The recent announcement that “Thor: Ragnarok” will include the Hulk (presumably still portrayed by the excellent Mark Ruffalo) came as a pleasant surprise to most. This longtime fan of the titular hero is still mulling it over.
At this point, the world of Marvel Studio’s Cinematic Universe is a sprawling one. It is rightly criticized as formulaic, but its success is largely a matter of reproducing formula, in keeping with the comics source material at its core. “Phase 1” was a success on account of the general fidelity to the origin stories that are its core: the beginnings of Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America as presented in the MCU were close enough to their 1960s print counterparts to excite and satisfy generations of nerds. To my mind, “Phase 2” was also largely judged in terms of fidelity to source material. Hence the failure of “Iron Man 3.” This film had a fine political argument—and Ben Kingsley was hilarious—but my inner nerd remains disappointed in the now infamous twist. No amount of one-shot backpedalling is going to repair the damage anytime soon. If the studio could not devise an inoffensive way of dealing with a racial caricature (i.e. “the Mandarin”), they should have picked another villain and held off on Iron Man’s top foe until a better solution emerged.
Fidelity to the source material will, usually, win over the fans. I had long given up buying / reading Captain America comics when the “Winter Soldier” story was published (I still can’t believe the cardinal “resurrection” rule of Marvel Comics is no more) but the source material was innovative—not a stunt—and thus translated well to the screen. The film is the best of “Phase 2,” and while fidelity to the source is the major factor for its success, it was also brilliantly written and directed.
This is where I’ll confess some confusion with the criticisms levelled at the Thor movies on this site. If fidelity to the source material was what made “Phase 1” a success, Branagh’s Thor did rather well. One might criticize the omission of the alter-ego Donald Blake—a major component of the origin story—but this diehard fan thought the decision to dump the old Clark Kent idea played well here. There are some other arguments that I’ve read on this site concerning what we might call the Asgardians’ “theological” character in the comics as opposed to their “alien” character on the screen. According to a recent story, for instance, Thor can hear the prayers of beings on other worlds. The concept of the reality of an actual Norse deity defending the earth from supervillains has always been a tricky one for Marvel. Roy Thomas wrestled with it in the 1970s to some extent, and the “God Butcher” story returns to it, if obliquely. Surely Marvel / Disney were concerned that some members of the public would find the notion of actual Gods problematic. Hence, the “give or take 5,000 years” line from Thor: The Dark World and other such allusions to the Asgardians’ status as long-lived aliens. On this issue, therefore, I’m also ready to compromise. Especially since the theological character of the Asgardians’ divinity is not necessarily the defining feature of the Thor canon.
What is that feature? It was the vision of Stan and Jack in the 1960s. Stan—bless his soul—read some Norse mythology. Sprinkle in some Superman and (this is important) some Kirby magic, and you get the bizarre mixture of Shakespearean English, Hollywood drama, Kirby bombast, and 1960s Jewish comedic sensibility that was the Lee / Kirby Thor. Both Thor films delivered this to us, in my humble opinion. Thor: The Dark World has taken some fair criticism on account of its editing (it was too short) and the poor development of the Malekith figure. But visually, for an old school Thor fan, it was a feast. I mean, there were flying Viking warships with lasers. Ridiculous, no? About as ridiculous as the notion that a Norse God would come to earth and fight supervillains. Lee and Kirby’s work was tongue-in-cheek. Even Simonson’s was at certain points. The knee-jerk condemnations of “The Dark World” on account of the comic relief have less to do with the Thor character and its source material and more to do with the contemporary preference for dark, brooding, anti-heroes. Comics have not always been so stilted in favor of the latter. I think that this is largely a matter of genre, which is why Thor has traditionally occupied such an unusual place in the Marvel Universe.
Here’s my major concern, and it’s piddling. The diehard Thor fan in me does not want the Hulk in a film about Ragnarok. My investment in the MCU is largely Thor-centric, and up until this point, I’ve been satisfied with the treatment of the character because it has focused squarely on Thor. My childhood hero. The Ragnarok source material—and by this I mean Lee / Kirby, the super Simonson run, and the loving homage to the Thor universe that was Oeming’s “Avengers: Disassembled” run—did not need the Hulk. I’m concerned about the next Captain America film for similar reasons. Once the big three—or four—begin to appear in each other’s films, you may as well just title every other MCU installment “The Avengers : etc.” My fear now is that the third Thor film will be a live action of the recent “Thor versus Hulk” cartoon that, while well made, is not the Simonson Ragnarok of which “Thor: The Dark World” was supposedly the harbinger. Those among us who are welcoming the addition of the Hulk to this film are not diehard Thor fans. I get it. But what I’m seeing now is less of a concern with source material—the true bread and butter behind the success of the MCU—and more of a capitulation to the Disney CEOs who want to cash in on their investment. This MCU Thor fan has been happy with the product so far, but now I want Thor, Loki, Odin, and an enormous Surtur fighting it out amid the smoldering ruins of Asgard. I want to stick with the formula, even if more green means more green.