Thor 4 *spoilers*

[Anteros]

Phase 4, so far:
Black Widow, Eternals, Shang-Chi, No Way Home, Multiverse of Madness, Love and Thunder.
I haven't seen Black Widow, didn't look interesting. Eternals I made three attempts to watch and didn't get over halfway through, solidly in the really category. No Way Home and Shang-Chi are very solid (Shang-Chi kind of screws up the ending by suffering from Marvel's typical Shoehorn-in-a-CGI-Fight disease). Multiverse of Madness is way up there, for me. Love and Thunder is another quite bad one.

See, for me No Way Home was alright, and I haven't seen Shang-Chi but the others were pretty bad. Multiverse of Madness could have been ok but went way too edgy. You also have to include the television shows in phase 4, which all range from mediocre to awful. Mostly awful.

[Eldan]

Oh, sure. The TV series were bad to "occasionally okay, for a few episodes", but I don't think it's entirely fair to put them up against the movies.

Now, my grading scale for Marvel movies is mostly based on "was I very well entertained the entire time as the movie went on", "was I mostly entertained the entire time as the movie went on", "did I go "wait, hang on" more than about three times and were there boring stretches" and "was I bored and/or hated it most of the time, with maybe a few jokes".

And on that scale, Homecoming is a solid 3/4 and the MCU only has a handful of 4/4s.

[Anteros]

Oh, sure. The TV series were bad to "occasionally okay, for a few episodes", but I don't think it's entirely fair to put them up against the movies.

Now, my grading scale for Marvel movies is mostly based on "was I very well entertained the entire time as the movie went on", "was I mostly entertained the entire time as the movie went on", "did I go "wait, hang on" more than about three times and were there boring stretches" and "was I bored and/or hated it most of the time, with maybe a few jokes".

And on that scale, Homecoming is a solid 3/4 and the MCU only has a handful of 4/4s.

I get why it's not entirely fair to compare them to movies....but the decision to release half of phase 4 as bad tv shows instead of movies was Disney's not mine. Not that I think any of those stories would have done any better on the big screen. They're just not very good. Loki is the only one that's remotely interesting, and that's more Hiddleston being charming than anything. The writing itself for the show is terrible.

[Thrudd]

I agree that phase 4 has been the most lackluster yet. With increased volume seems to come decreased quality control and less coordination between creators. Those that follow the formula feel uninspired, and those that do their own thing each feel increasingly disconnected from the others. The only thing most of them still have going for them is that they look good. There are still entertaining moments in many of the movies and some fun action set pieces, but the stories seem to be getting dumber and dumber, and the style of humor becoming more and more silly.

I will admit, I was entertained by some of the comedy in the movie.

Spoiler

Show

I thought the opening action sequence was great, where Thor kills an army of alien owls on Star Wars speeders to GnR with ridiculous martial arts moves. The intentional 80's cheese of it all, hyped up to superhero-god level crazy. The JCVD reference, with completely gratuitous splits that he uses to stop two speeders in mid-air, was gold. At another point he kills one with a spinning jump kick. I love how it implies he basically sits out fights, so the Guardians get to feel like they're doing something useful - he waits until they call him, then he comes in and mops everything up in a couple minutes. Very considerate of him, to give them time to shine.

The interaction with the head priest of the people they were saving in that sequence was funny, as well.

I also chuckled at the idea that the weapons are sentient in some way, and Stormbreaker gets jealous of Mjolnir and the Thunderbolt, and is getting upset with Thor for pining after his ex-weapon.

I was amused by the New Asgard tourist trap, and that Matt Damon and Hemsworth2 and Sam Neill came back to do another over dramatic play. I thought Loki had written the last one, but it seems like that is just these guys' style lol. "Transform!"

Russel Crowe's Greek-ish accent and Zeus' character was hilarious, too. I would have liked Zeus to be a bit more intimidating, but you really can't expect any different from Taika Waititi. Whether or not this works for the way we'd like MCU to be, I've pretty much always liked his style of comedy and all his other films and TV shows.

[Olffandad]

I was entertained by Love and Thunder, but it wasn't the eye-opener that was Ragnarok. Natalie Portman was great, but all the joking dragged down the flow of the movie, IMHO. Waititi needs to dial the comedy gags back, but he is creative and makes a movie no one else could make.

Christian Bale plays his role 150% as he always does.

