Thor Movie Cast Additions

Lady Sif and an unidentified villain are cast in Kenneth Branagh's live-action Thor movie!

Jaimie Alexander and Colm Feore are added to the cast of Marvel Studios' feature film adaptation of its Thor comic book, joining Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Natalie Portman as Jane Foster and Tom Hiddleston as Loki.

Alexander will play Sif, a fierce Asgardian warrior and one of Thor's love interests. Feore will play an as-yet-unnamed villain.

Thor synopsis from THR:

The movie's story centers on Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions re-ignite an ancient war. As punishment, Thor is cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans. Once here, he learns what it takes to be a true hero when the most dangerous villain of his world sends dark forces of Asgard to invade Earth.

Brent Sprecher
9/22/2009
THR

DISCLAIMER: This posting was submitted by a user of the site not from Comic Book Movie editorial staff. All users have acknowledged and agreed that the submission of their content is in compliance with our Terms of Use. For removal of copyrighted material, please contact us HERE.

Related News

Idris Elba Joins the Cast of Thor

Twitter Report: Thor Sets Have Been Built!

Stan Lee Meets Kenneth Brannagh About a Thor Cameo

Official Thor Movie News: The Warriors Three Have Been Cast!

Jaimie Alexander Stunt Training For Thor

129 Comments

	SIF is BAIRD i bet ya! ; D Yeah it could be ALEXANDER lol, but BAIRD aint ENCHANTRESS! LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 9:46 PM
	this movie's gonna be great. can't wait. supermarioworldE - 9/22/2009, 9:53 PM
	Hopefully they'll send out promo images soon... access - 9/22/2009, 10:04 PM
	Oh, hell yeah! Alexander will be a PERFECT Sif!!! Bijous - 9/22/2009, 10:07 PM
	Colm Feore as an unknown villian... maybe Malekith the Accursed? Or just a toady for Loki? SlurpeeGuy - 9/22/2009, 10:08 PM
	Sif is pretty important. I hope this gal can do right by the character. Hmm, guess that goes for the whole cast. Portman will do fine I have no doubts. JYCowboy - 9/22/2009, 10:08 PM
	Access @ I like your PROMO poster dude!! That'll do! ; ) LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 10:10 PM
	huh... Never heard of either of these people. They got the right hair color for Sif.. I hop Alexander can do warrior goddess butt kicker. Lady Sif is Asgaards most powerful female warrior which is one reason she and Thor hit it off so well. She has thousands of years of battle experience just like him, and is perhaps his equal in skill and valor but of course not power. DarthMulder - 9/22/2009, 10:11 PM
	Hey @ BRENT @ Did you just put that PIC up??? I'll take it back, she is SIF!!! ; ) LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 10:12 PM
	This gets better with each passing day. thwhtGuardian - 9/22/2009, 10:22 PM
	BRENT @ I reckon COLM'S could maybe be ARES!! ? LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 10:24 PM
	omg this is the hottest casting ever not primarily on physical looks but including acting chops they're all great Punish88r - 9/22/2009, 10:28 PM
	I guess Sif is the role Diora Baird auditioned for, and that Jessica Biel was rumored for. Don't know much about Colm Feore, except that he has a cult following. I'm glad to hear such a respected actor has joined the cast. This should be great! I'm so glad things are moving along for this movie! slimybug - 9/22/2009, 10:30 PM
	@LEEE: Yeah, I didn't have the two pics stitched together when I first posted the article! @LEEE: Hmm, I don't think they would add a Greek god to the Thor movie. Brent Sprecher - 9/22/2009, 10:52 PM
	BRENT @ Cool i thought i was going mad lol! ; D Hey ARES is a THOR villain, why not lol! I really hope HECULES has a cameo in this, just for maybe a HERC movie if this does BIG Box office!! Plus it'll be very cool heh, come on it would! LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 10:57 PM
	@LEEE: That would be cool, but they're trying to set up Asgard and Thor, they're not going to bring in gods from other pantheons. Start thinking of villains from Thor's universe. Brent Sprecher - 9/22/2009, 10:59 PM
	Slimybug @ If you've seen the RIDDICK movie, he's the main villain in that! LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 10:59 PM
	Man, I'm stumped. Who could this guy be playing? He looks to skinny to be the Executioner. Malekith was a good suggestion... Bijous - 9/22/2009, 11:02 PM
	I thought ARES was lol. Well a THOR villain anyway. My bad! How about THE BEYONDER!!! Heh heh, just pulling ya leg, thats THE HOFF anyway lol! Yeah i didn't take my meds 2day! : D Okay i'll get bk to ya on that @ BRENT! ; ) LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 11:02 PM
	I think Colm could make for an interesting Malekith. He's a dark elf sorcerer, he's not used much but if bragnagh has looked at the old kirby stuff like he said he did then maybe this character peaked his interest. Not sure how exactly he'd fit in, maybe loki tricks him into confronting thor. edit:oops didn't see that it was already mentioned. thwhtGuardian - 9/22/2009, 11:07 PM
	How about Kurse? Bijous - 9/22/2009, 11:07 PM
	Well i think COLM makes the perfect MEPHISTO but it cant be him lol! Damn it should be though! Yep when it comes to GODS 'n' sh!t im pretty crap lol. LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 11:14 PM
	BIJOUS @ Nice!! Secret Wars too lol! LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 11:16 PM
	I think it is Mephisto. ...but then again it say "dark forces of Asgard." Not Hades. Hmmm... Macksimus - 9/22/2009, 11:24 PM
	EXCELLENT SIF CASTED..BRANNAGH 2 SNAPS WAY UP...IN A CIRCLE GUNSMITH - 9/22/2009, 11:29 PM
	Maybe he's Surtur. kenny38606 - 9/22/2009, 11:37 PM
	Hmmm. . . my guesses for Colm Feore are Surtur - a fire demon of Asgard Ulik - the strongest and fiercest Rock Troll or Ymir - the oldest Frost Giant Since Loki is the son the Frost Giant Laufey, I'm going to guess it's Ymir or Laufey himself. When are we going to hear about the Warriors Three?? I hope they don't leave them out of the film. MultiPurposePoni - 9/22/2009, 11:37 PM
	I forgot about Ulik! Bijous - 9/22/2009, 11:41 PM
	Good pick @ MULTI! LEEE777 - 9/22/2009, 11:58 PM
	Hey guys, just wanna give some background on Feore. He's basically the Ian Mackellen up here in Canada, in that they both are UNREAL Shakespearian actors, but have a hit-or-miss record when it comes to choosing movie roles (Feore was in PAYCHECK with Affleck, Mackellen was in Last Action Hero, lol) I think this casting announcement has Brannagh's thespian fingerprints all over this- I mean, he probably has season tickets to the Stratford Festival (Canada's Mt. Olympus of stage Acting, which Feore and his wife are involved in like ever year) I can see Feore cast as the leader of the Dark Elves or Frost Giants or some group of badguys who are secretly controlled by Loki. DannyRand401 - 9/22/2009, 11:58 PM
	What really worries me is Hemsworth is too small for the role of Thor. This guy needs to start lifting hard and heavy, or cgi him a new body. I have a world of faith in Brannagh's vision of this movie, but the jury is still out on Hemsworth ASSASSIN666 - 9/23/2009, 12:08 AM
	Fandral, Hogun and Volstagg! Alexander Skarsgard - Fandral Rufus Sewell - Hogun Brendan Glesson - Volstagg MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 12:24 AM
