THOR: Grading, Discussion, Review **SPOILERS***

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Roger is awesome.

He is, indeed.

Parenthetically, he was an sf fan and active in fandom as a youngster; I suspect that if he's particularly frustrated by the nonsensical noisemaking occasioned by his giving Thor a fair and good humored review it's partly because he understands the mentality of the self-professed aficionado too well.

What's a realm? Are the nine realms different parts of this universe? Or are they nine different parallel dimensional planes?

As far as I could fathom, the movie doesn't really say...

Now call me a fucking idiot. Slug me right on the chin.

Of course not. It's folks who think that such trivia bears on the quality of a story who are "fucking idiots." It was enough, for me, that Thor's explanation to Jane occasioned using the myth of the "world tree" in a charmingly allegorical fashion. That was visually clever - "neato," as you say.

 

[Captain Craig]

What's a realm?

Really? You needed a basic term from middle school spelled out for you?

Are the nine realms different parts of this universe? Or are they nine different parallel dimensional planes?

Your either over thinking it or being antagonistic for the sake of it, can't decide which yet.

 

[Thestral]

Well either way, it's pretty obvious Asgard and Jotunheim aren't the same planet, whether in the same universe or in parallel dimensions. The specifics don't matter, but missing something that obvious is strange for somebody as smart as Ebert.

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

What's a realm?

Really? You needed a basic term from middle school spelled out for you?

Are the nine realms different parts of this universe? Or are they nine different parallel dimensional planes?

Your either over thinking it or being antagonistic for the sake of it, can't decide which yet.

I dunno sounds like a legitimate question to me.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

What's a realm?

Really? You needed a basic term from middle school spelled out for you?

Are the nine realms different parts of this universe? Or are they nine different parallel dimensional planes?

Your either over thinking it or being antagonistic for the sake of it, can't decide which yet.

I dunno sounds like a legitimate question to me.

Indeed, even the link which Captain Craig uses provides three separate, overlapping but extremely general definitions for the term - and other dictionaries include other variant descriptions as well.

Well either way, it's pretty obvious Asgard and Jotunheim aren't the same planet, whether in the same universe or in parallel dimensions. The specifics don't matter, but missing something that obvious is strange for somebody as smart as Ebert.

Is it really? Because certainly Antarctica and Los Angeles don't exist on the same planet or in the same realm - right?

It doesn't appear that Ebert is really confused by much of this - one point he's making is that a lot of nonsense and poobah is thrown at the viewer of this movie as if it's somehow significant to understanding the story, when at most it cloaks the generally underthought nature of the proceedings. But the screenwriters are pretty much stuck with the backstory and patchwork, trivial mythology of the comics - no one in management would have approved throwing out or ignoring it any more than the writers of the Harry Potter movies would be permitted to whip that stuff into proper screen narrative for fear of offending the deep-dyed fandom.

 

[Thestral]

Well either way, it's pretty obvious Asgard and Jotunheim aren't the same planet, whether in the same universe or in parallel dimensions. The specifics don't matter, but missing something that obvious is strange for somebody as smart as Ebert.

Is it really? Because certainly Antarctica and Los Angeles don't exist on the same planet or in the same realm - right?

Except we see multiple establishing shots of both Asgard and Jotunheim from space (Jotunheim is dark and... bluey, Asgard isn't), and we see Bifrost coming from outer space down onto Jotunheim. There's a legitimate point to be made about single-environment planets, but they're clearly different.

It doesn't appear that Ebert is really confused by much of this - one point he's making is that a lot of nonsense and poobah is thrown at the viewer of this movie as if it's somehow significant to understanding the thing, when at most it cloaks the generally underthought nature of the proceedings.

See, I don't get the complaint about it being underthought. It wasn't trying to be Shakespeare, it was a reasonably straightforward tale that was well-executed.

 

[Captain Craig]

What's a realm?

Really? You needed a basic term from middle school spelled out for you?

Are the nine realms different parts of this universe? Or are they nine different parallel dimensional planes?

Your either over thinking it or being antagonistic for the sake of it, can't decide which yet.

I dunno sounds like a legitimate question to me.

Sounds to me like overthinking?
Imagery shows Asgard is one place, it shows Jotunheim as another separate planet (or sphere, for the realm definition provided, but they are both kingdoms as well). Thor's sketching to Jane shows them as clearly not being the "same planet" in this case.

How that is complicated to reconcile just baffles me?
I hope there are no complicated historical moments to reconcile or accept as fictional liberties in Captain America cause based on just understanding what and where a "realm" is in THOR has me concerned. Same for X-Men:FC and god WB better keep the space stuff simple in Green Lantern.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It wasn't trying to be Shakespeare...

It could have tried harder to be a movie.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I don't know if I would go that far of praise for Hiddleston...he's not the be all and end of all the film but yes he does have a very strong presence in the movie

Exactly. Loki/Hiddleston was one of my favorite parts of the movie - actually, the best thing about it - but his admirable performance doesn't bring this piece of fluff anywhere near being a "must-see" of any kind.

