# Thor



## horacethegrey (Apr 30, 2011)

Wow. I've just seen it. And just... wow. This is a great film translation of the Marvel Comic's God of Thunder. I was worried it'd be a cheesy superhero flick. Well, it is cheesy somewhat... but completely AWESOME at the same time.

*SPOILERS AHEAD!!! BEWARE!!!*

LIKES

- Chris Hemsworth. Besides his bit part in _Star Trek_ as Kirk's dad, I hadn't seen Hemsworth in anything. So I had doubts he could pull it off. But such doubts we're removed the moment he steps onscreen. He totally nails the part. Hemsworth makes Thor's journey from blinding arrogance to humbled wisdom totally believable. An incredible performance that ranks among the best in the genre such as Robert Downey Jr. (_Iron Man_) and Christopher Reeve (_Superman_).

- Loki. Where Hemsworth is loud and boisterous as Thor, Tom Hiddleston is sly and cunning as the God of Mischief. I'm surprised though that they made Loki's motivations for his evil deeds sympathetic, but it works in the context of the film. Hiddleston displays great range and manages to steal the show in some scenes.

- Odin. I had fears that Hannibal Lecter was gonna ham it up as the All Father. But rest assured, Anthony Hopkins brings nothing but gravitas and authority as Odin. 

- Asgard. Now that's a realm worthy of gods. I'm especially fond of the imagery of it being an island floating amongst the stars. And it's populated by beings who do feel godly, from Sif to the Warrior's Three. I wish though, that they made it less futuristic and more viking like. 

- Laughs aplenty. I'm suprised by the amount of comedy in the film. But it works, and doesn't feel forced. It only serves to emphasise Thor's fish out of water situation.


DISLIKES

- Forst Giants. Dude, c'mon! Frost Giants! Emphasis on the 'giant' part.  They're supposed to be 12 foot tall beings clad in white. Not 7 foot Orc rejects.


Well. That's all I have to say. Great film, and probably the best superhero flick I've since _Iron Man_. Do yourselves a favor and have great time, I certainly did.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (Apr 30, 2011)

I have to agree on most of that. I liked the frost giants, though they were a little small only head and shoulders above the Asgardians which must put the at close to 10ft, but they could have been twice the height.


Great film, suggesting great things for the Avengers.


----------



## megamania (May 1, 2011)

Sounds awesome.

I am sooooo looking forward to this.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 2, 2011)

Hey all! 

I saw this film on Friday - great movie.

Note perfect performance from all the actors. Battles were great, special effects looked amazing, the few jokes were funny but never cringeworthy.

I agree about the Frost Giants. I'd have preferred them to be 12' tall instead of maybe 9' tall. Plus it would have been nice if a few fully iced up (like in the comics).

Being a purist I'd maybe have liked the Destroyer battle to have been resolved in a different manner, but it was a very cool fight.


----------



## megamania (May 2, 2011)

Saturday matinee....   bringing the kids.   Soda, candy and popcorn.   Its going to be a free-for-all (meaning I'm going to have fun... forget the diet, diabetes and bills)   i NEED this day


----------



## Rhun (May 2, 2011)

Haven't seen it yet, but I'm going to have to for sure now!


----------



## Tyranthraxus (May 3, 2011)

I agree with most of what was said.

I didnt find most of Thors asgardian 'fellow Warriors' underused though. I didnt see any chemistry between Thor and Jane.. there was an inkling of something between Sif and Thor though. 

Re the images of Asgard. Went by too fast. I have this feeling there was a lot more to show but it got cut out!.. they need a NASA style flight over Asgard so I can slow it down/ take it all in.


----------



## gotyou (May 4, 2011)

I am going to watch it this saturday


----------



## Richards (May 5, 2011)

Same here.

Johnathan


----------



## Kzach (May 5, 2011)

Wow, I could not disagree more. I felt this was a B-grade crapfest on a stick. I'd honestly give this movie 1 out of 5 stars and feel I was being generous. I can't think of anything that redeems this movie in any way, shape or form. Even the special effects were weak.

Loki was, "Am I villain? I'm not sure? Maybe now? No... now? No, not yet. OOH! Now I'm a villain! Wait a sec, I wanna be a good guy now!" Most confused character in a movie ever. I think Ken might've been going for depth but instead all he got was a complete mess that made no sense whatsoever.

The whole relationship between Thor and Jane was trite. It was a relationship for the sake of the plot rather than having any genuine progression.

