Thor (2011) Discussion/Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Todd H]

According to Marvel lore, only those who are worthy can lift the hammer. It really just means Thor and Odin; though various comics have let a select few others effect Mjolnir.


I believe Captain America lifted it once, and the Hulk was actually able to use his physical strength to lift the hammer (He is the only one to ever do so.)

Hulk's never lifted Mjiolnir in the comics. He did in one of the animated movies but those aren't considered canon. The only mortals to accomplish this in canon are Beta Ray Bill, Captain America, and Eric Masterson. Saw it again and 2D and wow what a difference. Much more enjoyable the second time.

 

[JonZ]

Actually, seeing the Hulk attempt to lift Mjolnir is one of the most wanted scenes from fanboys in the upcoming Avengers movie.


Concerning the discussion above, I always though the Allfather / King had power of the Asgarians abilites, so he would be able to increase,decrease, take away,etc the powers of whoever he wanted. I think it got a little confusing with where Thors power comes from because of the spell Odin put on Thor those years he was Don Blake. During Simonsons classic run, Beta Ray Bill defeated Thor and taking control of the hammer was immediately given Thors powers. After Bill showed his worth, Odin then transformed that spell to Bill, giving Bill his own hammer /transfiguration power. It was then that Thor stopped becoming Don Blake (that Im aware of, I had pretty much stopped reading Marvel Comics during the mid 80s).


Thors power doesnt come from Mjolnir, it comes from being the son of Odin (I agree the film might make this a bit confusing for those not in the know). Should be noted that movie Thor is SEVERLY depowered. I dont have a problem with that at all, but comic book Thor is one of the physically strongest guys in the Marvel Universe. As far as I can remember, only 3 other guys are in his league: Hercules, Hulk and Wonder Man.

 

[Brian Sheffield]

Originally Posted by Todd H

According to Marvel lore, only those who are worthy can lift the hammer. It really just means Thor and Odin; though various comics have let a select few others effect Mjolnir.


I believe Captain America lifted it once, and the Hulk was actually able to use his physical strength to lift the hammer (He is the only one to ever do so.)

Hulk's never lifted Mjiolnir in the comics. He did in one of the animated movies but those aren't considered canon. The only mortals to accomplish this in canon are Beta Ray Bill, Captain America, and Eric Masterson.

Saw it again and 2D and wow what a difference. Much more enjoyable the second time.[/QUOTE]


I must have been remembering the animated movie then, I do remember that being a cool moment. Like I said, I'm not a Thor expert, I wouldn't know comic canon from apocrypha. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Peter Rohlfs]

Jonz,

Odin's punishment of Thor is more strict than usually in the comics. He would from time to time take 1/2 Thor's power (taking away his belt will do that).

In the movie it is 100% and so Thor has the strength of a human of similar build. It is hard in the movie to judge his strength as a full Asgardian because he is fighting fellow Asgardians, Frost Giants or Destroyer. We should have a better feel for his strength in the Avengers movie.


Peter

 

[Tim Glover]

I liked Thor alot. And I have zero knowledge of Thor and really no knowledge of any of the Avenger characters except for Hulk. Most of that was from the hit TV show when I was a kid. So seeing this film without ANY pre-conceived notion or bias was good and probably bad considering from reading this thread I realize I may have missed some cool things that were in the film. Actually I did bring a somewhat negative bias as I have grown weary of all the recent comic book films since The Dark Knight. But Thor surprised me. Knew the reviews were solid and a big fan of Kenneth Branagh, so it pricked my interest.

Wouldn't mind seeing it again. Wanted a bit more time with Thor & Jane, but still they had good chemistry.

8.5/10

 

[Greg_S_H]

Was the big guy Thor tangled with in the government site supposed to be anybody? I was thinking maybe it was Luke Cage, but maybe it was just a big guy and nothing more.


Saw this today. Loved it. Darcy stole every scene in a good way.

