outsider wrote:Simonson deserves props by the set design and costumers - minus the 80s color palette, the Thor movies have that Simonson aesthetic.
Speaking as a Simonson-Thor lover, as someone who considers the 45-issue unbroken run of Simonson-Thor issues as the pride and joy of my collection, I don't completely agree.
The first one did have a Simonson aesthetic.
The second one did NOT.
The second movie did not do enough with the dark elves and their mythology. Malekith, in Simonson's version, is NOT a mindless villain running around trying to take over the multi-verse. He has a plan, a purpose. (He's also not the main bad-guy but that's beside the point). The plans of Simonson's villains... how should I put this... make sense
. This cannot really be said for the Malekith of the movie, because the character and his plan are so one-dimensional.
Parts of the second movie had a good Simonson feel to them. Loki, to be sure, had Simonson's version written all over him. He's complex, interesting, evil, cruel, yet interesting, funny, and reluctantly heroic at the most surprising times. That's Simonson's Loki, I will grant you.
But the other characters were flat and uninspired. Sif and the Warriors Three did not get anywhere near enough screen time. And Sif, in particular, has been a huge disappointment twice now. In Simonson's books, Sif is basically second only to Thor himself, and perhaps Balder (who has not been in either movie, disappointingly enough), in power and ability. She says, in the movie, that she can take on a horde of guards, but where is that scene
? They should have showed her kicking the ass of an army all by herself, because Sif can do that. The movies do not provide any real sense that Sif is nearly the equal of Thor. The movies provide the viewer with no strong impression of how awesome she is.
And why the hell was Hogun the Grim almost written out of the movie? Did the actor refuse to reprise his role or something? We saw him in the very beginning and at the very end, but he had no real part to play. Simonson used Hogun extensively. (Of course, to get the most out of Hogun you also need Hildy, and they haven't bothered to show her either, except maybe as an extra in the Volstagg-family scene.)
Most importantly, however, what TTDW lacks is characterization
. The Simonson Thors are not great because of the action and the uber-villains like Malekith and Surtur. They're great because they have great characters, and Simonson does an incredible job of developing those characters and making them come to live. TTDW did not do this with anyone but Darcy and Loki, and to some degree Thor himself. All the other characters -- Jane, Malekith, Sif, Volstagg, Hogun, Fandral, even Odin -- were just flat and uninspired. And you can't have flat characters and then try to claim that the movie has a "Simonson aesthetic."
No.... I'm a huge, HUGE Simonson Thor fan. If it had a real Simonson aesthetic I'd have seen it 3 times already. The first movie had a fair bit, but this one did not.