Then there was SHIELD. "We're taking all your research and there's nothing you can do about it so nyah~! Oh, wait, stuff it, we'll give it all back to you now 'cause you're with the hero of the movie!" And, "He just broke into our facility and you're turning up with a lame story to break him out... umm... ok, you can both go, oh and we'll leave this piece of important romance development McGuffin for you to grab on your way out whilst we're watching you leave!"

We're also given a hook that goes... absolutely nowhere! "I know a person who has dealt with SHIELD so I'll send them an email. I won't get a reply before the movie ends but, dammit, I'm going to do it anyway!"

Weak plot with massive holes in it. Confused characters. Cheesy, cheesy, CHEESY dialogue, costumes, sets, scenes and acting. Just bad scripting. Horrible pacing that goes all over the place with no build-up or tension like the movie was cut by a badger in a rage frenzy. And piss-weak characters that serve no purpose other than to crowd the stage.

This whole movie smacks of an epic three part series of four hour long movies crammed into one two hour movie with all the best bits cut out. Brannagh should go back to directing Shakespeare.


----------



## horacethegrey (May 5, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Wow, I could not disagree more. I felt this was a B-grade crapfest on a stick. I'd honestly give this movie 1 out of 5 stars and feel I was being generous. I can't think of anything that redeems this movie in any way, shape or form.




Well... sorry you feel that way dude. But, to each his own.


----------



## NiTessine (May 5, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Wow, I could not disagree more.



Of course. Some things never change.

I saw this last night with a bunch of friends and greatly enjoyed it. Hemsworth does a splendid job, as does everybody else. The only real complaint I have is that the Warriors Three and Sif felt underused. Apart from that, it is a pretty, funny and well directed action movie.

Also, some great lines. "We drank, we fought, he made his ancestors proud!"

And after the film, we went out to drink some mead.


----------



## Kzach (May 6, 2011)

NiTessine said:


> Of course. Some things never change.




Keep these types of comments to the Circus; they have no place here and you should know better.


----------



## Richards (May 6, 2011)

And hey, what a coincidence: this Saturday evening, SyFy (I still feel silly actually typing that) is releasing their made-for-TV movie, "Almighty Thor."  I don't think I'll be able to resist watching it, just to compare it with the Marvel version.

Johnathan


----------



## Crothian (May 6, 2011)

Thor was pretty good.  I think some of the Asgard moments went on a bit too long and I would have liked to seen more  on Midgard.  I liked what they did with Hawkeye eeven though it was a brief cameo they managed to give the character a bit of character and it was easy to recognize elements of him from the comics.


----------



## Thanee (May 6, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Loki was, "Am I villain? I'm not sure? Maybe now? No... now? No, not yet. OOH! Now I'm a villain! Wait a sec, I wanna be a good guy now!" Most confused character in a movie ever. I think Ken might've been going for depth but instead all he got was a complete mess that made no sense whatsoever.




I didn't see it that way. He made a lot of sense, and he had actual motivation for what he did. He wasn't just the b/w bad guy, like that frost giant king. He played everyone against everyone else. What else would you expect from Loki? He didn't speak the truth to _anyone_ (well, except for the end, when he had to explain his plan to Thor, in order to explain it to the audience).

He simply wasn't a spectacularily bad guy. The focus of the movie wasn't the "defeat of Loki", but the "growth of Thor".

I liked it. 

Not superb, and clearly not within the same ballpark as Batman Begins, Iron Man or Spiderman, but it was good.

And I have to agree about Hemsworth and Hiddlestone, they fit really well in their respective roles. Yes, it was kinda cheesy, but hey, it's a superhero flick. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Mark (May 6, 2011)

I enjoyed it.  The 3D seemed under-utilized.  A friend said to me that the 3D was useless, so I pointed out to him that it was not quite as useless as the horses.


----------



## Kzach (May 7, 2011)

Thanee said:


> He didn't speak the truth to _anyone_ (well, except for the end, when he had to explain his plan to Thor, in order to explain it to the audience).




When you have to explain the plot to the audience, then you've already made cardinal mistakes throughout the movie to that point.

Loki didn't have to be a b/w villain, I'm simply saying that the attempt to give him depth failed (in my eyes) and just made him look like an ineffectual tool without any focus.

Then there were the completely redundant characters. Like Thor's henchmen who served absolutely no purpose in the movie whatsoever. They could've been entirely cut from it and you wouldn't have noticed. The same goes for Jane's friend. The movie was filled with pointless drivel like these characters and yet still had no decent character development in the main characters despite being a two-hour long movie.

