Thor: Ragnarok Was A Divisive MCU Film

Taika Waititi's Thor: Ragnarok is proving to be very divisive among MCU viewers - and a recent interview with the director himself has explained why. When the movie was first released last year, it was highly praised. Early reviews complimented the film on its crowd-pleasing humor, its glorious sense of irreverence, and its impressive energy. It was swiftly certified "fresh" on review aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes, with 98 percent of initial reviewers giving a positive review. Although many critics pointed out that Thor: Ragnarok was far from perfect, they almost all enjoyed watching it.

The social media conversation, however, has been far more interesting. Initial reactions to the film were very much uncritical, with viewers focusing on the things they'd loved - most notably the humor and use of "Immigrant Song" in a stunning action sequence. While some audiences expressed criticism, these appeared to be in a minority. As the months have passed, though, that's changed. Some of the movie's fans remain as uncritical as ever, but there's a groundswell of deeper analysis that seems to be building force. It now looks as though Thor: Ragnarok was a lot more divisive than it first seemed; it's just those who disliked the movie, or indeed were ambivalent about it, were initially quiet about their opinions.

Director Taika Waititi recently conducted an interview with The Empire Film Podcast, in which he discussed many aspects of the production - from the humor to the themes, from its MCU links to how he handled emotions as part of the narrative. Using Waititi's own comments, we're going to focus in on just why the director's choices made Thor: Ragnarok quite so distinctive - and controversial.

None of this is to claim anybody's wrong about Thor: Ragnarok, more a look at why, almost a year alter, what at first seems like a knockabout comedy is still being debated.

This Page: These Aren't the Characters We Know and Love
Page 2: Ragnarok Distances Itself From The MCU
Page 3: A (Deliberate) Lack of Emotional Impact

These Aren't The Characters of the Comics - Or Even the MCU

Thor and Bruce Banner Hulk in Thor Ragnarok

Marvel films are generally viewed as "comic book movies," but in truth that's not quite the case. Even the most comic-book-accurate of films tend to rewrite their source material, simply because what works well in one medium won't translate effectively to another. Still, the fact remains that many of the key figures in Marvel grew up reading the original comics, and directing these films is a childhood dream come true. You only have to look to Scott Derrickson, whose love for Doctor Strange leads to him teasing announcements with images from the classic comics.

Taika Waititi, however, is no lover of the comics. In fact, he didn't even bother reading them after getting the job. As he explained:

"Here’s the thing about me guys, I did not really do my research. I read one issue of Thor as my research. Not even a graphic novel, one of the thin, thin ones. And by the end of it I was like, well we’re not doing that, let’s not really look at those anymore. Cool art, I love the art but I can’t stand the way everyone talks."

Now, it's important to stress that this is a legitimate creative choice. The first two Thor films had attempted to stay relatively true to the style and tone of the comics, and they hadn't been particularly successful. Waititi had been brought on board to try something new, and Marvel backed him 100 percent on that. But this creative choice nevertheless alienates people who loved the Ragnarok arc in the comics, or even the popular Planet Hulk storyline that was incorporated into the movie.

Surprisingly, though, Waititi is quite open about the fact that he wasn't really interested in how Thor and the Hulk had been portrayed in the movies before either. He apparently found it impossible to empathize with them:

"When you look at comic book characters we don’t have anything in common with them, especially not with this rich kid space Viking or this bipolar, angry green beast. So you’ve got to bring them into situations that all of us have been in, we’ve all been annoyed about our behavior and felt guilt about that."

This statement is actually pretty remarkable. The Hulk, in particular, is quite an important figure in that he's commonly used by child counselors. Children who feel misunderstood, who struggle to handle anxiety and rage, often find themselves able to empathize with the Hulk. That's been the case for decades, well before the Hulk was adapted for the big screen. And yet, Waititi couldn't see it; he couldn't feel any connection to the characters. "I always thought that Banner was super boring in the other movies, just a boring, whinging, nerd," he observed. "In this one at least he had some dimensions."

That's why the characters feel unrecognizable when compared to the comics or even previous MCU movies. Waititi wasn't interested in them, and redesigned them from the ground up. For some viewers, he gave us the best versions we've ever seen of these heroes. For others, he misinterpreted them.

Page 2: Ragnarok Distances Itself From The MCU

The Warriors Three arrive on Earth in Thor

Out With the Old, In With The New

As far as Waititi was concerned, Thor: Ragnarok was about destroying the old Thor franchise and launching something entirely new. As he explained at length:

"This entire film is what it was. The destruction of Thor 1 and 2 and everything you really felt like you knew from those films and the recreation of this thing which I feel stands alone by itself even though watching the first 2 films gives you some cool little things to reference. But I do feel like, for me at least, it’s like a new Thor 1."

That, more than any other reason, is why this is the "Ragnarok" of the Thor trilogy. It's the destruction of everything that we already knew of the Thor franchise, and it's done in a dismissive, irreverent manner that basically suggests nothing that went before is worth anything. That's why the Warriors Three are, in Waititi's word, "obliterated." It's why Jane Foster is dismissed from the franchise with a brief piece of dialogue. Again, your mileage may vary with this approach; if you enjoyed the first two Thor movies, you're likely to feel a sharp sense of discontinuity here.

Ragnarok Doesn't Really Fit With The Rest Of The MCU

All this means that Thor: Ragnarok doesn't quite fit with the MCU films that came before it. The Thor trilogy is unlike anything else in the MCU to date. You can pretty much watch the Iron Man films back-to-back; they retain the same general tone and style. The same is true for the Captain America movies. But Thor is disjointed, with Ragnarok (intentionally) feeling like an abrupt dismissal of the first two films and the launch of what seems like a whole new franchise.

