SEE-Se, 873 sx/so
Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
eh, didn't love that movie. But I thought Thor was SLE and his brother EIE. ??
yeah, I saw Thor too. Now every time 'learning to walk again' comes on the radio I think of that movie.
I don't like movies where..... *spoiler*.... does anybody even care about spoilers???.... do you care? nah... nobody cares. movies where the main characters fall in love, and then get separated at the end. I don't need to hear any more stories about people falling in love and getting forever separated. I need more information about people falling in love, and then actually getting together and staying that way.
I suspected he was a SLE too, and the lady falling in love with him was obviously Se-valuing, but I don't really know how to see or interpret Ni at a quick glance, so I could only vaguely guess that she was some kind of beta NF. It seemed weird that she was a scientist, though, if she was an NF, though this is one of those stereotypes which might not be accurate. I usually can't guess movie characters' types unless they are something that I really relate to or feel attracted to. I'd probably easily change my mind about all their types if some other theory was out there.
Yup, I'd say that he's an obvious SLE. They don't get much obviouser.
I was a bit disappointed in the movie, myself. (and I usually love anything to do with the Vikings, scandinavia, and oden/thor/etc.)
The only character I was really interested in was the Gatekeeper dude. I wanted to know his story.
The love story had me arghing a lot. It felt too forced, unnatural.
I didn't watch it with the intent to type the characters. So, I've no opinion on that.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Thor should be SEE. Never seen the movie.
I too saw Thor as SLE (but I mean, SEE would be my second choice). I was afraid there would be all these suggestions of Thor as things like LSE and ILE, and I don't think he's those types at all!
I don't really have an opinion on the rest of the characters. I think I didn't like most of them.
I further wish Loki would have been a more interesting character. I felt disappointed.
Last edited by inumbra; 09-21-2011 at 05:55 PM.
I enjoyed the movie for what it was, a action adventure leadup to the Avengers. 6.5/10
Loki was the most interesting character. Thor was kind of a dumb kid brute honestly, albeit with a kind heart. ARRRGH I AM THOR ODINSON. Loki had twists and turns and they didn't blatantly give away his tricks or motives, but at the same time they didn't really turn the page on developing him, he didn't show enough emotion. I almost wished Loki had won. His plot twists and turns are absolutely essential to his own nature, as well as showing Thors, and giving the plot depth. When will hollywood learn to balance plot and character development with action? I think Branaghs strengths as a Shakesperean actor are being blatantly missused to give just enough plot depth to make the movie decent, not great. The best comic book movies I think have been Spider Man and X-men 1/first class. The best acting award in this film was gonna go to Hopkins but I decided to give it to the black gate keeper dude because of of what they managed to do with that role.
For fucks sake when Dragon Ball Z has better character development you know somethings wrong.
The frost giants were relatively undeveloped as well, their motives, their powersource and the barbarian nature they were given. WTF DO THEY EAT!! Rocks? Both sides seemed like basically territorial squabblers. Odin had good promise but it didn't end with much depth either. I wish I read more of the Thor comics so I could compare the best stories to the movie and give more constructive feedback. I could be wrong here and the comic books could suck hard, but usually when a comic book goes on for long enough it gets badass. But honestly I don't think it will matter because Hollywood doesn't give a shit, they are just another mega corporation milking the swollen teet for money.
I guess I found all of the characters cliche, and I liked Thor's cliche the best (I like fallen god stories). I wanted more depth/darkness with Loki's character and found his actions all predictable and the psychology behind them poorly explained. I couldn't connect to his character. I perceived this as a loss. This is why he was uninteresting to me, whereas somewhat brutish fallen gods always seem to be interesting to me (even though it's not a new story).
I've begun wondering about ESE for Thor perhaps as a better second option than SEE. I need a refresher viewing of the film.
I'd also add that I felt the relationships between Thor, Loki and Odin weren't portrayed to the depth I would have wanted either. And I found the geeky, absent-minded, brainy science girl who can't drive or do physical things the absolute opposite of a refreshing character. I must say, I'm so tired of that character. (I'm also tired of some variations of the kick-ass chick character and so really I'm bound to be displeased with the lot of female characters. )
I guess part of the loss is that I like "brother stories" of betrayal. And I didn't feel emotionally satisfied by this one because I didn't feel they put enough into the characters to make the betrayal really hit emotionally. It wasn't intense enough.
I quite enjoyed the movie, but there were definite script issues. The problem was that it was basically two movies crammed into the space of one: "Thor in Asgard" and "Thor on Earth". This is especially evident after Thor defeats the Giant Viking Robot, turns to his new Earth friends, and basically goes "Okay, that wraps up this movie, I'm going to go back to finish up the first movie now, see you guys later!"
Basically, what I suspect happened is that Branaugh wanted to make a Shakespearean-esque court tragedy set in Asgard, while the corporate executives wanted an action movie set on Earth, and the resulting compromise was a bit of both.
It could have been solved by making Earth more central to the plot. Have Loki's evil plan involve conquering Earth, and due to Thor's time spent in exile on Earth, falling in love with a mortal woman, have him be the only Asgardian willing to fight for mankind. It would tie the two stories together better, with the added bonus of bringing out Thor's "friend to the common man" side of his character, which is an important theme in the Norse sagas.
I didn't even know Kenneth Branagh directed it. That might explain a lot, actually. I felt like I was watching Hamlet (the version starring Kenneth Branagh) during parts of the movie... it just kept randomly coming to mind.
I think Thor was 8w7, maybe 7w8
Nordic culture in general is beta. Thor is steretypical SLE protrayed in the movie. Loki, as portrayed in the movie, is a mixture of EIE and IEI.