They haven't appeared since then, but in Norse mythology, Thor actually NEEDED both to wield his hammer properly.
Yes, but I was asking about Marvel Mythology. :)
It's not like someone stealing the the fighter's +2 sword and becoming the fighter because Mjolner is not a +2 sword and because Odin is a bit of a jerk. (Primarily for reasons of plot though).
Well, excuse me, +2 hammer then. :p
Last I heard a dying Doc Octopus traded bodies with Peter Parker, but Parker forcibly downloaded his memories into Ock in order to enforce upon him a conscience. His ego still present Octopus resolved to make himself a better Spiderman than Parker had ever been... a Superior Spiderman. That was where it was last time last time I read the comic. That was long enough for the plot line to have reversed the situation by now, even if Doc Ock's original body is dead and buried.
I havent read comics in years but is Peter Parker still spiderman and/or are there still clones with alternate spidermen?I believe Parker's back now. The same thing happened when Ock took over. All kinds of todo about how they couldn't have killed off Peter and replaced him with a villain, even one with a conscience jammed into him.
But of course, it was just a story arc. Not a bad one at that, the little bits of it I saw.
Despite the resistance to the story initially (and by resistance I mean comic book fans being complete jerks and verbally attacking Dan Slott (the writer) on his twitter feed) it turned out to be a really good 31 issue run. It was a different take on Spider-Man showing how Peter COULD have been a better more effective hero if used to his full potential. On the same token it showed WHY Peter as Spider-Man IS a hero in the way that no one else can be. Doc Oc as Spider-Man was GREAT but in the end even he began to realize that DOES take a level of compassion and morality that he lacked to do the job that needed to be done.
Superior Spider-Man won me over within the first 8 issues or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"A whole bunch of little kids can now play as Cap or Thor without weird looks, so maybe it’s not all about how bitter you are this time?" — Writer and artist Jason Latour, Wolverine and the X-Men, Edge of Spider-Verse, Southern Bastards, The Winter Soldier
Maybe I'm oblivious... but I thought they already could. If a little girl wants to snag a Halloween Captain America costume and lay waste to cowboys and indians, cool. If a woman wants to cosplay Spider-Man as opposed to the three or four female versions already out there, cool. No strange looks here. I'd actually encourage it. The comic industry as a whole needs more variety. I have no problem with reinterpreting characters as the opposite sex.
. . . I hear the terms "political correctness" being thrown around every time one of these things happens, every time some editor or creator gets it in his head that maybe, just maybe we should spotlight someone other than a white male. All the old "political correctness" argument means to me is this: We don't want to see you. Get your own characters. Leave ours alone. Because, we all know how open comic book fans are to "new" characters and new ideas. As evidenced by the reaction to the two announcements last week. . . .
And the problem here is... it's a gimmick.
People vote with their dollars. If you're running a business, you want to bring in new readers, not alienate old ones. If Thor's sales are lagging so much, is it a Thor problem, or is it the slow dying of print media? If female figures don't sell as well as male figures, are the stories bad, or are comics (Marvel specifically) just bad at marketing comic books? To women? To other ethnicities? Then again, if they are just trying to tell good stories, don't you think the stories could stand on their merits without resorting to gimmicks (and so much retconning)?
A large chunk of the industry is white males (and possibly a large chunk of the readership... I have no idea about the numbers). Like an old journalism teacher told me repeatedly, write about what you know. I imagine comic writers, just like any writers, start many stories from their own experience and thought processes because that's just who they are. I'm not saying they shouldn't try to write other types of characters, but the trying should be genuine attempts at understanding the other/the not my experience, not just white washing something, which is usually what happens.
Now to make it more genuine... to have more female characters, I suggest starting with more female writers. You can't tell me they aren't there. To have more realistic ethnic characters, contact and contract said writers of said demographics. Create more venues for these things, like Amazing Fantasies or the What if comics used to be, and transition anything that does well.
