Female Thor!! *Identity as yet unknown*


Comics

151 to 200 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
The Exchange

thejeff wrote:
PirateDevon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
PirateDevon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Obviously it's not the same character. I don't think that's in question at all. The name change does seem weird to me, but I'm assuming they'll have a reason for that as well. I'm assuming the new character will have her own personality and motivations as well as her own history. I'm also assuming that the original Thor will continue to be a character, either in a supporting role in this book or in a title of his own. The press releases may not have explicitly said all that, but that's because they're press releases.
It been expressly indicated in other marketing materials that not only will Thor (Son of Odin) be around but active on at least one iteration of the Avengers.
I was curious about the Avengers, but forgot to mention it.

Yah an image of the solict for issue 35 looks like this complete with Thor with new arm/ax because apparently he will need a new arm and ax.

Horrible way to lose the hammer :P

I'm actually more concerned about the arm, assuming that is actually a new arm and not just some kind of armor.

That'll be harder to revert back to normal in any reasonable fashion.

Really? Between Stephen Strange, the Infinity Gems, and all other things we could bring to the table (Franklin Richards at various points?) I would have a harder time understanding why someone doesn't just give him a new arm to be perfectly honest! Hell even Odin himself has, at times, displayed the ability to warp reality...not sure he would be helping a son who hasn't got the hammer though... LOL


thejeff wrote:
Drock11 wrote:

I think part of what I also don't like about this is it's blatant agenda pushing. I don't mind if somebody has a great plot in mind and events happen in it organically where things like this might come about.

When the base material isn't primarily and obviously made for the purpose, I hate when somebody tries to push an agenda, marketing gimmick, money grab, political statement, or some type of sociological engineering in an existing artistic work, and then tries to somehow make things fit around that and hope for the best. It's even worse when it's done to an already much loved setting or person.

This is definitely one or more examples the latter. They don't even try to hide it.

Another thing that bothers me is that they are trying to wider their audience, make the books appeal to more people, and introduce more diverse characters. Something that by itself in a vacuum isn't a bad thing, but then do things to hinder themselves.

Them being adamant about calling her "Thor" being an example of this in my opinion. They want, or at least I would hope they want, a new vibrant, interesting, decent, and well written character to appeal to more people, and yet they want to do something to make it much harder to actually give her her own identity. Something that I would think would be important. Doesn't that seem silly to anybody else? They want a female character to do well, and get more people interested, but they are going to piggy back her on the coattails of a male character to do it.

I can only imagine the name is due to blatant marketing. "Thor" has name recognition and the money tied to things like that, and in the end the dollars are probably more important than the artistic integrity of what they create.

I don't know where this story came from or what level it's from management or from the creative team. We probably won't know for years, if ever.

These ideas come from Marvel's creative summits that they have once or twice a year here in NYC. The writers of their top titles fly out to HQ for 3-4 days (this year Bendis Skyped in) and bang around ideas and plans for the next year or so of stories. They shoot down each others ideas and promote and support the ideas that they like. Their editors are in the room and pitch their ideas too but mostly i get the impressions that it's pretty much the writers.

I do think though that more recently there's an more a push from editorial to bring things in line with the MCU. Which makes sense but is still a little disconcerting.


Scythia wrote:

I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?

They MOST certainly did/do.


thejeff wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Blondie isn't being turned into a woman. (although that HAS happened in the comics) There actually is a different person, possibly Sif? getting both the hammer, powers, and the name of Thor. That's happened to. A stuntman once was found worthy and he was given Thor's mythological belt and glove of strength to help him wield Mjolnir.
In Pathfinder terms, that's like stealing a fighter's +2 sword and then you become that fighter. I don't care how you twist it, it's silly. :p

It's more like someone getting the Axe of the Dwarven Lords (Mjollnir is certainly an artifact level weapon), and using it makes the wielder a dwarf.

I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?

I don't know about gimmick or forced inclusiveness. That one really felt to me more like forced tie in to movieverse.

But I'll admit I didn't like it. It seemed kind of pointless to me. The whole damn point of Nick Fury is that he's been around forever and is just too good at the whole superspy thing. This punk kid isn't in the same league.
I'll admit that the story of how he was still around was getting kind of stretched. OTOH, he's still around, so it didn't really change that aspect.

You guys do realize that black Nick Fury made is appearance in the Ultimate lIne of comics FIRST right? Although he appears in one or two books before Mark MIllar and Bryan Hitch's THE ULTIMATES it's in that book that people really took notice as it was a huge seller. Bryan Hitch DREW him in the likeness of Samuel Jackson YEARS before the first Iron Man movie. Jackson who is a big fan of Marvel and gave his consent (I believe this is a rumor though but since no legal action that we know of happened I'm inclined to believe it).

So when they wanted to include Nick Fury in the tag at the end of the first Iron Man film they asked him if he wanted to do it, he said yes and the rest is history.


PirateDevon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
PirateDevon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
PirateDevon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Obviously it's not the same character. I don't think that's in question at all. The name change does seem weird to me, but I'm assuming they'll have a reason for that as well. I'm assuming the new character will have her own personality and motivations as well as her own history. I'm also assuming that the original Thor will continue to be a character, either in a supporting role in this book or in a title of his own. The press releases may not have explicitly said all that, but that's because they're press releases.
It been expressly indicated in other marketing materials that not only will Thor (Son of Odin) be around but active on at least one iteration of the Avengers.
I was curious about the Avengers, but forgot to mention it.

Yah an image of the solict for issue 35 looks like this complete with Thor with new arm/ax because apparently he will need a new arm and ax.

Horrible way to lose the hammer :P

I'm actually more concerned about the arm, assuming that is actually a new arm and not just some kind of armor.

That'll be harder to revert back to normal in any reasonable fashion.

