My Problems with the Thor Movie (Possible Spoilers)

#1 Posted by xMattxxrT (20 posts) - - Show Bio

I know this might seem picky and i understand why they made the changes they did but some just didn't make sense, from a comic point of view.
The main problem is the origin, it didn't follow the origin that stan wrote. Donald Blake, who's a lame medical physicist ( or something along those lines) goes into a cave and finds a cane which when he hit's a rock with he transforms into Thor! Not what was betrayed in to Movie, on earth he IS Thor...without his powers, he's not a doctor.
2ndly If Thor is without his hammer for more than 60 seconds he turns back into Donald. In the movie he doesn't have his hammer for a majority of the time so he shouldn't be or look like Thor.
Also Jane Foster is Donald's nurse in his practice, but in the Movie she a scientist and doesn't even work for Donald because he isn't even in it, the names used but it doesn't mean it's him.
I can fully understand why they made the changes but it's not really subtle ones, they are quite big to the Origin.
Comment telling me what you think.

#2 Posted by vidarrodinson (137 posts) - - Show Bio

I understand where you're coming from.  But you got to realize  the studio got to spin.  Would you want to see the invaders from Saturn?  The Destroyer scares me to death.  They made the right choice and a good business decision.
#3 Posted by xMattxxrT (20 posts) - - Show Bio

they could have just twisted it to have to frost giants replace the invaders from Saturn, that would have made it similar, i fully agree with you, i loved the movie but i reread the earlier comics to refresh me but it just disappointed me, still it's the best marvel flick in years...in my opinion

#4 Edited by allison_scag (41 posts) - - Show Bio

Studios often do changes to origins, and other minor character in already established stories to provide a new fresh take on the character for both newcomers, and fans familiar with the material. Also I can't 100% be sure, but I often believe that changes are made to the stories to avoid copyright; yes I know studios are given the right by the big names, but Its often on the basis to use the characters, not necessarily stories made by writers in their company. Anyway this is Allison Scagliotti signing off.
----------------------
Btw be sure to show your support for me as Cassie Hack in the upcoming Hack/Slash film in whatever way possible whether its blogging,forming a facebook group, or  following allisonscag4Cassie on twitter. Rock on dudes and have a good night.

#5 Posted by ssejllenrad (12847 posts) - - Show Bio

Would you rather have a pathetic teen version of Thor? *cough* Smallville *cough* Hehehehe!

I see your points and though I understand where your points, I have to partially disagree. Staying true with the comics is always a must with these films and for us comic fans, deviating from it comes close to unforgivable. But as vidarr has said, they needed to change things from a businessman's point of view. It wouldn't really be marketable to the modern audiences if they did the down to earth man that changes to a powerful god by striking a stick. Know that audiences today are shallow and beefiness trumps depth and basis-loyalty almost all the time.

Still, the movie was great!

#6 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

#7 Posted by SC (13110 posts) - - Show Bio

Really the spirit of reinvention for a modern era and audience makes these changes almost vital and in keeping with the spirit of why and how Marvel Thor was created. I am one of the nerdiest Thor fans around having read almost every issue he has been in. I would have had more and bigger problems if they didn't make these changes. Stan and King Kirby and Larry Lieber reinvented Thor the character, and made changes to him so people of that era could better grasp and enjoy the character. This movie does the exact same thing. Marvel's Thor would not be around if accuracy was considered the most important aspect of the character. 


As someone who appreciates source material and accuracy I can understand where you are coming from, but still, I have to disagree that this is a general problem or negative the changes made. I view this more as a positive. 
Moderator
#8 Posted by ComicMan24 (147091 posts) - - Show Bio

I saw the movie and I didn't mind the changes. Staying true to the comics isn't always such a good thing.