I think there is a right way to do things and a wrong way. Trying to generate controversy to bring in new readers won't necessarily translate into keeping those readers and it will lose some faithful readers who might never pick the line back up. So while each gimmick may make readership spike in the short term, the company loses in the long term. (...which now that I think about it, may be a reason for the long, slow, downward spiral that is soap opera/serial comics.)
ShinHakkaider, I want to ask you, what is so wrong about liking a character the way s/he is? What makes it necessary to change out main characters in a story rather than tell another story?
And a big one for me... Why does Political Correctness seem to inhibit an honest dialogue rather than encouraging it?
. . .
Even though that very Norse mythology includes things like Loki turning into a female horse and giving birth to Sleipnir, Odin's 8-legged steed? Seriously, there is plenty of weirdness in the ancient norse stories, and there has been plenty of change over the six decades of Thor comics. Pretending that this one change is somehow a travesty requires a lot of intentional forgetfulness about everything that has come before. . . .
Yes, Wotan rides his nephew into battle and died upon Yggdrasil to bring back knowledge of the Runes/Magic. So what? All myth has a bit of strangeness if you are interpreting it through a modern lens. Much of it was also interpreted a few times before we got a hold of it by scribes and translators with agendas.
As much as part of me wishes otherwise, Myth =/= Comics.
I like Harry Dresden. If Butcher quit writing him, but ROC continued to put out Harry Dresden novels with The Hound or The Blackstaff as the main character, it'd be weird... and I hope the fans would complain about the obvious title/character bait and switch.
Yeah, Thor cross dressed in myth and has been a frog and other things in the comics. And other men and women and an alien have wielded Mjolnir. And discount Mjolnirs have been handed out to some. If you want to hand Mjolnir off to somebody else, go ahead. But don't keep calling her Thor. That's just stupid.
Comparing mew-mew to a +2 hammer is like unto comparing the Hand of Vecna to a Ring of Spell StoringIt's not like someone stealing the the fighter's +2 sword and becoming the fighter because Mjolner is not a +2 sword and because Odin is a bit of a jerk. (Primarily for reasons of plot though).Well, excuse me, +2 hammer then. :p
Given how neither of those changes your name or makes you a god of something when you put them on then yes, the comparison is equally apt.
I get the complaint, it just misses the point. Which was closer to: haha, norse mythology is like the precursor to the D&D christmas tree effect. :p
Out of context, I kind of agree. Obviously whoever this woman is, she won't actually be Thor.
In context, we don't know yet. We don't know the circumstances or how and why she takes up the name as well as the hammer.Maybe it'll be stupid. Maybe it won't.
This is, I think, the most important point. I mean, they could take the idea in a good direction, or a stupid direction. But the only thing that has been presented so far is "omg Thor is a woman now!" which is, hopefully, not the full story.
And a big one for me... Why does Political Correctness seem to inhibit an honest dialogue rather than encouraging it?Because it's a term that's thrown out to cheapen and denigrate someone's argument, stance, or platform as opposed to answering it directly. Traditionally, political correctness was supposed to stand for the status quo. the reactionary media however, have effectively flipped-flopped the meaning of the term to it's near opposite.
EXACTLY. THIS.
The powers, the name, the hammer, everything else is staying the same, rendering that one change a silly gimmick that benefits no one.Um? Excuse me? It benefits young girls who could use more role models. And if what they are doing is a little deliberately sensational then who cares? You should applaud their efforts to revive a dying industry by drawing in new readers. Thor sells 45 thousand comics... any other industry would have given up on such a low rate of consumption. Think about that a second 45k versus the millions of people who still read comics. Clearly he isn't on more than a tiny fraction of pull lists. If this more than doubles his sagging sales and the writing/art can hold the new readers then I predict the female Thor will be a long term addition to the Marvel line up. Who knows if enough of the old Thor readers like the new Thor then people may forget the poorly read old male version all together.
But that really isn't fair to the new character or Thor. Take Freya or the valkyries or one of the existing side characters and give them a chance to sink or swim on their own. No need to use an existing character to try to feed them life support, especially, if as you say, that character barely has pull to begin with. And you are assuming a fair bit when it comes to the writing; perhaps it will be decent, perhaps not, but it certainly won't pull in new readers who are just as familiar with the Norse version as they are the Marvel version and are likely to be as confused with Marvel using the same name as they are impressed.