Spoiler

Show

I would have been okay with Thor/Hemsworth hanging it up here, with Thor wandering off to new adventures deep in space. I don't think we need a Hercules matchup, as the now-obligatory surprise reveal! (gasp)

[Zevox]

I just got back from seeing it. I quite enjoyed it, though perhaps not quite as much as Ragnarok. It was definitely still a lot of good, goofy fun, though, no question there.

Spoiler

Show

Probably my one big criticism is that the ending feels kind of rushed. We jump pretty quickly from the failed confrontation with Gor in the Shadow Realm to the final fight with him at the center of the universe, without even so much as explaining how Thor (and later Jane) can possibly follow him there without Stormbreaker, which seems like it should've been a pretty major obstacle, given that Stormbreaker's ability to use the Bifrost was the whole way they were traveling at all prior to that. Feels like there should've been a lot more in between those sequences in general. Also, I seem to recall Valkyrie's actress making a big deal over how part of the movie was going to be that, now that she was King of Asgard, she needed her queen, implying she'd have a romance subplot here, and that seems to just not exist? There were brief implications she may also be interested in Jane near the beginning (the "we're both on team Jane" line), but that seems to have been quickly forgotten.

Beyond that, good stuff. Gor was honestly a much more compelling villain than most MCU films get, since he honestly has a point - aside from the Asgardians, all of the other gods we see do kind of suck and not care about anyone but themselves. If it weren't for the sword driving him to kill all gods indiscriminately rather than just the awful ones, he could even be a decent hero/anti-hero. The sequence with him capturing the group in the Shadow Realm was pretty darn good for displaying his character too, both the bad and good in it. Makes his change of heart at the end, after losing the sword, more convincing.

Jane was good as well, though honestly I was surprised that they let her die in the end, rather than having Thor (or Gor) wish to cure her cancer. I also did wish there was a better explanation for Mjolnir's reforging, but eh, the ability for it to split into the shards when Jane threw it to strike a bunch of targets at once was also pretty cool.

Also, I was rather pleased with the post-credits scene. Zeus still being alive, now having a personal vendetta against Thor, and getting Hercules involved in it is a good setup for a future film. I'm little surprised they're planning a fifth Thor film, since since they didn't retire Thor for Jane and I was assuming Thor's actor could decide he wants to retire from the MCU like Tony and Cap's did any time now, but I'm not complaining.

[Angelalex242]

I'm...pretty sure Chris Hemsworth isn't going anywhere, particularly since he made it a family thing. He got his wife in on it, he got all of his kids in on it, and now his Thor movies are basically family time. ...and the next Thor movie is at the very LEAST going to have his daughter in it. By the time they make it, she'll probably be a teenager besides.

[Dragonus45]

It is a source of never ending confusion to me how people can describe Gorr, a literal serial killer who wished to commit total genocide, as anything but an outright villain.

[Wintermoot]

It is a source of never ending confusion to me how people can describe Gorr, a literal serial killer who wished to commit total genocide, as anything but an outright villain.

I'm not really sure how far into this discussion we can get before hitting the wall of forum restrictions.

The vast majority of "gods" we are introduced to in the MCU are like Gorr's god from the opening gambit. Cruel, uncaring willing to trade the lives of their worshippers without care or reason for their own personal comforts and gains. In other words you could describe most of the gods, as presented, as "literal serial killers who wish to commit total genocide" without bending language all that far.

People who have experienced unfathomable loss in real life, like children to cancer or the like, I personally find it VERY understandable to blame God. And that's in real life, in the MCU we are presented with a reality where there are actual alien powers that act in that god role. These are powerful aliens who come across impressionable weaker races and convince them to worship them, presumably at least initially, in exchange for boons of some sort or, at least, as some kind of deific protection racket "real nice planet you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it" But eventually, over eons of time, has turned into a bunch of aliens hanging out in Zeus's romper room ignoring their faithful.

So while I personally don't agree or condone Gorr's actions, I certainly can sympathize with him and understand his point of view. But yeah, anyone who groups 100% of any group of people together and holds them responsible for the actions of N% of them without looking at culpable guilt individually is never going to be anything other than a villain when you get to the end of the narrative.

[Dragonus45]

Only the first Thor movie makes it very clear that they are not gods, so really they are just a bunch of aliens who live in some other city that might also be just it's own realm dimension place thing where they party a lot and don't do as much as they could do to help others. Certainly selfish jerks, but that doesn't get the death penalty.