#9 Posted by SC (13110 posts) - - Show Bio
@allison_scag said:
" Studios often do changes to origins, and other minor character in already established stories to provide a new fresh take on the character for both newcomers, and fans familiar with the material. Also I can't 100% be sure, but I often believe that changes are made to the stories to avoid copyright; yes I know studios are given the right by the big names, but Its often on the basis to use the characters, not necessarily stories made by writers in their company. Anyway this is Allison Scagliotti signing off.----------------------Btw be sure to show your support for me as Cassie Hack in the upcoming Hack/Slash film in whatever way possible whether its blogging,forming a facebook group, or  following allisonscag4Cassie on twitter. Rock on dudes and have a good night. "

Woah wait, there is going to be a Hack/Slash movie? Yeeeeesssssssss! *glee* 

Good luck! 
Moderator
#10 Posted by SC (13110 posts) - - Show Bio
@ComicMan24 said:
" I saw the movie and I didn't mind the changes. Staying true to the comics isn't always such a good thing. "

Indeed. 

Well except for Howard the Duck. Yikes. 
Moderator
#11 Posted by ComicMan24 (147091 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: I actually liked that movie. And apparently I am the only one lol
#12 Posted by SC (13110 posts) - - Show Bio
@ComicMan24 said:
" @SC: I actually liked that movie. And apparently I am the only one lol "

Yes, not even the people that made it , and starred in it liked it lol. You are a snowflake =p

(I liked it too, sorta) 
Moderator
#13 Posted by ComicMan24 (147091 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: But I am a pretty snowflake :P
#14 Posted by xMattxxrT (20 posts) - - Show Bio

when i mean changes this is what i mean...
Spiderman is peter parker
Hulk is bruce banner
Captain America is steve rodgers
they didnt change who they are but with Thor he is never actually donald blake, see what i mean? thats the main issue

#15 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (7846 posts) - - Show Bio

Donald Blake has always been a horrible idea anyways.

#16 Posted by xMattxxrT (20 posts) - - Show Bio

True True, i do belive it's an aweful idea, and after this discussion i have come to respect thier dissision more for changing the origin, it's still a very good movie and you US guy's will have a blast on the 6th :D

#17 Edited by weaponmaster (1412 posts) - - Show Bio

They did the right thing by getting rid of the Donald Blake persona altogether. It would have been cheesy and dated.
#18 Posted by Deadcool (6810 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt said:
"Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done. "



...

 

I like Donald Blake, during JMS run and some Stan Lee and Kirby's issues, Blake was awesome,  just SOME writers can't use him properly, but he is the cool thing from Thor, that is what makes him Marvel's and not just a God that taked directly from the norse mythology, the idea of a god learning humility  as a lame doctor is a cool idea, I just like that, for me is the best thing in the character.

 

The movie sould have used the Doc Donald Blake, but it could have been longer, that is why I think they didn't used him (or maybe they wanted more muscles in the movie just like Ultimate, the movie was a combination of some aspects of 616 and 1610 and also its own).

 

Note: You always tend to post your opinion like a fact, but you have to learn that sometines someone doesn't share your point of view.

#19 Posted by xMattxxrT (20 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool:  I'm with you on this, i fully agree with this point of view
#20 Posted by stonemonkeylives (2 posts) - - Show Bio

I have to admit I only really got into Thor through the Ultimates.  I never really read any older issues of Thor so I never really got to know Donald Blake, so me it wasn't a major loss.  Don't get me wrong I got the reference, and to some extent they did make use of the Donald Blake persona.  All in all I really enjoyed the film, so much so I've seen it 3 times now, but if I did any gripe with the film was that some of the customes, especially Thor's looked a bit plastic-y, but that is just a minor issue for me.

#21 Posted by Deadcool (6810 posts) - - Show Bio
@xMattxxrT said:
" @Deadcool:  I'm with you on this, i fully agree with this point of view "

Thanks
#22 Posted by Slinger (7640 posts) - - Show Bio

Blake is one of my favorite parts of the Thor franchise, I was disappointed that he didn't have a role in the movie. I always thought that Blake lent a lot to Thor's struggle to relate to humanity.