Really? Between Stephen Strange, the Infinity Gems, and all other things we could bring to the table (Franklin Richards at various points?) I would have a harder time understanding why someone doesn't just give him a new arm to be perfectly honest! Hell even Odin himself has, at times, displayed the ability to warp reality...not sure he would be helping a son who hasn't got the hammer though... LOL

Stephen Strange is no longer the Sorcerer Supreme and doesn't wield nearly the amount of power that he used to.

The Infinity Gems were destroyed (with the sole exception of the TIME gem, which vanished and recently reappeared to throw Steve Rogers and some select Avengers forward in time through the marvel universe...).

Speaking of Franklin Richard he's around in two incarnations his future self (who at present is back in the future) who is really powerful and his younger self who is still a kid but potentially REALLY powerful.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Blondie isn't being turned into a woman. (although that HAS happened in the comics) There actually is a different person, possibly Sif? getting both the hammer, powers, and the name of Thor. That's happened to. A stuntman once was found worthy and he was given Thor's mythological belt and glove of strength to help him wield Mjolnir.
In Pathfinder terms, that's like stealing a fighter's +2 sword and then you become that fighter. I don't care how you twist it, it's silly. :p

It's more like someone getting the Axe of the Dwarven Lords (Mjollnir is certainly an artifact level weapon), and using it makes the wielder a dwarf.

I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?

I don't know about gimmick or forced inclusiveness. That one really felt to me more like forced tie in to movieverse.

But I'll admit I didn't like it. It seemed kind of pointless to me. The whole damn point of Nick Fury is that he's been around forever and is just too good at the whole superspy thing. This punk kid isn't in the same league.
I'll admit that the story of how he was still around was getting kind of stretched. OTOH, he's still around, so it didn't really change that aspect.

You guys do realize that black Nick Fury made is appearance in the Ultimate lIne of comics FIRST right? Although he appears in one or two books before Mark MIllar and Bryan Hitch's THE ULTIMATES it's in that book that people really took notice as it was a huge seller. Bryan Hitch DREW him in the likeness of Samuel Jackson YEARS before the first Iron Man movie. Jackson who is a big fan of Marvel and gave his consent (I believe this is a rumor though but since no legal action that we know of happened I'm inclined to believe it).

So when they wanted to include Nick Fury in the tag at the end of the first Iron Man film they asked him if he...

I do realize that and I didn't have much issue with it then, especially as I don't pay much attention to the Ultimate line.

My issue was with bringing the young black Nick Fury into the main Marvel Universe. (As the old one's secret son, IIRC)


ShinHakkaider wrote:

You guys do realize that black Nick Fury made is appearance in the Ultimate lIne of comics FIRST right? Although he appears in one or two books before Mark MIllar and Bryan Hitch's THE ULTIMATES it's in that book that people really took notice as it was a huge seller. Bryan Hitch DREW him in the likeness of Samuel Jackson YEARS before the first Iron Man movie. Jackson who is a big fan of Marvel and gave his consent (I believe this is a rumor though but since no legal action that we know of happened I'm inclined to believe it).

So when they wanted to include Nick Fury in the tag at the end of the first Iron Man film they asked him if he...

Like another poster, I didn't notice until the movies. I haven't been keeping up with comics, and when I found out that Samuel L. Jackson was playing Nick Fury, I though, "Wow... Zeus Jules Fury. Interesting. Let's see where this goes." Then a buddy pointed out that the movies were following the Ultimates line... the one where the Hulk was 'sedated' by a punch to the junk.

So one afternoon in a bookstore, I did some light graphic novel perusing. Some of the changes are cool. Some are not. I like the different Nick. I don't like, but don't hate, Venom. I find Logan as a head in SHIELD lab Hilarious. I liked Spiderman dating Kitty Pride, at least for a little, really cool... On the whole, what I know of the Ultimates reinterpreting many standing comic lines is pretty cool... I even bought a few. However, I am under the impression Marvel created a different venue for them without immediately getting rid of the other Avengers, Spider-Man, and ecetera titles. The readers could have the best of both worlds.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scythia wrote:

I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?

They MOST certainly did/do.

Not even a little.


Could this author be going for another variant of, "Thor needs to learn more humility, and he's utterly uncomprehending of the nature of woman, so I, [insert current ruler of Asgard], am going to change his essential nature into that of a female"?

No matter the justification, though, this is just moronic.

Should we expect the Thor/Sif relationship to now become a lesbian titillation? Will we see the Hulk now interested in banging Thor rather than beating him up? (It'd be interesting to see the female Thor now consistently kicking the Hulk's ass, though [as always should have been], because she'll now rely on her innumerable irresistible cosmic powers rather than attempting to beat him like a drum with her hammer, and using a bit of lightning for effect.)

This is not "an intriguing new take on Thor," however, no matter this author's previous success with the character. It's an asinine grasp at straws ... or should I say removal of straw?

Wanting to see a male stay a male, by the way, is not misogynistic. I'd simply prefer to see a female character of tremendous power created from the ground up, rather than one who, no matter the slant put on it, stole another character's mojo for their own.

This character will never be Thor. End of story (no pun intended).


Jaelithe wrote:

Could this author be going for another variant of, "Thor needs to learn more humility, and he's utterly uncomprehending of the nature of woman, so I, [insert current ruler of Asgard], am going to change his essential nature into that of a female"?

No matter the justification, though, this is just moronic.

Should we expect the Thor/Sif relationship to now become a lesbian titillation? Will we see the Hulk now interested in banging Thor rather than beating him up? (It'd be interesting to see the female Thor now consistently kicking the Hulk's ass, though [as always should have been], because she'll now rely on her innumerable irresistible cosmic powers rather than attempting to beat him like a drum with her hammer, and using a bit of lightning for effect.)

