Whole point of Ragnarok was Thor learning not to be so arrogant and rely on others, its why it is so good as it offers real peril and a lesson to learn for him. He doesn't even beat the villain head on, he cheats and gets someone else to do it, at great cost to him and his people.

Too often modern heroes want to be Superman, but without what makes Superman even remotely relatable, weakness to kryptonite or a stronger villain that offers actual risk to him.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

People didn't like Jock Thor. Himbo Thor became much more preferred. Also, Steve Rogers was never a Jock character. He was the one who started out being bullied by Jocks.

[–] tankplanker@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

And then Rogers became the ultimate Jock, that's kind of the central point of his character, nerd becomes jock, wish fulfillment for the audience. That story is only really present for a small part of the first film, hes a an out and out jock for all most all of the rest of his screen time.

Its almost the reverse for Thor, he is relatable for part of Ragnarok, then all of that character development is undone for Love and Thunder, as they tried to turn him into a copy of Quill. Quill is an arrogant buffoon who is as often wrong as he is right, and only works in some of the films where it has actually decent writing. Even in those films he only works because of the supporting cast, which is missing in Love and Thunder.

Rest of Thors time, he is just a plain Jock , especially in Endgame, where is he a plain old jock but with a Rocky training montage.