Aren't you spending an awful lot of time talking about a 'piece of fluff'?

 

[Thestral]

It wasn't trying to be Shakespeare...

It could have tried harder to be a movie.

<shrug> To each their own I guess.

 

[Captain Craig]

THOR 2 rumors have begun.

The source is ComicBookMovie.com so that means keep the salt handy. Honestly, don't fans of Thor expect Amora The Enchantress to show up eventually in any long term THOR saga? So, it's not like Marvel doesn't know this, maybe some minutia of truth to it.

Our source tells us that while the Thor 2 project is still in very early stages and they don’t expect to start actually writing the script until the end of the year, internally producers are kicking around possible villains. In contention to face off against Thor are two characters named The Enchantress and The Executioner.

Amora the Enchantress
Skurge The Executioner

 

[Shazam!]

Enchantress would be great.

They could pretty much just make this:

In her first appearance, she attempted to eliminate Thor's love interest in order to have the thunder god for herself. From her first appearance, she was assisted by a powerful minion — Skurge, the Executioner. The Executioner loved the Enchantress, but she merely kept stringing him along with her feminine wiles, using him as her muscle. She aided Loki by attempting to seduce Thor in his Don Blake identity, and by sending the Executioner to kill Jane Foster, but despite exiling her to another dimension Thor was able to bring her back.[1]

 

[nickyboy]

Great movie, awesome effects and score - ANOTHER!

 

[DarthPipes]

Enchantress would be a logical choice but isn't she almost like a female Loki? Someone to trick Thor. I'd love to see who they cast though. Probably another actress that people think is hot but really isn't.

I'd love a Beta Ray Bill appearance myself.

 

[coolghoul]

One of the other best things to come of this film: Roger Ebert's not-mea culpa after being attacked by horsed of outraged fans over his negative review of Thor.

A movie must contain whatever the audience requires in order to enjoy it. It's not required to be "faithful" to its source, as if adaptation were adultery. After my "Thor" review hit the fan, I was pummeled by outraged comments. A large number cited factual inaccuracies and speculated that I had not seen the movie at all. Some stated that as a fact. One called for me to be fired. Of course I saw the movie. I haven't spent 44 years at this to start making things up now. I might indeed question how many other movies some of my correspondents have seen, since they confused "Thor" with a good film.

...
Obviously my mistake was to get into the plot at all. One of my weaknesses is to play with the logic of preposterous movies like this. I consider that an amusing exercise, to be read as entertainment and not taken so damned seriously. It even crossed my mind to do a paragraph about the difficulties of agriculture in the sub-zero kingdom of Jotunheim, speculating that perhaps the Frost Giants raised herds of the kinds of microscopic creatures science has found living under the Antarctic ice shelf. I'm glad that I didn't, because somehow I know the flora and fauna of Jotunheim have been exhaustively explained in the comic books.

Rest of it is here.

Roger is awesome.

I would have called Roger awesome, if with that followup, he had asked the suntimes not to put up so many Conan comic-book covers throughout the article. I mean his whole point is that the movie shouldn't have to borrow from the comic-source and then he puts up so many comic covers to sell his article!! How can that be cool!?!

(And I really didn't have a problem with him hating the movie or his review. Hey - not everybody is going to find the movie likeable. And some of his views I agree with to a much smaller degree of vehemence).

Also - is he deliberately making soooo many assumptions and saying that the comic-source material must be referred to for the stuff that he couldn't figure out in the movie (Asgard is a planet) to prove a point - that the movie actually took significant departures from "standard" comic-book Thor history? (Cos last I checked Asgard is NOT a planet in Marvel but that's the implication in the movie).

Also - I am not sure that Asgard is a planet in the movie either. The panning shot actually goes to the bottom of Asgard and then moves up to the surface.

 

[Anwar]

If they go for the Enchantress, I say cast Alice Eve. She looks enough like Amora she could pull it off.

The Executioner, maybe the guy who plays the Hound in Game of Thrones.

 

[Dream]

They'll probably use Loki again for Thor 2 if it happens, and there will also be another villain like how Superman II used both Lex and Zod. Loki is Thor's most popular villain and it would be a mistake not to bring him back.

 

[Thestral]

Well Loki and Amora team up pretty naturally anyway, so that could work just fine with the Executioner just being muscle. Throw in Amora's wanting Thor for herself and maybe Odin not really approving of his son getting too friendly with a mortal woman, and you've got a fairly decent beginning. Throw in Sif pining for Thor if you want to make it really turgid.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I'm actually a little surprised that they didn't play up the Sif/Thor relationship a little more in "Thor". There was a bit of it in the movie but not much. I assume that it was excluded due to time constraints. I did like the scene at the end of the movie where Sif shares a scene with Frigga...I got the sense that Frigga gets that Sif has feelings for Thor that he doesn't share for her yet.

 

[timothy]

sif/thor relationship does'nt heat up for a while he still has the hot for earth girls.
I know he's getting it on with sif in his new comic. that was one of the best casting jobs on a superheroe movie in a while saw a second time yesterday in 3d imax it was worth 16 bucks for a day time movie.