Talk:Thor (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Infobox information about director.

Hey guys, seeing as Joss Whedon directed the post credits scene, which is already stated in the article and see this link [1].

So in the info box, should it say that the film was directed by just Kenneth Brannagh or Kenneth Brannagh and Joss Whedon?The Editor 155 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that a serious question?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact is covered in the body of the article. I dont think its notable enough for inclusion in the infobox. Besides Branagh is the only credited director of the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Triiiple. We can mention Whedon's involvement in the article body. Having both in the infobox gives the impression of both being equally responsible for the film, and I think a note in parentheses would just add clutter. The article body is the best placement. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

Would it be OK if we replaced Richard Roeper's positive quote with another critic's positive quote that actually says something and gives a reason? "The best since Spider-Man!" is a blurb, not a thoughtful, explanatory reason such as "I found the family scenes poignant" or "The action scenes were well-choreographed," or some such. Roeper isn't saying anything substantive whatsoever in his quote. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

good suggestion. Go and do it and i'll be there to proof-read it!! Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I readded Roeper's review with his full quote, the blurb was taken from part a larger quote that did provide substance (Hemsorth's performance).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Context makes all the difference! Good one. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The article currently states that the film "received generally favorable reviews." Would it be fair to change this to "received mixed to positive reviews?" I realize that the film has 77% on Rotten Tomatoes, but many of those reviews were pretty lukewarm (it's average score after all is only 6.7, signifying exactly that, a mixed response). It's score on Metacritic would also suggests that critical response was mixed or average. S. Luke (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say so but not because of RT's average score but because Metacritic's aggregate is mixed while RT's is positive.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The page for Iron Man 2 says the film had "generally positive reviews" when it had 74%, lower than Thor, and 57 on Metacritic, the same score. Since critical reaction to Thor was more enthusiastic than Iron Man 2, why doesn't it say "generally positive" as well? Rotten Tomatoes' score is more valid since far more critics post on Rotten Tomatoes than Metacritic, and Rotten Tomatoes' aggregation works by percentage whilst Metacritic works by average. Also, The Incredible Hulk is said to have had "generally positive reviews" at 66%. Saying it had mixed to positive reviews makes it sound like it was the worst reviewed out of these 3 movies when it was not. (ThisIsPathetic (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

Teseract

I want to mention that the tesseract was what was seen in Captain America, but there was a glitch and when I fixed it Wiki thought I was edit warring! Help! Somebody else has to fix it, or else I will be blocked from editing! All I need, is for one of you to put "(which is the tessaract seen in Captain America: The First Avenger)" after it says "mysterious object." Again: Help! Stupid glitch!

No prob! Happened to me once before, so I completely sympathise with you!

There is no glitch, people are undoing your edit because it is information from another film and has no reason to be in the plot section of this one. The system thinks you are edit-warring because you keep replacing the content despite numerous discussions on the matter saying don't do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It has a place on it. The films are connected, and it should be stated for people who could potentially want to know about it. It should be mentioned on it, or at leasted somewhere on the page. And it as never stated on a discussion page 'don't do it.' And true, it isn't a glitch, but that was the best name I could think of for this. As far as I know, the computer is deleting it thinking I'm edit warring because I just happened to be editing the same time somebody else did, and it thought the info was contradictory, which it wasn't, it always says that, though. I put it back, it thought I was trying to start an edit war, and I did it again, not knowing it thought that. The story of the Avengers are in the same series, and are connected, so just because it doesn't have the same hero in it doesn't mean its in a completely different universe. It has a big part in the Avengers, and should be said at least somewhere in the article. If you have any contradiction, or an idea of where to put the info, be my guest to reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.73.96 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm genuinely tired of having this discussion with people. No one has any idea what role that box will have in the Avengers and any comment that the box at the end of Thor and the box in Captain America are the same is pure original research which is not acceptable on Wikipedia and does not belong in the plot. I don't know why there is a push to consider all readers of Wikipedia stupid, but they aren't. The cube has no story, it has no history in Thor and any external commentary does not belong here. If it appears in the Avengers and is called the Cosmic Cube it will still not be acceptable to alter this article with the information retroactively because it is not what is presented in the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine, it may or may not be the Cosmic Cube, but its a fact that it is the same cube in Captain America! Have you even seen the films? I know I have! They're the same, and it should be mentioned. nd I'm not saying they're stupid, but I didn't know that they were the same because of the time gap between seein the movies. I only know for sure now because I re-watched the tagclip! I was expecting to find it on Wiki, but people like you don't want "external commentary." Bah!

