Official Thor Casting Thread

[cerealkiller182]

AlexSkars is great on GK. I also watched a couple of episodes of True Blood to see him with the longer hair, but he wasn't in either of the 2 episodes. This show sucks balls. So i think I'm done looking for him. I'll wait for more pics to come out or a youtube clip.

its pisspoor quality but here it is

 

[Marz69]

Thanks. I just can't bear to watch another episode of that show. Especially since he's never on it when I watch it.

But the long hair works for him. For Thor I'd like longer hair. Messy & a bit wavy to give the unruly look.

 

[SWAT]

Skarsgård was great in Generation Kill. If he bulked up, I think He'd be pretty good.

And getting a Scandinavian to play Thor, would make it even cooler.

Purcell is half Norwegian, so that would work too

 

[Marz69]

Skarsgård was great in Generation Kill. If he bulked up, I think He'd be pretty good.

And getting a Scandinavian to play Thor, would make it even cooler.

Purcell is half Norwegian, so that would work too

Purcell was one of my inital picks (along with Butler & Urban) if they went with the 6'1" to 6'2" actor of playing Blake/Thor and the whole Blake bending to be shorter with LOTR heighted Thor for 6'5".

But I took Purcell off my list because over the past couple of weeks he moved to my #1 choice for Kratos in God Of War. t:

 

[Brian Braddock]

its pisspoor quality but here it is

I've already posted some similiar images of Alexander from that show earlier (can't remember which ones so there could be some repitition):-

Yup, that's our guy.

And I still don't get this theory that the actor playing Tghor needs to play Blake as well.

I was always of the understanding that they were two seperate beings; Thor merely inhabited Blakes body as Odins punishment of learning humility.

From Wikipedia-

'Thor's father Odin decides his son needs to be taught humility and consequently places Thor (without memories of godhood) into the body and memories of an existing, partially disabled human medical student, Donald Blake. After becoming a doctor and thoroughly believing himself to be the young surgeon Blake, he later discovers Thor's disguised hammer and learns to change back and forth into the Thunder God. The real Blake's persona remains elsewhere until many years later, after Odin becomes satisfied of Thor's humility and lifts the spell, thereby removing the need for a mortal alter ego. The mortal experience, however, shapes Thor into an honorable and courteous individual, who is loyal to all comrades.

Donald Blake, upon touching the hammer Mjolnir, is transported to the void where Thor has been in hibernation. Blake explains that when Odin originally removed the Blake persona from Thor,[32] Blake was transported to the void Thor now inhabits, and was returned to New York City when Thor broke the Ragnarök cycle. '

^^That's how I understand it.

So why ther need for the same actor? Blakes face isnt the same as Thor's nor is (obviously) his height and build; the only similiarity they share is the blonde hair.

 

[Marz69]

Much of the audience aren’t comic geeks. IF there is a Blake, I truly believe it will be played by the same actor. The movies are a visual medium & in order to have the audience relate to Thor via Blake (as a frail human), then they must have the same face. Or they risk the audience seeing them as 2 distinct beings, feeling for Blake over Thor. It’s more compelling to see the face of Thor learn the lesson and not some other character. It will be too confusing for people. I believe this is what they will do with Blake (or a blake-like character which could be just a human in Asgardian times or whatever).

So IF there is a Blake (for the modern day avengers tie-in), he will be the problem. They will probably have to LOTR up or down in height depending on the actor chosen.

Or they could go with the Highlander thing & keep Thor in modern day with no Blake. I don't know.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Respectfully Marz; I disagree.

They are 2 distinct beings; The challenge to the filmakers is to firmly establish the connection between the two to the audience. The GA can relate to both if they are aware of the nature of Thor's punishment; to assume any less is selling them short a bit.

That's why it's so important to get good actors on board; so that both Thor and Blake can exhibit the same nuances and traits.

 

[Rich Santoro]

I am with SB here... The story-telling can clearly depict the situation of a "possession" if you will. The Blake character can be having visions, and vivid dreams about Asgardian adventures and battles... There can be visuals showing Thor being banished into Blake's body, etc... I don't see the idea of separate actors as being an issue (especially considering that we are asking the audience to believe that a supernatural, other-worldy being, who is the personification of the Norse thunder-god Thor, has come to Earth to fight evil... If they are OK with that, I don't think that there will be a problem with two actors for the role of Blake and Thor).

 

[Brian Braddock]

Nice to know we're on the same page Rich.

If only you felt the same way about M.O.D.O.K................

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Are you sure there's a Donald Blake in the movie? Because in the first draft, there's no sign of Blake or Modern Age Earth.

 

[Brian Braddock]

There was some mention of him on here a while back by people who know far more about these things than I do.

Then again; let's be honest -who on here really has an inside scoop?

