|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Must I have words with thee...again...? [SPOILERS]
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 01:09:35 pm EDT
Reply Subj: Re: Must I have words with thee...again...? [SPOILERS]
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 at 12:24:27 pm EDT
> > Didn't really hurt Spiderman or Superman the Movie.
> Spider-Man is a rare exception, because the story of Spider-Man is more about Peter Parker than Spider-Man. That being said, I thought 2 was a superior movie and part of that was the whole movie could be devoted to a Spider-man tale without spending a lot of time on his origins.
Spider-man 2 was the superior movie I agree, but it was only so good because a lot of the character groundwork had already been laid in the first origin movie.
> Superman the Movie was bloody long.
Superman the Movie is THE definitive superhero movie. Its that simple.
> > If you are talking about Batman Begins it DID have his origins. His parents murdered by Joe Chill - what movie were you watching again!? !!!
> I was watching Batman, with Michael Keaton. Yes, they put his origin in, but it wasn't half of the movie, it was contained to pretty much one scene. Batman Begins is specifically focused on Batman's formative years, but since that movie wasn't trying to do anything BUT flesh out his origin, rather than establish his origin and tell another story on top of that, it worked well.
Okay so what percentage of the Batman movies (any) have Batman in the costume. As far as I can see, none of them have him in costume more than 33% at best. Which means for two thirds of the movie he's Bruce Wayne.
Similarly Spiderman and Superman.
So you cannot say that having Don Blake for a certain period of time is going to wreck the movie.
In my synopsis, after the opening (10 min) Asgardian Battle nightmare/flashback. I had Don Blake become Thor by about the 30-35 minute mark. After which I think he is Thor for about 80+% of the rest of the movie.
> > I suspect that the hammer never had the worthy enchantment until Odin banished Thor, although that sits at odds with early (Tales of Asgard) canon (which was paid homage to in Son of Asgard).
> > There does seem to be a contradiction somewhere.
> > > We could probably just go back and forth on this one, couldn't we?
> > Probably, but in the end I would win for the simple fact that Thor wasn't banished for no reason, ergo he must have been banished for 'a' reason. A reason which Odin deemed required a punishment of 40 years of incarceration.
> You just said you "suspect" Thor wasn't worthy.
Of course, there is no way of knowing until Marvel reveal it.
> You can't prove it, therefore you can't declare that you would "win".
I can declare it because if and when a solution comes forth it has to deal with the contradiction within the canon, and the only logical answers to the problem support my side of the argument.
I'll concede that if Marvel go with an illogical answer, then I could be wrong on the matter.
> Basically we can agree to disagree, or agree that it's inconclusive. There is nothing in canon to confirm either of our viewpoints.
We can conclude that Thor was banished for 'a' reason. A reason Odin deemed necessary for incarcerating his own son for 40 years.
> > Simply because everything in the comic is based upon/follows on from those origins.
> Yes, but I don't think a whole movie about the origin of Thor is necessary. Introduce him as the Norse God of Thunder, son of Odin, and get to the story.
You have to show how he gets to become Thor (again).
> > Aside from changing his comic book origins...
> Movie's are never taken verbatim from comics, it just won't work.
I'm not asking for verbatim. But at least add the key elements.
> For example, Spider-Man was given organic webbing in the movie.
The most trivial debate in superhero movies. Added to which the idea that technological or organic webbing is a change akin to erasing Don Blake from the history of the Mighty Thor is utterly ludicrous. You can't compare the two.
> That goes against his origins, but developing the web-shooters would have slowed the movie down too much.
It was as much about verisimilitude as slowing it down. Frankly I think it was a good idea.
> In X-3, it was said Juggernaut was a mutant. Yes, they could have gone into the whole Cyttorak thing, but it would have slowed things down too much, and as such, they just made him a mutant.
Exactly it was unnecessary because Juggernaut was only a henchman at best in that movie. To recount his origins would have taken too long.
If we get to do a Juggernaut movie (and I suspect its a long way off) then who is to say the gem Cytorrak gave him didn't 'mutate' him.
> Movies taken from written source material are adaptations. All movies based on books or comics will state "Based on" the source material, not word for word transferences to the screen.
There is a difference between minor changes and A COMPLETE CHANGE.
> > If Thor is banished to Earth at the end of the first movie then that suggests hes done something to warrant that banishment. That means you need to make Thor look bad (a bragging bully perhaps?) in his origin movie, hardly the mark of a hero.
> I think it would add some grit to the movie, personally.
No one will be rooting for Thor if hes a bully. Ergo, no one will like him. One of the defining characteristics of a hero is that you like him.
> Who would expect the title character in a comic book movie to be banished to anothe realm at the end? It leaves people wanting more, to see what happens next. I think it would be refreshing.
Given that you would already be revealing Asgard in the first movie I think New York would (or indeed should) look pale by comparison.
You build 'up' to showing Asgard. You don't build up to showing New York.
Take the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The battles in the movie get bigger and bigger, not smaller and smaller.
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|