	wasn't this the role Diora Baird was up for? if so i am upset i don't get to see her in this movie. l0rdleg0las - 9/23/2009, 12:27 AM
	Multi @ Perfect!! I always thought SKARSGARD was THUNDERSRIKE but i gotta admit love all them picks!! Danny @ Cheers man! LEG @ I think BAIRDS still in the movie, probably an extra lol! LEEE777 - 9/23/2009, 12:28 AM
	@LEEE Thanks man! I always liked the idea of Rufus for Hogun but my mates over here don't agree. I would love to see this movie's style based off of Michael Straczynski's New Beginnings story line. It's drawings are very colorful, symmetric and dramatic. Plus, Thor sports my favorite version of his costume :) MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 12:30 AM
	awesome!!! hope it succeeds in he world where good films like Hellboy 2 end up low at box-office and shitfest like hancock rake in millions..reason Hellboy is literally unknown when compared to Bat,Supes n Spidey and even to starpower of Will Smith,Pitt e.t.c.Same problem will haunt CAP too.Remember Iron Man..$300+mill in Us alone while just $265 mill ww,same with TIH.I hope CAP n THOR are marketed well outside US too.And off course the fate of Avengers lies on the reciepts of these two movies. bullsize - 9/23/2009, 1:04 AM
	Multi @ Cool idea man! An that's gotta be THORS costume, im sooooo glad we've got that ULTIMATE crap talk out the way, when some wanted that! Classic THOR and HAMMER all the way!! An RUFUS is a solid pick! ; ) Bullsize @ Lets hope so! LEEE777 - 9/23/2009, 1:22 AM
	Can't wait for Thor. I'll be at the first midnight screening whenever that is. ViperXX79 - 9/23/2009, 2:02 AM
	I don't know why ppl keep saying Chris Hemsworth's not big enough or tall enough to play Thor! He's bigger now than when most of the pictures were taken of him, when he first started on the Auzzie soap as a kid. He's 6'3" and with his frame he can easily put on a lot of bulk! I know, I'm a bodybuilder. I mean just look at the difference of Christian Bale between "The Machinist" & "Batman Begins". Here he is when he first started on the soap as a kid, in this photo-- But that was a long time ago when he first went on the soap. It was on TV for a long time! He's much bigger and older and thicker-muscled now...like in these photos-- DDD - 9/23/2009, 2:06 AM
	@lee u r always right I just saw District 9 and found it superb,especially the act of Copley a.k.a Wilkus..he deserves a academy award nomination .I hope they make a sequel,and if they do,Christopher better keep his promise.:) bullsize - 9/23/2009, 2:07 AM
	this movie could be epic if done like lord of the rings! rosco71 - 9/23/2009, 2:09 AM
	Branagh is really choosing actors for Thor extremely well! Thor is gonna be fantastic! DDD - 9/23/2009, 2:16 AM
	COLM, They have a big part for him. He is a Grade A actor. Hmm, there are so many characters. Who could it be? I am trying to put it together in my mind. UMMMM UMMMMM wait, what about Damn it. Somebody. WHO, WHO damn't. I should know. I have a long history with Thor Knowledge too. I'll be back. I'll think of some character. Scorpioxfactor - 9/23/2009, 2:23 AM
	Baird might be Valkyrie or Enchantress. Colm might be a doctor at the hospital where Donald Blake and Jane Foster work or the voice of the main Frost giant, he does have a quite frosty voice in some of his baddie rolls. But I would tend to think he will be a villain! DDD - 9/23/2009, 2:28 AM
	Loved Colm in Storm of the Century....this movie is gonna blow away the competition :P teabag - 9/23/2009, 5:36 AM
	right ya are ddd! hemsworth is gonna dominate as thor!!! the guy's already as jacked as he needs to be, maybe just a tiny bit more in tune ups! and its a really good casting!!! Duhdaduh - 9/23/2009, 6:29 AM
	I'm just glad to see this coming together. Bandrews1 - 9/23/2009, 6:35 AM
	Jaimie keeps growing on me as Sif: Ummm, is anyone one else wondering who the hell is going to be cast to play Donald Blake?? His character is just as important as Thor. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 7:24 AM
	OH MAN I FREAKIN LOVE COLM!!!!!! Not only was he an amazing villain in Crapicles of Riddick, he was sooooo cool in "Bon Cop, Bad Cop", a half english and french canadian film that illustrates brilliantly how Quebecers and Canucks think of each other and act towards one another!!! Anybody that likes indy films with good intrigue will love that film!!! Can't wait to see all those MONUMENTALLY GREAT ACTORS ON SCREEN!!! This will be Branagh's LOTR :)) Shaman - 9/23/2009, 7:36 AM
	@Multi..Hopefully nobody. I hate Donald Blake. He sometimes worked in the comics i guess, he would not in a movie. Just have the same actor play Thor on earth, maybe becomes human and adopts the secret identity of Donald Blake or something, 2 actors will silly. Dont know this chick, she certainly looks the part. Feore I have seen in a few things and he is very good. I doubt he will be playing a significant comic villain though.. Rorschach01 - 9/23/2009, 7:39 AM
	Why does everyone assume that Feore will play a villain from Asgard? If both Sif and Jane Foster are in the movie, isn't it possible there could be an Asgardian AND earthly villain? I'm getting pretty excited for this movie. Bamf7 - 9/23/2009, 7:41 AM
	@Ror: No Donald Blake? How would that work since they already have a Jane Foster cast? Do you think it would work if Thor just put a lab coat on and ran around a hospital using a different name? How do you explain his Shakespearean verse? It doesn't fit into his mythology at all and I believe would confuse audiences. That's why there's the Blake persona. If Helmsworth plays both parts it will just look like just another 'secret identity' superhero movie. Are you suggesting a major re-write of Thor's history? MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 7:43 AM
	Never heard of The Ultimates? And yes, I would rather just another secret identity movie than seeing one actor cry out.."By the power of Asgard, I HAVE THE POWEEEEEER" and basically "He Man" into a bigger guy in armor and a puff of smoke. So few people ever seem to take into account what works in comics does not always work on film, they just want to see the comic plastered up on the screen with no thought into whether it would actually translate well or not. Now I'm sure Brannagh wouldn't have it as cheesy as i described there, but there are not that many ways to alter the transformation you want to see. Ultimate Thor is the way to go while he is on earth. Rorschach01 - 9/23/2009, 7:51 AM
	You liked the Ultimates? Wow. I usually agree with you, but I HATED the Ultimates. It took me months to get those shitty stories out of my head. And the animated films were worse! I agree that the older Thor stories are a bit campy, but aren't ALL the original Marvel heroes campy? Did you ever read Michael Straczynski's Thor stories? You don't think that personification of the Thor / Blake relationship would work on screen? MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 7:57 AM
	Good villains that would make sense: "Those who sit Above in Shadow," who first showed up in the so-called "Asgardian Wars," back when Loki tried to tamper with the X-Men and the New Mutants. Claremont creations, originally, who were brought back at the end of Thor, vol.2, as the forces that perpetuated the Ragnaraok cycle. So: Colm as the chief "Shadow," the one who pulls Loki's strings, a la the Emperor in Star Wars. Doesn't make a huge splash in the first movie, but more important in sequels. I'd like to see that, anyway. Otherwise, Lauffey. Simonsonrules - 9/23/2009, 8:14 AM