 

[TravisR]

Darcy stole every scene in a good way.

Yeah, she did. I guess I was expecting a fairly serious affair since it's Thor and Kenneth Branagh is the director but I thought the movie had alot of good laughs in it. And Stan Lee's cameo actually made me laugh outloud since he delivers such an awesomely goofy line.

 

[Greg_S_H]

He was the guy in the pickup, right? He's usually easy to pick out, but redneck Stan Lee is something I never thought I'd see.


I think it was a good balance. Serious stuff up in Asgard, but really funny stuff in the fish-out-of-water segment. I laughed at that guy at the intersection who said, "Dumbass!"

 

[Patrick Sun]

JMS also had a cameo, he was the first guy to try and lift Mew-Mew on earth at its landing site.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun

JMS also had a cameo, he was the first guy to try and lift Mew-Mew on earth at its landing site.

Who's JMS?

 

[Patrick Sun]

J. Michael Straczynski - created Babylon 5 and Jeremiah, and recently did the story/screenplay for "Changeling". He got a writing credit for "Thor", and wrote a bunch of issues of Thor for Marvel Comics.


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0833089/

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Chuck Anstey wrote (post #190):

The God of Mischief is the preconceived notions I was talking about. Those are from real world legend and in those he is not an Ice Giant.

Well, he's not a true Asgardian, either, as, at the end of the world (Ragnarok, the so-called "twilight of the gods (reginn)"), he leads the giants (including his own offspring, the gigantic Fenriswolf and the Midgardormr ("Earth-dragon"), and the demons (like Surtr and Muspell) in battle to the death against the gods.


In any event, the whole Asgard-thing in this film seems to be a bad imitation of Greco-Roman imperial models of mythological kingship. Maybe that's true to the comics---I haven't read them since the mid-70's---but it's wholly unoriginal and really disappointing. Viking gods should be wearing animal skins and be seated on wooden furniture, not that gilded crap that's portrayed here. And Asgard is the home of the gods, and not million-man armies, as presented here. What a missed opportunity to portray something different, instead of the same old same-old (SoSo)! (And, by the way, all gods have some kind of "magical power". By definition, that's what makes them "gods".)


Also, superheroes without weaknesses are pretty uninteresting, in my book. No, 98-pound weakling alter ego Don Blake (to whose form the "mighty Thor" would always revert (in the early days of the comic), if separated from Mjollnir for more than a minute or two while on Earth)? (What next? Will Green Lantern have control over things that are yellow?) Sacrilege!

Well, I wanted to see this film, but they quickly snatched away the 2-D version. No three-D for me. I'll have to wait.

 

[Don Solosan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Bachmann

Viking gods should be wearing animal skins and be seated on wooden furniture, not that gilded crap that's portrayed here.

Where did you get the idea that they are "Viking gods"? As presented by the movie, they are a race of beings with highly advanced technology. They visited the Earth in the past and so inspired stories about gods -- but those stories are not true. So they're not wearing animal skins, they are not limited in number, and they have nothing to do with "Greco-Roman imperial models of mythological kinship."


Since you haven't seen the movie, you're imposing a lot of pre-conceived notions on it. What's the point of that?

 

[shirleyhan]

care about health,just form shoes,the best healthy choice is Nike,adidas,converse.
share some with you .

http://www.allshoesworld.com/production.asp?ArticleID=16600

http://www.allshoesworld.com/production.asp?ArticleID=17063

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Don Solosan wrote (post #208):

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Where did you get the idea that they are "Viking gods"? As presented by the movie, they are a race of beings with highly advanced technology. They visited the Earth in the past and so inspired stories about gods -- but those stories are not true. So they're not wearing animal skins, they are not limited in number, and they have nothing to do with "Greco-Roman imperial models of mythological kinship."[/COLOR]
[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Since you haven't seen the movie, you're imposing a lot of pre-conceived notions on it. What's the point of that?[/COLOR]

Oh, brother, here we go again!

