We should take heart that there aren't Norse believers rioting in the streets and demanding the head of the artist.

Let's face it, it's not like you could pull this sort of thing off with any mythological character without that happening.

Well, making fun of certain group will not change much either, I suspect.

As there are several examples of female viking fighters, this is less uproarish than one might think.

I still don't know to what extent this is a positive evolution towards gender equality. In this kind of movies, the chance is quite high that we might be seeing a photoshopped woman in the role of 'thor' rather than an actual woman.

Nicko wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Why is Thor specifically a problem? When Thor falls from grace and his hammer rejects him, why would it have to be a man to take his place? We don't even know the specifics of the situation - they might use the same name because the new Thor is a clone of the original so has the same name.

New wielder of Mjolnir? Okay.

That new wielder is a woman? Okay.

That new wielder takes the name "Thor"? WTF.

Well that was originally how it worked, with Donald Blake essentially being possessed by the spirit of Thor and only becoming him when he wields Mjolnir. I don't see why the same concept couldn't work with a woman.

Like Nicko says, this is most likely a story arc. I hope so anyway, because.. well, Thor..

WWOS?!

Ironclad wrote:Like Nicko says, this is most likely a story arc. I hope so anyway, because.. well, Thor..

WWOS?!

And how does Chairman Bill feel about this blasphemous desecration of his unironically-held beliefs?

Imagination Theory wrote:

josephchoi wrote:I don't like the idea of taking existing characters and turning them into the opposite sex, or a different race or whatnot. It's taking a lazy approach to an interesting concept for a cheap ploy IMO.

That said, I do like Miles Morales as the new Ultimate Spider-Man.

It's not a cheep ploy. It's getting away from prejudice. That's a good thing. Now I hope they do the same with video games, anime, etc. (and of course in real life!). You should hear some of the ridiculous augments against getting rid of the bigotry.

How would simply doing a hand-out of popular characters for "insert group here" fight bigotry, exactly? There's no true sense of challenge or any notable case except "oh he or she's a different race, creed, gender or orientation". As a what if special, sure, since that's the whole idea of that run- but to change a character simply to say "hey we're with the times we respect these said groups"... I just don't see how that's a meaningful jab at bigotry.

Nicko wrote:That new wielder takes the name "Thor"? WTF.

The female form of "Thor" (Tor in Swedish) is "Thora" (Tora; real name but quite rare).

Nicko wrote:New wielder of Mjolnir? Okay.

They could make it a handbag.

I'll wait to read it. But so far what I've heard Thor makes himself unworthy to wield Mjolnir and a woman picks it up who is, therefore bearing his abilities.
Not sure if she'll still be called Thor or if it's just the title of the book is staying the same while she gets a new handle.
Also, in Earth X Loki turned Thor into a woman. While they had in Ultimate or the regular run Thor had a girlfriend named Thorgal.
DC ticked off a bunch of fans with their reveal of Batgirls new look and direction.

/me reads to many comics.
/me is also still annoyed at Brand New Day and Superior Spiderman

How much do the hammers batteries cost?

He's a god of thunder. They're rechargeable.

KeenIdiot wrote:He's a god of thunder. They're rechargeable.

Theres always an initial cost.

Nah he just punched the store until it surrendered the batteries.

james1v wrote:

KeenIdiot wrote:He's a god of thunder. They're rechargeable.

Theres always an initial cost.

Westinghouse can provide the initial outlay, like for Tesla.

josephchoi wrote:

Imagination Theory wrote:

josephchoi wrote:I don't like the idea of taking existing characters and turning them into the opposite sex, or a different race or whatnot. It's taking a lazy approach to an interesting concept for a cheap ploy IMO.

That said, I do like Miles Morales as the new Ultimate Spider-Man.

It's not a cheep ploy. It's getting away from prejudice. That's a good thing. Now I hope they do the same with video games, anime, etc. (and of course in real life!). You should hear some of the ridiculous augments against getting rid of the bigotry.

How would simply doing a hand-out of popular characters for "insert group here" fight bigotry, exactly? There's no true sense of challenge or any notable case except "oh he or she's a different race, creed, gender or orientation". As a what if special, sure, since that's the whole idea of that run- but to change a character simply to say "hey we're with the times we respect these said groups"... I just don't see how that's a meaningful jab at bigotry.

Having gay people in movies and TV (though it is still problematic how LGBT's are portrayed, such as only as stereotypes and they usually don't have make out scenes, unless they are lesbians, they are just the token gay person, unless the movie is specifically about LGBT) has helped normalize LGBT people. Adding women who aren't just sex symbols to be objectified and people of color who aren't just a token will help.

I went to a comic book convention and they sure did need some help. Sexist and racist they were. And, they thought they were the "nice guys". So clueless and oblivious.

I have to preface a warning, i'm very drunk LOL and this might demonstrate a bigotry that I was unaware of and if so, it's something I have to work through nobody else...


I don't deny that they need help in terms of normalize their orientation or gender... this is plainly obvious IMO but at the same time I don't know if making a story that highlights their perceived "difference" is the way to progress. I'm not saying we should undermine individuality of their characters but at the same time that's the central issue, isn't it? No matter what their orientation, creed, race or sex they may be- the best way to point out the normalcy at least in my view is that their "difference" is not that difference. Who cares if they life the same sex or whatnot- that doesn't define them. Their racial, religious or sexual identity doesn't define them. I don't agree with Marvel trying to change an existing character to an attacked label for precisely this reason. I don't feel like this really deals with the issue of bigotry that evidently exists.

I don't believe Marvel are going to should turn Thor, a popular character, into a female for a permanent project simply to address or normalise (whatever that means) a negative gender stereotype. That just sounds lazy.
Marvel created all these overtly sexualised comics, and it isn't just the girls who sexualised, so why can't they get the balls to up the profiles of establised but underused females, or add new ones. While they are so good at huge story-arcs any number of roles can be re/introduced, or new ones created. If they are exciting enough Marvel/Disney could push a movie through.

Marvel gimmickry! Leave it alone! We've already got...





...and she's far better than anything Marvel/Disney could put on screen!