argued that they took it for somewhat questionable reasons i.e fear of the dark side and temptations, but I do believe that they were very correct about attachment and that their ways had several valid merits and reasonings behind them. I don't believe there is one correct way when it comes to the topic of these restrictions, but rather pros and cons.

Charles Soule is widely considered by many to be the best comics writer of the new Star Wars canon, and his Vader run is usually considered to be his magnum opus. This means that I usually get laughed out of the room when I say that I generally don't like Soule’s writing and find his Vader to be “fine” at best. But one element I don't like about the run, is how Vader is written.

Unlike heroes like Luke or villains like Palpatine, Darth Vader isn't a completely clean cut character. He's a ruthless, iconic villain who has done many horrible things, but he's also someone capable of eventually choosing redemption. He's a tricky character to write because he's by far the most three-dimensional character in the saga. And what he would and wouldn't do can be up to interpretation.

To me, an integral component of Vader is his underlying sense of humanity. He's “more machine than man”, but there's still a bit of man inside him. He's supposed to be someone who buries his humanity and empathy deep down because he can't afford to succumb to them. He's ruthless, but more in a robotic, methodical way. Most of the time, he uses the amount of violence necessary to further his own ends. The EU highlights this by having him tell Dengar that, unlike The Emperor, he only kills when he needs to, never for pleasure. In my opinion, he should be ruthless, but he shouldn't be unnecessarily sadistic or cruel for the sake of cruelty. Because deep down, he's just a broken, miserable, pathetic man who wants redemption but doesn't have the strength or courage to seek it because he thinks he's too far gone. He's alive purely because of stubbornness, pride, and -after Luke shows up- hope.

In my mind, an early Vader would be at his most conflicted, and he would find burying Anakin's empathy and humanity more difficult than ever in his early days. In Randy Stradly’s Dark Times, Vader is still portrayed as largely villainous, but you also get the moment where he's disturbed by The Empire's use of slaves and Palpatine’s justification for it. It shows that he struggles to let go of Anakin's goodness, especially his empathy towards people whose plight he could identify with.

Soule’s Vader run largely does the opposite of that. It edgelords Vader into an utterly irredeemable monster who isn't much more than a sadistic, brutal killing machine, and one who murders villagers and Clonetroopers for no reason, kidnaps babies, and more. It's a run that contributes to the mischaracterization of Vader as an uber powerful and “badass" killing machine and not much else. Soule's Vader is more wild and angry. More reckless. More arrogant.

This…isn't an invalid take. You could make a case that Vader throwing himself into murder and cruelty is how he copes with his situation and how he distances himself as much as possible from Anakin. This is a Vader whose pain and rage is raw and new. A wild flame that hasn't yet been honed with discipline into the precise weapon that we see in the original trilogy. And Soule’s Vader does get a moment that hints at his deeply suited desire for redemption when he corrupts/bleeds his kyber crystal, which I actually quite appreciated.

However, it still isn't a take I like, and I hate how so many people worship that run because Vader gets “cool" and “badass" moments. In my opinion, It is far from the most nuanced or interesting take on Vader, and I much prefer the idea that early Vader started out more conflicted, only to grow more ruthless with time. That is, until Luke's arrival brought back the conflict and confusion inside him. Ultimately, it's subjective, but I always much preferred Kieron Gillen's take on Vader because I felt it captured every aspect of his character well, and contributed more to his story.

And to clarify, I am not trying to pretend that Vader wasn't a monster who had murdered, oppressed, and tortured many people to further his and the Empire's goals, all while being complacent in crimes like Alderaan. But ultimately, I don't think the original trilogy portrays Vader as a one-dimentional form of evil. Star Wars operates under the idea that evil is pathetic and self-destructive, which is why RotJ peels back the curtain and reveals Vader to ultimately be a man chained to his master and the dark side by his own cowardice. He is not a man who enjoys evil, rather he hates himself for being a monster. It is that guilt, self-loathing, and remorse that makes Vader capable of repentance. It is what remains of his former humanity. If he's someone who tortures babies and kills refugees for shits and giggles, then he's not really the man we see in RotJ.

