Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Thor' started by The Overlord, Dec 6, 2008.
For you this is a full rewrite? I don't think.
They've been doing re-writes since the original script. This is just the latest version.
and re writes will continue up until the shoot and even during the shoot changes will be made... (which is a normal thing).
I really like the mutant reference, they should totally do that to mess with Fox.
A guy in a metal suit who can fly and shoot missiles and lasers from his hands, how real is that??
Exactly. I hate the realism argument. Its a ****ing comic book for christ sake.
Yeah, but com'on... there is a such thing as the suspension of disbelief. It is necessary for the film to sweep people up. Moreover, were are not actually talking about a comic book. It may be based on a CB, but it is most definitely a live action film. That being the case, and since IM was depicted as a sci-fi action film, there is a crossing of genres with Thor being a fantasy epic. You can't just mash those together like they do in comic books (imagine Gimlee hauling a mini-gun to battle the orcs in LOTR, while Aragorn draws a light sabre. Or how about the Terminator summoning a lightning storm or growing 50 feet tall and sprouting giant bat-wings... these would be absurd). These are extreme examples, but the point is that you can't just cast the suspension of disbelief aside. A theme has to be struck, and that theme has to be honored...
Thus the dilemma of crossing IM and Thor, with two distinct themes to honor. It most certainly can be accomplished, but it is not a small matter if the goal is to have a successful film and a successful franchise. Without care the film could look like Beastmaster 2 or a Quentin Tarantino camp film.
Treat the material with respect and do not allow any room for camp or cheese and i think the GA will follow along with an open mind.
That goes without saying and is probably easier said than done.... but I do hope they take a more mature approach with this film.
Thor should definitely be the 616 Thor and not Ultimate Thor. Don't get me wrong, I LOVED Ultimate Thor, especially when no one knew if he was a god or deranged male nurse. But only because it was a welcome change from the usual Thor and the Ultimate Universe should be something different.
Now, with regards to the 616 traditional Thor in a movie, I'm inclined to minimize Donald Blake. I think the story needs to start is Asgard and introduce the character so that mainstream audiences unfamiliar with Thor can understand and relate to him. At some point send him to Earth for a battle and have Odin banish him there for some reason. Then they can do the obligatory final scene with Tony Stark or Nick Fury.
you ever heard of the Q continuum? Star Trek did a beautiful job of bring in even more God like presence into their sci-fi world. The Q could shift planetary alignment, travel in and out of time, and change shape. How did the writers at star trek try to explain this? they didn't ,the characters knew how such things could be done but had no idea how someone could do it. They chalked to being out of there scope of understanding.
I couldn't agree more.
I think that would be pretty awesome actually. t:
That is an excellent point... however, Q was not a central character in need of development, backstory, motivation, and a personal relationship with the viewers. Granted, there were several episodes with Q, and some actually got into some personal touches... but they were more like the Beyonders, compared to Viking warriors. I do agree that some aspects can be simply left to "beyond current understanding" but I stand by my original point.
LOL... it pretty much worked for Army of Darkness and Big Trouble in Little China.
LOL... for a comedy knockoff, yeah.
Gods are gods regardless of what level they are if you wanna chalk it up to science you can. Everything that is in a Thor is in our realm of today's science, nothing is unexplainable.How they became to be known as gods, at marvel they say the Asgard once lived and visited on Earth. There natural powers would have easily led to them being gods in the eyes of ancient Norsemen. Asgard is realm oustide of our own you can chalk that up to intera-dimensional world(there is a current theory in physics that believes the big bang was caused by the collison of two seprate universerses or dimensions that collided with each other). The rainbow bridge or bifrost is essence a wormhole that connects two points in space(something theorized by Albert Einstien, in the same book he theorized about a blackhole that we now know to be true). The Asgard's strength n powers can be chalked up to them being from a dimension outisde of our own thereby the laws of physics which govern are world do not imply to them as in the Q continuum( also an theorized by scientist). Reason you leave this stuff out and chalk it up to beyond our current understanding cause it is to the masses.
