I'm completing a research paper for my final essay for ENGL 111 and one of the demands that has to be met is for me to compile a survey as well as a brief interview.
The survey has five multiple choice questions plus one brief essay. You must have seen the movie to participate.
The brief interview has four open-ended questions and in addition to having seen the film, you must be familiar with the comics. I don't care which era as I know Thor has been reinvented several times.
I opened it up so that we don't necessarily have to be friends on Facebook, but it does require you to have access to Facebook to participate accordingly. I have to capture / document the responses to turn it in along with my other resources when the paper is completed so the professor can review it. I will not be compiling any responses left here.
Regards,
Urizen / Gregg
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm completing a research paper for my final essay for ENGL 111 and one of the demands that has to be met is for me to compile a survey as well as a brief interview.
The survey has five multiple choice questions plus one brief essay. You must have seen the movie to participate.
The brief interview has four open-ended questions and in addition to having seen the film, you must be familiar with the comics. I don't care which era as I know Thor has been reinvented several times.
I opened it up so that we don't necessarily have to be friends on Facebook, but it does require you to have access to Facebook to participate accordingly. I have to capture / document the responses to turn it in along with my other resources when the paper is completed so the professor can review it. I will not be compiling any responses left here.
Regards,
Urizen / Gregg
For some reason FB isn't allowing me to post a response, but if you want it I can leave it here and you can find a way to paste it in or otherwise include it in your results. Up to you.
Ugh. If anyone doesn't mind the hassle to friend me for this, I appreciate the trouble taking to do so. If you want to stick around afterwards, be my guest. I try to be sociable. You're bound to find other Paizo luminaries on my friends roster, anyway. :)
For those that do, let me know your Paizo alias here so I can differentiate for the other folks who attempt to friend me and I have no clue who they are. I get a lot of 'em I let languish in limbo.
Thanks for letting me know, Jason. I did enable the access to EVERYONE and I thought it included write access in addition to reading. I have to keep it centralized and to make obvious to the professor who's providing the source to ensure authenticity.
I can't seem to find a way to allow non-friends to WRITE on that. I suspect people will be timid to friend, so I suppose if I want the data, I'll give it a shot here.
******
Here's the survey:
MULTIPLE CHOICE:
1. Did you see the movie in: A) 3-D. B) 2-D
2. Were you familiar with the comic book the movie was based from? A) Yes. B) No.
3. Thor is a deity from Norse mythology. Are you familiar with the mythology? A) None. B) Some. C) I could discuss it at length.
4. Kenneth Branagh is known for his participation in Shakespearean roles. Was his inclusion as the director for this film made you want to see it A) more. B) less. C) didn't care one way or the other.
5. Natalie Portman is now an Oscar winning actress. Did you believe her character was pivotal to the film? A) Yes. B) No. C) didn't care one way or the other.
SHORT ANSWER:
Norse deities are known to be completely caucasian. However, Idris Elba, an African-American actor, was cast to play the role of Heimdall. Some purists felt that the character should have been white out of faithfulness to the comic and/or the mythology setting. Some felt that it was good to see an acceptance of casting against stereotype. In a brief response, what was your reaction?
*****
If you're familiar with the comic book series and wouldn't mind writing a response, here's the open ended questions. One of them will be an expansion on the topic found in the survey. For intents and purposes, I'll need your real name as a citation on this section. Thanks!
Interview Essay Questions
1. In the comic book, Thor was banished to earth as an amnesiac placed inside the body of a disabled medical student, Donald Blake. In the movie, he had no alter-ego and was fully aware as to his true nature. Did you feel that they should have stuck to the original premises for story continuity or was the way he was portrayed in the movie the better choice?
2. In the comic, Jane Foster was the nurse for Thor's alter-ego whereas in the movie, she was transformed into an astrophycisist that encounters Thor purely by coincidence. Did the character suffer as a result of the way Thor was portrayed in the theatrical release or did you consider it an improvement?
3. The greatest controversy surrounding this movie was the casting of Idris Elba, an African-American, as Heimdall -- who has been coined as the 'whitest of white' when describing a mythological race that were essentially of caucasian origin. Obviously, there was umbrage taken by radical white supremicist groups over this change. Others who label themselves as purists felt that this was a detraction from being true to the myth and/or the comic and felt this was a move to please P.C. circles. On the opposite end, there are people who felt that this was a good move to involve more inclusion into an industry that have been previously labeled as biased against minorities. What are your thoughts?
