Thor

[Athaniar]

So I watched the Thor film yesterday. It was awesome. Excellent acting, great story, and absolutely amazing scenery. The new Marvel cinematic universe has yet to disappoint me. So, what do you all think?

[Corvus]

Only just saw it myself. Liked it a lot.

Only 1 other person stayed behind to the end of the credits for the scene at the end.

Be fun to see Thor return in the Avengers.

[Athaniar]

Hm, has anything about the plot of the Avengers movie been revealed yet? If not, any credible speculation?

[hamlet]

How can one watch the Thor movie when it doesn't get released until next week?

[Kobold-Bard]

How can one watch the Thor movie when it doesn't get released until next week?

Advanced previews old chum.

[Abies]

Hm, has anything about the plot of the Avengers movie been revealed yet? If not, any credible speculation?

The post-script to the Ed Norton Hulk film is the best indication thus far I think.

The speculation goes like this: Hulk shows up, newly formed Avengers assume he's up to no good and try to take him down. The real threat is revealed and they all team up to save the day.

[hamlet]

Advanced previews old chum.

Ah. I see.

So basically, they're evil jerks while the rest of us have to sit here and stew.:smallwink:

[Keld Denar]

How do you think the critics get their reviews out in time for the public to read them prior to the release day? I've been to a few critical reviews, including a prescreening of The Social Network nearly a month before it's official release.

ION: I'm extremely excited for this movie. I'll probably go see it opening night, if I can.

[Corvus]

It was released here in Australia back on the 21st.

We got a movie before other parts of a world? Must mean the end times are nigh.

[ThePhantasm]

Advanced previews old chum.

Could be that. Could also just be that it is released earlier in some countries than others, which is the more likely explanation.

[The Glyphstone]

It was released here in Australia back on the 21st.

We got a movie before other parts of a world? Must mean the end times are nigh.

You have to pay 5x to get the DVDs shipped in or something, don't you? It probably balances out.

[Athaniar]

How can one watch the Thor movie when it doesn't get released until next week?
Well, it has been released here since the 27th or 26th, I think.

...no, I won't tell you where "here" is.

[Dr.Epic]

Planning on going to the midnight showing on the 5th. I'm excited!

[Zevox]

Thor starts playing soon? Huh, and here I thought the Green Lantern film was the first of the two coming out. Guess not though, since that starts mid-June.

According to wikipedia it starts may 6th here in the US, but Australians apparently had it start showing a full week ago on the 21st. Weird.

Well, I will probably be seeing it. Like with Iron Man, I don't actually know much about Thor (the Marvel superhero version anyway), but the concept interests me enough that I'll check it out and hope for the best.

Zevox

[JabberwockySupafly]

It was released here in Australia back on the 21st.

We got a movie before other parts of a world? Must mean the end times are nigh.

Actually, if you think about it, we of the Land Girt By Sea tend to get all the Marvel films up to two weeks earlier than the rest of the world. Donno why, but I'm going with Voodoo. Or possibly that the Sydney-based Fox Studios has been used for one reason or another in all of them and thus they get released here earlier as a kind of "Thank You".

[Seonor]

In Germany Thor is playing since yesterday. It not unusual that we get movies at the same day or 3-5 days later than the amaricans, but an earlier release happens not that often. I'm trying to see it in english so I have not seen it yet but the trailers make it look good.

[Dr.Epic]

I for one am severely disappointed It's Just Some Random Guy hasn't made a "Hi, I'm a Marvel... And I'm a DC..." with Thor or any of the upcoming superhero that will be in films this year.

[Avilan the Grey]

First Thor review I saw here in Sweden was a total thrashing. 1 of 5, main complaints were "bad acting, AWFUL dialog, too dark (the photo, not the plot) and boring, standard action sequences.

[Athaniar]

First Thor review I saw here in Sweden was a total thrashing. 1 of 5, main complaints were "bad acting, AWFUL dialog, too dark (the photo, not the plot) and boring, standard action sequences.
I would definitely disagree. I think the acting was excellent, the dialog was good, there was nothing wrong with the lighting, and the action was awesome. Did we even watch the same movie?

[ThePhantasm]

I would definitely agree.

Do you mean disagree? :smallconfused:

[Athaniar]

Do you mean disagree? :smallconfused:
Yeah, I'm kinda tired...

[GolemsVoice]

I just came back from seeing it, and I was expecting a trashy, bland, but action-packed movie, and I received a fun, awesome, only slightly trashy action-packed movie. I was very pleasantly suprised.

I especially liked Loki, both the actor and the character. While it was clear from the beginning that he was the bad guy (he IS Loki, he HAS to be), he was nowhere near the fully transparent yet somehow "brilliant" schemer I expected him to be, and at the beginning I wasn't even sure he would betray them. And even when he does, the movie tries to give him motivation and personality beyond "mwahahaha". It could be possible to believe he truly thought that was he did was right and neccessary.

[JonestheSpy]

I read some people are up in arms because of casting a black actor as Hiemdall. I'm just thinking "It's based on a comic book people, not the frickin Elder Eddas". And somehow, I don't think any of the people upset about this were too concerned when Hollywood whitewashed the entire nation of Sparta in 300...

Anyway, looking forward to seeing it.

[Seonor]

I read some people are up in arms because of casting a black actor as Hiemdall. I'm just thinking "It's based on a comic book people, not the frickin Elder Eddas". And somehow, I don't think any of the people upset about this were too concerned when Hollywood whitewashed the entire nation of Sparta in 300...

Anyway, looking forward to seeing it.

Yeah. Not to forget that the vikings traveled far. Groups of them made it at least as far as Egypt and they sometimes served as mercenaries or royal guards. Payment was gold, slaves, women etc. So the rare black viking isn't impossible.

[Zevox]

I read some people are up in arms because of casting a black actor as Hiemdall.
From what I read the people in question are basically an openly racist group (as in they explicitly refer to blacks as, and I quote: "a retrograde species of humanity"), so yeah, considering the source, that is neither surprising nor worth treating as a serious argument.

Zevox

[Teutonic Knight]

But how cheesy would you say Thor was? Because this is a Marvel hero based off of mythology and not an original story like the others, so... :smallconfused:

[deniel]

Thor is attaining the popularity day by day. I think it gonna be a huge hit.

[Abies]

From what I read the people in question are basically an openly racist group (as in they explicitly refer to blacks as, and I quote: "a retrograde species of humanity"), so yeah, considering the source, that is neither surprising nor worth treating as a serious argument.

Zevox

An interesting theory, but one with no basis in fact. Plenty of folks with familial links to Norse ancestry have taken exception to the casting of "the Whitest" god as a black man. Just because the most base examples of humanity are vocal does not mean there is no merit to their argument.

Heimdall was always described as a fair (for the stupid: White skinned) individual. To cast an actor of African descent (or any non-pale skinned individual) as that character does a disservice to the source material, and to the culture that venerated it.

By the same token, if there were to be a movie about Greek mythology, where Hepahestus was the villian, would not the African American community be outraged if a crippled, dark skinned man were portrayed as a negative character among all white "gods"? Certainly that is a basic description of the character.

There was no logical reason to cast "the whitest" Norse god as a black man besides to create artificial controversy. The stupid will condemn the casting of a black man as Heimdall. I choose to believe it does not matter. Its a bit character in a popcorn movie. The "damage" to my heritage will be only as severe as I and others of Norse decent allow it to be. If only all people could choose to be so permissive.

[GolemsVoice]

I read some people are up in arms because of casting a black actor as Hiemdall. I'm just thinking "It's based on a comic book people, not the frickin Elder Eddas". And somehow, I don't think any of the people upset about this were too concerned when Hollywood whitewashed the entire nation of Sparta in 300...


Well, the moment I saw Asgaard, I was sure that we see the Marvel version here, which has few things in common with how Asgaard from norse mythology might have looked. Such, I had little problem with a black Heimdall. Had the movie been different, and they would ahve aimed at recreating a "realistic" Asgaard, well, then that wouldn't have made sense.

[true_shinken]

Guys, this movie was finally released on my country yesterday.
It rocks. It rocks so much.
It's amazing. I want to watch it in 3D (I couldn't because of time issues) because Asgard is so amazingly incredible.

I lost the after credits scene, though. :smallfrown:



I read some people are up in arms because of casting a black actor as Hiemdall. I'm just thinking "It's based on a comic book people, not the frickin Elder Eddas". And somehow, I don't think any of the people upset about this were too concerned when Hollywood whitewashed the entire nation of Sparta in 300...

Asgardians are not vikings. Asgardians are extradimensional dudes. The vikings saw a few asgardians and thought they were gods. That's all. There is no viking ethnicity in Asgard. If anything, the black Heimdall and the asian Hogun just make Marvel's Asgard more believeable.




Heimdall was always described as a fair (for the stupid: White skinned) individual. To cast an actor of African descent (or any non-pale skinned individual) as that character does a disservice to the source material, and to the culture that venerated it.
This is not the mythological character Heimdall. This is an extradimensional character that in-universe inspired the myths about Heimdall. Huge difference.



By the same token, if there were to be a movie about Greek mythology, where Hepahestus was the villian, would not the African American community be outraged if a crippled, dark skinned man were portrayed as a negative character among all white "gods"? Certainly that is a basic description of the character.
This is not a movie about Norse mythology, it's a movie about a comic book.


There was no logical reason to cast "the whitest" Norse god as a black man besides to create artificial controversy.
Yes, there is a logical reason, and it's all there in the movie. It's to emphasize that asgardians are not viking gods, they are extradimensional beings.

[Starscream]

Looking forward to it. So far the Marvel-produced films have all been excellent.

Back in 2005 I was fortunate enough to get into an advanced screening of Revenge of the Sith, which was being previewed at my university. Saw it two weeks before general release.

When we left, there were tons of Star Wars geeks ready to quiz us. I tried to convince one of them that Padme hooks up with Jar Jar, but he didn't buy it.

[Athaniar]

I don't care what ethnicity Heimdall's actor is, but I must say, he's one of my favorite characters in the film.

[Zevox]

An interesting theory, but one with no basis in fact.
If you like, I could provide you with the link to the article in question, and to information on the group they pinpoint as starting a movement to boycott the movie over the casting, which is most definitely what I described. (I'd do so now, but the site I got it from is pretty heavily political, so I'm hesitant to just post it in the open.)


Just because the most base examples of humanity are vocal does not mean there is no merit to their argument.
No, the fact that this movie is not supposed to be a portrayal of Norse mythology, but an adaptation of a superhero comic book inspired by (but also not at all an accurate portrayal of) Norse mythology is what means there is no merit to their argument.

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

Asgardians are not vikings. Asgardians are extradimensional dudes. The vikings saw a few asgardians and thought they were gods. That's all. There is no viking ethnicity in Asgard. If anything, the black Heimdall and the asian Hogun just make Marvel's Asgard more believeable.

This is not the mythological character Heimdall. This is an extradimensional character that in-universe inspired the myths about Heimdall. Huge difference.

This is not a movie about Norse mythology, it's a movie about a comic book.

Yes, there is a logical reason, and it's all there in the movie. It's to emphasize that asgardians are not viking gods, they are extradimensional beings.

I do think that your arguments are wrong. BOTH the source materials (Marvel Comics and the old religion) say that Heimdall is very fair. To me it's just as wrong as say making Samwise, Robin, Wonder Woman, Boadicea, Julius Caesar or Shaka Zulu etc of a different color. It doesn't make sense.

Now I do not really mind, because it is a movie I can overlook it easily if I decide to watch it.

[true_shinken]

I do think that your arguments are wrong. BOTH the source materials (Marvel Comics and the old religion) say that Heimdall is very fair. To me it's just as wrong as say making Samwise, Robin, Wonder Woman, Boadicea, Julius Caesar or Shaka Zulu etc of a different color. It doesn't make sense.
:smallsigh:
You simply misunderstood my arguments. What I'm saying is that having a black Heimdall is a way to make sure the viewers understand that asgardians are not vikings. This whole discussion makes it seem like it was too subtle, though.

[Selrahc]

I do think that your arguments are wrong. BOTH the source materials (Marvel Comics and the old religion) say that Heimdall is very fair. To me it's just as wrong as say making Samwise, Robin, Wonder Woman, Boadicea, Julius Caesar or Shaka Zulu etc of a different color. It doesn't make sense.

Now I do not really mind, because it is a movie I can overlook it easily if I decide to watch it.

The movie is not intending to be a full recreation of the source material. This isn't a retelling of the early days of the Thor comics. This is "movie universe" Thor, based on Marvel's Thor.

There are far far bigger changes to the Thor stories from marvel than simply changing Heimdalls skin colour. Both the comics and the movie also take far bigger liberties with Norse legend than Heimdall.

[Athaniar]

Personally, I don't think it's a big enough issue to get so upset about.

[GolemsVoice]

Not at all. I admit I was suprised at first, but once I saw Asgaard and some of the other stuff, I figured that this was probably a thing that is explained by some fact in the Marvel universe that I don't know about, since I haven't read anything about Thor. But it was clear from the beginning that they didn't aim at an Asgaard as the old Norse might have envisioned it, so that's ok.

[MammonAzrael]

So where does Thor fall in the scale of superhero movies, quality wise? Iron Man? Batman Begins? Spiderman 2?

[Athaniar]

So where does Thor fall in the scale of superhero movies, quality wise? Iron Man? Batman Begins? Spiderman 2?
Depends on what you think of those movies, of course, but I would place it just below Iron Man (which I loved).

[Aidan305]

Saw it this afternoon. Thought it was alright. Acting was good, plot was good. But I had two major problems with it.

My first was the shoe-horned romance. Yes, we get that she has a serious crush on Thor, but he gives no real sign of reciprocation until it's time for the heroic sacrifice. And apparently this unseen romance between the two led directly to him radically changing his thoughts and beliefs. Had we actually seen any sign of him changing, or learning about how he failed in his duties as a prince it might have been better, but there wasn't. Yes, I can buy that he was willing to sacrifice himself to let his friends escape, but I can't buy that he did it because of love, when we had seen no signs of any major feelings between the two.

My second problem deals with Loki. I thought that he was far and away the best character in the film. He's cunning, brave, and a decent human being. He's also intelligent enough to seek peace in a time of peace, as opposed to the blatant warmongering of Thor.
So why the hell is it that Odin wants to make Thor king of Asgard? Loki would clearly do a far better job in the position because he, unlike Thor, can grasp the consequences of his actions. I can't help but side with him in the whole "You cared more about Thor than me" thing he had going there. And while this can be a good thing in some cases; here it just messes things up, and makes the heroes look bad. Especially Odin.

[Boci]

:smallsigh:
You simply misunderstood my arguments. What I'm saying is that having a black Heimdall is a way to make sure the viewers understand that asgardians are not vikings. This whole discussion makes it seem like it was too subtle, though.

I think with Zena, Jackie Chan and Robin Hood, we had enough reminders.

[Avilan the Grey]

:smallsigh:
You simply misunderstood my arguments. What I'm saying is that having a black Heimdall is a way to make sure the viewers understand that asgardians are not vikings. This whole discussion makes it seem like it was too subtle, though.

This is exactly my point, really. Why SHOULDN't they be? Why shy away from that, of all things? Now before we go any further Asgardians are not Vikings, because "Viking" is a word invented by other people in the 10th century to describe people from Scandinavia.
What I mean is why the whole "Let's make a movie about Thor, but let's stress the point that neither he nor the others in the Pantheon actually are gods, and not related to Scandinavian mythology". I just don't get it. I seriously don't.
Harryhousen got away with claiming that the beings in Clash of the Titans and Jason and the Argonauts were greek gods, didn't he?

[Zevox]

What I mean is why the whole "Let's make a movie about Thor, but let's stress the point that neither he nor the others in the Pantheon actually are gods, and not related to Scandinavian mythology". I just don't get it. I seriously don't.
Because the Thor that they are making a movie about is the Marvel comics superhero, not the mythological deity, of course. How is that unclear? :smallconfused:

Zevox

[Avilan the Grey]

Because the Thor that they are making a movie about is the Marvel comics superhero, not the mythological deity, of course. How is that unclear? :smallconfused:

Zevox

...Because Thor in Marvel IS a god?

[Zevox]

...Because Thor in Marvel IS a god?
:smallconfused: You sure? True Shinken's statements earlier seemed to indicate the reverse.

Zevox

[JonestheSpy]

In all honesty, it's pretty vague. In the comic the Asgardians refer to themselves as gods pretty often, but most of the "official background material" calls them extradimensional beings. Really, it's a lot like when 2nd Edition DnD stopped calling the lower planes Hell and the Abyss and its denizens demons and devils, obviously to try and defuse any attacks by religious types.

But even so, Marvel distorted all kinds of stuff from mythology. Sif became a warrior who was Thor's on/off romance instead of his wife, Tyr a minor villain instead of God of Justice, Balder the Beautiful, the most peaceful and gentle god also was made into a warrior as well. Etc. etc. And I'm sure the movie took lots of liberties with the comic. So for anyone to get upset because Hiemdall isn't portrayed by a white actor - well, let's just say it betrays an obsession about skin color that's darn unhealthy.

And as I mentioned in my first post, I doubt any of the folks up in arms about this were concerned about the whitewashing of the entire nation of Sparta in 300, completely distorting a comic that was actually supposed to be based on real history.

[lord_khaine]

In all honesty, it's pretty vague. In the comic the Asgardians refer to themselves as gods pretty often, but most of the "official background material" calls them extradimensional beings. Really, it's a lot like when 2nd Edition DnD stopped calling the lower planes Hell and the Abyss and its denizens demons and devils, obviously to try and defuse any attacks by religious types.

It also depends on what definition of god you are using, but if we use the one from old norse mythologi, then it does indeed fit it perfectly.


