Comments on: Mjolnir’s mythic momentum

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:54:44 +0000

I understand that more when it’s Wolverine, directed by… who? But somebody like Kenneth Branagh… I mean, in my head, next on his agenda was either Twelfth Night or, hmm, let’s see, what’s this? Thor? Like, clearly he saw something in Thor. I just don’t know what.

(Unless it’s Taylor’s argument above about a sort of antihero for our age — one who is mystical, not technological.)

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:53:07 +0000

Well, you know, at least there’s an argument there; I am now 10% more excited to see Kenneth Branagh’s Thor.

By: Zack

Zack — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:54:02 +0000

It is about building up the Avengers movie, which (and not to get too inside/geeky here, but) I think could be pretty interesting. I mean, you look at the universe inhabited by Tony Stark and there is absolutely no room for Norse Mythology. Iron Man is innovation for the greater good. It's based in a scientific realm that couldn't be further than the mythical world we'll see in the Thor movie. How the director melds the scientific with the mythical, to me, will be the most interesting aspect of the Avengers. Unless Thor is as bad Robin imagines. Then I'll just stay home.

By: Judi

Judi — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:48:41 +0000

Only if he’s played by Vincent D’Onfrio. Again.

By: kevin.

kevin. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:46:36 +0000

That is correct sir — first they do the individual team members, then they put them into a movie together.

By: kevin.

kevin. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:45:32 +0000

I like Thor, but more from his Norse mythology roots than the comic book character. He does have a nice hammer though, and he can command lightning bolts.

@Howard — Sure Wolverine and Thor are both comic book movies, but Wolverine is a perfect illustration of a successful comic book movie — everybody likes Wolverine, so people watch it even if it’s bad, and it’ll make a bajillion dollars. or $85M on opening weekend.
I doubt Thor will do that well, nobody really knows who he is, other than those people who can actually name Ant-man and the Submariner.

By: Tim Carmody

Tim Carmody — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:42:46 +0000

I think a Sub-Mariner movie could be pretty good! In The Ultimates, Thor is remade as a kind of long-haired hippie/anti-globalization warrior. He's Scandinavian AND um, divine; so he's the perfect critic of American power/global capitalism. They also play him as a mental patient, where it's not really clear whether or not he's "actually" Thor. Even in the original plotline - I liked the idea that this ordinary doctor, who walked with a cane, could turn into a hero. And that a superhero would use his alter-ego to try to help people in other ways. Plus, he hit things with a hammer. That was cool. In short, Thor's got some possibilities. But this is all really about building up to the Avengers movie, right?

By: Howard Weaver

Howard Weaver — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:35:48 +0000

I wonder why you think movie makers care about what the comic books (or any books they use for subjects) were really about.

They’re buying packaging from Marvel and they will hire some screenwriters to fill it up with whatever they want.

The Wolverine stuff is a perfect illustration.

By: Zack

Zack — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:59:46 +0000

Sub-Mariner has more emotional resonance than Thor. Ant-Man has more emotional resonance than Thor. Careful what you wish for.

By: Barrett

Barrett — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:05:11 +0000

What’s a Thor?