#23 Posted by LetoWeapon (3 posts) - - Show Bio

The gimmick of Thor turning back into Donald Blake after 60 seconds without Mjolnir was never utilized well in the early comics, rarely mentioned later, and then discarded. It was always cheap drama like Spider-Man running out of webfluid. The actual quality stories by Stan and Jack  were almost always with Thor interacting with the other gods. In fact the basis for both the film and loosely for Ultimate Thor is the story from Thor issue #145, "Abandoned on Earth!" The film needed to be about Thor as Thor. Amnesia has been used too often in other films and the mystery of Donald Blake not actually having a past would not have wowed modern audiences and would have distracted from the plot rather than enhance it. There have been roughly four or five different eras in the comic of Thor as a character, and the film masterfully blends them.

#24 Posted by PowerHerc (84031 posts) - - Show Bio
@xMattxxrT:
I see your point.
#25 Posted by mewmdude77 (993 posts) - - Show Bio
@Deadcool said:
" @FadeToBlackBolt said:
"Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done. "



...

 

I like Donald Blake, during JMS run and some Stan Lee and Kirby's issues, Blake was awesome,  just SOME writers can't use him properly, but he is the cool thing from Thor, that is what makes him Marvel's and not just a God that taked directly from the norse mythology, the idea of a god learning humility  as a lame doctor is a cool idea, I just like that, for me is the best thing in the character.

 

The movie sould have used the Doc Donald Blake, but it could have been longer, that is why I think they didn't used him (or maybe they wanted more muscles in the movie just like Ultimate, the movie was a combination of some aspects of 616 and 1610 and also its own).

 

Note: You always tend to post your opinion like a fact, but you have to learn that sometines someone doesn't share your point of view.


I agree with you!! I missed Dr. Donald Blake!! He gave more of a connection to Earth instead of just loving Jane Foster. Being Donald Blake gave Thor humility and it made him a better character. I think Marvel just wanted to show him shirtless as many times as they possibly could. I also don't like how Odinsleep was used and how the frost giants were so small.
 
Was anyone else suprised that instead of putting the guest avenger apperance in the middle of the movie instead of the movie instead of at the very end. I won't say who, but it makes sense with the flashy characters being in the Marvel movies. 

Overall: I give the Thor movie a B-.
#26 Posted by Deadcool (6810 posts) - - Show Bio
@mewmdude77 said:
I agree with you!!."


Thanks
#27 Posted by War Killer (20207 posts) - - Show Bio

Well personally I hate the whole alter ego of Blake for Thor, I always liked how he was portrayed in the Ultimate Universe where he has no secret identity and just wears normal clothing when he's not saving the world. So I wasn't bothered by that.

In the movie, Thor wasn't placed in Blake's body, they just used the name of one of Jane's ex's as a cover name for him to use, I doubt will see it in later films though. And because he was only Thor in the movie, the whole thing about the hammer being out his hand is irrelevant to the movie. as for Jane, I didn't care much for her character to be bothered by the change, personally I liked it.

Overall I loved all of the changes they made, it was all understandable and made sense to not only us comic book readers, but to the general audience as well, and best of all, this is the first comic book movie that is close to the actually comic book that it's scary xD

#28 Posted by taqs (44 posts) - - Show Bio

What we need to realise is that the movies are a totally different universe and will always have changed big or small. Its the same with the X-Men movies. The comics are one but the movies follow a different canon. Everyone needs to stop hating that fact that the movies are not the exact same. Don't be bias because there are differences, rather give the movie a try and if it’s bad then let it be bad but don't let it be bad because you don't like all the changes, it’s a little petty. 

#29 Posted by Deadcool (6810 posts) - - Show Bio
@War Killer said:
"and best of all, this is the first comic book movie that is close to the actually comic book that it's scary xD "

What about Iron Man?
#30 Posted by Vitality (1764 posts) - - Show Bio
@xMattxxrT said:
"

                    I know this might seem picky and i understand why they made the changes they did but some just didn't make sense, from a comic point of view.The main problem is the origin, it didn't follow the origin that stan wrote. Donald Blake, who's a lame medical physicist ( or something along those lines) goes into a cave and finds a cane which when he hit's a rock with he transforms into Thor! Not what was betrayed in to Movie, on earth he IS Thor...without his powers, he's not a doctor.2ndly If Thor is without his hammer for more than 60 seconds he turns back into Donald. In the movie he doesn't have his hammer for a majority of the time so he shouldn't be or look like Thor.Also Jane Foster is Donald's nurse in his practice, but in the Movie she a scientist and doesn't even work for Donald because he isn't even in it, the names used but it doesn't mean it's him.I can fully understand why they made the changes but it's not really subtle ones, they are quite big to the Origin.Comment telling me what you think.

