Breaking the realism?

[Aluchak]

Tony Stark is an engineering genius, Bruce Banner got radiated by Gamma Rays, Henry Pym invented a suit that shrinks him down to the size of an ant, and Steve Rogers is a man who signed up for the Super Soldier program. They all have something to do with science.

Thor on the other hand is an immortal with a giant hammer, long blonde hair, and is a norse god. How is that going to adapt well on-screen with all the other characters? Unless they pull a lot of creative licenses on him, making the only thing similar to the comic book Thor is the name.

[SuperFerret]

Science isn't the only force in a fictional universe.

[Aluchak]

Science isn't the only force in a fictional universe.

I don't think it will translate well on-screen though. If your a non-comic fan and you go into watch this movie for a fun night, would you being laughing your *** off every time Thor comes in and says "I AM THE GOD OF THUNDER!!! I WILL SMASH YOU WITH MY HAMMER!!!". I know I would.

[SuperFerret]

If Thor were real, I mean really, really real, and he said that, I'd laugh so hard my spleen would explode. But, realistically portrayed, Thor wouldn't exclaim that.

[Katsuro]

They could do it like The Ultimates, where the rest of the team treats him like he's crazy. Anyone who saw the standalone Thor movie would know that's not the case, and he really is the Norse God of Thunder, but if you're just watching The Avengers, you think he might just be a nut with some wierd technology.

[WarBlade]

Thor on the other hand is an immortal with a giant hammer, long blonde hair, and is a norse god. How is that going to adapt well on-screen with all the other characters?

A bit of a side note here, but this setting clash was mentioned quite a while back by none other than Favreau himself...

Source (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38906)

Third paragraph quoted below...

Jon Favreau: And I’m going to get a little more involved now with what goes on with the other movies. I’m very excited about Kenneth Branagh, I can’t wait to see his take on THOR and we’re really looking at the Cap stuff, very closely.

For one because we put the shield in there and Tony’s legacy… Howard Stark’s legacy somehow is related to… there’s some relationship between Tony’s father and what was going on in World War II, in the Marvel Universe, and Shield, so we’re trying to lay some pipe here so that when it all happens it feels somewhat inevitable.

But there are a lot of tonal challenges that are going to take place, more so in the other films I think. THOR has a tremendously… that’s going to be the most difficult one to integrate into this reality. And if it can be properly done then you get a great version of AVENGERS. If not, AVENGERS is going to seem like ROGER RABBIT with different cartoon characters from different worlds, you have Betty Boop next to Daffy Duck next to Donald Duck you know. (laughs)

And I don’t know that’s the experience it should feel like, it should feel like a unified Marvel Universe. And I know that the Marvel guys are very, very vigilant about that.

Another one. Source (http://www.superherohype.com/news/ironmannews.php?id=7660)

Q: How has Marvel's plan to integrate their universe in films changed your plan, going from a franchise to a mega-franchise?

Favreau: It's tough because it first starts off like, "Hey, wouldn't it be fun if we stuck a Captain America shield in the background? Wouldn't it be fun if we have Sam Jackson play Nick Fury like in "The Ultimate Avengers"?' It's like, "Let's prove ourselves to our fans." So you do that. Now, between the Captain America shield and Nick Fury and then the after-the-credit scene that in the eleventh hour became the final scene of "The [Incredible] Hulk," that one was a big one for me. I was like, "Wow, we're forming a team. We're going to that guy and you're forming a team." That's clearly not the day after "Iron Man" ended. Where does it fit in the time continuum? I don't want to just ignore it or do what the comic books have done. I guess you could do what Marvel has said: "It's an alternate universe." They've gotten away with that one for a couple of decades, but how do you make all that work within that world? Because I think it is fun and I think that "Hulk" was successful in keeping a tone that did not seem inconsistent with our film, and certainly with Robert being in there. But we definitely now have a lot of things [to consider]. Look, I come out of improv, and in improv you say, "Okay, give me a suggestion of a place, a line of dialogue –" and here it's like, "Okay. Give me three scenes that I have to incorporate into my next movie." So it's a challenge. What's refreshing is that I don't go back and it's not like you have a studio executive who could care less, like, "I don't give a *****. Just make whatever, whatever tests best." In this case you have Kevin Feige who's like, "How are we going to solve this puzzle?" It's like a Rubik's Cube to them as well. Just all that brainpower addressing something makes you come up with interesting solutions. So we have a pretty good game plan. Then there are conversations that I've been having with them about "The Avengers" too. Remember, with "Avengers" you're not just dealing with tech. You're dealing with inter-dimensional portals and all the ***** that makes you jump the shark if you don't handle it right. So we were very restrained in how we used our superhero-ism in our movie and we did that by keeping it all tech based. Then "Hulk" went a little the same way. It's still kind of tech-based. You get to Cap and you say, "Okay, he was frozen in that thing –" and it's like, "Okay, I could maybe buy that, with the super-soldier thing." Then you get into Thor and it's like, "Okay, well now..." and so how do you make that all feel like it's in the same world as our movie is? That's going to be the challenge moving forward.

[Canis Sapiens]

They could do it like The Ultimates, where the rest of the team treats him like he's crazy. Anyone who saw the standalone Thor movie would know that's not the case, and he really is the Norse God of Thunder, but if you're just watching The Avengers, you think he might just be a nut with some wierd technology.

I think this could work very well. It would help the audience to become Thor's accomplice and identify with him - c'mon, we all love a misunderstood character. :oldrazz:

And that could be the source of a LOT of pretty humorous scenes, too.

[Canis Sapiens]

A bit of a side note here, but this setting clash was mentioned quite a while back by none other than Favreau himself...

Source (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38906)

Third paragraph quoted below...



Another one. Source (http://www.superherohype.com/news/ironmannews.php?id=7660)

I remember that. If anything, it shows that Favreau and the Marvel guys are giving the issue some thought. Nice find!

[marcvader]

I think everyone will identify with him as he will have been the star of his own blockbuster the year before. Thor has the chance to be a really charismatic and, as I've said in other threads, larger than life.

[Canis Sapiens]

But the issue here is not winning the heart of his solo movie audience... It's winning the hearts of the Iron Man, Cap, Hulk fans and average movie goers who will come to see the Avengers... you know, the ones who may not buy the idea of a Norse God mixed with all those sci-fi concepts.

[Shivsguy616]

In a science fiction world where a man can turn into a giant green monster, why would it be hard to believe that people can travel from one dimention to another???

[marcvader]

The bottom line is that it's all fantasy and Marvel needs to market it as such. They need to have faith and be confident in the material. It's up to them to make it work and I'm confident they will. I'm thinking Thor will be huge, which will be important in the publics ability to accept him to be side by side with the others fighting a common foe. Superhero movies are superhero movies regardless of wether its science or magic based and i repeat the marketing of the Avengers will be vital.

[Marz69]

They may see him as a sort of weather man... Like Storm but only deals in thunder/lightening.

[Chewy]

They could do it like The Ultimates, where the rest of the team treats him like he's crazy. Anyone who saw the standalone Thor movie would know that's not the case, and he really is the Norse God of Thunder, but if you're just watching The Avengers, you think he might just be a nut with some wierd technology.
I agree with this.

Also, this is a fictional world, and there is nothing realistic about becoming a giant green monster

[TheCorpulent1]

While I'm not a fan of putting anything from the Ultimate comics into anything besides other Ultimate comics, I see no reason why anyone else on the Avengers would have to believe Thor is a real god. We, the audience, would know since we saw the realm of Asgard in Thor's movie by then, but it makes a lot more sense for other people in the Avengers movie to write Thor off as just a crazy guy.

Regardless of their opinions, though, he'll clearly be powerful enough to warrant a spot on the team. Just have Fury say something like, "He's probably crazy, but so long as he keeps breaking titanium for Uncle Sam with that hammer of his, we'll indulge him."
They may see him as a sort of weather man... Like Storm but only deals in thunder/lightening.
Thor can use any kind of weather, not just thunder and lightning.

[Colossal Spoons]

Thor might be a little ridiculous at times on the big screen, but somebody has to introduce magic to the new Marvel movie-verse :up:

[SuperFerret]

I still don't understand why Thor won't mesh well with the rest of the Avengers. It's not like there haven't been other movies where magic coexists with science.

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, what does it matter where the power comes from, so long as he can punch a guy through 3 feet of concrete and shoot lightning?

[D-Man22]

Like someone said above I think Thor can be made like Storm with a hammer. It could work.

[TheCorpulent1]

It's sad that people say "Storm with a hammer" like it's a good thing. Thor's a thousand times cooler than Storm right off the bat, as far as I'm concerned.

[SuperFerret]

Thor can't rock a mohawk like Ororo though.

[marcvader]

Thanks for that

[TheCorpulent1]

Thor can't rock a mohawk like Ororo though.
Maybe he could...

[yoshimura]

Thor on the other hand is an immortal with a giant hammer, long blonde hair, and is a norse god.

Long blonde hair is real :oldrazz:

[Rich Santoro]

It is all abouit writing... If they do it well, it will kick ass like Army of Darkness. If they don't... it will look like Beast Master 2.

[TheCorpulent1]

Long blonde hair like Alex Sarsgard's character in True Blood and Sawyer in Lost have wouldn't be hard to pull off at all. It just needs to be about shoulder-length, not crazy hair-metal style.

[X-Nemesis]

It is all abouit writing... If they do it well, it will kick ass like Army of Darkness. If they don't... it will look like Beast Master 2.

I can't agree more. Like any movie and especially fantasy ones, because there are way to many examples of badly scripted fantasy films, if the writing is good the rest of the movie will fall into place.

But to be honest, I'm very nervous that they can even pull this off well.

Thinking about it, the music also has to not be fantasy campy UGH.

[Agent 194]

In a world where we have, larger than life, over the top performers.... Sigfried and Roy (I know we could make a joke here. Be mature boys) Prince, James Brown, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Elvis Presley.... and in the comic book world...Superman. I just see Thor of that ilk. I've always seen Thor as the Superman of the Marvel world . Supes is certainly larger than life.

People are making statements about how a thunder god who walks around saying "I am an immortal" wouldn't be taken seriously. That was the very thing that solidified it for me as a kid...made it work for me....that they were so serious. They were so very sure what they were doing was real and important. It was THE most important thing in the universe when I read those comics. There was never any doubt. That's what hyper drama, and uber sincerity can do for a character. That's what the Marvel world needs in my opinion. Would be a shot in the arm.

[Rock Sexton]

In a science fiction world where a man can turn into a giant green monster, why would it be hard to believe that people can travel from one dimention to another???

........... because unless Thor can be scientifically explained, it changes the paradigm upon which practically all of the Avenger members have been founded. Thor is fantasy. The rest of the group is science. Favreau couldn't have said it better when he eluded to the Roger Rabbit effect. It's the cohesion factor. Fans of the comic are going to have no problem with, but we all know they don't make up the hundreds of millions of ticket sales Marvel anticipates. A general audience member might find it corny if not done right.

There's something to be said about one's imagination when putting these concepts together after reading a comic. It's another thing when it's on film and it's taking place in real life settings - as Avengers will.

Thor is no doubt the most delicate piece of the Avengers. It's absolutely crucial they set it up right.

[Rock Sexton]

I agree with this.

Also, this is a fictional world, and there is nothing realistic about becoming a giant green monster

It's not about realism...... it's about the levels of acceptability by the common movie viewer.

It's as simple as asking someone what's more believable (even though both concepts are obviously crazy) - a Thunder God who's from another dimension or a guy who's body was zapped with Gamma Rays which have caused crazy physical effects? The choice is pretty easy.

[Rock Sexton]

I still don't understand why Thor won't mesh well with the rest of the Avengers. It's not like there haven't been other movies where magic coexists with science.

I can't think of one movie off the top of my head where they successfully merged technology with magic. Technology's existence is reality's own magic, why magic itself is strictly fantasy related.

[SuperFerret]

It's not about realism...... it's about the levels of acceptability by the common movie viewer.

It's as simple as asking someone what's more believable (even though both concepts are obviously crazy) - a Thunder God who's from another dimension or a guy who's body was zapped with Gamma Rays which have caused crazy physical effects? The choice is pretty easy.

Thunder God from another dimension. Way more believable than gamma rays, which destroy living tissue as a rule, doing anything but killing someone. We don't know anything about other dimensions, so the sky's the limit.

[Rock Sexton]

Thunder God from another dimension. Way more believable than gamma rays, which destroy living tissue as a rule, doing anything but killing someone. We don't know anything about other dimensions, so the sky's the limit.