	The animated movies were awful alright, but i loved the first and second Ultimates. Your probably just a stickler for the classics and that cool, but the times they are a changin brother! Yes, all of the original versions of the characters were campy because that was the time they reflected, they have all since been updated. Why would you want to see a movie, which should act as a further progression for the character, go back to the campy original incarnations? Obviously they have to be faithful to what made them great in the first place and should draw influence from the classics whenever possible, but not at the expense of making a great movie. To be honest i was never a massive Thor fan UNTIL the Ultimate version. I have since come to appreciate some of the early stuff but I really think having him as Ultimate nutcase Thor while on earth is the best way to go. Rorschach01 - 9/23/2009, 8:24 AM
	ULTIMATES are for SELL OUTS!!! ; D Seriously, Ultimates are really crappy photo copies of CLASSICS! End of! BOOOOOOOOOOOOO to the [frick]ing ULTIMATE SELL OUT UNIVERES!!! ULTIMATE-VERSE is worst than the [frick]ing FOX-MARVEL-VERSE! : D LEEE777 - 9/23/2009, 8:41 AM
	CLASSIC THOR ALL THE WAY! ; ) LEEE777 - 9/23/2009, 8:44 AM
	God, it puzzles me how anyone could really hate The Ultimates!!! Regardless of whether they're an "insult" to the original Marvel characters the stories are both brilliantly written, drawn and a facsinating portrayal of what our world would be like if superheroes were real!!!We allhave our own opinions but im sure that those who really dislike The Ultimates are just too single-minded to realise they are different versions of the characters! Not replacements, not insults - alternative versions!!! MULTI: Though i like JMS's interpretation of the rather confusing Donald Blake/Thor situation, ROR is completely right - that would not work on screen and just wouldnt work IMO! Thor doesnt need a secret identity - DB really is a worthless character because someone like Thor doesnt need a secret ientity to hide behind! Though i wouldnt want the Ultimate nutcase version of Thor, i think it would be great if the heroes like Captain America and Iron Man doubted his godhood until he did something to prove himself! If they are going to use DB, it should be the same actor who plays Thor rather than another actor - if the necessity of the haracter doesnt make all that much sense in the comic books then it will make none to a normal movie-goer! joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 8:50 AM
	See? LEE just proved my point! Too single-minded to accept The Ultimates as alternative, different versions! joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 8:54 AM
	I've never heard of the actress who's going to be playing Sif but she looks right for the part anyway! Still, this is good news because it will allow Diora Baird to play Enchantress! :) MULTI: I like your picks for The Warriors Three but I envision them being more of a comedy trio like in JMS's run! These are my picks! :) joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 8:57 AM
	Ultimate nutcase Thor is definitelly more along the lines our our day and age. The classic transformation wouldn't work. Foster's character could be taking care of Thor thinking he's a bum that got hurt. You have to remember that Odin will want Thor to learn humility in living as a human making him probably mortal and having him "falling from above" or somethin'(probably in a "City of Angels" kinda way). So her character would work either way. But the Blake/Thunder god transformation that would take place between two actors would be campy as [frick] and never work on screen. The classics are classics for a reason. They were popular in their own time. They worked back then. And i think Superman Returns is a great example of that fact since it tried to mimic Donner's Classic in our day and age which was wrong. Shaman - 9/23/2009, 9:02 AM
	Josh and Shaman know, they know wassup! Leee, your nuts, nuff said:) Im not even going to point out the insanity in your Ultimate hatred because you will just reply with ;) Rorschach01 - 9/23/2009, 9:07 AM
	I mean obviously to each's own but there's no way in hell this movie should be as campy as the classics if Marvel wishes to succeed on! There is no script that can be written that can make a full grown doctor tap his walking stick on the ground and have him become The Thunder God and a viking one at that, without being campy as [frick]ing hell! Shaman - 9/23/2009, 9:21 AM
	I would never want the Ultimate versions of the characters to replace the regular versions in the comic books but when it comes to the movies there are a lot of aspects of the Ultimate versions id like to see on the big screen and many that will have to be there if these characters' movies are going to work! For example, LEE - would you prefer (not necessarily the costume) this in the Captain America movie... ...or this!? Ok, so i admit thats an extreme example but my point is, what worked in the comic books in the 40's or 60's wont work now so is it really such a bad thing if influences from the more realistic Ultimate versions are taken and put into the movies!? joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 9:32 AM
	I never really cared for Thor at all, and the Ultimate Thor is the incarnation I know most about. I love the Ultimate universe, it's a very refreshing and original take on the characters we know. And while I like the classic Nick Fury better than the Sam Jackson one I have no problem with Marvel taking the the best of both classic and ultimate universe to create great movies. Considering Thor, I really don't think we need the Donald Blake persona. Let Thor be Thor and let the Marvel movie world figure out what to think of him. That said, when I heard there was going to be a Thor movie I couldn't help but smile at the idea, cause I thought it was going to be ridiculous. But now, with Branagh in charge and with all the promising casting choices it has become one of my most anticipated CBMs. If they do this right it's gonna be epic! Kyos - 9/23/2009, 10:09 AM
	A stickler is a stickler, Josh. No point in arguing with them. It's like watching paint dry. They prefer the classics and nothing we will say or do can make them realise any logic. It's the same with how flawed the character of Jason Voorhees truly is. There is nothing you can say or do to make me not like him! I'm a Jason fan till i die!!! Shaman - 9/23/2009, 10:12 AM
	che che che ha aha ha!!! Jason 4 Life Im with LEEE ultimates taint the classics :P teabag - 9/23/2009, 10:18 AM
	I'm sorry guys, I don't want to see 'Ultimate' anything to be honest with you. I am a fan of the classics. I grew up with them. Just because the times they are a'changing doesn't mean I have to change my tastes. Look at what Geoff Johns and J. Micheal Straczynski are doing with their new novels: updated stories of the classic characters. Is there a possibility the Donald Blake/Thor relationship could be portrayed as campy or confusing on film? Of course. But that possibility doesn't make me believe that someone like director Ken B. wouldn't do a good job bringing it to life. Do you guys really think that they would base the film on sketches and dialogue from the 50's and 60's? I'm kind of tired of the studios streamlining superhero movies (same styled costumes, same gadgets, same relationship dynamic). @josh C'mon man if you want to compare Ultimate Cap with classic Cap, you didn't have to exaggerate Classic storyine Cap (Modernized) And to have a bunch of comedians portraying the Warriors Three? JMS writes them as sarcastic and humorous in their banter, but they are WARRIORS! Not the Three Stooges with swords and maces. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 10:27 AM
