Female Thor!! *Identity as yet unknown*


Comics

251 to 300 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad I pictured her as Thor the moment it was announced. I hope you are right, it would be awesome.
You saw Ambrosia Slaad as the new Thor?
No silly, the person she names in her spoiler is who I pictured as the new Thor.

I think Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!


Slaunyeh wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Lady Thor

*snicker*

Sorry, but that just tickles my funny bone. It's like a female Captain America calling herself "Lady Steve".

Though I suppose if she was Sif, calling herself Mrs. Thor would make sense. In the 50s.

I meant Lady in the nobility sense, not in the more universal female sense.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad I pictured her as Thor the moment it was announced. I hope you are right, it would be awesome.
You saw Ambrosia Slaad as the new Thor?
No silly, the person she names in her spoiler is who I pictured as the new Thor.
I think Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!

Assuming Mew-Mew is an exceptionally poor judge of who is worthy and that I could even lift it, I think this is a Very Bad idea. I'd be threatening to hammer people left and right. Starting with Kevin Feige unless he greenlights a Sackhoff or Strahovski film version of Danvers/Captain Marvel.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad I pictured her as Thor the moment it was announced. I hope you are right, it would be awesome.
You saw Ambrosia Slaad as the new Thor?
No silly, the person she names in her spoiler is who I pictured as the new Thor.
I think Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!
Assuming Mew-Mew is an exceptionally poor judge of who is worthy and that I could even lift it, I think this is a Very Bad idea. I'd be threatening to hammer people left and right. Starting with Kevin Feige unless he greenlights a Sackhoff or Strahovski film version of Danvers/Captain Marvel.

I cannot see a problem with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad I pictured her as Thor the moment it was announced. I hope you are right, it would be awesome.
You saw Ambrosia Slaad as the new Thor?
No silly, the person she names in her spoiler is who I pictured as the new Thor.
I think Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!
Assuming Mew-Mew is an exceptionally poor judge of who is worthy and that I could even lift it, I think this is a Very Bad idea. I'd be threatening to hammer people left and right. Starting with Kevin Feige unless he greenlights a Sackhoff or Strahovski film version of Danvers/Captain Marvel.

but..but...


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I meant Lady in the nobility sense, not in the more universal female sense.

I guess that's a subtlety of the English language that eludes me then, Lady sounds pretty female to me. And that's what makes it funny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slaunyeh wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I meant Lady in the nobility sense, not in the more universal female sense.
I guess that's a subtlety of the English language that eludes me then, Lady sounds pretty female to me. And that's what makes it funny.

It's always female, but can denote a noble title rather than just pointing out what parts someone has.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Slaunyeh wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I meant Lady in the nobility sense, not in the more universal female sense.
I guess that's a subtlety of the English language that eludes me then, Lady sounds pretty female to me. And that's what makes it funny.
It's always female...

Yeah! Just like Thor is always ma—

Oh.

Never mind.


I am of two minds on this new female Thor...

PRO - I am a feminist, and so I can see where allowing a female character to take on the mantle of Thor is a good thing for equality in comics.

CON - I am a huge fan of Norse Mythology before I ever heard of Marvel's version of Thor, and I've not read more than one or two issues in my entire life, and only because they were crossover issues with titles I did read. So, for me making Thor male is like... O_o cause Thor is male. Thor is not Freya, Thor is not Hel, Thor is Thor. Thor is male.

So, I think I will see where they take it. If they do it well, I can only look at it with the PRO part and see it as "alternate history" that it has always been for Marvel's take Norse Mythology. If they do it badly, well... then I'll stick with the CON and... continue to not read Marvel's Thor comics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

PRO - I am a feminist, and so I can see where allowing a female character to take on the mantle of Thor is a good thing for equality in comics.

CON - I am a huge fan of Norse Mythology before I ever heard of Marvel's version of Thor, and I've not read more than one or two issues in my entire life, and only because they were crossover issues with titles I did read. So, for me making Thor male is like... O_o cause Thor is male. Thor is not Freya, Thor is not Hel, Thor is Thor. Thor is male.