[Zevox]

It is a source of never ending confusion to me how people can describe Gorr, a literal serial killer who wished to commit total genocide, as anything but an outright villain.

Oh, he's definitely an outright villain. He's just one with enough to sympathize with and enough of a real grievance that he's only a few steps away from not being one. Those few steps indeed being the indiscriminate murder and desire to commit genocide - which are implied to be a result of the sword's influence.

Only the first Thor movie makes it very clear that they are not gods, so really they are just a bunch of aliens who live in some other city that might also be just it's own realm dimension place thing where they party a lot and don't do as much as they could do to help others. Certainly selfish jerks, but that doesn't get the death penalty.

That's not how the other gods are portrayed here, though, only the Asgardians.

Spoiler

Show

The one Gor worshipped before was clearly manipulating his people's lives for his own amusement, and Zeus openly laments how people no longer worship him and ask for rain and the like in the post-credits scene.

Outside of Asgard these gods are clearly playing the more traditional role the title implies.

[Tyndmyr]

Just came back from the cinema. I can't recommend the movie. It somehow felt "off". IMHO weaker than Dark World and the MCU seems to fray at the edges. To me it just loses cohesion. What is their role and relation to the rest of the MCU? It was full of stuff that just makes you question

Yes. It's a movie with many lovely elements, including great cinematography, some wonderful music, some great characters, that...just didn't fit together right. It feels weird.

• Where the heck was/were that/they during endgame?
• Why wasn't that used to stop the snap?
• Or after the snap when all seemed hopeless?
• Thor knew about all of that and never brought it up even once?

It's becoming like the disparate comics it's based on. Each doing their own separate thing and occasionally crossovering without otherwise giving a crap about each others worlds.

Thanos gave the MCU direction for a good while. Everything was building towards it, and thus we had cohesion in the shared endpoint. Post Endgame, that is...not really the case.

We have the big ol' Eternal thing going on, we have gods for days now apparently, and also multiversal shenanigans/kang or something. Any of these could make a big cohesive threat, but all of them overlapping with different films just ignoring the others feels kind of random.

Thor in the MCU was always a strange ride from the ambiguous "gods or advanced aliens" angle in movie 1 over the decisively "we are no gods" stance in movie 2 to fully embracing the "god of that, goddess of this, who are you the god of?" stuff in movie 3.

Now movie 4 makes

Spoiler

Show

gods a fully normal thing an dozens of planets. Not just having a religion, but actively interacting and being protected on a day by day basis with/by their deities.

. If that's supposed to always have been normal the events of previous movies should have been reflected that.

Thor 1-2 were mostly coherent. 2 suffered from a weak villain, and was not a great movie overall, but it at least didn't screw with the character of Thor too much. Ragnorok was a big change. I enjoyed it greatly, but it was surely different. We had another drastic change for Endgame, then he went off and joined the guardians of the galaxy, which is just dropped and now we have yet another drastic change. At this point, it is somewhat unclear what Thor is actually after.

Is he finding purpose? If so, why did that happen AFTER he got himself back in shape mostly offscreen?

Focusing on Jane further complicates this. The Thor and Jane plot has always been muddled by actress availability, so it's a mostly offscreen on again, off again presence without much actual focus on their relationship. So, uh, if I've not seen it much, why do I care about it? Why is it suddenly so important again? Sure, you absolutely could have a love story, but the setup for this one was rough.

Tone was also wildly inconsistent, with snark showing up at times where it doesn't really make sense. I mean, I enjoy some good comic relief, but too much at the wrong time, and the motivations of characters get called into question.

So, all in all, this ends up being kind of a mixed film. Lots of fun ideas slapped together, but the overall package doesn't really work out well.

[Thrudd]

Only the first Thor movie makes it very clear that they are not gods, so really they are just a bunch of aliens who live in some other city that might also be just it's own realm where they party a lot and don't do as much as they could do to help others. Certainly selfish jerks, but that doesn't get the death penalty.

They might not be "gods" according to what many real-life religions believe gods are, but in the MCU, those religions were actually worshipping these immortal (almost) beings with incredible cosmic powers to control and create all sorts of things that called themselves "gods". They are "real gods" as far as the MCU is concerned, Thor and Odin were the same guys that the ancient Norse in the MCU believed in. People in the MCU expected these beings to help them and take care of them in return for their prayers and offerings and sacrifices, presumably because that is an arrangement many of these beings made with the mortal species they lived among (or were created to protect? who knows). Also, they are shown as being worse than just selfish jerks. Some of them have outright conquered other planets with armies of the beings they dominate (like Hela and Odin in MCU pre-history).