My second problem deals with Loki. I thought that he was far and away the best character in the film. He's cunning, brave, and a decent human being. He's also intelligent enough to seek peace in a time of peace, as opposed to the blatant warmongering of Thor.
So why the hell is it that Odin wants to make Thor king of Asgard? Loki would clearly do a far better job in the position because he, unlike Thor, can grasp the consequences of his actions. I can't help but side with him in the whole "You cared more about Thor than me" thing he had going there. And while this can be a good thing in some cases; here it just messes things up, and makes the heroes look bad. Especially Odin.

You missed a vital point from the movie, it was Loki who let the frost giants into the vault at the start of the movie, where they did kill 2 guards. So no, he isnt a decent human being, and thats not just because he is a (small) giant

[GolemsVoice]

I actually liked how they didn't cast Loki as a really evil guy, more as a guy who is just mislead and blinded by anger and ambition. Thor probably get's to be king because he is the older son, but you'll notice that Odin DOES realize he's not fit to be king yet, and I guess that if Thor wouldn't have changed his ways, Loki would become king eventually. Odin loves Thor very much, and he realizes what denying him the right to be king would make him do. Loki on the other hand seems like the guy who is far to reluctant about showing his emotions, so that his father never realized how much being second hurt him.

[Selrahc]

Post credit scene

Cosmic cube.
Loki is probably one of the Villains for the Avengers movie. As you'd expect really.
In fact, Thors supporting cast looks to be in line for a big role, since there isn't a sequel to the movie between now and the Avengers. That means the Avengers movie will need to deal with Thor returning to Earth and reuniting with Jane.

[SMEE]

I saw it yesterday.
It was awesome, action packed, and filled with hot, buffed up, bearded, shirtless blonde.
What's not to love? :smalltongue:

The plot is okay for an action movie, and it delivers exactly what I expected it to.
Two hours of mindless fun.

About the post-credit scenes:


As said by Selrahc, Loki makes people mess with the Cosmic Cube.
It's clearly a call for the Avengers movie. What else would be as threatening?

Only Galactus, but Galactus without the Fantastic Four is just wrong. And now that Johnny is Captain America, we would have some troubles to have both on screen. :smalltongue:

[Asta Kask]

Balder the Beautiful, the most peaceful and gentle god also was made into a warrior as well. Etc. etc.

There actually are stories where Balder was an evil warrior Ase, and was killed by the valiant and noble Höder... but I doubt that's why MC portrayed him that way.

Oh, and Thor should have red hair. When it's mentioned in the sagas, he always has red hair. :smalltongue:

[DragonOfUndeath]

There actually are stories where Balder was an evil warrior Ase, and was killed by the valiant and noble Höder... but I doubt that's why MC portrayed him that way.

Oh, and Thor should have red hair. When it's mentioned in the sagas, he always has red hair. :smalltongue:

You want a redheaded guy hero?
I can understand a heroine but *yuck* ginger does NOT look good on boys *points at Ron Weasely*

[Asta Kask]

Faithfulness to the sagas must always come first!!! :smallbiggrin:

[H Birchgrove]

:smallconfused: You sure? True Shinken's statements earlier seemed to indicate the reverse.

Zevox

The film trailer here clearly stated that Thor is the only super-hero who is a god.


There actually are stories where Balder was an evil warrior Ase, and was killed by the valiant and noble Höder... but I doubt that's why MC portrayed him that way.

Oh, and Thor should have [I]red hair. When it's mentioned in the sagas, he always has red hair. :smalltongue:

I read in a background text to a 1990's Thor comic (translated here in Sweden) that the blonde Thor who exists in "current" Marvel Universe is a re-incarnation of the ginger Thor who Snorri Sturluson and previous poets wrote about. The same applies to the other Norse gods in the Marvel Universe, because they all got re-incarnated after Ragnarök.


There is one thing I want to get - mildly - spoiled at before I go watch the film: Are Volstagg and the rest of the Warriors Three in the film? :smallsmile: Edit: Found the answer at Wikipedia; they are.

[paddyfool]

You want a redheaded guy hero?
I can understand a heroine but *yuck* ginger does NOT look good on boys *points at Ron Weasely*

Don't be messin' with the G-word. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0IVuGK7sAw)

Also, how can you be dissin' such paragons of manliness as these fine specimens:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Mythbusters_title_screen.jpg


;)

[true_shinken]

...Because Thor in Marvel IS a god?

Gods in the Marvel Universe are just powerful extradimensional beings. There was a big crossover about them last year, even.

There is an actual god in the Marvel Universe, he showed up in the end of Ghost Rider volume 1 and during a Hulk issue in the 90's. That's the only actual god in the Marvel Universe.

And while they are called gods in the comics, they are not called gods in the movie. There is only a single line mentioning that Thor went to Midgard and was worshiped as a god. One single line.

I think complaining about this is pretty silly. It's like complaining that Moore's Marvelman doesn't have magical powers because the original had them, while it's clear that Moore's Marvelman is a different take on the character.

[JonestheSpy]

It also depends on what definition of god you are using, but if we use the one from old norse mythologi, then it does indeed fit it perfectly.


Except for the fact that in Norse mythology the gods created the Earth and humankind, which in the comics is nowhere near the case. Kind of a big difference there.

[Sir_Chivalry]

WARNING: CAN OF GASOLINE AHEAD

And if we add the clusterhug of a comic series Paradise X to the mix, the norse gods in Marvel are in fact:
Aliens. Not even extradimensional, just aliens. There are three tiers of power. Tier 1: you have powers. Tier 2: your species as a whole has a uniform set of powers. Tier 3: you are what other people define you as.

Thor and Loki and Balder and the like are all like that because they are tier 3 aliens that crashed on earth and encountered a skald who was convinced they were his gods, so he spoke of them and they were. And he made himself Odin by making a deal with Mephisto who is in turn a tier 3 mutation from the dawn of man.Except we are all tier 3 mutations, just some of us think we are tier 1. Wait WHAT?!

[lord_khaine]

Except for the fact that in Norse mythology the gods created the Earth and humankind, which in the comics is nowhere near the case. Kind of a big difference there.

Not the gods in general, Odin and his brother did.

It should also be mentioned, that in the Marvel universe Odin posses power on a scale that places him on a whole seperate tier from most of the remaining universe.

But even though Thor, Tyr, Freya, Frey Heimdal ect had no part in the creation of the world, they were still consideret gods.

And so far, we hasnt seen anything that disqualify the marvel Aesir from the norse definition of a god.

[Selrahc]

Loki

He wasn't a great schemer. A little obvious. But he didn't do anything stupid.
Lying to Thor about Odin's death was a stupid lie, until you remember that he thought he had Heimdall bound to prevent anyone else from contacting Thor.

His decision not to kill Heimdall was questionable though. Heimdall was the only witness to his treachery.

[Avilan the Grey]

I saw it yesterday.
It was awesome, action packed, and filled with hot, buffed up, bearded, shirtless blonde.
What's not to love? :smalltongue:


Boy I can't wait for a Power Girl movie.

Anyway; if it walks like a god, and clucks like a god... I still don't see the argument about Heimdal; it just doesn't make sense. A whole people worshipped him as a god, and I doubt he would be the only one which they got wrong (and totally so) appearance-wise?

[zeratul]

As for the whole Heimdall debate, you should probably know that Kenneth Branagh does this in basically all his films (notably his various shake spear adaptations). He seems to be a huge fan of colorblind casting, which usually plays to his advantage as it get some great actors in parts they probably wouldn't get under different directors. There's no need to justify or demonize him doing this on an idealogical or historical level. all it really as to do with is what actor he thinks will give the best performance in a part.

[Dvandemon]

When I saw Thor yesterday (along with Paul) I enjoyed that part in the End Credits where it said

Thor will return in Avengers
What had me laughing was the guy that shouted, "YES! OH MY GOD YES!"

[Dr.Epic]

Just bought my ticket online for the midnight showing! I'm excited! I've heard good things and hope it's good.

[kpenguin]

As for the whole Heimdall debate, you should probably know that Kenneth Branagh does this in basically all his films (notably his various shake spear adaptations). He seems to be a huge fan of colorblind casting, which usually plays to his advantage as it get some great actors in parts they probably wouldn't get under different directors. There's no need to justify or demonize him doing this on an idealogical or historical level. all it really as to do with is what actor he thinks will give the best performance in a part.

I, for one, enjoyed Denzel Washington as Don Pedro.

To be honest, casting Keanu Reeves as Don John was a weirder choice.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

As for the whole Heimdall debate, you should probably know that Kenneth Branagh does this in basically all his films (notably his various shake spear adaptations). He seems to be a huge fan of colorblind casting, which usually plays to his advantage as it get some great actors in parts they probably wouldn't get under different directors. There's no need to justify or demonize him doing this on an idealogical or historical level. all it really as to do with is what actor he thinks will give the best performance in a part.
I'd forgotten about that, but it's quite true. Good point that bears repeating. Kenneth comes from theater, a place where Chiwetel Ejiofor has played Romeo.

I'm excited to see how Thor pans out, once I have the money to see it.

[Avilan the Grey]

As for the whole Heimdall debate, you should probably know that Kenneth Branagh does this in basically all his films (notably his various shake spear adaptations). He seems to be a huge fan of colorblind casting(...)

I am in theory, and in most circumstances a strong supporter (the same can be said for Genderless Casting which gave us a female Ripley in Alien); however I am strongly against it when it comes to defined characters. I will have HUGE problems accepting a Japanese Batman*, or an African Bilbo etc.

*I am also willing to bet a lot of money that not all roles in the movie were indeed subject of this; I am pretty sure the role of Thor was explicitly casted for white males, for example.

[H Birchgrove]

I am in theory, and in most circumstances a strong supporter (the same can be said for Genderless Casting which gave us a female Ripley in Alien); however I am strongly against it when it comes to defined characters. I will have HUGE problems accepting a Japanese Batman*, or an African Bilbo etc.

*I am also willing to bet a lot of money that not all roles in the movie were indeed subject of this; I am pretty sure the role of Thor was explicitly casted for white males, for example.

Yeah.

Personally I dislike the choice of Michael Clarke Duncan as Wilson Fisk/Kingpin in Daredevil and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, both because I love the original comic book versions* so much and because the casting make the film versions very different from the originals. You don't change Dr Müller in Adventures of Tintin from German to Indian or James Bond from Brit to Inuit, even if the Indian or Inuit are "better" actors.

Funny how people point and laugh at Renaissance theatre having to cast male actors for the female roles or facepalm at Chinese-American detective Charlie Chan being played by a Swede; but if you are irked that a black guy plays a Norse god**, then Your Species Doth Protest Too Much. :smallconfused:

*Yes, I am aware of the Ultimate Universe. It's not the original.

**I'm willing to give black Heimdall a chance and will pass judgement when I've seen the film.

[GolemsVoice]

The question is whether people actually saw Heimdall much. He's a stoic guardian, and I can't believe he's moved much, not even to fight the ice giants. So maybe the gods* that fought in earth told the humans about Asgaard, and what other gods lived up there, and since the rest of the gods is mostly white, they believed Heimdall would look the same. On the other hand, Thor is as white and nordic as possible. Blond and blue-eyed.




* when I say gods, I mean how these Asgaardians were perceived by the old Norse they helped.

[kpenguin]

Funny how people point and laugh at Renaissance theatre having to cast male actors for the female roles or facepalm at Chinese-American detective Charlie Chan being played by a Swede; but if you are irked that a black guy plays a Norse god**, then Your Species Doth Protest Too Much. :smallconfused:

Well, its a bit different, since the character himself within the film is black, just as the actor, I presume. If an adaption of Charlie Chan had Charlie Chan be a Swede and played by a Swede (yet have a Chinese name for some reason) then it'd be a similar situation. Similarly, if an adaption of Romeo and Juliet changed the character Juliet's gender to male and cast a male to play him (her?), then it would be the same.

[Innis Cabal]

The problem isn't that they cast someone who didn't match the description just right. The problem here is that if it's someone saying a white actor should have been cast it's automatically assumed to be racist but it's fine to speak up any other time. And that's just bull.

[kpenguin]

I've got mixed feelings about Heimdall being played by who he is. On the one hand, one would think a Norse god would look... Nordic. On the other... the Asgard of Marvel is not the Asgard of Nordic myth. I mean, you've got all crystal towers everywhere and Hogun the Grim being all up ins. Plus, I didn't have a problem with, say, Elizabeth Taylor being Egyptian.

(Though evidence does point to Cleopatra being fair skinned, being of Greek ancestry, but mehhhhhh)

[Innis Cabal]

Carthagianians were also fair skinned so it wouldn't be unheard of to see pale people in Africa.

I don't care who plays what when or where. My beef is people claiming racism just because someone is saying that an actor should be white.

[H Birchgrove]

The question is whether people actually saw Heimdall much. He's a stoic guardian, and I can't believe he's moved much, not even to fight the ice giants. So maybe the gods* that fought in earth told the humans about Asgaard, and what other gods lived up there, and since the rest of the gods is mostly white, they believed Heimdall would look the same. On the other hand, Thor is as white and nordic as possible. Blond and blue-eyed.




* when I say gods, I mean how these Asgaardians were perceived by the old Norse they helped.

I wonder if Stan Lee and Jack Kirby got inspiration from this painting, "Thor's battle with the Ettins" (1872) by Mårten Eskil Winge, considering that Thor - IIRC - in the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda was red-haired:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thor.jpg

It's a bit kitsch, right? :smallwink:


Well, its a bit different, since the character himself within the film is black, just as the actor, I presume. If an adaption of Charlie Chan had Charlie Chan be a Swede and played by a Swede (yet have a Chinese name for some reason) then it'd be a similar situation. Similarly, if an adaption of Romeo and Juliet changed the character Juliet's gender to male and cast a male to play him (her?), then it would be the same.

Good points by both of you.

[Avilan the Grey]

I wonder if Stan Lee and Jack Kirby got inspiration from this painting, "Thor's battle with the Ettins" (1872) by Mårten Eskil Winge, considering that Thor - IIRC - in the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda was red-haired:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thor.jpg

It's a bit kitsch, right? :smallwink:

AFAIR, Marvel covered that. Last time (before the last Ragnarok, which apparently is a cyclic event in the Marvelverse) that Thor was a redhead.

[Traab]

Personally I dislike the choice of Michael Clarke Duncan as Wilson Fisk/Kingpin in Daredevil

See, while I agree that seeing kingpin played by a black man was a bit jarring to me, I actually thought he fit the role REALLY well. I mean, the kingpin to me has always been this massive bulky fellow that is surprisingly strong. (Dude has chucked spiderman through walls at one point or another) and Michael Duncan had that look to him. I mean I personally would have gone a worlds strongest man looking actor myself, you know, the type of build that isnt hugely defined muscles, he is just fricking BIG all the way around, but Duncan nailed it damn well imo. Plus, he just struck me as having the right mannerisms and everything.

Although the whole final fight scene was a bit much. I dont recall offhand the kingpin EVER volunteering to fight the hero head to head without backup and mooks to slow him down. But then, I never read daredevil comics, just some spiderman and I dont care how tough of a normal human you are, you dont get into a fist fight with spiderman by choice.

[Asta Kask]

The question is whether people actually saw Heimdall much. He's a stoic guardian, and I can't believe he's moved much, not even to fight the ice giants. So maybe the gods* that fought in earth told the humans about Asgaard, and what other gods lived up there, and since the rest of the gods is mostly white, they believed Heimdall would look the same. On the other hand, Thor is as white and nordic as possible. Blond and blue-eyed.




* when I say gods, I mean how these Asgaardians were perceived by the old Norse they helped.

In the sagas, Heimdall definitely moves around. He creates society by being the progenitor of the Jarl (noblemen), Carl (free men) and Thrall (slaves) classes.

[JonestheSpy]

Yeah.

Personally I dislike the choice of Michael Clarke Duncan as Wilson Fisk/Kingpin in Daredevil and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, both because I love the original comic book versions* so much and because the casting make the film versions very different from the originals.

I find this both telling and unfortunate. I mean Samuel Jackson is just chock-full of Nick Furyness. If you look at everything about him except his skin color, then I think you'd be really really hard pressed to find an actor who fits the role better. But in the mind of too many people, his skin color trumps all those other qualities. (Haven't seen Daredevil so can't comment one way or another.)



In the sagas, Heimdall definitely moves around. He creates society by being the progenitor of the Jarl (noblemen), Carl (free men) and Thrall (slaves) classes.

But in the comic, he didn't. Nor did Odin create the universe with the help of his brothers, nor does Thor cause all rain and storms. Despite their power level, the Marvel Asgardians are vastly different than mythological gods in that they don't actually run the universe.

[H Birchgrove]

AFAIR, Marvel covered that. Last time (before the last Ragnarok, which apparently is a cyclic event in the Marvelverse) that Thor was a redhead.

Yup, I mentioned that earlier. :smallwink:


See, while I agree that seeing kingpin played by a black man was a bit jarring to me, I actually thought he fit the role REALLY well. I mean, the kingpin to me has always been this massive bulky fellow that is surprisingly strong. (Dude has chucked spiderman through walls at one point or another) and Michael Duncan had that look to him. I mean I personally would have gone a worlds strongest man looking actor myself, you know, the type of build that isnt hugely defined muscles, he is just fricking BIG all the way around, but Duncan nailed it damn well imo. Plus, he just struck me as having the right mannerisms and everything.

Although the whole final fight scene was a bit much. I dont recall offhand the kingpin EVER volunteering to fight the hero head to head without backup and mooks to slow him down. But then, I never read daredevil comics, just some spiderman and I dont care how tough of a normal human you are, you dont get into a fist fight with spiderman by choice.

Actually, the Kingpin in the comics is, or was, a great fighter, specialized in sumo wrestling. He wasn't even actually fat as DD first thought; most of that "bulk" were muscles.

To be fair to Duncan, he was the least problem in the film; the script messed more with Kingpin than Duncan's all-in-all decent acting.