There are not-dumb ways to combine the two. And, to be fair, we don't know if they are going for one of those.

(Though the official statements aren't filling me with confidence.)

Also, just to lay that to rest, I get that 'Lady' is female, whether it's a noble title or not. That's why "Lady Thor" sounds silly. So does 'Dame Thor', 'Thor Girl' or 'Miss Thor' (though that would be an awesome name for a drag queen act).


Slaunyeh wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

PRO - I am a feminist, and so I can see where allowing a female character to take on the mantle of Thor is a good thing for equality in comics.

CON - I am a huge fan of Norse Mythology before I ever heard of Marvel's version of Thor, and I've not read more than one or two issues in my entire life, and only because they were crossover issues with titles I did read. So, for me making Thor male is like... O_o cause Thor is male. Thor is not Freya, Thor is not Hel, Thor is Thor. Thor is male.

There are not-dumb ways to combine the two. And, to be fair, we don't know if they are going for one of those.

(Though the official statements aren't filling me with confidence.)

Oh yeah, I know but from what I've seen so far, it looks like those are kind of what I'm looking at. But of course, as I said I've never really been much of a fan of Marvel's take on Norse mythology anyway, so I am probably biased toward the "CON" a lot more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
But of course, as I said I've never really been much of a fan of Marvel's take on Norse mythology anyway, so I am probably biased toward the "CON" a lot more.

Part of this for me is that I'm not remotely buying into the "Thor as title" schtick they're now promoting. It's one thing to play the role of Thor when the big guy's somehow incommunicado. It's another to simply decree, "This person is still around, but they're no longer this person, in a way. Instead, this person is now that person. Got it? Good."

As Cris Carter would say, "Come on, man."

That's why, despite all the efforts to posit how great this could be, even if it's successful, it'll still be successful but relatively stupid and totally inappropriate.

Why not, instead, a female character with her own nature, identity, history and direction?

You're looking for a battle goddess, one known for her tremendous skill and potential power? Why not Athene? The aegis is a legendary implement and her various portfolios lend her to a super-heroic mold.

"Justice has been blind ... but no longer. I am come to set things aright. I am Athene."

Already I like her better than Thora.

Doing it the way they are, despite any explanation to the contrary, means you're exploiting a male's cache as a kick-start to get a female character going. That's not feminism, and it's not progressive. As a matter of fact, it insidiously undermines it, by implying that a new well-written female character can't stand on her own. Instead, she needs Mjolnir as a crutch. That's why it's ironic, in my eyes, that so many women seem avidly in favor of this.

It's not cosplay. It's character, in every sense of the term. And that's another reason why this doesn't work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
But of course, as I said I've never really been much of a fan of Marvel's take on Norse mythology anyway, so I am probably biased toward the "CON" a lot more.

Part of this for me is that I'm not remotely buying into the "Thor as title" schtick they're now promoting. It's one thing to play the role of Thor when the big guy's somehow incommunicado. It's another to simply decree, "This person is still around, but they're no longer this person, in a way. Instead, this person is now that person. Got it? Good."

As Cris Carter would say, "Come on, man."

That's why, despite all the efforts to posit how great this could be, even if it's successful, it'll still be successful but relatively stupid and totally inappropriate.

Why not, instead, a female character with her own nature, identity, history and direction?

You're looking for a battle goddess, one known for her tremendous skill and potential power? Why not Athene? The aegis is a legendary implement and her various portfolios lend her to a super-heroic mold.

"Justice has been blind ... but no longer. I am come to set things aright. I am Athene."

Already I like her better than Thora.

Doing it the way they are, despite any explanation to the contrary, means you're exploiting a male's cache as a kick-start to get a female character going. That's not feminism, and it's not progressive. As a matter of fact, it insidiously undermines it, by implying that a new well-written female character can't stand on her own. Instead, she needs Mjolnir as a crutch. That's why it's ironic, in my eyes, that so many women seem avidly in favor of this.

