[…] ← Thor: The Dark World […]

@ Dan O.:

I think this will be the norm from now for Marvel movies. The movies and the SHIELD series will all co-exist and be inter-connected. This is great for more than one reason:

– Marvel Cinematic Universe will be hard to reboot so seasonal cash-grab re-makes (like Sony’s Spider-Man movies) are not going to be a thing.

– New writers and directors will be working off an established background and so they won’t be able to completely ruin the continuity with their “creative ideas”

– A single bad movie won’t ruin the franchise, and a popular comic book hero whose movie turns out to be a dud can still come back in style via a big cross-over feature (see Hulk in Avengers)

@ MacHala:

Good point.

I think the Bechdel test here is inconclusive. Jane and Darcy talk about their scientific research, but the conversation opens with the mention that the anomalies they are seeing are similar to those that brought Thor to Earth the first time. So… Maybe?

Jane also talks with some of the science women and with queen Friga about things albeit very briefly. So I guess partial credit? I don’t know? What do you think?

On the positive note: Jane in Thor 2 is much more interesting than Pepper Potts in Iron Man 3, and banter between her and Darcy was fun and engaging. While Kat Dennings is still doing the snarky sidekick shtick actually had stuff to do this time around. So that’s a good thing.

That and Friga has actual lines, agency and motivations in this movie. I honestly can’t recall anything she did in the first one. And this is Rene Ruso we are talking about – a big name, no some random nameless extra. It was great to see her take initiative, and to actually hold her own against the king of Dark Elves. So yeah, points for that.

In other words: they did ok. There wasn’t really much to complain about, which is maybe why I didn’t mention anything. Do I complain to much?

Is it culturally relevant victory for feminism? I honestly don’t think so. The movie is more or less just Thor and Loki show, which of course is not surprising. The women are there, and they are characters with motivations and agency – which is as it should be. This shouldn’t be an exception but rather a minimum standard. So should we praise a movie for meeting a bare minimum standard?

Then again, it isn’t just the women who got overshadowed either. Poor Christopher Eccleston really tried to be a compelling bad guy, but got completely outstaged by Hiddleston doing his thing being a much better villain.

What is your take on it?

You didn’t answer the important question: does it pass the Bechdel test? (sorry, but lately you’ve been obviously quite interested in feminism and venting it through the blog and twitter and it is at times kind of annoying, so I couldn’t pass opportunity for this rant as this seems to be first post in some time you actually write on topic that could be connected to gender-equality/feminism but actually don’t make any reference to it)…

Great review Luke. Cool to see a stand-alone Marvel movie actually acknowledge the fact that yes, the Avengers did happen, and that they still exist in this universe, even if they aren’t always popping-up to say hello or kick some butt.