I'm sorry, you could poll the public and you'd never get that reaction. Regardless, the common person doesn't know what exactly a gamma ray does, but they know it to exist or would connect it to some other kind of "ray". They know Thunder Gods don't exist. That's the difference.

[Chewy]

They know gamma rays exist. They also know that giant green monsters don't exist.

[Rock Sexton]

They know gamma rays exist. They also know that giant green monsters don't exist.

.............but the two are not benign. If they know of gamma rays, it lends to the believability of Hulk. It's not like he's just a green monster running around with no back story.

[Chewy]

... and it's not like Thor's a Norse God running around with no backstory

[SuperFerret]

Fantasy is not more or less believable than science fiction. There is only the tiniest of differences between the two and most people (i.e. the public) don't know or care enough to determine the difference.

This question is silly, if the public accepts that a man can build a suit of hi-tech armor, or get hit with radiation and turn into a hulking man-child, or actually be an alien who gets his superpowers from Earth's yellow sun, then they can accept a thunder god from a mythical land, ESPECIALLY if they've seen a movie that shows all that in some detail and establish him as a superhero. Once that's done, the public won't blink an eye if he shows up with other superheroes, no matter who they are.

[Rock Sexton]

... and it's not like Thor's a Norse God running around with no backstory

You're putting words in my mouth............. let's focus here for a minute............Thor's back story isn't explained by technological means like all the other characters being set up. His power comes from being immortal and a magic hammer. There's sorcery and magic in the dimension where he's from.

[SuperFerret]

You're putting words in my mouth............. let's focus here for a minute............Thor's back story isn't explained by technological means like all the other characters being set up. His power comes from being immortal and a magic hammer. There's sorcery and magic in the dimension where he's from.

So?

[Rock Sexton]

Fantasy is not more or less believable than science fiction. There is only the tiniest of differences between the two and most people (i.e. the public) don't know or care enough to determine the difference.

So you have a whole crew at Marvel and directors in Jon Favreau and Kenneth Branaugh who are sensitive to the complexity - but to you there's virtually no isssue? :wow:

This question is silly, if the public accepts that a man can build a suit of hi-tech armor, or get hit with radiation and turn into a hulking man-child, or actually be an alien who gets his superpowers from Earth's yellow sun, then they can accept a thunder god from a mythical land, ESPECIALLY if they've seen a movie that shows all that in some detail and establish him as a superhero. Once that's done, the public won't blink an eye if he shows up with other superheroes, no matter who they are.

I already stated this. The Thor film is integral to the acceptability on the part of the average movie viewer come Avengers. You can't deny that all the films so far (Hulk, IM, and soon to be Captain America), were all technology with no elements of magic or interdimensionality and Thor is absolutely not. I've yet to see any quality examples of a film that has managed to be successful while merging the two.

[Chewy]

I didn't put words in your mouth, I responded to your post. And Thor isn't immortal. I'd also like to point out that there isn't a technological explanation for a man surviving being frozen in the Arctic for 70 years.

Also, sorcery and magic existing in the dimension he comes from is not going to be an issue, as sorcery and magic exist in the dimension Avengers takes place in and Thor will be the viewer's introduction to that. Sorcery and magic existing in a fictional universe isn't a problem and only becomes one when it isn't handled properly.

[Rock Sexton]

So?

.............. :whatever:.............so none of the other SHIELD characters share that in common. Fish out of water scenario. The movies so far have been science fiction, not fantasy fiction. They're rooted in technology related principles as Favreau has pointed out.

[Rock Sexton]

I didn't put words in your mouth, I responded to your post. And Thor isn't immortal. I'd also like to point out that there isn't a technological explanation for a man surviving being frozen in the Arctic for 70 years.

I don't know how else to make this more crystal clear to you - most of the things were see aren't possible regardless. Yet, when they're attached to "technology" the acceptability levels are higher and have much more of a connection to "reality" .......... both IM and Hulk managed to keep within reality's reach.

Also, sorcery and magic existing in the dimension he comes from is not going to be an issue, as sorcery and magic exist in the dimension Avengers takes place in and Thor will be the viewer's introduction to that. Sorcery and magic existing in a fictional universe isn't a problem and only becomes one when it isn't handled properly.

I'm with you 100%. That's why I said it's a delicate situation.

[Chewy]

I don't know how else to make this more crystal clear to you - most of the things were see aren't possible regardless. Yet, when they're attached to "technology" the acceptability levels are higher and have much more of a connection to "reality" .......... both IM and Hulk managed to keep within reality's reach.
Neither was connected to reality... both are stretches and are escapist fare. As much as people like to claim that there is "reality" in movies like Iron Man, TIH, or TDK, there isn't. There's believability to it, and that is entirely credited to the filmmakers. Just as the level of believability to Thor will rest squarely on the shoulders of the filmmakers.

[SuperFerret]

So you have a whole crew at Marvel and directors in Jon Favreau and Kenneth Branaugh who are sensitive to the complexity - but to you there's virtually no isssue? :wow:

To me there is no issue, only people who are making an issue by questioning it all. Read Agent 194's post. He's absolutely right, if they just come out and have Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America and Thor standing side by side and just being the Avengers as they've been for years in print, never questioning Thor's magical roots, Banner's gamma radiation anomaly and Captain America's real chances of surviving that long in the ice. They do that, and nobody but those already skeptical will think twice.

I already stated this. The Thor film is integral to the acceptability on the part of the average movie viewer come Avengers. You can't deny that all the films so far (Hulk, IM, and soon to be Captain America), were all technology with no elements of magic or interdimensionality and Thor is absolutely not. I've yet to see any quality examples of a film that has managed to be successful while merging the two.

You ever hear about Harry Potter? They're these stories set in the modern day about a school for wizardry. They've been quite successful movies from what I've seen.

[Rock Sexton]

To me there is no issue, only people who are making an issue by questioning it all. Read Agent 194's post. He's absolutely right, if they just come out and have Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America and Thor standing side by side and just being the Avengers as they've been for years in print, never questioning Thor's magical roots, Banner's gamma radiation anomaly and Captain America's real chances of surviving that long in the ice. They do that, and nobody but those already skeptical will think twice.

You ever hear about Harry Potter? They're these stories set in the modern day about a school for wizardry. They've been quite successful movies from what I've seen.

Harry Potter did not introduce technology. Terrible example. It was all fantasy fiction, not science fiction. It's theme is nothing even remotely close to that of Hulk or IM.

[Rock Sexton]

Neither was connected to reality... both are stretches and are escapist fare. As much as people like to claim that there is "reality" in movies like Iron Man, TIH, or TDK, there isn't. There's believability to it, and that is entirely credited to the filmmakers. Just as the level of believability to Thor will rest squarely on the shoulders of the filmmakers.

Think there's a chance of a portal being invented?

[SuperFerret]

Harry Potter did not introduce technology. Terrible example. It was all fantasy fiction, not science fiction. It's theme is nothing even remotely close to that of Hulk or IM.

Harry Potter was set "our world". "Our world" has technology, the Potter stories ADDED magic to the technology.

And please, I made two points in my last post. Address them, lest I leave believing I'm right.

[Rock Sexton]

Harry Potter was set "our world". "Our world" has technology, the Potter stories ADDED magic to the technology.

And please, I made two points in my last post. Address them, lest I leave believing I'm right.

Still a terrible example. The Potter world was a world within a world. It was an escape from reality and technology into a world of fantasy, magic, and sorcerer. Apparently you missed that.

I've addressed all of your points.

[RaZaTrOn]

It isn't a terrible example because what you just explain mirrors Thor to some extent.
Asgard can be a world within our world can it not? An escape from reality and technology into a world of fantasy and magic.
Thor, like Potter comes back to our world every so often and uses magic Thor uses a Hammer to get places, Harry uses a magic bus.

Have addressed all of your points?

[Thunder_god]

LOL, if you go into the movie looking to break the "illusion", you will break it every time.

Spiderman got bitten by a radioactive spider and didn't die, instead he was granted amazing spider-like powers. Are you kidding? There is NO science-fiction there, that is PURE science-fantasy, and MUCH closer to fantasy than science.

Same goes for the jolly green giant :bh:, although Captain America and Iron Man are both closer to science than to fantasy.

Point is, in a genre that asks you to believe that a guy from another planet has super powers simply by virtue of being bathed in yellow sunlight, another guy has mastered several different martial arts AND scientific fields, and uses these abilities to fight crime in a costume :brucebat: , and a WHOLE BUNCH of people have gained super-powers by exposing themselves to lethally high levels of various radiations, do you really think anyone is gonna look twice at a big guy with a hammer who claims to be Thor, the Norse god of thunder?

Seriously?

T

[Ahura Mazda]

Nice post :up:

All I can say is I agree with the above.

[Canis Sapiens]

I happen to agree with Rock Sexton. I think introducing a magical, extradimensional being in, say, the Iron Man movie universe is a delicate affair.

Just to use an example off of the top of my head: think Batman. Ok, a guy who dresses as a bat to fight crime isnt exactly a realistic concept. Now, add Batmite, a magical, extradimensional being, to the mix. Its hard to accept both could coexist.

But I have faith Brannagh and Favreau will make it work just fine.

[TheCorpulent1]

It's not the Iron Man movie universe, though. It'll be the Avengers movie universe, of which the Thor movie universe and the Iron Man movie universe (and the Cap movie universe) would already be a part. By the time Avengers hits, we'll have seen where Thor comes from and what his deal is, so I don't think it'll be hard to transition him into the modern-day Earth of the Avengers movie from there.

To give a counterpoint to your Batman example: Watchmen was pretty hardcore with its realism, yet they had Dr. Manhattan floating, growing to giant size, making people explode with a wave of his hand, and generally doing things that could easily have been magical. Just because something is alien and weird, doesn't mean it's impossible to fit into a realistic setting.

[Canis Sapiens]

Fair enough. :yay: But I still think its easier to accept Dr. Manhattan, mostly because hes explained through science, I dont know. It just feels more in tone with that universe. But I understand the people who believe Thor will blend effortlessly with the other Avengers guys. I think is a matter of very personal views, really. Some will accept Thor in Iron Man, Nick Fury or Caps company without even blinking. Others will not be so welcoming to the idea.

Fact is, Favreau and Brannagh are clearly interested in convincing the latter. And I think thats a good sign. It shows they want the movie to connect to all kinds of fans.

[TheCorpulent1]

My thinking is: Thor's already been accepted alongside sci fi characters in the 616 comics and the Ultimate comics. There are those who view him as too weird or whatever because his powers happen to come from the fact that he's a god rather than a mutant or some other arbitrary sci fi label, but they're the minority because Thor's endured as a major character in the Marvel universe for nearly half a century at this point. I don't think movie audiences are that different from comic audiences in their ability (or lack thereof) to suspend disbelief.

[Ahura Mazda]

Thor is a mythological character. Not a magical creature created out of thin air in currrent times. Some will think of the marvel charcater and others wil think of what they have read in Norse mythology. And fitting it in a universe where you have people with tremendous super powers already is really not much of a stretch.

[Rock Sexton]

It isn't a terrible example because what you just explain mirrors Thor to some extent.
Asgard can be a world within our world can it not? An escape from reality and technology into a world of fantasy and magic.
Thor, like Potter comes back to our world every so often and uses magic Thor uses a Hammer to get places, Harry uses a magic bus.

Have addressed all of your points?

It can be. That's a distinct possibility. How they unearth it and attach it to what was already going on with the marvel universe they've established on-screen is going to be the trick. For the most part Potter stayed in that other dimension. We all know that that's not going to be the case come Avengers.

Honestly, this is not that difficult to understand and guys like Favreau/Branaugh (students of film) have acknowledged the same things I am. Hulk and IM set up characters in reality based settings who's powers are granted to them by technology. The same will be for Captain America. It's not so much about acceptability or believeability but instead the different levels of it. Thor changes the whole pattern because he's not born of technology. His powers are from being a god. What's the point of superheros if you've got a god? It's this interesting dynamic that's at play. They also have to find a way to tone down this god-liness and also show his weakness.

[Rock Sexton]

It's not the Iron Man movie universe, though. It'll be the Avengers movie universe, of which the Thor movie universe and the Iron Man movie universe (and the Cap movie universe) would already be a part. By the time Avengers hits, we'll have seen where Thor comes from and what his deal is, so I don't think it'll be hard to transition him into the modern-day Earth of the Avengers movie from there.

To give a counterpoint to your Batman example: Watchmen was pretty hardcore with its realism, yet they had Dr. Manhattan floating, growing to giant size, making people explode with a wave of his hand, and generally doing things that could easily have been magical. Just because something is alien and weird, doesn't mean it's impossible to fit into a realistic setting.

