Jump to content

FIRE THE CASTING DIRECTOR FOR THOR!


I AM SCI-FI
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm simply not interested in a "modern Thor interpretation", or a pointless, non-needed race-changing stunt in order to appease the Cult of Diversity Worship, who are all crazy people. I want a faithful movie. That's not asking much.

 

You want a "faithful" Thor movie, but also say you really only cared about the character until the mid-eighties. So the last tweny-five years should be disregarded for the first twenty-five?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GPM in ICT wrote:

 

You want a "faithful" Thor movie, but also say you really only cared about the character until the mid-eighties. So the last tweny-five years should be disregarded for the first twenty-five?

 

I didn't say I only cared about the character until the mid-80's. I said I stopped reading comics after the mid-80's because they went to hell in a handbasket. I still love the character, he's still my all time favorite comic book character. Which is why I'm so passionate about this. Yes, I think we should ignore all the stupid changes (and they were stupid!) done to the character after the mid-80's. Writers (and artists) during that time simply lacked vision and didn't know what to do, so they ended up inflicting an endless stream of unmotivated, poorly done changes upon the characters. they changed Thor's costume countless times (each looking worse than the previous one, none comparing at all to the original design), they tampered with his powers, they even changed his identity! It was a sad, pathetic time for comic fans who had good taste.

 

So yes, I say disregard all that crap and give us the true Thor, the one who stands the test of time as classic...Kirby's Thor!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply not interested in a "modern Thor interpretation", or a pointless, non-needed race-changing stunt in order to appease the Cult of Diversity Worship, who are all crazy people. I want a faithful movie. That's not asking much.

 

 

Yes, I think we should ignore all the stupid changes (and they were stupid!) done to the character after the mid-80's. Writers (and artists) during that time simply lacked vision and didn't know what to do, so they ended up inflicting an endless stream of unmotivated, poorly done changes upon the characters. they changed Thor's costume countless times (each looking worse than the previous one, none comparing at all to the original design), they tampered with his powers, they even changed his identity! It was a sad, pathetic time for comic fans who had good taste.

 

So yes, I say disregard all that crap and give us the true Thor, the one who stands the test of time as classic...Kirby's Thor!

 

You only want to see a certain representation from a certain time period of a character on screen while ignoring the rest, correct? That is asking a lot.

 

What you claim that the best writing period was. I counter with that time period was the worst writing. It is the writing from that early time period that makes me absolutely hate Superman.

 

Examples of this awful writing:

 

Superman has super weaving powers: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=4

 

He has the power to do super math (super and incorrect): http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=1

 

and my all time favorite: http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=53&limitstart=16

 

Sure they had some good stories then but the most part was just awful. Just like today there is bad writing, but there's good too. I'd argue that the percentage of well written stories vs. poorly written stories is a much better percentage in the modern age. I think perhaps you're only remembering the good stories from back in the day and looking at the period with rose coloured glasses?

 

Regardless... Having a favorite version of any character is fine. I have mine, you have yours etc. etc. However, asking for a film coming out today to ignore the last 25 years is just unreasonable.

 

As far as a race change on characters. Although I am no fan of the ACLU. In this case I don't care. In the case of Kingpin Duncan was the only choice I can think of. I hate the he should have been a white actor argument. Sure there's no shortage of white guys who are big fat fatties in North America, but there is a shortage of large, imposing actors with an intimidating tone of voice. Name one white guy who could do it better. One.

 

Would you have cast John Goodman as Kingpin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm simply not interested in a "modern Thor interpretation", or a pointless, non-needed race-changing stunt in order to appease the Cult of Diversity Worship, who are all crazy people. I want a faithful movie. That's not asking much.

 

 

Yes, I think we should ignore all the stupid changes (and they were stupid!) done to the character after the mid-80's. Writers (and artists) during that time simply lacked vision and didn't know what to do, so they ended up inflicting an endless stream of unmotivated, poorly done changes upon the characters. they changed Thor's costume countless times (each looking worse than the previous one, none comparing at all to the original design), they tampered with his powers, they even changed his identity! It was a sad, pathetic time for comic fans who had good taste.