I find this both telling and unfortunate. I mean Samuel Jackson is just chock-full of Nick Furyness. If you look at everything about him except his skin color, then I think you'd be really really hard pressed to find an actor who fits the role better. But in the mind of too many people, his skin color trumps all those other qualities. (Haven't seen Daredevil so can't comment one way or another.)

I disagree; Samuel L. Jackson is talented but he too often plays either a tough gangster type or a tough cop type in the films I've seen him in. Unbreakable would be one of the exceptions. Jackson may be cool, but Nick Fury as envisioned by Jim Steranko has a very different type of "cool". I can't see Jackson's Fury test sonic weapons that shatter ICBM's miles away from the device while he is inside a capsule that is propelled by the sonic gun. Or hang-gliding while smoking a cigar. Maybe I will be underwhelmed by anyone who plays that character. :smallsigh:

[Traab]

Actually, the Kingpin in the comics is, or was, a great fighter, specialized in sumo wrestling. He wasn't even actually fat as DD first thought; most of that "bulk" were muscles.

Which is why i said a worlds strongest man type would have been better. They arent big defined muscles. They are gigantic thick bodied people who can strap a fridge to their backs and still outrun me in a sprint. Who could probably hurl ME further than I could toss a discus.

[GolemsVoice]

Regarding Loki: While it was clear he was the designated villain from the beginning, I found his scheming to be quite well-made, at least as far as Hollywood scheming goes. He didn't sound like a complete liar every time, where you have to question the sanity of the hero that in the least believes him.

[Nero24200]

I am in theory, and in most circumstances a strong supporter (the same can be said for Genderless Casting which gave us a female Ripley in Alien); however I am strongly against it when it comes to defined characters. I will have HUGE problems accepting a Japanese Batman*, or an African Bilbo etc.

I have to agree here. Actors are rejected for roles all the time based on appearence. Why is it okay to reject someone for being too tall/short/fat etc but not skin colour? They're all forms of discrimination.

Even then I wouldn't see a problem if it was an original character, but he's already an established character - So what's wrong with wanting the actor to resemble the character? It's likely that a lot of the backlash isn't so much "OMG he's black! Unacceptable!" but more "But he looks nothing like the character!"

(though as a side note I've not read the comics and honestly don't care if he's black, just saying that I can see were some people are comming from).

[Traab]

I just wanted to add this youtube link so you see what I meant by worlds strogest man body types. THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Nkr15kZBY&feature=player_embedded#at=77) guy has a similar build to comic book kingpin. A solid thick body, no huge muscle definition, and he just lifted up five hundred pounds over his head. A slight exaggeration from special effects and you have a kingpin capable of throwing daredevil through walls.

[Dr.Epic]

Just got back from Thor. Loved it. Better than both Iron Man films and the Incredible Hulk. The comedy, I didn't mind so much as it did feel natural. Norse god in modern earth. If you say it was a little too much, I might have to agree with you, but it was entertaining, and unlike the Fantastic Four films, it was justified. The fight scenes good too. My favorite, well, I'll put this in spoilers:

Best fight scene was the first one with Thor and company taking on the frost giants. I felt so much like a high fantasy story: let's assemble the party, march out, and kick some ass. Awesome! Not to mention we see Thor at full power and that one trick my Loki was pretty cool. The other fights, let's see: Thor trying to get back Mjolnir from S.H.I.E.L.D. was good, but he wasn't at full power so I can't say it was the best. The one against the giant metal/fire thing, okay, but once Thor got back his powers it was over pretty fast.

As for the final showdown between Loki and Thor, I was kind of disappointed. Loki to me just does feel like a fighter. This fight to me was kind of like boxing match between Batman and the Joker. The villain is just a far better trickster. I was kind of expecting Asgard to be overrun with frost giants and Thor and company had to fight through it leading up to the showdown Thor v. Loki and like five uber powerful frost giants. I did like the one bit Loki did with the illusions though, and Thor proved himself clever with placing the hammer on Loki.

I was kind of disappointed that the film ends with "Will Thor ever get back to Earth?" We kind of know he does for the Avengers (yeah, I think we all knew this before seeing the film) so this is just another plot thread that'll have to be covered in the film. How are all these guys going to meet for the film, have enough character development (though, I guess they got that in their own respective films) and have a thrilling superhero plot with tons of action and fight scenes? I guess we'll find out.

[Avilan the Grey]

Just got back from Thor. Loved it. Better than both Iron Man films and the Incredible Hulk.

Well the Hulk part I agree with; this was almost as bad as the Ang Lee's Hulk movie. Iron Man movies? The best superhero movies ever made? Heck no!

The casting and acting was okay for the main characters. The secondary characters were AWFUL. Every time one of the Warrior Three or Sif opened his / her mouth I cringed. I don't know if it was just bad writing or bad acting.

Not enough action by far, most of the movie can be summoned up as "Zzzzzzz". One major fight in the entire movie?? Plus the three short fights that were over almost before they started.

The replacement of magic with "science" was also a dealbreaker for me. I HATED the concept of the "Bifrost Teleportation device thingie". Or the whole "Ancient Astronauts" deal.

Also, make your mind up in the costume department. Why were young Loki and young Thor wearing modern day Earth preppy clothing? At least that's what it looked like to me.

HUGELY disappointed, and comes from someone who was only feeling "meh" about the idea of watching it in the first place.

[Dr.Epic]

Well the Hulk part I agree with; this was almost as bad as the Ang Lee's Hulk movie. Iron Man movies? The best superhero movies ever made? Heck no!

Okay, I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm going to explain why I think the Iron Man films are overrated. Let be state two things before I start: (a) just because I think they are overrated, I still like them but I think they get too much praise; (b) this is just my opinion and feel free to disagree, it doesn't mean you're wrong (but is does mean I'm right:smallwink:)

I. The Protagonist

Let's take a look at Tony Stark and see why I don't like him that much as a protagonist. First of all, the guys pretty unrelatable: billionaire playboy with robots in his house and he can get any woman he wants. That doesn't sound like too many people I know. I mean Batman's rich too but he doesn't act all smug about it. Stark's so cocky he even went public with the fact he's Iron Man because he wanted attention. Hey jerk, you think you might be endangering people's lives? Like people you love...or maybe he doesn't love anyone, I don't know. Also, the guys kind of a jerk: he's got too many vices and addictions to count and he uses women. Yeah, he went through some character development in the story, but he's still a jerk at the end acting all smug like he's better than people. I mean I know Thor was a jerk, but he was humbled at the end even ready to give up his life for others and save a race or horrible aliens because that'd be genocide. As for Bruce Banner, he's the most relatable because he's just an everyday guy, got a girl friend...sort of, doesn't have god status or billions of dollars and he's battling a dark side of himself he can't control which is sympathetic like Smeagol in LotR before he went all crazy and tried to feed Elijah Wood to that spider.

II. The Action

A lot of people say Iron Man has good action scenes, which it does. Problem is the last one, the big showdown is so short. We barely get to see a good fight between the "hero" and the villain. Aside from that, a large portion of the film was just Stark building the suit, which is cool but it takes away from other aspects. Too much was put into the origin story and not enough with other aspects. He doesn't really become Iron Man until the very end. Other films do a better job of summing up the superhero's backstory so they can go out and be awesome. Maybe that's a problem with Iron Man, his story take so long to tell, but Nolan in Batman Begins did a decent enough job to incorporate mobsters, action, and two supervillains and he had Batman going all over the world. Eh, whatever.

[Selrahc]

I. The Protagonist

Let's take a look at Tony Stark and see why I don't like him that much as a protagonist. First of all, the guys pretty unrelatable: billionaire playboy with robots in his house and he can get any woman he wants. That doesn't sound like too many people I know. I mean Batman's rich too but he doesn't act all smug about it. Stark's so cocky he even went public with the fact he's Iron Man because he wanted attention. Hey jerk, you think you might be endangering people's lives? Like people you love...or maybe he doesn't love anyone, I don't know. Also, the guys kind of a jerk: he's got too many vices and addictions to count and he uses women. Yeah, he went through some character development in the story, but he's still a jerk at the end acting all smug like he's better than people. I mean I know Thor was a jerk, but he was humbled at the end even ready to give up his life for others and save a race or horrible aliens because that'd be genocide. As for Bruce Banner, he's the most relatable because he's just an everyday guy, got a girl friend...sort of, doesn't have god status or billions of dollars and he's battling a dark side of himself he can't control which is sympathetic like Smeagol in LotR before he went all crazy and tried to feed Elijah Wood to that spider.


Yeah. If only Tony Stark had been more generic and flawless. That sure would have made the films better.

[Avilan the Grey]

Yeah. If only Tony Stark had been more generic and flawless. That sure would have made the films better.

Definitely this. Stark is awesome because he's heavily flawed.

[Xondoure]

Guys if Ragnarok is cyclic, and the gods all got reincarnated, then why does it matter at all what they look like? It's a movie adaptation of a comic adaptation of a translated version of a myth that was passed down orally and thus had hundreds of different versions during its hey day. Accuracy is not a thing you can afford to care about here, and even if its nice to see a few homages to the original at least learn to pick your battles. Not that I've seen the films yet (been far to busy to hit opening night) but from my loose knowledge of the comics and the trailers its pretty apparent that there are tons of bigger issues with the original myths than who played Heimdall.

[Dr.Epic]

Yeah. If only Tony Stark had been more generic and flawless. That sure would have made the films better.


Definitely this. Stark is awesome because he's heavily flawed.

I'm not saying it's bad a protagonist should have flaws, but after being rich, womanizing, alcoholic, selfish, attention seeking, and despite a near fatal incident only goes through a slight character change, you stop being an interesting character and are just sort of a jerk.

Oh, and for people who think being heavily flawed makes a character awesome I got a few words for you:

The Comedian from Watchmen

[Xondoure]

I'm not saying it's bad a protagonist should have flaws, but after being rich, womanizing, alcoholic, selfish, attention seeking, and despite a near fatal incident only goes through a slight character change, you stop being an interesting character and are just sort of a jerk.

Oh, and for people who think being heavily flawed makes a character awesome I got a few words for you:

The Comedian from Watchmen

The thing is Tony Stark does change a lot. Just not enough that he's willing to let anyone else know. The only person close enough to eventually figure that out is of course the beloved miss Pepper Potts.

The second films major flaw was not expanding on this. Well that and a horrible villain, no tension, dramatic atmosphere thrown away for cheap jokes, and Samuel Jackson's pot belly.

However I will agree with your initial post that the ending (of both films) lacked any sort of real action. At trend I've noticed in a lot of superhero films. :smallannoyed: They can fly, shoot energy bolts, hurl people miles, destroy everything in the surrounding area, and take one hell of a beating. How have you made this boring?

[JonestheSpy]

Oh, and for people who think being heavily flawed makes a character awesome I got a few words for you:

The Comedian from Watchmen

Um, the Comedian IS an awesome character. In the book anyway, never saw the flick.

Still looking forward to seeing Thor, though with only middling expectations.

[Selrahc]

I'm not saying it's bad a protagonist should have flaws, but after being rich, womanizing, alcoholic, selfish, attention seeking, and despite a near fatal incident only goes through a slight character change, you stop being an interesting character and are just sort of a jerk.


I find it odd that someone who is a big fan of both Kick-Ass and Dr. Horrible is making this argument. Surely you realize that jerks can be interesting characters?

[H Birchgrove]

The second films major flaw was not expanding on this. Well that and a horrible villain, no tension, dramatic atmosphere thrown away for cheap jokes, and Samuel Jackson's pot belly.

Thanks for reminding on another issue I have with Jackson as Nick Fury. :smallamused:


However I will agree with your initial post that the ending (of both films) lacked any sort of real action. At trend I've noticed in a lot of superhero films. :smallannoyed: They can fly, shoot energy bolts, hurl people miles, destroy everything in the surrounding area, and take one hell of a beating. How have you made this boring?

Iron Monger (the villain) was truly a let down. Too little and too late.

[Dr.Epic]

I find it odd that someone who is a big fan of both Kick-Ass and Dr. Horrible is making this argument. Surely you realize that jerks can be interesting characters?

Yeah, but the film tries and portrays Stark as a hero. Those works had an interesting/amusing twist on it.

[Thrawn183]

After watching Hulk vs. Thor, I thought Thor's friends were portrayed pretty dang well. At least, very much consistent with how they've previously been portrayed.

Also, I and everyone else in the theater loved the comedy bits when Thor first arrives on Earth.

[Admiral Squish]

Just saw the movie. With my mother. which was slightly creepy, since I could hear her 'mmm-MMM' ing under her breath when Thor was shirtless.

Great movie, nonetheless. And hell, I've gotta admit it. I'm pretty damn straight and I would sleep with that guy. The acting was great, I felt the love interest was kinda shoved in there unnecessarily, though. I loved the robot with the retractable laser-face.

[thompur]

Saw it this afternoon. A lot of fun! Special effects were special, without being overwhelming. They served the story.
Minor quibbles. Fandral could have been more "dashing", Hogun could have been more 'grim', and Volstagg could have been fatter, but they all did fairly well, otherwise.
And for those who have yet to see it: STAY UNTIL THE END OF THE CREDITS!
You won't be sorry. Because I just KNOW you all want to see who the Key Grip was.:smallwink:

[Dr.Epic]

Also, I and everyone else in the theater loved the comedy bits when Thor first arrives on Earth.

"You dare threaten Thor with so puny a weapon?"

[Thrawn183]

This movie might actually set a record for having the hero knocked out for the longest amount of time/number of times.

[Dr.Epic]

This movie might actually set a record for having the hero knocked out for the longest amount of time/number of times.

What about X-Men 2? Cyclops was knocked out pretty much the entire film?

[Avilan the Grey]

What about X-Men 2? Cyclops was knocked out pretty much the entire film?

Cyclops is a jerk. Doesn't count. :smalltongue:

[DiscipleofBob]

Saw the movie last night. Loved every minute, though there were a few possible easter eggs that kind of bugged me:

WARNING MAJOR SPOILERS:



Two questions.

First, when Thor beats up all the SHIELD agents while going after the hammer, we see Hawkeye pick up a bow and take a sniping position. All well and good, but then there was a second prominent figure. Thor's about to get to the hammer when a big black guy blocks his path and actually puts up a decent fight against Thor. It seems unlikely that this was really just another guard, so it got me thinking: Was that a Luke Cage cameo?

Secondly, at the end. The secret ending. What's that in the briefcase? For the life of me I know as a Marvel fan I'm supposed to know what it is, but I'm drawing a blank.

[Axinian]

If there's anything that gets one in the mood for high-level D&D/Exalted, it's this movie.

[Avilan the Grey]

Saw the movie last night. Loved every minute, though there were a few possible easter eggs that kind of bugged me:

WARNING MAJOR SPOILERS:



Two questions.

First, when Thor beats up all the SHIELD agents while going after the hammer, we see Hawkeye pick up a bow and take a sniping position. All well and good, but then there was a second prominent figure. Thor's about to get to the hammer when a big black guy blocks his path and actually puts up a decent fight against Thor. It seems unlikely that this was really just another guard, so it got me thinking: Was that a Luke Cage cameo?

Secondly, at the end. The secret ending. What's that in the briefcase? For the life of me I know as a Marvel fan I'm supposed to know what it is, but I'm drawing a blank.



Might have been.
The thing at the end is apparently supposed to be the Cosmic Cube, the thing that drives the plot in the upcoming Captain America movie.

Edit: Why do they nerf the characters in the first installment? We saw how AWESOME Thor is at full power in the beginning of the movie, and then we never got to see him cut loose again. Same with Iron Man, which despite being awesome could have been so much MORE so if they had made the fight against Iron Monger at full power level!

[Thrawn183]

Edit: Why do they nerf the characters in the first installment? We saw how AWESOME Thor is at full power in the beginning of the movie, and then we never got to see him cut loose again. Same with Iron Man, which despite being awesome could have been so much MORE so if they had made the fight against Iron Monger at full power level!

It's probably because most of the first installments are origin stories about people coming into their abilties/powers and having to learn to handle them. It probably makes it easier to produce when you're not doing the FX that we would normally associate with the final fight in one of these movies the whole time.

I actually really liked that we got to see Thor as being awesome from the beginning. It makes sense though: how many other characters are essentially as strong as they'll ever be from the beginning of their story?

[Shades of Gray]

FETCH ME A HORSE!

Sorry, we only sell dogs, cats, birds...

FINE. THEN FETCH ME ONE LARGE ENOUGH TO RIDE.

[DragonOfUndeath]

FETCH ME A HORSE!

Sorry, we only sell dogs, cats, birds...

FINE. THEN FETCH ME ONE LARGE ENOUGH TO RIDE.

Best Quote Ever!!!

[Avilan the Grey]

It's probably because most of the first installments are origin stories about people coming into their abilties/powers and having to learn to handle them. It probably makes it easier to produce when you're not doing the FX that we would normally associate with the final fight in one of these movies the whole time.

I actually really liked that we got to see Thor as being awesome from the beginning. It makes sense though: how many other characters are essentially as strong as they'll ever be from the beginning of their story?

Well personally I hope (which they won't) that they will keep his strength level at the same level as in the comics: When he is in Midgard (aka on Earth) he only uses 1/7th of his maximum STR (even when facing foes like the Hulk!) because he is afraid of destroying something important.

[Thrawn183]

Well personally I hope (which they won't) that they will keep his strength level at the same level as in the comics: When he is in Midgard (aka on Earth) he only uses 1/7th of his maximum STR (even when facing foes like the Hulk!) because he is afraid of destroying something important.

Oh, I just meant in the sense that he doesn't need to discover/learn to use his powers, because he already has them. No adapting to changes from a super serum or finding a magic ring. He just is what he is.

