What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Better: To me, the most obvious is Mjolnir. I don't think the design could've been any better.

Also, I think not having the Donald Blake identity was a good call.


Worst: Even though I understand why the costume had to be the way it was, and it did grow on me somewhat, it just wasn't Thor enough.

I don't think the actors playing Volstagg and Heimdall were the best choices.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Things I like better

1. Don Blake being absent (yessss)
2. Thor's costume
3. Mjolnir
4. Volstagg's size
5. Jane Foster
6. The Bifrost bridge
7. Heimdall
8. Loki's outfit

What I thought was worse

1. The Destroyer going down so easily
2. Hogun not having a mustache
3. Loki not using that many magical attacks

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

I agree with these.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

LIKED bETTER
1. Thor trying to adapting to the real world
2. Thor having the donald blake identity but not having a secret identity or be a crippiled man who losted his memore to be mortal or try to learn humility
3. Thor being view as crazy like Ultimate comics and some 616 comics
4.explainging the norse gods as a advanced alien beings with advanced alien technology and the world tree are planets/different dimension
HATED
Same as BigThor
4. no cameo of Balder

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

The only reason I didn't put "strength" under things that were worse because I think the film was written to put more focus on Thor's skill with Mjolnir over his strength.

Now that they've establish Thor's skill with Mjolnir in the first film, they'll have plent of room for strength feats in The Avengers and Thor 2 & Thor 3

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Better

Lack of Don Blake. That is just a weird secret ID.

Thor looks less of a caveman that found a book of Shakespeare. This one seems like you could have a decent conversation with him.

Lack of a Thor/Sif plot. That whole relationship doesn't work dramatically and it doesn't work for Sif as a character.

Jane is given a meaningful role in Thor's life, why he needs her is clearer. Jane is an amazing character when written right, she is funny, intelligent and sassy but not many writers understand her beyond being the silver age nurse that got abducted a lot. Read Thor: The Mighty Avenger for the perfect Jane.

Darcy exists


Worse

There wasn't enough of the Warriors Three. Volstagg should be fatter and Fandral more amorous.

Sif didn't have any personality beyond loyalty and anger issues.

The comics have better fighting dialogue. All the tough guy talk from Thor in the Jotutunheim fight was embarassing.

But I'm trying to find flaws in an almost perfect movie. It was better than 616 Thor has been in years.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

He really didn't say much in the Jotunheim battle and the few things he said seemed pretty appropriate.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Laufey's 'Run home little princess' was crap. One minute Thor's all about women's rights and the next he's insulted at being called a girl.

When Loki says 'Damn' in that '****s about to go down' way it is reminiecent of all cliche action movies ever. You might as well have him say 'It's on', its the same thing and out of character.

Then there was all the tough guy stuff coming out of Thor's mouth like 'Next' and 'At least make this a challenge for me'. I was cringing, it was an 80's Arnie movie at that point.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Things i liked better thn the comics
1.No Don blake
2.Thors costume(no silly helmet)
3.Thor being less powerful than the 616 version.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Can you give an example of what you would've like to hear during that scene?

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

'run home little princess" line was lame i agree..but the loki saying damn was great and it worked for me even though it was cliche...i mean i could be a lot worse u know..

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

*sigh* :facepalm:

So was Iron Man, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Wolverine, Cyclops, Juggernaut, Colossus and just about every other comic book character in live action.

Besides, this Thor was based off of the 616 version and just because he didn't have any huge feats of strength doesn't mean he was "less powerful" (it's just how the script was written).

There's plenty of room for strength feats in the Avengers and Thor 2.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Did it need dialogue? If they wanted it they could have had him saying why he was pissed off but we could see he was enjoying it.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

laufey didn't say run home little princess, it was another frost giant. laufey was talking to them from a far, other frost giants were moving in on them. like how most movies the boss talks then his thugs move in to get beat up first.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

That all worked really well for me because at that point in the story, Thor is a giant douchebag. Plus, he was looking for an excuse to fight them and that frost giant's "princess" line gave him one. It has nothing to do with women's rights.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

As someone who's an avid fan of cheesy, lame 80s action movie dialogue for it's hilarity and can spot it from a mile away, I didn't get that at all from the dialogue in this scene. Completely honestly, Thor's lines with Hemsworth's delivery made that scene a billion times better for me, and I already would've loved it without the lines as it is. The way he screams back in the face of that roaring frost giant is so egotistical I feel I'd see on an actual cocky douchebag during a fight and is outstandingly fun & funny to watch (and not in that ironic 80s action way I described). I practically take offense to this complaint!

And to say that Loki might as well have said "it's on" is silly because he didn't, because that would've been hokey. The line is very appropriate and best of all- plays two ways, as you can interpret it as a sigh of Loki's knowing what's about to go down or acting on his part as he wishes for Thor to pick a fight and get into trouble.

And finally, Thor reacting to the minion frost giant's (not Laufey's) princess line has literally nothing to do with women's rights. All he needed to know was that someone was attempting to insult and humiliate him, and as we know Thor at this point doesn't take well to humility. I don't even think he was entirely offended, I just think he felt like showing off and putting the frost giant in his place, hence the smirk beforehand.

So yeah, I really, really liked all that

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

I know the beard makes him look "manlier" and more Viking-like, but I wish he didn't have it since I grew up with classic Thor. Ironically, even in Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, he's clean shaven.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Personally, I wish he'd just have the beard in the comics as well from now on. I was hoping they'd implement that when the movie came out, actually. No luck, though.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

He absolutely looks more convincing and less dorky, with facial hair. Add to that it ties into the whole Nordic God angle ... Vikings, etc All rocked the facial hair, hardcore.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

If anyone knows the myths then Loki's "Damn..." is just a bit more than the usual action movie sidekick saying. Basically in order to get Mjolnir back from a Frost Giant Thor had to gender bend a bit and play the blushing "bride" of said Frost Giant, hence that whole reaction to being called a princess.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

I never even thought of that. LOL... good catch.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Thor as a character was respected a whole lot more in the film than in the recent Marvel universe. If you are not the Hulk a mutant or wear a suit of armor you are screwed these days.

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

I've heard from faithful comic fans that Odin in the movie and Frigga are much more loving than they are in the comics, especially with Loki. Is this an improvement?

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

Agreed with all of the above. :word:

Re: What about the movie was actually better than the comics, and what was worse?
 

I thought it was all a little heavy-handed and obvious. But that's true of the whole beginning of the movie. There's a lot more spontaneity once Thor gets to earth. I imagine that's partly why Act II was more the focus of preview footage.

On the whole, that scene works ok to establish Thor's arrogance, but even with some very good actors to sell the material, it barely works.

Thor is a weird movie. Feels cheap, like the budget was stretched really thin. Lots of characters running around in little bunches. Bizarre mix of tones. Somehow it works, though. Hemsworth and Hiddleston are a big part of that. They are both really good. Can't wait for Thor 2.