Breaking the realism?

[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

Spoiler

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.

 

[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.