In the end, I don't think it necessarily bad, I just don't think it's particularly necessary or helpful. If you want female role models, support new female characters that have great stories, don't be content with warping existing male characters because they are afraid the new character won't take without external help. If they can write that good of a story, than the new character doesn't need the benefit of the old name; if they can't, using the old name isn't going to be all that useful in the long run, so it ends up being pointless and a short term gimmick, nothing more.
Sadly, it's a little naive in the comic book market to think that good stories will be enough all on their own. Without them of course, you're sunk, but even with them you need the buzz to get people to read them in the first place and/or the built-in audience that the classic characters have.
It's not naive, I understand fully that most new characters don't survive. That doesn't change that fact that at some point they have to be able to sink or swim on their own, and starting with both Thor's power and name is going to handicap this new character's long term future because eventually Thor will get both back, leaving the new character with nothing of their own. They are better off simply trying out new characters or putting existing side characters in their own comics until one sticks, because once they do stick, they will have proven they have the necessary support to survive on their own. It's a brutal method, but one that all the now classic characters had to go through. Classic characters aren't made by shoehorning new concepts into existing characters.
She did. Recently. It didn't sell well.The powers, the name, the hammer, everything else is staying the same, rendering that one change a silly gimmick that benefits no one.Um? Excuse me? It benefits young girls who could use more role models. And if what they are doing is a little deliberately sensational then who cares? You should applaud their efforts to revive a dying industry by drawing in new readers. Thor sells 45 thousand comics... any other industry would have given up on such a low rate of consumption. Think about that a second 45k versus the millions of people who still read comics. Clearly he isn't on more than a tiny fraction of pull lists. If this more than doubles his sagging sales and the writing/art can hold the new readers then I predict the female Thor will be a long term addition to the Marvel line up. Who knows if enough of the old Thor readers like the new Thor then people may forget the poorly read old male version all together.
It would be far, far better if Sif got her own comic, or if someone else just got Thor's hammer for a while. Turning Thor into a woman is a bit...strange.
Didn't she have her own comic for a while? I know the warriors three had a mini series.
Damn. That's unfortunate. A sign of why this is happening in the comic?
It's not naive, I understand fully that most new characters don't survive. That doesn't change that fact that at some point they have to be able to sink or swim on their own, and starting with both Thor's power and name is going to handicap this new character's long term future because eventually Thor will get both back, leaving the new character with nothing of their own. They are better off simply trying out new characters or putting existing side characters in their own comics until one sticks, because once they do stick, they will have proven they have the necessary support to survive on their own. It's a brutal method, but one that all the now classic characters had to go through. Classic characters aren't made by shoehorning new concepts into existing characters.Sadly, it's a little naive in the comic book market to think that good stories will be enough all on their own. Without them of course, you're sunk, but even with them you need the buzz to get people to read them in the first place and/or the built-in audience that the classic characters have.
True but it definitely helps if those classic characters are white and male, just like their fanbase though. They dont have THAT extra hurdle to go through.
It's funny that I was just listening to the PaizoCon Coverage of a diversity in gaming seminar. Wes Schineder, James Sutter, Judy Bauer and Crystial Fraiser pretty much have it right in terms of wanting to make things more representative in the gaming community.There are few people in this thread and in comic fandom (as well as gaming) who would get a better understanding of why it's important as opposed to just hating it.
It's not naive, I understand fully that most new characters don't survive. That doesn't change that fact that at some point they have to be able to sink or swim on their own, and starting with both Thor's power and name is going to handicap this new character's long term future because eventually Thor will get both back, leaving the new character with nothing of their own. They are better off simply trying out new characters or putting existing side characters in their own comics until one sticks, because once they do stick, they will have proven they have the necessary support to survive on their own. It's a brutal method, but one that all the now classic characters had to go through. Classic characters aren't made by shoehorning new concepts into existing characters.Sadly, it's a little naive in the comic book market to think that good stories will be enough all on their own. Without them of course, you're sunk, but even with them you need the buzz to get people to read them in the first place and/or the built-in audience that the classic characters have.