Honestly, I'm shocked so many people are saying they liked it; to me it's so blatantly obvious how bad this movie is that I would've thought it'd be the common opinion.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 7, 2011)

I agree that Loki could have had greater screen presentation to make his motives clearer. I caught all the little moments maybe because I was intently looking for them after having just watched Marvel's animated comic Thor Loki: Blood Brothers, four episodes focused completely on Loki. 

It was good stuff.

But fir this movie, Again I think Loki should have had more presentation time.


----------



## Thanee (May 7, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Honestly, I'm shocked so many people are saying they liked it; to me it's so blatantly obvious how bad this movie is that I would've thought it'd be the common opinion.




Heh. I suppose you expected too much from it. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ebon Shar (May 8, 2011)

I just saw Thor with my family and we all loved it.  My only criticism, however, had to be Ray Stevenson.  He is normally a pretty good actor, but I thought his performance in this movie was terrible.  Chris Hemsworth was great.  I was not disappointed and I normally am pretty critical of movies like this.


----------



## Janx (May 8, 2011)

I saw it last night with my wife. We liked it.

True loki's plan seemed a bit flipfloppy.  Let the giants in so he can save the day. Seems ill concieved. Other than that the acting was spot on.

The warriors three seemed second fiddle, but then thor is mighty for a reason.

Also cool that eric northman's dad was in the film. A proper viking.


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2011)

Janx said:


> I saw it last night with my wife. We liked it.
> 
> True loki's plan seemed a bit flipfloppy.  Let the giants in so he can save the day. Seems ill concieved. Other than that the acting was spot on.




It's not that uncommon of an idea.  I think there are cases of firemen that commit arson so they can be the heroes as the first responders.  At the very least I know I've seen the plot on Law and Order.


----------



## Thanee (May 8, 2011)

Thor Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Pretty high Ratings... maybe a bit too much. Thor is good, but not _that_ good. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Richards (May 8, 2011)

I'll follow horacethegrey's lead and mention that there are SPOILERS BELOW.

I liked it, but thought it fell below the Iron Man films.  Sif and the Warriors Three didn't impress me at all; they seemed artificial.  I "bought" Thor, Odin, Heimdell, etc. as looking natural in their armor, whereas Sif and the Warriors Three looked more like actors in Ren Faire garb.  (To quote a SHIELD agent from the film, "We've got a Xena, a Jackie Chan, a Robin Hood....")  I don't think they did much in the way of explaining the Odinsleep, other than mentioning that it's happened before, just not with this quick of an onset (in which case they'd expect him to wake up again eventually, so how does Loki get to crown himself king?)  Black Heimdell didn't bother me at all, since they took a technological approach to Asgard; a Black Asgardian works fine if this is a race of beings elsewhere in the Galaxy, whereas it would have been a pretty silly move if these Asgardians were actually the Norse deities.  (Plus, the guy playing the role did an excellent job - he was one of my favorite characters in the movie.)  I wasn't put off by the smaller-than-expected stature of the frost giants, especially since the frost giant king (Laufey, was it?) was sufficiently imposing.

On the plus side, I thought the Destroyer was a cool villain for the movie.  And the destruction of Bifrost isn't that big of a barrier to getting Thor back to Midgard in time for the Avengers movie, given that the movie hinted at two different ways to get around it: there are hidden ways to get to Asgard besides Bifrost, and that Mjolnir is a tool of creation as well as a weapon of destruction.

As for the scene after the credits - everybody knows to hang around for the bonus scene after the credits by now, right? - it looks like the Cosmic Cube showed up.  I wonder if that's going to be a plot point in the Captain America movie, given that the Red Skull was after the power of the Cosmic Cube.  (Maybe that's how they'll get Cap from WWII to present day, instead of having him frozen in a block of ice and worshiped by Eskimos.)

Johnathan


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 8, 2011)

Richards said:


> (Maybe that's how they'll get Cap from WWII to present day, instead of having him frozen in a block of ice and worshiped by Eskimos.)




In the beginning of the most recent Hulk movie, IIRC, during the origin montage, there's a brief moment where Bruce Banner or the Hulk is running in the arctic and he goes by something that looks like a guy frozen in ice.

But we'll see.

Brad


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 8, 2011)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> In the beginning of the most recent Hulk movie, IIRC, during the origin montage, there's a brief moment where Bruce Banner or the Hulk is running in the arctic and he goes by something that looks like a guy frozen in ice.