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Since you haven't seen the movie, you're imposing a lot of pre-conceived notions on it.[/COLOR]

Wrong as ringworm! In today's commercial-movie mad-marketing environment, one can get a damned good idea of what almost any wide-release film is about, as well as picking up a good many of its details, without ever seeing the movie. Scene after scene floods the tv, the Internet, print media, etc., and/or is released at conventions of enthusiasts, etc. No way is my impression of this movie "preconceived". In fact, in today's market, one can't get away from the hype for these things without turning off and tuning out every single bit of media access, an almost impossible feat.

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]What's the point of that?[/COLOR]

It is very clear that you missed the whole point of the post.

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Where did you get the idea that they are "Viking gods"?[/COLOR]

Why, from the same source as Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, the ancient Norse themselves, whose cultural heritage has been exploited to make this movie and the comic books, on which it is based, possible. I can't think of a better or more legitimate source---or any other legitimate source at all, for that matter.

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)] As presented by the movie, . . . . .[/COLOR]

And therein lies the crux of the problem, which is what I said from the start. The Hollywood producers' --and I'm including Marvel Comics management under that rubric---decision to


(1) "demythologize" the source material,


and


[SIZE= 14px](2) to overlay tired Hollywood Greco-Roman sight-forms to their "new" cre[/SIZE]ätion.

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]. . . they are a race of beings with highly advanced technology. They visited the Earth in the past and so inspired stories about gods -- but those stories are not true.[/COLOR]

I did see the scene---repeatedly in preview trailers---where "Thor" explains to "Jane" that, where he comes from, what humans ("Westerners") call "science" and what humans (i.e., yet again, "Westerners") call "magic" are one and the same. And I call bull!!! on the whole thing.

Saying something is "science", just don't make it so. (Western) "science" is subject to meticulous examination and critique. "Magic" (of any kind) is not.


What's worse than the hackneyedness of this explanation---hey, Star Trek used it to explain the Greek "gods" ("Who Mourns for Adonais?") in the late '60s, so it's hardly new!---is the (seeming) underlying attitude of the producers:


"Hey, our target audiences are too hip and 'sophisticated' to be watching 'fantasy', let's throw in a little scientific mumbo-jumbo so we can market it as 'science-fiction action-adventure'. They'll eat it up!"


The "fact" is, superhero comics and movies are pure fantasy, no matter what razor-thin veneers of "science" their producers trot out to their technology-steeped (but mostly science-ignorant) mass target audiences. All this "they're too 'hip' to believe in gods"-stuff is a reïnforcement of the delusions of "sophistication" and knowledgeability already promoted within their target audiences from earliest training. Well, then, what is so wrong about (supposed) adults enjoying a good fantasy for what it is, rather than for what it is not?

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]. . . and they have nothing to do with "Greco-Roman imperial models of mythological kinship."[/COLOR]

That would be "kin[COLOR= rgb(255, 140, 0)]g[/COLOR]ship", not "kinship". Imperial thrones of gold set on high daises in massive marble-like halls? Bejewelled "royals" dressed in flowing robes and gold lamé? Palace guards uniformed, equipped, and arrayed like Centurion legions? Looks (stock-"Hollywood") Roman to me, and if you don't agree at all, it suggests to me you haven't seen very many "old" Hollywood movies with that setting. It certainly isn't ancient Nordic.

[COLOR= rgb(255, 0, 0)]. . . they are not limited in number, . . . .
[/COLOR]

"Asgard" is the home of the Æsir (plural of os (as, for instance, in the name Osgood), which is the main lexeme for 'god' in Old Scandinavian languages. The "gods" are limited in number, even though they have been joined by certain honored warriors (killed in battle) in Valhalla (which, in the texts, is, basically, a giant log cabin decked with wolf skins) in death. Odin, their king, is a (actually, the) god of war, (of (animalistic) battle fury (hence, his name), of hanged men, and of rotting corpses on the battlefield and at the gallows, which latter are sacred to him), and not a "peacemaker" by trade.