It's not cosplay. It's character, in every sense of the term. And that's another reason why this doesn't work.

Because the basic fact is: New comic characters, male or female, have a really hard time standing on their own. Your Athena might make a great superhero, but the odds against any new comic that doesn't tie to a hot property are long and the odds against one starring a female are longer still.

I also think that this didn't start as "Let's create a new female superhero", but as "What if Thor was unworthy of Mjolner? Who would take it up? What if it was a woman?" (Or hopefully, What if it was X (being the as yet unnamed female character?)

This is a Thor storyline. At the root of it, that's what's going on. Just like Sam Wilson taking over is a Cap storyline. From a marketing perspective, the new character will be called Thor so they can feature her in a comic called Thor. From an in-world perspective, we don't yet know why she'll be called Thor. The story isn't out and they've kept it under their hats. Maybe it'll be a lame excuse. Maybe it'll all make sense. We don't know.

As for it not being feminism or progressive, are you saying that any replacement for Thor (or by extension any other male superhero?) would have to be male?
I mean, I get what you're saying with that, but I think it depends on the perspective you take on the story. If it's "Is this a good way to start a new female superhero?" you get one answer. If it's "Will replacing Thor with a woman make a good story?" you get a different one.


thejeff wrote:

I also think that this didn't start as "Let's create a new female superhero", but as "What if Thor was unworthy of Mjolner? Who would take it up? What if it was a woman?" (Or hopefully, What if it was X (being the as yet unnamed female character?)

This is a Thor storyline. At the root of it, that's what's going on. Just like Sam Wilson taking over is a Cap storyline. From a marketing perspective, the new character will be called Thor so they can feature her in a comic called Thor. From an in-world perspective, we don't yet know why she'll be called Thor. The story isn't out and they've kept it under their hats. Maybe it'll be a lame excuse. Maybe it'll all make sense. We don't know.

I sincerely hope that this is the case; I really, really do. If it is, then it could end up being a decent short term storyline. The way they are doing the marketing for Thor, though, is different from how they have approached the Captain America change, though, so I'm just not entirely convinced that is all they are trying to do, even if that is how it all started. Even if it is, they are going to face a lot of pressure to keep this new female character in the spotlight after the story arc ends, so it will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Regardless of how it began, Marvel is putting themselves in a position of being expected to actively support two characters, one of which is going to be a potentially hard sell, even with the story aid of Mjolner.


thejeff wrote:
Because the basic fact is: New comic characters, male or female, have a really hard time standing on their own. Your Athena might make a great superhero, but the odds against any new comic that doesn't tie to a hot property are long and the odds against one starring a female are longer still.

So you're acknowledging it as a business decision and the facile way to go about it. Fair enough.

Quote:
I also think that this didn't start as "Let's create a new female superhero", but as "What if Thor was unworthy of Mjolner? Who would take it up? What if it was a woman?" (Or hopefully, What if it was X (being the as yet unnamed female character?)

I might as easily posit, and with as much justification, that it started with, "We need to capture more of the female demographic. Who's a hot commodity right now? Thor! Let's ... let's ... let's make Thor a woman! How? Hmm. Dunno. We'll ... we'll ... we'll just say he's a woman! Dea ex machina, as it were."

Quote:
As for it not being feminism or progressive, are you saying that any replacement for Thor (or by extension any other male superhero?) would have to be male?

I'm saying nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, in this very thread, I wrote: "...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."

'Thor' is not a title. Thor is a being. Therefore, no one else besides Thor may be Thor. Simple as that.

Possess Thor's power? Sure. Be worthy of Mjolnir? Why the Hell not? Be possessed of part of Thor's essence and therefore technically be allowed to be called Thor? I guess.

But to simply be Thor while the original Thor is running around? No. Simply, no.


And if the actual story is as lame as "We'll ... we'll ... we'll just say he's a woman! Dea ex machina, as it were." then I'll fully agree with you.

