Breaking the realism?

[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 , 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 , 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

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. 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...

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...

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 t:

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.