The Thor Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Vartha

In Reply To
Mek

Subj: Re: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:02:13 pm EDT (Viewed 2 times)
Reply Subj: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:35:25 pm EDT (Viewed 2 times)

Previous Post

> Howdy Mek mate! \:\-\)
>
> > http://www.comics2film.com/b/index.php?blog=3&title=thor_god_of_thunder_comics_and_film&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
>
> Thanks for the link, although his review says basically nothing.
>
> > Again, this one says there's no Don Blake. (Thank Goodness)
>
> This is where you (and the reviewer) err.

According to you, anyways.

> With no Don Blake, not only does this movie poop on the comic book origins, but it also makes several other mistakes.

So? If reactions from several people here -and elsewhere- are any indication, I doubt anyone will be shedding tears over the omission of Donald Blake. Besides, has everyone forgotten about Sigurd Jarlson already? (I think... I haven't read the rest of Walt's run sadly) Not that they'll use that in the movie, but just something to think about in the interim until filming starts.

And not everything has to adhere to rigid, verbatim adaptations either: look at 'Hellboy', that changed and omitted somethings from the source, but it still ended up being a good movie IMHO. They key thing there was keeping the general spirit of the source material. If they can keep the spirit of the comics in general for 'Thor', then I think it'll turn out okay at best.

> Firstly, a god amongst gods is less special than a god amongst mortals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Thor one of the more important Nordic gods? I'm a little hazy on my Norse mythology, but I think there must've been some hierarchy like the Greek/Romans had.

> Secondly, if this movie is a precursor to Thor on Earth (say in a sequel) then the Thor of the first movie is a bragging bully (to deserve banishment to Earth). That means Thor of this movie is no hero. In the event that they totally remove the need for Thor to be banished then it poops over so much continuity that you may as well call it Ultimate Thor.

You can't really say that for sure until we actually know more details. That's just a grand/gross assumption. (And you know what they say about 'assume'...) Besides, who really knows what exactly happens? I'd like to remain cautiously optimistic instead of overly pessimistic.

> Everything I have seen so far tells me it has nothing to do with the Mighty Thor. It may end up a decent Thor movie, just not a decent Mighty Thor movie - and thats a shame.

Oh, so there's a difference in names, is there? I must've missed the memo.

> > Sounds pretty good so far, IMHO.
>
> No it sounds like a Lord of the Rings bandwagon jumping, 'Galactus cloud' cop-out that has nothing to do with the Mighty Thor and is simply just Thor.

Suuuuuuuure, you just keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

> > Howdy Mek mate! \:\-\)
> >
> > > http://www.comics2film.com/b/index.php?blog=3&title=thor_god_of_thunder_comics_and_film&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
> >
> > Thanks for the link, although his review says basically nothing.
> >
> > > Again, this one says there's no Don Blake. (Thank Goodness)
> >
> > This is where you (and the reviewer) err.
>
> According to you, anyways.
>
> > With no Don Blake, not only does this movie poop on the comic book origins, but it also makes several other mistakes.
>
> So? If reactions from several people here -and elsewhere- are any indication, I doubt anyone will be shedding tears over the omission of Donald Blake. Besides, has everyone forgotten about Sigurd Jarlson already? (I think... I haven't read the rest of Walt's run sadly) Not that they'll use that in the movie, but just something to think about in the interim until filming starts.
>
> And not everything has to adhere to rigid, verbatim adaptations either: look at 'Hellboy', that changed and omitted somethings from the source, but it still ended up being a good movie IMHO. They key thing there was keeping the general spirit of the source material. If they can keep the spirit of the comics in general for 'Thor', then I think it'll turn out okay at best.
>
> > Firstly, a god amongst gods is less special than a god amongst mortals.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Thor one of the more important Nordic gods? I'm a little hazy on my Norse mythology, but I think there must've been some hierarchy like the Greek/Romans had.
>
> > Secondly, if this movie is a precursor to Thor on Earth (say in a sequel) then the Thor of the first movie is a bragging bully (to deserve banishment to Earth). That means Thor of this movie is no hero. In the event that they totally remove the need for Thor to be banished then it poops over so much continuity that you may as well call it Ultimate Thor.
>
> You can't really say that for sure until we actually know more details. That's just a grand/gross assumption. (And you know what they say about 'assume'...) Besides, who really knows what exactly happens? I'd like to remain cautiously optimistic instead of overly pessimistic.
>
> > Everything I have seen so far tells me it has nothing to do with the Mighty Thor. It may end up a decent Thor movie, just not a decent Mighty Thor movie - and thats a shame.
>
> Oh, so there's a difference in names, is there? I must've missed the memo.
>
> > > Sounds pretty good so far, IMHO.
> >
> > No it sounds like a Lord of the Rings bandwagon jumping, 'Galactus cloud' cop-out that has nothing to do with the Mighty Thor and is simply just Thor.
>
> Suuuuuuuure, you just keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

Kind of liked Sigfried


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software