• Marvel announces that Thor is now a woman
    216 replies, posted
I found another article that makes this a lot clearer. It's an interview with the actual writers. So first of all, it doesn't flat out claim to be a permanent change like this article does. Instead they say it's for "the foreseeable future." Which is different from even claiming it to be permanent. It also says that the male Thor does not die or even disappear. He is still around, but is unable to wield the hammer. And he changes his name because apparently there can only be one Thor. The name changing still bothers me the most. Everything else I'm okay with. [editline]15th July 2014[/editline] Article in question: [url]http://time.com/2987551/thor-marvel-woman/[/url]
I smell another Disney Princess movie opportunity!!
I don't like it the name "thor" on a female character name, it needs to be changed to fit something more... She actually remind me of the valkerie, so give her a name that represent that.
[QUOTE=darkedone02;45401622]I don't like it the name "thor" on a female character name, it needs to be changed to fit something more... She actually remind me of the valkerie, so give her a name that represent that.[/QUOTE] We can go with Whor instead.
Nothing wrong with this at all tbh. Characters swap around a title; it happens all the time and I don't see why people think it's an exclusive DC thing? Classic Thor is most likely gonna be back at some point and it's good they're putting a female character in the spotlight. Besides it's extremely hard to focus on a brand new female superhero and make her appealing to the small comic book reading audience so of course they're gonna use a big name like Thor. [QUOTE=Tacosheller;45398014]I think her shattering her sternum with the first attack to hit her armor is a big price to pay to let dudes objectify her tbh [URL]http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/05/boob-plate-armor-would-kill-you[/URL][/QUOTE] I see this posted a lot but it's got a few problems. Probably because the person who wrote it doesn't know anything about armour? This [URL="http://diligentdwarves.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/a-message-for-garcia-or-another-myth.html"]counter-argument[/URL] is worth a read. [QUOTE=squids_eye;45398266]I don't know if it is true but I seem to remember hearing that large codpieces in armour were usually there because most knights had horrible cases of syphilis and it was very painful for them if they didn't have room to swing.[/QUOTE] Nope, they were purely for show. Absolutely no practical use. In fact, dicks don't even go in there. They were just meant to imitate fashion in clothing at the time. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Giovanni_Battista_Moroni_009.jpg[/t]
Didn't see this posted [QUOTE]OK now I've got my gif related disbelief at the inanity and ridiculousness Marvel have pulled yet again, I'll make some damn points about this gender change. This is beyond ridiculous from Marvel that it isn't even funny, it's just a pathetic marketing gimmick designed for shock value and cash grabbing. Not only do Marvel make the mistake to remove Steve Rogers from the position of Captain America just to put a temporary Falcon in place for a token's character sake, they now have the misguided notion to promote the opposite gender by replacing Thor's brilliantly written series by Jason Aaron. So I guess Tony's brother Arno is going to be the new Iron Man because Marvel's reasons are sooo enlightened on these matters. Another thing I'm annoyed about is Thor being found unworthy. That really ticks me off about this news. Thor's gone through growth and development as a character over the years and whilst he has flaws, Aaron has done an excellent job explaining why Thor is worthy to wield Mjolnir. Pulling this stunt demeans Thor's character badly. I was really enjoying Aaron's Thor series too, undoubtedly one of Marvel's best, consistently well written titles that is one of the best things to happen to The God of Thunder. And now the editors have gotten in the way with this hair brained scheme at promoting 'gender equality.' If I was directly addressing the Thor creative team and editors who seem to want gender equality in the Thor line, this is what I'd say. Make a damn effort to promote Thor's female support cast; Jane Foster, Roz Solomon, Lady Sif, Valkyrie, hell even Angela since you're bringing her in (and I have the feeling Angela is going to be the new Thor now.) Believe me when I say female characters need more promotion and treatment in comics but make them new characters or flesh out the old ones you have. Don't shoe horn a female character into a male hero's position as, at the end of the day, she's still defined by the male character, not her own legacy. And that point is the real nail in the coffin for Marvel's misguided attempts at promoting gender diversity; that the new female Thor will still be defined by being a female version of Thor in the first place. Call me old fashioned if you will but I like Captain America as Steve Rogers, Tony Stark as Iron Man and Thor Odinson as Thor. These shoehorned replacements can never match the quality or history that the originals have. You can't beat the originals as they say. Since Thor was on the cover of that Avengers time out issue with Jarnbjorn, I'm hoping that Aaron will still be working on Thor's series since he is still the God of Thunder. And it really ticks me off beyond belief that the solicit says "And this new Thor isn't a temporary female substitute - she's now the one and only Thor, and she is worthy!” Don't lie or kid yourselves Marvel, you know you'll give Thor Mjolnir back within the year. Just like Superior Spider-Man, Bucky as Captain America, Wolverine being dead etc. If Aaron still has a separate Thor series to go alongside the female Thor, I might read that. If not, I'm done with Marvel for the time being. Thor: GOT was the only Marvel series I was reading and if I have to read female Thor to see what's going on with male Thor, I'm not having it at all. Finally, I hope the feminists and pushers for women to have greater roles in comics don't jump down my throat by proclaiming this a hate speech. It's an impassioned plea to Marvel pointing out the errors of their ways and, whilst it is just one opinion, is probably going to be shared by loads of die hard Thor fans too. If people like this then...good for you I guess, it's your call. But I most certainly do not. And I support a greater diversity in female leads such as Captain Marvel, Ms Marvel, Wonder Woman etc in comics. I just don't see the plausibility or sensibility in this foolish temporary change for the sake of change that is being proclaimed here. Cast this as an angry rant if you must but at least it'll be a rant where I've made some critical and fair points of this ostentatious change. That will be reverted in a year as all other Marvel changes are. /endpost.[/QUOTE] -[source]([url]http://www.comicvine.com/forums/comic-book-preview-1988/new-female-thor-on-the-way-1583176/?page=1#js-message-12391653[/url])
[QUOTE=Unit8;45400547]Wait. So if I get hold of the hammer I automatically become Thor? Sweet deal! Maybe Thor got distracted by that god-awful armour while she stole his hammer. Does anyone know where this chick lives?[/QUOTE]Forget about getting the power, you wouldn't even be able to lift it. The way Marvel Mjolnir's enchantment works last time I checked is that only people with a very specific moral character can handle it, and to everyone else it's the heaviest thing ever. Dr. Doom, The Hulk and Magneto combined wouldn't be able to budge Mjolnir from the ground, but Captain America could probably use it just fine if needed.