 

[cerealkiller182]

I think they could make it work with the same Actor for Thor and Blake, but it could the other way as well. I think that the studio might want the same actor for the sake of money

 

[louiebling$]

If I remember correctly there was a re write to the script which included donald blake

 

[Rich Santoro]

If only you felt the same way about M.O.D.O.K................

LOL... I will tell what... I was thumbing through a current issue of Cap (or maybe it was the Avengers) and they had MODOK as a face on a monitor, implanted on the chest (rather than some kind of actual big head in a floating chair). This kind of treatment for the character could be something easily adapted to live action... I just have trouble seeing this guy on the big screen:

 

[Brian Braddock]

No big floating head???? Sacrilege!!!!

Lol - As I said on the other thread, the geek in me would love to see him in a more 'tech' embued Marvel character movie (beit the Avengers or Iron Man) but I totally get your misgivings for the character, cinematically speaking.

(Awesome artwork though - possibly Mike Zeck?)

 

[Jordacar]

LOL... I will tell what... I was thumbing through a current issue of Cap (or maybe it was the Avengers) and they had MODOK as a face on a monitor, implanted on the chest (rather than some kind of actual big head in a floating chair). This kind of treatment for the character could be something easily adapted to live action... I just have trouble seeing this guy on the big screen:

Are you sure that wasn't Arnim Zola?

cuz that's not the same guy

 

[Marz69]

Respectfully Marz; I disagree.

They are 2 distinct beings; The challenge to the filmakers is to firmly establish the connection between the two to the audience. The GA can relate to both if they are aware of the nature of Thor's punishment; to assume any less is selling them short a bit.

That's why it's so important to get good actors on board; so that both Thor and Blake can exhibit the same nuances and traits.

No problem.

It isn't about selling the audience short. I'm not trying to imply that they lack intelligence in any way. Of course they'll get that it's suppose to be the same person (or soul as it were). But I am talking about getting emotional impact from most of your audience.

As I've said in previous posts, this is why when a major actor leaves a show, he is not replaced (the show declines). There is an emotional disconnect. Logic says it's the same character (or even if the character is different... it's the same show with a new character), but people get connected to what they see. If they see an arrogant Thor... then see a frail Blake, for many (no matter how much logic you throw in), they will feel toward the Blake actor differently than the Thor actor. The confusion I talk about, is regarding emotional allegiances.

Now take the same Blake/Thor scenario played by the same actor and the impact is more compelling.

I think what will work best is... Thor being thrown into human form & crippled, but with full knowledge of who is and learning through his struggles. As opposed to him not knowing and having visions. This brings the biggest emotional impact. IMO

 

[cerealkiller182]

Are you sure that wasn't Arnim Zola?

cuz that's not the same guy

I think hes mistaken as well but I still think its a more feasible way of portraying MODOK

 

[BETArayBill]

daniel craig has just said in an interview he turned down thor wtf ?http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5627&Itemid=99

 

[Ronny Shade]

I think hes mistaken as well but I still think its a more feasible way of portraying MODOK

Because a robot with a tv in his stomach is more realistic than a guy in a floating chair with a big head when dealing with Gods and monsters.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Because a robot with a tv in his stomach is more realistic than a guy in a floating chair with a big head when dealing with Gods and monsters.

Not more realistic, i hate comic realism. I think it would be easier to create and look better on film. A big CGI head or a real head on a big screen might be taken more seriously.

 

[Rich Santoro]

Jordacar
Are you sure that wasn't Arnim Zola?

You are correct sir... curse me for not actually reading.

cerealkiller182
I think hes mistaken as well but I still think its a more feasible way of portraying MODOK

Good... someone agrees, now I don't feel as bad... t:

Ronny Shade
Because a robot with a tv in his stomach is more realistic than a guy in a floating chair with a big head when dealing with Gods and monsters.

... now I do feel bad

I see what you mean, but I actually think that it would be more "consumable" for the movie consumer... This is just opinion obviously, but I think that it would be a better visual presentation. I envision that big nasty head as looking absurd on screen (if not absurd, then WAY too creepy).

But that is just me...

 

[Ronny Shade]

floating big-head guy is way cooler. We saw face-on-stomach in the TMNT show.

and newsflash: creepy = good.

always.

 

[Chewy]

If I remember correctly there was a re write to the script which included donald blake

Nope, people who have reviewed very recent script rewrites have said there is no Blake. People believe there is because Variety included a very basic Thor bio in the Branagh story as if it was the plot.

 

[Rich Santoro]

Ronny Shade
floating big-head guy is way cooler. We saw face-on-stomach in the TMNT show.

Well... I would not compare this to the TMNT cartoon, especially since we are talking live action...

And I most certainly do not agree with:

and newsflash: creepy = good.

always.

Creepy can be good... But not always... Moreover, there is a such thing as TOO creepy.

I guess that I can concede to the idea that the Hollywood movie-magic-maestros may be able to pull off making it work spectacularly... but for the time being, my mind's eye cannot make it work.