                   

                "

Although I do not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.
#31 Posted by goldenshot80 (7349 posts) - - Show Bio
@ssejllenrad said:
" Would you rather have a pathetic teen version of Thor? *cough* Smallville *cough* Hehehehe!I see your points and though I understand where your points, I have to partially disagree. Staying true with the comics is always a must with these films and for us comic fans, deviating from it comes close to unforgivable. But as vidarr has said, they needed to change things from a businessman's point of view. It wouldn't really be marketable to the modern audiences if they did the down to earth man that changes to a powerful god by striking a stick. Know that audiences today are shallow and beefiness trumps depth and basis-loyalty almost all the time.Still, the movie was great! "
#32 Posted by Kairan1979 (16746 posts) - - Show Bio

My biggest problem in the movie wasn't Thor/Don Blake. The problem was was Jane Foster.
As a doctor she could teach Thor about the value of human life and what the war means for the regular people. That could make him understand his mistakes and become worthly of Mjollnir. Instead we see the "scientist" (who looks just as "convincing" as a scientist as Denise Richards). And I don't think I'm the only on who wished movieverse Thor to end with Sif instead..

#33 Edited by xMattxxrT (20 posts) - - Show Bio

It's just they have an origin maybe several to choose from and yet it's obvious they have employed someone to write an original origin? why bother, they could have spent the money on something else. But i do have to credit them, good job on making the rainbow bridge not as F&CKING CAMP as the comics :D

#34 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

Overall, I don't mind tweaks to character's back stories during the movie conversion. To be honest, the comicbook origins are generally hokey and kind of lame, and trying to base these characters in the real world with believable biographies works better for me than some of the real origins. I know I'll probably be crucified for this, but Thor doesn't really need to be Donald Blake in this movie, nor did he need a cane, nor did Jane necessarily have to have the same personality she had in the comic. This is definitely one of those movies that I expected to be over the top with the nonsense factor and I was pleasantly surprised that they kept what they did, updated what they could and kept to the spirit of the Kirby illustrations. 

#35 Posted by The_Thunderer (2894 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

Yes.Thor is a God, he shouldn't have/need an alter ego

@Deadcool said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:
"Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done. "

...

I like Donald Blake, during JMS run and some Stan Lee and Kirby's issues, Blake was awesome, just SOME writers can't use him properly, but he is the cool thing from Thor, that is what makes him Marvel's and not just a God that taked directly from the norse mythology, the idea of a god learning humility as a lame doctor is a cool idea, I just like that, for me is the best thing in the character.

The movie sould have used the Doc Donald Blake, but it could have been longer, that is why I think they didn't used him (or maybe they wanted more muscles in the movie just like Ultimate, the movie was a combination of some aspects of 616 and 1610 and also its own).

Note: You always tend to post your opinion like a fact, but you have to learn that sometines someone doesn't share your point of view.

This is also true.

@ComicMan24 said:

I saw the movie and I didn't mind the changes. Staying true to the comics isn't always such a good thing.

I'm with you.

#36 Posted by Tyrus (1100 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: Donald Blake is like transforming into Shazam pretty much...

#37 Posted by CataractComics (4 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

This.

I hate people say I'm not a true Thor fan because I don't like Donald Blake. That guy freaking sucks. Thor is bad ass because he is Thor, not a human being.

#38 Posted by Pyrogram (38442 posts) - - Show Bio

@CataractComics said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

This.

I hate people say I'm not a true Thor fan because I don't like Donald Blake. That guy freaking sucks. Thor is bad ass because he is Thor, not a human being.

Agreed, I have re-read the orinigals and I hated on Donald Blake

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.