12 brutally honest questions we have after watching 'Thor: Love and Thunder'

• Warning: There are major spoilers ahead for "Thor: Love and Thunder."

• We rounded up every lingering question we had after watching the Marvel sequel.

• Why was Sif brought back? When did Thor's eyes become the same color? Will we see Jane again?

When does this movie even take place?

Acuna: Obviously, there's been some time since this film and "Endgame," because Thor has lost the weight he put on, but, other than that, there's no indication of when this film really takes place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Director Taika Waititi told Total Film that "Thor: Love and Thunder" is "probably four years" since the end of "Avengers: Endgame," but even he seemed unsure.

Not even Gorr's introduction to the film is given any sort of time reference, which is a bit frustrating. Largely, it feels like this movie is meant to be watched at any point after the release of "Avengers: Endgame."

Though it may be helpful to watch "Eternals" in advance for some vague nods to the celestials.

Singh: This is one of my minor issues with "Love and Thunder," which I think is an overall enjoyable and well-done Marvel film. The only hint that gives some kind of idea of a time frame is when Thor tells Jane that it's been eight years, seven months, and six days since he last saw her. But even that isn't very useful in pinpointing an exact or approximate timeframe.

Acuna: Is that eight years since "Thor: The Dark World," eight years since "Avengers: Age of Ultron," or something else entirely? I'll just wait for some updated timeline on Disney+, I guess.

Why did they even bother bringing Sif back if her return was just going to be an overblown cameo?

Acuna: I was excited to hear Jaimie Alexander was going to reprise her role as Sif in "Love and Thunder" after sitting out "Ragnarok" (Alexander told Yahoo! there was a scheduling conflict with her role on "Blindspot").

But her underutilization in "Thor 4" in two brief scenes was extremely disappointing.

When Thor showed up in New Asgard without her (even though we later learned she was there), it was confusing.

My expectation was that Sif would go on this grand mission with Thor, Jane, and Valkyrie to hunt down Gorr on "another classic Thor adventure."

Instead, "Love and Thunder" decided to sideline her by unnecessarily chopping off one of her arms. That would've made some sense if the film was trying to deliver some commentary on disabled superheroes, but it didn't do that.

Maybe there's some other deleted footage showcasing Sif, but I would've loved to see the confrontation between Gorr the God Butcher. Don't simply add more female heroes and characters into a movie if you have nothing interesting for them to do.

Singh: It makes no sense that Sif didn't join Thor and his crew for the main mission. Sure, she got injured in battle, but she's a fierce warrior and probably could have recovered.

Seeing her fight Gorr absolutely would have been a worthy addition to make her return more substantial and meaningful. Let's start the campaign for "Justice for Sif."

Why did this film never return to Darcy and Erik?

Acuna: Speaking of underutilized characters, it felt odd that Darcy (Kat Dennings) was barely in this movie.

It didn't feel believable that Jane wouldn't show off the powers of Thor to her colleagues Darcy and Erik (Stellan Skarsg?rd), especially when the latter was trying to help Jane with her cancer diagnosis.

Maybe Marvel has bigger plans for Darcy, but it felt more disrespectful that Jane never reunited with and said goodbye to Darcy before her death. It really seemed like Waititi wanted to move on from the first two "Thor" films as much as possible to tell the story he wanted to share.

Singh: When Darcy popped up at the screening I attended, people were audibly delighted to see Dennings return. Especially after seeing her get more screen time in "WandaVision" last year, I was curious to see how she'd factor into "Love and Thunder."

Unfortunately, all she really did in the movie, besides being Jane's confidant about her cancer diagnosis, was bring snacks to her friend at the hospital.

Where was all of this butchering that Gorr the God Butcher was supposedly responsible for?

Acuna: I'm not sure if this was a pandemic limitation or if Marvel thought this may be too gruesome for a PG-13-rated movie (after Wanda's killing spree in "Multiverse of Madness" everything else seems tame), but I was expecting to see more death on-screen when it came to Gorr.

The movie told us plenty of times that Gorr was a menace, ruthlessly killing gods. But other than the death of the first god at the film's start, all of those murders were off-screen. We only saw the remnants of his fight with Sif.

The film could've used one more meaty scene or montage with Bale cutting through some characters to make the butcher live up to his name.

Singh: The same way that "Multiverse of Madness"didn't show enough universes to live up to its title, "Love and Thunder" didn't display enough of Gorr's god butchering.

Bale did a phenomenal job as the movie's villain and while he was definitely terrifying with his grotesque teeth and long nails, "Love and Thunder" needed a murder-spree montage.

Why are both of Thor's eyes matching colors now?