This is not "an intriguing new take on Thor," however, no matter this author's previous success with the character. It's an asinine grasp at straws ... or should I say removal of straw?

Wanting to see a male stay a male, by the way, is not misogynistic. I'd simply prefer to see a female character of tremendous power created from the ground up, rather than one who, no matter the slant put on it, stole another character's mojo for their own.

This character will never be Thor. End of story (no pun intended).

Um...no. As far as I have heard this won't be a sex change.

No THAT isn't misogynistic, It IS to dismiss all female heroes; which most aren't doing with this. What most ARE doing is failing to recognize that Thor is a title as well as a name.

And unless my history is rusty didn't spider woman and bat girl get the same derision by the male majority when they were introduced? So clearly building a NEW character with the same powers as Thor wasn't going to be the correct path to take. If they were going to change up Thor, then THIS was the correct path for better or worse.

Which IS the real point "for better or worse". We don't know if this is going to be great, meh, or pathetic UNTIL we actually read the issues will we?

All the pre judging in here is horrible. It won't just be a temporary thing if people like it and buy it.

Oh and YES this character WILL BE Thor like it or not at least for some amount of time.


Jaelithe wrote:

Could this author be going for another variant of, "Thor needs to learn more humility, and he's utterly uncomprehending of the nature of woman, so I, [insert current ruler of Asgard], am going to change his essential nature into that of a female"?

No matter the justification, though, this is just moronic.

Should we expect the Thor/Sif relationship to now become a lesbian titillation? Will we see the Hulk now interested in banging Thor rather than beating him up? (It'd be interesting to see the female Thor now consistently kicking the Hulk's ass, though [as always should have been], because she'll now rely on her innumerable irresistible cosmic powers rather than attempting to beat him like a drum with her hammer, and using a bit of lightning for effect.)

This is not "an intriguing new take on Thor," however, no matter this author's previous success with the character. It's an asinine grasp at straws ... or should I say removal of straw?

Wanting to see a male stay a male, by the way, is not misogynistic. I'd simply prefer to see a female character of tremendous power created from the ground up, rather than one who, no matter the slant put on it, stole another character's mojo for their own.

This character will never be Thor. End of story (no pun intended).

I think maybe before commenting that you should actually read the article. Even in the headline of the article it states "THOR Drops The Hammer, a New Female THOR Takes His Place"

The previous wielder of Mjolnir will still be present in the Avengers titles.

So I'm not sure what you're going on about.


Aranna wrote:
All the pre judging in here is horrible. It won't just be a temporary thing if people like it and buy it.

One of the writers that I follow on Twitter is Dan Slott. He's been writing Amazing Spider-Man in some form or another for more than 5 years now I think. When It was introduced that Doc Oc was conciousness was going to be in Peter Parker's body and Parker was going away? The vitriol and bile that he received was just VILE.

I'm cynical enough to know that this is what fandom is. They're not willing to give anything even a bit new a chance and their first action is to attack the creator or state how stupid a concept or an idea is.

About a year later as Superior Spider-Man was wrapping up more than a few people wrote on his twitter feed as well as to his face during signings that I was present at that they were wrong and the book was actually really good.

Made me smile a little bit.

But then responses like most of the ones in this thread remind me of why I despise a lot of my fellow fans so much.


Slaunyeh wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scythia wrote:

I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?

They MOST certainly did/do.
Not even a little.

Well the guys griping an complaining about the black Nick Fury replacing the White nick fury in the 616 Marvel universe on the message boards that I frequent about a year or two ago were figments of my imagination?

GREEEEEEEEEEAAAAAT that's good to know...


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Aranna wrote:
All the pre judging in here is horrible. It won't just be a temporary thing if people like it and buy it.

One of the writers that I follow on Twitter is Dan Slott. He's been writing Amazing Spider-Man in some form or another for more than 5 years now I think. When It was introduced that Doc Oc was conciousness was going to be in Peter Parker's body and Parker was going away? The vitriol and bile that he received was just VILE.

I'm cynical enough to know that this is what fandom is. They're not willing to give anything even a bit new a chance and their first action is to attack the creator or state how stupid a concept or an idea is.

About a year later as Superior Spider-Man was wrapping up more than a few people wrote on his twitter feed as well as to his face during signings that I was present at that they were wrong and the book was actually really good.

Made me smile a little bit.

But then responses like most of the ones in this thread remind me of why I despise a lot of my fellow fans so much.

All that said and agreed to. It's still going to be a temporary thing, even if people like it and buy it. At least hopefully it will.

If they're not complete idiots, this is already plotted out as a story arc, ending in Thor becoming worthy again and reclaiming the hammer. Hopefully with some lasting character growth and changes and hopefully leaving the female Thor with an expanded role to play.

If this new character and storyline is really popular, there will be a temptation to spin it out longer, probably derailling the original plotline and leading to a confused mess when they eventually, inevitably bring Thor back. Hopefully, they can resist that temptation, stick with the plan and use the popularity to spin the female Thor into a separate title when she's no longer Thor.

(All of this speculation is made much more complicated by not knowing who she is. It makes it difficult to refer to her, especially talking about what happens when Thor is Thor again.)

I'm also not anywhere near as sold on the "Thor is a title as well as a name" thing as some are. It's been used that way, but not as often as some imply. Many times a character has gotten the "Power of Thor" from Mjolner, but not actually been called Thor.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scythia wrote:
I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?
They MOST certainly did/do.
Not even a little.

Well the guys griping an complaining about the black Nick Fury replacing the White nick fury in the 616 Marvel universe on the message boards that I frequent about a year or two ago were figments of my imagination?

GREEEEEEEEEEAAAAAT that's good to know...

Not all complaining about character replacement is racist or sexist or even fear of change.