	lol Everybody makes such a big deal about people thinking Thor is nuts. What's that going to accomplish? A moments worth if dialogue? A little witty reparte between IM and Nick Fury? so what? It's ok of they have that in the movie but it's also COMPLETELY INCONSEQUENTIAL. The only peeps that seems to matter to are fans that think the movie should be Ultimatized. But it's such a minor issue after all isn't it? BTW I can think of no fewer than TWO times in classic Marvel comics where different people have thought or said that they thought Thor's claims of godhood were the product of insanity. Of course, thinking he's a nutter is a very believeable reaction. I am not extremely knowledgable about Ultimate Thor, but there are more important issues than whether or not people believe he is who he says he is. Ultimate Thor gets his power from a belt. That SUCKS. Thor's power should come fromt he fact that he's The Norse God of Thunder, and the son of Odin, King of the Gods. If all you need to do to beat him is get his belt off, then I am sorry that is just not Thor. Second of all Ultimate Mjolnir is a big battle axe with a hammer on one side. But in Norse mythology and in Marvel comics, Thor's hammer is just that... a HAMMER. It's a small, simple, primitive tool and it looks like nothing at all. But it's also one of the most dangerous, powerful objects in the Universe. The fact that it's this massively powerful mystical weapon, but it looks like something that should be on display in farm implement museum in Oslo gives it a certain special character. A character that belongs in this movie! The ancient Vikings' wore cloaks made of skins and war helmets when they went out cmapaigning. Your telling me the the GOD they believed in wouldn't have those things too? lol It doesn't have to be bright red, and it doesn't have to have wings on it, but I think a movie Thor should have those things. And BTW if you think that it won't "translate well into realism" ask yourself this... Thor is not just a god. He's royalty among the gods. Why in the world SHOULDN'T he be decked out in armor and gear that is fancy looking? There IS a way they can do those things in the movie and not have it look stupid. Let's all hope Branaugh finds that way because to do a movie that is just an issue of Ultimates up on the screen page for page would ruin this movie in the eyes of many fans, mine included. DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 10:27 AM
	@DarthMulder: "Ultimate Thor gets his power from a belt. That SUCKS. Thor's power should come fromt he fact that he's The Norse God of Thunder, and the son of Odin, King of the Gods. If all you need to do to beat him is get his belt off, then I am sorry that is just not Thor. " My point exactly. The ESSENCE of the character was changed. This movie is about the GOD OF THUNDER, not a blonde Batman with a power belt. Just watch the fight scenes between Hulk and Thor in Ultimate Avengers and Hulk vs. Thor. . . which incarnation would YOU rather see? MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 10:30 AM
	multipurpose i agree with you, stick to the god of thunder Mileena16 - 9/23/2009, 10:37 AM
	Yea, good cast additions! I love Jaime in KyleXY! NataliaRomanov - 9/23/2009, 10:38 AM
	@Mileena16 I don't think we have too much to worry about. Remember, Branagh is directing it not Singer :) MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 10:40 AM
	Classic thor...we demand Helmet .....and so does Singer :P teabag - 9/23/2009, 10:42 AM
	DarthMulder- Eh... you just missed the point entirely there. No one cares what people will percieve Thor to be in the film. And every comic book fan Ultimate or classic, will want the helmet and hammer. What "the point" was is that US Ultimate fans as well as the majority of movie goers wouldn't want Chris Hemsworth changing into a whole different actor that will play a doctor. He's a fallen god banished to earth to learn humility. His whole world has turned upside down!!! He doesn't know how to live any other way but as a god. You think it would be LOGICAL and NOT CAMPY to have him magically tranform into Doogie Howser??? You honestly want Chris "6 foot somethin' full plated thunder god" Hemsworth to transform into Neil Patrick Harris with a walking stick and a lab coat?!?!?! THAT was "the point" at hand here. The only factor of The Ultimates that Branagh should keep. Jane Foster could easily be the "doctor" to take care of Thor when he falls to earth and experiences mortal pain for the first time. The more i think of it, the more i see Branagh going the "City of Angels" way. MultiPurposePoni- There is no director including Branagh that could make Chris into Doogie in a believebly non campy way. That is a fact no matter how you look at it. I WANT the classic Thor! I just want them to ditch Blake cause he makes no freakin' sense in an adult world. In fact, being geared towards kids is also the only way a DC's Captain Marvel could ever work. That concept simply doesn't sit well with any average movie goer. It's simple. If they want this film to succeed, they'll ditch the Blake half. You CAN have the classic Thor without him!!! Shaman - 9/23/2009, 10:49 AM
	Guys Ultimate Thor does not "get his power from a belt". He is just as much the God Of Thunder as he is in the classic comics, but while on earth he has to adhere to certain rules of mortality..basically instead of being Donald Blake. Also, you can be as much of a fan of the classics as you want but if you cant accept that the movies are INTERPRETATIONS of these characters, in all their different forms be it Ultimate, classic..Mark Millar writing or Michael Straczynski. The movies have to be viewed as another take on the characters, just like Ultimates are to Classic Marvel. If you dont want to accept that, im sorry but be prepared to be very disappointed for a good many years. Rorschach01 - 9/23/2009, 10:50 AM
	Did any of you guys see 13th Warrior? When I saw Buliwyf recite the Viking funeral prayer before the final battle it showed what a Thor movie should be like! “Lo there do I see my father. Lo there do I see my mother, my sisters and brothers. Lo there do I see the line of my people back to the beginning. Lo they do call to me. They bid me take my place among them in the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live forever.” MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 10:52 AM
	Good point Ror! The changes were easily acceptable for Ironman, why not Thor??? This isn't going to be a tv show were Donald Blake MUST pose as a doctor to live in the real world everyday but changes into Thor whenever something happens. Thor will maybe get a trilogy at the most aside from appearing in Avengers. There's no time to establish Blake! Blake is irrelevant! You CAN have classic Thor without Blake! It is LOGICAL!!! MultiPurposePoni- I'm not desputing your 13th Warrior comment, in fact i agree. Was there a Donald Blake in it?!?!?! HELL NO!!!! Donald Blake sucks ass, is campy as hell and doesn't belong in a feature film at the box office, PERIOD!!! Shaman - 9/23/2009, 10:56 AM