Dr. Manhattan was a product of SCIENCE .............which happens to be the key element to keep it on par with the universe marvel has created. It's all been modern day so far and the only things exaggerated have been the heros and their technology.

[Rock Sexton]

My thinking is: Thor's already been accepted alongside sci fi characters in the 616 comics and the Ultimate comics. There are those who view him as too weird or whatever because his powers happen to come from the fact that he's a god rather than a mutant or some other arbitrary sci fi label, but they're the minority because Thor's endured as a major character in the Marvel universe for nearly half a century at this point. I don't think movie audiences are that different from comic audiences in their ability (or lack thereof) to suspend disbelief.

Really? You can't tell the different between comic book fan and movie goer? Comic book fans have far wilder imaginations, it's not even close.

[Rock Sexton]

And fitting it in a universe where you have people with tremendous super powers already is really not much of a stretch.

Tremendous super powers that are technologically granted! That's what separates Thor from the others. And that's precisely what directors like Favreau and Branaugh are being very sensitive about. It's not so much about being a stretch, but fitting in with the overall theme. If you've got a God on your team, then it poses an interesting dilemna that God's are indestructible and immortal. Where's the struggle then?

[SuperFerret]

I have it! It took some thinking (I attribute that to me being sick) but I have the example of a successful movie franchise that combines Science Fiction and Fantasy Fiction and does it well. In fact, it even combines the epitome of each: Space Opera for Sci Fi, Sword and Sorcery for Fantasy. So I present to you, the Sword and Sorcery Space Opera that was literally sitting right under my nose while I flailed away with my Harry Potter crap: Star Wars.

Star Wars is clearly set in the penultimate sci fi setting; outer space. Yet clearly from the very first movie in the trilogy, there is the presense of mystics; the Jedi. Sure, their magic is called the Force, but it's clearly mystical in nature. By the way, we're talking about the original trilogy here, I am fully (and dreadfully) aware of Lucas's midichlorian bullcrap to make the Jedi more sci fi, but even considering that, there were three highly successful and accepted films that don't use that crutch to explain the Force.

If Luke Skywalker can be accepted with Han Solo, C-3PO and Jabba the Hut, then Thor can be accepted with Captain America, Iron Man and the Hulk.

[Rich Santoro]

Star Wars isn't in the here and now... It is long ago in a galaxy far-far away...

I think that effectively developing the Avengers movie-verse to include ulta-hi-tech, outlandish psuedo-science, and mystical otherworldly elements is easier that some are expressing, BUT much more difficult that others seem to believe.

And the idea of 'since it works it comics, there is no problem for movies' is somewhat off.

Quite a few of the posters to to be onluy worried about their own perceptions of the movie.

[SuperFerret]

I know I am. As long as I enjoy the movie, I don't care what others think. I still believe that if the film itself doesn't question it, the audience won't. When watching a movie for the first time, you get caught up in it and gloss over the flaws, like a magic trick. You only really start to see the flaws on repeat viewings, again like a magic trick. You know what's going to happen, so you can pay attention to the details a bit more, and that's only if you're looking.

This goes for most people, unless you're going into the first viewing as a skeptic.

[Rich Santoro]

I know I am. As long as I enjoy the movie, I don't care what others think.

The producers, directors, actors, writers... and everyone who will decide if we get to see anymore of these films, care what a majority of moviegoers think.

I still believe that if the film itself doesn't question it, the audience won't. When watching a movie for the first time, you get caught up in it and gloss over the flaws, like a magic trick.

That is, IF it is well written, finely acted, and well filmed... No one gets caught up in a movie unless it is good. No one will gloss over details of a magic trick unless it is "believeable". Go watch a bad magician and tell me if you gloss over anything... you just walk away, and that guy gets unemployed. Movies die horrible deaths for being unspohisticated. Most of what works in comics wouldn't stand a chance on the big screen.

This goes for most people, unless you're going into the first viewing as a skeptic.

And you get this information from what inside trade magazine??? Who polled movie-goers to determine that they don't care about the details, and will gloss over them???

[Chewy]

So the point of this thread is to operate under the assumption that it will be poorly handled?

[Rich Santoro]

^ LOL... excellent observation...

[Rock Sexton]

So the point of this thread is to operate under the assumption that it will be poorly handled?

The point of this thread is to discuss how fragile the concept of Thor's involvement really is. Nobody is saying it can't be successful. What we're saying is that it's a delicate task.

[TheCorpulent1]

And the idea of 'since it works it comics, there is no problem for movies' is somewhat off.
Whereas your argument that anything labeled "science" will automatically be accepted and anything labeled "magic" will automatically be rejected makes tons more sense... :dry:

At the end of the day, the producers are just gonna have to take the chance of juxtaposing magic and science. Maybe they'll mitigate it by having everyone in the movie consider Thor to be merely another sci fi superhero like the rest of them, as others have suggested. But, according to you, if they don't make a big deal of it and have everyone openly accept Thor as a god, the movie will fail miserably because the unimaginitive moviegoers will reject him outright, and if they try to retcon Thor into having a sci fi origin, I can say for a fact that at least one Thor fan (me) will reject the movie outright because that ain't Thor, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one. Sort of a lose/lose no matter how you look at it.

[Rich Santoro]

Whereas your argument that anything labeled "science" will automatically be accepted and anything labeled "magic" will automatically be rejected makes tons more sense... :dry:

No... that is not what I said at all. I expressed that the merging of several different genres at once is what makes this challenging.

FROM ME:I think that effectively developing the Avengers movie-verse to include ulta-hi-tech, outlandish psuedo-science, and mystical otherworldly elements is easier that some are expressing, BUT much more difficult that others seem to believe.

There is nothing in there to say that I think, anything magic will be rejected...


At the end of the day, the producers are just gonna have to take the chance of juxtaposing magic and science.

No... at the end of the day, they are going to have to be sure that they have a great story, and great onscreen dynamics, that will effectively produce the suspension of disbelief that is necessary for a sci-fi / fantasy movie to succeed.


But, according to you, if they don't make a big deal of it and have everyone openly accept Thor as a god, the movie will fail miserably because the unimaginitive moviegoers will reject him outright, and if they try to retcon Thor into having a sci fi origin, I can say for a fact that at least one Thor fan (me) will reject the movie outright because that ain't Thor, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one. Sort of a lose/lose no matter how you look at it.

Wow... Let me recap... I expressed that the simplified belief, of what works in comics will work just fine in movies, is "off"... actually I said "somewhat off". And from that comment, you extracted the idea that I was suggesting that:

if they don't make a big deal of it and have everyone openly accept Thor as a god, the movie will fail miserably because the unimaginitive moviegoers will reject him outright

I am not sure if this is a Red Herring, Non Sequitor, a Straw man... or just good old fashion lack of reading comprehension. I did not call for carte blanche acceptance of Thor as a God... nor did I say that his origin / existence has to be "sciencified" if you will... I only said that more care than "hey, it works in comics" needs to be taken.

[TheCorpulent1]

It still just comes down to labels. You've been repeating the same thing over and over: that things based in science are more believable than things based in magic, even given the example of someone like Dr. Manhattan, who is easily just as otherworldly and unbelievable as any magic-based comic character.

But, thinking on it further, Superman would probably be a better analogue. What really separates the concept of Superman coming to Earth and possessing incredible power because of his alien nature from Thor coming to Earth and possessing incredible power because of his magical nature? They're both strange visitors from other worlds, yet the way you make it sound, people would gladly eat Superman up because scientific stuff like solar radiation and space are involved in his origin, whereas people would be more resistant to Thor because a mythological dimension and magic are involved in his. At the end of the day, both are about as alien to the realistic-except-for-superheroes world Marvel Studios is setting up throughout Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and its upcoming movies. I just don't see the difference between the two being in anything but name.

[Rock Sexton]

It still just comes down to labels. You've been repeating the same thing over and over: that things based in science are more believable than things based in magic, even given the example of someone like Dr. Manhattan, who is easily just as otherworldly and unbelievable as any magic-based comic character.

Once again, Dr. Manhattan was a bi-product of science and technology. Why must you continue to omit this? Science and tehcnology, while going to be exaggerated in the movie, is still rooted in reality. Fantasy, magic, and sorcery are not. That is precisely what separates Thor from the other characters.

But, thinking on it further, Superman would probably be a better analogue. What really separates the concept of Superman coming to Earth and possessing incredible power because of his alien nature from Thor coming to Earth and possessing incredible power because of his magical nature? They're both strange visitors from other worlds, yet the way you make it sound, people would gladly eat Superman up because scientific stuff like solar radiation and space are involved in his origin, whereas people would be more resistant to Thor because a mythological dimension and magic are involved in his. At the end of the day, both are about as alien to the realistic-except-for-superheroes world Marvel Studios is setting up throughout Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and its upcoming movies. I just don't see the difference between the two being in anything but name.

Superman was from another planet so yes - it's fits the science fictional element required for a more widespread suspension of disbelief on the part of the average audience. Regardless, your comparison of the two is apples-to-oranges in a sense that Superman's acceptance is so widespread and built over decades that I don't think anyone would ever question much when it comes to the challenge that Thor and the rest of the Avengers pose. Superman also wasn't a god.

[SuperFerret]

You'd think that since the majority of people have some kind of religious faith would allow a fictional god be easier to buy than an alien from another planet.

[Rock Sexton]

You'd think that since the majority of people have some kind of religious faith would allow a fictional god be easier to buy than an alien from another planet.

Ehhhhhhh.....but we're talking about a god of Thunder here, not a creator of life. His existence would almost nullify the need for superheros since he's technically immortal and indestructible.

[Rich Santoro]

It still just comes down to labels. You've been repeating the same thing over and over: that things based in science are more believable than things based in magic

I did not say that... If we started with Magic (like the Thor movie), and then folded in science... I would STILL be saying that there is a challenge to bring it all together. And I do believe it is easier to fold in over the top science and technolgy into a modern world setting... JUST as I believe it is easier to fold in over the top mystical powers and magic into a medieval setting. If robots from the future showed up in Beowulf, I would be saying WTF?!?!? While I had no problem with strange beasts... like Grendel and his mother... Not to mention the dragon.

You are way off my man...


I even given the example of someone like Dr. Manhattan, who is easily just as otherworldly and unbelievable as any magic-based comic character.

But he is not magic based... We clearly saw that he is a being of pure energy... hence his amazing abilities. I was unhappy with the inclusion of science into Blade. I felt it was unnecessary to sciencify the genetic nature of vampirism. I am OK with magic... I just feel that some additional attention to story-telling is necessay when the elements are mixed.


But, thinking on it further, Superman would probably be a better analogue. What really separates the concept of Superman coming to Earth and possessing incredible power because of his alien nature from Thor coming to Earth and possessing incredible power because of his magical nature? They're both strange visitors from other worlds, yet the way you make it sound, people would gladly eat Superman up because scientific stuff like solar radiation and space are involved in his origin, whereas people would be more resistant to Thor because a mythological dimension and magic are involved in his.

I think that this is a false equivalency. I am not sure why you keep trying to pit me against magic. What I am talking about is story-telling. Spiderman didn't just show up with web-slinging powers... they told a story on how it happenned. They took the time to make it a genetically altrered spider, showed a period of acclimation to his new powers, and time to develop his character theme...

IM had a pretty long drawn out component to his origin. He wasn't just some guy that built an armored suit... He was depicted as a boy genius, light-years ahead of anyone else. The IM suit would be no problem for a futuristic movie... but for IM (in the here and now) they wanted to add a little bit of back story to justify this as-of-yet never seen technology.

So, I say... Thor should not just show up and be some unexplored mystical being. His origin, his world, his powers should be fleshed out... and in a way that contextualizes it for Earth.

At the end of the day, both are about as alien to the realistic-except-for-superheroes world Marvel Studios is setting up throughout Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and its upcoming movies. I just don't see the difference between the two being in anything but name.

"and that is why you fail." j/k :woot:

I stand by my position that there is value to providing additional story development, and contextualizing Thor with the modern world that IM and Hulk are part of.

[SuperFerret]

Ehhhhhhh.....but we're talking about a god of Thunder here, not a creator of life. His existence would almost nullify the need for superheros since he's technically immortal and indestructible.

The Norse gods are neither immortal or indestructible. They're all destined to die in Ragnarok, die horribly I might add.

[Rock Sexton]

The Norse gods are neither immortal or indestructible. They're all destined to die in Ragnarok, die horribly I might add.

I meant in a sense of the word "God" that we've come to know. But it bares to question because if he can't die on earth in a battle with would-be foes, then where is the struggle?