True but it definitely helps if those classic characters are white and male, just like their fanbase though. They dont have THAT extra hurdle to go through.
That just means they need to do a better marketing job to attract the other audiences they want. Trying to change existing characters isn't going to help them in that. Reaching not built in audiences is always tough, but it doesn't get easier by changing what appeals to the audience you already have. That's the point where the changes to Thor will go over less well than the ones to Captain America; the audience for the new Captain America is clearly not expected to significantly shift, while the they clearly hope to expand the audience for Thor, which is hard enough to do without risking alienation of the existing audience. If you want characters that aren't white and male, than you need an audience that isn't white and male, it's that simple. Building that audience won't be easy, but taking shortcuts in the beginning will only come back to bite them later.
It's funny that I was just listening to the PaizoCon Coverage of a diversity in gaming seminar. Wes Schineder, James Sutter, Judy Bauer and Crystial Fraiser pretty much have it right in terms of wanting to make things more representative in the gaming community.There are few people in this thread and in comic fandom (as well as gaming) who would get a better understanding of why it's important as opposed to just hating it.
It's important, yes, but taking shortcuts, and making Thor into a female character is definitely a shortcut, to achieve it doesn't actually achieve the kind of long term success needed for it to be sustainable. They need to find other ways to achieve it, and be willing to accept that the initial steps will not always be completely smooth to full achieve what they seek.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reaching not built in audiences is always tough, but it doesn't get easier by changing what appeals to the audience you already have.
You read Thor because he's a guy?
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of a black Captain America, a black symbol of America, is far more controversial in some very patriotic circles than a female Thor will be.
That part will largely be blunted by the fact that the new Captain America has an established history that goes back several decades. Most fans of the comic books will have dealt with that aspect of his character a long time ago, and it will likely only be a major issue for those actually buying the books if the writers make it one. With Thor, there is no such character to really step up in the same way. There's a few side characters that would be better than most, but none are really a natural fit the same way a decades old sidekick is.
Reaching not built in audiences is always tough, but it doesn't get easier by changing what appeals to the audience you already have.You read Thor because he's a guy?
I enjoy the character of Thor because of the entire character, and I imagine that many people fall into that camp. Being male is part of that character, and changing that will have significant repercussions on the rest of the character. In the end, if they are going to change that, they need to acknowledge that the character as a whole is not the same character, and they don't seem to be willing to do that from what we've seen so far. That is where they are going to run into problems with the existing audience. At least with Captain America, they are acknowledging that the new person is not the same character, and will have different motivations. They haven't done that with Thor, at least not yet, and that is the step too far for me personally.
|
I tried to read the thread to be sure it wasn't mentioned but I want it noted explicitly that in the Marvel universe Thor is a person and a title.
The hammer denotes who is "Thor", thunder/hammer wielding badass. It just so happens that it, most of the time, is wielded by "Thor" Norse god of thunder and son of Odin.
Eric Masterson, later to become Thunderstrike, was "Thor" thunder/hammer wielding badass and that remains (unless I missed something) a matter of record and continuity. But he was never the Norse god of thunder or the son of Odin.
Gimmick? Yes.
Crass and pointless? Maybe.
Attempt at positive outreach to a shifting demographic? Maybe.
Attempt to shift the demographic as a matter of outreach? Certainly.
Poorly thought through? Maybe.
Potentially idiotic or fantastic? Maybe.
Out of keeping with years of intersecting canon and established histories that if taken in totality make no sense for many other reasons not even coming close to "Thor" the job being someone other than "Thor" the person?...Not at all. Welcome to superhero comics! Yay!
|
|
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.
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.
Yet, by keeping the same name, and not releasing details of how the new character is actually different, like they did with the Captain America changes, they clearly want to give the impression, at least for a while, that all they did was make Thor a woman. If they had given even a partial explanation, like they did with Captain America, instead of banking on controversy to sell at least the first part of the new character, there would be far less difficulties on my end. As it is, it just comes across as a politically correct gimmick that has no long term value. Maybe that initial impression will prove to be wrong, but that is definitely the initial impression that a lot of people will have.
