I know this might seem picky and i understand why they made the changes they did but some just didn't make sense, from a comic point of view.
The main problem is the origin, it didn't follow the origin that stan wrote. Donald Blake, who's a lame medical physicist ( or something along those lines) goes into a cave and finds a cane which when he hit's a rock with he transforms into Thor! Not what was betrayed in to Movie, on earth he IS Thor...without his powers, he's not a doctor.
2ndly If Thor is without his hammer for more than 60 seconds he turns back into Donald. In the movie he doesn't have his hammer for a majority of the time so he shouldn't be or look like Thor.
Also Jane Foster is Donald's nurse in his practice, but in the Movie she a scientist and doesn't even work for Donald because he isn't even in it, the names used but it doesn't mean it's him.
I can fully understand why they made the changes but it's not really subtle ones, they are quite big to the Origin.
Comment telling me what you think.

they could have just twisted it to have to frost giants replace the invaders from Saturn, that would have made it similar, i fully agree with you, i loved the movie but i reread the earlier comics to refresh me but it just disappointed me, still it's the best marvel flick in years...in my opinion

Studios often do changes to origins, and other minor character in already established stories to provide a new fresh take on the character for both newcomers, and fans familiar with the material. Also I can't 100% be sure, but I often believe that changes are made to the stories to avoid copyright; yes I know studios are given the right by the big names, but Its often on the basis to use the characters, not necessarily stories made by writers in their company. Anyway this is Allison Scagliotti signing off.
----------------------
Btw be sure to show your support for me as Cassie Hack in the upcoming Hack/Slash film in whatever way possible whether its blogging,forming a facebook group, or  following allisonscag4Cassie on twitter. Rock on dudes and have a good night.

Would you rather have a pathetic teen version of Thor? *cough* Smallville *cough* Hehehehe!

I see your points and though I understand where your points, I have to partially disagree. Staying true with the comics is always a must with these films and for us comic fans, deviating from it comes close to unforgivable. But as vidarr has said, they needed to change things from a businessman's point of view. It wouldn't really be marketable to the modern audiences if they did the down to earth man that changes to a powerful god by striking a stick. Know that audiences today are shallow and beefiness trumps depth and basis-loyalty almost all the time.

Still, the movie was great!

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

Really the spirit of reinvention for a modern era and audience makes these changes almost vital and in keeping with the spirit of why and how Marvel Thor was created. I am one of the nerdiest Thor fans around having read almost every issue he has been in. I would have had more and bigger problems if they didn't make these changes. Stan and King Kirby and Larry Lieber reinvented Thor the character, and made changes to him so people of that era could better grasp and enjoy the character. This movie does the exact same thing. Marvel's Thor would not be around if accuracy was considered the most important aspect of the character. 

I saw the movie and I didn't mind the changes. Staying true to the comics isn't always such a good thing.

" Studios often do changes to origins, and other minor character in already established stories to provide a new fresh take on the character for both newcomers, and fans familiar with the material. Also I can't 100% be sure, but I often believe that changes are made to the stories to avoid copyright; yes I know studios are given the right by the big names, but Its often on the basis to use the characters, not necessarily stories made by writers in their company. Anyway this is Allison Scagliotti signing off.----------------------Btw be sure to show your support for me as Cassie Hack in the upcoming Hack/Slash film in whatever way possible whether its blogging,forming a facebook group, or  following allisonscag4Cassie on twitter. Rock on dudes and have a good night. "

" I saw the movie and I didn't mind the changes. Staying true to the comics isn't always such a good thing. "

" @SC: I actually liked that movie. And apparently I am the only one lol "

when i mean changes this is what i mean...
Spiderman is peter parker
Hulk is bruce banner
Captain America is steve rodgers
they didnt change who they are but with Thor he is never actually donald blake, see what i mean? thats the main issue

Donald Blake has always been a horrible idea anyways.

True True, i do belive it's an aweful idea, and after this discussion i have come to respect thier dissision more for changing the origin, it's still a very good movie and you US guy's will have a blast on the 6th :D

"Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done. "

...