[kpenguin]

Ye verily, faithful playgrounders! Mine own eyes shall be watching Thor in less than two hours. Thou shalt know my review of the film when I return, but knowst that mine excitement hath built greatly such that I shall be speaking in this manner until then.

If Thor doth not deliver some speak that soundeth cheesily archaic, I shall be most disappointed.

[DragonOfUndeath]

You are gonna be disappointed then.

[Zevox]

Saw it earlier today. It's definitely quite good - as superhero movies go, I'd put it just below the first Iron Man. I particularly liked the fight scene on the ice world (yeah, my ability to remember and spell that name is nonexistent at the moment), albeit with the disclaimer that there were some parts of it where I wished the scenes didn't keep jumping away to other parts of the fight so damn fast.

Some criticisms, though:
Loki's acting got a little too hammy for me when he found out he was a Frost Giant and just before his big fight with Thor.

Some of the comedy got a little too goofy for me. For instance, Thor smashing his coffee cup. Without any sort of set-up, it just came across as a forced Viking stereotype gag. They should've at least showed him doing the same to a mug of ale in Asgard earlier or something if they wanted to do that gag.

The end-of-movie action scenes were a little too short. Not Iron Man 2 level short, thankfully, but I'd have preferred they be longer - particularly Thor vs Loki.

Speaking of, Loki is supposed to be a sorcerer, right? So, why did he mostly fight Thor physically in that last fight? The only magic he really did was the one illusion.

On a similar note, why did none of Thor's four friends display any real superhuman powers? Where Thor, Odin, Heimdal, and Loki all did have exceptional abilities, they seemed like little more than skilled, but still mortal, warriors.

Oh, a big one: Odin's coma. What was that about? They reference it like it's some recurring thing once, but never bother to explain it, other than the reference the Frost Giant makes to Odin being rumored to be able to see and hear while he's in it. Without any explanation it comes across as just a convenient plot device - especially when it just happens to wear off just in time for Odin to save Thor from falling off Bifrost. Should have been set up better, too. I was going "what the hell?" when Odin suddenly fell over as if he had suffered a convenient heart attack and died while Loki was yelling at him.
Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me who exactly Thor's Asgradian friends were supposed to be? I caught Sif's name, but the others all escaped me.

Zevox

[GolemsVoice]

From what I gathered without knowing much of the Marvel background, these are just his friends and companions of many adventures. They struck ma as a very D&Dish party.

[Selrahc]

The Warriors Three. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warriors_Three) Non mythological characters, who are Thor's closest friends, comrades and comic relief. They normally stick around Asgard and so don't crop up outside the Thor comics.

[leafman]

Zevox:
Odin fell into the Odinsleep, which is a 24 hour period in which Odin must sleep to recharge his power and is vunerable during that time. (I can't find a reference to this in Norse legend, but I'm sure someone who knows the Prose and Poetic Edda's will know more)

Thor's band of merry men is the Warriors Three, Volstagg, Hogun and Fandral. They are from the comics, but have no basis in Norse mythology.

[thompur]

Saw it earlier today. It's definitely quite good - as superhero movies go, I'd put it just below the first Iron Man. I particularly liked the fight scene on the ice world (yeah, my ability to remember and spell that name is nonexistent at the moment), albeit with the disclaimer that there were some parts of it where I wished the scenes didn't keep jumping away to other parts of the fight so damn fast.

Some criticisms, though:
Loki's acting got a little too hammy for me when he found out he was a Frost Giant and just before his big fight with Thor.

Some of the comedy got a little too goofy for me. For instance, Thor smashing his coffee cup. Without any sort of set-up, it just came across as a forced Viking stereotype gag. They should've at least showed him doing the same to a mug of ale in Asgard earlier or something if they wanted to do that gag.

The end-of-movie action scenes were a little too short. Not Iron Man 2 level short, thankfully, but I'd have preferred they be longer - particularly Thor vs Loki.

Speaking of, Loki is supposed to be a sorcerer, right? So, why did he mostly fight Thor physically in that last fight? The only magic he really did was the one illusion.

On a similar note, why did none of Thor's four friends display any real superhuman powers? Where Thor, Odin, Heimdal, and Loki all did have exceptional abilities, they seemed like little more than skilled, but still mortal, warriors.

Oh, a big one: Odin's coma. What was that about? They reference it like it's some recurring thing once, but never bother to explain it, other than the reference the Frost Giant makes to Odin being rumored to be able to see and hear while he's in it. Without any explanation it comes across as just a convenient plot device - especially when it just happens to wear off just in time for Odin to save Thor from falling off Bifrost. Should have been set up better, too. I was going "what the hell?" when Odin suddenly fell over as if he had suffered a convenient heart attack and died while Loki was yelling at him.
Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me who exactly Thor's Asgradian friends were supposed to be? I caught Sif's name, but the others all escaped me.

Zevox

Fandral the Dashing, Hogun the Grim, and Volstaag the Great.

[Elrik]

Loki

He wasn't a great schemer. A little obvious. But he didn't do anything stupid.
Lying to Thor about Odin's death was a stupid lie, until you remember that he thought he had Heimdall bound to prevent anyone else from contacting Thor.

His decision not to kill Heimdall was questionable though. Heimdall was the only witness to his treachery.


Hm. Loki's usually a grand schemer in the comics, I've been reading Thor since the beginning of the JMS run and Loki lived up to the 'trickster' he embodies (as of right now I think he just got finished with a rather large chessmaster-type plan that started somewhere around last June).

Haven't seen the film yet. One of my hopes was that Loki would take home the genre savvy gold with his portrayal in the movie, but I guess I have to watch it myself.

[Elrik]

Loki

He wasn't a great schemer. A little obvious. But he didn't do anything stupid.
Lying to Thor about Odin's death was a stupid lie, until you remember that he thought he had Heimdall bound to prevent anyone else from contacting Thor.

His decision not to kill Heimdall was questionable though. Heimdall was the only witness to his treachery.


Hm. Loki's usually a grand schemer in the comics, I've been reading Thor since the beginning of the JMS run and Loki lived up to the 'trickster' he embodies (as of right now I think he just got finished with a rather large chessmaster-type plan that started somewhere around last June).

Haven't seen the film yet. One of my hopes was that Loki would take home the genre savvy gold with his portrayal in the movie, but I guess I have to watch it myself.

[Zevox]

Hm. Loki's usually a grand schemer in the comics, I've been reading Thor since the beginning of the JMS run and Loki lived up to the 'trickster' he embodies (as of right now I think he just got finished with a rather large chessmaster-type plan that started somewhere around last June).

Haven't seen the film yet. One of my hopes was that Loki would take home the genre savvy gold with his portrayal in the movie, but I guess I have to watch it myself.
Eh, his plan's good enough for what his intent was, but "chessmaster-type" it isn't.

Zevox

[ScottishDragon]

Well I just got back from seeing Thor in imax 3D. Good movie overall,actually thought it was really short,but then I checked my phone and it had been two hours. Loved the movie,exept I thought the ending was a little anti-climactic and they didn't go in depth enough with Thor and the girl.Was forced to stay through the credits and watch the final scene:smallsigh:.Not worth it,I could have watched it on youtube instead.

[Traab]

Well keep in mind that the plot had to be enacted, discovered, and countered in 2 hours or less. They dont have months to work out a crazy xanatos gambit style plot that takes months to unfold and more months to counter.

[Person_Man]

Just saw it. It was fun, though not as good as Iron Man.

Question: Did anyone see anything interesting in Odin's vault?

After seeing the movie I watched a review (I knew that I was going to see it no matter what, so I avoided reviews so as to avoid all spoilers). The review said to pay attention in Odin's vault for an Easter Egg. I wasn't paying attention. What did I miss?

[SMEE]

I believe I saw the Infinity Gauntlet lost somewhere there.
But I am not sure that this is the easter egg they are talking about.

[Person_Man]

I believe I saw the Infinity Gauntlet lost somewhere there.
But I am not sure that this is the easter egg they are talking about.

The Infinity Gauntlet? That makes no sense given the continuity of the movies. Let's see what Google turns up....

OK, you are right. Here's an image of the stuff in the vault:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/299/vaultm.jpg

The only thing I can identify is the Gauntlet. I have no clue what any of the artifacts from the movie are, other then the Cosmic Cube (which isn't pictured above) which shows up at the end of the movie after the credits.

[Dr.Epic]

Cyclops is a jerk. Doesn't count. :smalltongue:

As opposed to Wolverine who became less badass as the films went on and hogged more of the spotlight and became less and less interesting.

[Mr. Scaly]

The fricking Infinite Gauntlet?! The weapon that gives complete mastery over the entire universe?! ...Okay, now I want to know how it came to be in the Asgardian's weapon vault.


Just saw the movie. Loved it. In terms of Marvel Comic movies I'd put it...below Iron Man but above Iron Man 2. Parts of the Spiderman Trilogy and the X-Men movies were better but on the whole held back by certain undesirable elements (Emo Peter =P). It was more fun than the Incredible Hulk. And none of the rest even come close.

I like how the comedic bits when Thor comes to Earth don't totally derail the movie and don't bog it down in stupid moments. It's fairly reasonable stuff when you think about it. Thor clearly has different customs and has an attitude about everything, but he also clearly understands humans and can work with the strange surroundings.

And considering that Anthony Hopkins reportedly commented "Well we won't be doing very much acting, will we?" upon seeing the costumes...I was shocked at just how well acted it was. Especially Lokie and Thor, in that order.

And as an added treat there were trailers for Captain America and The Green Lantern. :smallbiggrin: It's going to be an expensive summer.

[Dr.Epic]

Working on a vlog review. It might be up in an hour or so.

[Zevox]

And as an added treat there were trailers for Captain America and The Green Lantern. :smallbiggrin: It's going to be an expensive summer.
Lucky - I didn't get a Green Lantern trailer at my showing. Being as Green Lantern is my favorite superhero, I was actually rather disappointed about that.

I did get an X-Men: First Class trailer though. Had no idea it was coming out so soon (early June, the 3rd I think). After that trailer, I'll probably go see that as well.

Zevox

[Admiral Squish]

Lucky - I didn't get a Green Lantern trailer at my showing. Being as Green Lantern is my favorite superhero, I was actually rather disappointed about that.

I did get an X-Men: First Class trailer though. Had no idea it was coming out so soon (early June, the 3rd I think). After that trailer, I'll probably go see that as well.

Zevox
Huh, odd. I got green lantern and X-men.

But yeah, this summer will be unpleasantly expensive...

[bloodtide]

Some criticisms, though:
Loki's acting got a little too hammy for me when he found out he was a Frost Giant and just before his big fight with Thor.

Some of the comedy got a little too goofy for me. For instance, Thor smashing his coffee cup. Without any sort of set-up, it just came across as a forced Viking stereotype gag. They should've at least showed him doing the same to a mug of ale in Asgard earlier or something if they wanted to do that gag.

The end-of-movie action scenes were a little too short. Not Iron Man 2 level short, thankfully, but I'd have preferred they be longer - particularly Thor vs Loki.

Speaking of, Loki is supposed to be a sorcerer, right? So, why did he mostly fight Thor physically in that last fight? The only magic he really did was the one illusion.

On a similar note, why did none of Thor's four friends display any real superhuman powers? Where Thor, Odin, Heimdal, and Loki all did have exceptional abilities, they seemed like little more than skilled, but still mortal, warriors.

Oh, a big one: Odin's coma. What was that about? They reference it like it's some recurring thing once, but never bother to explain it, other than the reference the Frost Giant makes to Odin being rumored to be able to see and hear while he's in it. Without any explanation it comes across as just a convenient plot device - especially when it just happens to wear off just in time for Odin to save Thor from falling off Bifrost. Should have been set up better, too. I was going "what the hell?" when Odin suddenly fell over as if he had suffered a convenient heart attack and died while Loki was yelling at him.
Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me who exactly Thor's Asgradian friends were supposed to be? I caught Sif's name, but the others all escaped me.

Zevox

Answers:
1.A lot of Loki's magic is buff type magic. In D&D terms Loki uses magic like divine strength, arcane armor, haste and such to 'make him as tough as Thor physically'. Otherwise Loki uses lots of illusions and trickery type magic, but is not exactly a blaster-type sorcerer.

2.The Warriors Three and Sif are typical Asgaurdians. They don't have major, active 'god-like' powers. They are stronger, faster, and more powerful then humans(so they are superhuman), but they don't have any magic powers. This was played straight right from the comics.

3.The OdinSleep is from the comics. Every so often, Odin needs to sleep to recharge. And it's not uncommon for traumatic events to drain him into a coma. It's an obvious plot trick to get Odin out of the way for various reasons...but at least it's right out of the comics and Marvel fact.(And on top of that Oidn also is well known to fake things. So you could say he went into a coma to see what Thor and Loki would do if he was 'gone')



Otherwise:I just saw the movie and it was great! They stayed true to about 95% of Comic. And that's a big plus for me.

As the movie is an 'origin movie' Thor is depowered for about half the movie, but that's normal for an origin movie(and we will see it again in Captain America). And Thor does not get a good monster to fight, so we don't get to see a great Thor fight(too bad Ulik could not have showed up).

Loki was great..not evil..just...Loki.

My only real complant was that the 'Frost Giants' were only like nine feet tall. Not exactly 'giant'. Maybe someone could have just clicked the x2 for the CGI. And if they felt they needed human sized foes, why not just add in trolls?

And it would have been nice to see a classic attack on Asgard.

[SMEE]

The Infinity Gauntlet? That makes no sense given the continuity of the movies. Let's see what Google turns up....

OK, you are right. Here's an image of the stuff in the vault:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/299/vaultm.jpg

The only thing I can identify is the Gauntlet. I have no clue what any of the artifacts from the movie are, other then the Cosmic Cube (which isn't pictured above) which shows up at the end of the movie after the credits.


The eye shaped one is the Eye of Ra-Matt.
I am not sure about the other ones, but one looks too much like a "green" lantern. :smalltongue:

Edit:
The Brazier is likely the Brazier of Bom’Galiath (http://marvel.wikia.com/Brazier_of_Bom’Galiath).

[Traab]

The eye shaped one is the Eye of Ra-Matt.
I am not sure about the other ones, but one looks too much like a "green" lantern. :smalltongue:

Edit:
The Brazier is likely the Brazier of Bom’Galiath (http://marvel.wikia.com/Brazier_of_Bom’Galiath).

Can you really count them as easter eggs though? I mean, the brazier especially is one obscure as hell bit of statuary. The infinity gauntlet I can see being the easter egg though.

[Avilan the Grey]

Am I the only one who (in general) feel that DC treats their gods better than Marvel?

[Seraph]

I haven't read any plots involving the infinity gauntlet so I don't know if its possible, but the one in the Asgardian vault might just be the gauntlet itself, with regular gems as placeholders for the actual infinity gems.

[Dr.Epic]

Am I the only one who (in general) feel that DC treats their gods better than Marvel?

I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere Thor in the DC-verse is a drunken buffoon.

[Seraph]

I may be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere Thor in the DC-verse is a drunken buffoon.

in The Sandman, at least, Thor is a gigantic idiot.

[kpenguin]

DC gods don't really appear all that often, anyway. I mean, Wonder Woman gets to interact with them every so often, but otherwise...

[ScottishDragon]

OK, you are right. Here's an image of the stuff in the vault:
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/299/vaultm.jpg

The only thing I can identify is the Gauntlet. I have no clue what any of the artifacts from the movie are, other then the Cosmic Cube (which isn't pictured above) which shows up at the end of the movie after the credits.



Its the goblet of fire!:smalltongue:....it would definately be an easter egg..

[true_shinken]

Am I the only one who (in general) feel that DC treats their gods better than Marvel?

You mean Neil Gaiman treats his gods better than Marvel's.

[Avilan the Grey]

You mean Neil Gaiman treats his gods better than Marvel's.

Never liked him.

No, I mean (at least in Wonder Woman, were they appear the most), they at least occasionally have done research, they bring up obscure gods from minor religions, and so on.

Of course they still mess about with "teh evilz god!" (Ares), because, you know, the reader won't understand a story where there is no major evil deity. Or something (of course there is Darkseid, but anyway). (But that's the same in Marvel, and Disney, and...)

I have always enjoyed Thor though; but I really was disappointed with the movie. Not only due to the lack of Awesome, but that whole "Ancient Astronauts" thing really got on my nerves. At least that's not in the comic.

[comicshorse]

The eye shaped one is the Eye of Ra-Matt.
I am not sure about the other ones, but one looks too much like a "green" lantern. :smalltongue:

Edit:
The Brazier is likely the Brazier of Bom’Galiath (http://marvel.wikia.com/Brazier_of_Bom’Galiath).

Yeah I'm pretty sure the second on the top left is a Green lantern which the Green Lanterns use to recharge their power rings

[JonestheSpy]

You mean Neil Gaiman treats his gods better than Marvel's.

You mean Gaimen treats his gods much worse than Marvel. Really, if you were a pagan deity you'd have to be pretty masochistic to prefer living in Gaimen's grim and pessimistic imagination over the cheesey-but-fun Marvelverse.



Of course they still mess about with "teh evilz god!" (Ares), because, you know, the reader won't understand a story where there is no major evil deity. Or something (of course there is Darkseid, but anyway). (But that's the same in Marvel, and Disney, and...)


Well really, Ares is pretty much the biggest bastich in the Greek pantheon. All he does is enjoy slaughter and strife in battle, except when he's sleeping with his brother's wife. If you're going to look for a bad guy among the Greek gods, he fits the bill pretty easily.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I have always enjoyed Thor though; but I really was disappointed with the movie. Not only due to the lack of Awesome, but that whole "Ancient Astronauts" thing really got on my nerves. At least that's not in the comic.

The "gods" as hyper advanced beings from another realm is the purest Kirby though. Cross reference the Fourth World and Eternals for example. Its entirely appropriate to the comics source material. I personally have always felt it the most appropriate way to handle such entities too. Too many people (Gaiman looking at you) want to lower the old gods into being parasites suckling on human delusion instead of powers in their own right.