	@Shaman I don't understand your comparison. What did they change for Iron Man's movie that you can compare to Thor? Tony's back story was the same, just modernized. My 13th Warrior reference did not pertain to the Blake discussion, sorry you got confused. Why would Donald Blake be in the 13th Warrrior? That point makes no sense dude, it's a complete different story. I personally think the Blake persona adds so much depth to the whole Thor mythology that it shouldn't be left out. To take an overly arrogant, powerful god and teach him humility by fusing his psyche with a disabled intellectual was excellent writing. Blake didn't POSE as a doctor, he WAS a doctor. And he was just as confused as Thor was to why they were conjoined. Could they leave Blake out of the film? Of course. There is a BIG possibility that it will be left out, but that doesn't mean I have to like it :) @Ror I'm with you there. Any film made from a novel or comic is just an interpretation of the literal work. But I've read enough posts here to know that, in general, we don't like it when studios stray far from the source material. I'm only stating that I personally would not want to see an Ultimate Thor movie. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 10:59 AM
	That's funny. I don't remember ever saying that it needed to be exactly like the classic MU set up. I completely agree that it would have to be something of an interpretation. That's obviously true. But what I actually did say, and all that I have ever said was that there IS a way to translate the classic version into a logical believable non cheesy movie version. It could be done and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the Ultimates. Does making it more realistic mean that it just absolutely HAS to be like the Ultimates? Nope. Not at all. Oh and by the way, the fact that Nick Fury is being played by a black dude does not mean that every Marvel movie from now till eternity will always be based on Ultimate U. They will probably pull from both, but of course who knows? We won't know till later. Anyways specifically I don't care if they have Don Blake in it or not. I kind of feel like they need to have SOMETHING for Thor to do when he's not super heroing, but whatever. And on the belt thing someone on this web site told me that he lost his powers when the belt came off. I took their word for it, and evidently I was misinformed. Thor's belt should double his strength like in classic Marvel U. DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 11:18 AM
	"You honestly want Chris "6 foot somethin' full plated thunder god" Hemsworth to transform into Neil Patrick Harris with a walking stick and a lab coat?!?!?! " I'm a big fan of NPH, so this idea kinda appeals to me. Still, I agree we don't need DB in this movie, and btw I want NPH to be Flash. Kyos - 9/23/2009, 11:24 AM
	One more thing.. I'm not an Ultimates hater. I just never have read them. I have no desire to because I'm happy with the classic version. That being said I am also not oblivious to the hokey/ silly side of the old school comics version. But if you look at the pic posted by multi above, it is easy to see that classic Marvel continuity has fixed a lot of what was broken in the old days anyway. Rorschach01, I laughed and applauded at your comparisson of Thor's transformation from Blake to Thor being like He Man. lol It better not be like that because that would be even worse than an Ultimate THor movie XD DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 11:27 AM
	Multi- My comparison to Ironman was just that; modernisation. It would be a modernisation to any non-religious fans of classic Thor to ditch Donald Blake. As for the 13th Warrior point, i thought you were saying that us Ultimate Fans wouldn't want that as Thor when we actually do; my bad LOL :P I personnaly think that Blakes persona "can" add depth provided it be in a series of comics or tv shows. Not in a feature film. It's hard enough to establish one character thoroughly through a feature without having to establish two. Having Blake wouldn't be a secret identity, it would be a whole other character. It is also the reason why Hulk will never know more success than he already does. That character can simply not get better in the eye of the average movie goer. The concept of a person transforming into a whole other character in one film isn't favored in a general audience. In a feature film it would actually create even more depth to have this big god of thunder experience mortal life for the first time and needing Jane Foster's help. That is "feature film depth". A "one shot" if you will. You can't successfully establish Blakes half of the character in one film. And putting the "depth" that Blake could provide aside, no matter how you look at it, having Thor come back from a fight and changing back to a doctor in an alley way or having Doctor Blake in a hospital experiencing a dangerous event and having to rush out of the public eye to transform into Thor is TERRIBLY campy. Even Branagh would be incapable to make it look not only pleasing but logical. So you don't have to agree or be happy about it but in our day and age, it is more logical to delve deeper into a single character than to establish two different ones. Kyos- I'm a big fan of NPH as Doogie, just not as Flash. He's a great actor but i like my heroes to be at least manly. I've seen women more manly than NPH. I mean, they don't need to be lumberjacks, just average manly level ;) DarthMulder- "But what I actually did say, and all that I have ever said was that there IS a way to translate the classic version into a logical believable non cheesy movie version. It could be done and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the Ultimates." AMEN!!! Shaman - 9/23/2009, 11:27 AM
	@Shaman Oh, I TOTALLY understand what you mean. If they don't have the time to do justice to the characters, it's better to leave it out. Look at the X-Men movies, the only character that they focused on was Wolverine and it gave the audience no chance to connect to the rest of the cast. But I feel that it is possible to include Blake in this movie. Maybe not exactly like the origins, but the essence of the relationship is instrumental to Thor's story. Ultimate Thor didn't just leave out Blake, it changed Thor's entire back story. It is left to the reader to decide if Thor is actually a god or just a nutcase. And you know what? For the most part fans weren't happy! That's why by the time they wrote Ultimates 3, Thor changed DRASTICALLY. They drew him bulkier, bearded and only speaking in Shakespearean English. They even gave him the original Mjolnir instead of the shiny battle axe. And regarding the Hulk in film, general moviegoers were do disappointed by Ang Lee's interpretation that they didn't want to give The Incredible Hulk film a chance. Incredible Hulk didn't do well in theaters not because you couldn't connect with both personas, but because the 2003 Hulk left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Ange Lee's Hulk made a HUGE profit in theaters because people liked the Hulk/Banner dynamic from the comics and tv series. Don't you agree that if The Incredible Hulk movie was released before Ang Lee's version it would have been as, if not more, financially successful? MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 11:41 AM