[SuperFerret]

He struggles all the time in the comics, and despite the "what works in comics..." idea, that wouldn't be too hard to do on film. Just say that the gods were weaker back then, or that their powers have waned since people stopped believing in them or something.

[Rich Santoro]

My thoughts for the "gods" is that they are other worldy beings that visited Earth over a 1000 years ago, and their great powers spurred the populace to view them as gods and worship them. These gods, fell for the role and titles, and molded their whole being around it... or Norse mythology molded around them and their powers... Whichever. But they are not truly indestructable... just nearly so.

Eventually, Odin recalled them to Asgard (to defend it from enemies, or because abuses of the mortals in Midgard, or some other reason). They have not been around for centuries... or have only visited on the down low... or are able to visit but only in mind, within hosts (ala Thor / Donald Blake).

Then within that framework... the story for the Thor film unflolds.

So, in terms of "gods"... these being are not the creators of natural phenoma (like Apollo flying a chariot of fire to create the sun), but rather are able to manipulate natural phenomena due to their vast powers... Like Thor creating whirlwinds and hurling lightenning bolts... But weather patterns are natural phenomena beyond just Thor.

[SuperFerret]

That's not hard to believe in any way, and since it'll already be established in Thor's solo movie, it's not that big a stretch to put him in the Avengers.

[Rock Sexton]

He struggles all the time in the comics, and despite the "what works in comics..." idea, that wouldn't be too hard to do on film. Just say that the gods were weaker back then, or that their powers have waned since people stopped believing in them or something.

I know it worked in comics.........comics are the quintessential example of imagination. Comic book fans are among the most imaginative people I know. Not everyone is a comic fan though. Many of the people who will see the movie will be familiar with the character, just not the story. I mean when you read the synopsis over on Marvel you can see how Thor's whole story completely trumps anything going on in modern day earth setting.

So while you have this group of guys who fight crime with their technology, there's a bunch of gods and pseudo-immortal characters at play who's world is far more fantasmic and extensive than what we've come to know of superheros on earth.

[Rich Santoro]

That's not hard to believe in any way, and since it'll already be established in Thor's solo movie, it's not that big a stretch to put him in the Avengers.

Agreed... His origin and backstory development is best for the Thor solo film... Then Avengers can get down to the business of focusing on the Avengers story and team development.

[TheCorpulent1]

I think that this is a false equivalency. I am not sure why you keep trying to pit me against magic. What I am talking about is story-telling. Spiderman didn't just show up with web-slinging powers... they told a story on how it happenned. They took the time to make it a genetically altrered spider, showed a period of acclimation to his new powers, and time to develop his character theme...
Maybe this is why I'm not understanding your argument. I took the origin and development of the character for granted. We're getting a Thor movie before the Avengers movie, after all. Doesn't that sort of automatically assume we're going to see Thor's origins and get a better understanding of the character before he's thrown into the Avengers mix?

Granted, I can't speak for what will be in the Thor movie, since I seem to be one of the ten people online who hasn't read the script (trying to keep myself relatively ignorant so I can better enjoy seeing it for the first time in the theater), but I would think that if Branagh is singing the praises of the interconnectivity between the movies, we'd have to wind up with Thor on Earth at some point in his own movie.

The best way to do it would seem, to me, to be simply presenting Thor in Asgard in his movie as a member of the Asgardian race, showing us that the Asgardians are basically just people with much greater powers than normal humans, and showing us that at some point, there was a meeting of the two races and that some humans (vikings) decided that these guys must be gods. Although Thor is clearly defined as a god in the comics, whether the Asgardians really are gods or not ought to be left up to the viewer for the movies. That way, people can ascribe whatever idea is more believable for the character to them onto him in their own mind--those not inclined to be into magic and mythology can just say he's an otherdimensional alien that some misguided idiots in ancient times decided to worship; those who like the mythological slant can accept him as a god. In the former scenario, he's effectively Marvel's spin on Superman. In the latter, he's an actual god. Either way works for Thor. Win/win.

[Rock Sexton]

Maybe this is why I'm not understanding your argument. I took the origin and development of the character for granted. We're getting a Thor movie before the Avengers movie, after all. Doesn't that sort of automatically assume we're going to see Thor's origins and get a better understanding of the character before he's thrown into the Avengers mix?

Granted, I can't speak for what will be in the Thor movie, since I seem to be one of the ten people online who hasn't read the script (trying to keep myself relatively ignorant so I can better enjoy seeing it for the first time in the theater), but I would think that if Branagh is singing the praises of the interconnectivity between the movies, we'd have to wind up with Thor on Earth at some point in his own movie.

The best way to do it would seem, to me, to be simply presenting Thor in Asgard in his movie as a member of the Asgardian race, showing us that the Asgardians are basically just people with much greater powers than normal humans, and showing us that at some point, there was a meeting of the two races and that some humans (vikings) decided that these guys must be gods. Although Thor is clearly defined as a god in the comics, whether the Asgardians really are gods or not ought to be left up to the viewer for the movies. That way, people can ascribe whatever idea is more believable for the character to them onto him in their own mind--those not inclined to be into magic and mythology can just say he's an otherdimensional alien that some misguided idiots in ancient times decided to worship; those who like the mythological slant can accept him as a god. In the former scenario, he's effectively Marvel's spin on Superman. In the latter, he's an actual god. Either way works for Thor. Win/win.

I love the idea of the "Who or what is he" complexity behind Thor. I think audiences would love that.

[simba317]

As for a show that merges science with faith/mysticism/magic...Battlestar Galactica. Head Six, Head Baltar, Dying Leaders with visions of religious texts, premonitions...and if you like or or hate it Kara Thrace, angel lol.

~simba_317

[Thunder_god]

Y'know, for all intents and purposes Superman and Thor are the same character... both "strange visitors from another planet who come to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men". Superman gets his from exposure to yellow sunlight, Thor gets his inherently, though I suppose you could call it magic. His strength and endurance are traits inherited from his race, and his weather control could always be construed as a psychic power. His only "magical" abilites come from his gear, the belt, the gauntlets, and of course, the hammer.

If the arguement is that "people" are more apt to believe a scientific explanation than a magical one, then I see two flaws: one, you can only speak for yourself, and those you have spoken to directly. This thread is proof enough that there are plenty of people with different opinions, and personally, I have no problem accepting movies like Blade, Constantine, Hellboy, etc., just as I have no problem with the scientific backgrounds presented in Fantastic Four, Watchmen, etc. And I believe MOST movie-goers are like me; while there are certainly other camps for which the "realism" of the movies will make or break them, I believe these fans will be in the minority.

The second flaw in the arguement is that the "rules" of this fictional reality need to conform to your ideas of logical. Marvel certainly believes that the two can coexist, hence the generous amount of "magically" powered heroes in the MU, the sucess of films like Star Wars and The Matrix (the first one).

The point is, just because something won't make much sense TO YOU, doesn't mean it won't have a larger appeal to a larger audience. The one thing I have learned from watching Marvel update their universe to the silver screen is that they make every effort to "broaden" the appeal of the comics, adding and deleting various elements to the point that purists get alarmed and resistant, but the box office receipts proving that the changes WORKED.

Just proceed as I do, that every comic (and any media resulting from it) is it's own "What If...", and that every author is going to put a spin on those characters you love. Sometimes you win (Iron Man, The Dark Knight), sometimes you lose (the first Hulk, Ghost Rider), but mostly you just enjoy the ride for what it is worth.

T

[Rock Sexton]

Y'know, for all intents and purposes Superman and Thor are the same character... both "strange visitors from another planet who come to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men". Superman gets his from exposure to yellow sunlight, Thor gets his inherently, though I suppose you could call it magic. His strength and endurance are traits inherited from his race, and his weather control could always be construed as a psychic power. His only "magical" abilites come from his gear, the belt, the gauntlets, and of course, the hammer.

Huh? Superman is from a planet, Thor is from another dimension. Thor's even referred to in his own comics as being a God. Superman never has been. Superman has also had decades of exposure to audiences worldwide which inherently creates more acceptability in terms of what the audience is willing to digest. Thor has not earned this cinematic right.

If the arguement is that "people" are more apt to believe a scientific explanation than a magical one, then I see two flaws: one, you can only speak for yourself, and those you have spoken to directly. This thread is proof enough that there are plenty of people with different opinions, and personally, I have no problem accepting movies like Blade, Constantine, Hellboy, etc., just as I have no problem with the scientific backgrounds presented in Fantastic Four, Watchmen, etc. And I believe MOST movie-goers are like me; while there are certainly other camps for which the "realism" of the movies will make or break them, I believe these fans will be in the minority.

Your assertion is highly ironic. It's certainly possible to see the flaws regardless of how many people you have spoken with and to communicate them as some of us have done. The largest difference between an argument like yours and an argument like mine is the fact that I am able to speak from a non-fan boy perspective. I have never heavily invested myself in comics, but yet I'm not completely unaware or uninformed. All of those movies you listed are not good example at all in relation to the subject matter. All walked the line where technology was not at the forefront. With each, technology was secondary to the fantasy plot lines.

The second flaw in the arguement is that the "rules" of this fictional reality need to conform to your ideas of logical. Marvel certainly believes that the two can coexist, hence the generous amount of "magically" powered heroes in the MU, the sucess of films like Star Wars and The Matrix (the first one).

The argument isn't logic based because most of it is illogical. The argument concerns the level of acceptability and suspension of disbelief in regards to two separate genres being teamed up. I know I haven't written off the idea, my argument is that it's very delicate. My words are echoed by directors involved in the series which amazingly are being written off quick by poster like yourself.

The point is, just because something won't make much sense TO YOU, doesn't mean it won't have a larger appeal to a larger audience. The one thing I have learned from watching Marvel update their universe to the silver screen is that they make every effort to "broaden" the appeal of the comics, adding and deleting various elements to the point that purists get alarmed and resistant, but the box office receipts proving that the changes WORKED.

They have absolutely no choice. To roll out a movie entirely faithful to the comic would only satisfy comic book purists. General audiences would not take to the concepts in the same fashion.

Just proceed as I do, that every comic (and any media resulting from it) is it's own "What If...", and that every author is going to put a spin on those characters you love. Sometimes you win (Iron Man, The Dark Knight), sometimes you lose (the first Hulk, Ghost Rider), but mostly you just enjoy the ride for what it is worth.

T

I'm with you. You have to go for a ride and enjoy the movie. However the tendencies of the general audience are quite clear to me. Reminds me of the movie Cloverfield - which I thought was hands down a fun, thrill ride of a movie. Time after time after time I saw bad reviews and comments from people because of the mysterious nature of the Cloverfield monster. Where did it come from? Why was it there? Etc. Etc....... The point was we weren't supposed to know and the film was about the characters. Abrams left it up to the audience to come to whatever conclusions they wanted to about the monster and yet much of the general audience seem to take issue with that - they needed it to make sense for them.

[Thunder_god]

Thor has made it very clear that he is A god not THE God, not the creator, not even a god who seeks worshippers anymore. That is all in the past.

For all intent and purpose you might as well just call "god" alien, and call "dimension" another planet. The difference is purely semantic, as neither exists as a habitable location so far as the general public is concerned, and as Arthur C. Clarke noted, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

And, Superman fans please correct me if I am wrong, as my knowledge of the character is limited at best, but I seem to recall several Superman storylines that dealt with normal people worshiping him as a god amongst men. I think that Kingdom Come is one of the ones that treads this line somewhat. Not that Clark ever sought that, it's just what normal humans do when a superhuman is around.

As far as "cinematic right" goes, I don't even know what that is, possibly a variation on poetic license? But if you mean that because Supes has existed for longer and on a deeper level in the public consciousness, that I grant you, but I think that characters like Superman have paved the way for Thor, and others.

As far as dismissing my arguements as the rantings of a "fan-boy", I suppose I am a fan-boy, by the definition, I just don't see it a negative. I can, and have on these very boards, admitted that there are things about Thor, and Marvel in general, that I do not like or agree with, but I hope that I have been able to present my ideas and opinions with some degree of common sense and objectivity. However, since you seem able to rebuff my opinions as those of a raving fan-boy, I reserve the right to call you names as well, forum troll would appear to be a good one, as you have admitted that you are not heavily invested in comic books, yet have ventured here and are expending a good deal of your own time and effort to conduct an online argument. :cwink:

As regards my choices of movie examples, I intentionally listed superheroes that were NOT based in science-fiction as examples of successful heroes with OTHER than a technological basis. I have already disputed the Hulk, Spiderman and the FF as being more science fantasy than science fiction, as we all know that massive doses of radiation invariably KILL people. In fact, outside of Iron Man I don't see ONE Marvel movie that has it's basis in technology over fantasy. Please elaborate.

