|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:07:46 pm EDT (Viewed 2 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 10:03:25 am EDT (Viewed 2 times)
> > > Me and logic, yes.
> > .... That doesn't make any sense what so ever.
> It makes perfect sense.
No, I'm seriously having a hard time wrapping my brain around that.
> > > Possibly not, but some of those are probably doing it for all the wrong reasons...the 'lets give Thor no weaknesses' crowd.
> > While I am loathe to admit you do have a bit of a point there,
> Well its a step up from "none of his arguments hold water".
Doesn't really make much of a difference. I was only slightly agreeing with you on that one point.
> > I doubt the whole 'no weaknesses' thing is apart of it for some.
> Its obviously a part of it for some.
> I would agree its not the reasoning for everyone.
Wow, we actually agree on something? I guess Hell must have froze over.
> > Some of us -myself included- are not really fans of dual identities.
> Didn't you post last week that you are enjoying JMS run?
No, if you actually paid attention to the real 'message' of my post, I just said that I was starting to enjoy Thor as a character. I still have a disdain for JMS and dual identities, though the former is something I'm really sick of talking about now.
Besides, we haven't actually seen Don Blake on Earth for maybe a grand total of 4-5 pages, not counting the Architect*Don from the first half of the first issue. Even then it's not really THAT much of an issue. Which makes me wonder why he even bothered to bring Don Blake back if he's not going to use him. Maybe after the first 6 issues he will, I dunno.
> > And why bother with having to juggle the transformation crap?
> 1. In the beginning...there was Don Blake.
> 2. It gives Thor legitimate ties to Earth and a reason to live there.
> 3. It gives Thor a weakness.
> 4. It raises moral questions.
> 5. It raises class questions (more relevant in the sixties than now, but not yet irrelevant).
> 6. It gives us a better contrast.
> 7. It expands the history of the character.
> 8. It gives us an interesting plot device.
> 9. It means audiences can better empathise with the character.
I only see Don Blake as clumsy hurdle for the writers to juggle with. I don't want to go to a Thor movie and have to deal with him as Don Blake angsting and whining and then suddenly gaining humility in a typical deus ex machina moment. You CAN make a good Thor movie without having to use Don Blake. It's all in a manner of properly executing certain concepts and knowing what will work within the typical 2:30 hour time limit.
> > From the sound of things with the movie's story so far, having at least 1/3rd of the movie dedicated to just Don Blake wouldn't exactly be very entertaining.
> Why would it necessarily be 1/3rd? It could be 1/5th or 1/6th...and I am thinking specifically of a Thor movie synopsis that shall remain otherwise unmentioned. ;-p
You just couldn't resist, could you?
> > I'd rather they just go with a Sigurd Jarlson-type thing -with him essentially being depowered- and leave it at that.
> Doesn't exactly give us the same amount of gravitas, does it.
I can think of several ways it could give a similar amount of gravitas.
> > Upper Krust, with all due respect, don't insult my intelligence. Please.
> ...well since you said please.
> > I may pull the 'dumb young adult new fan' act every now and then to confuse and frustrate people here for my own amusement, but I'm not THAT blind to 'Mighty Thor' history.
> Then don't insult my intelligence by suggesting Sigurd Jarlson for the Thor origin movie.
Okay, how in the heck was I 'insulting your intelligence'? All I was doing was just saying that, given the current direction the film's story is going, it might be a little more plausible to go a 'Sigurd Jarlson'-esque route instead of the dual identity crap of Don Blake. I mean, they don't have to call him 'Sigurd', they can always call him Don Blake anyways: the way I see it, depowering Thor completely and throwing him into the world of mortals would be just as effective to do the 'humility' thing.
> > Funny, that's not the impression I've gotten from your posts on the subject.
> I wasn't aware you did impressions?
Yeah, I can do several spot-on impressions of several posters' posting styles here on the board.
> > You want Don Blake, you want Earth, you want Jane Foster (while I'm aware you haven't crowed on about that, I'm certain it'd pop up eventually), you want Thor's banishment from Asgard to learn humility...
> That sounds like all the key ingredients from the origins of the Mighty Thor's origins....everything you want to throw out it seems.
No, I'm just saying I don't want the dual identity/Don Blake crap. We can keep Jane Foster, we can keep Earth... those things I don't care about, since they can work if handled properly. I just don't want to have to deal with the stupid dual ID stuff. You throw in too many things, you end up with a jumbled mess and plot holes that get lost in the course of the film. Need I mention 'X-Men 3: The Last Stand' as an example of such?
> A verbatim adaptation would be self defeating for a number of reasons.
> Firstly, you need about 120 pages of story to fit into a movie, JIM #83-88 is far too piecemeal to be made a coherant movie.
Yet it appears to me that you want some of, if not all of those issues crammed into a 2+ hour movie. Hey, I'm just calling it like I see it.
> However, that doesn't mean we throw out the entire history of the character. With a few tweaks it can easily be made to work.
I'll concede that any sort of concept can work if implimented properly. But with what we've heard of the movie's script so far and the direction they're going in, some elements -like Don Blake- more than likely won't work.
> > then color me bright neon green.
> I'll get the paint.
Har har har.
> > My common sense tells me that it'd still stand out for one of the more 'high and mighty'/revered gods to get bannihilated by the mack daddy of all, Odin. But again, that's just my take on it.
> He might stand out, but to a lesser degree.
Truth be told, I don't know a whole lot about the Norse mythology, but I was always under the impression Thor was one of the more important/venerated ones back in his day. That, and there is his heritage, which I think would have some leverage in his overall importance.
> ...and in one of the earlier script reviews it actually mentioned the script was dour and humourless. Which is at odds with the Warriors Three who were basically created for light relief (even if they have evolved slightly throughout the years).
Well who isn't to say that there might have been a few slight comic relief moments? I'm not saying there should be anything out of place, but I don't want the Warriors 3 to be the irritating comedic foil sidekicks who are only there to appeal to the little kids who might be watching. Any sort of 'forced humor' would come off as out of place. I'd rather that if the Warriors 3 are used for laughs, I'd rather they be through subtle dialog humor rather than physical comedy for cheap, forced laughs.
> > But maybe you aren't, I can never tell with you anymore.
> I like to be mercurial.
And with that revelation, now I can sleep well at night.
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 126.96.36.199 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|