	Man, I cannot argue about this with people that cannot get their head around the fact that the Ultimates are different interpretations of the classic characters and not insults or replacements! MULTI: I have to disagree with you about The Warriors Three! The three actors i picked above arent just comedians who would turn the characters into "the three stooges" but are also damn good actors that in my opinion could be both the comic relief of the film as well as portaying the characters as true warriors! And sorry but Thor should definitely not have any of that "LO" shakesperean speech crap in it! DarthMulder: I definitely wouldnt want to see the Marvel movies turn into adaptations of the ultimate universe but my point is that there are many brilliant aspects and ideas Mark Miller came up with that would help make the characters in the movies even better! And the mainstream marvel characters will always be my favourites but you should definitely consider picking up Ultimates 1 & 2. Ive taked with you before so im confident enough that you have the brains to understand that they're just different interpretations rather than replacements or insults! :) Oh and Thor should definitely have the above costume from the JMS Thor run! joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 11:44 AM
	MULTI: They actually changed Thor in Ultimates 3 because Jeph Loeb is a terible comic book writer who pretty much killed off and ruined the Ultimate universe (see the dreadful Ultimatum for what i mean) And as for drawing him differently well thats once again thanks to the bad choice of writer and poor artist. Thor proved himself to be a God in Ultimates 2, Loeb just took that and came up with the worst issue run of a comic book Ive ever read! joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 11:48 AM
	@josh I know man, changing writers in the middle of a story arc is always a terrible idea. I have read and own all of the Ultimate books. I just like the original stories better. It's a personal preference. Ultimates was more realistic to modern times, but by making it so realistic it lost the fantasy aspect that always appealed to me. Why do they have to BE so realistic to be enjoyable? Look at Wolvie: Origins (the comic, not the film). I grew up with only knowing that Wolvie was basically an escaped experiment with amnesia, and I didn't mind it at all. Once they explained when he was born, fighting in the wars and all that good stuff, it left little to the imagination and it was harder to connect with the character. I'm still not sold about the way you fanfic-ed [that's right, I made the word up:)] the Warriors Three. Maybe if I saw any of those actors in a dramatic or an action role it would change my mind. Can you mention any that I could watch? Oh, and about the 'Lo' Shakespearean English. . . get used to it :) I doubt Branagh will exclude THAT aspect of Thor considering the movie takes place mostly in Asgard. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 11:54 AM
	Like I've said before, did the black version of Nick Fury not say it loud enough? The movie is heading in Ultimates waters, lets get used to it. I don't want Doald Blake anywhere near Thor. ASSASSIN666 - 9/23/2009, 11:58 AM
	@ Joshw: Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I do indeed understand that the Ultimates are an interpretation just like the movie will be. I understand it, multi understands it, Teabag understands it,DDD, hell I bet even LEEE777 understands it.lol (j/k) What's to understand about that anyway? It is what it is. It's a simple matter, really, and I don't think there are any drooling idiots in this discussion. A simple difference of opinion doesn't = supidity or ingorance. DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 12:02 PM
	Yeah i reckon he will use it to some degree, but it will not work once Thor gets to earth. Could you imagine for example Nick Fury and Thor having any type of conversation if he kept the Shakespeare speak? See, again your not really getting Ultimate Thor Multi. You should really read it for yourself before listening to any more misinformed folk. We are always aware that he is a God, its just his team mates that believe him to be some crazy hippy with powers. He sees the likes of the warriors 3 visit him and we know they are really there but the others think he is talking to himself. I think its a great concept. But i agree the movie shouldn't use this completely, just elements. Rorschach01 - 9/23/2009, 12:05 PM
	@ASSASSIN666 I can't wait for Nick to go: "SAY WHAT AGAIN PYM! I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU MOTHERFCKER!" ;) MultiPurposePoni* - 9/23/2009, 12:05 PM
	I always hated the Elizabethan English anyway. And the weird bee boots. Eevn as a kid I was like "why does he talk like the bible" lol DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 12:10 PM
	@Ror Like I said to josh, I read and own all of the Ultimate novels (I'm a compulsive shopper, don't judge me). In general I just don't like them! I know they are popular stories, that's why I gave them a chance. Why does that make me ignorant? It's a personal preference, dude. For example, hat's like me calling you a douche for not liking Frank Miller's Batman. If you like it or not, that's your choice. I'm only stating that I personally think want to see the classic Thor in this film, not the Ultimate one. Now, Ultimate Cap is a different story. They didn't change him that much in the Ultimate interpretation so I still connected with the character. Also, I just can't picture Thor without the Shakespearean English. Did you watch Hulk vs. Thor? They didn't overdo it at all and it sounded great! Honestly, you don't think seeing Sam L. as Nick Fury getting frustrated with Thor's classical English could be funny? I think that would be hilarious! MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 12:10 PM
	Nice, she looks good anyway, I hope she will be good as Sif dancingmonkey08 - 9/23/2009, 12:10 PM
	MULTI: lol, dammit - you've caught me! I honestly cannot tell you of any action roles those three have been in - what i guess i meant was that Ive seen all of them act just as well in proper dramatic performances as i have comedic! im not sure why but i think that they're the right 'type' of actors for those characters! And I also prefer the regular versions of the characters as ive said above!!! oh and i really pray to god that they dont have that type of speech in Thor and to be honest i really dont think it will - that kind of thing might just alienate a large portion of the audience and would look idiotic as ROR rightly stated if Thor were in conversation with Nick Fury! DarthMulder: thats the thing...some people here really dont understand that! Just look at LEE's comment from above! ULTIMATES are for SELL OUTS!!! ; D Seriously, Ultimates are really crappy photo copies of CLASSICS! To me, that doesnt sound like someone who realises they're two different things!!! most of the others you mentioned do though! :) joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 12:16 PM
	@josh Haha That's all I'm saying bro, I haven't seen those guys do anything besides full on comedy. I think they're all funny as hell, but can they pull off being the protectors of Asgard? That's a pretty big gamble. You know josh, sometimes I just want to be so damn angry with you! But how can you be angry at a guy who has Captain Britain as his avatar :) I just can't picture Thor saying "For Odin, FOR ASGARD!" with an American accent, even if it's more 'realistic'. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 12:19 PM