But we don't know the actual story yet. We don't know how they'll do it or how whether it'll make any sense.


thejeff wrote:

And if the actual story is as lame as "We'll ... we'll ... we'll just say he's a woman! Dea ex machina, as it were." then I'll fully agree with you.

But we don't know the actual story yet. We don't know how they'll do it or how whether it'll make any sense.

"We'll ... we'll ... we'll just say he's a woman! Dea ex machina, as it were."

If the story is THAT bad they might just bury the Thor comic franchise. We will have to wait and see. I for one think they wouldn't do this lightly. That they will build a character we will care about and that we will enjoy reading the adventures of the new Thor.


Aranna wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And if the actual story is as lame as "We'll ... we'll ... we'll just say he's a woman! Dea ex machina, as it were." then I'll fully agree with you.

But we don't know the actual story yet. We don't know how they'll do it or how whether it'll make any sense.

"We'll ... we'll ... we'll just say he's a woman! Dea ex machina, as it were."

If the story is THAT bad they might just bury the Thor comic franchise. We will have to wait and see. I for one think they wouldn't do this lightly. That they will build a character we will care about and that we will enjoy reading the adventures of the new Thor.

Well, I'll certainly grant that the guy currently writing Thor seems to have it goin' on, so there's at least some hope that this is just a combination of hyperbole, misdirection and enthusiasm.

We'll all see.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd think that waking up as a woman would be on the low end of things Thor would be surprised by, considering who he has for a brother.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, well, considering that his children are Fenris, Jormugandr and Hel, even "Feed the dog while I'm away visiting my daughter" takes on a whole new meaning.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Doomed Hero wrote:
I'd think that waking up as a woman would be on the low end of things Thor would be surprised by, considering who he has for a brother.

Now that would be an interesting story. ;)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Yeah, well, considering that his children are Fenris, Jormugandr and Hel, even "Feed the dog while I'm away visiting my daughter" takes on a whole new meaning.

Also Sleipnir, although that's an even odder story. :)


Doomed Hero wrote:
I'd think that waking up as a woman would be on the low end of things Thor would be surprised by, considering who he has for a brother.

Well, he's not going to wake up as a woman. He loses his power and his title, and a woman takes over. That's the premise.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
I'd think that waking up as a woman would be on the low end of things Thor would be surprised by, considering who he has for a brother.
Well, he's not going to wake up as a woman. He loses his power and his title, and a woman takes over. That's the premise.

Hopefully, the story behind this will be good.

Of course, I still believe Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
Of course, I still believe Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!

If that were the case, there would have been hammered and/or lightninged vehicles all over the roads in SW FL earlier this afternoon.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Of course, I still believe Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!
If that were the case, there would have been hammered and/or lightninged vehicles all over the roads in SW FL earlier this afternoon.

I still see no problem with this.


KSF wrote:
Well, he's not going to wake up as a woman. He loses his power and his title, and a woman takes over. That's the premise.

Well, the official blurb goes something like:

"This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe."

It still comes off less as "a woman now wields the power of Thor" and more as "this is the one and only Thor."

Scenario #1 could be cool, scenario #2 is pretty dumb.


I'm guessing, necro sword galactus is going to crazy and destroy earth and one of thor's grand daughters is going to back in time, and be thor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm all for THE MIGHTY SLAAD


So, has anybody actually read this? What do you think?


Completely underwhelmed.


I kind of wanted more story... #1 was pretty much just the revealing of what happened and who takes up the hammer and why.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Yeah, I too wanted more of a story in this first issue. It really did just set up what's to come. But it wasn't an unpleasant read, by any means. I'm looking forward to #2, where we'll actually get to see the new Thor in action.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
Completely underwhelmed.

That would be because Ambrosia Slaad is not the new THOR.


From what I've seen, I have to agree with the underwhelmed sentiment. It's not bad, but so far at least they haven't shown any reason why they couldn't have done this with a brand new character without messing with the old Thor. From what I've read about what the writer has to say about it, it comes across as "I want to tell my story and don't really care a dang about what the readers want to read." It's not a bad concept, but it could have been written a lot better in a different context in my opinion. Messing with an existing character was completely not necessary and negates most of the interesting aspects the storyline could have provided.