4. Overall, what was your thought of the movie in general based on its own merits versus what was canon in the comic and/or Norse mythology?
****
Thanks!
You might want give out a e-mail account so people can e-mail you the answear...as there could be some corruption to people's response. It is easy enough to creat a hotmail account for this.
That is if it matters to you.
I can't seem to find a way to allow non-friends to WRITE on that. I suspect people will be timid to friend, so I suppose if I want the data, I'll give it a shot here.
******
Here's the survey:
MULTIPLE CHOICE:
1. Did you see the movie in: A) 3-D. B) 2-D
2. Were you familiar with the comic book the movie was based from? A) Yes. B) No.
3. Thor is a deity from Norse mythology. Are you familiar with the mythology? A) None. B) Some. C) I could discuss it at length.
4. Kenneth Branagh is known for his participation in Shakespearean roles. Was his inclusion as the director for this film made you want to see it A) more. B) less. C) didn't care one way or the other.
5. Natalie Portman is now an Oscar winning actress. Did you believe her character was pivotal to the film? A) Yes. B) No. C) didn't care one way or the other.
SHORT ANSWER:
Norse deities are known to be completely caucasian. However, Idris Elba, an African-American actor, was cast to play the role of Heimdall. Some purists felt that the character should have been white out of faithfulness to the comic and/or the mythology setting. Some felt that it was good to see an acceptance of casting against stereotype. In a brief response, what was your reaction?
*****
I'll break this up or it'll get long.
1) B. 2) A 3) C 4) C 5) C
Short Answer:
I want to see Heimdall. That has nothing to do with skin color, it's a role, it's a personality. Idris Elba did an excellent job to me of conveying the character, and worrying about skin color is a waste of time: they're all Asgardians and we're all Homo sapiens. I understand loyalty to the original source, but movies are a different form of media than comics. What works in a comic that originates in the early 60s may not work on the big screen in 2011 and vice versa. Treat the movie as something inspired by the material from the comic, but don't be a slave to it, because the actors aren't the characters Stan Lee created so much as interpretations of them.
Bookmarked for later.
1. Umm...C: Both
2. A
3. B
4. C
5. A
Short Answer: It didn't bother me. As the Marvel movies often adapt from multiple sources and add their own twist to the stories, I don't really find that surprising. In fact, I believe the actor played the part well.
Fair warning now; I know much more about Ultimate Thor than Classic Thor and will be answering in a way that reflects that.
1. I like the way they portrayed him in the movie. This is closer to the way he is portrayed in the Ultimate comics. In the Ultimate comics, he was a nurse who suffered a nervous breakdown when coming to the realization that he IS Thor, God of Thunder.
2. I can't really say weather or not that characer suffered, as I don't know much about the original version. I will say that the movie's version reflects the type of character she likely would have been had she ever been introduced in the Ultimates line.
3. As I stated in the short answer, I have no problems with this, and think the actor did a wonderful job.
4. I think it was an excellent blend of the two comic universes, mythology, and new material.
Happy to help out man:
1. B [am monoblind (apparently) so 3-D just looks crappy 2-D to me lol]
2. Yes [since the 70's]
3. C.
4. A. More - knew he'd bring that Wagnerian epic feel to it.
5. C. From a traditional view Jane Foster is a key character... Natalie Portman playing her... meh. She did a good job but its the character that mattered not Portman per say. [This might mean A?]
See I have a huge issue with the whole comics purists saying he should have been white etc. One of the Warriors Three "Hogun" is based off the Mongul warrior in look and appearance... so Asgard being some pure Nordic haven [in terms of the comic] is way off from the get go. Lee wasn't doing it in the 60's and the movie doesn't do it now. Its a comic book with roots in myth... fiction and fantasy. I liked the portrayal of Heimdall in the movie, just as I like him in the comic and in myth. Controversy was just a thunderstorm in a teacup.