It isn't a fact, its an assumption. One that still doesn't belong in this article. It only appears in Thor at all in a post-credits scene that was filmed after the rest of the movie was completed, its an advert for the Avengers and has nothing to do with this film or this article. The only place it will ever belong is in the Avengers article and that will still require actual sources to back it up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm no talking about the Avengers, I'm talking about Captain America! But I think we can compromise. Would it be acceptable to put it on the Marvel Cinematic Universe (all of the Avengers films) page, and I will mention it is only an assumption, though it's dead obvious they're the same. I mean, I won't say the dead obvious part, but the assumption part. And its a legitimate part of the movie, not an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.73.96 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

After ddoing some research, I found out that it is the Cosmic Cube, and it is the one in Capatin America. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.27.17 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 22 January 2012

Not only is Darkwarriorblake correct, but this sort of WP:NOR debate has been occurring ever since at least the first Iron Man movie. It is the consensus of both Wikipedia and of WikiProject Comics that the plot of a given movie contain only that which is manifestly and concretely stated in that given movie. Anything else is speculation and personal knowledge. If you want to open a formal RfC on the issue, you're entitled to. Otherwise, it is getting to be disruptive forcing other editors to continue responding to what is a closed issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If your going to be that picky on stupid little technicalities then I just don't care anymore. I was just trying to contribute simple logic (something you apparently lack) to try to add information to Wiki. Oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.27.17 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your good intentions are indeed appreciated. Your insulting and uncivil language is not, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, let me rephrase what I said: I was trying to add information that was backed up with logic, and I do not appreciate your use of technicalities to strike it down. Better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.27.17 (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Logical or not, original research is disallowed on Wikipedia for solid and sound reasons. It's one of the core principles of Wikipedia, so I wouldn't call it "a technicality." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thor 2

Considering the large amount of information for the sequel section of the article I think it's time to create an article for Thor 2 and move much of the content there, since it's beginning to overshadow the content of the first film. Richiekim (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

General practice is that you don't create an article until it's filming. You CAN do it, I've done it, but people WILL try to have it deleted until filming begins and it is a certainty since stuff can happen in the interim that prevents it being made.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What Blake is referring is WP:NFF. However rare exceptions to this guideline can be made when the proposed article overwhelming surpasses WP:GNG, which I am not sure if we're there quite yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thor's origin

The movie makes clear in several places that Thor and the other Asgardians are not actual gods, they are just using incredibly advanced technology. This isn't a supernatural movie with actual gods flying around, it's sci-fi. These references need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if the Asgardians use advanced technology, we may need to have a source that is verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's some articles that discuss it. The second one is written by Sean Carroll, who is credited as the science advisor for the film. THe 3rd link is Sean Carroll's page on imdb.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/09/thor-pays-tribute-to-arthur-c-clarkes-rule-about-magic-and-technology/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/05/04/the-mighty-thor/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3128433/news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discover Magazine may count as a reliable source. However, please be aware that IMDB is not a reliable source. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The link to Sean Carroll discussing his work on the scientific basis for the film, including conversations he had with Kevin Feige, is the important one. The imdb link was just to provide an additional reference that Sean Carroll is who he says he is, but its not necessary. Discovery Magazine would have vetted him, so that citation should be sufficient on its own.

There is also this exchange from the movie:

Dr. Selvig: "I’m talking about science, not magic."

Jane: "Well magic’s just science that we don’t understand yet --Arthur C. Clarke."

Dr. Selvig: "Who wrote science fiction"

Jane: "A precursor to science fact!"

Dr. Selvig: "In some cases, yes."

Jane: "Well if there is an Einstein-Rosen bridge then there is something on the other side, and advanced beings could have crossed it."

Darcy: "A primitive culture like the Vikings might have worshipped them as deities."

Jane: Yes, yes, exactly. Thank you."