Movie makers combine genres all the time, romantic comedies, buddy action comedies, techno-fantasy, mockumentaries, all of these are genre-blending efforts. I see nothing in either fantasy or science that would preclude the other being present. In fact I think by blending them you can achive higher levels of realism and believeability, as no amount of technology is EVER going to turn a gamma-irradiated creature into anything but a corpse, and magic is far more believeable when it has it's own set of internally consistant rules, like alchemy or steampunk.

I think you are confusing critical acclaim with success, as I also enjoyed Cloverfield, and over at Rotten Tomatoes it would seem that more than 70% of the people who scored it, enjoyed it. I do NOT expect Thor to be critically acclaimed, any more than I expect any of the others to be. I just hope that it's fun enough to make money (ensuring that more superhero movies will get made) and THOR enough that I don't walk away annoyed by the missed opportunity.

T

[Rich Santoro]

Maybe this is why I'm not understanding your argument. I took the origin and development of the character for granted. We're getting a Thor movie before the Avengers movie, after all. Doesn't that sort of automatically assume we're going to see Thor's origins and get a better understanding of the character before he's thrown into the Avengers mix?

I apologize for causing confusion... I think that have been indeed arguing two different things. I was talking from the context of Thor, as he is introduced in his own film... and how they can parlay that story toward fitting Thor and his mystical origins with the rest of the Avengers' characters.

I agree with you, for the Avengers. I would not spend much time on the matter of combining genres. Use Thor's solo film for that.

[TheCorpulent1]

Sorry for the sarcasm in my first post. :o

[Rich Santoro]

^ Its all good... If the movie and/or some real information would just come out, we would not have to keep running into these speculation / opinion threads.

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, I really want to know who's in the cast. Up until there's an actual signed cast, I have an irrational fear that the Thor movie could have its plug pulled anytime.

[Thunder_god]

Signing Branagh is a pretty significant step I think, he is no green director new-come to epic tlaes on the silver screen, and he seems to have a clear vision of what he wants to do. Now we just have to hope it meshes with the Marvel suits ideas :whatever:

I am upgrading from wary to hopeful.

T

[Rich Santoro]

With Brannaugh involved, I will second that sentiment...

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, I was happy to hear about Branagh as well. Being one of the most critically acclaimed Shakespearean actor/directors around is good for an epic melodrama like Thor. :up:

[kaijunexus]

If people can accept the Jesus allegory that was Superman Returns (wherein Supes stops a bullet with his ****ing eye!), then I don't think the public will have any problems with Thor.

[Rich Santoro]

Jeez... we are not talking about his actual abilities... We are talking about... never mind.

[kaijunexus]

Jeez... we are not talking about his actual abilities... We are talking about... never mind.

I'm well aware of what's being discussed. There's a disagreement as to how well the supernatural, magical world of the Norse Gods could possibly fit into the new Marvel movieverse, which is currently grounded in science and "real-world" circumstances.

My comment references the "God among men" undertone to Superman Returns, which seemed to have been well accepted by the public (even if the movie wasn't). In fact, that film was severely grounded in reality, with the sole exception of the flying, indestructible, heat vision-emitting, continent-lifting God in blue spandex. Yet, no one questions his extraordinary abilities or their existence in a real-world environment.

Why would Thor be any different? Because other heroes exist around him who derive their power from technology or scientific mishap?

[Rich Santoro]

You are well aware of what's being discussed??? Yet you ask this question again??? Perhaps you didn't read what is being discussed...

Anyway... I am not up to this conversation anymore. You are right... there is no problem at all. Thor just has to be there.

[Rock Sexton]

I'm well aware of what's being discussed. There's a disagreement as to how well the supernatural, magical world of the Norse Gods could possibly fit into the new Marvel movieverse, which is currently grounded in science and "real-world" circumstances.

My comment references the "God among men" undertone to Superman Returns, which seemed to have been well accepted by the public (even if the movie wasn't). In fact, that film was severely grounded in reality, with the sole exception of the flying, indestructible, heat vision-emitting, continent-lifting God in blue spandex. Yet, no one questions his extraordinary abilities or their existence in a real-world environment.

Why would Thor be any different? Because other heroes exist around him who derive their power from technology or scientific mishap?

They really need to play to the whole "Who is this guy?" theme when he gets to the Avengers. Leave it up to the rest of the Avengers to try and figure out what he is or where he's from, yet at the same time get glimpses of his potential until at some point in the film he's fully realized. I mean isn't part of his origin that when he was on earth he had no memory of what he was prior to coming to Earth? They definitely need to play to that.

[lowly marvelite]

Yeah...there may be a lot to overcome to make our Thor palatable to a person that walks into a movie theater for the first time to see Thor. First, he was a pagan god worshipped by the ancient Teutonics/Scandinavians; I'm hoping that won't offend mainstream America who has (ironically) come to idolize Superman as the defender of "The American way". I don't know. Maybe people are more ready for that concept than I realize. "Thee's and Thou's" in the movie? I'm not sure...some may be turned off by that. The current run of Thor is fantastic...perhaps he should be patterned as much after current Thor as much as possible.

[TheCorpulent1]

"Thee's and thou's" don't need to be in the movie. Thor has spoken without them as often as he has with them over the course of his comics. JMS isn't the first person to modernize Thor's pronouns.

[afan]

Thee and thou; verily and forsooth, etc. probably will not make the cut, however Thor's verbiage should be dramatically embellished to set him apart from "mortals".

Just a thought........ would it not be more fitting for this thread to be titled "Breaking the Theism", as it seems most of the problem with realizing Thor on screen is rooted in his godhood.

[bryanss3]

wait are we really discussing how to make the Norse god more realistic? When they introduce him the other character's in the Marvel universe can't Nick Fury just mention Thor and have someone reply "Thor like the Norse god?" and Fury reply back "not like he is"

[TheCorpulent1]

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier:
Just have Fury say something like, "He's probably crazy, but so long as he keeps breaking titanium for Uncle Sam with that hammer of his, we'll indulge him."
:)

[afan]

It's not how he's played out in the Avengers film that's the problem,is it? He very well could be treated as quoted.

It's his solo origin film that needs to deal in depth with who he is, The Norse God of Thunder, inter dimensional traveler, or extraterrestrial visitor, and the details of his homeworld.

[TheCorpulent1]

I should hope there'd be no question in his own movie: he's the being who was worshiped by the Norse as their god of thunder, period. Where he comes from beyond that is irrelevant.

[afan]

I should hope there'd be no question in his own movie: he's the being who was worshiped by the Norse as their god of thunder, period. Where he comes from beyond that is irrelevant.

But IS he The God of Thunder? Is he a deity?

I don't see how you can dismiss "where" he comes from as irrelevant. Won't it be featured in his origin film. Will it be the Norse Asgard, the location of heaven, Valhalla, and hell, Hel, etc.?

[TheCorpulent1]

Because it's never truly been addressed in the comics over the last 50 years and it hasn't bothered me there, so why would it bother me in a 2- to 3-hour movie? The beings ancient civilizations called gods exist. What does it matter whether they're really life forms created by those civilizations' belief or aliens who stepped into those roles or anything else? You always arrive at the same endpoint--Thor is still regarded as the god of thunder and has all the necessary powers to fill that role--and not explicitly stating what the gods are leaves them with a bit of mystique, which anything on the level of a god ought to have.

[afan]

I understand where your coming from, but I don't see how Thor's origin film can avoid fleshing out what exactly Asgard is, where it is, and who and what it's inhabitants are.

[TheCorpulent1]

Really? So you're expecting an origin film that starts at the beginning of Asgard and shows aliens landing and taking on the guises of gods or something like that? An origin film for Thor doesn't necessarily need to be an origin film for Asgard. Asgard existed long before Thor in pretty much every incarnation of the myth and the comics. At most, I expect they'll reveal that Asgard is in another dimension whenever Thor finally goes to Earth, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the nature of the gods.

[afan]

Really? So you're expecting an origin film that starts at the beginning of Asgard and shows aliens landing and taking on the guises of gods or something like that? An origin film for Thor doesn't necessarily need to be an origin film for Asgard. Asgard existed long before Thor in pretty much every incarnation of the myth and the comics. At most, I expect they'll reveal that Asgard is in another dimension whenever Thor finally goes to Earth, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the nature of the gods.

Hell no.
I like you picture Asgard as another parallel dimension.
I do feel however that a relationship between Earth and Asgard must be explained.
The rainbow bridge being ....the bridge.......duh.
The Vikings worshipping them as gods must also be touched upon. Perhaps it is that worship, an adulation that Odin finds inappropriate and unwarranted, that causes him to forbid interdimensional travel across the bridge to Earth. This over time would explain the mythological nature of Asgard and it's inhabitants in modern times, until for whatever reason Thor returns.

[TheCorpulent1]

Oh, I agree, those things should be addressed. I thought you were talking about the movie having to explain exactly what the nature of the gods or Asgard were or where they came from. That's the part I don't care to see because it robs them of their mystique.

[Rich Santoro]

Because it's never truly been addressed in the comics over the last 50 years and it hasn't bothered me there, so why would it bother me in a 2- to 3-hour movie?

This conversation is not about us... or anyone that goes to comicon. The numbers there are much smaller than number of general movie-goers. Movie fans are much more demanding than you seem to understand. Who is Thor??? Where does he come from??? How does 'who he is' and 'where he comes from' fit with the ancient Norse tales that we know about??? People will be curious about this stuff... and it will effect their experience. Handling Thor's backstory in a spohisticated matter is a must...

Do they need to go back to the beginning of time to explain how Asgard is formed??? No... but they ought to make it clear that it is another dimension, where the laws of physics are somewhat different. Explain that they actually visited Earth, prompting the evolution of Norse mythology... Provide some scientific context such as a SHIELD scientist explaining to Stark or Fury or someone... "There are so many phenomena that our greatest minds don't fully understand... like black holes, dark matter, worm-holes, lightspeed barrier, inter dimensional space, the outward bounds of the universe... and these are just the things that we are aware of."

So by giving context beyond... "it is some other place, and he has lots of powers, now sit down and enjoy" is in order, and will go a long way towards the success of the film.

My example is the movie Abyss. They wanted us to believe that there was a oxygenated flourocarbon emulsion, that allowed people to breath fluid. They didn't just throw it out there. They gave a psuedo-science explanation... had a scene showing in seem like it was actually working with a rat... had a very dramatic scene where a person used it for the first time, including a subtle but very important comment like "Don't worry, we all breathed liquid for 9 months, your body will remember." This really helped people buy it, and get into the scene.

[TheCorpulent1]

Whereas with Lord of the Rings, which Thor's subject matter is much closer to, everything just exists and nobody questioned it. Gandalf never stopped to explain to Frodo, "You see, Frodo, the Balrog is actually a life form from a parallel dimension who excretes a substance that combusts on contact with air, and that's why he looks like he's burning."

And I know I'm only speaking for myself. The difference is, so are you. You keep making generalizations like "people will be curious about this stuff," but how do you know? Plenty of fantasy movies have succeeded without explaining much or any of the phenomena they present. Science fiction isn't the only viable genre for superhero movies to fall under.

Having people attempt to fit scientific explanations onto fantasy things in the Avengers movie is fine, but for Thor's own movie it shouldn't really be necessary.

[Rich Santoro]

Whereas with Lord of the Rings, which Thor's subject matter is much closer to, everything just exists and nobody questioned it. Gandalf never stopped to explain to Frodo, "You see, Frodo, the Balrog is actually a life form from a parallel dimension who excretes a substance that combusts on contact with air, and that's why he looks like he's burning."

That wasn't exactly in the here and now was it???

And I know I'm only speaking for myself. The difference is, so are you. You keep making generalizations like "people will be curious about this stuff," but how do you know? Plenty of fantasy movies have succeeded without explaining much or any of the phenomena they present. Science fiction isn't the only viable genre for superhero movies to fall under.

Granted... this just my opinion, but movie trends and trade magazines are something I follow. Audiences are pretty sophisticated these days... with all the FX and top flight story-lines that are out there. I think it is reasonable to assume more is needed to be sure that you connect with as broad of a movie viewer base as possible.

Having people attempt to fit scientific explanations onto fantasy things in the Avengers movie is fine, but for Thor's own movie it shouldn't really be necessary.

