What was wrong with the original manuscript?

Rating: 2/10 (10 January 2014)

So, I decide to see the movie Thor, but with some hesitation. This is my own culture as a Scandinavian, so maybe I am not supposed to write a review, maybe I will just spoil it all. I will of course be critical.
When I grew up I read the Edda, so I know the stories of Norse Mythology well. This is also my first question, when you read the real stories, as they were taken down by my distant ancestors, what is it that make the writers and directors change them when making the movie? Is it because they were not good enough? The movie Thor reads like a five year old who was told the real stories but decides to vulgarize them. Or maybe it was due to bad memory, maybe it was on purpose.
The fact remains, they have taken a beautiful story and ripped it to pieces. It makes me sad because when people hear "Thor" they will recall all the wrong images. Sure, some ideas have been preserved, like some of the names and places, but just as many are made up and the whole conflict with the "Jotuns" have been turned into a simplistic black and white world. It makes you wonder, was this done because movie makers think that viewers cannot understand the real story, that it would be too complicated?
And then the whole connection with the present, it turns the figure of Thor into a freak-show. And the sword associations to King Arthur with the sword stuck in the ground. Can't Hollywood tell a story without mixing it with Anglo Saxon familiarities? When Jackson made the Ring at least he tried to follow the original book. It's difficult to understand how Branagh could put his name to this lot. It's all very embarrassing, from story to acting.