I watched this movie a very long time ago so my memory could be hazy. I also might be reading too much into it.
Asgard is destined to be completely destroyed in a catastrophe called Ragnarok. This is something from Norse mythology which I don’t know anything about but is a popular theme in popular media. The whole film is about Thor trying to deal with Rigmaroll.
His solution in the end is to evacuate Asgards inhabitants and remove them from the land, let Ragnarok happen which also destroys the Bad Guy. So Asgard is destroyed but Asgardians live on. His rationalisation is that Asgard is not made by its land, geography etc. but its people, the Asgardians, and they can possibly make another Asgard later on unburdened by predetermined destruction.
Now I gotta be honest, overall I thought the movie was alright. The Bad Guy was terrible and uninteresting. But I liked the comedy in it. And this interpetation of Ragnarok is pretty clever IMO. The problem I have is that this complete disentanglement of the people and their land is incorrect. I guess in a fictional treat slop based on magical mythology it would never come up. But IRL the people and the land make each other. There is a recent Prolekult documentary which focuses on how an integral part of capital accumulation is the dispossesion of land from people which I am not intelligent enough to rehash.
I think this could be ignored but then you realise that this movie is by and (mostly) for cultures that are built on colonialism and settlerism, processes that are centuries old and still ongoing. Downplaying the ills of robbing people of their land and sovreignty is done on a regular basis. Palestinians are currently being robbed of their lives and their land at the moment. How do Marvel treat enjoyers understand the implications of removing all Palestinians from Palestine and relocating them to a neighbouring country?
As I said I am probably reading too much into it.
not all people are as closely tied to land as others and there are several examples thru out history of people who were nomadic to a pretty extreme degree the romani people are the prime example imo but there are plenty of steppe peoples who were entirely nomadic until only a few centuries ago. And there are plenty of historical examples of people being forced out of their land and settling somewhere else (peacefully (atleast at first)) and then building something even greater, Carthage for example and considering that their universe is full of uninhabited planets to terraform i think this has a much better chance of being what they meant.
I truly can not imagine that ur interpretation was even considered as something anyone could get from the film by anyone who worked on it, I would think they were going for a “home is where u make it” sort of thing rather than land not being important. That being said maybe it shows a bias, perhaps a different society would have never found that ending acceptable, but propaganda? I doubt it.