	Multi, I feel ya. Yeah I can picture that. But there's really probably a lot things about Thor that would frustrate Nick Fury lol Thor's one guy in the Marvel U that Fury can't coerce into working for him somehow. There's no carrot to dangle in front of a guy that can destroy a helicarrier with just a single fling of his hammer. Just his simple old world warrior's nobility could create problems for Fury and whatver he's got going on. I did see Hulk vs Thor and I have to say I hated it. Hulk put the smackdown on Thor way way too easily. Now that you mention it, though no I was not bothered by the Old English used. DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 12:22 PM
	@Darth Haha I feel you man. The fight scenes in that flick were WAY too short. Thor and Hulk would have had to tango for a long time before one of them got the chance to pummel the other. I don't want you guys to think that I believe you HAVE to have D. Blake to make a Thor movie successful. Let me just give you my rationale behind his necessity in Thor's life: When I think back to why I got hooked on Marvel over DC, it came down to the rudimentary meanings behind Marvel's heroes. Stan Lee always stated that you couldn't have a true hero without giving him a vulnerability that audiences could connect to. Spider-Man was a geeky kid that got picked on, Bruce Banner would become a muscled brute when he became angry, and Captain America was a weak, puny soldier full of heart and ambition. Now you come to Thor. A god, an immortal, a wielder of power and lightning. How do audiences connect to that? That's why there was shy, disabled Blake. To humanize Thor and allow for an audience connection. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 12:27 PM
	MULTI: lol, get used to it - i can be an argumentative SOB! ;D oh and you're right about Captain Britain here - get angry at me and you get angry at a whole country, lol! i guess the same goes for you though having a Captain America avatar!! :) joshw24 - 9/23/2009, 12:28 PM
	Sorry Multi, i thought you said t=you hadn't read em, i must have been mixing you up with someone else. Obviously if you have and just don't dig em thats a different story! Also, I love Millers Bats! Even though he is approaching a villain. Rorschach01 - 9/23/2009, 12:33 PM
	I never get mad at Josh24. Heck personally I am THRILLED that there is even someone else that likes Captain Brittain!! And he's all calling for a CB movie! That's COOL. I think most Marvel old schoolers prefer Union Jack to Captain Brittian, but not me. DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 12:35 PM
	@Ror Haha We're definitely on the same page about Bats at least! That fcker was a borderline Punisher! @Darth Forget Thor, lets start the petition for Union Jack and Excalibur movies!! I'd buy that for a dollar! MultiPurposePoni* - 9/23/2009, 12:39 PM
	@ MultiPuroposePOny: Hell yeah. let's do it nah Ror that was me that said that. I should probably do my homework lol The only things I know about the Ultimates is stuff I hear here and there. Some of which I like, some I don't. Apparently not all of it is true DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 12:44 PM
	To jump on the DB Thor thingy, perhaps were missing a new direction.....remember The Incredible Hulk returns......that had DB slam the Hammer And Thor would apear not replase DB....as shitty as it was maybe they could use DB as his anchor to Earth...DB teaches Thor Humility whislt Thor teaches DB to be a hero :P Captain America 4 life :) teabag - 9/23/2009, 12:48 PM
	@teabag I like that idea too. There are SO many ways to incorporate Blake into a Thor movie, that dismissing him off the bat is hard to stomach. Why do you think they haven't cast that part yet? Maybe the director and writers are still throwing ideas around that make sense for the movie. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 12:54 PM
	@ multi: They probably haven't decided to use Blake or not or maybe it's that they straight up have decided not to. But to announce that to us would give away an important plot point, so it's not likely that we will know for some time what the real deal is. @ TB: I could see that. It's kind of bizarre that a good idea could come from such an incredible crapfest, but there it is. Cheers! DarthMulder - 9/23/2009, 1:00 PM
	@Darth That's what I think. They are probably indecisive at this point. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 1:01 PM
	Multi and Teabag- Sorry it took so long LOL :P As for Hulk, i feel that Norton's Hulk was much more of a brilliant film but even if it came first, i feel it would have made the same amount of money as Ang Lee's. Because we can say that Ang's film left a bad taste in their mouths all we want, word travels fast and the critics were almost unanimous in saying that TIH was a great film. That alone would have been enough to get people in the seats. The reason why the first HULK got that much money was because it had been ages since the audience had seen Hulk. They all watched the 70ies show and wanted to see the film. Cause no movie as bad as Ang's Hulk can get that much money at the box office without a good reason. After that movie, another hulk movie is exactly what it is to them... another hulk movie. It had a "been there, done that" athmosphere in any theater that it played in. People walked out of there after enjoying it but didn't care to return. It really had nothing to do with Ang's film leaving a bad taste in their mouths. "The concept" was passé no matter how much more brilliant the story was this time around. A third Hulk film will have the same effect and i'm sad to say that if Branagh focuses on a second actor for Blake, just as much as Chris's "Thor" half, it will have the same result. And so will a DC's Captain Marvel film that isn't nickleodeon fueled. BTW, He-man wouldn't work either if he was a punk teen that became a barbarian warrior. You need the same actor all the way through. As for the "relationship", it could easily be replaced by the relationship that Thor could be having with a mortal; Jane Foster. Back then, we NEEDED them to be mortal to relate to them but not anymore. His relationship to Jane could have an "April O'Neil taking care of the turtles" or " A vampire's love interest being his only link to humanity" type feel that could also ground the character for us to relate to. That type of relationship is also limitless but alot less campy as an alter ego/half. When we think of it, in the comics, Superman whent to a point where he hardly needed his Clark Kent secret ID. When he got married to Lois, he could be himself which is not Clark. That provided a great amount of depth in a different manner. Just to see how a god would have to "be" amoungst mortals as a mortal himself is depth enough for a movie. He doesn't need to "transform" into a mortal, just the fact of being on earth could make him a mortal. In the film, Thor could be only immortal in Asgard (isn't that how it is in the comics as well???). All i'm saying is that whatever we thought to be essential could actually be altered on the big screen in a brilliant way. Take Ironman for example. Just saying outloud that he is Ironman creates a dilema that makes the repercussions in the sequel quite interesting to see! Shaman - 9/23/2009, 1:54 PM