Eric Masterson, later to become Thunderstrike, was "Thor" thunder/hammer wielding badass and that remains (unless I missed something) a matter of record and continuity. But he was never the Norse god of thunder or the son of Odin.
Yes but he was a white male so that's okay.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but he was a white male so that's okay.Eric Masterson, later to become Thunderstrike, was "Thor" thunder/hammer wielding badass and that remains (unless I missed something) a matter of record and continuity. But he was never the Norse god of thunder or the son of Odin.
But he DID explicitly yell "IT'S HAMMER TIME!" on at least one occasion.(Shortly after using Living Lightning as a bomb which was AWESOME at the time.) So that might make it immediately not okay...at the very least in hindsight.
et, by keeping the same name, and not releasing details of how the new character is actually different, like they did with the Captain America changes, they clearly want to give the impression, at least for a while, that all they did was make Thor a woman. If they had given even a partial explanation, like they did with Captain America, instead of banking on controversy to sell at least the first part of the new character, there would be far less difficulties on my end. As it is, it just comes across as a politically correct gimmick that has no long term value. Maybe that initial impression will prove to be wrong, but that is definitely the initial impression that a lot of people will have.
I guess it depends on the press you read. More comic centric outlets made it clear from day one this was not Thor, son of Odin, being made into a woman. They *have* been playing coy on which female person in Marvel continuity would *be* the new Thor but at least amongst most of what I have read it has been clear, from the start, that Thor, Son of Odin, will not be female. That is not to say its not a gimmick but its not one that is relying of slapping away people who like Thor, Son of Odin (as it is clear he will still be around.)
Say unlike DCs treatment of any number of characters in THEIR universe the last couple of year. *cough*Wally West*cough*
The powers, the name, the hammer, everything else is staying the same, rendering that one change a silly gimmick that benefits no one.Um? Excuse me? It benefits young girls who could use more role models. And if what they are doing is a little deliberately sensational then who cares? You should applaud their efforts to revive a dying industry by drawing in new readers. Thor sells 45 thousand comics... any other industry would have given up on such a low rate of consumption. Think about that a second 45k versus the millions of people who still read comics. Clearly he isn't on more than a tiny fraction of pull lists. If this more than doubles his sagging sales and the writing/art can hold the new readers then I predict the female Thor will be a long term addition to the Marvel line up. Who knows if enough of the old Thor readers like the new Thor then people may forget the poorly read old male version all together.
It's entirely too presumptuous to tell people how they should feel and whether they should complain aboiut this change or not. Secondly, you are presuming (without citing your facts) that sales are lagging. Tell you what, stop being an arrogant jerk, cite your facts, and stop thinking your feelings about any of this are "more valid" than anyone elses.
It's entirely too presumptuous to tell people how they should feel and whether they should complain aboiut this change or not. Secondly, you are presuming (without citing your facts) that sales are lagging. Tell you what, stop being an arrogant jerk, cite your facts, and stop thinking your feelings about any of this are "more valid" than anyone elses.The powers, the name, the hammer, everything else is staying the same, rendering that one change a silly gimmick that benefits no one.Um? Excuse me? It benefits young girls who could use more role models. And if what they are doing is a little deliberately sensational then who cares? You should applaud their efforts to revive a dying industry by drawing in new readers. Thor sells 45 thousand comics... any other industry would have given up on such a low rate of consumption. Think about that a second 45k versus the millions of people who still read comics. Clearly he isn't on more than a tiny fraction of pull lists. If this more than doubles his sagging sales and the writing/art can hold the new readers then I predict the female Thor will be a long term addition to the Marvel line up. Who knows if enough of the old Thor readers like the new Thor then people may forget the poorly read old male version all together.
Calm Down. Name calling helps no-one.
However, it is true that Comics are actually doing fairly well. A move to a digital format may even improve profitability.