I like Donald Blake, during JMS run and some Stan Lee and Kirby's issues, Blake was awesome,  just SOME writers can't use him properly, but he is the cool thing from Thor, that is what makes him Marvel's and not just a God that taked directly from the norse mythology, the idea of a god learning humility  as a lame doctor is a cool idea, I just like that, for me is the best thing in the character.

The movie sould have used the Doc Donald Blake, but it could have been longer, that is why I think they didn't used him (or maybe they wanted more muscles in the movie just like Ultimate, the movie was a combination of some aspects of 616 and 1610 and also its own).

Note: You always tend to post your opinion like a fact, but you have to learn that sometines someone doesn't share your point of view.

I have to admit I only really got into Thor through the Ultimates.  I never really read any older issues of Thor so I never really got to know Donald Blake, so me it wasn't a major loss.  Don't get me wrong I got the reference, and to some extent they did make use of the Donald Blake persona.  All in all I really enjoyed the film, so much so I've seen it 3 times now, but if I did any gripe with the film was that some of the customes, especially Thor's looked a bit plastic-y, but that is just a minor issue for me.

" @Deadcool:  I'm with you on this, i fully agree with this point of view "

Blake is one of my favorite parts of the Thor franchise, I was disappointed that he didn't have a role in the movie. I always thought that Blake lent a lot to Thor's struggle to relate to humanity.

The gimmick of Thor turning back into Donald Blake after 60 seconds without Mjolnir was never utilized well in the early comics, rarely mentioned later, and then discarded. It was always cheap drama like Spider-Man running out of webfluid. The actual quality stories by Stan and Jack  were almost always with Thor interacting with the other gods. In fact the basis for both the film and loosely for Ultimate Thor is the story from Thor issue #145, "Abandoned on Earth!" The film needed to be about Thor as Thor. Amnesia has been used too often in other films and the mystery of Donald Blake not actually having a past would not have wowed modern audiences and would have distracted from the plot rather than enhance it. There have been roughly four or five different eras in the comic of Thor as a character, and the film masterfully blends them.

" @FadeToBlackBolt said:

"Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done. "

...

 

I like Donald Blake, during JMS run and some Stan Lee and Kirby's issues, Blake was awesome,  just SOME writers can't use him properly, but he is the cool thing from Thor, that is what makes him Marvel's and not just a God that taked directly from the norse mythology, the idea of a god learning humility  as a lame doctor is a cool idea, I just like that, for me is the best thing in the character.

 

The movie sould have used the Doc Donald Blake, but it could have been longer, that is why I think they didn't used him (or maybe they wanted more muscles in the movie just like Ultimate, the movie was a combination of some aspects of 616 and 1610 and also its own).

 

Note: You always tend to post your opinion like a fact, but you have to learn that sometines someone doesn't share your point of view.

I agree with you!!."

Well personally I hate the whole alter ego of Blake for Thor, I always liked how he was portrayed in the Ultimate Universe where he has no secret identity and just wears normal clothing when he's not saving the world. So I wasn't bothered by that.

In the movie, Thor wasn't placed in Blake's body, they just used the name of one of Jane's ex's as a cover name for him to use, I doubt will see it in later films though. And because he was only Thor in the movie, the whole thing about the hammer being out his hand is irrelevant to the movie. as for Jane, I didn't care much for her character to be bothered by the change, personally I liked it.

Overall I loved all of the changes they made, it was all understandable and made sense to not only us comic book readers, but to the general audience as well, and best of all, this is the first comic book movie that is close to the actually comic book that it's scary xD

What we need to realise is that the movies are a totally different universe and will always have changed big or small. Its the same with the X-Men movies. The comics are one but the movies follow a different canon. Everyone needs to stop hating that fact that the movies are not the exact same. Don't be bias because there are differences, rather give the movie a try and if it’s bad then let it be bad but don't let it be bad because you don't like all the changes, it’s a little petty. 

