I liked them both as well. I am a huge fan of both franchises. Thor gave me that mystical element which no movie has done for me in a long time. Just the scnences of Asgaurd were simply amazing to me, the awesome build of it, the shot of the planet going from one pole to the other through the core and up throug the ocean.
MOS gave me that long yearning to see what modern day writers and CG could do and it didnt dissapoint. Somepoints were a little dry just like there were a few parts of thor that were dry as well and I thought they could have left out and put into deleted scnenes on DVD release.
Overall they both did different things for me. If was great to see the MOS on the big screen again and really see new takes to all the charachters especially Jor-El, Faora, Laura and all of Krypton.
I am blessed I live in a time when I have both at my disposal, we are all blessed!
__________________ Don't play games with me General
I think I liked Thor so much because he and Superman are similar in a lot of aspects. I remember looking forward to what Marvel could with Thor as a sort of appetizer/an idea of what could be done with Superman
They are simmilar but pride and vanity is what seperates them, Kal will always be humble and Thor will always be pridefull. Just who they are, you have to take it or leave it. I love Thor for certain things, and Kal for many others.
But Goku is Supreme in character
__________________ Don't play games with me General
Thor is better. Not to say either were great but Thors movie made you actually believe the relationships between the characters unlike MoS. MoS was a film with no substance at all.
Better action. Better story. Better climax. The world seemed to be in real danger unlike Thor when the threat seemed far off and unimportant. Thor as a god didn't get enough screen time and his enemies seemed far too weak to pose a real threat. Loki, Frost Giants and the destroyer were all easily dispatched.
I disagree on all fronts. Supermans action was hard to follow and repetitive. The danger in Thir seemed far better mainly due to the shrewdness of Loki and his overall competence when compared to failure Zod.
Thor is a beast and even despite his powers is a listed unlike Superman. Characters were better portrayed in Thor than in Superman.
I liked MOS much better. The big thing that always bothered me about the Thor movie was that it seemed like the bigger, badder fight happened at the beginning of the flick, not at the end.
No. This is the era for people who have always found joy in realms of imagination, in exploring the human condition through metaphor, for people who ventured outside the box of "conventional adult interests," always knowing there was more to life than Kimye, the Dow Jones and baseball.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: Training the machines of War.
I thought Thor was good when everything took place in Asgard, on Earth the movie slowed to a crawl and I forced myself to finish the film. Keneth Branaugh toned thor down WAY too much. MOS was superior on all fronts, IMO.
I loved Thor. It was my favorite of the Marvel movies except for Avengers. Unfortunately, I agree with the majority of this.
Man of Steel had better action, and definitely a better climax. I actually liked both their stories the same, but Man of Steel escalated and wrapped up better than Thor. Zod seemed like much more of a thread and felt like he had more impact than Loki did.
As for characters and their interactions, I'd give that to Thor. The only characters I liked on MoS were Superman,Zor-el, Zod, Faora, and Lois. Luckily, the entire movie revolved around them, so thats not too much of a problem. Thor on the other hand, had a much more well rounded cast that had better interactions.
Thor was a better all around movie. Better acting and story. The fact that it was the first real incarnation of a Thor movie gives it an advantage because even though MoS was a very good movie, we've seen it before.
__________________ "I feel lethal, on the verge of frenzy."