In the author's defense he said Thor is a story about transformation, that has been his story from the start so his fans seem a fair bit fickle when they turn on him just because he dared let a woman wield the hammer, especially since other characters than Thor himself have done so and without the fan backlash.


I don't know why people are complaining so much. OBVIOUSLY this temporary. OBVIOUSLY Thor will get his hammer back. He became unworthy for some mysterious reason. So he will go on some quest or other to become worthy again. And the mystery of this plus the mystery of the female Thor will be revealed, etc. Marvel, of course, is getting what they want- a whole lot of folks riled up. "Thor's not a woman" "That's not her name" "What's going to happen to Thor?!" Etc. So they are doing their job. Good on them.


Aranna wrote:
In the author's defense he said Thor is a story about transformation, that has been his story from the start so his fans seem a fair bit fickle when they turn on him just because he dared let a woman wield the hammer, especially since other characters than Thor himself have done so and without the fan backlash.

The problem is that his story of Thor has been about transformation, but the story of Thor overall, in both the original myths and the comic book history, hasn't been. Even fans that liked his story up to this point and suddenly turned have good reason to be a bit peeved. At least before, Thor was still Thor. A transformation story is fine, but you can't completely gut the original character concept and not expect a major backlash. I know he claims he hasn't, but really, he has. What was once a story about a tough Norse god of thunder that kicked butt is now a mystery novel and teenage coming of age story mashed together. Now, not only is there a second "Thor" running around complicating things, but the original Thor is essentially the same teenage angst ridden mental case that a great many, if not a majority, of Marvel superheroes already are. All the things that made Thor Thor are largely gone; his original personality is gone; his hammer is gone; his place in Asgard is gone; heck, even his name has been taken over by someone else.

It would have been a perfectly fine story for the alternate universe, but for the main universe, it's going to be a wash at best. All the new interesting bits are going to be matched by the old interesting stuff lost. People who like the angsty, mystery driven story line already have most of the rest of the Marvel universe to read, and people who liked the former kickass god of thunder have completely lost the original reason they had for reading it. The idea isn't bad, but in this case, it's going to take a lot of really, really, really good storytelling to make the effort worth it in the long run. Thor will eventually have to get his hammer and self worth back to make this whole story line something other than a gimmick, at which point, he or the next writer is going to have to figure out what to do with this new "Thor." I don't see it turning out bad, but I do see it turning out to be not nearly as interesting or as well liked as either the writer or Marvel hope it to be.


sunshadow21 wrote:
Aranna wrote:
In the author's defense he said Thor is a story about transformation, that has been his story from the start so his fans seem a fair bit fickle when they turn on him just because he dared let a woman wield the hammer, especially since other characters than Thor himself have done so and without the fan backlash.

The problem is that his story of Thor has been about transformation, but the story of Thor overall, in both the original myths and the comic book history, hasn't been. Even fans that liked his story up to this point and suddenly turned have good reason to be a bit peeved. At least before, Thor was still Thor. A transformation story is fine, but you can't completely gut the original character concept and not expect a major backlash. I know he claims he hasn't, but really, he has. What was once a story about a tough Norse god of thunder that kicked butt is now a mystery novel and teenage coming of age story mashed together. Now, not only is there a second "Thor" running around complicating things, but the original Thor is essentially the same teenage angst ridden mental case that a great many, if not a majority, of Marvel superheroes already are. All the things that made Thor Thor are largely gone; his original personality is gone; his hammer is gone; his place in Asgard is gone; heck, even his name has been taken over by someone else.

It would have been a perfectly fine story for the alternate universe, but for the main universe, it's going to be a wash at best. All the new interesting bits are going to be matched by the old interesting stuff lost. People who like the angsty, mystery driven story line already have most of the rest of the Marvel universe to read, and people who liked the former kickass god of thunder have completely lost the original reason they had for reading it. The idea isn't bad, but in this case, it's going to take a lot of really, really, really good storytelling to make the effort worth it in the long run. Thor will eventually have to get his hammer...