Agreed... Most of it can be allegory, or allowing the viewers to make inferences from events in the film... but lead them to it. Did you see Hulk v. Thor??? they went right in with a openning narrative to indroduce everything. And that was an animated movie that was going to be watched mostly by comic fans and kids.

[TheCorpulent1]

If you're talking about Avengers again, just ignore my post. I specifically said I was talking about Thor's own movie, which, as far as I can tell, is going to be pretty much all fantasy-based.

[Rich Santoro]

I think that in many ways we actually have a similar perspective here. You don't want it to get bogged down in needless detail... and I don't want it to be too ham-handed andf thrust out there.

But I suspect that we are both somewhere in the middle... pretty close to what we want.

[Rich Santoro]

As for the solo film... I am not certain what the theme will be. Just a fantasy film in Asgard, or will it cross-over??? I don't know if that is firmed up yet.

So, most of my coments are based on that issue... And I agree with you that if it is mostly just an Asgard based fantasy, then explanations and details are not really necessary.

[Canis Sapiens]

The first draft of the script begins with a detailed explanation, in voice over, about the creation of the Universe. Mimir, Urdarbrunn, Vergelmir, the Yggdrasil tree, all that hermetic norse mythology stuff is there. Hell, even Audhumla, the "mammoth cow with four rivers of milk flowing from her udder" is shown. And Ymir crawls to her and hungrily drinks. The attention to detail is incredible. It reminded me the very first scenes of the LOTR movie. They explain the origin of the gods, including a scene very reminiscent of The Lion King where Odin presents his child to the Aesir and they cheer.

So, I don't think we have to worry about the general audience not knowing enough about Thor, Asgard, the Norse gods or their role in this universe in the solo movie. It's all exhaustively covered. :cwink:

[Rock Sexton]

My example is the movie Abyss. They wanted us to believe that there was a oxygenated flourocarbon emulsion, that allowed people to breath fluid. They didn't just throw it out there. They gave a psuedo-science explanation... had a scene showing in seem like it was actually working with a rat... had a very dramatic scene where a person used it for the first time, including a subtle but very important comment like "Don't worry, we all breathed liquid for 9 months, your body will remember." This really helped people buy it, and get into the scene.

I gave an example of "Cloverfield" ......... it was strange to see how many people didn't like the movie because the monster wasn't adequately explained to them, even though the monster wasn't the central character of the movie - the young people were. It's in this particular example that I can confidently say they will not accept a Norse God plopped onto their laps with no conceivable explanation......or at least connected in some way as to create suspension of disbelief.

[Rock Sexton]

Whereas with Lord of the Rings, which Thor's subject matter is much closer to, everything just exists and nobody questioned it. Gandalf never stopped to explain to Frodo, "You see, Frodo, the Balrog is actually a life form from a parallel dimension who excretes a substance that combusts on contact with air, and that's why he looks like he's burning."

And I know I'm only speaking for myself. The difference is, so are you. You keep making generalizations like "people will be curious about this stuff," but how do you know? Plenty of fantasy movies have succeeded without explaining much or any of the phenomena they present. Science fiction isn't the only viable genre for superhero movies to fall under.

Having people attempt to fit scientific explanations onto fantasy things in the Avengers movie is fine, but for Thor's own movie it shouldn't really be necessary.

The world of LOTR wasn't real though. When general audiences are watching a film and it's in a real world setting, they expect certain consistencies and not complete deviations.

[SuperFerret]

I gave an example of "Cloverfield" ......... it was strange to see how many people didn't like the movie because the monster wasn't adequately explained to them, even though the monster wasn't the central character of the movie - the young people were. It's in this particular example that I can confidently say they will not accept a Norse God plopped onto their laps with no conceivable explanation......or at least connected in some way as to create suspension of disbelief.

The fact that the monster came out of nowhere is the best thing about Cloverfield, but I'll do you one better: Night of the Living Dead. Not my favorite movie by far, but it's terribly popular (even to the point of being dubbed a "modern classic"), yet the cause for the zombie epidemic is never explained.

[TheCorpulent1]

The world of LOTR wasn't real though. When general audiences are watching a film and it's in a real world setting, they expect certain consistencies and not complete deviations.
Again, I'm talking about the Thor movie, not the Avengers movie.

[Rock Sexton]

The fact that the monster came out of nowhere is the best thing about Cloverfield, but I'll do you one better: Night of the Living Dead. Not my favorite movie by far, but it's terribly popular (even to the point of being dubbed a "modern classic"), yet the cause for the zombie epidemic is never explained.

Good example. I guess my point is, I keep seeing time and time again that people want to be told "what, who, where, when, how" ...... except one notable group - comic book loyalists. This is because IMHO comic book fans have a far wilder imagination than normal audiences.

[SuperFerret]

It really depends on the people. Using your example of Cloverfield, the only people I've seen that didn't like it due to lack of explanation were on these forums. The people I've known personally who didn't like it, didn't like it due to the style in which it was shot.

[lowly marvelite]

It's in this particular example that I can confidently say they will not accept a Norse God plopped onto their laps with no conceivable explanation......or at least connected in some way as to create suspension of disbelief.[/quote]

You may have a point. People knew what they were getting when they saw Lord of the Rings...hell I read the trilogy in junior high, I'm sure others did too...a fantasy epic based on an already established and popular fantasy book. Not much explanation was needed for the average moviegoer because they were already familiar with it. With Thor, from a mythological perspective, Greek and Roman mythology always seemed more popular than Norse mythology. From our perspective, as fans of the comic, we may be a bit of a minority. Thor, the mythological character or the comic book character may need a bit of explanation...I think Branagh is smart enough to see this though and will probably give some sort of seven to 10 minute prologue at the beginning of the movie that gives the average moviegoer something to spring board into the movie with.
In regard to magic...if I may offer my very humble 2 cents: who said real magic does not exist? I'm not talking illusions, I'm talking magic.

[Chewy]

The entire movie is going to be about who Thor is and his life as a Norse god and his interactions with other Norse gods, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Rock Sexton]

The entire movie is going to be about who Thor is and his life as a Norse god and his interactions with other Norse gods, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Does seem like the thread belongs in the Avengers forum, but the question remains true - how are they going to connect the dots in Thor? I mean Nick Fury can't just slide out of the dark in Midgard and tell Thor he's not the only superhero.

[afan]

Oh, I agree, those things should be addressed. I thought you were talking about the movie having to explain exactly what the nature of the gods or Asgard were or where they came from. That's the part I don't care to see because it robs them of their mystique.


I'm with you here. One of the failings of the Star Wars prequels was it's attempt to rationalize the "Force" which completely de-mystified its appeal.

[TheCorpulent1]

Oh God, don't even remind me. :csad: MIDICHLORIANS! :cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Rich Santoro]

Good example. I guess my point is, I keep seeing time and time again that people want to be told "what, who, where, when, how" ...... except one notable group - comic book loyalists. This is because IMHO comic book fans have a far wilder imagination than normal audiences.

I have to add, zombie movies have as long history... and people just like the genre. But more importantly, zombie movies are cheap as hell and don't need to make much in order to succeed (and they don't make much).

28 days later cost about $10 million to make, and grossed about $55 million. I am not so sure that works for Thor.

Dawn of the Dead (2004) was one of the most successful of the Zombie movies. It grossed about $100 million world-wide on a budget of $28 million. Again, pretty good return on investment... but I think that you will agree that Thor, Avengers or any Marvel movie coming down the road will need more than $28 million to produce... and a $100 million gross would be a disaster. Horror movies rely on a very loyal fanbase, and so long as they provide great imagery, suspense, and creativity the fans will be pleased. But Thor needs to lure in and satisfy a much larger viewer base.

Additionally, I have to note that comic book fans don't need explanations, because they have great imaginations... AND they know most of the details already.

Now, overall... the cross-over details (Asgard to Midgard) are what needs the most backstory. So the solo movie should start the process of layering the different worlds / dimensions together (even just subtley), so that Avengers can pick it up and finish the link without it being so ham-handed.

[Rich Santoro]

And I agree 1000% that the midichlorians was an absolute crime. A lot of people criticize Lucas over various things... but for me, that is one of the top 2 or 3 issues I have with him:

Jar-Jar
MidiChlorians
Greedo shoots first
Boba Fett's lame death
Jango Fett's lame death

For all of these, I find Lucas guilty of Sci-fi / fantasy treason.

[TheCorpulent1]

Maybe the Thor movie should end with Thor as Don Blake a number of years prior to the period the Avengers movie will take place in, and then the Avengers movie should pick up with a prologue involving Blake's notorious vacation in Norway. Then, the Avengers movie switches to focus on the sci fi heroes as Fury gets them together, and then he tells them about this new wave of storms over the world's deserts and areas affected with draught and such and how there've been reports of a blonde guy near all of them. You know, treat Thor as sort of a modern-day Sasquatch. Then, when they meet up with Thor and Thor is satisfied that they're good guys, he can tell them his own story about being banished to Earth from his home in Asgard, Fury can smile and nod and whisper to Iron Man how this guy's crazy but he's so powerful that it doesn't really matter to him--they need him on the team, even if it means accommodating his "delusions."

We get an explanation of Asgard that we know is true (because of Thor's movie), but the more grounded, sci fi characters dismiss as a delusion. So we get a little bit of dramatic irony going, too. :)

[Rich Santoro]

That could work... This is what I am talking about. Something simple, but still necessary in my view. Even Superman had the openning scene showing Krypton, and an explanation for Jor-El that the yellow sun will make him strong... etc...

We didn't need star charts or astro-physicists explaning the distance to Krypton, but there was a little effort.

[OnedetachedonE]

I think Thor will do fine at the movie theater. I hear most of the story is centered in Asgard. Heck, three of the highest grossing films in movie history (the Lord of the Rings movies) are centered around a mythical realm with mythical creatures. Thor should do great.

[yoshimura]

It should break realism like crazy.

[chiefchirpa]

Pseudo-realism you mean on Iron Man? Avengers will break realism, but before this Iron Man, Captain America, Thor are all self-contained movies.

Iron Man is going to break realism anyway with Mandarin Makluan rings.

[Vartha]

Tony Stark is an engineering genius, Bruce Banner got radiated by Gamma Rays, Henry Pym invented a suit that shrinks him down to the size of an ant, and Steve Rogers is a man who signed up for the Super Soldier program. They all have something to do with science.

Thor on the other hand is an immortal with a giant hammer, long blonde hair, and is a norse god. How is that going to adapt well on-screen with all the other characters? Unless they pull a lot of creative licenses on him, making the only thing similar to the comic book Thor is the name.

And how is it it believable that Captain America is a Super Soldier that was frozen in ice in 1945 and thawed out today?
YES we say Thor is a GOD, but, also think about Thor as a VIKING SUPERHERO there's not much of a difference other than Thor's older by a few hundred years. :D
You have to figure MYTH had to START somewhere.
Maybe Thor WAS originally some Viking warrior who was just amazingly strong and certain events made him a god in Folktales basically getting more and more exaggerated over time to not only TEACH children but to entertain them and others at the same time.

Thor isn't all that difficult to believe as the rest of the Avengers.

[Vartha]

Does seem like the thread belongs in the Avengers forum, but the question remains true - how are they going to connect the dots in Thor? I mean Nick Fury can't just slide out of the dark in Midgard and tell Thor he's not the only superhero.
That's another point I remember Stan Lee covering, how would a God of myth like Thor and Herc react the first time they meet a Superhero of today. They aren't your average mortal warrior.

[Microchip]

Iron Man is going to break realism anyway with Mandarin Makluan rings.
I don't think the Mandarin will be in Iron Man though. He's not in IM2, as far as I've seen.
Then, when they meet up with Thor and Thor is satisfied that they're good guys, he can tell them his own story about being banished to Earth from his home in Asgard, Fury can smile and nod and whisper to Iron Man how this guy's crazy but he's so powerful that it doesn't really matter to him--they need him on the team, even if it means accommodating his "delusions."
I think something close to this would be best.

[Spider-Vader]

Faverau says he wants Mandarin in IM3.

I think the inter-dimensional explanation works, they just have to tell the audience about it at the beginning of the film. If people can believe Superman, they can believe in Thor.

[Lobo]

And how is it it believable that Captain America is a Super Soldier that was frozen in ice in 1945 and thawed out today?
YES we say Thor is a GOD, but, also think about Thor as a VIKING SUPERHERO there's not much of a difference other than Thor's older by a few hundred years. :D
You have to figure MYTH had to START somewhere.
Maybe Thor WAS originally some Viking warrior who was just amazingly strong and certain events made him a god in Folktales basically getting more and more exaggerated over time to not only TEACH children but to entertain them and others at the same time.