Survey:
1) B
2) A
3) B
4) C
5) B
1) That's hard to say. I think it would have been pretty difficult to convey Thor's banishment as a lamed-up med student and growth as a hero in a 2-hour time frame mandated by the medium. I admit I was kind of hoping for a more Ultimates treatment (male nurse who might be crazy). For some concepts that are better explored on paper with the written word (or written word + pictures like comics) or in monthly serial format, you have to expect compromises to get it on the screen. There are uncountable ways of doing this so the question becomes one of capturing the essence of the character and his premise for getting involved with us mortals. And there, I think it did OK.
2) I don't think her character suffered nor was improved. While fulfilling a necessary role as our entry into the story, Jane Foster really could have been anyone. I don't see the essence of her character as being all that pivotal to Thor's achieving of maturity and wisdom.
3) I can't really take white supremacist blathering too seriously considering they're all idiots. I like my canon to generally be adhered to reasonably well, but if the new interpretation is good, I'm content. And Idris Elba did a fine job as Heimdall.
4) It wasn't stellar, but I think it was a good time. I'd give it a B- for a letter grade. I thought it handled the personal relationship between Loki, Odin, and Thor in a particularly interesting manner. Loki is probably the most standout element of the movie for me and I'm looking forward to his machinations in the Avengers.
If you're also familiar with the comic book series and wouldn't mind writing a response, here's the open ended questions. One of them will be an expansion on the topic found in the survey. For intents and purposes, I'll need your real name as a citation on this section. Thanks!
Interview Essay Questions
1. In the comic book, Thor was banished to earth as an amnesiac placed inside the body of a disabled medical student, Donald Blake. In the movie, he had no alter-ego and was fully aware as to his true nature. Did you feel that they should have stuck to the original premises for story continuity or was the way he was portrayed in the movie the better choice?
2. In the comic, Jane Foster was the nurse for Thor's alter-ego whereas in the movie, she was transformed into an astrophycisist that encounters Thor purely by coincidence. Did the character suffer as a result of the way Thor was portrayed in the theatrical release or did you consider it an improvement?
3. The greatest controversy surrounding this movie was the casting of Idris Elba, an African-American, as Heimdall -- who has been coined as the 'whitest of white' when describing a mythological race that were essentially of caucasian origin. Obviously, there was umbrage taken by radical white supremicist groups over this change. Others who label themselves as purists felt that this was a detraction from being true to the myth and/or the comic and felt this was a move to please P.C. circles. On the opposite end, there are people who felt that this was a good move to involve more inclusion into an industry that have been previously labeled as biased against minorities. What are your thoughts?
4. Overall, what was your thought of the movie in general based on its own merits versus what was canon in the comic and/or Norse mythology?
1) The better choice was to have Thor cognizant of his identity. It took forever to learn what Odin intended with his banishment in the comics, while the movie route was refreshingly direct. Thor was an arrogant prick, Odin sent him down the mortals he scorned to learn some humility and respect for others. For this storyline, having to deal with the lame doctor discovering the power of Thor wouldn't have made as much sense. Why would he go find Mjolnir? And trying to explain the transformation process would have been awkward at best.
2) For a movie, the astrophysicist angle works. Thor was not linked to the medical profession until one of the humans gave him a false human identity. There had to be some reason for someone to be out in the middle of nowhere to find him, and an astrophysicist studying the sky worked. She was fine.
3) White supremacists aren't rational, there's no arguing with them, they'll be angry regardless. Their opinions are their own and while they have the right to them, they are based on flimsy reasoning at best. The purists have a point, but as previously stated, movies and comics are two different forms of entertainment media. Also, being fair, the movie had a different creator than the comics. A movie is a work of art, as is a comic. Therefore, the artist, or artists here as we have producers, directors, and writers, are going to express their vision. It would be unfair to expect them to faithfully reproduce the comic on the screen in every detail; at that point, the writers might as well just hand everyone a comic book for their script. As a stand-alone medium, the movie had to put its own changes into play. One was a non-Caucasian Heimdall. It turned out to be a good casting choice, because Mr. Elba played the role of the Bifrost Guardian quite well; he FELT like an Asgardian forever watching the Rainbow Bridge. After that, really, does skin matter, as he WAS Heimdall, in all the personality that makes up a person?
4) Generally I like it. I know it is another lead into the upcoming Avengers film, and it's also based as part of the "Marvel mythology" in part on the Ultimates universe, not universe 616. It set us up with an introduction to characters we'll see again soon. Thor as a comic has some ties to the myths, but it isn't a complete match; the movie shouldn't be a perfect match to the myth or comic either. Different media forms, different eras, different cultures created each one; each story needs to stand on its own in the era and culture of its creation. The movie did so.