Also a lack of awesome?

[Avilan the Grey]

The "gods" as hyper advanced beings from another realm is the purest Kirby though. Cross reference the Fourth World and Eternals for example. Its entirely appropriate to the comics source material. I personally have always felt it the most appropriate way to handle such entities too. Too many people (Gaiman looking at you) want to lower the old gods into being parasites suckling on human delusion instead of powers in their own right.

Also a lack of awesome?

See, I feel the exact opposite; if you are going to have deities in your multiverse, make then actual deities. If you don't feel that living gods fit in your story, don''t use them.

Edit: And yes, lack of Awesome. I don't know what movie all of you saw that ranks it just below Iron Man, I was extremely underwhelmed; apart from the big fight in the beginning the rest of the movie was very much a snore-fest to me.

[Person_Man]

See, I feel the exact opposite; if you are going to have deities in your multiverse, make then actual deities. If you don't feel that living gods fit in your story, don''t use them.

I think there would be a big problem with that. If the Asgardians were presented as literal gods, and in particular if Thor is unambiguously presented as the son of the All Father, then almost all of the predominant religions of Earth are wrong. This doesn't bother me at all - I'm capable of separating my enjoyment of fiction from my real world beliefs. But I'm fairly certain it would bother other people. A lot.

The 4th World "ancient astronauts" thing was a smart move. It let them tell the same story while avoiding pointless controversy. And more importantly, it only takes one minute to explain, so that they can move on to the real plot. We're pre-conditioned to accept stories about aliens, but skeptical, angry, annoyed and/or unwilling to watch stories about religion that we don't agree with beforehand.

[hamlet]

Eh, his plan's good enough for what his intent was, but "chessmaster-type" it isn't.

Zevox

Just remember, it's Loki's origin story too. He's just getting warmed up and hasn't really gotten his Magnificent Bastard legs yet. Looks like they're setting him up for this kind of thing in the Avengers movie.

[Traab]

I think there would be a big problem with that. If the Asgardians were presented as literal gods, and in particular if Thor is unambiguously presented as the son of the All Father, then almost all of the predominant religions of Earth are wrong. This doesn't bother me at all - I'm capable of separating my enjoyment of fiction from my real world beliefs. But I'm fairly certain it would bother other people. A lot.

The 4th World "ancient astronauts" thing was a smart move. It let them tell the same story while avoiding pointless controversy. And more importantly, it only takes one minute to explain, so that they can move on to the real plot. We're pre-conditioned to accept stories about aliens, but skeptical, angry, annoyed and/or unwilling to watch stories about religion that we don't agree with beforehand.

Funny, i dont recall that coming up when disney released that hercules movie. Noone tried to turn zeus into an alien from a higher dimension. He was a god, and I dont recall any massive hue and outcry of rage from every other religion on earth that were just told that obviously their religion must be wrong if a movie using another pantheon got released.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think there would be a big problem with that. If the Asgardians were presented as literal gods, and in particular if Thor is unambiguously presented as the son of the All Father, then almost all of the predominant religions of Earth are wrong. This doesn't bother me at all - I'm capable of separating my enjoyment of fiction from my real world beliefs. But I'm fairly certain it would bother other people. A lot.

As Traab points out, it has been done before without any problem.
And it is actually a standard idea in comics and films: all gods exists at the same time. All mythology is true.

(This is how DC does it, and this is why Hercules in Marvel can do a temporary replacement gig as "Thor" in Marvel)

[Mr. Scaly]

Funny, i dont recall that coming up when disney released that hercules movie. Noone tried to turn zeus into an alien from a higher dimension. He was a god, and I dont recall any massive hue and outcry of rage from every other religion on earth that were just told that obviously their religion must be wrong if a movie using another pantheon got released.

Well people are weird, I think we can all agree. Weird, unpredictable and touchy. People have apparently found it offensive that Heimdall was cast as a black actor, offensive that there were extra-dimensional beings in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and offensive that someone has the nerve to dress in certain ways. You never can predict what people might find offensive.

[kpenguin]

Personally, I was walking in expecting Thor to look like a little gray man.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080329165915/stargate/images/thumb/2/23/Thor.jpg/250px-Thor.jpg

[SuperPanda]

I was thinking that all through the movie too. :smallbiggrin:

Maybe this is why I didn't have a problem with a powerful Norse figure having dark skin and orange eyes. Maybe that or the fact that there was also a decidely asian Norse figure among the warrior's three and one of the other ones was a pretty boy fencer who kept making me think of Soul Calibur.

In all honesty, the way the film played it I had no trouble accepting differences between the Asgaard we saw and the Asgaard of legend, it all felt like a Doctor Who tie in where this was the truth behind the legend.

Actually, I spent at least half the movie trying to spot a mad man in a fez and a bowtie.

[Zevox]

Funny, i dont recall that coming up when disney released that hercules movie. Noone tried to turn zeus into an alien from a higher dimension. He was a god, and I dont recall any massive hue and outcry of rage from every other religion on earth that were just told that obviously their religion must be wrong if a movie using another pantheon got released.
Hercules was a movie about greek mythology - not an accurate one, no, but it was presented as being about that topic. Thor isn't a movie about mythology, it's a movie about a superhero, and people have very different expectations for that. One of which being that the world superhero stories will take place in will be more or less like our own, just with people capable of acquiring superpowers and maybe some advanced technology. Start implying that in the Marvel movie universe the "true religion" is Norse myths and you'll certainly see some nuts reacting and accusing Marvel of all kinds of stupid things.

In any event, I don't care either way myself. The way they did it works fine for me, and I thought was excellently executed. Having the explanations for old myths be something other than "they are true" or "they are completely made up without a grain truth" can make for some good stories, and I'd say this is one of them.

Zevox

[JonestheSpy]

Funny, i dont recall that coming up when disney released that hercules movie. Noone tried to turn zeus into an alien from a higher dimension. He was a god, and I dont recall any massive hue and outcry of rage from every other religion on earth that were just told that obviously their religion must be wrong if a movie using another pantheon got released.

Hercules was a (badly done) movie based entirely in Greek mythology, set before there was anything resembling the mainstream religions of today. In comics though, they grab from any source material that occurs to them. There's pre-christian mythologies from all over, demons and angels, alien gods from outer space, Robert E. Howard-style weird gods lurking in ancient ruins, etc - all set in modern times. So it seems fine to me to fudge the 'divine' part of the characters, just to avoid both the hassle of offending real-world religions but more practically to not have to nail down an actual theology for the made-up world - one that would have to be rewritten anyway the next time a writer adds something new.

[Avilan the Grey]

Hercules was a movie about greek mythology - not an accurate one, no, but it was presented as being about that topic. Thor isn't a movie about mythology, it's a movie about a superhero, and people have very different expectations for that.

I disagree; the Marvel comic is very much about Norse Mythology. Well, at least "Norse Mythology". Thor has never been a superhero; he is a living god that helps mortals. That makes him a superhero.

[Giggling Ghast]

They're very loosely based on Norse mythology, Avilan. And as this is an adaptation of The Mighty Thor, it makes more sense for the the film to hold true to to the Thor of Marvel comics than the Thor of mythology.

IMO, it hardly matters whether Thor is a proper "god" or merely an immensely powerful supernatural being regarded as a god. There are a number of mortal superheroes and supervillians who are quite capable of handing Thor his blonde head on a platter. If Thor is a god, then the mortals of the Marvel comics have surpassed their gods, and thus the distinction hardly matters anymore.

In any case, I thought the movie was pretty good. Good action, well-acted, excellent writing. I was kind of surprised that it had such a bittersweet ending.

[JonestheSpy]

I disagree; the Marvel comic is very much about Norse Mythology. Well, at least "Norse Mythology".

Could you point me toward which of the Eddas has the giant robots and the alien invaders? Must have missed those - I'm pretty sure I would have remembered them had they shown up in my translation of Snorri Sturluson.

[Giggling Ghast]

Could you point me toward which of the Eddas has the giant robots and the alien invaders? Must have missed those - I'm pretty sure I would have remembered them had they shown up in my translation of Snorri Sturluson.

It's after the part about a horse-headed alien named Beta Ray Bill proving worthy to wield Mjolnir, but before the chapter where Thor re-creates Aesgard on Earth.

[kpenguin]

What bothers me about the Asgardians being ancient astronauts with sufficiently advanced technology is not so much that it deviates from the mythology, since I think we've made clear that the Mighty Thor is not the Thor of Norse myth, but that it removes trace of the supernatural from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Magic and mysticism are, I believe, as part and parcel of the superhero universe as supertechnology and radioactive spiders. When the Avengers film comes up, I hoped to see a contrast between Thor's belief in magic and distrust in mortal technology and Stark's trust in science and disbelief in hocus pocus horse-hockey, just as I hoped to see a contrast between Stark being a man of the future and Rogers being a man of the past.

Say if Doctor Strange appears. Shall I expect him to be technomage, using hi-tech trickery to replicate sorcery? Shall I expect Dormammu to be another sufficiently advanced alien along the lines of the Asgardians?

However, taken on its own, this reinterpretation of Asgard is quite acceptable, perhaps more than.

[Traab]

You know what? I cant quite bring myself to care if some schmuck gets offended by a fictional movie based off a fictional comic book character that turns out to be a mythological god. If you are going to get upset because Thor turns out to be... THOR, and further manage to twist that into claiming that the director is saying that norse gods are the "one real group" Then you are probably too stupid to write a protest statement down on your sign to let people know why you are marching in front of the theater.

"Omg! They claim thor is an actual god! God will smite them for the sacrilege!"

"Yeah thats nice and all, but this is a pet store, the movie theater is down the street."

*EDIT* And even better, i can take the same basic premise to why they might have claimed aliens, and use that to whip up a religious hysteria that since they are claiming the norse gods are aliens, OBVIOUSLY they are trying to claim that MY god isnt really a god, just an advanced alien too! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

[Giggling Ghast]

What bothers me about the Asgardians being ancient astronauts with sufficiently advanced technology is not so much that it deviates from the mythology, since I think we've made clear that the Mighty Thor is not the Thor of Norse myth, but that it removes trace of the supernatural from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I don't really get that. What else could you call all the super powers on display in this movie if not magic? And isn't magic referenced a few times?

[kpenguin]

I don't really get that. What else could you call all the super powers on display in this movie if not magic? And isn't magic referenced a few times?

I guess the whole "Science and Magic are the same thing lol" Thor said to Padme Jane got to me. But you have a point, there.

[Giggling Ghast]

IMO, the Aesgard of the film is still an inherently magical place, but the distinction between "science" and "magic" has been blurred a little. This is a modern Aesgard versus some backwater dimension trapped in Medieval stasis where Vikings spend their days wrasslin' with trolls.

This avoids the problem of Thor wandering around screaming about "moving metal horses" and jumping up and howling in terror whenever someone turns on the kitchen sink. That movie's been done. He's still a fish out of water, but that's more because Aesgard is very differently culturally than modern-day America.

"This drink! I like it! MORE!" :smallbiggrin:

[Zevox]

Thor has never been a superhero; he is a living god that helps mortals.
Again, this is the opposite of what others were claiming earlier in the thread. Now, I haven't read any Thor comics - heck, I've barely read any non-Green Lantern comics - so I don't know which of you is right. In either event though, people unfamiliar with the source material will hear that it is a superhero movie and have certain expectations based on that.

As I said before, I frankly don't much care, as it seems to me that the movie works very well as-is, and I don't see how it would have been better had they made Thor and the Asgardians actual gods instead of otherworldly beings.

Zevox

[kpenguin]

Well, Thor is both a living god and a superhero in the same way Superman is both an alien and a superhero.

And by god, I mean immensely powerful supernatural being confirmed to be the being worshipped by Vikings but not actually the person, like, controlling all the thunderstorms and such in the present day. I mean, he has to coeexist with Zeus and Indra and all those guys.

You know, all this talk of gods makes me pine for an Incredible Hercules movie. Pitch as a buddy movie, even.

HE'S THE PRINCE OF POWER WHO KNOWS HOW TO HAVE A GOOD TIME.
HE'S THE SEVEN SMARTEST PERSON ON THE PLANET JUST LOOKING FOR HIS PLACE.

TOGETHER, THEY FIGHT CRIME!

[Giggling Ghast]

HE'S THE PRINCE OF POWER WHO KNOWS HOW TO HAVE A GOOD TIME.
HE'S THE SEVEN SMARTEST PERSON ON THE PLANET JUST LOOKING FOR HIS PLACE.

TOGETHER, THEY FIGHT CRIME!

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/4/49344/1092757-hercules_thumbs_up_super.jpg

I'm using that unironically, BTW.

[Soras Teva Gee]

What bothers me about the Asgardians being ancient astronauts with sufficiently advanced technology is not so much that it deviates from the mythology, since I think we've made clear that the Mighty Thor is not the Thor of Norse myth, but that it removes trace of the supernatural from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Magic and mysticism are, I believe, as part and parcel of the superhero universe as supertechnology and radioactive spiders. When the Avengers film comes up, I hoped to see a contrast between Thor's belief in magic and distrust in mortal technology and Stark's trust in science and disbelief in hocus pocus horse-hockey, just as I hoped to see a contrast between Stark being a man of the future and Rogers being a man of the past.

Say if Doctor Strange appears. Shall I expect him to be technomage, using hi-tech trickery to replicate sorcery? Shall I expect Dormammu to be another sufficiently advanced alien along the lines of the Asgardians?

However, taken on its own, this reinterpretation of Asgard is quite acceptable, perhaps more than.

Except the Asgardians aren't simply using tech either in the movie or in the comics. Thor was stripped of his power not by stealing his hi-tech hammer and some forcefield disks, but stripped of his magical hammer by the magical Odinpower.

Marvel has always played fast and loose with the difference between "magic" and "cosmic beings" to there being no essential difference. Doctor Strange's series introduced Eternity who is thus "magic" in that sense, but is generally considered a sibling to Galactus who is generally not. Once you hit Thor and Doc Strange's level the difference stops mattering very quickly.

The question you should ask is what exactly would a being like Thor mean in an universe where both myth and science are true? And he isn't some faith power entity cooked up by humanity itself. What is the difference between an alternate world reached via wormholes and one reached by a rainbow bridge. The answer is there isn't, except somewhere in methodology. And while Bifrost seems like a machine, its hardly comparable to a nuclear reactor in any of its engineering. Nothing else even comes as close as that to being a machine. However that doesn't mean there can't be scientific equivalents or effects descriable in scientific terms.

As Thor says he comes from a place where magic and science are the same thing. Which means they are magic.



As I said before, I frankly don't much care, as it seems to me that the movie works very well as-is, and I don't see how it would have been better had they made Thor and the Asgardians actual gods instead of otherworldly beings.

Perhaps the better question is what would make them "actual gods" to begin with?

How do you have all myths being true, while also allowing for the Big Bang? How does the story of Ymir and Odin, stand alongside Uranus and Gaia, alongside Atum and Rosie Palms? As a consequence of them all existing (as they do in say Marvel) you can't have them all be completely right, especially when you include God (who is also Marvel canon) in the mix.

I'm only aware of this being handled two ways. One is by making the "gods" some sort of advance beings like Marvel's Thor, or by them being somehow created by and dependent on humanity's beliefs thus their truth may have once been true but isn't now thanks to subjective reality. As I can get behind powerful beings called gods (though maybe not deserving the title) and I can't get behind psychic parasites... I prefer the Thor option.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Saw it last night. EPIC. I was incredibly pleased, and it did a great job of blending theatric drama (no surprise, given Branagh's involvement), fantasy worldbuilding, and comic-book action. Ridiculously fabulous.

Also, Heimdall was thoroughly awesome. And the ending was a great setup for the Avengers movie, or at least part of it. And the cameos were cool...I laughed when the nametag showed up on the sweater.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Except the Asgardians aren't simply using tech either in the movie or in the comics. Thor was stripped of his power not by stealing his hi-tech hammer and some forcefield disks, but stripped of his magical hammer by the magical Odinpower.

Marvel has always played fast and loose with the difference between "magic" and "cosmic beings" to there being no essential difference. Doctor Strange's series introduced Eternity who is thus "magic" in that sense, but is generally considered a sibling to Galactus who is generally not. Once you hit Thor and Doc Strange's level the difference stops mattering very quickly.

The question you should ask is what exactly would a being like Thor mean in an universe where both myth and science are true? And he isn't some faith power entity cooked up by humanity itself. What is the difference between an alternate world reached via wormholes and one reached by a rainbow bridge. The answer is there isn't, except somewhere in methodology. And while Bifrost seems like a machine, its hardly comparable to a nuclear reactor in any of its engineering. Nothing else even comes as close as that to being a machine. However that doesn't mean there can't be scientific equivalents or effects descriable in scientific terms.

As Thor says he comes from a place where magic and science are the same thing. Which means they are magic.
Saw it yesterday, and I have to agree here. The movie says it best, as you say., and honestly, the internal consistency is so solid I don't really care that they played fast and loose with the myth.

Perhaps the better question is what would make them "actual gods" to begin with?

How do you have all myths being true, while also allowing for the Big Bang? How does the story of Ymir and Odin, stand alongside Uranus and Gaia, alongside Atum and Rosie Palms? As a consequence of them all existing (as they do in say Marvel) you can't have them all be completely right, especially when you include God (who is also Marvel canon) in the mix.