So how do I go about citing a movie's own dialogue as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To the person who undid my edits by noting "pretty sure you can't whisper into a hammer and magically enchant it, with technology", nowhere in the movie does it actually say he is using 'magic' to 'enchant' the hammer. He just whispers into it. If I whisper into my iPhone and it sets an alarm, am I "magically enchanting" it? No, it's called Siri -- a piece of advanced technology. Mjolnir is to us as the iPhone would be to the people of ancient Egypt. More importantly, I've cited the first-hand account of someone who actually worked on the movie, and whose job it was to work on this exact issue. I understand there are strong feelings about this among Marvel fans as in the comics he is explicitly a god, but this isn't the comics -- the film is an adaptation of the comic, and it has differences, this being one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have provided do not say he is a technologically advanced alien, it says Brannagh did not want to say that Thor was explicitly a god and that they used a principle of significantly advanced technology to hand wave a lot of stuff without getting bogged down in how it meshed with the reality of Iron Man, but they attempted to apply a logic to it. It admits he is magical but that they're also saying its technological. He's quite clearly magical however. The sources given are incredibly vague for how much I had to read. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source that is more clear. According to Sean Carroll, science advisor for the film, "the Asgardians from Thor are really technologically-advanced aliens that seemed godlike to our ancestors."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/05/04/avengers-assemble/

In the film they never assert that the Asgardians are actually gods. In contrast, as I noted above the characters in the film explicitly refers to the Asgardians are "advanced beings" who are just using "science we don't understand yet". 67.188.3.9 (talk)

This entire discussion seems moot. No matter the origin of the Asgardians, they were worshiped therefore they are deities (i.e. gods). So technically the article as it stands is correct. Also term "actual god" is highly unencyclopedic and unscientific.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is objecting to the article saying they were worshipped as gods, the objection is omitting the explanation of the origin of Thor's powers. The reader is left to infer that the origin of the powers is magical, which is not accurate. What possible justification could there be for omitting something that is relevant, interesting, and from a verifiable source? Go to any article about any other superhero film, and the introductory paragraph explains the origin of the superhero's powers. That's what this article is missing. Again, without it, the reader is left to infer that the powers are magical and supernatural in nature, when they are not. It's a big difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day the person behind all these sources says he was a consultant. Not a script writer, not a director, a consultant. Two characters in-universe theorizing about their origins is not a citable piece of information, and they are clearly magical. Loki thinks he is a god. He doesn't think he has a really fancy iPad app. They whisper enchantments, can revive from near death and summon armour or cause it to fall apart at will. They are magical entities, Loki uses magic himself multiple times including his cloning thing, or Heimdall who can see all through space. They're not just full of nanites. There are giants made of ice who can forge ice blades in their hands, the Asgardians live on a mountain that sits on clouds. The consultant says he was asked for a different name for wormhole. I don't see how his involvement at all decrees that their entire nature is not magical, but that he provided rationale for some items to help keep them grounded. Magical cloud mountains are not very grounded. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, at least I'm citing a source at all. You're just making bald assertions based on nothing but your personal opinion. And of course it looks like magic to us, that was Arthur C. Clarke's entire point: if it wasn't so far advanced that it appeared magical, everyone would just call it "technology". The fact that it's non-obvious is exactly why this needs to be explained in the article. The source is a verifiable account by someone who spoke and worked directly with Feige. It's no different than a reporter writing an article based on first-hand conversations with a producer or director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No I'm using your source and the guy is saying he was a consultant, and in one of them he says he doesn't even know if anything he suggested got into the final film. Which says a lot about how much influence he actually had. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just evading the points that don't happen to support your view. Sorry, that's not how it works. So to address it: you're taking his words out of context. He said there were some things that made it into the film, and some he didn't know, which is not surprising given that entire characters can be left on the cutting room floor in post production. You're going at great lengths to support your point, which is again backed up by nothing but your own observations.

More importantly, every single example you list to show how "magical" the characters are, I can find an identical effect in a sci-fi film based on technology. But, again, it's not on me to prove that, because my source is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardonculous (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous 67.188.3.9 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No I'm giving you points from your sources and telling you that in the film they call themselves gods and do magic stuff and a hypothesis by two non-involved characters is not an assertion of fact. You have a consultant making a fairly bold claim that isn't backed up by the film and who readily admits that he isn't sure what, if any, of his work made it into the final film. Even if it is technology, which I am not saying it is, they consider themselves gods, they do godlike things, in one of your sources he ever refers to Thor as a demigod. They are, for all intents and purposes, gods doing god things. I fail to agree with any reasoning on why adding in " a god but only in the technologically advanced sense" is a good thing for this article. If they are gods, regardless of the means of their godliness (which is clearly not technology), then the description of him being a god is the appropriate description. And for the love of god sign your text with ~~~~ or it creates an edit conflict. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And of course they promoted the film as so: this and this.