Answers provided by Allen Dawson
Did not read any other responses to avoid being influenced.
1. B
2. A
3. C
4. A
5. A
SHORT ANSWER:
If this was a movie about actual Norse gods I would have had an objection to it, but the characters were aliens who the Norse simply confused with gods. I was waiting for an explanation of why they look human at all. There are two possibilities: through convergent evolution they came out to look like humans, which means they could easily have some of the same variances, or they somehow change their looks to mimic humans, in which case Heimdall simply likes the look. In either case it did not detract from the movie for me and the actor did a good job at the role.
|
1) A) 3-D
2) Were you familiar with the comic book the movie was based from? B) No.
3) Thor is a deity from Norse mythology. Are you familiar with the mythology? B) Some.
4) Kenneth Branagh is known for his participation in Shakespearean roles. Was his inclusion as the director for this film made you want to see it A) more.
5) Natalie Portman is now an Oscar winning actress. Did you believe her character was pivotal to the film? A) Yes.
1. In the comic book, Thor was banished to earth as an amnesiac placed inside the body of a disabled medical student, Donald Blake. In the movie, he had no alter-ego and was fully aware as to his true nature. Did you feel that they should have stuck to the original premises for story continuity or was the way he was portrayed in the movie the better choice?
Would have been a much longer movie had they been forced to do a whole lot of amnesiac messing around discovering memories etc... So yes, it was a good choice.
2. In the comic, Jane Foster was the nurse for Thor's alter-ego whereas in the movie, she was transformed into an astrophycisist that encounters Thor purely by coincidence. Did the character suffer as a result of the way Thor was portrayed in the theatrical release or did you consider it an improvement?
Not familiar with the comic book. Don't care.
3. The greatest controversy surrounding this movie was the casting of Idris Elba, an African-American, as Heimdall -- who has been coined as the 'whitest of white' when describing a mythological race that were essentially of caucasian origin. Obviously, there was umbrage taken by radical white supremicist groups over this change. Others who label themselves as purists felt that this was a detraction from being true to the myth and/or the comic and felt this was a move to please P.C. circles. On the opposite end, there are people who felt that this was a good move to involve more inclusion into an industry that have been previously labeled as biased against minorities. What are your thoughts?
I was aware of the controversy. Don't consider it to be a big deal, the actor did a good a job.
4. Overall, what was your thought of the movie in general based on its own merits versus what was canon in the comic and/or Norse mythology?
I thought it was lucky I had a few drinks before I went and watched it. It was better than iron man 2. I never read the comics and don't have any attachment to norse mythology. I thought Gaiman's American Gods was a better use of the mythology if that helps.
MULTIPLE CHOICE:
1. Did you see the movie in: A) 3-D. B) 2-D
> A
2. Were you familiar with the comic book the movie was based from? A) Yes. B) No.
> A
3. Thor is a deity from Norse mythology. Are you familiar with the mythology? A) None. B) Some. C) I could discuss it at length.
> C
4. Kenneth Branagh is known for his participation in Shakespearean roles. Was his inclusion as the director for this film made you want to see it A) more. B) less. C) didn't care one way or the other.
> C
5. Natalie Portman is now an Oscar winning actress. Did you believe her character was pivotal to the film? A) Yes. B) No. C) didn't care one way or the other.
> C
SHORT ANSWER:
Norse deities are known to be completely caucasian. However, Idris Elba, an African-American actor, was cast to play the role of Heimdall. Some purists felt that the character should have been white out of faithfulness to the comic and/or the mythology setting. Some felt that it was good to see an acceptance of casting against stereotype. In a brief response, what was your reaction?
> As the role was cast I felt was very appropriate for the film mythology in question and that the role was played with excellence. I did not feel he had to be "white", most of the characters in the movie did not conform very well to the mythology descriptions anyway so the color of his skin was not an issue for me.
*****
Interview Essay Questions
1. In the comic book, Thor was banished to earth as an amnesiac placed inside the body of a disabled medical student, Donald Blake. In the movie, he had no alter-ego and was fully aware as to his true nature. Did you feel that they should have stuck to the original premises for story continuity or was the way he was portrayed in the movie the better choice?