As I said above, I'm not happy with the new Nick Fury. I think it was a cynical attempt to cash in on popularity of the Movieverse version. I like the original and I think having two Nick Furys, playing similar but different roles in the same world is a bad idea. And that one isn't set up as a temporary story arc, but a permanent semi-replacement. Semi-, because I think it was actually intended as a real replacement, but inevitably writers wanted to use the real Nick Fury so he's still around.

I would have been upset about the Superior Spider-man, if I'd thought for a moment they actually meant to get rid of Peter and have Ock as the real Spider-man from then on. That would have been a really stupid idea and would have deserved all the criticism it got. Since it was obviously just a temporary story arc, you roll with it and see if works. For some, particularly those who haven't been reading as long as some of us and haven't gotten as used to the way the business works, it may not have been as obvious.


thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Aranna wrote:
All the pre judging in here is horrible. It won't just be a temporary thing if people like it and buy it.

One of the writers that I follow on Twitter is Dan Slott. He's been writing Amazing Spider-Man in some form or another for more than 5 years now I think. When It was introduced that Doc Oc was conciousness was going to be in Peter Parker's body and Parker was going away? The vitriol and bile that he received was just VILE.

I'm cynical enough to know that this is what fandom is. They're not willing to give anything even a bit new a chance and their first action is to attack the creator or state how stupid a concept or an idea is.

About a year later as Superior Spider-Man was wrapping up more than a few people wrote on his twitter feed as well as to his face during signings that I was present at that they were wrong and the book was actually really good.

Made me smile a little bit.

But then responses like most of the ones in this thread remind me of why I despise a lot of my fellow fans so much.

All that said and agreed to. It's still going to be a temporary thing, even if people like it and buy it. At least hopefully it will.

If they're not complete idiots, this is already plotted out as a story arc, ending in Thor becoming worthy again and reclaiming the hammer. Hopefully with some lasting character growth and changes and hopefully leaving the female Thor with an expanded role to play.

If this new character and storyline is really popular, there will be a temptation to spin it out longer, probably derailling the original plotline and leading to a confused mess when they eventually, inevitably bring Thor back. Hopefully, they can resist that temptation, stick with the plan and use the popularity to spin the female Thor into a separate title when she's no longer Thor.

(All of this speculation is made much more complicated by not knowing who she is. It makes it difficult to refer to her, especially talking about what happens...

Thanks guys for being more reasonable... And I would be totally fine if they spin her into her own title later on and keep her as a major face in that universe... I would also be massively let down if they return Thor's hammer later and simply treat her as a discardable character; THAT would be unforgivable, and would prove every neigh sayer right about them. I would boycott all Marvel comics after that... not that they probably care about how one girl feels.

But I guess we won't know till they sell us the issues.


Aranna wrote:

Thanks guys for being more reasonable... And I would be totally fine if they spin her into her own title later on and keep her as a major face in that universe... I would also be massively let down if they return Thor's hammer later and simply treat her as a discardable character; THAT would be unforgivable, and would prove every neigh sayer right about them. I would boycott all Marvel comics after that... not that they probably care about how one girl feels.

But I guess we won't know till they sell us the issues.

To some extent that will depend on reaction to the story and on sales. If the story doesn't sell, you can't really blame Marvel for giving the character her own title or otherwise keep her as a major player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scythia wrote:
I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?
They MOST certainly did/do.
Not even a little.

Well the guys griping an complaining about the black Nick Fury replacing the White nick fury in the 616 Marvel universe on the message boards that I frequent about a year or two ago were figments of my imagination?

GREEEEEEEEEEAAAAAT that's good to know...

Not all complaining about character replacement is racist or sexist or even fear of change.

As I said above, I'm not happy with the new Nick Fury. I think it was a cynical attempt to cash in on popularity of the Movieverse version. I like the original and I think having two Nick Furys, playing similar but different roles in the same world is a bad idea. And that one isn't set up as a temporary story arc, but a permanent semi-replacement. Semi-, because I think it was actually intended as a real replacement, but inevitably writers wanted to use the real Nick Fury so he's still around.

I would have been upset about the Superior Spider-man, if I'd thought for a moment they actually meant to get rid of Peter and have Ock as the real Spider-man from then on. That would have been a really stupid idea and would have deserved all the criticism it got. Since it was obviously just a temporary story arc, you roll with it and see if works. For some, particularly those who haven't been reading as long as some of us and haven't gotten as used to the way the business works, it may not have been as obvious.

I agree that all of those complaining about change are not racist or sexist.

But there are certain trigger words / statements that kind of clue you into the mindset of the complainer. Use of "Political Correctness" "Affirmative Actions" "Create your own heroes" "What if we replaced black or female characters with white/male ones. Lets see how they like that?"

You know, the usual things that let me know what I'm dealing with.


The gender change seems to have sparked more controversy than the racial one; I kind of want to even it out by visiting some of my grandparents and sharing the news with them.

...or, the great-uncle who still makes jokes about "n-- tit" candies and another who's convinced the nation's slowly being handed over to a bunch of lazy-arsed ra--

Can't say that on the forums. Can't even go there.

Then again, maybe Marvel will run some stories on the male pregnancies that happened among the Norse gods. Those deities were pretty damn twisted to begin with, aside from being generally bizarre.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

thejeff you are so polite! :)

It was me more than anyone that said that Thor is a job and a man and you are right. Beta Ray, Wonder Woman (which technically is still "in canon" on the Marvel side but I am sure ignored in every true sense) and a handful of other situations someone had the hammer but wasn't named Thor.

Really Masterson is the only template of a long term replacement and perhaps we could split hairs there because I think, in the end, he was "merged" with Thor or some such thing?