As to changing THOR to a Disney princess. I admit that I am not 100% happy with it. This is not just because they are making a change to an Iconic character, but also because MARVEL already has several existing female heroes that deserve more focus (Captain Marvel, Valkyrie, Spider Woman, Tigra, Black Cat, etc - this is avoiding mutants).
|
|
Time says Sales are lagging. in a long term sense compared to what comics USED to be.
Sales are down say Chomichron.
TOP 300 COMICS UNIT SALES
June 2014: 6.46 million copies
Versus 1 year ago this month: -8%
Versus 5 years ago this month: -2%
Versus 10 years ago this month: -1%
Versus 15 years ago this month: -1%
Q2 2014: 20.09 million copies, -3% vs.Q2 2013
YEAR TO DATE: 38.39 million copies, -8% vs. 2013, +8% vs. 2009, +6% vs. 2004, +1 vs. 1999ALL COMICS UNIT SALES
June 2014 versus one year ago this month: -4.51%
Q2 2014 vs. Q2 2013: -1.29%
YEAR TO DATE: -6.36%
Dig deeper, Thor is generally in the top 50 averaging around 40000-50000 an issue. Compare that to 130,000 at number 1 (although number 2 Amazing Spider man sold almost 20,000 less copies) and that is not so great as far as market penetration for a character that is part of one of the biggest film franchises on Earth at the moment?
I have worked comics off an on for almost two decades. Superhero comics has a growth/relevance problem. Superhero comics in particular are losing to many many many more smaller titles doing stronger as Lord Fyre notes. Digital helps, to a certain extent, but I think it is safe to say that publishers are trying to juice the numbers on the books any way they can. Notice I say problem not dying or dead.
The industry needs to contemplate and innovate. Its trying.
Edit: unpacked a bit due to Lord Fyre's post
EXACTLY. THIS.And a big one for me... Why does Political Correctness seem to inhibit an honest dialogue rather than encouraging it?Because it's a term that's thrown out to cheapen and denigrate someone's argument, stance, or platform as opposed to answering it directly. Traditionally, political correctness was supposed to stand for the status quo. the reactionary media however, have effectively flipped-flopped the meaning of the term to it's near opposite.
Color me naive, then.
Politically correct: adjective conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.
I always took it to mean that you are eliminating word use to assuage personalities rather than using word choice to more accurately describe the events/topics/ideas.
It makes me think of this.
. . . Language as Mind Control
One of Orwell’s most important messages in 1984 is that language is of central importance to human thought because it structures and limits the ideas that individuals are capable of formulating and expressing. If control of language were centralized in a political agency, Orwell proposes, such an agency could possibly alter the very structure of language to make it impossible to even conceive of disobedient or rebellious thoughts, because there would be no words with which to think them. This idea manifests itself in the language of Newspeak, which the Party has introduced to replace English. The Party is constantly refining and perfecting Newspeak, with the ultimate goal that no one will be capable of conceptualizing anything that might question the Party’s absolute power. . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EXACTLY. THIS.And a big one for me... Why does Political Correctness seem to inhibit an honest dialogue rather than encouraging it?Because it's a term that's thrown out to cheapen and denigrate someone's argument, stance, or platform as opposed to answering it directly. Traditionally, political correctness was supposed to stand for the status quo. the reactionary media however, have effectively flipped-flopped the meaning of the term to it's near opposite.Color me naive, then.
Politically correct: adjective conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.I always took it to mean that you are eliminating word use to assuage personalities rather than using word choice to more accurately describe the events/topics/ideas.
It makes me think of this.
. . . Language as Mind Control
One of Orwell’s most important messages in 1984 is that language is of central importance to human thought because it structures and limits the ideas that individuals are capable of formulating and expressing. If control of language were centralized in a political agency, Orwell proposes, such an agency could possibly alter the very structure of language to make it impossible to even conceive of disobedient or rebellious thoughts, because there would be no words with which to think them. This idea manifests itself in the language of Newspeak, which the Party has introduced to replace English. The Party is constantly refining and perfecting Newspeak, with the ultimate goal that no one will be capable of conceptualizing anything that might question the Party’s absolute power. . . .
Okay then. Now I know exactly where you stand.
