Quote:
Originally Posted by BigThor
I couldn't careless about Balder not being in the films, he isn't nearly as interesting of a brother as Loki.
|
Agreed. We are getting tyr, don't really NEED another not necessary brother
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger
If they decide to use Surtur and Ragnarok in Thor 3, I can see that being the reason they use to explain Balder's absence.
|
I have been saying this for months. I believe that Balder will get mentioned, and the reason for his absence is because he is already dead, thus leading up to ragnarok and surtur for thor 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis
You johnny come latelys only got to experience the wishy washy, easily manipulated Balder from JMS' run. Go back and see how awesome he was in Simonson's run. Guy kinda out shown Thor.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigThor
Balder outshining Thor? That's by far the biggest "lol" I've had all week. 
I'm a big fan of Simonson's run, yes Balder was alot more awesome then but "outshining Thor" is pushing it. |
Seriously. I never was a fan of Balder. Not gunna lie. In any of the runs, Simonson's runs included, whenever Balder came on, I would literally say "uhhhhhhhh" and just skim through it. I don't care for Balder either. I am just trying to guess the reason for his absence, if there is one, other than the fact that they simply may have not choosen to use him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaphysician
Given how things have been set up so far, I'd actually guess that if Balder does exist in the movie version, he's probably an elder of Odin and Heimdall's generation, *not* Odin's son. That would explain his lack of involvement with Thor, and also better allow for him to be some kind of shut-in or exile.
|
I am not sure I agree with that too much