Dearest so-and-soMachocruz said:I guess, if you expect every fantasy fiction to take time to explain every detail regarding every aspect of what is happening within it's pages/on screen, whether or not those aspects are relevant or add anything to the overall result. Thankfully even the least among competent storytellers aren't that meaninglessly anal retentive when it comes to fiction.Really said:.....anyways I'm not here for the black norse god...im here for more logical issues that nobody seems to address...
1stly - I didnt know Asgardians speak English...considering the intense history and amalgamation of words and sounds which derived and formed our English language, where there was a time where every town in Britain had a different word for "egg", its amazing another species from another planet evolved to speak the same language.
2ndly - not only did the Asgardians speak ol' USA English, they use the ol' USA metric system.
Remember when Thor was looking for his hammer and someone tells him its was "50 miles west" Well although we didnt see it Thor must have been using his starfleet issued intergalactic translator or the Asgardians must use the exact same metric system. Funny that it wasn't "50 clicks west", or "50km west" - probably would have understood that too.
3rdly - and this one takes the cake, Kenneth-you-fool-Branagh!!!
Loki was considered Evil 100's of years ago in Norse mythology before he actually became Evil...weird right! The humans knew before the gods...
Its kinda like Satan only turning evil during modern day meanwhile years and years of religious and non-religious literature has painted him evil before. The Black Norse Actor should have used his vision to scope out our Norse Mythology literature in any one of our libraries then all of that could have been avoided...
Stupid beyond measure!
.....
It's not a logical gap for a movie to ignore real world mythology or theology, which themselves are fictions not based on anything concrete. It's a design choice - like all of the supposed "logical issues" you listed - one you may or may not agree with, but is not a "hole". They could have chose to rationalize everything, but what would that serve for this particular story? I assume most sensible people know by the first act that the story has taken some divergences from reality, and don't sit around thinking, "wait a minute, that's not how the story of Loki goes. And what do you mean these super advanced fictional space gods are aware of the metric system, and speak a language that the audience can understand, with accents that not only belong to some of the actors playing these fictional characters, but have been synonymous with Shakespearian drama for decades, which is appropriate for the director and the reason why the studio wanted him in the first place. What a shit documentary!"
I don't doubt that all involved know a lot more about storytelling and filmmaking than random forum posters , and know that such banal details don't not matter in the end.
Your ramblings of "not important to the story" is rediculous - there is a lot that is not required or important to the story but it is still done. It's the little things, the attention to detail, which makes a good movie. If story is all you care for, listen to the radio and stay off discussion forums which critique movies.
If you can recall the 13th Warrior (Antonio Banderas) and how they dealt with different languages there (an arab trying to understand the Vikings)- they could have easily implied the same at the begining of Thor having the actors speak giberrish or at least a language related to one of the Scandanavian languages and eventually fade in the English - giving the viewer the sense of another language. Takes 1 minute of screenplay.
Also - Thor could have been dropped years ago - giving him enough time to learn English and become acquainted with the metric system - maybe along the lines of the Marvel Ultimate Universe comics where he becomes a hippie-like character...(this was actually a good background in the comic)
Takes maybe 3-4 minutes of screenplay
With regards to the movie not having to follow our world mythology! What a poorly thought out arugment! Well I would not have brought it up except they had to have the old man look through THIS word's norse mythology literature for the page on "Thor for Thurdsay" and the page on "Loki" - so Kenneth-the-fool-Branagh introduced current world mythology in the movie, not I. I am just critiquing on his inability to think a littler further and notice the silliness of it all - using part of the mythology but not all! and should you use the line "well mythology is only half-truths" well Loki being a baddy is one of the fundementals in Norse Myth - like Satan being evil in the Abrahamic religions...
Movies dont have to be documentaries - but good movies take the time to cover all their bases... The producers and directors said frak it - everyone speaks English - not even an attempt. Its this lazy attitutde that's going to perpetuate a non-creative directorship which focuses on cgi special effects rather than necessary details.
I find it hard to believe it didnt strike a chord with you when Thor just understood "50 miles west" Maybe because I'm not a yank and dont accept everything at face value, I dont know. Guess I demand more from movies.