I don't know. Thor's always been pretty angsty, along with the kicking butt. At least the classic Thor, I don't know so much about the recent years.

Always fighting with his father. Always being torn between Earth and Asgard. All the usual woman trouble, whether it's a mortal not being good enough for dad or Sif not wanting to stay on Midgard.

Has his personality really changed? Other than the whole thing about being unworthy, there's no mysterious persona change right? He's just troubled and upset.


You do realize the Thor comics have little more than superficial relation to the actual myths, right? And if I understand things correctly Thor's story changes from author to author. Your "true Thor" is someone else's imposter.


On the other hand, I know Thor when I see him.

The chick with the hammer ain't Thor.


Pffft. Let's just say I wouldn't be all that surprised if Thor-chick was doing this to get her hammer back. Trymskvida and all that.


thejeff wrote:

I don't know. Thor's always been pretty angsty, along with the kicking butt. At least the classic Thor, I don't know so much about the recent years.

Always fighting with his father. Always being torn between Earth and Asgard. All the usual woman trouble, whether it's a mortal not being good enough for dad or Sif not wanting to stay on Midgard.

Has his personality really changed? Other than the whole thing about being unworthy, there's no mysterious persona change right? He's just troubled and upset.

This goes beyond his usual temperment swings and women troubles that I'm aware of in either the myths or the earlier comic stories. Norse gods even in the traditional stories aren't known for their mental stability, but the usual response is usually to go hit something, not go all introspective or whiny the way Marvel tends to have their superheroes do far too often for my tastes. And the traditional stories definitely don't have the gods standing idly by while others are taking their powers and names out from under their noses.

I've always scratched my head why Marvel would think that some of what has been done in the past was a good idea, but they have up to this point remained more or less in the realm of the believable, even if only just slightly. This just blows all of that out of the water in terms of extreme changes being made; they aren't even trying to use anything but the names of the characters and locations at this point. It's not a bad story in and of itself, but it definitely does not fit with this character. Add in the fact that it doesn't really do the new character any justice in the long run either, and it really just falls flat for me. They end up telling one decent, but not particularly great, story instead of telling two really good stories that actually fit the characters involved.

If I were a suit at Marvel, I wouldn't be concerned about it being bad; at least if it's bad, it would still generate buzz. At best, all of this is a wash where different people buy the comic for a while until they finish this story arc and then go back to selling the comics to those that liked the old Thor better; at worst, they lose the old readers and fail to get any new ones. I just don't see how it's worth it to Marvel long term. The fact that the writer obviously cares about the story line is right now the only reason I haven't written it off completely, as it's still possible that it could be saved, but for right now, it's very much underwhelming and it's going to take some absolutely amazing writing and story twists to hold people's interest for very long.


Actually I suspect her reasons are two fold:

Spoiler:
Freyja is looking after her adopted son Thor in a very direct way AND she is being the hero who saves Earth from the invasion since Odin isn't letting anyone else do it.


I'm still trying to determine if Odin again possesses the Odinpower in its entirety, or whether it was largely if not entirely lost when Doctor Strange used it to repair Mjolnir and bind Thor to it some years ago. (That seems to have been conveniently forgotten, too, or are we saying that Lady Thor—and since I'll never concede that this woman is Thor or that Thor is a title rather than a proper name, because she isn't and it isn't, I'll just go with the least offensive nomenclature: After all, I think most of us would find The Nightie Thor offensive—could wield the hammer, yet if it were broken, the true Thor would still die, even though he's not somehow not worthy to wield a weapon into which his soul is bound?!)

As Cris Carter would say, "Come on, man."