This was confirmed by Louis Leterrier, director of the Ed Norton Hulk film.

Captain America Found in The Incredible Hulk Deleted Scene | /Film


----------



## Kzach (May 9, 2011)

Thanee said:


> Thor Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes
> 
> Pretty high Ratings... maybe a bit too much. Thor is good, but not _that_ good.
> 
> ...



Someone has obviously cast a spell of delusion on the movie to make people think it is better than it is; everyone else is wrong and I'm right, dammit.


----------



## Herschel (May 9, 2011)

Saw it, liked it. It wasn't as good as Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, and not as well liked as the first two X-Men movies or Iron Man, but I liked it better than the second and third Spiderman movies so it was well worth watching.


----------



## John Crichton (May 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Someone has obviously cast a spell of delusion on the movie to make people think it is better than it is; everyone else is wrong and I'm right, dammit.



As usual, not quite.

Movie was very entertaining.


----------



## VGmaster9 (May 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Wow, I could not disagree more. I felt this was a B-grade crapfest on a stick. I'd honestly give this movie 1 out of 5 stars and feel I was being generous. I can't think of anything that redeems this movie in any way, shape or form. Even the special effects were weak.
> 
> Loki was, "Am I villain? I'm not sure? Maybe now? No... now? No, not yet. OOH! Now I'm a villain! Wait a sec, I wanna be a good guy now!" Most confused character in a movie ever. I think Ken might've been going for depth but instead all he got was a complete mess that made no sense whatsoever.
> 
> ...




Someone's a bit picky, eh?


----------



## megamania (May 10, 2011)

Saw it Saturday and I'm finally in a position to comment.


It was not as good as hyped (someone compared it to Iron man) but I thought it was still good. Very good in fact.

Some parts did feel forced but they had to fit in a "god" into a "realistic" world so I can deal with that.

Many wonderful comicbook tidbits thrown in for comics and Thor fans.  I was half wondering if Thunderstrike was going to appear eventually with Eric being introduced.  

My only real bone to pick with the movie.... How quickly and easily Destroyer was taken down.

Though not bad.... the after credits scene was the weakest so far also but this may be more because I already knew a bit about the villian for the Avengers movie.


So.... good movie.  Worth seeing but maybe not twice.   I am hoping for the director's extended cut on DVD/Blu-Ray to show more of Asgard.


Stan lee had a good part.    

Nice to see walter Simonson got some credit given his way also.


----------



## Styxs (May 10, 2011)

I am really interested in seeing the movie but sadly there aren't any theaters around me that are showing it in non-horrific 3D


----------



## Richards (May 11, 2011)

Yeah, I'd save the money and see it in 2D.  The 3D wasn't all that impressive, and certainly not worth the extra money.  (I didn't really have a choice, as the other guys I was seeing it with wanted to see it in 3D.)

Johnathan


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 11, 2011)

I've given-up on 3D. I specifically went to see Thor in 2D and I didn't miss anything. 

Back when 3D was novel, I wanted to see anything that was in 3D, in 3D. But now I find it doesn't add anything.


----------



## Aeolius (May 11, 2011)

I found the 3D in Thor to be distracting. It prevented my immersion into the movie, as I kept pulling my glasses down to see if the 3D layering was really as bad as it seemed.

   Natalie Portman's performance was lackluster at best. I hope if we see more of Thor, we see no more of Portman's Jane Foster. Mind you, I loved her role in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium. As others have said, the rushed treatment of the love interest did not seem to work, at all.

   To be honest, I felt the portrayal of Heimdall to be more enthralling than Hopkins' Odin, even if the spinning top aspect of the Rainbow Bridge was beyond cheesy.

   I'll probably end up downloading this when it makes it to iTunes, but I won't be seeing it in the theater again.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 11, 2011)

Aeolius said:


> To be honest, I felt the portrayal of Heimdall to be more enthralling than Hopkins' Odin, . . .



I, too, was bored of Natalie Portman. Almost to tears. But Heimdall was my favorite as well, more Heimdall would have been awesome.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 11, 2011)

fanboy2000 said:


> I specifically went to see Thor in 2D and I didn't miss anything.



Ditto. I sought out a theater and time with the movie in 2D with the full expectation that 3D would only bring a ruining distraction. Having not seen it in 3D I can still say I am pleased having seen it in 2D.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 11, 2011)

Aeolius said:


> Natalie Portman's performance was lackluster at best. I hope if we see more of Thor, we see no more of Portman's Jane Foster. Mind you, I loved her role in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium. As others have said, the rushed treatment of the love interest did not seem to work, at all.





