|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 02:41:51 pm EDT (Viewed 2 times)
Reply Subj: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:35:25 pm EDT (Viewed 2 times)
> > This is where you (and the reviewer) err.
> According to you, anyways.
Me and logic, yes.
> > 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.
Possibly not, but some of those are probably doing it for all the wrong reasons...the 'lets give Thor no weaknesses' crowd.
> 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.
Was Sigurd Jarlson in Journey Into Mystery #83...?
> 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.
I'm not asking for a rigid verbatim adaptation. But it would be nice to have them tell his origin in some manner not a completely different story.
As regards Hellboy that movie script was adapted by Mike Mignola, so it was still as true to the character as possible.
> > 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.
He was one of the most important, but common sense tells us that he stands out as less special amongst gods than mortals.
> > 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.
Obviously I can't say for sure but thats why we are all here...to discuss...to speculate.
> > 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.
Theres a difference between Marvel Thor and mythic Thor, in terms of their history. But this movie seems to be alienating much of what makes Marvel Thor unique. As such it seems a waste of the franchise.
> > 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.
I sleep mightily, but thanks for your concern.
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|