I'm only aware of this being handled two ways. One is by making the "gods" some sort of advance beings like Marvel's Thor, or by them being somehow created by and dependent on humanity's beliefs thus their truth may have once been true but isn't now thanks to subjective reality. As I can get behind powerful beings called gods (though maybe not deserving the title) and I can't get behind psychic parasites... I prefer the Thor option.
I think White Wolf's Scion had an interesting take on it. Initially the Gods were avatars of the Titans, who were the core essences of the forces of nature, creative and destructive in an all-encompassing sense. Then mortals showed up, barely noticeable initially, but eventually some Avatars grew interested in them and found that contact with them bound them to each other through the power of Fate, and that changed them, taking the raw, impersonable forces of nature and giving them human faces, emotions and dreams. These became the Gods. They didn't become more powerful through mortal worship, but it was mortals that gave them definition beyond the raw power of the elements. In fact, at some point the Gods decided they didn't WANT mortal worship because Fate's influence could become too strong, forcing them on a predetermined path based on mortal expectations.

It has the Gods already existing as powerful beings prior to mortal worship, and it doesn't make them dependent on that worship. It made them what they are, but they don't depend on it.

[Foeofthelance]

I guess the whole "Science and Magic are the same thing lol" Thor said to Padme Jane got to me. But you have a point, there.

I think the line is being misinterpreted. Jane makes the comment about Clarke's law, and how sufficiently advanced tech seems like magic. I think what Thor meant was that the same things can be done using magic or technology, and while his people do it through magic, seeing it done through tech isn't that odd to someone who's traveled through the nine realms. I'd point to his later explanation that the nine realms are connected via Yggdrasil, The World Tree instead of saying they were linked through the bridges Jane was investigating. The physical consequences might be the same whether the bridge is opened through whatever spell or whatever device, but the manner in which it is achieved is different.

I dunno. The Asgardians came off as being extradimensional beings, sure, but they didn't strike me as super advanced aliens, just people who interacted with reality in a different way.

[Avilan the Grey]

My point is that if you read Thor and crossovers (such as the X-men one where Storm replaces Thor as god of thunder (and looks hawt doing it)) it is clearly a world based on magic and godly powers, not "advanced tech". I am not talking about the actual mythology, but the source material!

To me there IS a difference. You can argue that "it doesn't matter if the rainbow bridge is an actual rainbow bridge or a wormhole". I think it bothers me the most because it is such an unnecessary change. What I mean with that is that if there had been technical limitation I can understand it. To just change it because of...??? I don't get. To me that reeks of "Author On Board".

[Parra]

I just saw the Movie Asgardians magitech in a kinda Tippeyverse style magic/tech.
That magic is so prevailent that it is used in the same fashion as we use technology and, where applicable, used in conjuntion with technology to the point where its difficult for an outside observer to tell the difference

[Sir_Chivalry]

My point is that if you read Thor and crossovers (such as the X-men one where Storm replaces Thor as god of thunder (and looks hawt doing it)) it is clearly a world based on magic and godly powers, not "advanced tech". I am not talking about the actual mythology, but the source material!

To me there IS a difference. You can argue that "it doesn't matter if the rainbow bridge is an actual rainbow bridge or a wormhole". I think it bothers me the most because it is such an unnecessary change. What I mean with that is that if there had been technical limitation I can understand it. To just change it because of...??? I don't get. To me that reeks of "Author On Board".

You mean the source material where supposed gods are terrified of aliens closing their wormholes to reach Earth? (Celestials)

Perhaps you are reading a translation, but from my experience with Marvel, the idea that the gods are aliens is nothing new. The movie actually returned some grandeur to them at least.

[H Birchgrove]

I saw it on Sunday with friends. Liked it, including Heimdall, Loki, Thor himself, Yggdrasil, magic/science, The Warriors Three, etc. May post later, with spoilers.

[Tyndmyr]

You mean the source material where supposed gods are terrified of aliens closing their wormholes to reach Earth? (Celestials)

Perhaps you are reading a translation, but from my experience with Marvel, the idea that the gods are aliens is nothing new. The movie actually returned some grandeur to them at least.

Would agree. The difference between gods and aliens is not often worth making the distinction between. They're generally both. And there is no particular reason in the marvel universe why magic and tech can't go together. If it was the dresden universe, I'd agree that you can't do magitech willy nilly, but in marvel...it's a normal thing. Hell, supervillains have made use of technomagic combinations routinely.

I was pretty stoked by the whole movie. I'm glad Loki finally has somewhat more depth than he typically had in the comics. He has often been among the thinnest of villains historically.

[The Big Dice]

To me there IS a difference. You can argue that "it doesn't matter if the rainbow bridge is an actual rainbow bridge or a wormhole". I think it bothers me the most because it is such an unnecessary change. What I mean with that is that if there had been technical limitation I can understand it. To just change it because of...??? I don't get. To me that reeks of "Author On Board".
But it was both. Bifrost was an actual physical bridge that looked to be made of rainbows, and a wormhole that didn't look to be made of rainbows. I liked hte idea of alien astronauts, because the issues was handled well. "Where I come from, magic and technology are the same thing." No more need be said, one sentence to justify everything.

Personally, I thought it was a great movie. It didn't take itself too seriously, Branagh showed himself to be a capable director in that he concentrated on the characters, but was willing to let the spectacle take centre stage when the time was right for it to do so. And for a 2+ hour movie, it went by very quickly. And it was a great way to waste an afternoon.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

But it was both. Bifrost was an actual physical bridge that looked to be made of rainbows, and a wormhole that didn't look to be made of rainbows. I liked hte idea of alien astronauts, because the issues was handled well. "Where I come from, magic and technology are the same thing." No more need be said, one sentence to justify everything.

Personally, I thought it was a great movie. It didn't take itself too seriously, Branagh showed himself to be a capable director in that he concentrated on the characters, but was willing to let the spectacle take centre stage when the time was right for it to do so. And for a 2+ hour movie, it went by very quickly. And it was a great way to waste an afternoon.

I whole heartedly agree. I'm gonna see it again with some friends on Friday, and copious amounts of popcorn shall be devoured in glee!

[bloodtide]

Except the Asgardians aren't simply using tech either in the movie or in the comics. Thor was stripped of his power not by stealing his hi-tech hammer and some forcefield disks, but stripped of his magical hammer by the magical Odinpower.

Marvel has always played fast and loose with the difference between "magic" and "cosmic beings" to there being no essential difference. Doctor Strange's series introduced Eternity who is thus "magic" in that sense, but is generally considered a sibling to Galactus who is generally not. Once you hit Thor and Doc Strange's level the difference stops mattering very quickly

It's all the same in Marvel.

The Asgardians are using tech, that is so advanced (even to us) that it looks like 'magic'. The idea is 'magic' is just using force/power to do things. There is nothing special about magic.

We are right on the cusp on having a smart chip in our bodies that will control everything around you. That would be magic to anyone before 1900.

[DraPrime]

So I saw this movie on Tuesday. I liked it, but I have one question:

Why can't Thor get back to Earth? I realized the bifrost is destroyed...but it seems that this is THEIR place that THEY made. Therefore, they probably made the whole bifrost thing. So...why can't they rebuild it? I mean that's a pretty obvious solution to the whole thing. It's worth giving an in-movie explanation of it. Is there some reason for this that would be given in the comics?

Seriously, this really bugs me. It kind of messes up the whole ending for me. Although I will say one thing. That diamond bridge is the most gorgeous looking thing ever. Kudos to the makers of this movie for simply making stuff look beautiful.

[Soras Teva Gee]

It's all the same in Marvel.

The Asgardians are using tech, that is so advanced (even to us) that it looks like 'magic'. The idea is 'magic' is just using force/power to do things. There is nothing special about magic.

We are right on the cusp on having a smart chip in our bodies that will control everything around you. That would be magic to anyone before 1900.

Except that's not the really the case. There is a recent issue of Thor which features a theoretical physicist trying (and failing) to make a point to Volstagg. He has no idea about anything to do with alternate realities via quantum mechanics. And the gag is that Volstagg was sent because he was the best Asgard had for a scientist, and is operating at the level of maybe Renaissance Era dabbler. The best our fat Asgardian manages is that the scientist may have a point and trys to get Thor to listen, which fails even quicker though for other reasons.

Going by Clarke's Third Law this is wrong. Volstagg should follow right along and probably make comments like "of course but what about a Brane in an inverse neutrino relationship" or some such. I'd contrast with another case where over in DC, Supergirl has shown on occasion to have very advanced knowledge on the basis of her Kryptonian "high-school" level education.

The point of abuse is that Clarke states "indistinguishable" which should not be taken for "equivalent"

While certainly tech and especially super-tech of comicbooks can achieve the impossible this does not mean they are the same. Tech always does the impossible because it really wasn't, with Clarke's Third Law a useful handwave over technobabble that might be innaccurate a mere decade from now. Magic skips the process of natural law to enact a miracle directly.

Now Marvel likes to use the latter with some other means and not call it magic. With Thor its magic, with say the Silver Surfer its the Power Cosmic and may as well be magic... but isn't. Which strictly speaking it is, but magic in Marvel is more generally reserved for low level applications next to the real big players.

(Note tech can still reach impossible levels, Nova and Green Lantern are good examples of tech users with essentially magic powers. Just there may potentially be a fully rational explanation for their powers. Thor should not be considered something like that though)


So I saw this movie on Tuesday. I liked it, but I have one question:

Why can't Thor get back to Earth? I realized the bifrost is destroyed...but it seems that this is THEIR place that THEY made. Therefore, they probably made the whole bifrost thing. So...why can't they rebuild it? I mean that's a pretty obvious solution to the whole thing. It's worth giving an in-movie explanation of it. Is there some reason for this that would be given in the comics?

Because it is an irreplaceable artifact who's creation is an epic tale not lending itself to mass production?

Or just simply that it would take a long time compared to us human mayflies.

Though I'd agree a line or two would solve this neatly, it would likely wind up on the cutting room floor for ruining the mood for a minor point.

[true_shinken]

Funny, i dont recall that coming up when disney released that hercules movie. Noone tried to turn zeus into an alien from a higher dimension. He was a god, and I dont recall any massive hue and outcry of rage from every other religion on earth that were just told that obviously their religion must be wrong if a movie using another pantheon got released.

Because it was made for children. Disney can get away with some weird shenanigans if it's directed towards children. I mean, just see how most villains in Disney movies die.
Also, Thor is a being from a different dimension because that's what gods are in the comic. It was not made up for the movie.


Except that's not the really the case. There is a recent issue of Thor which features a theoretical physicist trying (and failing) to make a point to Volstagg. He has no idea about anything to do with alternate realities via quantum mechanics. And the gag is that Volstagg was sent because he was the best Asgard had for a scientist, and is operating at the level of maybe Renaissance Era dabbler. The best our fat Asgardian manages is that the scientist may have a point and trys to get Thor to listen, which fails even quicker though for other reasons.
That just means someone did a really sucky job writing that issue. That has been the canon explanation for decades now. Beast recently mentioned this in Secret Avengers. It was said frequently during Siege as well.

[Parra]

Except that's not the really the case. There is a recent issue of Thor which features a theoretical physicist trying (and failing) to make a point to Volstagg. He has no idea about anything to do with alternate realities via quantum mechanics. And the gag is that Volstagg was sent because he was the best Asgard had for a scientist, and is operating at the level of maybe Renaissance Era dabbler. The best our fat Asgardian manages is that the scientist may have a point and trys to get Thor to listen, which fails even quicker though for other reasons.

Going by Clarke's Third Law this is wrong. Volstagg should follow right along and probably make comments like "of course but what about a Brane in an inverse neutrino relationship" or some such.

Would a similar thing happen if a Modern Day Theoretical Physicist were to talk science with an Ancinet Withdoctor/priest/shaman type from thousnads of years BC?
It would seem to be that the Physicist could be quite confused by some of the ramblings of the Ancient World Scientist. I know I certainly would be (tho Im no scientist) and would find alot of his conclusions laughable

[Innis Cabal]

Yeah I'm pretty sure the second on the top left is a Green lantern which the Green Lanterns use to recharge their power rings

There's one small detail that would invalidate that....two actually.

1. The Green Lantern is a DC comic so it's likely not going to be in a Marvel movie.

2. It's not...you know...green?

[Avilan the Grey]

Soras Teva Gee said it all perfectly.

The idea that tech that is advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic is often misunderstood as it IS magic. It is absolutely false. It just means that for an onlooker, it is impossible to tell the difference.

Asgard operates on Magic. Galactus operates on Tech, and "cosmic power". The Asgardians ARE gods, Galactus is LIKE a god.

Dr Strange can perform the same things as Phoenix, but the process to accomplice these things are different. One is Magic, the other one is Telekinesis or "cosmic power". Strange can stop Scott's eye beams (even though he can't, himself) through magic. Jean does it by entering his brain and controlling the neurons that fires the eye-beams.

Etc.

[Traab]

Because it was made for children. Disney can get away with some weird shenanigans if it's directed towards children. I mean, just see how most villains in Disney movies die.
Also, Thor is a being from a different dimension because that's what gods are in the comic. It was not made up for the movie.


Thats not the point, my argument was aimed at a guy who claimed it was setup that way to avoid religious fanatics freaking out over claiming the norse gods were real gods. I was merely pointing out one example among many that involved gods from various mythologies that didnt spark massive outrage. Even the Mummy movies had real gods and their power used in them. Anubis turned the scorpion king into a monster all because of a verbal vow, mulan dealt with ancestral spirits more than gods, but thats not a part of most religions so, "OMG! Lets freak out!" The stargate series basically claims that no gods were real, since we see the egyptian, norse, celtic, chinese, and japanese gods all be revealed as merely aliens, and I dont recall seeing the hue and outcry over that. The examples of religion being in movies and tv shows in a multitude of ways seems to contradict any belief that this change was made "to eliminate religious controversy" And that was my point.

[true_shinken]

Asgard operates on Magic. Galactus operates on Tech, and "cosmic power". The Asgardians ARE gods, Galactus is LIKE a god.

Just read Chaos War before making absolute statements like that.

[Mauve Shirt]

Saw this yesterday. Doofy movie, full of cliches, but as enjoyable a popcorn flick as any. :smallbiggrin:

[bloodtide]

Soras Teva Gee said it all perfectly.

The idea that tech that is advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic is often misunderstood as it IS magic. It is absolutely false. It just means that for an onlooker, it is impossible to tell the difference.

Asgard operates on Magic. Galactus operates on Tech, and "cosmic power". The Asgardians ARE gods, Galactus is LIKE a god.

Dr Strange can perform the same things as Phoenix, but the process to accomplice these things are different. One is Magic, the other one is Telekinesis or "cosmic power". Strange can stop Scott's eye beams (even though he can't, himself) through magic. Jean does it by entering his brain and controlling the neurons that fires the eye-beams.

Etc.

Of course with Marvel you will get the problem of dozens and dozens of writers over the decades saying all sorts of stuff.

But, basically, in Marvel 'magic' and 'power' are the same. The idea is that some folks can tap energy and do effects. Simple enough.

The Silver Surfer can tap into the Power Cosmic, that is 'free energy' and can then use it.

Dr. Strange can tap into Magic, that is 'free energy' and can then use it.


In short there is nothing 'magic' about Dr. Strange's magic.

[true_shinken]

In short there is nothing 'magic' about Dr. Strange's magic.
There is even a famous comic where Dr. Strange states outright that there is no difference between science and magic.

[Drolyt]

Saw the movie yesterday, loved it. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is awesome. Can't wait for The Avengers.

As for all the debates going on... I have no idea. I dabble in comic books, but I'm more familiar with the DCU than Marvel; I know enough that I have a basic idea what any given movie will be about when I hear the name. It seems to me that the Cinematic Verse is it's own continuity, and shouldn't be compared to any comics.

[Jallorn]

Just saw the movie. Nothing special, but it was fun. I did really like Heimdall though, I don't care if he was miscast, he had some great lines and delivered them really well.

Is it wrong that I cared more about Loki's personal revalation/internal struggle than Thor's? I mean, I still want Thor to win, cause he's the good guy, but...

As far as the magic/science thing, I took it to be that magic was used like science. It's still magic, with unique rules and stuff, but it's not a mystical inexplicable thing, but a deeply understood and controlled thing. Hence the, "Something like that," response of Thor.

[thompur]

What is the scientific method to determine if someone is "worthy" by Odin's standards. - Mjolnir is magical.:smalltongue:

[H Birchgrove]

What is the scientific method to determine if someone is "worthy" by Odin's standards. - Mjolnir is magical.:smalltongue:
Perhaps Mjolnir contains a mind-reading supercomputer? :smalltongue:

[DraPrime]

Perhaps Mjolnir contains a mind-reading supercomputer? :smalltongue:

Or maybe Anthony Hopkins somehow used his Odin-powers to quickly program it to recognize those who are worthy. Hey, he's Odin. I'm sure he's got the skill to do it.

[DragonOfUndeath]

Mjolnir obviously has nano-bots that enter the bloodstream of every living person to touch it and when the first person to become worthy (according to preset parameters inside a file that triggered when Odin stripped Thor of his powers) Mjolnir's nanobots activate, firing gravity pulses to propel itself through the air. The gravity pulses also keeping it in place against everyone trying to pull it out and helped create the giant earth-shattering slam he did against the Frosties.

[H Birchgrove]

Or maybe Anthony Hopkins somehow used his Odin-powers to quickly program it to recognize those who are worthy. Hey, he's Odin. I'm sure he's got the skill to do it.

Agreed, and most likely explanation.


Mjolnir obviously has nano-bots that enter the bloodstream of every living person to touch it and when the first person to become worthy (according to preset parameters inside a file that triggered when Odin stripped Thor of his powers) Mjolnir's nanobots activate, firing gravity pulses to propel itself through the air. The gravity pulses also keeping it in place against everyone trying to pull it out and helped create the giant earth-shattering slam he did against the Frosties.

Excellent. :smallbiggrin:

[Soras Teva Gee]

Just read Chaos War before making absolute statements like that.

Well if we want to be strict about it no entity called or not called a deity in Marvel should be using the g-word except for that cool old guy with the drawing table that showed up in the FF once.