	jumping on the poster making bandwagon... just whipped this one up real quick... made of bits and pieces i found online. JerzeyHellboy - 9/23/2009, 2:02 PM
	Marvel's Ultimate universe is lame and so is anyone who likes it! Dr. Donald Draper - 9/23/2009, 2:17 PM
	@Shaman . . .Ummm. . I think we're arguing the same point in regards to the Hulk films LOL As for the Thor/mortal relationship you detailed, it's a very good perspective, VERY GOOD. And it does create the a similar dynamic. But I still want to see them try to conquer the Thor/Blake origin, as I will forever see that as the 'real' Thor story line. I think a two+ hour movie is enough of time to do it right. It's just my preference. I have a question, though . . . I've never known Thor to be immortal ONLY in Asgard. I always thought he was a god, even on Earth. Since you're the first person I've heard say the contrary, please let me know where you found the info. If it's true, maybe it will change my perspective on the Ultimate stories. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 2:29 PM
	Draper- So I'm lame huh? you might want to think before you speak! ASSASSIN666 - 9/23/2009, 2:47 PM
	Ang Lee's Hulk was shit....nuff said ..lol :P teabag - 9/23/2009, 3:03 PM
	Hey ASSASIN, welcome in the lame club! :) Kyos - 9/23/2009, 3:20 PM
	@teabag. No,no, no. . . not nuff said. It took the CBM market three steps backwards! It wasn't like Daredevil or Ghost Rider, characters that many people did not know about. Audiences were expecting a dramatic thriller. An amped up version of the t.v. series. Instead, it totally changed the mythos (for no apparent reason) and took focus away from Marvel's attempt to interconnect their characters. Thank goodness for Iron Man. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 3:22 PM
	Multi@ Nuff Said..lol :) teabag - 9/23/2009, 3:24 PM
	@teabag Haha Thanks ;) I forgot to add that to the end MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 3:25 PM
	Multi- To us Lee's hulk is a stand alone movie, but you're right that it isolated itself from the Marvel universe. On top of confusing the non hardcore fans with a reboot that had nothing to do with the first one with the exception of Banner in South America at the end. Lee's hulk was a good movie, but wasn't intended for the Hulk smash types of fans. ASSASSIN666 - 9/23/2009, 3:31 PM
	Multi@ lol Hulk Smash :) teabag - 9/23/2009, 3:37 PM
	@ASSASSIN666 I am forced to watch Lee's Hulk with my kids (ages 5 and 3) at least twice a month.They love the cartoon action and can describe the movie, scene by scene. They don't like The Incredible Hulk because they can't understand the story and they think the "monsters" are too scary. . . I think that says alot about the differences in the two films. MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 3:42 PM
	Multi- That's surprising and good that your kids like Lee's Hulk, most kids hated it because they were so bored with the story and it took foever to get him to change in to the Hulk. Lee's movie seemed to be geared for critics and serious acting, nothing wrong with that, but we are talking about the Hulk. Not the easiest charecter in Marvel to do a movie with. I think there are aspects of both movies that combined would have made one great movie. ASSASSIN666 - 9/23/2009, 4:02 PM
	@ASSASSIN666 Very true, Lee is all about critical acclaim. One of my small complaints about The Incredible Hulk is how easily the Abomination was beating him. Hulk gets bigger and stronger the angrier he gets, that's one aspect Lee's film had. Besides that little glitch, I think TIH was a great movie! MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 4:17 PM
	Multi- Actually, i think i was having a conversation with someone on here about Norse Gods. That certain someone told me that norse gods weren't immortal to begin with. Only while in Asgard apparently. But since i never researched it's validity, that's why i was asking the question. As for our Hulk argument, i was saying that the majority of movie goers aren't really comic book fans but in the 70ies, they were fans of the show. My original argument is that the dual character dynamic was the rave back in the 70ies with the show as well as when those characters were created. But in our day and age, it is less favored which explains why TIH even concidered BETTER than Ang's by critics and the general public, did worse than Ang's. Ang's film's success is explained merely on account of nostalgia. Nostalgia of a raging and misunderstood Hulk. Not so much on account of the dual character dynamic. No one really missed Banner but they never forgot how cool Hulk was. It's similar to "Beauty and the Beast"'s success or "Ugly Betty"'s. The ol' diamond in the rough concept that still rages on to this day. TIH just felt like too much of the same concept without any development to the non comic book fans. But we enjoyed way more in general. So there are some similarities in our arguments but not for the same reasons ;) As for Thor well, you're a hard core classic Thor comic fan and all i've ever been a fan of in Thor's regards is in his looks and personalities. Other than Loki, i've never knew any of his villains. Hell, other than Odin, i know jack shit about any asgardian! So i respect the fact that you feel the need to see his true origins! All i'm saying is that if they really wanna build a franchise for all non comic fans to enjoy and anticipate... unfortunitely, they'll have to leave a few core guidelines behind :( Shaman - 9/23/2009, 6:33 PM
	This is definitely will make me smile. Weiner123 - 9/23/2009, 6:54 PM
	@Shaman: "My original argument is that the dual character dynamic was the rave back in the 70ies with the show as well as when those characters were created. But in our day and age, it is less favored which explains why TIH even concidered BETTER than Ang's by critics and the general public, did worse than Ang's. " Sorry man, have to disagree. The Incredible Hulk didn't do well in theaters because is was expected to be a sequel to Hulk. Marvel even marketed it as a "re-imagined" sequel because they didn't want people to groan over another origin story. Once people saw it and read reviews on it, they new different. That's why the the DVD sales for TIH were 1.5 million in the first week, twice as much as Hulk. Also, Hulk obviously focused more on the gamma-powered monster, where as TIH was more focused on Bruce Banner's endeavors. The way the story should be portrayed. As for Thor, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. I'm not a hardcore classic fan, I understand stories need modernization for film and written media. But I didn't grow up with the Ultimates, so to me, that story line is irrelevant to the real history of the character. For the younger generation that grew up reading the Ultimates first, they will always regard this as the true the story of the character. For those of you that don't know which generation you fall under, I pose a simple question: What was Thor's all time greatest threat? MultiPurposePoni - 9/23/2009, 8:46 PM
	Jaimie Alexander will be an awesome Sif. I can really see her going for the warrior woman type. She can make ass kicking look good. Especially when she does it naked like here :) bennypick - 9/25/2009, 11:18 AM
	Alexander will do. Dr. Donald Draper - 9/25/2009, 1:00 PM
	Man she's HOT! NightAvenger4 - 9/25/2009, 2:31 PM

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.