Spoiler

Show

Remember Zeus mentions them having a competition to see who was able to get the most mortals sacrificed to them, and laughing about it? They aren't just "not helping", some of them are outright abusing and exploiting people and think mortal suffering is funny. Gor's whole people seemed to have died of starvation and thirst, while their gods were hanging out in an oasis, eating offerings and laughing about it. They ask or allow mortal beings to worship them and give offerings, and do not reciprocate like they promised they would (one would assume). The only god we've seen being helpful to anyone, so far, is Thor. Maybe some of the gods in Omnipotence city were not so bad, but not a single one of them stepped up to help Thor, so it doesn't look good for them. That isn't to say it is right to murder all of them, but there is definitely legitimate grievance and understandable reason for someone to be driven to seek revenge. We never find out in the film where the necrosword came from, it probably had its own self-serving agenda other than freeing people from harmful gods, but it certainly had a fertile environment to find hosts with strong hatred of gods.

[Dragonus45]

Oh, he's definitely an outright villain. He's just one with enough to sympathize with and enough of a real grievance that he's only a few steps away from not being one. Those few steps indeed being the indiscriminate murder and desire to commit genocide - which are implied to be a result of the sword's influence.

And I have a strong distaste for the idea that if his murder was more discriminate he would suddenly be not a villain anymore. The issue is his desire to handle his grievance with murder at all, the scale of his plans only makes it worse. The way you frame this makes me wonder if you think he would have been right to start killing the gods who were hiding away like Zues.

That's not how the other gods are portrayed here, though, only the Asgardians.

Spoiler

Show

The one Gor worshipped before was clearly manipulating his people's lives for his own amusement, and Zeus openly laments how people no longer worship him and ask for rain and the like in the post-credits scene.

Outside of Asgard these gods are clearly playing the more traditional role the title implies.

We see that one god on his planet, and Zues missed the time he was worshiped in the past but not doesn't bother and just hangs out in that city. Ah yes, clearly this is grounds for murder.

[Eldan]

Again, Zeus has a contest with the other gods about getting mortals killed in his name.

[Dragonus45]

Again, Zeus has a contest with the other gods about getting mortals killed in his name.

True, he specifically sucks. Zues generally does anytime he shows up in fiction. Now you just have an entire rest of the species to justify murdering.

[Vahnavoi]

There are a lot of people who'd be just fine doing away with what these characters conceptually stand for. Describing offing them as "murder" or "genocide" means nothing - it begs the question of the moral argument at the root of the issue. See also: people who thought Killmonger in Black Panther was the real hero.

For contrast: in context of the MCU, Tony Stark is hailed as a hero who sacrificed himself for the greater good. He snapped away not just Thanos, but also sizeable chunk or all of his army, functionally committing both a physical and ideological genocide. Considering all the other ways he could've used the infinity stones to solve that problem, what in particular makes Stark more justified than Gorr?

(Or just watch Multiverse of Madness, where the point is spat on Strange's face both by Wanda and events of the movie.)

[Ramza00]

It is a source of never ending confusion to me how people can describe Gorr, a literal serial killer who wished to commit total genocide, as anything but an outright villain.

Are the Gods a species? Or more of a social class in a society?

Would you feel different if this was Legend of Korra and Gorr was Zaheer who wanted to kill all the Lords and Ladies of a social class, plus all the mercenaries / knights who use military force to be the in between middle management of this domination structure? Would this be evil?

[Dragonus45]

There are a lot of people who'd be just fine doing away with what these characters conceptually stand for. Describing offing them as "murder" or "genocide" means nothing - it begs the question of the moral argument at the root of the issue. See also: people who thought Killmonger in Black Panther was the real hero.

For contrast: in context of the MCU, Tony Stark is hailed as a hero who sacrificed himself for the greater good. He snapped away not just Thanos, but also sizeable chunk or all of his army, functionally committing both a physical and ideological genocide. Considering all the other ways he could've used the infinity stones to solve that problem, what in particular makes Stark more justified than Gorr?

(Or just watch Multiverse of Madness, where the point is spat on Strange's face both by Wanda and events of the movie.)