 

So yes, I say disregard all that crap and give us the true Thor, the one who stands the test of time as classic...Kirby's Thor!

 

You only want to see a certain representation from a certain time period of a character on screen while ignoring the rest, correct? That is asking a lot.

 

What you claim that the best writing period was. I counter with that time period was the worst writing. It is the writing from that early time period that makes me absolutely hate Superman.

 

Examples of this awful writing:

 

Superman has super weaving powers: http://superdickery....53&limitstart=4

 

He has the power to do super math (super and incorrect): http://superdickery....53&limitstart=1

 

and my all time favorite: http://superdickery....3&limitstart=16

 

Sure they had some good stories then but the most part was just awful. Just like today there is bad writing, but there's good too. I'd argue that the percentage of well written stories vs. poorly written stories is a much better percentage in the modern age. I think perhaps you're only remembering the good stories from back in the day and looking at the period with rose coloured glasses?

 

Regardless... Having a favorite version of any character is fine. I have mine, you have yours etc. etc. However, asking for a film coming out today to ignore the last 25 years is just unreasonable.

 

As far as a race change on characters. Although I am no fan of the ACLU. In this case I don't care. In the case of Kingpin Duncan was the only choice I can think of. I hate the he should have been a white actor argument. Sure there's no shortage of white guys who are big fat fatties in North America, but there is a shortage of large, imposing actors with an intimidating tone of voice. Name one white guy who could do it better. One.

 

Would you have cast John Goodman as Kingpin?

 

 

John Rhys-Davies ain't walking through that door, lol.

 

No one ever has an answer to that because Michael Clarke Duncan was great as Kingpin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FlyingFigg wrote:

 

You only want to see a certain representation from a certain time period of a character on screen while ignoring the rest, correct? That is asking a lot.

 

No, it's not asking for a lot when you put it in perspective. Look at Thor's history. Thor was Thor, the real Thor, the consistent Thor, from Journey Into Mystery #83 (1962) until Thor #433 (1991). That's 350 issues of the character faithfully portrayed over the course of 29 years. Then in Thor # 433 (1991) they changed his costume. Not drastically, just that dumb face plate and beard mainly. It stayed that way for a mere 24 issues (2 years). They then changed him back in Thor #457 (1993) and he remained accurate until Thor # 476 (1994). He remained screwed up until Thor #502 in 1996.

 

So he had a steady run of 350 issues, changed to some weird crap for 24 issues, returned to the faithful presentation for another 19 issues, and back to the weird stuff for 26 issues. That's 31 years of consistency to 4 years of weird alterations or 369 consistent issues to 40 whacked out issues.

 

Thor got his title back in 1998 and it ran for almost 4 years with his original, faithful presentation, until they screwed it up around issue #43 or so. They kept it screwed up through issue #68 (about 2 years). That ends in 2003. He got another title from 2007 to 2010, with his current, crappy costume.

 

So adding all that math, we get the real Thor for 35 years, and only 9 years of a messed-up, weird Thor where the artists had no clue about costume design and he looked like a freak with all the loose chains and hi-tech crap.

 

I'd say 35 years trumps 9 years any day. I'm only asking for his most consistent portrayal, not picking the most recent in a short lived string of crappy costume designs.

 

What you claim that the best writing period was. I counter with that time period was the worst writing. It is the writing from that early time period that makes me absolutely hate Superman.

 

First, we're not talking about Superman, we're talking about Thor. DC Comics was never as good as Marvel, with rare exceptions. Superman was never one of those exceptions. Silly contrived crap and a new power every day was par for the course when it came to Superman. Second, the Lee/Kirby period on Thor is considered by most serious Thor fans to be the Golden Age of Thor. No one compares to the power of Kirby's pencils, and the finest Thor stories were told in that time. He was a mythic god then, the way he was intended to be. I don't know a single serious Thor fan who has ever disagreed with me on that.