[Caffey in A Few Good Men]"Kinda see what I'm gettin' at, here?"[/Caffey in A Few Good Men])

If Odin does, indeed, possess the full Odinpower, which is one of the Marvel Universe's great forces, I don't for an instant buy that he couldn't simply overpower Mjolnir's reluctance and lift the hammer—unless some power far greater than Odin's (and there aren't many in the Marvel Universe) has transformed the hammer for its own purposes, and Jason Aaron has yet to reveal that.

He seems to have transformed Odin's personality, too: Once upon a time, both in Marvel and mythology, Odin's mind was subtle and his stratagems layered. Now they seem to have recreated him as the quintessential moody broody Viking, who disregards his wife despite her obvious wisdom and berates his son when the boy needs him most.

Oh, for the days of Simonson, whose jock Jason Aaron isn't worthy to carry.

Too much about this storyline sets off the bu||sh!t detector of this long-time reader. This is not character development. This is character disregard to suit current purposes—the use of name recognition to promote either a storyline or an agenda. It's just wrong.

Here's an interesting thought, though:

Spoiler:
What if Freyja now possesses most of the Odinpower, having taken it up in the absence of Odin and the inability of Thor, and that explains why she's able to do things that neither of the other two can?


There is always going to be a change in the characters and story from author to author... this is why I said someone else's true Thor is likely to be your imposter. And this applies to Odin as well as any character.

Spoiler:
That makes total sense, Freyja was All-Mother perhaps she hasn't relinquished the Odinpower. So it's likely she just still has the power... because if not her, than who else?


Jaelithe wrote:
He seems to have transformed Odin's personality, too: Once upon a time, both in Marvel and mythology, Odin's mind was subtle and his stratagems layered. Now they seem to have recreated him as the quintessential moody broody Viking, who disregards his wife despite her obvious wisdom and berates his son when the boy needs him most.

Odin has often had that problem. He has the basic mentor problem: He's capable of solving most of the problems the protagonist faces with a wave of his hand. Therefore he often has to be either removed from the picture or, despite his vaunted wisdom, turned into an obstacle, so that Thor can shine.

He's spent decades over the span of Marvel history berating Thor or punishing him or banishing him, flying into rages at minor provocations. Much of this, along with his varying power levels and his more foolish schemes, have from time to time been retconned in subtle stratagems aimed at some problem the rest of the Asgardians (and the readers and the writers) didn't see at the time.

Because, if he's not going to be Deus Ex Machina, he's got to incapacitated or blind or a part of the problem himself.

Mind you, I loved Simonson's run, and he managed to mostly avoid the worst problems with Odin, but that was only a couple of years in a 50 year history.


Aranna wrote:
There is always going to be a change in the characters and story from author to author... this is why I said someone else's true Thor is likely to be your imposter. And this applies to Odin as well as any character.

From where I sit, your response doesn't come close to adequately addressing the radical changes here, Aranna. There's a significant difference between development and disregard or devolution, as I said.

And this author ain't gettin' a pass from me.


thejeff wrote:
Mind you, I loved Simonson's run, and he managed to mostly avoid the worst problems with Odin, but that was only a couple of years in a 50 year history.

And Simonson rid himself of the Odin problem in Thor 253, if I'm not mistaken.

Until he did, though, his portrayal of Odin was perhaps the best we've yet seen.

In my opinion, Odin is at his best when his power rivals or even exceeds that of Galactus, as it did in the 60's and 70's. That, of course, though, is just personal preference ... and in many ways, it makes the problems we're discussing here even more strait.


Lord Fyre wrote:
Of course, I still believe Ambrosia Slaad should be the new THOR!

In the absence of that bit of awesome, I would have gone this way...

If you are going to have a woman wield Mjolnir, it should have been reveled (later) that she is (a reinterpretation of) Þrúðr / Thrúd.

Instead of being Thor's and Sif's child, she could be the offspring of Thor and a mortal. Being partly divine has allowed her to live for centuries and have some shtick that others don't have, but she'd be one who kept her powers quiet. I can see her as an activist type, and that she could be fated to redeem her estranged father... that's off the top of my head.

Then again, Marvel never asks me these things...

251 to 300 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.