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

In Reply To
Upper_Krust

Subj: Re: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 07:43:55 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Again? Always. [SPOILERS]
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:52:44 pm EDT

Previous Post

Howdy Mek! \:\-\)

> > Let me ask you this...what does Jarlson add to the story that Blake doesn't?

> Do you even pay attention?

Class take note: Mek's trying to change the subject (Attempt #1).

> 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.

Whcih question of yours have I failed to answer?

> That had absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.

It has everything to do with it. I'm saying the Thor movie script is bad because it doesn't have Blake. You said Jarlson is better I asked you HOW he's better.

> > 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.

It was a factual list of what Blake brings to Thor. Feel free to explain which are 'wrong'? Otherwise your disagreement is devoid of logic.

> > 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.

So let me get this straight, Thor is sent to Earth depowered (but still looks like Brad Pitt on steroids) and over the course of a movie he 'learns' humility.

Now call me skeptical but I think I can spot a few plot holes in your idea.

Firstly, the idea that hes going to learn humility over the course of a movie is totally illogical unless the movie is going to cover a period of years if not decades.

Secondly, anyone looking like Thor is going to have the babes throwing themselves at him. Way to learn humility there!

> > 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.

99% of Thor fans will know who Don Blake is.

> > I don't know what you're talking about. ;-p

> YOU LIE! >=O

I was obfuscating for the purposes of humour.

> > > 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.

Class take note: Mek's second attempt to avoid answering this question.

> > 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.

I can and I have. Beta Ray Bill is as relevant to a Thor origin movie as Jarlson.

> And on a somewhat unrelated note, why the hell should continuity have anything to do with it?

Everything in the Thor comic stems from that foundation. Hes a great hero because he has learnt humility, not because he is superstrong and will whack you with a hammer.

> > > 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.

They'll darn well know when he starts doing some superhero related antics and they broadcast it on the media.

> 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.

Utterly irrelevant. As soon as Thor battles the Absorbing Man in downtown New York the media will be all over it.

Whats the purpose of Thor living on Earth if he doesn't actually become a superhero!?

> 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.

Sounds like an exciting movie. [/sarcasm]

> > 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.

Then if you see my point, how can you be at odds with it!?

> 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.

He can't have any of the above handicaps, none of those would be poignant for Thor...on the one hand the greatest warrior...in the other a great healer...again, its the contrast.

> > 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.

Once you get vicious in an online debate - you've already lost.

> > > 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!

Saves time typing out html.

> > > 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.

Albeit your dislike is not based on logic.

> > > 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.

Instead of giving those characters the dramatic entrances and time enough they deserve to make them anything more than faces in a crowd.

> > > 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.

Spider-man 3 just had poorly conceived and contrived villain origins and plans. It had no intelligent 'schemer' villain in it to drive the story.

> > What the movie script does is change everything.

> But isn't that true with every adaptation to film (or cartoon or video game)?

Spiderman didn't, Superman the movie didn't. Batman Begins retained the core elements also.

> > > 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.

If Hollywood get their way, you won't.

> > > > 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.

So if Thor is a 100, an Asgardian is 30 and a mortal is 0.05 is there a bigger gap between Thor and an Asgardian or Thor an a mortal?

> With three pugs stealing my bed space, snoring all night? Absolutely.

Did you name them Fandral, Hogun and Volstagg?



> > > Let me ask you this...what does Jarlson add to the story that Blake doesn't?
>
> > Do you even pay attention?
>
> Class take note: Mek's trying to change the subject (Attempt #1).

Alright, that does it. The kid gloves are officially off and I ain't going to be playing nice anymore with you. You wanna play dirty? I'm willing to play dirty too.

Now then, if you had been paying attention to my last few posts and not attention to the things you want to hear, I have gone on at length about why I think a Jarlson-esque route would be better than Blake. I'm not going to repeat myself, because quite frankly I've got better things to do than argue with a stubborn ox over the internet.


