|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
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
> > > 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.
> 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 22.214.171.124 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|