Stark killed members of an attacking army in mid combat from an alternate timeline who ceased to exist the moment the timeline was set right again anyways. The situations are not remotely equal.

Are the Gods a species? Or more of a social class in a society?

Given how fuzzy the MCU has been about what does or does not define the powerful aliens that sometimes are called gods that is a good question. It's lack of an answer only makes Gorr even worse of a person and more likely to continue going off target and killed innocent people on his stupid, stupid, quest for blood.

[Zevox]

And I have a strong distaste for the idea that if his murder was more discriminate he would suddenly be not a villain anymore. The issue is his desire to handle his grievance with murder at all, the scale of his plans only makes it worse. The way you frame this makes me wonder if you think he would have been right to start killing the gods who were hiding away like Zues.

For gods who make a game out of having mortals sacrificed in their name, and who are too powerful to be stopped or held to account any other way, like Zeus? I could certainly see it as something that a darker hero or anti-hero would do. Deadpool, for instance.

True, he specifically sucks. Zues generally does anytime he shows up in fiction. Now you just have an entire rest of the species to justify murdering.

I don't believe anyone is trying to say that Gor's desire to commit genocide on all gods is remotely justified. Just that his grievances with them are legitimate and his feelings about them entirely understandable, which is more than can be said for most MCU villains. It's a lot more than could be said for Hela or Zeus, for instance.

[Dragonus45]

For gods who make a game out of having mortals sacrificed in their name, and who are too powerful to be stopped or held to account any other way, like Zeus? I could certainly see it as something that a darker hero or anti-hero would do. Deadpool, for instance.

Considering Deadpool only even barely qualifies as an anti-hero in his most cleaned up and scrubbed versions I think he either makes a poor example. Or a great one of where my standard is versus where yours is on that front I guess.

I don't believe anyone is trying to say that Gor's desire to commit genocide on all gods is remotely justified. Just that his grievances with them are legitimate and his feelings about them entirely understandable, which is more than can be said for most MCU villains. It's a lot more than could be said for Hela or Zeus, for instance.

To paraphrase folks both here and elsewhere "If he had better aim he wouldn't be a villain" sounds a lot like justifying the serial killing murderer to me.

[Vahnavoi]

Stark killed members of an attacking army in mid combat from an alternate timeline.

And? Stark could've dealt with them in uncountable different ways the moment he had the gauntlet. What justified the particular thing he did beyond simple, snappy revenge?

who ceased to exist the moment the timeline was set right again anyways.

Dude, the movie by itself by voice of the Ancient One rebukes this argument. (And then there's Multiverse of Madness - again.)

The situations are not remotely equal.

And? Stark revenge snapping Thanos' army is not remotely equal to a soldier shooting an enemy soldier - and even if it was, you'd still have to explain why that is heroic instead of villanous. See all arguments about how (super)heroes should never kill if they can avoid it.

[Ramza00]

Given how fuzzy the MCU has been about what does or does not define the powerful aliens that sometimes are called gods that is a good question

I feel this is a storytelling advantage, much like what metaphor is mutants is an advantage (the answer is all of them, and none of them, for it is own thing.)

Sure it causes people psychic distress for they are trying to “nail down” concepts, but the concept being amorphous allows Marvel to reinvent the IP with each story. They are both stand alone, and also part of a larger tale even if that tale is an irregular pearl aka the baroque.

———

Edit: Gorr is an anti-villian not an anti-hero. Anti-Villians are a personality thing where someone people can identify with them, and how they are a force of nature in the story, yet simultaneously have distance with not full identification. In some peoples heads anti-villain are fun for they allow the viewer to have it both ways, in other peoples heads it is the opposite experience where anti-villains are anti fun for the same reasons. It is much like horror movies, the layer of things to cause higher forms of pleasure or psychic pain is how many forms of cinema work.

[Zevox]

Considering Deadpool only even barely qualifies as an anti-hero in his most cleaned up and scrubbed versions I think he either makes a poor example. Or a great one of where my standard is versus where yours is on that front I guess.

Deadpool is pretty much the textbook definition of an anti-hero. Considerably less driven by morals and more violent than the typical hero, but still generally does the right thing and targets people who deserve to be taken down.

To paraphrase folks both here and elsewhere "If he had better aim he wouldn't be a villain" sounds a lot like justifying the serial killing murderer to me.

That's not paraphrasing folks here, it's you either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what's being said. (I'm not involved in discussions of this elsewhere, so can't speak to what anyone elsewhere is saying.)