> It has everything to do with it. I'm saying the Thor movie script is bad because it doesn't have Blake. You said Jarlson is better I asked you HOW he's better.

And I explained, albeit in a way that you just can't seem to understand... or you're too lazy to go back and re-read my posts about this subject, I'm willing to bet it's the latter.


> It was a factual list of what Blake brings to Thor. Feel free to explain which are 'wrong'? Otherwise your disagreement is devoid of logic.

As is yours.


> So let me get this straight, Thor is sent to Earth depowered (but still looks like Brad Pitt on steroids) and over the course of a movie he 'learns' humility.
>
> Now call me skeptical but I think I can spot a few plot holes in your idea.

*sigh*

> Firstly, the idea that hes going to learn humility over the course of a movie is totally illogical unless the movie is going to cover a period of years if not decades.

Who says they can't do time skips? This isn't '24', you know, not everything has to be in real-time of a facsimile thereof.

> Secondly, anyone looking like Thor is going to have the babes throwing themselves at him. Way to learn humility there!

Oh please. Some women might, but not all of us are THAT shallow. Way to make a gross generalization there, buddy.


> 99% of Thor fans will know who Don Blake is.

I didn't know who Don Blake was when I first started reading.


> I was obfuscating for the purposes of humour.

English, man, do you speak English?


> Class take note: Mek's second attempt to avoid answering this question.

If I could name all the times you've avoided answering questions in various other topics...


> > 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.
>
> I can and I have. Beta Ray Bill is as relevant to a Thor origin movie as Jarlson.

No, he's not, that much I'll concede to. But otherwise, why even bother to bring him up in the conversation anyways? Leave Bill out of this.


> They'll darn well know when he starts doing some superhero related antics and they broadcast it on the media.

Is this pre-Mjolnir or post-Mjolnir? 'Cause you are forgetting the whole costume deal.



> > 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.
>
> Sounds like an exciting movie. [/sarcasm]

Every concept is good if executed properly.


> > Yeah, I see your point there.
>
> Then if you see my point, how can you be at odds with it!?

Because I can, that's how.


> > Oh, I could get quite accurate (read: incredibly vicious) if I wanted to... but standards won't let me.
>
> Once you get vicious in an online debate - you've already lost.

Class, this is a prime example of the old adage 'the pot calling the kettle black'.

> > Oooooo, now you're using random caps. You must be really frustrated at this point!
>
> Saves time typing out html.

Yeah, well at least HTML doesn't make you look like you're screaming randomly.

> > > > 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.
>
> Albeit your dislike is not based on logic.

So? I don't have to like a concept if I don't want to. At least I have reasons for it instead of just going around saying I hate it for no reason.


> Instead of giving those characters the dramatic entrances and time enough they deserve to make them anything more than faces in a crowd.

Like I said, it'd help set up for any potential sequels.

> Spider-man 3 just had poorly conceived and contrived villain origins and plans. It had no intelligent 'schemer' villain in it to drive the story.

No kidding. I just wish they didn't shoehorn Venom in, but that's for another topic/board all in of itself.

> > > What the movie script does is change everything.
>
> > But isn't that true with every adaptation to film (or cartoon or video game)?
>
> Spiderman didn't, Superman the movie didn't. Batman Begins retained the core elements also.

Yes, but Batman Begins also took several different approaches from what I've heard, so according to your logic there, it wouldn't count.


> > If that's the case, then I don't want to see it right.
>
> If Hollywood get their way, you won't.

When you put it that way, good.


> So if Thor is a 100, an Asgardian is 30 and a mortal is 0.05 is there a bigger gap between Thor and an Asgardian or Thor an a mortal?

I'm sorry, math was never one of my strongest suits.

> > With three pugs stealing my bed space, snoring all night? Absolutely.
>
> Did you name them Fandral, Hogun and Volstagg?

No, but they could pass as them if I dressed them up as such.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.7 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