Originally, the comic book adaptation of the Norse god was scheduled for a release next summer, alongside "Iron Man 2."  The date was pushed back to May 20, 2011, apparently at director Kenneth Branagh's request.  At the time, neither the hero or villain had been cast.  Since then, two relatively unknown actors have snatched the juicy roles of Thor and his evil brother, Loki.

Chris Hemsworth, an Australian actor, was cast from amongst a small group of physically appropriate thespians vying for the role.  Hemsworth is popularly known to American audiences as George Kirk, Captain Kirk's father, in the boffo box-office reboot "Star Trek." In a short amount of screen time, audiences connected with his ultimately tragic character. He is currently filming Joss Whedon's horror film, "Cabin in the Woods," and has been tapped as the lead in a re-make of the 1980s communist paranoia thriller "Red Dawn."  I agree with this casting though Hemsworth comes out of left field for us Americans.  I thought for sure a Brit or Scandinavian would get the role but I willing to trust Branagh's instincts on this choice.

Just as important a choice was casting the duplicitous Trickster god Loki.  An even lesser-known, but more distinguished actor, snagged this role.  The award-winning British thespian Tom Hiddleston is set to play opposite Hemsworth in the action epic.  Branagh worked with Hiddleston in the past and apparently knows what he is capable of.  While a bit risky not casting big name actors in the roles (Josh Hartnett was at one time considered for the role of Loki), it is nice to see Branagh choosing the right person for the role over someone with name recognition.  

Hiddleston's initial take on playing the bad guy is that, "Loki's like a comic book version of Edmund in King Lear, but nastier," according to an interview with The Daily Mail.  "Ken wants Loki to have a lean and hungry look, like Cassius in Julius Caesar.  Physically, he can't be posing as Thor," he continued.  Hiddleston obviously shares Branagh's appreciation for Shakespeare.  Giving a Shakespearian lean to the material must have been what Marvel Studios had in mind when casting Branagh to direct.  

Yet, there is bound to be plenty of blood-soaked action to go along with the ambitious story, according to an interview with one of the writers.  "(Y)ou want to feel Thor's rage when he rages. You want to see him fight like hell, and take as much he dishes out -- maybe more. You want to have a visceral reaction to the guy, and what happens to him. You don't want his adventures to be clean and antiseptic. You want to see the dirt, and grime and blood. You want to feel every bone crunching moment of every fight. And when he unleashes the storm, you want to feel like you're seeing the power of a GOD at work," says co-writer Ashley Miller in a CineFools article.  Sounds exciting, let's hope the filmmakers can translate that successfully to the screen.  

Most of the information coming out over the web, says the film will take place mostly in Asgard, where the gods live.  I think there needs to be a link at the end of the picture to the real world (Earth) if Marvel is successfully going to transition Thor into the group picture "The Avengers."

Kevin Feige, Marvel president of production, further hints that audiences will be seeing plenty of Loki, as well as other characters.  Feige repeatedly said in an interview with FirstShowing.net, that "he'd love for audiences to have the same experience that comic book readers have - where characters make surprise appearances almost out of nowhere in issues they pick up." (quotation from original article text)  As long as there's a reason for the character's appearance, I don't mind seeing superhero and villain characters moving through the same universe.  How awesome was the Tony Stark cameo in "The Incredible Hulk?"

Shooting starts in January for Thor.  I'll keep my eyes open for further news about the rest of the cast, including whether Branagh will take a role in the picture himself.