If I were Thor I'd be weary of gal who was as clingy as she was.  She knew him like 72 hours at best and already was trying to get him to move in and and willing to be sent to gitmo while braking into a government facility for him.  To me that saids issues and that she's all sorts of crazy especially after she had her coworker get his "government contacts" to steal her x-lover's identity and give it to Thor.  Seriously, do you even need more red flags than that one?

You know who i feel sorry for? Donald Blake. I bet that the first supervillian who gets a hold of SHIELDS files will be the one who makes him a cripple while thinking he is the God of Thunder.  I just hope he isn't still Jane Foster's friend on facebook cause it will be akward reading all her new posts about "Donald Blake" and his super powered studliness when his credit rating is shot to hell and his nurse is putting diapers on him.


----------



## outofworld (May 12, 2011)

Really curious to watch this. Heard alot about this movie.


----------



## FoxWander (May 13, 2011)

Saw it a couple of days ago- thought it was pretty good.  Not as good as the first Spiderman/Iron man or the two Batmans but still very good and entertaining.  Thor, Odin and Loki were seemed spot on and appropriately godly.  Heimdall was awesome!  Some of the other "gods" though- not so impressive.  And some of the actors *cough*Portman*coughcough* were just phoning it in it seemed. 

I really liked the Destroyer too- although it did go down pretty quick after Thor got his groove back.  Seemed like it would have been a tougher fight, even for Thor.

And that's where I have my one major gripe with the movie- Thor's a badass alright, but he never felt like a Hero(!). Sure he can kick butt, take names and do all sorts of awesome stuff but he's a GOD for fraks sake!  Awesome is expected!  It's pretty much the definition of GODness.  If a GOD doesn't do three awesome things before breakfast everyday- then they're just a lowercase god (which pretty much describes our ren-faire godlings who run to Midgard to "help"). The point is, I want my heroes to be Heroic(!).  I want to feel my breath catch when those incredible "hero moments" are on the screen.  Spiderman, Batman, even Iron man- they all had those "moments" when you watch and think- 'Now that's a frakkin HERO!'  Thor just didn't have any of those. Lots of awesome. Plenty of kickass! But not much "hero."

Still a pretty good movie though.


----------



## Thanee (May 13, 2011)

Well, I found him willing to sacrifice his life to protect the others pretty heroic. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## FoxWander (May 13, 2011)

Thanee said:


> Well, I found him willing to sacrifice his life to protect the others pretty heroic.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




True, that bit was very heroic- but then it went into god-mode (literally) and was just a supered-up action movie.  I guess Thor, like Superman, is just too powerful to feel mundanely heroic. Does that make any sense? Don't get me wrong- it certainly makes for a fun movie, just not a really _stirring_ one. 

I'm hoping there's more of what I'm looking for in the upcoming Captain America.  If any hero should be stirringly Heroic, it's Cap.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 13, 2011)

FoxWander said:


> And that's where I have my one major gripe with the movie- Thor's a badass alright, but he never felt like a Hero(!).
> 
> Still a pretty good movie though.




You do realize there was a reason why he wasn't heroic.  It was because:

"HE WAS UNWORTHY OF THE POWERS OF THOR"

 Up until the final half hour of the film he was just a super powered badass fratboy who loved to party and pick fights.  To make maters worse, when he had his powers during the first half of the movie he acted like an anti-hero/villian not a "hero" since he was into going on preemptive offensive missions rather then waiting for the enemies to attack.  So in a way, his switch only happened because as a mortal he had to decide to switch from offensive to defensive against overwhelming odds.

Unfortunately, immediately afterwords Destroyer Jobbed to him rather then show that Thor needed the Warrior's Three and Sif to add to his power level in order to take out Asgard's ultimate weapon.... so that kind of killed what could have been an awesome fight.


----------



## Celtavian (May 13, 2011)

*re*

Not sure how many are fans of the Thor comic. But judging from some of the reviews, not many seem to be Thor fans. More seems like people are judging the film by criteria other than fitting the character. I was a big Thor fan when I was young. This movie was spot on for the look and feel of Thor.

Thor is one of Marvel's two noble superheroes. The other being Captain America. Both Captain America and Thor are not gray superheroes. They are both truly good. I thought they captured that well with the Thor movie.