Agree with DarkwarriorBlake, the origin of Asgardian's power are not explained in film or in the source. Technology might explain some things like Heimdall's observatory, but it could just be magic-based technology. Thor does say on film, that in his world magic and science are one in the same, so magic = science and science = magic. But back to my original comment being based in the natural world does not preclude the Asgardians from being gods, since "god" is a title given by worshipers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thor's quote exactly makes my point. Why else would they put it in except to say that what we call magic is in fact just advanced science. Cardonculous (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous

Does anyone have the DVD with commentary? Apparently they explain that they see magic and science as the same thing and identify them as advanced deities, and in a deleted scene Loki turns a snake into wine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

No he says they are the same thing so your "advance science" is equally magical.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I own the movie. There is no commentary audio. And, again, something just appearing to you to be magical is meaningless. In Star Trek they use technology to conjure up objects out of seemingly nothing all the time using replicators for example, but no one is claiming Star Trek uses "magic". By the way, Star Trek:TNG is set 350 years in the future. Asgard is a civilization that is thousands of years more advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.3.9 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There will be versions with commentary. And we're not talking about showing a TV to someone from the 1300s, he magically enchants a hammer so that only someone of sufficient worth can lift it. The film does not back up one way or another what the consultant who says he doesn't know what work he provided was kept, says. The discussion can go no further without other sources or the DVD with commentary on it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I have provided a credible source, you have not. If you want to track down the DVD and prove me wrong, you are welcome to, but you have no place to say that my edits should be excluded from the article until a hypothetical source, which may or may not exist, is tracked down and reviewed. I gave this an honest try, but despite my best efforts this is no closer to resolution, so I have filed a dispute resolution notice. Please let this serve as my notice to both of you that I've filed it. Cardonculous (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculus

Noone is denying you have a source, I'm saying the guy offers no specifics and undermines his own contribution which isn't backed up by the film, which somewhat overrides a consultant. If the consultant says the sky is blue and in thefilm it is red, the consultant isn't right. You are of course free to file a dispute resolution, this of course is not a dispute nor does it need resolving so I don't know how well that will go. It's a discussion, we have those on here, it is what the talk pages are for. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, while he clearly contributed a lot to the film, it doesn't matter if Sean Carroll didn't contribute anything at all. He has written an article published by a credible publication, Discover Magazine online, in which he recounts first-hand conversations he had with the film's producer, Kevin Feige. If you like, pretend he's a random journalist who interviewed Feige. It's no different.

Secondly, I don't know how you define a dispute, but this is a clear disagreement over my edit to the article, with zero willingness on your part to compromise, and the discussion has ceased being productive. If that doesn't define "dispute" then I don't know what does. The notice has been filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardonculous (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what compromise you expect, they are two completely clashing ideologies and character origins, one backed up by the film, and/or every associated material referring to them as gods, versus a consultant who says he does not know if his work remained. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean this is from one of your sources: " Thor’s hammer Mjölnir (which Kat Denning’s mispronunciation thereof is comedy gold) was “forged in the heart of a dying sun.” How that happened and why it makes the hammer so magical is never explained. Those are the only two references in the film that, from what I could tell, even pretended to acknowledge science. No effort is made to disguise the rest of the overtly magical and mythical elements of the Asgard. And that’s a good thing." And further: "Thor does not pull a George Lucas and attempt to over-science the magical elements. Thor is not superhuman because he has some Norse equivalent of midichlorians. He is superhuman because he is magical. Sure, that magic is allegedly based in technology, but technology so incredibly advanced, we can’t distinguish it from magic." The guy is writing an essay or something, nothing he says is concrete. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The point of that source was to better explain the Clarke rule in general, not to be a specific basis for the edit. If I'd known you'd quote it in bad faith I wouldn't have posted it. You are ignoring literally everything else the author says to skip to something that you can twist to use for your purposes.