[Tyndmyr]

And I have a strong distaste for the idea that if his murder was more discriminate he would suddenly be not a villain anymore. The issue is his desire to handle his grievance with murder at all, the scale of his plans only makes it worse. The way you frame this makes me wonder if you think he would have been right to start killing the gods who were hiding away like Zues.



We see that one god on his planet, and Zues missed the time he was worshiped in the past but not doesn't bother and just hangs out in that city. Ah yes, clearly this is grounds for murder.

Do I think it is moral to off the guy who is holding a contest for most human sacrifices?

Yes.

The other gods, sure, we don't really know a lot about all of them, the killing of them may or may not be moral depending on specifics. Surely, Thor is depicted as doing good and not wantonly murdering people for no reason, so killing him would be unjustified. Thor and Zeus are depicted very differently.

Also, no real moral quandry in Stark snapping Thanos's army.

See, the difference is in who is the aggressor. If Thanos's army hadn't come to Stark and started a fight, Stark would not have gone to them and started one. Fighting in defense of oneself/one's friends is different than going to conquer people for the hell of it.

That's kind of what makes Gorr interesting. He starts out with a fairly justified conflict, as he is just begging for life, and being as good and faithful a person as he can, and only fights back in extremis. Unfortunately, the only weapon he could use for that was corrupting, and he was clearly falling into evil as a result, going and starting fights in turn. His initial strike...morally fine, sure. Hunting everyone down is obviously over the line.

[Dragonus45]

Deadpool is pretty much the textbook definition of an anti-hero. Considerably less driven by morals and more violent than the typical hero, but still generally does the right thing and targets people who deserve to be taken down.

And also routinely tossed his blind captive roommate into a room filed with sharp objects all around her and broken glass on the floor for laughs.

That's not paraphrasing folks here, it's you either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what's being said. (I'm not involved in discussions of this elsewhere, so can't speak to what anyone elsewhere is saying.)

Beyond that, good stuff. Gor was honestly a much more compelling villain than most MCU films get, since he honestly has a point - aside from the Asgardians, all of the other gods we see do kind of suck and not care about anyone but themselves. If it weren't for the sword driving him to kill all gods indiscriminately rather than just the awful ones, he could even be a decent hero/anti-hero.

Oh, he's definitely an outright villain. He's just one with enough to sympathize with and enough of a real grievance that he's only a few steps away from not being one. Those few steps indeed being the indiscriminate murder and desire to commit genocide - which are implied to be a result of the sword's influence.

Italics are my emphasis, these quotes seems to imply if he was more discriminate in his murder spree he wouldn't be a villain. If I misunderstood please correct me.

And? Stark could've dealt with them in uncountable different ways the moment he had the gauntlet. What justified the particular thing he did beyond simple, snappy revenge?

And? The and is that there is no equivalence between going to murder a bunch of people because they have the wrong label and you are mad about it and bombing an attacking enemy army. Which is exactly what Stark did. He also had five seconds to work out his plan before Thanos came over there and got the gems back, probably by taking his whole hand off. He also had exactly one wish to do it with. He had no time whatsoever to work through all those other possible plans unless he were to do something like flee with the thing while Thanos and his army chewed up all his friends and allies and potentially get to him while he runs. Considering the whole "only one path to victory" issue from Dr. Strange's predictions failing to escape is probably what actually happens in that scenario.

Dude, the movie by itself by voice of the Ancient One rebukes this argument. (And then there's Multiverse of Madness - again.)

The movie seemed pretty clear that so long as they returned things back to where they came from things would normalize. But the MCU also isn't terribly consistent and it's mostly a moot point either way.

And? Stark revenge snapping Thanos' army is not remotely equal to a soldier shooting an enemy soldier - and even if it was, you'd still have to explain why that is heroic instead of villanous. See all arguments about how (super)heroes should never kill if they can avoid it.

No, it's much more equivalent to an air strike on an enemy position. Generally much more efficient then just shooting someone one at a time, also an active battlefield in a wartime scenario is not the same as day to day bank robbery foiling or whatever else heroes, who aren't Batman because that guys rogues gallery are very much a separate discussion, deal with on average.

[Ramza00]

Just a reminder since we are playing language games with what is good and evil, and what is justice, and what is villain vs hero and anti-villain vs anti-hero.

