More Detailed Script Review!

[Hypestyle]

ehh.. this review tells me little or nothing..

They should get J. Michael Straczynski to write the screenplay.. since he's writing the current Marvel series, he can craft a story that incorporates the Marvel-lore into the traditional Thor mythologies..

 

[Penismightier]

ehh.. this review tells me little or nothing..

They should get J. Michael Straczynski to write the screenplay.. since he's writing the current Marvel series, he can craft a story that incorporates the Marvel-lore into the traditional Thor mythologies..

I've always been in favor of something along these lines. Wouldn't it make sense for comic book movies to be written by their best writers? Who wouldn't love a Batman movie written by Paul Dini? Also, a rewrite would be 50,000 dollars. That amount of money is nothing to a movie that's taking 150 million to make.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Actually, that's a very good way to sum up the script review.

Yeah, and that´s stupid.
Thor isn´t Beowulf, Thor isn´t Conan, so, to try and make it so is just moronic.
No matter how good this movie turns out, it as failure written all over it when it comes to a THOR adaptation, and that is what we are talking about here.

When i first heard that they were going to make a Thor movie, my first reaction was that it had 60% of being a crappy take on the character, unless the people involved understood a bit of what they were doing.
This is going to sound extremely arrogant of me, but i do, i do how to adapt any comic book, because i, not only care and understand, but, the ones i don´t, i make my homework.

There is only two ways of making a Thor movie, both are valid, and both can make a great movie; the superhero angle, or the Lord of the Rings angle.
In the superhero take, start with Donald Blake and go from there; in the Lord of the Rings take, start with Thor and Loki in their adolescent years, prior to Mjolnir and all that, make Thor get Mjolnir by the third movie (or in the end of the second) and end it with him being banished to Midgard for a humility lesson.

 

[Manic]

I just want to state, for the record, that I think it's ridiculous when comic book fans have these "brilliant" ideas for movie adaptations that only work in trilogies.

"You know that one important part about this superhero's entire mythos? Well, we don't see it until the second movie."
"What if the first movie flops? Wouldn't it be more prudent to introduce something that important in the first movie?"
"No, because this has to be epic! And that means trilogy!"

Let's all try to imagine a Spider-Man film where he didn't have his web shooters (be they organic or mechanical) because the writers wanted to save them for Spider-Man 2. Nobody would've watched the first film.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I just want to state, for the record, that I think it's ridiculous when comic book fans have these "brilliant" ideas for movie adaptations that only work in trilogies.

"You know that one important part about this superhero's entire mythos? Well, we don't see it until the second movie."
"What if the first movie flops? Wouldn't it be more prudent to introduce something that important in the first movie?"
"No, because this has to be epic! And that means trilogy!"

Let's all try to imagine a Spider-Man film where he didn't have his web shooters (be they organic or mechanical) because the writers wanted to save them for Spider-Man 2. Nobody would've watched the first film.

In this case, trilogy was just an example, and besides, you are just coming the your own conclusions, i never said what could and could not be introuced in the first movie.
It all comes down to the story you want to tell, not about hiding stuff for a second and third movie.
My take on Mjolnir is, the moment you have that, you will see Thor the superhero, and the thing about this "trilogy" is Thor the arrogant
God and his journey to the superhero thingy.

Besides, i don´t understand and never will, all this "hate" about trilogies.
Trilogies are the perfect way to tell a bigger story.
You divide a story in 3 parts, begining, middle and the end, hence trilogy.

 

[Manic]

In this case, trilogy was just an example, and besides, you are just coming the your own conclusions, i never said what could and could not be introuced in the first movie.
It all comes down to the story you want to tell, not about hiding stuff for a second and third movie.
My take on Mjolnir is, the moment you have that, you will see Thor the superhero, and the thing about this "trilogy" is Thor the arrogant
God and his journey to the superhero thingy.

Besides, i don´t understand and never will, all this "hate" about trilogies.
Trilogies are the perfect way to tell a bigger story.
You divide a story in 3 parts, begining, middle and the end, hence trilogy.

I like trilogies. It's just that we all need to remember that the first movie in a trilogy has to be able to stand on its own. It has to have its own beginning, middle, and ending--in this case, an open-ended ending that leads to a sequel. That means that the hero needs to make some sort of significant progress in the first film.

Luke Skywalker had made a great "hero's journey" in just A New Hope. He had learned to be a hero. He saved the day. He was already using the force. He already had a lightsaber. That movie had an actual ending, but it also had that "this is just the beginning" feel to it. The first movie should feel like a whole movie with its own 3 Acts, not just the first Act of a larger story.

The only trilogy I know of that abruptly ends its first movie without a conclusion is Fellowship of the Ring. That really did feel like just the first Act of a larger story, but I wouldn't recommend any other movie (especially a superhero movie, which is a big hit-or-miss genre) try that.


With Thor, I'd give the audience one damn good story for the first movie, and include a good chunk of his mythos. Asgard, Mjolnir, all that stuff. You don't save something as important as mjolnir until the second or third movie. Its Thor's main tool and weapon.