> That they dropped the whole Donald Blake persona, I felt improved the story as I always felt that the alter-ego was holding the character back and that it was included only because alter-ego was something all characters needed to "humanize" them, but in Thor's case I never felt it worked.
2. In the comic, Jane Foster was the nurse for Thor's alter-ego whereas in the movie, she was transformed into an astrophycisist that encounters Thor purely by coincidence. Did the character suffer as a result of the way Thor was portrayed in the theatrical release or did you consider it an improvement?
> Jane Foster in the movie became a much more "modern" strong woman that formed a much better counter to the Thor personality. This meant she became less an "attachment" to the character and more of an individual. I feel this makes for a much more interesting character and a more dynamic environment.
3. The greatest controversy surrounding this movie was the casting of Idris Elba, an African-American, as Heimdall -- who has been coined as the 'whitest of white' when describing a mythological race that were essentially of caucasian origin. Obviously, there was umbrage taken by radical white supremicist groups over this change. Others who label themselves as purists felt that this was a detraction from being true to the myth and/or the comic and felt this was a move to please P.C. circles. On the opposite end, there are people who felt that this was a good move to involve more inclusion into an industry that have been previously labeled as biased against minorities. What are your thoughts?
> See above.
4. Overall, what was your thought of the movie in general based on its own merits versus what was canon in the comic and/or Norse mythology?
> I don't feel the movie (or comics) can be compared in any way to the Mythology, the movie however establishes a very living universe for us to delve into, one that in term of a movie worked well. The comic's mythology often suffered under a desire to sell it self off as exactly as mythology by someone who never read the mythology. Especially the older era Thor comics had this problem in my mind. There fore I find that the movie was interesting and a decent introduction to future movies including the characters. It is certainly a universe I like to know more about.
Other info:
Not sure if you need it for your assignment but...
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Country: Denmark
Caucasian
1) A
2) A
3) C
4) A
5) B
Short Answer: I was not at all disappointed by a black actor in a "traditionally" white role. I was somewhat surprised by the choice at first (I had read nothing about the film beforehand), but Mr Elba is a fine actor (simply amazing on The Wire!) and I was glad to see him get work on a major feature. I was more concerned with the fact that Volstag (sp?) shrank from a seriously obese man to a buff-but-a-little-chunky man. For some reason it was acceptable for there to be black and asian Asgardians, but not obese ones (for the record, I am rail thin, so I'm not motivated by personal issues about weight portrayal).
Interview Questions:
1. In the comic book, Thor was banished to earth as an amnesiac placed inside the body of a disabled medical student, Donald Blake. In the movie, he had no alter-ego and was fully aware as to his true nature. Did you feel that they should have stuck to the original premises for story continuity or was the way he was portrayed in the movie the better choice?
>I was very pleased with the way Thor was portrayed in the movie. Despite some especially good and memorable origin stories, most of them are just an excuse to get a person and some powers together to make for compelling later stories where those powers can be used in creative ways. Removing the obstacle of not knowing his true identiry left the movie version of Thor in better position to pursue his quest rather than just happen upon it, which I think makes for a better story, in movie form at least. The classic amnesiac story is incredibly trite anyway.
2. In the comic, Jane Foster was the nurse for Thor's alter-ego whereas in the movie, she was transformed into an astrophycisist that encounters Thor purely by coincidence. Did the character suffer as a result of the way Thor was portrayed in the theatrical release or did you consider it an improvement?
>Well, yes and no. Jane Foster as an astrophycisist shows her as more ambitious and driven than the original, as she obviously had to go through a great deal of schooling and research to get where she was in the movie and I'm all for positive portrayals of women in science. However, her role in the movie was essentially superfluous. The only things her character did were a) discover the hero and b) be pretty enough for the hero to fall in love with.
3. The greatest controversy surrounding this movie was the casting of Idris Elba, an African-American, as Heimdall -- who has been coined as the 'whitest of white' when describing a mythological race that were essentially of caucasian origin. Obviously, there was umbrage taken by radical white supremicist groups over this change. Others who label themselves as purists felt that this was a detraction from being true to the myth and/or the comic and felt this was a move to please P.C. circles. On the opposite end, there are people who felt that this was a good move to involve more inclusion into an industry that have been previously labeled as biased against minorities. What are your thoughts?