You make my point exactly... I have even commented on the elements that you have listed out in other posts (other dimensions, worm-holes, etc). Moreover, because it is the "masses", is the very reason that the film ought not just let the details hang out there without any attempt to flesh things out... Specifically because Thor is a character that needs to be related to on a personal level as the protaganist (rather than the antaganist, which is Q... and the Borg for that matter... rooted entirley in science, but there was no need to delve into their back-ground since they were the emerging threat) is why something to the effect of what you indicated needs to be shared, in some manner, with the movie-goers... I am not saying that a large chunk of the film needs to be deticated to sciencifying the relationship of Asgard to Earth, but some mechanism should be used to effectively bridge the gap between the sci-fi action genre set in our modern world, merging with fantasy epic that originates in another world / reality altogether...
I think it would be a mistake to just chalk it up to some implied explanation that it is all just beyond understanding.
I understand it but none of that should be explained in a Thor movie cause I wouldn't explain how I walked or talked cause I just do it I don't think about it. In avengers movie fine let Stark spend his time trying to logically explain why a Norse God of Thunder is fighting alongside of him or even in existance. I don't know why people worried about how Thor fits into Iron Man world. You need to be asking yourself how does the Mandarin fit into Iron man world cause last time I remember Mandarin had ten power rings that were all magic. If there not going to include that alot of fanboys are gonna be really upset.
I agree 100% that within the Thor film no explanation is needed. That can just be a fantasy film. Now, if one wants to contribute some detail as to make the explanations that are to come later (such as the explanations that I would hope for in the Avengers), that might be advisable. I do think that as Thor enters our realm, and joins the Avengers... some detail should be fleshed out (it can be vague and very high level... I think that it will add to the film).
Now, about the walking part... well, most people walk. That is a pretty common phenomenon that does not need explantion. A worm-hole, pocket-dimension, alternate reality on the other hand are not common phenomenons that most would experience. That is a bit of a false equivalence.
Lastly, Mandarin is not magic... his rings are based on Alien technology. But yes... some explanation (however vague and high-level) would be in order.
You cited Q from Star Trek, which is an ironic reference, since I would say that Star Trek is the template for how these matters should be handled, in that ST has always put great effort into cooking up some psuedo / quasi-scientific explanations to most of the events, encounters, and technology that are on the show. That, in my view, is why the franchise has been so successful over the decades.
Rich as always you are the voice of reason on these forums I could not have said it better myself there are always certain conceits in this business but you still have to respect your audience intelligence. There has to be a grounding in reality or should I say the reality that you have created for example Iron man and Hulk are science based so the audience is more ready to accept them. In order for this to work you really have to really be cautious as to how you portray his Godhood or you risk insulting and inflaming many peoples religious beliefs.
^ Thanks brother... you are very wise t:
Religious beliefs definitely could be a touchy matter (look at the hoopla around Harry Potter)... I am a theist, so I can see where it would be a concern to some (not to me, it is a movie for Christ's sake... pun intended ). But for me, it is beyond that... audiences are sophisticated, as you eluded... and many will have questions about the correlation of what they saw in the Thor fantasy film, to the uber-sci-fi film that is IM.
As I said, it does not have to be heavy, but it has to be there.
...so should the film deemphasize the Kirby-tech that was known to be showcased on occasion especially during the Stan & Jack days?
As for the whole magic vs. realism debate:
For me part of the fun of seeing The Avengers on the big screen is that you are taking 4 completely different and unrelated characters and making them form a team. That should be the main focus of the movie. How do you take a billionaire playboy in a high tech flying suit, a super solider from the 1940s, a scientist who turns into a destructive monster, and a Norse god of thunder and make a superhero team out of them? That's what the whole story is about: the seemingly irreconcilable differences between them are huge but somehow they make it work to save the Earth!
^ Excellent post... I still want some psuedo-science to fold in Thor and mystical powers. t:
Right. I think most people understand that the "shakepearean" pattern comes from the comic book and that Stan Lee borrowed from Norse mythology when he created the superhero "Thor" (are you a Thor reader?). So now that we've cleared that up, I suppose my question really had to do with the difficulty of casting Thor (y'know, the comic book Thor?) and seeing awesome displays of strength...