The film backs up that the powers are based on technology, and it goes through great lengths to do so. If they were just gods using magic, why would they bother with those lines at all? You could remove them and the film would be the same

Also, you realize in the comics the rainbow bridge is an actual rainbow, right? And they walk on it, because they are magic. Is it an actual rainbow in the movie? No. It's a giant, mechanical machine with moving parts, that creates a wormhole through space. Why on earth would they bother if they could just say "its magic!" How you can argue that at all just makes no sense to me.Cardonculous (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous Cardonculous (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Cardonculous

I'm wondering if, as was done at The Avengers (2012 film), this article might simply refer to them as "Asgardians"? That might be a way of sidestepping the issue, since it seems as if the movie wants to leave it to the viewer to interpret for him- or herself regarding whether those characters are gods. Maybe this would be a compromise?--Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a rainbow in the film because it isn't the comic and they change things to better suit the medium, and people laughed enough at it being called a rainbow bridge. It's a silly thing to bring into the discussion. And if the source is by the same guy as the others and that is what he is saying, I'm not sure what the issue is with me quoting from it. But I'm done with this, I've said repeatedly that not only is he talking a great deal of nonsense, but none of it can be backed up by anyone but himself, and he has said that he has no idea what made it into the film. If you wanted to add it to the development section it might make sense but my stance is it doesn't belong in the character description, and even if it were true, to describe him as a technologically advanced alien creates a wholly incorrect representation of the character as represented in the film. I will let other editors impart their wisdom from here, nothing else I can say. ( As Tenebrae has done, causing an edit conflict. Darn you Tenebrae).Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, D! : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the side-step compromise proposed for the opening paragraph (similar changes are needed for the Avengers article I'd note), even though it still seems like an oversight to make no mention of the scientific/technological basis that was woven into the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardonculous (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

See, this is my complaint as well about the origin. I really think the article NEEDS to say it for anyone who didn't watch the film and wants to see Avengers (while assuming it's all the same as the comics)... the whole basis of the Avengers movie is that it's an alien invasion, not a war of mythological creatures. This movie is BASED on the comic, but isn't a complete representation of the comic (where most of the other character's movies were much closer to their actual stories). Without stating that it's an alien race in one way or another, it's missing a significant piece of the origin of the story... it's an extreme enough difference that it's akin to having the ring from LotR being given to Bilbo by some guy walking down the street... from mythological gods to aliens from another planet is a REALLY big difference. Burleigh2 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

People are taking the alien thing too literally. Anything that is not of Earth is alien. It doesn't mean little green-men alien. Didn't they have the world tree in this too? Not a literal tree but some planets that were connected somehow? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, exactly... he showed several different planets (which he said were groups of planets that they called 'realms' in the movie) were occupied by different races and that they were not of Earth. The Avengers article also points out that they are aliens so I really don't see why this is such a big deal to not state it in this article. Is it just one or two people arguing that it's not important and two or three that are arguing it is? Who wins in these disagreements, whoever doesn't give up first?Burleigh2 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally we keep talking until we reach some middle-ground compromise, like a phrase that's strictly accurate but not super-specific and that both sides can live with. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How about we just use the term that's the official Marvel Cinematic Universe term, spoken aloud in Avengers: "Demi-god." Solves the problem nicely. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Demigod is factually incorrect as Thor is not part human by any argument. I agree with Tenebrae that reffering to him simply as an Asgardian is a healthy compromise and leaves room for interpretation.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrections

Since a link wasn't good enough, I'll copy and paste what I said on Darkwarriorblake's talk page.

I have reverted your revert :). My reasons are as follows:

• Nowhere is it stated, in this continuity at least, that Mjolnir is the source of Thor's power, and it is improper to state so.
• As noted, it is not known if Thor's exile played a hand on Odin falling into the Odinsleep or not, so it is improper to state this as well. The rest, it wasn't just Loki finding out, it was him snapping and yelling at Odin that did it. Odin's reasons for taking Loki being (seemingly) for political reasons is part of why Loki has such "'Well Done, Son' Guy" issues, to use the TV Tropes term.
• The climax, I simply moved about the order of events - Loki reveals his plan after Thor arrives, not before, so it was an incorrect sequence of given events. The elaboration of why he lets himself fall is perhaps not needed, I know Wikipedia dislikes excessive detail in film summaries, but I felt it was important to understanding the plot and Loki's character, which should be the purpose of a summary, to illustrate the subject - Loki being rejected is part of his character as Thor's romance with Jane is to his.

If you have any further desire to question me on these matters, feel free.

Now, excessive detail on Loki? Perhaps, but fine, restore those areas to their former versions. However, do not blindly revert my other edits which are correcting errors in the previous summary. 184.144.31.62 (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thor received positive reviews, not mixed-to-positive reviews.