Thor isn't all that difficult to believe as the rest of the Avengers.

:applaud perfectly said! :yay:

[Aztec]

The whole point of The Avengers is how a team can be formed with 4 superheroes (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America) who seemingly have nothing in common. That's part of the magic, that's the crucial "How in the world?" part of the story.

Once again, I feel like "The Ultimates" handled this challenge very well. The characters differences were actually highlighted as opposed to being ignored or simply glossed over. The differences, and seeming incompatibility, of these 4 characters is what makes this team so amazing.

You have a super rich, playboy, alcoholic, technological genius in a futuristic fighting suit; a World War II era super solider; a brilliant scientist who turns into a rampaging, nearly indestructible beast whenever he is emotionally aroused; and a Norse god with a magic hammer. It's not exactly the X-Men here! That's what makes The Avengers so unique as a team.

So I say highlight the differences and the strangeness. That's what will set this movie apart from all the others!

[Triad]

I have to be honest - I've never read a Thor comic and am not very sure if this slant was in any of the Avengers comics either, (for that matter, don't know if this was already stated here because I haven't read all the comments!) but I absolutely LOVED the idea that another poster had in a different thread.
They suggested that the other Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D. and the public cannot deny that Thor is an EXTREMELY powerful being, but feel that he might just be delusional or schizophrenic! They don't know if he's really an alien, a mutant -OR- quite possibly A GENUINE NORSE GOD. It could be left up to the audience to decide if the mythical Asgard moments are REAL or the product of Blake's FANTASIES! The battles with Loki could be literal or an inner battle within his psyche...you just don't know!
I think that might work! If it is done right, it would be a very interesting avenue to pursue that I haven't seen in a superhero film before! Kinda brings the film-goers' opinions and interpretations into the story and injects some possible realism, ya know? Certainly worthy of the talents of a Shakespearean director such as Branagh, don't you think?

[Vartha]

I have to be honest - I've never read a Thor comic and am not very sure if this slant was in any of the Avengers comics either, (for that matter, don't know if this was already stated here because I haven't read all the comments!) but I absolutely LOVED the idea that another poster had in a different thread.
They suggested that the other Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D. and the public cannot deny that Thor is an EXTREMELY powerful being, but feel that he might just be delusional or schizophrenic! They don't know if he's really an alien, a mutant -OR- quite possibly A GENUINE NORSE GOD. It could be left up to the audience to decide if the mythical Asgard moments are REAL or the product of Blake's FANTASIES! The battles with Loki could be literal or an inner battle within his psyche...you just don't know!
I think that might work! If it is done right, it would be a very interesting avenue to pursue that I haven't seen in a superhero film before! Kinda brings the film-goers' opinions and interpretations into the story and injects some possible realism, ya know? Certainly worthy of the talents of a Shakespearean director such as Branagh, don't you think?

Yes you're referring to ULTIMATE Thor. There's a different line of Marvel comics called the Ultimate line. The Avengers in that line are called the Ultimates, and that's how they basically treat Thor, or TREATED Thor originally. THAT Thor is more like a Hippy tho.
The CLASSIC Thor is who the movie's about, with alittle from the Ultimate Thor added.

CLASSIC or 616 Thor
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c331/Vartha1/Thor/thor.jpg

Thor TODAY (also 616)
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c331/Vartha1/Thor/Thor2007smla.jpg

Ulimates Thor or we call him "Ulty Thor"
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c331/Vartha1/Thor/bio-ultimatethor.jpg

[Vartha]

:applaud perfectly said! :yay:

heh Thanks Lobo. :woot:

[Spider-Fan83]

I don't know if this is really on topic for this thread, but wasn't sure were else to post about it...

had this idea for like, I don't know, like after credit kinda scene, or something

ok, so, lets say if by the end of the movie Thor is sent down to earth as Donald Blake

I think it would be kinda neat to have, Ty Burrell, make a cameo scene as Dr. Samson, again
showing him in a therapy section with Blake, with him talking all about how he believe he's a God,....ect.

Samson could be a good way to tie him in with the other movies with out any big name cameos

though, acually this could also work for Fury's cameo tie-in
have them in section, talking, he's saying all this stuff about things to came that he's suppose to help stop
and you cut to Fury watching them on a screen (cause, Shield would probably have Samsons office bugged)

and maybe you see like it pan out to show a whole walls os screens with Fury looking up background on Blake, and stuff
it would be kinda cool if he had one screen that was like a graphical map, search for all recent impacts from meteor showers or what have you, to get a reading on Thors Hammer

[Rich Santoro]

^ that is not bad...

I want to kick in something about the comments pertaining to the notion that... since all this other over the top stuff in the Marvel movies is essentially considered "believeable" (cap being frozen for decades then re-animating, the fantasy power source for IM suit and the outright implausibility of its technology, a man being irradiated and becoming a overgrown green behemoth)... then Thor's origin and godliness would just simply be believeable without any effort. Well, this ignores two important points:

1) All of those other events had some degree of Star Trekian pseudo-science explanation and development...

2) All of those other events stretch (and break) the laws of known science...

Simply dropping Thor into the mix with now development of the who, what, where, when and how of it all, is a total departure from those two points. So it would be a different case... and not just "if tpeople can believe this, then they will believe that."

I have said it before, there is no need to go over the top and spend more than 5-minutes or so, honing in on the back-story... but it really should be there. I would really like to see some dialogue around the existence of pocket dimensions and alternate realities in the vastness of an endless universe... Also, some reference to all the phenomenon out there like black-holes, worm-holes, dark matter, dark energy... would be good, pointing out that we don't fully understand these things. And those are just some of the stuff that we are aware of, not to mention the many mysteries that are, as of yet, undiscovered.

[Vartha]

The back story is what MAKES Thor. The average person doesn't KNOW Thor's story.
This isn't sci-fi it's Fantasy no wormholes etc. Thor is a different kind of superhero, one that SCIENCE can't explain, so why bother trying to make it more difficult than it is?

Thor's a being that lives for thousands of years with powers. nothing to explain except for getting banned from Asgard and why.

[Vartha]

I don't know if this is really on topic for this thread, but wasn't sure were else to post about it...

had this idea for like, I don't know, like after credit kinda scene, or something

ok, so, lets say if by the end of the movie Thor is sent down to earth as Donald Blake

I think it would be kinda neat to have, Ty Burrell, make a cameo scene as Dr. Samson, again
showing him in a therapy section with Blake, with him talking all about how he believe he's a God,....ect.

Samson could be a good way to tie him in with the other movies with out any big name cameos

though, acually this could also work for Fury's cameo tie-in
have them in section, talking, he's saying all this stuff about things to came that he's suppose to help stop
and you cut to Fury watching them on a screen (cause, Shield would probably have Samsons office bugged)

and maybe you see like it pan out to show a whole walls os screens with Fury looking up background on Blake, and stuff
it would be kinda cool if he had one screen that was like a graphical map, search for all recent impacts from meteor showers or what have you, to get a reading on Thors Hammer


I don't agree with this because it's too much like Ulty Thor, this isn't the Ulimates. There's no reason for Thor or Blake to be in Therapy.

[TheCorpulent1]

I mentioned in another thread that Thor and Blake shouldn't be interchangeable, either. I know big brother is watching and all, but a god who's going out and making enemies every day ought to keep his human side a pretty closely guarded secret. I don't think SHIELD should know Thor and Blake are the same.

[Triad]

Thanks for clearing that up for me about the Ultimate Thor storyline, Vartha.
Personally, I like that angle for the movie but I have to admit that the "Ulty" costume is freakin' HORRIBLE!
But I'm confused about one thing you said though, my friend. How do we know that they are planning on following the "classic" story for the movie? I might have missed it, but as far as I have heard nothing has been officially said regarding this and the script hasn't leaked yet. I'm not against that version at all, I just wondered if you all know something that I don't yet.
BOTTOMLINE:
I'm so curious as to what Marvel, Branagh & co. are gonna do with the mighty Odinson! I'm sure that this flick is gonna ROCK!

(All I have to say is that Marvel had BETTER do the Cap. America movie RIGHT, though!!!!!)

[Vartha]

Thanks for clearing that up for me about the Ultimate Thor storyline, Vartha.
Personally, I like that angle for the movie but I have to admit that the "Ulty" costume is freakin' HORRIBLE!
But I'm confused about one thing you said though, my friend. How do we know that they are planning on following the "classic" story for the movie? I might have missed it, but as far as I have heard nothing has been officially said regarding this and the script hasn't leaked yet. I'm not against that version at all, I just wondered if you all know something that I don't yet.
BOTTOMLINE:
I'm so curious as to what Marvel, Branagh & co. are gonna do with the mighty Odinson! I'm sure that this flick is gonna ROCK!

(All I have to say is that Marvel had BETTER do the Cap. America movie RIGHT, though!!!!!)

Well Triad I've read the first draft of the script AND the WRITER is a BIG fan of the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby Tales of Asgard that were in the back of Thor comics about Thor's boyhood which is not in any Ultimates book yet.
The way the script reads is alot like those Tales of Asgard, not to mention many of the characters in the script are only in the "Classic" or 616 ONLY so far.
Mark Protosevich does borrow some idea from the Ulty Thor but it is more 616 Thor.

If ANYTHING buy the "Ages of Thunder" Trade paperback, in many ways it's like the movie script, it has the same feel. The writer of the Trade paperback, Matt Fraction, actually used REAL Norse myth and applied it to Marvel's Thor to tell the story of how Thor became banished to earth.

[Triad]

Awesome! I'll check out your suggestion, Vartha! Actually, I was considering on doing a little research on the character before the flick hit but didn't know where to start. Thanks!

By the way, I hope you didn't take my last comment as disrespectful. I was just curious because I haven't read (or heard anything about) the script and wasn't aware that you had already been privy to the 1st draft.

[Vartha]

Well there are plenty of books.
At the moment there's a 6 issue mini series of Tales of Asgard out, it just started with the reprints of the orignal Lee stories with modern recolor of Kirby's art!
BUT like I said Ages of Thunder deals with Thor being banished to earth and until that book there's been nothing about it but hearsay in the comics, they only mention it. Ages of Asgard sold out the singular 3 issues too when it was out just to give you an idea of how much people liked it.

[Vartha]

By the way, I hope you didn't take my last comment as disrespectful. I was just curious because I haven't read (or heard anything about) the script and wasn't aware that you had already been privy to the 1st draft.

No problem Triad. tho there HAVE been THREE more rewrites to the script, I hope for even more Epic of a script. Byt the way, I added a section in the Thor world thread title Must reads in case you forget the Trade name. I also added another Trade called Thor Blood Oath you may like too.

[Canis Sapiens]

Cool stuff! :up:


Thanks, Vartha!

[Spider-Fan83]

I don't agree with this because it's too much like Ulty Thor, this isn't the Ulimates. There's no reason for Thor or Blake to be in Therapy.
there wasn't really anything to agree or disagree with, it was just a random idea

I don't know much about Ulty Thor (I was not basing the idea on that version)
I was just thinking in terms of bringing in the realism, the guy thinks he's a god, people are going to think he's crazy...

but, I was also thinking that maybe he doesn't know that he really is Thor, yet, he has memories, dreams, about being Thor, but, just thinks he's going crazy (cause he also knows or thinks he's Blake, and has fake memories of his life as Blake)

as for the Fury part I was just making that up as I went along...
with the thought that Fury would be able to figure out that this Blake doesn't really exist, and start look into what he's been saying, and realizes that maybe it is true rather he knows it or not he is Thor
then find him, tell him he believes him, an helps him regain his powers

I don't really like the idea of Blake being a secret Identity, with him changing back and forth, I kinda prefer, he is sent to earth in a human form, but, once he finds his hammer he permanently turns back to Thor

or something like that

[TheCorpulent1]

The secret identity's fine, I just want it to remain a secret. SHIELD should approach him as Thor, since it's Thor they'd want. This is a cool scenario for SHIELD approaching Thor that I posted in another thread:
I don't really like the idea of SHIELD approaching Blake as if he and Thor are interchangeable. I'd prefer to see them approach Thor himself. You know, like he saves a boat caught in a storm at sea and Cap drops out of a helicopter just after.

Cap: You're a hard man to find. We've had an entire unit tracking storms across the globe, looking to see if the sightings were true.
Thor: I am not a man and I do not appreciate being stalked.
Cap: Fair enough. But you've got the wrong idea. People are talking about your recent... activities. "Miracles," they're calling them. I can't comment on that; I'm just a simple soldier. But the people I work for seem to think, if the rumors are true, that you might be interested in what we have to offer.
Thor: And what could your "people" possibly offer me?
Cap: A chance to do some good. To help people on a scale not even you can imagine.
Thor: ... I am listening.