 

[The_Mystery]

Thor needs to have Mjolnir in the first movie. End of argument. Him not having it in the first movie is like Batman not have the "Batarangs" in Batman Begins.

 

[chiefchirpa]

In this case, trilogy was just an example, and besides, you are just coming the your own conclusions, i never said what could and could not be introuced in the first movie.
It all comes down to the story you want to tell, not about hiding stuff for a second and third movie.
My take on Mjolnir is, the moment you have that, you will see Thor the superhero, and the thing about this "trilogy" is Thor the arrogant
God and his journey to the superhero thingy.

Besides, i don´t understand and never will, all this "hate" about trilogies.
Trilogies are the perfect way to tell a bigger story.
You divide a story in 3 parts, begining, middle and the end, hence trilogy.

The problem with Trilogy is Marvel's not a cashland. Trilogy or even the sequel is never guaranteed. Captain America might not get a 2009 treatment because $ 500 million loan is divided by three $150 million budget movies already. Microsoft on the other hand can make Trilogy of Halo movies for all they care because they got plenty of money, but I still doubt Microsoft wants to do that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Here are my thoughts posted two days ago at Alvaro's:

...just when things couldn't get any worse...

Okay, lets examine a few things:

1. Adult Thor gets the hammer made for him. Thus negating the possibility of a Thor: Son of Asgard movie, overlooking he lifted it as a youth, also that Odin wielded the hammer on occasion.

Has Protosevich ever read a Thor comic...?

2. "This is not THOR the superhero as portrayed in the Marvel comics - a god on Earth who performs super-heroic feats, rescues damsels in distresses, fights supervillains and does all of the usual stuff straight out of the “How To Be A Superhero Handbook.”

As suspected this movie has nothing to do with the Mighty Thor! Thus its a total and utter waste of the franchise.

3. This is the tale of THOR, son of Odin and Prince of Asgard and his journey from arrogant boob (not the good kind-sorry folks) to the true heroic ideal.

More idiocy. They have Thor go from hero to bully to hero again within the same movie. Yet they totally omit the entire reason for Thor going to Earth - to learn humility. In this movie hes already learnt his lesson it seems by the end of the movie. Thus invalidating the entire reason for Thor on Earth, his whole history as Don Blake. Talk about defecating on the comics...

4. Another key element that was missing from the script for me was its portrayal of ASGARD somehow. I was hoping this ASGARD would be some how influenced by the work of THOR co-creator, the late great comic god Jack Kirby. But no, this version will give its Production Designer(s) the chance to create stunning richly detailed Nine Worlds more "realistically", and again, as a comic book geek I was disappointed. I really wanted to get my Kirby on here.

Chalk up another "Jumping on the Lord of the Rings Bandwagon" moment from Hollywood.

5. Theres are a lot of special effects as ASGARD goes to war and THOR faces the treacherous LOKI and there is the obligatory "A New Hero Is Born" ending.

Totally underwhelming climax. Loki should have been the main villain but the climax should have been against some overwhelming opponent like the Destroyer.

6. THOR is a very good script to be sure, but it's humorless.

Even though it features the Warriors Three who are basically light relief in every Thor book they ever appeared in!

7. I can't see THOR hitting the kind of financial figures the bigwigs have come to expect.

Of course not because its a crock of **** with absolutely nothing to do with the comics, absolutely no respect for the comics, an underwhelming story that not only jumps on the Lord of the Rings bandwagon but openly bounces up and down on it.

It totally invalidates all future Thor movies and you can damn well guarantee I'll be writing to Kevin Feige within the week.

The gloves are officially OFF! I can't take anymore of this cr@p lying down.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy hippie hunter!

For once, I completely and wholeheartedly agree with Still A ThorFan.

...and you're equally wrong.

Putting Thor on Earth with Don Blake, Jane Foster, and New York City would be a great idea for a sequel: The Mighty Thor!

Except that this current script totally does away with all the continuity of the actual comics!

Thor is redeemed on Asgard - therefore there is no reason why Odin would banish him to Earth to live as Donald Blake.

This movie is basically one big Galactus Cloud.

 

[Penismightier]

This movie is basically one big Galactus Cloud.

Let's not say things we can't take back.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

This movie is basically one big Galactus Cloud.

What movie?

This is just a single draft of a script. That's all.

 

[Chris B]

I'm a part of the camp that would've prefered a Thor movie with the whole Don Blake storyline. I suppose that a Tales of Asgard story could work, with the more conventional supehero stuff being saved for the sequel. Would seem like an awkward transition in story, though.

 

[Manic]

The thing that tightens my corset is that there's no way they can add Donald Blake to the sequel without things becoming redundant. In this first movie alone, he gets banished from Asgard and is forced to learn humility before he's accepted back and becomes a hero. That's Blake's entire purpose. Blake is Thor being cast down from Valhalla.