I think ultimately the argument against another name was addressed in the press in indicating that they didn't want to call her Lady Thor or Thorita or Ms. Thor, just like it smacks strange these days when you consider certain characters like Black Lightning, Black Samson and so on and probably wouldn't name a new character "Black" anything absent some strong tie to something other than the color of the characters skin. (See Twisted Toyfare theater for a great ongoing gag about THAT!)

Honestly at the end of the day we have to see what the story is. Superior Spider-man was referenced earlier and that is a perfect example. Hell that character may even continue to exist as it was so popular by the end of the series. So who knows, if things go well and the story is well written we may have two Thor or whoever the woman is will, like Masterson and Beta Ray, be given her own weapon and stick around.

Shit like this is always headline grabbing click bait. Its execution will determine if it was worth the ride.


Scythia wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Blondie isn't being turned into a woman. (although that HAS happened in the comics) There actually is a different person, possibly Sif? getting both the hammer, powers, and the name of Thor. That's happened to. A stuntman once was found worthy and he was given Thor's mythological belt and glove of strength to help him wield Mjolnir.
In Pathfinder terms, that's like stealing a fighter's +2 sword and then you become that fighter. I don't care how you twist it, it's silly. :p

It's more like someone getting the Axe of the Dwarven Lords (Mjollnir is certainly an artifact level weapon), and using it makes the wielder a dwarf.

I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?

I remember the outcry. It did indeed happen.


Slaunyeh wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scythia wrote:

I wonder if the people now denouncing this as a gimmick or forced inclusiveness were equally disdained when Nick Fury became black?

They MOST certainly did/do.
Not even a little.

wha? You must have been in another internet or comic book store. The shaft jokes were all over the place.


Aranna wrote:
And I would be totally fine if they spin her into her own title later on and keep her as a major face in that universe... I would also be massively let down if they return Thor's hammer later and simply treat her as a discardable character; THAT would be unforgivable, and would prove every neigh sayer right about them.

That honestly is my biggest concern with this whole thing. if they can successfully use this as a launchpad with a plan already in place of where to take this new character, it could work, and work fine, but they are not giving themselves a lot of wiggle room, seeing that initially she is going to be borrowing everything from Thor save the back story. If they have a plan and are able to work in elements that can eventually be built upon to give her her own identity later, great, but otherwise, they are setting themselves back by creating a weak persona with little to no individual identity. It's a major risk that lacks certainty. By starting with a new character from scratch, they could at least identify where challenges would be and plan and adjust accordingly as things develop; with this approach, they basically have to have everything planned out ahead of time and hope the plan holds up. That is my problem with this approach; once the plan is put in motion, there is not a lot of wiggle room if things need to change, especially if they need to change drastically. It's not what they are doing, but how they are doing it; the goal is fine, the methods are dangerously close to be a ill advised shortcut.

EDIT: In short, a new character may be a harder path, but it is also a clearer one. This method may be easier in the short term, but in the long run may prove to be more difficult due to the the development of unexpected expectations and story lines.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Aranna wrote:
And I would be totally fine if they spin her into her own title later on and keep her as a major face in that universe... I would also be massively let down if they return Thor's hammer later and simply treat her as a discardable character; THAT would be unforgivable, and would prove every neigh sayer right about them.

That honestly is my biggest concern with this whole thing. if they can successfully use this as a launchpad with a plan already in place of where to take this new character, it could work, and work fine, but they are not giving themselves a lot of wiggle room, seeing that initially she is going to be borrowing everything from Thor save the back story. If they have a plan and are able to work in elements that can eventually be built upon to give her her own identity later, great, but otherwise, they are setting themselves back by creating a weak persona with little to no individual identity. It's a major risk that lacks certainty. By starting with a new character from scratch, they could at least identify where challenges would be and plan and adjust accordingly as things develop; with this approach, they basically have to have everything planned out ahead of time and hope the plan holds up. That is my problem with this approach; once the plan is put in motion, there is not a lot of wiggle room if things need to change, especially if they need to change drastically. It's not what they are doing, but how they are doing it; the goal is fine, the methods are dangerously close to be a ill advised shortcut.

EDIT: In short, a new character may be a harder path, but it is also a clearer one. This method may be easier in the short term, but in the long run may prove to be more difficult due to the the development of unexpected expectations and story lines.

Actually, AFAIK, we still don't know who the character is, if she's new or an existing character and how much of her own backstory and identity she already has.

You're making assumptions, due to the lack of data in a couple of press releases. If that's all still true when the change actually happens, you'll have more of a point.


thejeff wrote:

Actually, AFAIK, we still don't know who the character is, if she's new or an existing character and how much of her own backstory and identity she already has.

You're making assumptions, due to the lack of data in a couple of press releases. If that's all still true when the change actually happens, you'll have more of a point.

Also by doing things this way we already have a tie in to her background in the form of the old Thor. So an existing character with an established back story the readers probably care about will feature prominently in her story. That is way more mileage than they would have gotten from a brand new character with her own version of Thor like powers.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Well the guys griping an complaining about the black Nick Fury replacing the White nick fury in the 616 Marvel universe on the message boards that I frequent about a year or two ago were figments of my imagination?

Nah, I'm sure they were not. I'd be surprised if there were not idiots in any group of people. But that wasn't the question you answered...

Freehold DM wrote:
wha? You must have been in another internet or comic book store. The shaft jokes were all over the place.

You should reread the original question.

I'll sum it up for convenience:

Q: Does the people who dislike this also hate a black Nick Fury?

A: Absolutely!

Easily demonstrated to be false, as I think femThor is a silly gimmick, while having absolutely no issue with a black Nick Fury (or Heimdal for that matter). Heck, if the alternative is David Hasselhoff, I'd prefer every comic book character to be black.