Have a nice day sir/madam.
|
|
I was curious about the Avengers, but forgot to mention it.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.
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
The powers, the name, the hammer, everything else is staying the same, rendering that one change a silly gimmick that benefits no one.Um? Excuse me? It benefits young girls who could use more role models. And if what they are doing is a little deliberately sensational then who cares? You should applaud their efforts to revive a dying industry by drawing in new readers. Thor sells 45 thousand comics... any other industry would have given up on such a low rate of consumption. Think about that a second 45k versus the millions of people who still read comics. Clearly he isn't on more than a tiny fraction of pull lists. If this more than doubles his sagging sales and the writing/art can hold the new readers then I predict the female Thor will be a long term addition to the Marvel line up. Who knows if enough of the old Thor readers like the new Thor then people may forget the poorly read old male version all together.
As to changing THOR to a Disney princess. I admit that I am not 100% happy with it.
But MARVEL already has several existing female heroes that deserve more focus (Captain Marvel, Valkyrie, Spider Woman, Tigra, Black Cat, etc - this is avoiding mutants).
The powers, the name, the hammer, everything else is staying the same, rendering that one change a silly gimmick that benefits no one.Um? Excuse me? It benefits young girls who could use more role models. And if what they are doing is a little deliberately sensational then who cares? You should applaud their efforts to revive a dying industry by drawing in new readers. Thor sells 45 thousand comics... any other industry would have given up on such a low rate of consumption. Think about that a second 45k versus the millions of people who still read comics. Clearly he isn't on more than a tiny fraction of pull lists. If this more than doubles his sagging sales and the writing/art can hold the new readers then I predict the female Thor will be a long term addition to the Marvel line up. Who knows if enough of the old Thor readers like the new Thor then people may forget the poorly read old male version all together.
As to changing THOR to a Disney princess. I admit that I am not 100% happy with it.
But MARVEL already has several existing female heroes that deserve more focus (Captain Marvel, Valkyrie, Spider Woman, Tigra, Black Cat, etc - this is avoiding mutants).
True, but they've tried with some of those from time to time. (Carol's actually doing pretty well right now, isn't she?)
I suppose they could try again, but I'm not sure that it makes sense to say "You must get all your current female heroes more focus before introducing any more." Especially when they've already had a good deal of focus and not taken off.
Point taken. It would also not generate the same kind of media buzz.
Actually, the best way to "try again" with MARVEL's heroines would be through the Cinematic Universe .
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?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
1. My impression is that this whole concept took off with the Powers that Be™ at Marvel because Aaron had a good idea. He is known to have had a few. Marvel has demonstrated lately, for the most part, that they are interested in supporting creators who have dynamic ideas. That isn't to say there aren't blatant grabs for attention, some of that is the pagentry of the industr but given the creators involved I am of the opinion it deserves a fair shake before being called out as purely some sort of weird "we are sensitive too' click bait. It doesn't hurt from marketing's perspective I am sure but this team has good ideas. Sometimes it's both agenda pushing attention grabbing AND a good idea meant to illicit positive outcomes. It doesn't always work, mind you, but at least they are trying something?
2. Name recognition is king, love it or hate it. Promoting the other female characters probably won't help as "much" in the short term. I think you are spot on that strong portrayals in MCU (Sackhoff for Captain Marvel!) for "original" female characters will help. Creating other female characters like the current Ms. Marvel will help.
I think that there are a lot of eyes, very suddenly, on gaming and geek culture and our tendency towards insular and less than progressive tendencies in certain situations and we all are under the microscope in a big way. Is it shocking that corporations, who function best when they are as broad and accessible as possible, would want to use that current scrutiny to their advantage or act in response to that pressure?
3. As I said before in Marvel's world Thor is a title and a man. "Whoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall posses the power of Thor" Everyone who has met this criteria becomes Thor. Called Thor. Named Thor. This is, in fact, consistent with that. It would be inconsistent to call -her- anything else when other men became Thor. Trust me, giving a woman the hammer and not calling her Thor would open up an equally huge can of worms and probably a metric crap ton of more negative press.