>Unless skin color is essential to the character, and it is in some films, (Driving Miss Daisy or American History X for instance) it shouldn't really matter what color the actor/actress is. While the charcter in the comic is white, and it is in turned based off a myth by a white culture, Heimdall loses nothing by the change. If comic book purists are upset by the portrayal they have hundreds upon hundreds of issues of Thor with a white Heimdall to console themselves with. Besides, the more disturbing (to me) change from the comic book is the shrunken Volstag. The traditionally obese hero is here turned into just another buff guy in armor who also likes to eat a lot. What does it say when black and asian Asgardians are acceptable, but obese ones not so?
4. Overall, what was your thought of the movie in general based on its own merits versus what was canon in the comic and/or Norse mythology?
>They did a pretty good job, almost as good as they could have possibly done it for a major release in my opinion. Obviously certain bits of Asgardian magic from the comic would have come across as 'too cheesy' so the science fiction veneer was a good compromise. It was a solid backstory adaptation that did what it needed to do so we can move onto more interesting movies using the Thor character. As far as the myths go, they're too dark to really be usable for a comic book hero movie, so I'm willing to give them a pass on that.
Just so you know, Robert Cameron is my real name so you can use it. Also, if you need it for whatever reason, I'm a 25 year old caucasian male from the USA.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I can't seem to find a way to allow non-friends to WRITE on that. I suspect people will be timid to friend, so I suppose if I want the data, I'll give it a shot here.
******
Here's the survey:
MULTIPLE CHOICE:
1. B) 2-D
2. A) Yes
3. C) I could discuss it at length.
4. C) didn't care one way or the other.
5. B) No
SHORT ANSWER:
Norse deities are known to be completely caucasian. However, Idris Elba, an African-American actor, was cast to play the role of Heimdall. Some purists felt that the character should have been white out of faithfulness to the comic and/or the mythology setting. Some felt that it was good to see an acceptance of casting against stereotype. In a brief response, what was your reaction?
Given that the Marvel Aesir are essentially space aliens, I don't have a particular attachment to them having to look like any particular Earth "race." True, virtually all of them in the comics are Caucasian, including Heimdall, but I think it was an interesting casting choice and a reasonable divergence from official comics continuity in a way that does not remotely threaten storytelling about the Aesir or their roles. Heimdall was always something of an outsider as a deity anyway, since he as generally standing on post while the rest of the Aesir were doing their thing, so if one of the Aesir was to be reflavored as something other than Nordic, he'd make the most thematic sense.
Short answer: I thought it was fine, and I thought the actor did well with the role, providing the appropriate gravitas and air of menace that a guardian deity should.
*****If you're familiar with the comic book series and wouldn't mind writing a response, here's the open ended questions. One of them will be an expansion on the topic found in the survey. For intents and purposes, I'll need your real name as a citation on this section. Thanks!
Interview Essay Questions
1. In the comic book, Thor was banished to earth as an amnesiac placed inside the body of a disabled medical student, Donald Blake. In the movie, he had no alter-ego and was fully aware as to his true nature. Did you feel that they should have stuck to the original premises for story continuity or was the way he was portrayed in the movie the better choice?
There were a lot of things they COULD have included about the original Lee/Kirby version of Thor, like the hammer turning back into a stick and Thor back into Blake if he was separated from the hammer for more than 60 seconds.
I think the way they portrayed him in the movie was the better choice FOR A MOVIE. They already had spent the first third of the movie establishing Thor's divine character background as well as the background story for the scientists on Earth; they couldn't really afford to restart the backstory process with an entirely new non-Thor character. Any fantastical story requires a certain balance between exposition and set-up and the fantastical action. Adding the Don Blake/doctor character background would've overbalanced the backstory vs. the available room for action.
They could have kept the Blake angle if they had gone an entirely different direction with the structure of the movie, such as starting with Blake as a character from the beginning of the movie and revealing his identity as Thor in flashback or in revelation once he comes into his power (on the run from the Stone Men of Saturn, if we're really trying to be "faithful to the comics" - which in this case would be lame).