Vader is evil. But he's not the Emperor. And he can be a

evil while being slightly morally nuanced, instead of a one-dimentional thug. I have generally come to dislike Vader's portrayal as a "hype moments and aura" villain who shows up to aura farm and looks badass, because that's not what he was in the original trilogy.

For context, I'm someone who grew up reading thousands of comics stories featuring Disney characters, from the works of certified legends Carl Barks and Don Rosa, to the stories by the various European creators from Italy, Holland,...etc. And I honestly think many of those stories are ripe for adaptation. I know we had two solid DuckTales shows, with the original adapting multiple Barks stories, but I think a series that properly adapts "The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck" would be a smash hit given how amazing the graphic novel is.

Another thing that I think has potential is the Duck Avenger/Paperinik stories. I've been reading PK's New Adventures lately, and I'm suprised by how good they are. They're quite different from your regular Duck Comics, considering they're essentially "what if Donald Duck was a Marvel supehero", but they're also legitimately solid sci-fi/superhero stories that manage to keep the main character recognizable somehow. They had an modest game called "PK: Out of the Shadows" for the Nintendo GameCube, but I believe a show based on them could be amazing. I genuinely believe they should be bigger internationally and outside of Italy.

Also, while the recent Three Caballeros show wasn't amazing, I thought it was quite fun and deserved another season. And even outside of Duck stories, I believe the old Floyd Gottfredson stories for Mickey, and the comics about private eye Mickey in general, can translate nicely to a show.

It's honestly a shame that Disney is largely uninterested in the original characters these days because they can be so much more than mascots. I can't help but miss their classic shorts and 2D animation in general, but I think a theatrical release featuring them in the vein of something like the Fantasia films is a far dream these days. Unfortunately, I don't think kids nowadays care about these characters, and IDK if the adults form enough of a market, but I do hope to see more of the classic characters someday. After all, it all started with a mouse!

Star Wars as a franchise has always had ebbs and flows, and the Disney era has been complicated to say the least. While I personally believe that the Lucas era was stronger on just about every front, I think the Disney era, while mixed, still has plenty of good stories. And I'm a firm believer that the period from 2015-2020 was pretty good except for the sequels. Rebels, Rogue One, Solo, TCW S7, and Fallen Order were all good to excellent imo, and even the comics and books were good for the most part. But what I miss the most from that era is the hype around The Mandalorian.

It's looked upon unfavorably now after four mediocre entries, but The Mandalorian was *the shit* back then during S1 and S2. After the, ahem, divisive sequels, it was a breath of fresh air that united the Fandom and gave us something to look forward to, all while being hailed as the savior of the franchise. Luke's appearance in the S02 finale brought tears and grins to many faces. I certainly geeked out when it happened. Sure, with the benefit of hindsight, The Mandalorian was never a particularly great story. But the first two seasons, even with their flaws, are still fresh and fun and mostly good. Back then, we felt like we were heading in the right direction, and the future looked bright.

Unfortunately, they couldn't really keep that momentum. Mandoverse was/is the main story we followed, and The Book of Boba Fett kinda killed the wind of its sails for many people, and it never came back. Shows like Kenobi and The Acolyte were also divisive at best (I personally didn't care for the former and haven't seen the latter). There were solid shows like Andor, The Bad Batch, Maul: Shadow Lord, and Skeleton Crew, but things definitely lost direction and became more mixed in the 2020s. Even the comics kinda went steadily downhill after 2019 and never recovered, being at an all time low these days. Can't speak for the novels as I haven't read the High Republic initiative, but there's nothing interesting for me on that front either these days. At least Jedi: Survivor was amazing, and I can't wait for the third game.