The Exchange

Aranna wrote:


Also by doing things this way we already have a tie in to her background in the form of the old Thor. So an existing character with an established back story the readers probably care about will feature prominently in her story. That is way more mileage than they would have gotten from a brand new character with her own version of Thor like powers.

I agree. Instant background not to mention the inherent juicy potential for conflict between this newcomer and the old Thor. Thor already has daddy issues so depending on who this is and how they interact with both old Thor and other mutual allies this could set the ground for a lot of storytelling for years to come.


ShinHakkaider wrote:

I agree that all of those complaining about change are not racist or sexist.

But there are certain trigger words / statements that kind of clue you into the mindset of the complainer. Use of "Political Correctness" "Affirmative Actions" "Create your own heroes" "What if we replaced black or female characters with white/male ones. Lets see...

I'm sorry but that isn't a good thing.


thejeff wrote:
Actually, AFAIK, we still don't know who the character is, if she's new or an existing character and how much of her own backstory and identity she already has.

Backstory and a normal identity yes, possibly, but a superhero identity with defined and at least somewhat unique powers, not so much. Doing a female with Thor like powers isn't going to get them far once Thor gets his hammer back, which means they will need to sow the seeds for her own source of power that doesn't seem like a direct ripoff of Thor. This is true regardless of whether they use an already established minor character or a new one. The one exception I could think of would be Sif, where all that work for being an indepedent character has already been done. Similarly, I suppose they could pull out one of the other female heroes they have tried to use and just have not got the traction they wanted. In the end though, for this to work, the character wielding his hammer has to be able to stand on her own eventually. Starting the spotlight with her having Thor's hammer is not going to let Marvel avoid that step, and depending on how they handle it, could make that eventual step harder.


sunshadow21 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Actually, AFAIK, we still don't know who the character is, if she's new or an existing character and how much of her own backstory and identity she already has.
Backstory and a normal identity yes, possibly, but a superhero identity with defined and at least somewhat unique powers, not so much. Doing a female with Thor like powers isn't going to get them far once Thor gets his hammer back, which means they will need to sow the seeds for her own source of power that doesn't seem like a direct ripoff of Thor. This is true regardless of whether they use an already established minor character or a new one. The one exception I could think of would be Sif, where all that work for being an indepedent character has already been done. Similarly, I suppose they could pull out one of the other female heroes they have tried to use and just have not got the traction they wanted. In the end though, for this to work, the character wielding his hammer has to be able to stand on her own eventually. Starting the spotlight with her having Thor's hammer is not going to let Marvel avoid that step, and depending on how they handle it, could make that eventual step harder.

Not necessarily. Though I wouldn't actually recommend it, they could go the route they went with Eric Masterton/Thunderstrike - after Thor returns, give him his own hammer and new name. His book lasted awhile, though it wasn't that well received.

As for other possibilities, Angela's already been mentioned (and shot down:)
Valkyrie would be another obvious choice, though I really doubt it would be her. I haven't paid enough attention to the current run of Thor to know if there's anyone they've been grooming for the role.


PirateDevon wrote:
Aranna wrote:


Also by doing things this way we already have a tie in to her background in the form of the old Thor. So an existing character with an established back story the readers probably care about will feature prominently in her story. That is way more mileage than they would have gotten from a brand new character with her own version of Thor like powers.

I agree. Instant background not to mention the inherent juicy potential for conflict between this newcomer and the old Thor. Thor already has daddy issues so depending on who this is and how they interact with both old Thor and other mutual allies this could set the ground for a lot of storytelling for years to come.

This creates other problems, though. Mainly, how to tie her into Thor's story without making her feel like a ripoff of Thor, either in back story or powers. What they gain in name recognition, they lose in having to deal with the baggage that comes with that name recognition. It also sets the level of success needed to actually pull it off that much higher and more difficult to attain. It will be very easy to end with a female version of Thor, and nothing else, which to many people would not be the kind of success required for this to be worth it.

In the end, the name recognition may help initial sales, but the challenges it creates dampens any long term benefits over starting from scratch. It's good for maybe a single story arc, and possibly less than that, and that's it. Apparently Marvel thinks they have the story to back up the initial boost; I certainly hope so, because they aren't going to get another chance at this character concept anytime soon. To me, the risks aren't worth the limited rewards. There are other ways to do it that do a better job of limiting unexpected challenges down the road while attaining most of the short term benefits.


Aranna wrote:
Also by doing things this way we already have a tie in to her background in the form of the old Thor. So an existing character with an established back story the readers probably care about will feature prominently in her story. That is way more mileage than they would have gotten from a brand new character with her own version of Thor like powers.

But doesn't the mere fact we're having this conversation in the first place disprove that? Trying to connect this character to an existing one isn't helping any it's making things worse!


lordzack wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Also by doing things this way we already have a tie in to her background in the form of the old Thor. So an existing character with an established back story the readers probably care about will feature prominently in her story. That is way more mileage than they would have gotten from a brand new character with her own version of Thor like powers.
But doesn't the mere fact we're having this conversation in the first place disprove that? Trying to connect this character to an existing one isn't helping any it's making things worse!

Only because it's still secret. I think much of this discussion will become moot, once we actually see the story.

Furthermore, I think the fact we're having this conversation proves it's working. "Marvel announces new title that stars a female character" wouldn't provoke any debate, much less this much attention.


thejeff wrote:
Furthermore, I think the fact we're having this conversation proves it's working. "Marvel announces new title that stars a female character" wouldn't provoke any debate, much less this much attention.

The question I have is whether the added attention and hype is really worth it. It gives the new character more exposure, sure, but also ups the level of quality required to satisfy people. If they have the long term story to back it up, and stick with that long term story, they will be fine. If not, this is going to come back and bite them hard, and that's the part that a lot of people seem to want to ignore. Good comic stories are not hard to do; great stories, which a lot of people will be expecting from this, are a lot harder and rarer.