Thor is a straight-forward character. He is good and noble all the time. He is as close as Marvel comes to Superman. He does the right thing because he does not know how or even contemplate doing otherwise. He is arrogant and prideful as the film shows, but not in a negative manner. I thought his growth from headstrong, stubborn, war-focused warrior to more thoughtful, humble, and wise warrior well done.

The effects were incredible. You have to understand that Thor isn't minor league like the X-men. Thor is one of the most powerful beings in the universe. I thought that they showed that well by building up the Destroyer and then showing how easily Thor can defeat him once he has his hammer. That scene with Thor summoning up a storm and driving the hammer against the powerful fire blasts of the Destroyer was the type of imagery Thor does in the comic book.

I still recall reading a Spiderman comic book with Thor in it and the building was brought down, an 80 story skyscraper was going to fall and Spiderman wanted to run, Thor caught the building on his shoulder and held it up. He was not going to let it fall because it would harm otehrs. He also defeated The Marauders in the X-men comic in his weakened state alone and killed Vertigo in one blow. 

Thor is a big league superhero. Thor makes heroes like the X-men, Iron Man, Wolverine, Or Spiderman look like Kickass. I thought that was well displayed in the film. When Thor had his power, he was nigh unstoppable. That is how it should be. 


I thought Loki was spot on. The illusion magic was well done. His look was perfect. The actor Tom Hiddleston played Loki perfectly. Loki's motivations were different from what they often portray him as in the comic book, but I'm not surprised there were some reimaginings from the original story I read back in the late 70s and 80s. 

The Warriors Three and Sif weren't well utilized in the film. They were used like they often were in the comics. A little comic relief and occasional help for Thor. Sif I wish would have had a sword, but she looked good. 

Overall this is my favorite superhero film to date. I loved the feel of it. It captured Thor well. He is not a dark hero, an anti-hero, or a haunted man. Thor is a straightforward good hero. A being so powerful as to not even have a good understanding of mortality, human weakness, or the like. 

Not sure how someone couldn't see Thor as a hero when he is the purest type of hero there is: a born hero.

I look forward to more Thor movies. He probably doesn't suit the folks that like gray characters or the anti-hero types like Wolverine or Batman or the heroes with real world social problems like Spiderman. But I like a hero like Thor.

To put it in D&D terms, Thor is a paladin. He felt like a paladin in the movie. The kind of hero that would not hesitate to give his life to save others, not for a moment. The kind of character that would make the sacrifices necessary to do the right thing without a second thought. The type of character that nobility, courage, and goodness are as natural to as they are unnatural to most of humanity.

I loved this movie. I think it did the character justice. And seeing Thor summon up a thunderstorm, fly with mjornir, and spin the hammer like the comics was great fun. 

I hope the movie does well so I can see more Thor on the big screen.

Now I'm looking forward to Marvel's other noble super hero: Captain America. 


If someone can get Ghost Rider right at some point, my favorite Marvel characters will all have been done justice.


P.S. Heimdall was cool. Idris Elba did a great job playing him. I like how they incorporated his super senses.


----------



## Celtavian (May 13, 2011)

FoxWander said:


> True, that bit was very heroic- but then it went into god-mode (literally) and was just a supered-up action movie.  I guess Thor, like Superman, is just too powerful to feel mundanely heroic. Does that make any sense? Don't get me wrong- it certainly makes for a fun movie, just not a really _stirring_ one.
> 
> I'm hoping there's more of what I'm looking for in the upcoming Captain America.  If any hero should be stirringly Heroic, it's Cap.




Makes perfect sense and is a spot on assessment. Thor is super powerful. He is Marvel's Superman. So you completely understand what they were going for in the movie.

Doesn't make him not a hero though. That part of the assessment is incorrect. Thor was born a hero and doesn't even consder being otherwise.


----------



## megamania (May 15, 2011)

Thor's "heroic" moment was an action scene.   It was when he proved himself worthy to weild the hammer again... his sacrifice (ultimate sacrifice) by allowing the Destroyer to kill him to allow his friends to escape.



For a heroic hero that makes one cheer... yeah Cap should be it between the patriotism and inspiring power (his greatest power of all) mixed with his underdog .


Next week is Pirates  then two weeks is X-men then Green lantern.   My wallet weeps even as my fanboyism leaps for joy.


----------



## megamania (May 15, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> I, too, was bored of Natalie Portman. Almost to tears. But Heimdall was my favorite as well, more Heimdall would have been awesome.