Disambiguation needed to Almighty Thor ?

Both movies premiered in the same year - non-english titles are likely to make it harder to differentiate them - I actually came looking here seeking information on the other movie (not knowing there were two, wondering why the quality was so horrible). I'd add it myself, but I've had bad luck with bold edits, so I rather just suggest it here.--Cyberman TM (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done The articles titles are distinct enough that a hatnote or other such disambiguation note is not needed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have added a redirection template for the film of the same year Almighty Thor on the basis that it has a similar title to the subject as per WP:DISTINGUISH. I have added this because whilst attempting to search for the other film I found myself on this page. Whilst looking for the other film you could easily find yourself on this page, although if you were to search for this film it is unlikely you would find yourself on the other film’s page. Therefore the claim that “there's no chance of confusion” would seem a matter of opinion. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated above the titles are very distinct. Also the hatnote reads "not to be confused with". What you are discribing is a navigational dilemma not a matter of confusing this article with the other.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. I've removed the 3O request made there, as the guidelines of that project — like all content dispute resolution at Wikipedia — requires thorough discussion before requesting help. One comment each isn't enough, I'm afraid. Please continue to try to talk it out between you and if that comes to a standstill, then reconsider DR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• They clearly do not share the same title and Thor has never been referred to as Almighty Thor, you cannot be searching for one by searching for the other. If I end up here while looking for Almighty Thor it's because I've typed Thor for some reason and Thor alone, which would be the equivalent of me searching for Die Hard with the query "Hard". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic Cube

Not linking to the Captain America movie in accordance to wiki:EGG is kind of understandable. But prohibiting linking to the Cosmic Cube#Film is not. When someone clicks a link labeled 'mysterious object' they don't expect to be taken to a page explaining the plot device of 'mysterious objects' and their history over the past few thousand years. They expect to be taken to a page about what that object is. MatrixM (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

First sorry, I didn't see that you had already started a discussion. At any rate its best to determine consensus here before boldly changing the article. But back to the topic, the object is never identified within the plot of this film. So without referencing an outside source it is WP:OR, nevermind WP:EGG. I would not be opposed to adding a note, like the one in the CA:TFA article if we have a reference, which I am sure we could find.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source, though it doesn't mention it as the Tesseract. Will see if I can find one that mentions it as such. Also, I would be in agreement, with using a note, as on the CA:TFA article. Also, tread lightly if you Google "Tesseract thor ending", as that has stuff about the DARK WORLD endings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There have been two attempts to add a disambiguation header for Thor 1 to this article, referring to a 24 year old satellite that was renamed Thor 1 21 years ago and was scuttered 11 years ago. The article for that series of satellites is already disambiguated, the redirect Thor 1 has 18 views in the last 30 days. The satellite article as a whole has 1000 views in the last thirty days and the film article has 193,927 views in the last thirty days. Not only is it a redirect that few, to barely any, people are using, but they're clearly not using it to find the satellite. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 22:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thor 1 is now a disambiguation page. Disambiguation helps readers find the article they are looking for, regardless of the popularity of particular pages. Cnilep (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it was just the fact that, wrongly or not, Thor 1 was redirected here, but a hatnote should not have been needed here because the page is already disambiguated sufficiently. It appears the error was in redirecting Thor 1 here, which it seems you fixed Cnilep. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This page was not already disambiguated sufficiently from "Thor 1" when "Thor 1" redirected here. That is had a qualifier to disambiguate it from "Thor" made no difference; it was the primary topic for the ambiguous title "Thor 1". If a reader were looking for the satellite under "Thor 1", they would have had no path to get to the article they sought. It does not matter how few those readers are. Now that this article is no longer the primary topic for the ambiguous title "Thor 1", the hatnote is no longer needed, true. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, "Thor 1" should never have been redirected here in the first place. It doesn't likely that a person search searching for this film would actually type "Thor 1", unlike Thor 2, which Thor: The Dark World was actually called for a period of time and is still called colloquially.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Was the alternative plan to add a hatnote to every Thor sequel to disambiguate them from satellites? Yes the visitation frequency of the redirect does matter, because noone was using it, so it wasn't a problem that needed solving. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The plan (no alternative) remains to disambiguate ambiguous titles on Wikipedia, through hatnotes and disambiguation pages. No, the visitation frequency does not matter. Topics on Wikipedia for ambiguous titles that do not merit navigability are called "deleted articles". -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)