#I have been on a Marvel Rewatching spree and I am just invested into the MCU

[nemo-of-house-hamartia]

Unpopular Opinion, but I think the first 2 Thor Movies were better than the last two directed by Taika, BUT LEMME EXPLAIN WHY.

I am ABSOLUTELY not dissing Taika as a director, not his take on the plot and characters.

In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed both "Thor: Ragnarok" and "Thor: Love and Thunder". I can personally say that I liked them quite a lot. They were entertaining, I cackled like an idiot for most of the movies and I did have a great time throughout the best part of them. (plus, Jeff Goldblum as The Grandmaster, Cate Blanchett as Hela -dear Gods, Hela fml - and Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie...LIKE. THEY WERE *EVERYTHING. *E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G*)

What I DIDN'T LIKE was the STRIKING dissonance in vibes and mood between the first two movies and the last two.

We went from Kenneth Branagh's "Serious, almost Shakesperian motifs" in the first Thor (up to this date, still very much my favorite) to Loki's"Heavens, no. I've run out of favor with the Grandmaster, and in exchange for codes and access to a ship, I'm asking for safe passage... through the Anus."

I personally am not a fan of movies connected to a certain character, that are set up to have a certain motif and that start up with a certain vibe behind them, and then, one movie later, they get a turn left so sudden, I couldn't even brace myself because it didn't see it coming AT ALL.

And once more, I am absolutely not dissing Taika's take on the movies, but rather whoever thought it was a good idea to bring such dissonance into the continuum of the events connected to the Asgardians.

If Thor's whole story had been set up to evolve through a more comical lens FROM THE BEGINNING, such as in Taika's movie, I wouldn't have had a problem AT ALL with how the movies had subsequentially developed, because there was a thread that was followed, and it was consistent. On the contrary, I would have probably been equally pissed had they started on the comical path and then took a more serious, gloomier turn with the last two (so basically the opposite of what has happened instead).

So, I guess, what I am trying to say is that I failed to appreciate the last two movies 100% because of the lack of consistency in tones and also characterization of certain characters.

And this brings me to want to spend just a few words on Loki.

I adored Loki from the first Thor, how he was characterized in "The Avengers" and then how he still was himself in Thor 2, but with some growth to himself. Loki, from what I perceived, was set up to be a tragic villain bordering on the Anti-Hero territories, which was consistent with his mythologic counterpart, so, I truly failed to appreciate his evolution as the buttmonkey to Thor's jokes. While I appreciated that Taika kept Loki's mischievousness (I mean, Loki is THE God of Mischief), I didn't like the fact that he went from being considered a threat to being treated as a nuisance at best, and a buffoon at worst.

(don't let me start on the fact that Sygin was never brought into the MCU lore, because Gods forbid we bring someone that adds to Loki's whole character and bring even more depth to him. But that's precisely what fanfictions are for, fml.).

So, what I am trying to say is that I wish "Ragnarok" and "Love and Thunder" had been done with a little bit of criterium AND in correlations to how the whole Asgardian lore had been explored in the first two movies, rather than just deciding to throw all that to the nettles and go down another path altogether.

And I do realize that these movies have been done over the course of almost 15 years, so, of course, things change over time. But I still think that there was A LOT of potential to explore Thor and the Asgardians' lore in a more cohesive way.

that's my two cents right there.

HERE, LEMME LEAVE YOU WITH *THESE* DISNEY PRINCES, AFTER ALL THESE BABBLES.