You're about 3 years older than my oldest child.
Lack of Dr. Blake in Thor Film
- Thread starter Reynolds
- Start date
OMG, my mind is blown!
Well, at least I can go enjoy that movie with Bruce Willis trying to help that kid who claims to see "ghosts".
You do realize, don't you, that Bruce's character is actually... err, never mind.
Meh. Drop in the bucket. Barry Allen, Ollie Queen and Hal Jordan were dead most of that time. But everything is being set to rights. The classics simply won't be denied.
I'm still plotting the death of Valeria Richards.
That aspect, so it seems. And yet, the Asgard stuff seems to be right out of Kirby.
They only have so long to tell a story. And this particular story has a LOT of fantastical elements to balance and explain to the audience. While it couldn't be done, adding in the extra layer of the Blake identity might make the film too cumbersome for whatever story it is trying to tell.
However, if Blake doesn't make any sort of appearance in the film, they can always bring that element in a sequel.
However, if Blake doesn't make any sort of appearance in the film, they can always bring that element in a sequel.
Yeah, Don Blake sucked.
I like the Ultimates 1-2 Thor (messiah, mental patient, or what?) better myself. He was my favorite version of Thor.
That is so what they should have done with the movie, but while shades of it may be present, I expect that it won't be there. I'm still looking forward to it because Kenneth Branagh is unimpeachably great.
%^&&%*&@%@%^#^^#
hate
I like the Ultimates 1-2 Thor (messiah, mental patient, or what?) better myself. He was my favorite version of Thor.
That is so what they should have done with the movie, but while shades of it may be present, I expect that it won't be there. I'm still looking forward to it because Kenneth Branagh is unimpeachably great.
A beaker full of death said:
%^&&%*&@%@%^#^^#
hate
Honestly, I'm surprised to hear they brought him back. As "secret identities" go, I never thought of Don Blake as particularly iconic or essential to the character. The series may have begun as a riff on Captain Marvel, with an ordinary guy periodically transforming into a thunder god, but the series quickly evolved beyond that as Lee and Kirby seemed to lose interest in Blake and concentrate more on Asgardian fantasy and spectacle.
Peter Parker and Bruce Banner are memorable characters. "Don Blake" is more a footnote.
Peter Parker and Bruce Banner are memorable characters. "Don Blake" is more a footnote.
I agree wholeheartedly. Reading older Thor comics, it feels like no one cared about the Donald Blake persona, and only kept it along for years out a sense of obligation.
That's my personal recollection at least. As a kid, I cared about Peter Parker's personal problems, and the Fantastic Four's family squabbles, but the stuff with Don Blake and Jane Foster was just boring "Dr. Kildare" soap operatics you skipped past to get to the Frost Giants and Norn Queens . . . .
Yeah that's just what my generation wants to see the guys they read about being replaced by the guys they replaced to make a bunch of people with one foot in the grave happy.
^^ more likely, especially in Hal and Barry's cases, bringing them back was mandated by WB films division. They can't have Flash (development is stalled, but still progressing) and GL movies come out featuring one character, and have the character in the comics not the same person. Ollie wasn't dead THAT long (what, 5 years in the mid-90's?), so I really don't consider that a retcon.
^ These guys have an iconic mythos. They can be messed with for a while - even a long while - but ultimately those are mere temporary deviations. Nobody really thought Steve Rogers would stay dead - and he'll be carrying that shield again momentarily.
Supes should be unmarried any day now. I can't wait.
Oh, and for those keeping track, I also predicted the returns of Barry, Hal, and Spidey's single status.
Supes should be unmarried any day now. I can't wait.
Oh, and for those keeping track, I also predicted the returns of Barry, Hal, and Spidey's single status.
You presume that what your generation wants is relevant. Presumes facts not in evidence.
My generation had respect for what came before. That's why the golden age heroes are still around, pretty much exactly like they were in my father's time, and going strong.
If we have one foot in the grave, I'll give you one guess where we're gonna put the other foot.
You presume that what your generation wants is relevant. Presumes facts not in evidence.
In your mouth, apparently. Certainly the insinuation that you can intimidate or muscle younger folks who disagree with your tastes is a non-starter.
The notion that what older folks - we in our forties, fifties, sixties and so on - desire and find interesting is "relevant" to decision-making in the popular arts to anything like the degree that the demands and interests of younger people are is itself almost hysterically self-deceiving and foolish. Your triumphal noisemaking on this point is vapid, blind and deaf to any honest observation of the world that actually exists.
You don't get to speak for "your" generation anyway - only for yourself. Some folks here are actually older than you and have demonstrably better memories, without being quite so closed to new experience.
None of that constitutes an insult, BTW; it's all observable fact.
Last edited:
Thor has to have some connection to humanity, some experience of life as a relatively frail being with no special powers.
Donald Blake is the original incarnation of that aspect of the character, but it's been handled in a lot of different ways over the years, to the point that, imo, Blake himself is not that crucial, as long as the mortal connection is included in some way.
JMS went back to Blake when he relaunched the title, which was, I think, a big part of what made that series work so well. Thor gets a lot less interesting when the human side of the character is neglected entirely in favor of the mythological/cosmic side. That can be tempting, and it can produce some cool stuff, but the character can end up getting shortchanged as a result.
Simonson got rid of the Blake persona in the eighties, which had indeed become a sort of useless appendage by that time. His Thor was in certain ways closer to the mythological Thor, and less like a conventional superhero, but even Simonson kept the human element involved. It was just handled differently, without the alter-ego.
Donald Blake is the original incarnation of that aspect of the character, but it's been handled in a lot of different ways over the years, to the point that, imo, Blake himself is not that crucial, as long as the mortal connection is included in some way.
JMS went back to Blake when he relaunched the title, which was, I think, a big part of what made that series work so well. Thor gets a lot less interesting when the human side of the character is neglected entirely in favor of the mythological/cosmic side. That can be tempting, and it can produce some cool stuff, but the character can end up getting shortchanged as a result.
Simonson got rid of the Blake persona in the eighties, which had indeed become a sort of useless appendage by that time. His Thor was in certain ways closer to the mythological Thor, and less like a conventional superhero, but even Simonson kept the human element involved. It was just handled differently, without the alter-ego.
I thought the Thor graphic novel in the '80s, "I Whom the Gods Would Destroy", gave a lot of insight into Thor's humanity. It was unique in that there were no super-villains and almost no action scenes. The art was kind of limp, though.
Plus it's our generation, our nostalgia & lets face it, disposable income (now that our kids have grown up, school fees, orthodontic fees etc are finished) that is driving a lot of this.
So get back in your box, you young whipper-snapper!