[Vartha]

there wasn't really anything to agree or disagree with, it was just a random idea

I don't know much about Ulty Thor (I was not basing the idea on that version)
I was just thinking in terms of bringing in the realism, the guy thinks he's a god, people are going to think he's crazy...

but, I was also thinking that maybe he doesn't know that he really is Thor, yet, he has memories, dreams, about being Thor, but, just thinks he's going crazy (cause he also knows or thinks he's Blake, and has fake memories of his life as Blake)

as for the Fury part I was just making that up as I went along...
with the thought that Fury would be able to figure out that this Blake doesn't really exist, and start look into what he's been saying, and realizes that maybe it is true rather he knows it or not he is Thor
then find him, tell him he believes him, an helps him regain his powers

I don't really like the idea of Blake being a secret Identity, with him changing back and forth, I kinda prefer, he is sent to earth in a human form, but, once he finds his hammer he permanently turns back to Thor

or something like that
That's why I said it's too much like Ulty Thor Spider. They the Ulimates originally treated Thor like he was a loon because he claimed to be a god.
Having Blake getting therapy from Samson is barely any different.
I understand what you're saying I just didn't like how Millar did the same idea with Ulty Thor.

[TheCorpulent1]

I don't mind other people within the movie thinking he's crazy. Claiming to be the Norse god of thunder is a pretty crazy claim (until he starts proving it with his powers, anyway). As long as it's kept explicitly clear to the audience that Thor is indeed the Thor--which should be simple given that we're getting a whole movie on his past in Asgard before Avengers comes out--the perceptions of the other Avengers are fair game. Read the early Avengers comics and you'll find that even in the "main" (non-Ultimate) Marvel universe, some of the other Avengers didn't quite know what to make of Thor. The scientists were skeptical about him, Cap respected him pretty quickly, the Wasp didn't care because he was so hot, etc.

[Rich Santoro]

The back story is what MAKES Thor. The average person doesn't KNOW Thor's story.
This isn't sci-fi it's Fantasy no wormholes etc. Thor is a different kind of superhero, one that SCIENCE can't explain, so why bother trying to make it more difficult than it is?

Thor's a being that lives for thousands of years with powers. nothing to explain except for getting banned from Asgard and why.

I am not looking for sciency explanations, I just don't want the questions of "who", "how" and "where" to go completely untouched. Some kind of explicit discussion saying that this is beyond our current understanding would be fine, but I would like to see the subject of these mysteries be approached in the film.

Stark asks, "Is he 'the' Thor"

Fury - "He seems to think so"

"Where is he from"

"We don't know. He is definitely other worldly, but we don't know where he is from. Another planet, another dimension, another time... All of the above."

"Another dimension??!?!? The guy probably drank some toxic sewage and got struck by lightning... Now he is thinks he is the Thunder god"

"That very well could be... bottom line, there are lots of phenomenon in the universe that we don't undertand... lots that we don't know anything about at all... He fits in that last category."

"OK... then what is he doing here???"

"That is what I mean to find out."

[TheCorpulent1]

Sounds good, but I'd have someone other than Fury give the explanation. Fury seems more like the type to take a "who gives a f*** whether he's really Thor, as long as he's working for us" ideology--especially his Ultimate incarnation, which is obviously the version they're using for the films. Maybe if Hank Pym makes it into the Avengers movie, he could explain it. He's more the type to be fascinated by Thor and question his nature.

[Vartha]

I am not looking for sciency explanations, I just don't want the questions of "who", "how" and "where" to go completely untouched. Some kind of explicit discussion saying that this is beyond our current understanding would be fine, but I would like to see the subject of these mysteries be approached in the film.

Stark asks, "Is he 'the' Thor"

Fury - "He seems to think so"

"Where is he from"

"We don't know. He is definitely other worldly, but we don't know where he is from. Another planet, another dimension, another time... All of the above."

"Another dimension??!?!? The guy probably drank some toxic sewage and got struck by lightning... Now he is thinks he is the Thunder god"

"That very well could be... bottom line, there are lots of phenomenon in the universe that we don't undertand... lots that we don't know anything about at all... He fits in that last category."

"OK... then what is he doing here???"

"That is what I mean to find out."
I can see this, until they're taken TO Asgard and then they believe.
I'm wanting to know what the writers have ADDED since the first Draft of the Script. I know there HAS to be something like THIS now at the end because there wasn't before and when they announced the Avengers was going to be made after Iron-Man's first weekend there was announced that the Thor script was being worked on again.

[Rich Santoro]

Sounds good, but I'd have someone other than Fury give the explanation. Fury seems more like the type to take a "who gives a f*** whether he's really Thor, as long as he's working for us" ideology--especially his Ultimate incarnation, which is obviously the version they're using for the films. Maybe if Hank Pym makes it into the Avengers movie, he could explain it. He's more the type to be fascinated by Thor and question his nature.

That's a good idea... the dialogue could be Stark / Pym, with Fury sitting nearby, giving the last line. "That is what I mean to find out."

[Manowar]

In regards to the mention 616 Thor or 616 marvel universe, What, when and how did the 616 come about or even mean?

[TheCorpulent1]

616 is the Omniversal designation for the main Marvel universe (the one all the mainstream comics take place in) in Alan Moore and Alan Davis' Captain Britain run.

[Manowar]

OK, but what are they sigificance of the numbers 616?

[TheCorpulent1]

There are different stories. The one I've heard most often is that Alan Moore was unhappy with Marvel, so he gave their main universe the "number of the Beast" (i.e. Satan), which can be 666 or 616, depending on which translation of Revelations you're going by.

[Vartha]

OK, but what are they sigificance of the numbers 616?
One of the Editors came up with it a few years ago.
Marvel has different "universes" and to keep the confusion down he gave the ORIGINAL line of Marvel comics the designation of 616.

[Aztec]

One of the Editors came up with it a few years ago.
Marvel has different "universes" and to keep the confusion down he gave the ORIGINAL line of Marvel comics the designation of 616.

FYI Joe Q and the others HATE the term "616". They prefer to call it "Marvel Proper". I like it better too, it sounds much less "fanboy-esque" than the extreme inside reference of 616.

[Microchip]

To add to what was said, in the ultimate universe (as opposed to 616) people think Thor is a nutcase, instead of seeing him as a true God. So when people refer to ultimate vs 616 on the Thor boards, usually that's what they're alluding to.

[Vartha]

FYI Joe Q and the others HATE the term "616". They prefer to call it "Marvel Proper". I like it better too, it sounds much less "fanboy-esque" than the extreme inside reference of 616.
Yeah I prefer that too Aztec, (not to confuse anyone anymore) when you have some thing like the Lord Thor arcs going into the future they designated THAT Thor 3515 because of the whole MU2 universe.
I can see "mu proper 616" to refer to THIS time, but all alternate time lines should be something else like the MU2.

[TheCorpulent1]

I just call it the "main Marvel universe" to people who aren't into comics. But on these boards, I use "616." Most people who are into comics enough to post on a message board seem to know what it means, and if they don't, it's not that hard to explain.

[Aluchak]

I just don't get how they are going to get a Magical Sky Wizard to fight along side Iron Man.

[TheCorpulent1]

Who's a magical sky wizard? Thor's a human-shaped tank who breaks people's faces with a hammer.

[Canis Sapiens]

Who's a magical sky wizard? Thor's a human-shaped tank who breaks people's faces with a hammer.
Corp... you just created my next sig.:up:

Can I use it?

[TheCorpulent1]

Sure.

[Canis Sapiens]

Thanks! :yay:


Ta-daaaaaa!

[Rich Santoro]

Way off topic here, but have to ask... Am I the only one that was a bit disappointed with how lop-sided the fight between Thor and Hulk was in the VS. DVD???

[TheCorpulent1]

Nope, a lot of us felt that way. There's a thread for it in the Thor World forum, though: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=321223

[Chewy]

Yeah, **** Hulk vs Thor :cmad:

[Rich Santoro]

Nope, a lot of us felt that way. There's a thread for it in the Thor World forum, though: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=321223

Thanks for the link... Sorry for the segway guys... I will pop over there...

[Spider-Vader]

Thor could definitely hold his own against Hulk. Though, Hulk would eventually win.

[Canis Sapiens]

I just don't get it. Hulk is very strong, ok, but he's only a mortal. And not a very smart one. And when it comes to experience in battle, it's not even a contest. Thor has been fighting mythological beasts and giants for centuries, he should know some clever or inventive ways to defeat Hulk.

[Rich Santoro]

Thor losing to Hulk really is break from realism :hehe:

[Vartha]

lol TRUE that is so true Rich. lol

[TheCorpulent1]

I just don't get it. Hulk is very strong, ok, but he's only a mortal. And not a very smart one. And when it comes to experience in battle, it's not even a contest. Thor has been fighting mythological beasts and giants for centuries, he should know some clever or inventive ways to defeat Hulk.
I actually agree with Spider-Vader: the Hulk should win most of the time. But it'd be nice if Thor could manage a victory now and then to keep the rivalry fresh. The last three or four times they fought that I can remember, the Hulk kicked Thor's ass with relative ease. Same in Hulk vs. Thor--there was never a contest between them. What sort of rivalry is it when the outcome is obviously that the Hulk is going to win because the Hulk always wins?

[This Guy]

Thor is already a character in all of mythology so even the casual comic fan would already know that he is the god of thunder..They wouldn't have to spend alot of time trying to make it seem believable, it would the same principle as Hercules, or Achilles for that matter

[Project862006]

Ashley miller talks about thor - co writer for thor

"Not in the sense that you'd want to see a generic 'dark' take on Thor, but in the sense that you want to feel Thor's rage when he rages. You want to see him fight like hell, and take as much he dishes out — maybe more. You want to have a visceral reaction to the guy, and what happens to him. You don't want his adventures to be clean and antiseptic. You want to see the dirt, and grime and blood. You want to feel every bone crunching moment of every fight. And when he unleashes the storm, you want to feel like you're seeing the power of a GOD at work."

"The best example I can give you is the end of Ultimates 2. When Thor shows up and kicks ass, he shows up and kicks ass. He isn't screwing around. There's a certain brutal, cock-eyed realism to Thor in that moment (and through that book in general) that I really resonate to and want to expand on."

[TheCorpulent1]

First paragraph = cool. Second paragraph = f***.

[Aztec]

I completely disagree Corp. Thor at the end of The Ultimates 2 was a MAJOR BADASS! That's EXACTLY what I want to see on screen!

[TheCorpulent1]

I'd prefer not to see anything remotely related to Ultimate Thor on the screen.

[Octoberist]

Ashley Miller...is a dude...

[TheCorpulent1]

I should take back some of the harshness of what I said earlier. I don't care where the inspiration comes from if all Miller's talking about is having Thor kick ass in a really visceral manner.

[Rich Santoro]

just as long as he is just talking about the scene... no the character design or personality.

[Vartha]

Thor is already a character in all of mythology so even the casual comic fan would already know that he is the god of thunder..They wouldn't have to spend alot of time trying to make it seem believable, it would the same principle as Hercules, or Achilles for that matter
You're right Thor SHOULD be easy to do, BUT, Marvel is wanting to make Thor their "Lord of the Rings" type fantasy film.
Weather or not the following films will be the same way is yet to be determined because it's not even out.

The first movie is supposed to be both on Asgard AND Earth during the Viking era. now it's his ORIGIN movie, so how much we see of Asgard in future films depends on how well the first one does.


ME, I don't care either way....THOR'S GOING TO BE A THE SILVER SCREEN!!!! lol

[Vartha]

I completely disagree Corp. Thor at the end of The Ultimates 2 was a MAJOR BADASS! That's EXACTLY what I want to see on screen!
Well what the heck do you think 616 Thor's been doing all these years Aztek?
Ages of Thunder is just an example, Blood Oath is another, scenes in the Ragarok arc. I can go on and on, Ulty Thor is being changed to be more like the Classic if you ask me.

[chiefchirpa]

Most rocking = Ulti Thor with electric guitar.

[Vartha]

lol Nice CC. lol

[JAK®]

I'd prefer not to see anything remotely related to Ultimate Thor on the screen.
The scene he was referring to involves Asgardian armies, called upon by Thor himself, fighting Loki's army of monsters, LOTR style. It's a cool moment, 'Classic' Thor or not.

[Rich Santoro]

Most rocking = Ulti Thor with electric guitar.

http://animelaguna.foroactivo.com/users/83/57/37/avatars/91-97.gif