Acuna: This is a very specific nitpick, but I can't be the only person who noticed that both of Thor's eyes are conveniently the same color once again in "Love and Thunder."

Did we forget that Thor lost an eye and was given a different colored one by Rocket Raccoon in "Infinity War"? Should we assume that Thor or Rocket found a better eye and swapped it out off-screen?

Singh: You're definitely not the only person to point this 0ut. In fact, lots of fans discussed it when the first trailer was revealed.

Maybe Thor got a colored-contact lens to make them match? Although, getting his eyes to be the same color seems like it would be the least of Thor's concerns.

Why were there so many death fake-outs?

Acuna: I can understand one or two death fake-outs throughout "Thor: Love and Thunder," but four? That was a bit much.

There were audible gasps in my screening when it appeared that Valkyrie was killed, but even she wound up being fine. When you cry wolf one too many times it starts to feel stale.

By the time Russell Crowe's Zeus was also revealed to be alive in the first end-credits scene, I was rolling my eyes. And you already know how I feel about Sif's appearance.

Singh: This is a great point. Korg is great comedic relief, but I think the movie would have been just fine if he died in Omnipotence City. To me, the movie seemed low-stakes because of all the fake-outs.

Why weren't the Guardians of the Galaxy better utilized here?

Acuna: Can we agree that the Guardians were just decorative ornaments at the film's start?

The Guardians are my favorite group and I was excited to see them here, because at the end of "Avengers: Endgame," it really felt like they were going to be integral to Thor's adventure. Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) seemed dead set on trying to find their missing Guardian, Gamora. Thor seemed fond of Gamora, too.

I expected the Guardians to separate from Thor once they heard something about her location, but that's not what happened. Instead, the Guardians left Thor on some vague mission to save random people in distress.

It was a missed opportunity to deliver something of more substance.

Singh: It felt like they were just included for consistency purposes since Thor was last seen getting on a spaceship with the Guardians.

I would guess that they played a minor role in the plot to avoid overstuffing the movie or overlapping with whatever Gunn has planned for them in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3."

What did Jane whisper to Thor?

Singh: I would love to know if Jane came up with a better catchphrase than "eat my hammer."

Acuna: Honestly, those were some rough catchphrases.

How exactly did Gorr's wish work?

Singh: I feel like Gorr could have very easily asked to be reunited with his daughter or something, but OK!

Acuna: Yeah, if Gorr was dying (it felt unclear to me if the sword was keeping him alive), couldn't he have wished for them both to live their own happily ever after?

Also, he couldn't have made some all-encompassing wish for Love and Jane to be OK?

Will we see Natalie Portman again?

Acuna: I was about to be really upset with the end of "Love and Thunder" until Portman returned in the film's final end-credits scene.

It seems like Marvel wants to leave the door open for her return in the future, but I'm not really sure how Valhalla (the afterlife) would be incorporated into the MCU moving forward.

Singh: The end-credits scene either functions as definitive closure for Jane or is hinting at more to come with her. But I'm leaning toward the former since she told Thor "keep your heart open" before dying in his arms.

Acuna: She has to return to tell us the catchphrase she whispered to Thor! Who am I kidding? You're probably right.

Since when does Heimdall have a son?

Singh: The addition of an offspring of Heimdall (named Astrid, but prefers to go by Axl) being used to communicate with Thor through his magic eyes made sense for the film's main mission. But where did this boy even come from?

I can't recall a single mention in the MCU of Heimdall having a partner or child.

Acuna: This was a huge shock. I always assumed Heimdall took some oath like the Jedi where he devoted his life to Asgard and wasn't allowed to engage in relationships.

The addition of Axl felt like a convenient way to fix a story issue.

Again, why am I watching all of these Marvel TV shows if they're not being addressed in the larger Marvel sphere?

Singh: "Love and Thunder" shows that there's still a disconnect between the Marvel films and the Disney+ series — and I will keep complaining about this until we start to see significant progress.

Acuna: Yes! I'm so tired of thinking "Loki" is going to have some sort of ripple effect on the rest of the MCU only for it to be largely ignored. As a reminder, the season one finale literally ripped the multiverse apart and it has somehow had little consequence on everything else.

(The events of "Loki" apparently made it possible for the events of "Spider-Man: No Way Home" to happen, but that was never said on-screen. You had to read an interview on Marvel.com to know that.)

It just seems like Disney and Marvel can be doing a more cohesive job with their connected universe on-screen to deliver payoff for watching seven (and counting) Disney+ shows.

Singh: I'm confident that Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has a master plan showing how all the pieces fit together. But for now, I'm just puzzled about how the shows contribute to the larger MCU.

Should I ever bother renewing my Disney+ subscription when it expires later this year?

Read the original article on Insider