This might be a good movie, in the sense that it'll be a good movie about Norse mythology. Not a Marvel character.

 

[Jack Rabbit]

Knowing Marvel and from the way the script sounds, I'm willing to bet that Thor's costume will look like the current Thor costume, which is the way to go IMO:

That costume is ****ing gay, dude.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello there!

Let's not say things we can't take back.

Why does it need taken back? I'm basing my comments on what we know so far.

This movie has virtually nothing to do with Marvel's Thor, and what elements it does have are so misused that they disrespect the original comic stories...its business man Von Doom and Galactus Cloud all over again...and we know how that rubbish turned out.

It may turn out to be a half-decent Norse Mythology inspired Lord of the Rings type rip-off, but its not a Mighty Thor movie.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Kevin!

What movie?

This is just a single draft of a script. That's all.

Which is what I am commenting on.

Nothing said so far has been promising.

1. It has virtually nothing to do with the comics!

2. In fact not only does it for the most part ignore the comics, when it does use elements from the comics it uses them out of continuity to such a degree that it makes any hope of sequels being more like the comics a totally forlorn hope!

3. Any new ideas introduced sound lame. A 'Hell-stag' - I mean for **** sake.

4. The touted choice of actor (McKidd) is absolutely bewildering to the point of lunacy!

You could almost be forgiven for thinking they were trying to ruin the franchise.

 

[Manic]

...when it does use elements from the comics...

I'm going to stop you right there.


What elements from the comics? I can't find them.

 

[emi]

Sorry to disappoint you all but the script is a total mess, 128 pages of nonsense, an abortion of epic proportions, spells disaster all over it; Marvel's Thor is nowhere to be found. I’m mad, angry, very-very angry! I think that the correct high-concept pitch should be "E.R. meets Lord of the Rings" and not a bad, formulaic and uninspiring journey of redemption of a generic viking. Time for Marvel to go back to the drawing board for a "page one rewrite". 'nuff said!

 

[dpm07]

I'm really not crazy about the script either. It's too much of a departure from the comics, and will probably not resonate with the fans, as well as the mainstream.

 

[NateGray]

Here are my thoughts posted two days ago at Alvaro's:

...just when things couldn't get any worse...

Okay, lets examine a few things:

1. Adult Thor gets the hammer made for him. Thus negating the possibility of a Thor: Son of Asgard movie, overlooking he lifted it as a youth, also that Odin wielded the hammer on occasion.

Has Protosevich ever read a Thor comic...?

2. "This is not THOR the superhero as portrayed in the Marvel comics - a god on Earth who performs super-heroic feats, rescues damsels in distresses, fights supervillains and does all of the usual stuff straight out of the “How To Be A Superhero Handbook.”

As suspected this movie has nothing to do with the Mighty Thor! Thus its a total and utter waste of the franchise.

3. This is the tale of THOR, son of Odin and Prince of Asgard and his journey from arrogant boob (not the good kind-sorry folks) to the true heroic ideal.

More idiocy. They have Thor go from hero to bully to hero again within the same movie. Yet they totally omit the entire reason for Thor going to Earth - to learn humility. In this movie hes already learnt his lesson it seems by the end of the movie. Thus invalidating the entire reason for Thor on Earth, his whole history as Don Blake. Talk about defecating on the comics...

4. Another key element that was missing from the script for me was its portrayal of ASGARD somehow. I was hoping this ASGARD would be some how influenced by the work of THOR co-creator, the late great comic god Jack Kirby. But no, this version will give its Production Designer(s) the chance to create stunning richly detailed Nine Worlds more "realistically", and again, as a comic book geek I was disappointed. I really wanted to get my Kirby on here.

Chalk up another "Jumping on the Lord of the Rings Bandwagon" moment from Hollywood.

5. Theres are a lot of special effects as ASGARD goes to war and THOR faces the treacherous LOKI and there is the obligatory "A New Hero Is Born" ending.

Totally underwhelming climax. Loki should have been the main villain but the climax should have been against some overwhelming opponent like the Destroyer.

6. THOR is a very good script to be sure, but it's humorless.

Even though it features the Warriors Three who are basically light relief in every Thor book they ever appeared in!

7. I can't see THOR hitting the kind of financial figures the bigwigs have come to expect.

Of course not because its a crock of **** with absolutely nothing to do with the comics, absolutely no respect for the comics, an underwhelming story that not only jumps on the Lord of the Rings bandwagon but openly bounces up and down on it.

It totally invalidates all future Thor movies and you can damn well guarantee I'll be writing to Kevin Feige within the week.

The gloves are officially OFF! I can't take anymore of this cr@p lying down.

Excellent post I agree 100% and fear for this movie and the direction it is taking.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey manic!

I'm going to stop you right there.

What elements from the comics? I can't find them.

Well apparently the Warriors Three are in this movie. But by all accounts its a humourless movie. Given that the Warriors Three are basically comic-relief in every story they feature it doesn't even seem like they will be handled right!