2. In the comic, Jane Foster was the nurse for Thor's alter-ego whereas in the movie, she was transformed into an astrophycisist that encounters Thor purely by coincidence. Did the character suffer as a result of the way Thor was portrayed in the theatrical release or did you consider it an improvement?
The movie Jane was a much more modern character, as opposed to the stereotypical damsel-in-distress that she was in the old Thor comics. In a way, she represents affirmative action in casting in placing a woman in a skilled/technical position rather than as a bubble-headed ninny dependent on the buff male lead. That said, they do play her attraction to Thor more as broad comedy (watch the smart scientist get a bit giggly around the shirtless hunk) than as deep, grounded friendship or love. They get to know each other for just a couple of days, so they don't give the relationship time to mature, which is FINE. This is one movie. It can't establish every facet of the character in one film and shouldn't try. It provides a reasonable foundation for their (presumptive) future relationship in sequels, and that's enough.
Short answer: The character is updated for modern audiences and expectations of what kinds of careers women should be able to do, which is generally an improvement. She also has her own reasons for encountering Thor and her own motivations for wanting to pursue him, rather than just being caught up in Thor/Blake's wake and swept along for the ride, as in the comics.
Was her character "improved"? Meh. In the narrative of the film, her character wasn't all that important; Jane, Darcy, and Erik together were plot devices to:
a. Deliver some mood-lightening comedy.
b. Show that the SHIELD agents were kind of dicks.
c. Give us touchstone "audience relation" characters who are observing this unbelievable event happening.
d. In Jane's case, give us a legacy character who is set up for greater involvement in a future sequel. She gets to do some character setup (i.e., become a mutual love interest with Thor) and that's mostl it.
That's probably a lot more than Jane Foster the nurse got to do in her first dozen appearances in Journey Into Mystery, so I suppose we should call it a win for movie-Jane.
3. The greatest controversy surrounding this movie was the casting of Idris Elba, an African-American, as Heimdall -- who has been coined as the 'whitest of white' when describing a mythological race that were essentially of caucasian origin. Obviously, there was umbrage taken by radical white supremicist groups over this change. Others who label themselves as purists felt that this was a detraction from being true to the myth and/or the comic and felt this was a move to please P.C. circles. On the opposite end, there are people who felt that this was a good move to involve more inclusion into an industry that have been previously labeled as biased against minorities. What are your thoughts?
See above. Also, Heimdall's "whitest of the white," as I recall, referred to his gleaming coat of mail, not to his skin.
P.S. Radical white supremacist groups can bite me. :)
4. Overall, what was your thought of the movie in general based on its own merits versus what was canon in the comic and/or Norse mythology?
The movie was a fun actioner that aptly embraced the character and nature of its comic book source. It was bombastic in its action and characterization. The set design was appropriately gleaming in Asgard, accomplishing the neat trick of looking both ancient and futuristic, shining in the sun and yet with fields of endless stars all around - the kind of contrasts that really look like how you'd imagine the Kirby/Buscema visions of Asgard *should* look translated onto film. The Earth scenes had a certain dry humor to them without overdoing it. The movie did not try to be "dark and gritty" like Batman or the X-Men, nor completely "corporate race car shiny" like Iron Man - it embraced what it was, and did it well.
As for the mythology, Marvel Norse mythology bears only faint resemblance to the Norse mythology I have read. Oh, there are plenty of names in common, but that's about it. HOWEVER, I thought the movie did do an excellent job of depicting Loki as more than just a schemer and a card-carrying villain. He was someone who, for much of his life, really was Thor's friend and boon companion, and his ambitions within Asgard were more about him wanting to do things his way and get away with it, even if it might lead the other Aesir into trouble. There are plenty of examples in myth of Loki helping--or even SAVING--the Aesir from trouble coming their way. True, he did instigate some of those troubles, but not all. Is Loki a liar and a trickster? Sure. Is he just evil because he's evil? No.
The movie did play up a bit more of his "daddy issues" than are laid out in the myths (since, as I recall, Loki and ODIN are blood-brothers, not Loki and Thor), but it's a reasonable leap of modern inference that would resonate with Loki's unusual parentage and situation in the comics-verse (and thus the movie-verse), and supplies a rational, if twisted, motivation for all that Loki does.
So: Not very much similarity between the myths and the comics/movies at all, but the movie holds up its internal consistency across two worlds and between movie and comics legacy very well.