 

Sure they had some good stories then but the most part was just awful.

 

Your argument holds no water. You're comparing Superman stories, which were almost uniformly pathetic, to Thor stories, which were almost uniformly good. You can't judge the writing on Thor by comparing it to the writing on Superman. Superman is irrelevant.

 

Just like today there is bad writing, but there's good too. I'd argue that the percentage of well written stories vs. poorly written stories is a much better percentage in the modern age.

 

Very little these days in interesting or even well written. It's why I stopped reading the crap. I grab an issue online (before they closed htmlcomics.com, the bastards!), or page through one now and then at the store. Just total crap. For someone who was raised on the classics by the greats, the new stuff is just junk food, badly cooked at that.

 

I think perhaps you're only remembering the good stories from back in the day and looking at the period with rose coloured glasses?

 

Wrong. I'm comparing stories that are classics (and considered classics for a reason) to modern crap that just doesn't hold up. Hell, modern comics cannot even follow the basic rules of fictional writing (internal logic, internal consistency, etc)! No rose colored glasses here. Just brutal honesty.

 

Regardless... Having a favorite version of any character is fine. I have mine, you have yours etc. etc. However, asking for a film coming out today to ignore the last 25 years is just unreasonable.

 

Where do you get ignoring the past 25 years? He's had that stupid padded leather grey longjohns suit for just 3 years now! We're talking about 35 years of consistent portrayal to 9 years of nonsense. Why ignore those 35 years, especially when the first 29 of them were totally consistent, and then another 6 later for a total of 35 years, in order to cater to 9 years of crap? Not even 9 years. Make that 3 years or 4 years in that new costume.

 

As far as a race change on characters. Although I am no fan of the ACLU. In this case I don't care. In the case of Kingpin Duncan was the only choice I can think of. I hate the he should have been a white actor argument. Sure there's no shortage of white guys who are big fat fatties in North America, but there is a shortage of large, imposing actors with an intimidating tone of voice. Name one white guy who could do it better. One.

 

There is never any excuse for race changing a character. It is insulting to both races. In the case of Kingpin it says that there are no good black villains and also that there are no good white actors. It's bullshit. And don't tell me there are no big white guys with deep voices. There are 300 MILLION people in America, with about 67% white, meaning there are 201,000,000 whites. Cut it roughly in half and we get over 100 MILLION white men. No one in their right mind can tell me there is no one built like Duncan with a deep voice out of those 100 MILLION people. A casting call would have found plenty.

 

Would you have cast John Goodman as Kingpin?

 

No, I'd have had a casting call and found an accurate actor, not lazily thrown in some token black in order to appease the Cult of Diversity Worship.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Guys, where's the Avatar rage? They racebent the crap out of that movie, and you guys are pissed about HEIMDALL? I'll bet there are a lot less Heimdall fans than Avatar fans, but the folks here only seem to be mad about black actors taking "whites-only" movie roles. The Marvel U is very, very white, so it stands to reason that they might want to change up some of the actors, so that modern movies don't look like a 1950's sitcom. But in this case, I'll bet the producers have something clever up their sleeve, and that this casting might be plot related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, where's the Avatar rage? They racebent the crap out of that movie, and you guys are pissed about HEIMDALL? I'll bet there are a lot less Heimdall fans than Avatar fans, but the folks here only seem to be mad about black actors taking "whites-only" movie roles. The Marvel U is very, very white, so it stands to reason that they might want to change up some of the actors, so that modern movies don't look like a 1950's sitcom. But in this case, I'll bet the producers have something clever up their sleeve, and that this casting might be plot related.

 

 

Avatar the last air bender? I think the problem with that is the fact that there isn't many Asian American actors/actresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Find Action Figures on Ebay


×
×
  • Create New...
Sign Up For The TNI Newsletter And Have The News Delivered To You!


Entertainment News International (ENI) is the #1 popular culture network for adult fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE