> They say great minds think alike, so yours is currently slighty great
Cute, Upper Krust, reeeeal
> > Wow, we actually agree on something? I guess Hell must have froze over.
> ...somehow I can't see it lasting.
It'll never last. Never.
> Let me ask you this...what does Jarlson add to the story that Blake doesn't?
Do you even pay attention
? Or do you only have selective memory/seeing and only see what you
want to see? Because that's the impression I get from every. single. one.
of your posts. That had absolutely nothing
to do with the original topic.
> Blake's inclusion could be metaphorical, although you could argue it always was.
As far as I'm concerned, Blake is a waste of space in the new series so far, metaphorical or not. Besides, everyone's gonna learn he's actually Thor sooner or later. Small town people might be simple, but they're NOT dumb and I'm pretty sure some of them have already put 2 and 2 together behind the scenes. Hence why the secret ID in general
is a lame, lame, lame idea.
> So you see it wrong then, read the above list.
I did read it. And I don't agree with it.
> > 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 don't suddenly gain humility, thats why he was sent to Earth to live as Don Blake. To learn humility through life experience.
He can also learn a huge thing of humility as a severely depowered god thrown into the world of mortals without help as well. I'd think being stripped of what makes you powerful and being left to fend for yourself in a more complicated/simplistic world would be a lesson in humility as well, if not moreso.
> > You CAN make a good Thor movie without having to use Don Blake.
> Possibly. But you can't make a good Mighty
Thor origin movie without Don Blake.
So? Ask the average comic book reader and while most will probably
recall Don Blake, a majority of them probably didn't even know there was a Don Blake. Alot of people get into 'Thor' through Simonson's run -which is possibly the
most reccomended story arc to any potential new fans- so there ya' go.
> > > 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 don't know what you're talking about. ;-p
YOU LIE! >=O
> > I can think of several ways it could give a similar amount of gravitas.
> Don't be shy...share them with us.
Pay more attention to past posts of mine and you'll probably see that I have indeed shared them with the class. Maybe not in the way you want me to explain, but it's been explained none the less.
> > Okay, how in the heck was I 'insulting your intelligence'?
> The very idea of suggesting Sigurd Jarlson for the Thor origin movie is about as idiotic as putting Beta Ray Bill (who incidently appeared before Jarlson in continuity) in the Thor origin movie.
Oh no you didn't. You did not
invoke Beta Ray Bill in the conversation. Bill has nothing
to do with this, so don't bring him up. And on a somewhat unrelated note, why the hell should continuity have anything to do with it?
> > 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.
> How the hell is it more plausible!? He puts on a pair of specs and no one recognises him...its one of the most debated logic gaps in Superman lore...thats one of the reasons Walt included it, as a tongue-in-cheek nod to that character. In case it wasn't obvious enough he even has Jarlson bump into someone called Clark (knocking him to the ground) talking to a woman called Lois.
You're forgetting one slight detail: nobody -in this world, anyways- would know what Thor really looks like. The thing about religious mythology/history is that there are countless visual interpretations of Gods, Goddesses, the 7 Archangels, pre-photography era Saints and mythical/ancient beasts. We don't know what a majority of them looked like, so we go by paintings and whatnot for visual aids.
So I sincerely doubt that if this Thor were to go to Earth as a depowered himself, nobody would think twice that he's Thor. They'd probably think him to be some burly man (who's a nutcase for calling himself after a god) and nothing more.
> Firstly, Jarlson wasn't depowered. Secondly he still looks identical to Thor (but for the glasses), so you run into that logic gap. Thirdly a Mortal amongst mortals won't teach 'Thor' anything. Its the fact that Blake is crippled that teachges him humility - its that very poignancy, how can you miss it!?
Yeah, I see your point there. But seriously? Don Blake could have ANY disability (be it a mental handicap, deafness, muteness or blindness) and I still wouldn't be convinced it'd be a good idea for the celluloid Thor.
> > Yeah, I can do several spot-on impressions of several posters' posting styles here on the board.
> Yes but are you any good at them or is it more of a thinlly veiled charicature I wonder?
Oh, I could get quite accurate (read: incredibly vicious) if I wanted to... but standards won't let me.
> > No, I'm just saying I don't want the dual identity/Don Blake crap.
> Which is the WHOLE CRUX of Thors origins!Oooooo
, now you're using random caps. You must be really
frustrated at this point!
> > I just don't want to have to deal with the stupid dual ID stuff.
> Its not stupid. You just don't understand it.
I understand it well enough to know that I don't like it.
> > 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.
> Are you [insert expletive] kidding me young lady!? You want to add in all the Asgardian characters/relationships and cameos from peripheral villains such as Skurge and the Enchantress.
Who says I want them to play large roles? Just have them appear to establish red herrings for the eventual sequel and leave it at that. Nothing more, nothing less.
> > Need I mention 'X-Men 3: The Last Stand' as an example of such?
> That movie felt a tad rushed but it was pretty straightforward enough. I'm not an X-3 hater, but then again I don't read any X-comics.
To be quite honest, I didn't think the movie was all that bad. But looking back on it, it suffered pretty much the same as Spider-Man 3: trying to cram a bunch of stuff and allowing important things to get lost in the shuffle.
> What the movie script does is change everything.
But isn't that true with every
adaptation to film (or cartoon or video game)?
> > Hey, I'm just calling it like I see it.
> You see it wrongly then.
If that's the case, then I don't want to see it right.
> > > 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.
> But do you understand the point I make when I say he'll stand out to a greater degree amidst mortals?
No, I don't.
> > > I like to be mercurial.
> > And with that revelation, now I
can sleep well at night.
> Snug as a bug in a rug I'm sure.
With three pugs stealing my bed space, snoring all night? Absolutely.