Belated thought on Thor upon watching the DVD
This should be short enough not to need an lj-cut - okay, the prologue is captioned as taking place in 965 AD, with Thor and Loki (or at least Loki, Thor might be a little bit older) as infants at the time. They're shown as little boys shortly thereafter, but a later scene I won't spoil further confirms that Loki was definitely still a baby at the conclusion of the war with the Frost Giants.
Problem: The Norse and other Germanic peoples already worshipped Thor, and at least had stories about Loki, under varying names at that time. So if it was going to be years or decades before they grew up into recognizable figures, with Thor wielding his hammer and Loki known as a trickster, how does that work? How do the Norse anticipate how they'll grow up and base their myths and religion on it? Especially considering that Asgard supposedly withdraws from our world at the conclusion of that conflict...
Were there earlier versions of both, i.e., uncles Thunor and Loge, or something?
Were mortals capable of prophecy about the future, as with the Ragnarok story?
Did they just get the date wrong? After all, there's not much about the village or the humans' clothing that marks it out as definitely 10th century as opposed to a few centuries earlier, or even way back in Roman times.
Inquiring (and nitpicky) minds want to know.
Problem: The Norse and other Germanic peoples already worshipped Thor, and at least had stories about Loki, under varying names at that time. So if it was going to be years or decades before they grew up into recognizable figures, with Thor wielding his hammer and Loki known as a trickster, how does that work? How do the Norse anticipate how they'll grow up and base their myths and religion on it? Especially considering that Asgard supposedly withdraws from our world at the conclusion of that conflict...
Were there earlier versions of both, i.e., uncles Thunor and Loge, or something?
Were mortals capable of prophecy about the future, as with the Ragnarok story?
Did they just get the date wrong? After all, there's not much about the village or the humans' clothing that marks it out as definitely 10th century as opposed to a few centuries earlier, or even way back in Roman times.
Inquiring (and nitpicky) minds want to know.