Kira Brady


May 11
2011
Cache directory "/nfs/c08/h01/mnt/126726/domains/kirabrady.com/html/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache" is not writable.Thor and Writing

I’m switching it up this week, obviously, as yesterday I wrote about a fabulous book you should buy and today I’m talking about writing. Rules are made to be broken and all. Last night Mr. Kira and I went on a hot date to see Thor. I love comic book movies, especially when they are well done. The Shadow and The Phantom were favorites when I was a kid. I’m not a fan of the Sin City type movies, which are visually appealing until they turn gruesome. Thor was excellent. They had a challenge keeping the characters in their silly costumes without making it too farcical. Here are the top three reasons Thor worked:

1. The Hero’s Journey:

Classic story arc, with Thor showing remarkable transformation from egotistical, rash boy to wise, humble warrior. He won the audience’s support by showing loyalty to his friends and family early on (His Save-the-Cat moment). I should start doing point-by-point plots of movies like this.

2. Complex Villain:

No Snidely Whiplash here. The villain had hopes and dreams that the audience could connect to, and suffered betrayal and loss of identity that we could sympathize with. I know he comes back in the sequel (The Avengers) because we saw him in the teaser at the end of the credits. I hope he gets redeemed, because I still want him to have his HEA.

3. Well Motivated:

The inhabitants of earth (Jane & co) acknowledged the silliness of certain situations, behaviors and costumes and questioned their actions. They had motivations to make taking in a delusional, violent man somewhat believable. I didn’t get the sense that the characters were engaging in TSTL (Too Stupid To Live) moments.

The eye candy didn’t hurt either. ;)

Have you seen Thor? What did you think?

6 comments to “Thor and Writing”

  1. Shelli Stevens
    Comment
    1
      · May 11th, 2011 at 8:04 pm · Link

    I loved the eye candy and the story was just fun. What I didn’t buy into at all was the romance (ok, I’m biased!). It didn’t seem flushed out. I believe they fell in lust, but not love. Her character was a bit unremarkable and forgettable. I actually thought it would’ve been much more fun if he fell for her assistant.



    • kirabrady
      Comment
      1.1
        · May 13th, 2011 at 6:24 pm · Link

      Very true. I guess I didn’t expect the romance to be believable, so it didn’t bother me as much. There were a lot of little aspects that were silly if I thought too hard about them. I loved Darcy! She should get her own movie. :D



  2. Seth
    Comment
    2
      · May 12th, 2011 at 5:19 am · Link

    It’s funny that, in comparison to Shelli’s comment above, I totally bought Nat’s character. Because it was basically a more mature version of her character in Garden State, and that character’s pretty well inside my Cusackian wheelhouse.

    But I’ve already written two posts’ worth of my own thoughts on the film. Definitely looking forward to when it hits DVD; I think a few gin and cranberries will let me settle a bit while watching it!



    • kirabrady
      Comment
      2.1
        · May 13th, 2011 at 6:25 pm · Link

      Your ability to review movies accurately without seeing them is impressive. I’m not sure if I saw Garden State. I want to see Your Highness. Thoughts?



  3. Laurie London
    Comment
    3
      · May 13th, 2011 at 4:03 pm · Link

    I haven’t seen Thor yet, but I’m dying to. Hopefully, this weekend. I also love examining the structure of movies to see what works and what doesn’t.



    • kirabrady
      Comment
      3.1
        · May 13th, 2011 at 6:27 pm · Link

      It’s always fun to see how the hero’s journey plays out again and again in movies. It’s good practice for plotting my own book, even if something inside me says, “Plotting! GAh! Run away!” Hope you enjoy the film!