[Winter_Wolf]

We just saw Thor today. The acting was not excellent, it was about as average as it gets. I'd say for my money Anthony Hopkins probably did the best job with his acting, and Natalie Portman the worst. Everyone else was somewhere in the middle. As a fan of Norse mythology and being completely unacquainted with the comic version of Thor, I did not see any problem as such with artistic license, and there were a lot of them. Some of the stuff was undeniably cool. I had more trouble wrapping my mind around one of Thor's cronies being an Asian man than I did with black Heimdall.

Did not care for Loki's last scene, it just seemed off. Overall it was okay, but I wouldn't pay to see it in a theater again, and I wouldn't rush out to buy the DVD on its release. I might do a movie on demand for it. I'd give it a 2.5 out of 5, and say that it's not a movie that needs the 3D treatment. (We saw it in 3D.)

[Mr. Scaly]

So I saw this movie on Tuesday. I liked it, but I have one question:

Why can't Thor get back to Earth? I realized the bifrost is destroyed...but it seems that this is THEIR place that THEY made. Therefore, they probably made the whole bifrost thing. So...why can't they rebuild it? I mean that's a pretty obvious solution to the whole thing. It's worth giving an in-movie explanation of it. Is there some reason for this that would be given in the comics?

Seriously, this really bugs me. It kind of messes up the whole ending for me. Although I will say one thing. That diamond bridge is the most gorgeous looking thing ever. Kudos to the makers of this movie for simply making stuff look beautiful.

He could potentially get back to Earth eventually. Lokie hinted that there are ways between the worlds other than the Bifrost bridge, and that was how he got Jotuns into Asgard for example.

[Jallorn]

He could potentially get back to Earth eventually. Lokie hinted that there are ways between the worlds other than the Bifrost bridge, and that was how he got Jotuns into Asgard for example.

It's not a matter of it, just when. They are making an Avengers movie soon, after all, and Thor will be in that.

[Harlequinn]

Just saw the movie. Nothing special, but it was fun. I did really like Heimdall though, I don't care if he was miscast, he had some great lines and delivered them really well.

Is it wrong that I cared more about Loki's personal revalation/internal struggle than Thor's? I mean, I still want Thor to win, cause he's the good guy, but...


I'm in the same boat as you. I found Loki to be a far more interesting character. The only difference was that I didn't want Thor to win in the end. When I walked out of the theatre, I immediately turned to my boyfriend and said, "Was it me or was Loki actually the hero of the movie?"

I found him more interesting and his motivations and actions more sympathetic, and hell... even agreeable. While I didn't like Thor himself one bit.

I found the movie alright not as good as Iron Man or the Batmans or the earlier Spidermans. But then again, a 7 yr old kid was seated behind me who was laughing hysterically at even tiny little thing in the movie non-stop, so they may have factored into my opinion abit.

[dehro]

so..I brought the little brother to the movies last week.

it was visually entertaining. for what little I know or indeed notice on a first view about CGI, it was fairly well done.
I've read online the guy playing the eponymous character being hailed as the new Brad Pitt. I was underwhelmed.
in fact most of the acting was sub par, with a few very good actors having to make do with a script that didn't really give much scope for great performances.
it was very much at a comic-style pace, which of course makes all the sense in the world but didn't really work for me... the single scenes were never really long enough for me to get really involved in the drama-tension-emotion-laughter of the moment. whilst this is not an issue on comic panels, in a 2 hours long movie, it very much is.
this worked especially against Loki, the one character that could have been really interesting if his scenes had not been only a couple of minutes long at any one time. just not engaging enough for me.

Natalie Portman was wasted on a script that didn't really see enough of her to bring forth her acting skills. after V for vendetta I expected to see her get more screentime in the movies she took part.
this movie didn't really gain anything from having her in the cast; any 2-bit hollywood starlette could have nailed this role.
sames is true about Anthony Hopkins.

that said, it was decent entertaining, and the big screen and 3D were pretty much worth the ticket. a few chuckles at the "culture clash", and the otherwise forgettable assistant's antics with the tazer...not to mention a black Heimdall

[playswithfire]

I liked it and I think I join those who put it a little below the first Iron Man (in both cases, part of why I think I like them better than some other comic book-based movies is that I wasn't hugely familiar with the character, so I wasn't sitting there nitpicking the whole time, as I sort of did with the first two X-men movies until I read Ultimate Universe).

I'm fine with magic/tech transpanency/equivalence and sort of enjoyed whole 'Bifrost bridge' = 'Einstein-Rosen bridge'.

Anyone else feel a little bad for Hawkeye? I know he's not important to this movie, but Black Widow got to be a subplot of Iron Man 2 and, setting that aside since there's no reason for Hawkeye to do that, Black Widow got a fight scene where she showed off why she's got the skills to be part of the Avengers. All we know about Hawkeye is that he'd rather take a bow than a gun. Not really an issue, but, if he's gonna be there, he should have at least done something impressive.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I suppose a litte, but looking back on it Black Widow is a bit superfluous to IM 2. Yes her reveal is important, her whole fight scene could have been handled with Jarvis instead.

The real reason though I'm sure has to be that Hawkeye wasn't a potential love-triangle complication and men provide less fanservice.

[true_shinken]

The real reason though I'm sure has to be that Hawkeye wasn't a potential love-triangle complication and men provide less fanservice.

I respectuflly disagree.
My girlfriend really wants to see Thor shirtless again, it seems. :smalltongue:


Well if we want to be strict about it no entity called or not called a deity in Marvel should be using the g-word except for that cool old guy with the drawing table that showed up in the FF once.
That dude is Jack Kirby :smallwink:
And yeah, that's exactly my point. There is at least two other actual Gods presented in Marvel comics (probably the same entity) - the one that forgives Blaze in the end of Ghost Rider (volume 1) and the one that helps Hulk hurt Mephisto during Marlo's wedding (though that one is tricky - it almost seems as if Mephisto made it seem like there was a higher being there on purpose).
All the other 'gods' in Marvel are no different from Galactus and the Silver Surfer. Just very powerful dudes.

[DraPrime]

Anyone else feel a little bad for Hawkeye? I know he's not important to this movie, but Black Widow got to be a subplot of Iron Man 2 and, setting that aside since there's no reason for Hawkeye to do that, Black Widow got a fight scene where she showed off why she's got the skills to be part of the Avengers. All we know about Hawkeye is that he'd rather take a bow than a gun. Not really an issue, but, if he's gonna be there, he should have at least done something impressive.

I only feel bad for Hawkeye because he was played by that guy from The Town. That actor needs more screen time.

[Tyrant]

I only feel bad for Hawkeye because he was played by that guy from The Town. That actor needs more screen time.
If you haven't seen it, Jeremy Renner (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0719637/) was the lead in The Hurt Locker (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/). And the IMDB tells me he was nominated for Best Actor for his role in The Hurt Locker.

[Lamech]

I'm in the same boat as you. I found Loki to be a far more interesting character. The only difference was that I didn't want Thor to win in the end. When I walked out of the theatre, I immediately turned to my boyfriend and said, "Was it me or was Loki actually the hero of the movie?" Naw, he was on track to be the hero, but then suddenly decided to attempt to genocide the ice giants. I mean really he was on track to replace his biological father as the king of the ice giants, drag them out of poverty and establish the peace his father wanted so highly, but instead he went all crazy evil on us.

[Xondoure]

Naw, he was on track to be the hero, but then suddenly decided to attempt to genocide the ice giants. I mean really he was on track to replace his biological father as the king of the ice giants, drag them out of poverty and establish the peace his father wanted so highly, but instead he went all crazy evil on us.

Ultimately jealousy was his undoing. Thor tried to kill all the ice giants and failed. Loki wouldn't.
he did

[Worira]

So, I just got back from watching it. Thoughts:

Heimdall being inexplicably black bothered me a lot less than I thought it would. For one thing, the actor played the role very well, and managed to give off a feeling of being distinctly non-human. The golden, square-irised eyes didn't hurt either. The other thing was that he was eclipsed by the inexplicably Asian Hogun. I mean, I know Hogun's always been sort of vaguely foreign with his weird hat and his homeland being invaded by inexplicable 1001 Nights villains and his being Charles Bronson, but his actor was just really awkard as him. I mean, he had a rather strong accent, and for some reason they gave him the least fitting hairstyle they could possibly manage outside of a beehive. And he didn't even have the silly hat! And he was clean shaven! It's like they were going out of their way to make him as unfaithful to the original character as possible.

Incidentally, Heimdall, although fair, isn't the "whitest god" of the Norse pantheon. That would be Balder.

I had thoughts on the actual movie, and the events that happen in it, but I'm tired of words now.

Inexplicable.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Incidentally, Heimdall, although fair, isn't the "whitest god" of the Norse pantheon. That would be Balder.

Exactly! Heimdall was referred to as "The Golden God" if I remember correctly, and they certainly had THAT aspect down pat with the golden armor and stuff. I couldn't see his teeth though. That was his defining feature in the myths beside Gjallarhorn, was that he had shining golden teeth.

[SaintRidley]

Saw it last night with my lady, her urging. Liked it a lot. Very funny, very good action. I figure another half hour could have shored up a few of the shorter scenes and made the romance fit in there a bit better.

Overall, very fun movie.

[dehro]

Heimdall...I thought he was the whitest of the gods, or described somesuch..but I haven't read anything concerning nordic mythology in..at least 10 years..so I might be wrong.
either way, I do feel that they chose a great actor, and gave him next to nothing to work with..and very little screentime overall.
...yet again.

[Tanuki Tales]

Just chiming in about the items in Odin's vault;

One is the Eternal Flame and I think the one everyone is calling a Power Battery might be the Orb of Agamotto.

And I read somewhere that the runes on...the tablet I think, say "Those Who Sit Above in Shadow" or something like that. TWSAS were the uber-deities who caused Ragnarok constantly to power and feed themselves.

As for the god discussion;

From Webster:


2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality


4:: a powerful ruler

So while the multitude of Deities from Marvel aren't totally omnipotent and aren't the vaguely defined One Above All, they're still text book gods by definition, even if you just want to say they're extra-dimensional entities and nothing special.

[Xondoure]

Romance was not very well put together.
I was really taken aback when Thor conceded that it was her who had made him see how prideful he was being, she helped but she wasn't the only reason. I would have left their romance for a sequel, stuck them with good friends for the time being, and have Thor's changes being forced to come to terms with the consequences of needless destruction.

Its not like she wouldn't have tried to rebuild the bridge had they not been in love, and the characterization would have felt more natural.

[Tanuki Tales]

Romance was not very well put together.
I was really taken aback when Thor conceded that it was her who had made him see how prideful he was being, she helped but she wasn't the only reason. I would have left their romance for a sequel, stuck them with good friends for the time being, and have Thor's changes being forced to come to terms with the consequences of needless destruction.

Its not like she wouldn't have tried to rebuild the bridge had they not been in love, and the characterization would have felt more natural.

I have to admit, Natalie Portman was the one sour note in that movie for me. She just came across as this idiotic, hormone crazed school girl who Thor didn't appear to notice until we were told he did.

I personally thought it was the humiliation of not being able to wield Mjolnir mixed with Thor believing his stupid arrogance resulted in Odin's death and Freya no longer wanting him to come home was what knocked the pride out of him.

[Valaqil]

Incidentally, Heimdall, although fair, isn't the "whitest god" of the Norse pantheon. That would be Balder.

Technically, that may or may not be true, i.e. Balder being "the white". His name may be traced through the etymology to the Old English or German to "brave". Another possible etymology comes through Baltic routes to be "the white" or "the good".


Heimdall...I thought he was the whitest of the gods, or described somesuch..

You're not. In the the poem Þrymskviða, Heimdall is described as the "whitest of the gods". Source. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe11.htm)

I'm not sure if it's the only source, or if Balder is called the whitest in another poem, but that poem is repeatedly used as the source for the "whitest" bit.

On a side note: Did Heimdall being black bother me? Nope. The actor did a great job.

[Worira]

Technically, that may or may not be true, i.e. Balder being "the white". His name may be traced through the etymology to the Old English or German to "brave". Another possible etymology comes through Baltic routes to be "the white" or "the good".


While there may be some ambiguity to the origin of his name, his fairness is described in the Edda, and the Marvel version is explicitly the Norse god of light.


You're not. In the the poem Þrymskviða, Heimdall is described as the "whitest of the gods". Source. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe11.htm)

I'm not sure if it's the only source, or if Balder is called the whitest in another poem, but that poem is repeatedly used as the source for the "whitest" bit.


Well, I concede the point there. Anyway, from the Prose Edda:
The second son of Odin is Baldr, and good things are to be said of him. He is best, and all praise him; he is so fair of feature, and so bright, that light shines from him. A certain herb is so white that it is likened to Baldr's brow; of all grasses it is whitest, and by it thou mayest judge his fairness, both in hair and in body. He is the wisest of the Æsir, and the fairest-spoken and most gracious; and that quality attends him, that none may gainsay his judgments. He dwells in the place called Breidablik, which is in heaven; in that place may nothing unclean be, even as is said here:

Baldr's brow, for reference:http://www.townofbaldur.ca/index/html/images/Baldr%27s%20Brow.jpg

So, while he's not technically described as "the whitest", he's definitely pretty white.


On a side note: Did Heimdall being black bother me? Nope. The actor did a great job.

Yeah, I agree. And on top of that, the costuming/cosmetics for him were great, too. He/they really pulled off the overall aesthetic of the character, and the decision to focus on a golden colour scheme went really with with both the actor and character.* That said, I can certainly understand having an issue with the casting, in the same way that the live-action Avatar: The Last Airbender movie's casting baffled and infuriated people.

*UNLIKE HOGUN RARGHLERAGHLE

WHY DID THEY TAKE HIS HAT

WHY DID THEY TAKE HIS MUSTACHE

[Valaqil]

So, while he's not technically described as "the whitest", he's definitely pretty white.


A-ha! That explains it. I know a little about Norse mythology, but not that much. Thanks for the info!



And on top of that, the costuming/cosmetics for him were great, too. He/they really pulled off the overall aesthetic of the character, and the decision to focus on a golden colour scheme went really with with both the actor and character.

Wholly agreed. They made him look awesome.

[Dr.Epic]

See, I feel the exact opposite; if you are going to have deities in your multiverse, make then actual deities. If you don't feel that living gods fit in your story, don''t use them.

Yeah, how dare they mess with my Norse mythology! Making them not gods and just aliens is silly! We're talking about a group of people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers_%28comics%29) made up a drunk in a high tech super suit he BUILT IN A CAVE...WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS and later a more powerful suit in his garage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_man), a Mr. Hyde expy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Hulk), a WWII veteran super soldier frozen for decades and perfectly preserved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America), a master archer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkeye_%28comics%29), and basically a ninja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_%28Natalia_Romanova%29) trying to save the world and they go and make it silly and stupid by having Thor not actually being a deity because him being an alien ruins the entire premise of this legit group.

[Lamech]

Ultimately jealousy was his undoing. Thor tried to kill all the ice giants and failed. Loki wouldn't.
he didHe was jealous of his father "loving" Thor "better", and if he didn't go completely crazy he could have done some thing that Odin would have been proud of instead of something that Odin would have hated. I bet he could have claimed credit for making Thor see the error of "pointless destruction" or something like that, in addition to saving his life, AND he would have been poised to bring the peace Odin wanted with the ice giants so much.

[Dr.Epic]

Personally, I was walking in expecting Thor to look like a little gray man.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080329165915/stargate/images/thumb/2/23/Thor.jpg/250px-Thor.jpg

Why would Ron Howard make a cameo in this film?:smallwink:

[Avilan the Grey]

(Stuff)

I don't think you get my point. At all. And are therefore attacking windmills.

[Dr.Epic]

I don't think you get my point. At all. And are therefore attacking windmills.

What? No. I completely agree. Alien Thor is stupid! How dare they change anything and take creative license and reimagine to fit their needs and their stories!

[Avilan the Grey]

What? No. I completely agree. Alien Thor is stupid! How dare they change anything and take creative license and reimagine to fit their needs and their stories!

Ah! Irony and Sarcasm are hard to detect sometimes. :smallsmile:

[Selrahc]

basically a ninja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_%28Natalia_Romanova%29)

Black Widow isn't a Ninja. She is a super spy. Calling her a Ninja is like saying "James Bond: Basically a ninja."

[SharpieForge]

I found Thor and awesome movie. Marvel is putting out some good movies lately, I can't wait for X-Men: First Class

[Dr.Epic]

Black Widow isn't a Ninja. She is a super spy. Calling her a Ninja is like saying "James Bond: Basically a ninja."

You know, if these people can be called ninja, I think she more than qualifies:

http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-01/art/ff7-yuffie.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/NarutoCoverTankobon1.jpg

[Jallorn]

I found Thor and awesome movie. Marvel is putting out some good movies lately, I can't wait for X-Men: First Class

I'd like to point out that the X-Men movie franchise is currently owned by Sony, not Marvel.

[Tanuki Tales]

You know, if these people can be called ninja, I think she more than qualifies:

http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-01/art/ff7-yuffie.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/NarutoCoverTankobon1.jpg

You know you guys are being redundant right? Ninja were the spies/assassins/mercenaries of Feudal Japan so calling someone a ninja but not a super spy or a super spy but not a ninja is kind of asinine. It only stops being so if you want to clarify a shinobi as using exclusively Japanese styles of assassination and espionage; in which case Natasha isn't a ninja because he repertoire is far wider than that.

[Tyrant]

You know, if these people can be called ninja, I think she more than qualifies:

http://www.creativeuncut.com/gallery-01/art/ff7-yuffie.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/NarutoCoverTankobon1.jpg
Isn't that assuming most people agree that they should be called Ninjas in the first place? Besides, wasn't Bond trained as a ninja in You Only Live Twice (meaning he can be called a ninja)? As for Black Widow, I thought she was supposed to be ex-KGB (in the main continuity, not Iron Man 2) but I honestly know very little about her character.