And Thor: Ragnarok doesn't actually fit with the Avengers films either. Avengers: Age of Ultron set up a quest for the Infinity Stones, but Ragnarok isn't interested in that. Surprisingly, it doesn't even set up Avengers: Infinity War too well. The first scripts for Infinity War were reportedly being prepared before Marvel had even decided how Thor: Ragnarok was going to end, meaning those opening scenes were redrafted quite a lot. That's presumably why the Asgardian slaughter in Infinity War is so disjointed, deploying a lot of "tell-not-show" storytelling. What's more, it's notable that the Russo brothers didn't seem too impressed with Thor's new status quo; his character arc in Avengers: Infinity War was basically the undoing of everything Waititi had done, with the God of Thunder regaining an eye and getting a new weapon.

All this means your appreciation for Thor: Ragnarok is likely to be influenced by the question of whether you prefer to view the MCU movies as standalones, or as part of a greater arc. If it's the latter, you're likely to get a little frustrated with this film.

Page 3: A (Deliberate) Lack of Emotional Impact

An image of Asgard being destroyed in Thor Ragnarok

Why The Fall of Asgard Lacked Emotional Impact

Now let's focus in on a particular scene that has caused controversy; the destruction of Asgard. It's a strange moment, one that feels emotionally mismatched; you're literally watching Thor's home explode before your eyes, and instead of feel grief, you're encouraged to laugh at Korg. Even Waititi admits that this particular joke is one that has "no business being in cinema, let alone in a Thor film." It should be, he confesses, the most poignant, emotional and dramatic moment in the entire movie. Korg's dialogue undermines the scene's entire impact, in quite an incredible way.

Waititi's interview makes it clear why he did that. The reality is that he, as the film's director, simply didn't care for Asgard; he had no emotional stakes in the scene himself, and he didn't see why he should try to encourage the viewers to have them either. As he explained:

"I wasn’t really that keen on what Asgard looks like. Seems like quite a privileged place to live. It’s completely made of gold, it’s just full of nerds and scholars. Doesn’t seem like a party town, doesn’t seem like my kind of party town. Seems like a lot of people wandering around in robes holding books and talking about lofty ideas. Which is fine, but I don’t want to live on an entire world like that. I’d like to at least think there’s some Asgardian nightclubs but I’ve never seen any in any of the movies. It’s too gilded, it’s too sparkly."

Your reaction to the Korg scene, which Waititi seems rather proud of, will likely vary depending on two factors. The first is whether or not you actually cared about Asgard in the first place; if you did, there's a good chance you'll view Korg's dialogue as irritating. The second is whether or not you feel Waititi's subversion of the typical dramatic structure works in this particular instance.

A Lack of Emotion and a Focus on Humor

Odin sits with Thor and Loki in a green field in Thor Ragnarok

While we've focused in on one specific controversial example, the truth is that the whole film is strongly influenced by Taika Waititi's trademark humor. By his own admission, Waititi didn't want viewers to feel a range of emotional responses; he simply wanted them to laugh. That desire colored a number of the director's creative choices. Take, for example, the death of Odin. The first trailers for Thor: Ragnarok showed that scene taking place in a New York back-alley, an approach that Waititi describes as a "kind of Fisher King style scenario." But when this scene was played against test audiences, it stirred up too strong an emotional reaction for Waititi's liking.

"It was just something about having him there and then dying which definitely made audiences, test screenings, feel too sorry for him, it was such a bummer. Seeing the great King of Asgard stuck in New York and you feel sorry for him and then he dies, it was almost too much."

So the setting was changed, purely because Waititi didn't want viewers to be reacting to his film with complex emotions. Instead, he wanted them to laugh. Again, this is a driven creative decision with clear purpose and effect; but it's nevertheless a controversial one. It points to why so few of the actors really focus on emoting in the film, and why Thor barely pauses to grieve even though he's lost so much. In Waititi's view, it's all about the humor, and the jokes "happen hard and fast but at the right moment."

Strangely, the interview with Waititi also suggests some of his creative choices with the gags were more questionable too. For example, it seems he originally planned to do a scene on the Rainbow Bridge that was a callback to the first Avengers film. All the heroes were stood on the Rainbow Bridge, side by side, with Loki next to the Hulk. "And then Hulk just smashes Loki, punches him out of the frame, just like in Avengers when he did that at the train station to Thor," Waititi explained. Unfortunately, he had to make a choice due to time constraints; did he keep that, or the gag where Banner face-planted the Rainbow Bridge? The one he chose seems easier to weave into the Hulk's character arc in Avengers: Infinity War, and yet it was decided simply based on humor rather than story potential.

Ultimately, Waititi viewed Thor: Ragnarok as something of a superhero slapstick comedy. If that's what you want in a Marvel movie, then this will be a hit. If you prefer with a little more character-work, where you feel a range of emotions, then Thor: Ragnarok isn't for you.

It's important to remember that Taika Waititi didn't make Thor: Ragnarok in isolation. He was chosen to direct this film by Marvel Studios off the back of black comedies, and they supported him in all his creative decisions. That may well indicate that Waititi's distaste with the Thor franchise is shared by Marvel, that they consider the last two to number among their weakest, and that they too wanted to toss the old aside in favor of a straightforward superhero comedy. Regardless, though, it's now becoming clear that these decisions were a lot more controversial than they seemed at first viewing, and there are valid reasons for this; it's because Thor: Ragnarok simply won't appeal to everybody. And, when Marvel movies can often risk being too middle of the road, that's not a bad thing.