The Exchange

sunshadow21 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Furthermore, I think the fact we're having this conversation proves it's working. "Marvel announces new title that stars a female character" wouldn't provoke any debate, much less this much attention.
The question I have is whether the added attention and hype is really worth it. It gives the new character more exposure, sure, but also ups the level of quality required to satisfy people. If they have the long term story to back it up, and stick with that long term story, they will be fine. If not, this is going to come back and bite them hard, and that's the part that a lot of people seem to want to ignore. Good comic stories are not hard to do; great stories, which a lot of people will be expecting from this, are a lot harder and rarer.

I don't know how hard it will bite them if it goes south unless it turns in a bad way and then they try to do it again. Comics fans get all riled up at the start but a lot of this stuff ends on a whimper if it isn't any good.

I suspect that there will be as much chaos *in* the universe as there is here amongst fans as far as someone else being Thor and if they harness that right I think they can make something work. If it gets approached well in the books there are a lot of stories to be made specifically because she is -replacing- Thor. vs just showing up and being Thor like (Like Thor Girl for instance *ugh* what a name).


You're right. It could work, and Marvel may have a really good story brewing. But for every attempt at something like this that succeeds, there are multiple that fail, and while failure may not have a massive direct impact, it would definitely hamper the creation of further new characters along that line, which doesn't need any more obstacles than it already has. In end, regardless of the name recognition or the story, this has be treated as trying to create a new character as far as setting odds and expectations. And the odds of a long term success, are frankly, not all that good, which reduces this to a temporary gimmick that will piss off as many people as it will please. If it was an alternate universe, like they did when they replaced Peter Parker, where Peter Parker was still around in the main universe, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but for the mainstream story, this is, quite frankly, a bit too much a bit too quickly for them to really fully control the end result, and that could be problematic.


Actually, I have a more....weird idea/theory for who the new female character is: it's actually Thor (the god of thunder side, not the man side). Bear with me on this:

having lost the power of the god of thunder, the side of Thor what was (briefly) a woman (who for purposes of this discussion was actually the "spirit" of the god of thunder) decided that she/it was tired of having these Asgardians (mainly Odin really, who strikes me as the worst sort of father a superhero could really have) mess with her and took up the mantle of....well, itself really. That leaves Thor the man out in the cold (and possibly stranded in Midguard/earth) and working with the avengers as he has done for the last chunk of years (comic book time to real time being what it is).


Slaunyeh wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Well the guys griping an complaining about the black Nick Fury replacing the White nick fury in the 616 Marvel universe on the message boards that I frequent about a year or two ago were figments of my imagination?

Nah, I'm sure they were not. I'd be surprised if there were not idiots in any group of people. But that wasn't the question you answered...

Freehold DM wrote:
wha? You must have been in another internet or comic book store. The shaft jokes were all over the place.

You should reread the original question.

I'll sum it up for convenience:

Q: Does the people who dislike this also hate a black Nick Fury?

A: Absolutely!

Easily demonstrated to be false, as I think femThor is a silly gimmick, while having absolutely no issue with a black Nick Fury (or Heimdal for that matter). Heck, if the alternative is David Hasselhoff, I'd prefer every comic book character to be black.

there are people out there who do indeed cleave to you're summed up question though. Just because you are an outlier doesn't mean you lack reason to be unique.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I suddenly have this image in my head of Thor Odinson and New Thor being paired off romantically. "Well when I got married I took my husband's name."

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The NPC wrote:
I suddenly have this image in my head of Thor Odinson and New Thor being paired off romantically. "Well when I got married I took my husband's name."

And thus a thousand FanFics were launched.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
The NPC wrote:
I suddenly have this image in my head of Thor Odinson and New Thor being paired off romantically. "Well when I got married I took my husband's name."
And thus a thousand FanFics were launched.

Just doing my part ;)


If those espousing this idea mean "Thor is a title" in the literal sense, well ... that's self-evident. If instead it means "any being may be THE THOR!" that's so enormously asinine it doesn't even need to be refuted. Declaring it so and writing it so doesn't make it less ridiculous, even if you think the idea is kewl. "Thor" is most emphatically NOT a title or a concept. HE is a being/character whose gender happens to be male. Giving another being Thor's power or even his hammer does not make him or her Thor.

That said ....

... of course there are innumerable ways this could be done. Could be a female version of Thor from one of the innumerable alternate realities. The essence of Thor could somehow be distributed in part to another. (It's happened before.). A skilled warrior woman might take up the hammer and be entirely worthy of it. Might even make for a great story.

But she will not and never be Thor.

As to getting up in arms about it ... didn't someone from Marvel say something to the effect that this isn't some gimmick---that this person will be Thor?

News flash: Unless you're the Thor of Marvel-616 or one of the adjacent dimensional neighborhoods, you can only perform Thor's functions or play the role.

In other words, Thor is something you are, not something you become---unless this is going to be as simple as a renaming. Then, well ... sure. Anyone can take a name.

But that'll just be BS, and we all know it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Awww... you seem pretty fired up for someone who is wrong, Jaelithe.

If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.


Aranna wrote:

Awww... you seem pretty fired up for someone who is wrong, Jaelithe.

If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.

Marvel can obviously do whatever the heck they want. That doesn't make it an inherently good idea. :p

I'm glad you like the change, but could we dial down the sniping of other posters? No sense descending to those levels just because you disagree with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slaunyeh wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Awww... you seem pretty fired up for someone who is wrong, Jaelithe.

If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.

Marvel can obviously do whatever the heck they want. That doesn't make it an inherently good idea. :p

I'm glad you like the change, but could we dial down the sniping of other posters? No sense descending to those levels just because you disagree with them.

Whether it is a good idea or not remains to be seen.