In the comics I always underestimated his appeal and power.   In the movie I saw him to be the awesome character he is.   But any more of him may have been an overkill.   Too much of a good thing....

Portman....   Can't say I have ever been a fan of her.


----------



## Thunderfoot (May 15, 2011)

Strictly a comment for Thor comic book fans, Thor is NOT Marvel's Superman, that would be Captain Marvel.  Okay, back to your debates, I'm enjoying them immensely.


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 15, 2011)

One thing about the movie i noticed, it's based on the "Ultimate" line of Thor comics.

But they went with the classic Hammer instead of the "Ultimate" hammer. Which looks very different than the classic hammer.

Compare this to the one in the movie:







Movies can make weird decisions sometimes.


----------



## FoxWander (May 15, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> You do realize there was a reason why he wasn't heroic.  It was because:
> 
> "HE WAS UNWORTHY OF THE POWERS OF THOR"
> 
> ...




Yes, I'm well aware that the point of the movie was to give him some wisdom and humility so he would be...
WORTHY OF THE POWERS OF THOR 

But even after he got the hammer back, he still seemed like just a super-powered badass, just not so much a fratboy anymore. What I'm "complaining" (I put that in quotes because it's only a small complaint- I really did like the movie!) about is not that Thor isn't a hero- by the end of the movie he unquestionably is the noble, hero character he's suppose to be- I'm saying the _movie_ didn't have many dramatic, hero-moments that make you want to stand up and cheer. 

Mostly that's the fault of the people who made/wrote the movie, but it's also a problem of the character Thor himself. He's too powerful to make us think that he might fail, or even get hurt!  So how can he really have a moment when he overcomes incredible odds, or staggers to his feet after getting his @$$ kick because he refuses to quit(!), or defeats the big bad in a crowning moment of awesome* because he's a big damn hero!!!




*Note that almost all the CMOA examples for Thor at tvtropes are NOT from Thor himself.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 16, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> Strictly a comment for Thor comic book fans, Thor is NOT Marvel's Superman, that would be Captain Marvel.  Okay, back to your debates, I'm enjoying them immensely.





Why do you say that? Captain Mar-vel the kree warrior didn't seem anything like supermans capabilities (or were you thinking of Shazam captain marvel? I don't think he belonged to Marvel comics?)

Cheers


----------



## Bullgrit (May 16, 2011)

> Sure he can kick butt, take names and do all sorts of awesome stuff but he's a GOD for fraks sake! Awesome is expected! It's pretty much the definition of GODness.



But in the movie, Thor is a freakin' space alien!? WTF?

Asgard and Jutonheim are planets?

Bifrost is a ray gun/catapult?

They made Thor a space alien! Space. Alien.

* * *

Did anyone else get the strong feeling that this movie came from 1982? Technically, the special effects were very clean and slick. But they had the style and feel of early 80s sci-fi movies.

Bullgrit


----------



## Diamond Cross (May 16, 2011)

No they didn't. They didn't make him a space alien, it was just how Jane saw things. Many human beings, especially scientists, have a lot of trouble seeing things as paranormal, magic, and mysticism so the only way they can wrap their mind around concepts such as alternate dimensions based heavily on magic is if to equate them in some sort of accepted pseudo scientific terms such as Extraterrestrial Biological Entity.

But, in a way, technically, any being that is not born on earth is an alien. It doesn't matter if they come from an alternate dimension or from outer space.

And no, the bridge was not just a Ray Gun. Thor smashed it with his hammer if you recall during the final fight with Loki.


----------



## Bullgrit (May 16, 2011)

> No they didn't. They didn't make him a space alien, it was just how Jane saw things.



Did we see the same movie? Didn't Odin pretty much explicitly describe the Asgardians as space aliens? Didn't we see Jutonheim as a planet? Didn't the Bifrost act as a ray gun -- even to the point of being capable of destroying the entire planet. (Now that I think of it, it is basically a Death Star.) Didn't Thor draw a picture of Yggdrasil using planets for the realms?



> But, in a way, technically, any being that is not born on earth is an alien. It doesn't matter if they come from an alternate dimension or from outer space.



Technically, a "space alien," (which is exactly what I said), comes from outer space, not from an alternate dimension. My complaint was not that he was an "alien," (which he would have been in New Mexico if he were even just a Norwegian. My complaint was the came-from-space alien.

* * *

By the way, what was up with the SHIELD sniper picking a bow and arrows over a rifle? Is that guy going to end up being Hawkeye in the Avengers movie?