Again, the producer's decision to go standard and stock, rather than present something different and more interesting (even if it might "disappoint" rabid Marveldom).





P.S., anybody: Is Mimir mentioned anywhere in the story?

 

[Don Solosan]

"Oh, brother, here we go again!"


It still seems like you're faulting them for the movie you wanted them to make, rather than the movie they made. As far as I know, the comics were only loosely based on Nordic mythology, and the movie loosely based on the comics. Maybe you haven't seen many Hollywood movies, but that's the way it usually works. Live with it.

 

[TravisR]

^ No one could say "one can get a damned good idea of what almost any wide-release film is about, as well as picking up a good many of its details, without ever seeing the movie" and seriously mean it. The post is just satire (and very funny satire at that).

 

[JonZ]

Ah... forget it.

 

[Don Solosan]

Travis, satire or not, you can also pick up a lot of misinformation about a movie without seeing it. Trailers can be misleading, include scenes that aren't in the final film, people who talk about a movie with a skewed agenda...

 

[mattCR]

 

Chuck Anstey wrote (post #190):

 

 

 

Well, he's not a true Asgardian, either, as, at the end of the world (Ragnarok, the so-called "twilight of the gods (reginn)"), he leads the giants (including his own offspring, the gigantic Fenriswolf and the Midgardormr ("Earth-dragon"), and the demons (like Surtr and Muspell) in battle to the death against the gods.

 

In any event, the whole Asgard-thing in this film seems to be a bad imitation of Greco-Roman imperial models of mythological kingship.  Maybe that's true to the comics---I haven't read them since the mid-70's---but it's wholly unoriginal and really disappointing.  Viking gods should be wearing animal skins and be seated on wooden furniture, not that gilded crap that's portrayed here.  And Asgard is the home of the gods, and not million-man armies, as presented here.  What a missed opportunity to portray something different, instead of the same old same-old (SoSo)! (And, by the way, all gods have some kind of "magical power".  By definition, that's what makes them "gods".)

 

Also, superheroes without weaknesses are pretty uninteresting, in my book.  No, 98-pound weakling alter ego Don Blake (to whose form the "mighty Thor" would always revert (in the early days of the comic), if separated from Mjollnir for more than a minute or two while on Earth)?  (What next? Will Green Lantern have control over things that are yellow?) Sacrilege! 

 

Well, I wanted to see this film, but they quickly snatched away the 2-D version.  No three-D for me.  I'll have to wait.

Well, just a few things: (1) They weren't at any point on wooden furniture; I watched this again and I never saw this happen; there were plenty of stone looking furnishings and big halls, but as far as technologically advanced, they definitely seemed to be way out there; forming instant portals to other worlds, devices to cloak themselves, etc. Talk of vast ships, etc. (2) Having seen it twice, any inferrance they are wearing animal skins is kind of.. well, it's in the mind of the audience member, because it is never said as such in the movie, and the outfits they wear, while probably some leather looked far more fashioned after a set style rather then some guys in huts. (3) I think playing with ancient tropes and mythos happens everywhere. Are the asgardians in this say,Grey aliens ala StarGate? Are they fire breathing monsters from the center of earth ala Gathuan? Who knows. Everyone can play with a mythos however they want. It's kind of a bit like Percy Jackson and the Olympians, or whatever.. I don't get all strung out about how someone appropriates fictional deities. (4) Why would it ever be "ancient Nordic" ? Even if the mythos originated there, the Asgardians in the film clearly did not. It would be a bit like me saying "I can't believe they gave these gods a vast city structure where roads are somehow built on fiberoptic light rail technology! The ancient Norse didn't have that! I get that you don't like the film (though you haven't seen it). I also find that even if they had done it EXACTLY as 1000 films did before (which they didn't, but let's say) but they did it well, then it was worth the effort