![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The thing about the MCU's Thor movies is they're really great fantasy-war movies about guys with magic powers and cool ass mythopunky technology, but after the first one, they're not Norse mythology. The first one, while it obviously differs wildly from some of the character structures of the original myth framework (Freya was never Thor's mom, for one), it has the structural feeling of a Norse myth: Thor, in one of his Thor-typical war tunnel vision moments, steps out of line and does something hubristic one too many times and is stripped of his status and power and sent down to Earth to hopefully learn from his mistakes. His tricksy frenemy Loki decides to use the situation to seize that status and power . . . only for that to end up forcing a Macbeth-worthy spiral of the unintended conses of your quenses, forcing Thor to step back in and prove himself worthy in order to get the situation under control.
None of the rest of the movies use or even really consider that mythical structure. They're good movies and they're good movies about a guy named Thor with lightning magic who lives with his brother named Loki in a place named Asgard but they're not Norse mythology movies. I could rename these guys Fionn and Fidragor, or Siobhan and Jannike, and it would still fly. They lack the LOTR-and-Lebor Gábala structure that, stiff as some people claimed it made the first movie, is also what made it a movie about Norse mythology.
Myths are stiff. You don't always have to retell the exact same story (or stories) in the exact same setting and way, and you can write the dialogue and style to feel more natural to how we approach storytelling today (I point to AC: Odyssey and Seanan McGuire's Rosemary and Rue as great examples of modern myths that do this well and *weren't* directed by Peter Jackson[i love him but his name overshadows]) but myth has a structure to it, a way of doing things, just like there's a specific way that you have to do things to make that pie taste like your grandmother's recipe. That structure, that arc and flow, that choice of what narrative to tell and how, is what makes or breaks whether your story is a myth or just a tale about a guy who so happens to be named Poseidon. And yes! It means there are things about the structure and style required that are stiff, that are grandiose, that are weird or "flatly archetypal" or whatever. But these are also the things that make your tale a tale of lore and legend.
The Thor movies are really great films about a guy named Thor with lightning magic but three out of four films are not about the man from myth.
None of the rest of the movies use or even really consider that mythical structure. They're good movies and they're good movies about a guy named Thor with lightning magic who lives with his brother named Loki in a place named Asgard but they're not Norse mythology movies. I could rename these guys Fionn and Fidragor, or Siobhan and Jannike, and it would still fly. They lack the LOTR-and-Lebor Gábala structure that, stiff as some people claimed it made the first movie, is also what made it a movie about Norse mythology.
Myths are stiff. You don't always have to retell the exact same story (or stories) in the exact same setting and way, and you can write the dialogue and style to feel more natural to how we approach storytelling today (I point to AC: Odyssey and Seanan McGuire's Rosemary and Rue as great examples of modern myths that do this well and *weren't* directed by Peter Jackson
The Thor movies are really great films about a guy named Thor with lightning magic but three out of four films are not about the man from myth.