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (May 16, 2011)

so what is Marvel's origin of the Thor character.  How did Stan Lee come to the decision to tell stories about a Norse God?

A lot of DC and Marvel characters get their origin from comic lines that seemed to be "random character and story of the month".   Detective Comics incubated Batman, for instance.

Even the Watchmen got their initial genesis by virtue of DC buying another comic company, and it was going to re-launch characters from that chain.  DC nixed it because it was going kill or damage too many characters, so it was decided to make all new characters.


----------



## Bullgrit (May 16, 2011)

Thor started as a story in _Journey into Mystery_. So, yeah, I think his story was not originally intended to be a long running superhero comic.

Bullgrit


----------



## Welverin (May 16, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> By the way, what was up with the SHIELD sniper picking a bow and arrows over a rifle? Is that guy going to end up being Hawkeye in the Avengers movie?




Unless I'm grossly misremembering, he was actually called Hawkeye.


----------



## Bold or Stupid (May 16, 2011)

Welverin said:


> Unless I'm grossly misremembering, he was actually called Hawkeye.




Yes that was Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) getting a cameo, and a cool one at that.


----------



## Relique du Madde (May 16, 2011)

Welverin said:


> Unless I'm grossly misremembering, he was actually called Hawkeye.




He was called "Agent (Clint) Barton" they never called him by his codename (Hawkeye).


----------



## Welverin (May 16, 2011)

Relique du Madde said:


> He was called "Agent (Clint) Barton" they never called him by his codename (Hawkeye).




Well I recalled him being called by name, guess I just confused which one it was.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 17, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Technically, a "space alien," (which is exactly what I said), comes from outer space, not from an alternate dimension. My complaint was not that he was an "alien," (which he would have been in New Mexico if he were even just a Norwegian. My complaint was the came-from-space alien.




My favorite "continuity error" was how Loki and Thor were kids after the Big War, and so couldn't have visited Midgard to inspire legends about their fights against the jotuns.

Brad


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 17, 2011)

Bullgrit said:


> Thor started as a story in _Journey into Mystery_. So, yeah, I think his story was not originally intended to be a long running superhero comic.



Interesting bit about Marvel. They could only publish so many comics, so to publish one comic, they usually had to put them in another. Lots of Marvel characters started in magazines they were publishing when monster comics were fashionable. Spider-Man's debut was in the last issue of Amazing Fantasy. (Stan's wife said they were canceling the mag anyways, he might as well write a super-hero the way he wanted to).

Iron-Man's debut was in Tales of Suspense. Later, he shared the title with fellow Avenger Captain America. The last issue of Tales of Suspense was issue 99. The next issue was Captain America 100. Now it's up to the 600s. (Well, sorta.)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled internet forum discussion.


----------



## Thunderfoot (May 17, 2011)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why do you say that? Captain Mar-vel the kree warrior didn't seem anything like supermans capabilities (or were you thinking of Shazam captain marvel? I don't think he belonged to Marvel comics?)
> 
> Cheers



No, the Shazam one, he was Marvel's original answer to Superman... later when Marvel was acquired by DC (remember that brief period) DC took Captain Marvel, put him in the DC universe and then promptly retired him.  Occasionally they trot him back out, but as far as lore, he was the original.  Okay, my comic book nerdity has reached it's limit.


----------



## Welverin (May 18, 2011)

Thunderfoot said:


> No, the Shazam one, he was Marvel's original answer to Superman... later when Marvel was acquired by DC (remember that brief period) DC took Captain Marvel, put him in the DC universe and then promptly retired him.  Occasionally they trot him back out, but as far as lore, he was the original.  Okay, my comic book nerdity has reached it's limit.




Umm, no. Captain Marvel (i.e. Billy Batson) was never a Marvel (the company) character and DC never owned Marvel, though they did publish Marvel publish for a while (or printed, depending on the technicalities).

The character is also a regular part of the DCU, he just doesn't have the popularity to maintain his own book or a significant and persistent place in the DCU.


----------



## Thunderfoot (May 18, 2011)

Welverin said:


> Umm, no. Captain Marvel (i.e. Billy Batson) was never a Marvel (the company) character and DC never owned Marvel, though they did publish Marvel publish for a while (or printed, depending on the technicalities).
> 
> The character is also a regular part of the DCU, he just doesn't have the popularity to maintain his own book or a significant and persistent place in the DCU.



Yep, I stand corrected, it was Fawcett that owned Captain Marvel first - okay, Thor is back on top, carry on..


----------