That one age old question since writing, is “the trouble / problem” of evil. It used to be called the trouble of theodicy in the Greek language. Theo for God, and dicy / dikē being the greek word for Justice and a goddess in her own right representing the abstract concept. In the Romans they called dike by the name Justitia / Iustitia and from this Latin word we get the English word Justice.

The trouble of Theodicy, also known as the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.

Are the gods in Thor 4 vindicated, are they blameless and innocent? Nope! Should they be sacrificed out of envy and a grudge? ¿Maybe?

¿Maybe? for the gods are not just individuals they also permeate the world as systems of power. They should be doing things like Thor is as a Guardian of the Galaxy. This is the same Kantian question we are asking even though the concept is at least 5000 years old and not 400, do we sacrifice lives or do we not?

-----

And we got our answer, Gorr traveled to a timeless realm prior to the big bang for Eternity is everywhere and the first to reach Eternity can restart the universe via time travel. Gorr who hated injustice could have picked anything and in the end Gorr picked Love for that is why we endure in a world of suffering.

There is a quote I want to say, which I will not due to the rules of the board (even though I think it technically would be allowed), so I will talk about it. Thor 4 answer to the suffering in this world and whether one can reboot it is the same answer as a famous Joseph Campbell quote. A quote that Gloria Trillo utters when she is visiting the Zoo in the Sopranos.
People will recognize what I am talking about, or they will not.

[Zevox]

And also routinely tossed his blind captive roommate into a room filed with sharp objects all around her and broken glass on the floor for laughs.

Is that something from the comics? Because I don't believe that was in the films or video game, which is where I'm familiar with him from.

Italics are my emphasis, these quotes seems to imply if he was more discriminate in his murder spree he wouldn't be a villain. If I misunderstood please correct me.

First, that's not the same as saying "If he had better aim he wouldn't be a villain," since that implies that something of what he was doing was an accident or that there was nothing wrong with his intentions. And if you can't see how what I said isn't justifying his actual actions or intentions in the film, I honestly don't know what to tell you, because literally nothing that I've said does anything like that that.

But yes, if he were more "discriminate" in what he was doing, he could certainly have ended up not as a villain, but an anti-hero. By targeting only gods who he knew were engaged in awful acts, such as the one he killed at the start of the film or Zeus, he could have been a vigilante trying to bring down beings so awful and powerful that it's entirely arguable they deserved killing, which is what anti-heroes typically are. He wasn't, he instead simply decided that any and all gods were automatically the same and had to die - to all appearances due to the sword's influence, but it's still what he did - and that's what makes him a villain instead. But that's another route someone like him could have gone from the same starting point he had.

[Dragonus45]

Is that something from the comics? Because I don't believe that was in the films or video game, which is where I'm familiar with him from.

Ah yes, it is. The movies in particular are a wildly more sanitized version of the character. Not sure how old you are or what era you got into comic related media in but there is also a potential generational gap since I am told they mellowed him out a tad. I find him kind of grating since most writers just sort of coast on "zany humor" Deadpool so I haven't kept up with him as much.

First, that's not the same as saying "If he had better aim he wouldn't be a villain," since that implies that something of what he was doing was an accident or that there was nothing wrong with his intentions. And if you can't see how what I said isn't justifying his actual actions or intentions in the film, I honestly don't know what to tell you, because literally nothing that I've said does anything like that that.

I think we might have been talking past each other there then, let me regroup my thinking words.

[Zevox]

Ah yes, it is. The movies in particular are a wildly more sanitized version of the character. Not sure how old you are or what era you got into comic related media in but there is also a potential generational gap since I am told they mellowed him out a tad. I find him kind of grating since most writers just sort of coast on "zany humor" Deadpool so I haven't kept up with him as much.

I'm in my 30s, and "when I got into comic related media" kind of depends on how you want to define that. Watched some of the 90s and 2000s superhero shows when I was younger (X-Men, Batman, Justice League, X-Men: Evolution, Teen Titans, etc), have played some but far from all of their video games, and watched most but not all of Marvel's films since Iron Man, and a few of DC's. As far as the actual comics go, I haven't read much - Geoff Johns' run on Green Lantern is the majority of it, with only a handful of more stand-alone stories besides.

For Deadpool, there was one actual comic trade I borrowed from a friend at one point, but I couldn't even identify it for you specifically anymore. Otherwise, I'm not familiar with his comics version specifically, just the films and the one video game, but I quite liked those.