I'd like to point out that the X-Men movie franchise is currently owned by Sony, not Marvel.
I think you mean 20th Century Fox. Sony owns the Spider Man movie franchise.

You know you guys are being redundant right? Ninja were the spies/assassins/mercenaries of Feudal Japan so calling someone a ninja but not a super spy or a super spy but not a ninja is kind of asinine. It only stops being so if you want to clarify a shinobi as using exclusively Japanese styles of assassination and espionage; in which case Natasha isn't a ninja because he repertoire is far wider than that.
I think the term ninja conjures certain images and ideas. For instance, guys in all black wielding shurikens and other assorted ninja weapons, skulking around in the dark. While Bond (as an example of a Super Spy) also skulks around in the dark, he also mixes it up with false identities and other methods of getting himself into the heart of the situation he is trying to investigate. And his wrap up of his cases are rarely (if ever) subtle.

[kpenguin]

I think you mean 20th Century Fox. Sony owns the Spider Man movie franchise.

Indeed. How can you forget that they're producing Sony Presents Sony's Spider-Man by Sony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg6v1dgTcxw)

[Tanuki Tales]

I think the term ninja conjures certain images and ideas. For instance, guys in all black wielding shurikens and other assorted ninja weapons, skulking around in the dark. While Bond (as an example of a Super Spy) also skulks around in the dark, he also mixes it up with false identities and other methods of getting himself into the heart of the situation he is trying to investigate. And his wrap up of his cases are rarely (if ever) subtle.

That's pretty much what I just said. If you don't specify Ninja as being classified by their oriental style of operations then any spy is also a Ninja and any Ninja is also a spy.

[Tyrant]

That's pretty much what I just said. If you don't specify Ninja as being classified by their oriental style of operations then any spy is also a Ninja and any Ninja is also a spy.
You miss my point. By saying ninja you are by default invoking the image of the japanese assassin. Ninja and spy may both be very similar job descriptions, but they do not mean the same thing. A ninja can be a spy and a spy may be a ninja, but a spy doesn't have to be a ninja. It's like saying every operative of the CIA, MI6, or the KGusedtoB is a ninja just because they are spies. Or saying that every ninja is on par with a modern spy. These statements don't compute.

[Tanuki Tales]

You miss my point. By saying ninja you are by default invoking the image of the japanese assassin. Ninja and spy may both be very similar job descriptions, but they do not mean the same thing. A ninja can be a spy and a spy may be a ninja, but a spy doesn't have to be a ninja. It's like saying every operative of the CIA, MI6, or the KGusedtoB is a ninja just because they are spies. Or saying that every ninja is on par with a modern spy. These statements don't compute.

What doesn't compute is that unless you specify a ninja as solely using an oriental style of espionage and covert combat then you're only doing a battle of semantics here.

And never did I mention anything about the effectiveness about any specific so called branch of espionage and covert combat.

[Tyrant]

What doesn't compute is that unless you specify a ninja as solely using an oriental style of espionage and covert combat then you're only doing a battle of semantics here.

And never did I mention anything about the effectiveness about any specific so called branch of espionage and covert combat so please don't put words in my mouth.


Here is what you said:
You know you guys are being redundant right? Ninja were the spies/assassins/mercenaries of Feudal Japan so calling someone a ninja but not a super spy or a super spy but not a ninja is kind of asinine.
In effect Ninja=Super Spy. I am saying, you are wrong. You reason that a ninja is a super spy if you don't restrict them to the most commonly used images of the ninja. In other words, they are super spies if you don't force the very image of the ninja upon them. I am arguing that by using the word ninja you are in fact restricting them to that very definition, otherwise you would just use the word spy in the first place. So, as I said, while ninja may have acted as spies the common image of the ninja is the black clad, shuriken wielding, martial arts trained, assassins. Not spies. If you mean spy, you say spy. If you mean a black clad assassin popularly associated with fuedal Japan, though not restricted to being used in that era, you say ninja. The terms are not interchangable. CIA agents are not, by default, also ninjas (though I concede it is entirely possibly that some may be).

Your point, so near as I can tell, is that if you don't restrict ninjas to the popular image, then they are in fact super spies. To be clear, I disagree with your basic premise on it's face. I also disagree with the idea behind it. I believe that if you are using the term ninja then you are by default referring to the popular image of ninjas. It's like trying to say that a modern soldier wrapped in really shiny kevlar (or tin foil) can be called a knight in shining armor, if you completely ignore the common idea of what a knight in shining armor is. You can't seperate the common image of the word ninja without specifing that you are doing so from the onset. Just throwing it out there implies that you are using the commonly understood meaning.

[Tanuki Tales]

Here is what you said:
In effect Ninja=Super Spy. I am saying, you are wrong. You reason that a ninja is a super spy if you don't restrict them to the most commonly used images of the ninja. In other words, they are super spies if you don't force the very image of the ninja upon them. I am arguing that by using the word ninja you are in fact restricting them to that very definition, otherwise you would just use the word spy in the first place. So, as I said, while ninja may have acted as spies the common image of the ninja is the black clad, shuriken wielding, martial arts trained, assassins. Not spies. If you mean spy, you say spy. If you mean a black clad assassin popularly associated with fuedal Japan, though not restricted to being used in that era, you say ninja. The terms are not interchangable. CIA agents are not, by default, also ninjas (though I concede it is entirely possibly that some may be).

Your point, so near as I can tell, is that if you don't restrict ninjas to the popular image, then they are in fact super spies. To be clear, I disagree with your basic premise on it's face. I also disagree with the idea behind it. I believe that if you are using the term ninja then you are by default referring to the popular image of ninjas. It's like trying to say that a modern soldier wrapped in really shiny kevlar (or tin foil) can be called a knight in shining armor, if you completely ignore the common idea of what a knight in shining armor is. You can't seperate the common image of the word ninja without specifing that you are doing so from the onset. Just throwing it out there implies that you are using the commonly understood meaning.

I could continue this line of discussion, but I won't because at this point we're just spamming since this line of conversation is highly off-topic.

[H Birchgrove]

Modern day operatives much likely don't use nin-jutsu. If they use martial arts it's more like lethal versions of karate or similar (like the one the US Marine Corps uses) or systema (the Russian martial art used by Russia's special forces). There's nothing fancy about those techniques. Crossbows were used by British SOE and/or commandos during WWII, but that's about it, AFAIK.

[Tyrant]

Indeed. How can you forget that they're producing Sony Presents Sony's Spider-Man by Sony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg6v1dgTcxw)
That actually more or less sums up my feelings about everything I have heard about the Spider Man reboot.

As for the earlier topic in this thread (no, not the ninja derail), I can understand people's feelings about seeing the race of a known character changed for their on screen version. It does bother me (if I know anything about the character) sometimes. To be clear, when I say it bothers me, I mean it's something I might comment about online and wonder if there was some reason beyond the almighty dollar behind it. I don't mean I am pounding my fists cursing the name of the casting director. It bothers me like when they put pickles on my cheeseburger after I ordered it without them.

Further comments spoilered for length:What bothers me is that it is potentially insulting to both parties. The fans have to see a "compromised" vision of their beloved series (compromised beyond the normal compromises that the story itself has to undergo due to the different natures of the respective mediums) and the folks being pandered to (that is what is happening most of the time, for money) should be insulted because it means that studios think A) All you have to do is throw in a token character and people will be drawn to a movie and B) It also means they can't find or create characters that will draw other races/sexes/whatever with their own movies.

Having said that, if race (or sex/outlook/whatever) isn't important to the character then changing that aspect is less drastic. Look at the Kingpin, for instance. Demographics aside (the majority of wealthy individuals in the US are white males, organized crime in New York is rightly or wrongly still associated with the mafia which is composed primarily of white individuals), my limited knowledge of the character doesn't include anything that says he must be white to retain his core character. Though I could see folks not enjoying seeing the villain's ethnicity changed to non white. On the opposite end we have a character like the Black Panther. He's an African prince. Him being played by someone who is white (yes, there are white Africans, no, Black Panther is not one of them) just wouldn't be right. I look at it on a character by character basis. As has been said, this movie is based on the Marvel Comics version of Norse Mythology, not the version that exists in our world. If the characters under discussion were depicted as black and asian in Marvel, there would be no problem with the movie on this front (though I can only imagine some would not like the way Marvel changed the story from the source in their comics). Similar to how they are using Sam Jackson as Nick Fury because they are using the Ultimates Nick Fury, who looks like Sam Jackson and not his 616 counterpart.

One example that didn't sit well with me was the G.I.Joe movie. First, the team was randomly made international (by randomly I mean in an attempt to appease foreign audiences). Dial Tone was Middle Eastern and Heavy Duty was English (I guess). Then we have Rip Cord who was suddenly black. Now, I like diversity. Hasbro did too at one point, that's why the G.I.Joe team is very diverse. No need to make Havey Duty English, just use Big Ben. No need to make a white character black to fit in Marlan Wayans (who did far better than I thought he would, to be honest), just use Stalker, or Roadblock, or Non English Heavy Duty, or Cool Breeze, or Doc. This one in particular does bother me because all the options they could ever want are already present and there is no need to monkey around with other characters. I am honestly hard pressed to find a more diverse team of individuals that arose out of a Marvel Comic book or 80s cartoon.

Having said all of that, I would like to see greater diversity in superhero/comic movies. I just don't want to see it at the expense of unnecessary alterations to existing characters. Let's see people like Black Panther, Thunderbird, Sunfire, Living Monolith, Sabra, Tombstone (though he appears pale white, so maybe not him), etc (sorry, my Marvel knowledge largely centers around a few runs of the XMen and cartoons from the 90s) I won't get offended if they make new characters either.

[Kislath]

Well, ninjas aside, I like the movie. ( I must have missed something anyway--WHAT ninjas? ) At any rate, the movie was better than I anticipated by a great margin, and I expected much.

[H Birchgrove]

OF COURSE! There were ninjas in Thor, but we couldn't see them! Brilliant, Kislath!

[Tyrant]

OF COURSE! There were ninjas in Thor, but we couldn't see them! Brilliant, Kislath!
Thor was a ninja because he was using covert methods to sneak into the SHIELD site where the hammer fell.

[The Big Dice]

Modern day operatives much likely don't use nin-jutsu. If they use martial arts it's more like lethal versions of karate or similar (like the one the US Marine Corps uses) or systema (the Russian martial art used by Russia's special forces). There's nothing fancy about those techniques. Crossbows were used by British SOE and/or commandos during WWII, but that's about it, AFAIK.
You know ninjutsu isn'ta martial art? The actual fighting uses a system called taejutsu, which means body-combat-art. And the weapons each have their own -jutsu form. Ninjutsu is more a package of skills that includes survival, espionage and other useful things for you modern day redneck bikers super spy secret agents.

[true_shinken]

You know ninjutsu isn'ta martial art? The actual fighting uses a system called taejutsu, which means body-combat-art. And the weapons each have their own -jutsu form. Ninjutsu is more a package of skills that includes survival, espionage and other useful things for you modern day redneck bikers super spy secret agents.

Ninjutsu may not be a fighting style, but it is a martial art.
Just like zen philosophy is not part of the Pakua Ga fighting style, but it is part of the Pakua Ga martial art.

[Giggling Ghast]

OF COURSE! There were ninjas in Thor, but we couldn't see them! Brilliant, Kislath!

Well, that's only natural. They're ninjas, after all.

[Razgriez]

Well I have a few opinions to give on Thor. Warning, some Spoilers below

The Good:
The movie does things right. You don't have to be a hardcore Marvel fan to understand everything. The acting overall was good. Anthony Hopkins, amazingly does well as a good guy despite being more famed for his various roles as playing the evil killer in many other movies, the Hannibal Lector movies of note. He really does play a good Odin.

Thor is also very well portrayed, as are the various other gods and beings. and the story's locale, a small New Mexico town, is a refreshing change from the developed urban and city areas, seen in Iron Man 2 and Hulk.

Also, the way Asgard is imagined, is quite well done and amazing, and some of the lines the cast speaks, are quite funny.

The Bad: While good up to this point, I find the "mortal" characters kind of dull and boring. Jane, Darcy, and Erik are a combination of Overacting and Under acting. Phil Coulson's actor a does a fine job of portraying the cynical and dead-pan mood of the frequently appearing SHIELD agent, but that's about it.

And then there's some of the unexplained things... I mean, for a movie that put's some focus around some various mythology and relics, such as Mjolnir, why is nothing mentioned about Odin's Spear, Gungnir? And what's with the SHIELD agent who for some unknown reason, goes for a Sniper rifle, but then goes for the Bow, to use in a heavy rain storm ?! Is that supposed to be Hawkeye? because it's not really explained.

The Ugly:
I have two complaints here.

Dear Hollywood, The "Dumb rednecks who can't tell a big hammer from a Satellite" joke, was one of THE LAMEST jokes ever. You managed to take one of the most overdone, and boring jokes ever, and make it even dumber. And then, instead of dropping the joke like you should have, you have to continue the joke, for 15 seconds longer to make a joke about how "oh yea, they said it was Radioactive"... And are completely unconcerned. The movie wasn't even trying to be funny at this point with this joke, it was basically going "Eh... what ever, we'll just drive the joke even further into the ground". I wanted to hop out of my seat and go "WE GET IT! These folks are the dumbest, most easily fooled morons on the planet. Now stop running the joke into the ground before you make me lose points of IQ!"

2nd off, Thor committed the Mortal sin of using Cut Film footage in final trailers. This is one of my biggest issues with Marvel Films, is that they constantly do this, they show the cut clips of a scene, and then show a completely different one the final cut. Take for example, in Iron man 2, where we see Pepper tossing Stark's helmet out the back of the Cargo plane before he jumps after it. Yet in the Final cut, the movie just cuts from a black screen to him jumping out of Cargo, already fully suited up.

This drives me insane. and Thor did this very action, again.

In closing: the Film is overall very good, despite it's issue. Sure, some of it is annoying, but it is a movie I'd still buy when it becomes for home ownership

[Tyrant]

Well I have a few opinions to give on Thor. Warning, some Spoilers below

The Good:
The movie does things right. You don't have to be a hardcore Marvel fan to understand everything. The acting overall was good. Anthony Hopkins, amazingly does well as a good guy despite being more famed for his various roles as playing the evil killer in many other movies, the Hannibal Lector movies of note. He really does play a good Odin.

Thor is also very well portrayed, as are the various other gods and beings. and the story's locale, a small New Mexico town, is a refreshing change from the developed urban and city areas, seen in Iron Man 2 and Hulk.

Also, the way Asgard is imagined, is quite well done and amazing, and some of the lines the cast speaks, are quite funny.

The Bad: While good up to this point, I find the "mortal" characters kind of dull and boring. Jane, Darcy, and Erik are a combination of Overacting and Under acting. Phil Coulson's actor a does a fine job of portraying the cynical and dead-pan mood of the frequently appearing SHIELD agent, but that's about it.

And then there's some of the unexplained things... I mean, for a movie that put's some focus around some various mythology and relics, such as Mjolnir, why is nothing mentioned about Odin's Spear, Gungnir? And what's with the SHIELD agent who for some unknown reason, goes for a Sniper rifle, but then goes for the Bow, to use in a heavy rain storm ?! Is that supposed to be Hawkeye? because it's not really explained.

The Ugly:
I have two complaints here.

Dear Hollywood, The "Dumb rednecks who can't tell a big hammer from a Satellite" joke, was one of THE LAMEST jokes ever. You managed to take one of the most overdone, and boring jokes ever, and make it even dumber.

2nd off, Thor committed the Mortal sin of using Cut Film footage in final trailers. This is one of my biggest issues with Marvel Films, is that they constantly do this, they show the cut clips of a scene, and then show a completely different one the final cut. Take for example, in Iron man 2, where we see Pepper tossing Stark's helmet out the back of the Cargo plane before he jumps after it. Yet in the Final cut, the movie just cuts from a black screen to him jumping out of Cargo, already fully suited up.

This drives me insane. and Thor did this very action, again.

In closing: the Film is overall very good, despite it's issue. Sure, some of it is annoying, but it is a movie I'd still buy when it becomes for home ownership
Yes, that is Hawkeye. His name is Clint Barton (if I remember correctly) and if I remember correctly he is called by his last name in the movie. I'm not sure Hawkeye's presence is a spoiler at this point.

Also, what cut footage are you talking about in the previews? I usually notice things like that (such as your Iron Man 2 example) but I don't recall anything here.

[Razgriez]

Yes, that is Hawkeye. His name is Clint Barton (if I remember correctly) and if I remember correctly he is called by his last name in the movie. I'm not sure Hawkeye's presence is a spoiler at this point.

Also, what cut footage are you talking about in the previews? I usually notice things like that (such as your Iron Man 2 example) but I don't recall anything here.

Off the top of my head, I recall in the Trailers a week before the movie premiered in the U.S. a clip of the opening scene (after Thor get's hit by the car the first time) he's in a daze and makes a comment, as though disappointed to find out that he has been exiled to Earth saying "I'm on Earth, aren't I?"

In the movie, this doesn't happen at all, and instead, he's knocked out, and recovers partially, and begins muttering in a daze about Mjolnir,

[Tyrant]

Off the top of my head, I recall in the Trailers a week before the movie premiered in the U.S. a clip of the opening scene (after Thor get's hit by the car the first time) he's in a daze and makes a comment, as though disappointed to find out that he has been exiled to Earth saying "I'm on Earth, aren't I?"

In the movie, this doesn't happen at all, and instead, he's knocked out, and recovers partially, and begins muttering in a daze about Mjolnir,
Wow. I never saw a trailer with that in it. That would explain why I didn't notice anything out of place.