"and best of all, this is the first comic book movie that is close to the actually comic book that it's scary xD "

"

                    I know this might seem picky and i understand why they made the changes they did but some just didn't make sense, from a comic point of view.The main problem is the origin, it didn't follow the origin that stan wrote. Donald Blake, who's a lame medical physicist ( or something along those lines) goes into a cave and finds a cane which when he hit's a rock with he transforms into Thor! Not what was betrayed in to Movie, on earth he IS Thor...without his powers, he's not a doctor.2ndly If Thor is without his hammer for more than 60 seconds he turns back into Donald. In the movie he doesn't have his hammer for a majority of the time so he shouldn't be or look like Thor.Also Jane Foster is Donald's nurse in his practice, but in the Movie she a scientist and doesn't even work for Donald because he isn't even in it, the names used but it doesn't mean it's him.I can fully understand why they made the changes but it's not really subtle ones, they are quite big to the Origin.Comment telling me what you think.

                   

                "

" Would you rather have a pathetic teen version of Thor? *cough* Smallville *cough* Hehehehe!I see your points and though I understand where your points, I have to partially disagree. Staying true with the comics is always a must with these films and for us comic fans, deviating from it comes close to unforgivable. But as vidarr has said, they needed to change things from a businessman's point of view. It wouldn't really be marketable to the modern audiences if they did the down to earth man that changes to a powerful god by striking a stick. Know that audiences today are shallow and beefiness trumps depth and basis-loyalty almost all the time.Still, the movie was great! "

My biggest problem in the movie wasn't Thor/Don Blake. The problem was was Jane Foster.
As a doctor she could teach Thor about the value of human life and what the war means for the regular people. That could make him understand his mistakes and become worthly of Mjollnir. Instead we see the "scientist" (who looks just as "convincing" as a scientist as Denise Richards). And I don't think I'm the only on who wished movieverse Thor to end with Sif instead..

It's just they have an origin maybe several to choose from and yet it's obvious they have employed someone to write an original origin? why bother, they could have spent the money on something else. But i do have to credit them, good job on making the rainbow bridge not as F&CKING CAMP as the comics :D

Overall, I don't mind tweaks to character's back stories during the movie conversion. To be honest, the comicbook origins are generally hokey and kind of lame, and trying to base these characters in the real world with believable biographies works better for me than some of the real origins. I know I'll probably be crucified for this, but Thor doesn't really need to be Donald Blake in this movie, nor did he need a cane, nor did Jane necessarily have to have the same personality she had in the comic. This is definitely one of those movies that I expected to be over the top with the nonsense factor and I was pleasantly surprised that they kept what they did, updated what they could and kept to the spirit of the Kirby illustrations. 

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

Yes.Thor is a God, he shouldn't have/need an alter ego

@Deadcool said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

"Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done. "

...

I like Donald Blake, during JMS run and some Stan Lee and Kirby's issues, Blake was awesome, just SOME writers can't use him properly, but he is the cool thing from Thor, that is what makes him Marvel's and not just a God that taked directly from the norse mythology, the idea of a god learning humility as a lame doctor is a cool idea, I just like that, for me is the best thing in the character.

The movie sould have used the Doc Donald Blake, but it could have been longer, that is why I think they didn't used him (or maybe they wanted more muscles in the movie just like Ultimate, the movie was a combination of some aspects of 616 and 1610 and also its own).

Note: You always tend to post your opinion like a fact, but you have to learn that sometines someone doesn't share your point of view.

This is also true.

@ComicMan24 said:

I saw the movie and I didn't mind the changes. Staying true to the comics isn't always such a good thing.

I'm with you.

@FadeToBlackBolt: Donald Blake is like transforming into Shazam pretty much...

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

This.

I hate people say I'm not a true Thor fan because I don't like Donald Blake. That guy freaking sucks. Thor is bad ass because he is Thor, not a human being.

@CataractComics said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

Donald Blake is the worst part about the Thor franchise. Getting rid of him was the best thing the movie could have done.

This.

I hate people say I'm not a true Thor fan because I don't like Donald Blake. That guy freaking sucks. Thor is bad ass because he is Thor, not a human being.

Agreed, I have re-read the orinigals and I hated on Donald Blake