And really how else could someone respond to such a trollish rant?
Yeah, yeah I know don't feed the trolls... But they are SO cute!


Aranna wrote:
If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.

Well... they own A very specific VERSION of "Thor." They do not own all representations of Thor.

Thor, as with most myths, transcends above a great deal of legal trademarking and copyright restrictions. (Think about why there are 2 Hercules films out in one year's time, neither having to do with the other.)

So yeah, as you suggest, they can tell whatever story they want with the one in their mythos...

But so can Image, DC, etc... each with some version of the mythic god in their canon.
Some have reinvented Thor as a grey alien (re: Stargate).
And some have made Thor this.

Granted, no one has made near as much popular use of Thor than Marvel, but that doesn't stop them from trying.


Slaunyeh wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Awww... you seem pretty fired up for someone who is wrong, Jaelithe.

If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.

Marvel can obviously do whatever the heck they want. That doesn't make it an inherently good idea. :p

It also doesn't even have to match how they've used it before.


Aranna wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Awww... you seem pretty fired up for someone who is wrong, Jaelithe.

If Marvel says it's a title as well as a name and that they are giving it to a woman. Then it's true. They own it and can do what they want with the IP. No amount of petty ranting is going to change that.

Marvel can obviously do whatever the heck they want. That doesn't make it an inherently good idea. :p

I'm glad you like the change, but could we dial down the sniping of other posters? No sense descending to those levels just because you disagree with them.

Whether it is a good idea or not remains to be seen.

And really how else could someone respond to such a trollish rant?
Yeah, yeah I know don't feed the trolls... But they are SO cute!

Jaelithe didn't seem like that much of a troll to me...

And Marvel doesn't own the name Thor. It is a name of people in real life. They also don't the mythology.

If you mean to say that in the Marvel Universe, it's a title and a name then comic book history proves that wrong too. Masterson specifically stated he wasn't really Thor and was taking on his identity. (check out the Infinity Gauntlet saga for proof) And no one else who has ever taken up the Hammer has ever claimed to be Thor. they just had his hammer and power.

And it can't even be said that "it's a comic book, they'll just retcon it" because this is Marvel, not DC. MArvel is famous for sticking to its continuity even when it sucks. (See Chuck Austen's X-men, One More Day, NYX, Civil War, etc.)

The Exchange

Larkos wrote:

If you mean to say that in the Marvel Universe, it's a title and a name then comic book history proves that wrong too. Masterson specifically stated he wasn't really Thor and was taking on his identity. (check out the Infinity Gauntlet saga for proof)

Uh...I really have to ask, how is that any different than my statement that it is a title and the name of a man? Masterson wasn't Thor, son of Odin, and he admitted that...he then took the name Thor...as his codename....title...what he put on his Avengers work badge...clearly not the same dude but Photon, Living Lightning, Starfox and all the rest looked at him and said "Uh yeah ok"

And yes, as I admitted (since it was me who was making this argument for the most part) no one else said "Hi I'm THOR".

All I am saying is if Ingrid Brunhilde swedish superscientist picks up the hammer, gets the powers, walks into Avengers Tower and say "Yah, I guess I'm Thor now" that isn't any different than Masterson doing it. Even if she follows it up with "Well yeah I'm not THOR like god of Norse myth Thor but call me that because it obviously makes sense..."

I promise you, most people pick up a hammer that says "You have the power of Thor" their first reaction isn't to say "Well I guess I am Thunder Cracker or Black Thor or Thor Boy!" Its to say..."Welp, I guess I am mother f~#!ing Thor now!"

Jason Aaron writes good Thor comics! Jason Aaron writes good comics generally. Give the guy a chance. Thor, son of Odin will get the hammer back at some point. I can handle a year or so of him moping around with an Asgardian cyber arm and a Norse battleaxe while some lady gets to be Odin's favorite son. That sounds new and interesting. I will withhold adding "exciting" to the description until I actually read the book.

Sometimes comics gets along by doing things like screwing the main character and putting someone else in their place thus shaking up the status quo. I don't see how this is any different except we have given in to the buzz machine. I haven't spent this much time thinking about Thor for a while. Good for them.

Ugh. Someone disagrees with me on the internet! Gah I get roped in every time! LOL.


PirateDevon wrote:
Larkos wrote:

If you mean to say that in the Marvel Universe, it's a title and a name then comic book history proves that wrong too. Masterson specifically stated he wasn't really Thor and was taking on his identity. (check out the Infinity Gauntlet saga for proof)

Uh...I really have to ask, how is that any different than my statement that it is a title and the name of a man? Masterson wasn't Thor, son of Odin, and he admitted that...he then took the name Thor...as his codename....title...what he put on his Avengers work badge...clearly not the same dude but Photon, Living Lightning, Starfox and all the rest looked at him and said "Uh yeah ok"

And yes, as I admitted (since it was me who was making this argument for the most part) no one else said "Hi I'm THOR".

All I am saying is if Ingrid Brunhilde swedish superscientist picks up the hammer, gets the powers, walks into Avengers Tower and say "Yah, I guess I'm Thor now" that isn't any different than Masterson doing it. Even if she follows it up with "Well yeah I'm not THOR like god of Norse myth Thor but call me that because it obviously makes sense..."

I promise you, most people pick up a hammer that says "You have the power of Thor" their first reaction isn't to say "Well I guess I am Thunder Cracker or Black Thor or Thor Boy!" Its to say..."Welp, I guess I am mother f~**ing Thor now!"

If I recall correctly, he called himself Thor while the spirit of Thor was actually trapped inside him. When they were seperated and Thor was a seperate individual again, he started calling himself Thunderstrike.

I'm not sure. There may have been a period where both were running around and calling themselves Thor.

151 to 200 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Comics / Female Thor!! *Identity as yet unknown* All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.