So what's gonna happen to classic Thor? He gon' die? Retire? Why is this new character named "Thor"? Why not "*name* the Thunderer" or "The Mighty *name*"? The hammer says you get the POWER of Thor, you don't BECOME Thor, otherwise she'd sprout a dick. More importantly, what's gonna happen to Thor: God of Thunder, the AWESOME ongoing series? They just gonna cancel it because "women need more representation"? Why not hightlight another female Asgardian? Sif or Valkyrie would be INCREDIBLY popular, if given the proper push (especially in Sif's case). Even stranger is how dude Thor still exists in the future. For those who don't know, that series I mentioned above shows Young Thor (cocky shitass fighting fantasy monsters), Modern Thor (responsible hero defending Midgard and beyond), and Old Thor (Allfather Demigod Shitkicker). Old Thor is around literally when the world ends. So that means that, in Marvel's timeline, this change is instantly temporary. Whoever this character is, she isn't the "new" Thor anymore than Doc Ock was the "new" Spider-Man. I know TONS of people say this whenever a change like this happens to an old comic character, but this [i]reaaaaally[/i] seems like pandering. [u]Blatant[/u] pandering.
[QUOTE=Wii60;45397788]she looks cool to me then again im a sucker for girls with cool armor beating up evil things[/QUOTE] There are never enough kickass women being awesome.
i don't understand why some people are saying they're only doing this for shock value or whatever when comic book writers have been doing this for quite a while
who cares about the reasons for the change we haven't even seen them do anything with the character yet and people here are already assuming it's gonna suck
Disney Infinity sadly had to [url=http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/15/5902639/thor-woman-disney-infinity-2-marvel]defend themselves for sticking with male Thor[/url] today. [quote]That's not because the game makers were caught unaware, said Disney Infinity executive producer John Vignocchi. It was a decision driven by what the game's Marvel characters are meant to represent. "The Thor that we have inside of Infinity is based on the animated series Avengers Assemble," Vignocchi said. "Infinity being a platform that evolves over time, that certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of creating a new version of Thor. Should there be a demand, we'd love to do that."[/quote]
The title is wrong. Thor is not going to turn into a woman a la Loki. This is a new character who will gain the title of 'God of Thunder'.
It looks like an interesting design. I'll hold off my criticism for now, but I agree. Why not just develop a strong female character than rule 63 Thor?
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45399606]Thor has been a frog and a horse from space, but a WOMAN? WELL then, that's just too out-there and crazy[/QUOTE] But neither of those are Thor. Beta Ray Bill called himself Thor for a bit, pretty much the same thing with Throg. From what we've been told, this is THE THOR now. She has HIS hammer and is named Thor. I mean, it's clearly just to generate a quick burst of "WHAT THE FUCK, I HAVE TO READ THIS AND GET ANGRY" sales (like Superior Spider-Man; $10 says Thor has a penis again by the time Avengers 2 hits theaters). I just think that makes this whole "WE'RE OUT TO MAKE A CHANGE FOR WOMEN IN THE WORLD; THE HAMMER SHOULD SAY "IF HE OR SHE BE WORTHY", THIS IS THE NEW STATUS QUO" marketing push really transparent.
[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;45402805]It looks like an interesting design. I'll hold off my criticism for now, but I agree. Why not just develop a strong female character than rule 63 Thor?[/QUOTE] Because unfortunately it's way easier to sell people and executives on a female version of a well-established hero than creating a new female hero altogether. I mean, for all the praise people give to the new Ms. Marvel... she is the new [I]Ms. Marvel.[/I] Kamala Khan is an original character but as a superhero, she's just taking the mantle of someone that came before. It's a way of opening a door that wouldn't be open normally. A new female superhero leading her own ongoing that's a Muslim? Too risky! Oh, wait, she's just the new Ms. Marvel? Well step right in. I don't have a problem with this, and I don't think it's a cheap stunt. For me, I feel like it's a way to weed out any 'fans' who aren't open to change and to present people with a new point of view in an old classic.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;45402858]like Superior Spider-Man;[/QUOTE] you take that back
I wonder how many times they're going to make a breastplate joke.
[QUOTE=ZF911;45401174]I do hope you're right, but according to the article this is not a temporary thing, and she is now the permanent Thor.[/QUOTE] Dan Slott assured people that Superior Spider-Man (ie. Doctor Octopus' brain in Spider-Man's body) would be the new status quo. A few months ago, Doc Ock erased his consciousness from Peter Parker's head and now everything is back to normal. This is a blatant marketing gimmick meant to illicit two responses: "WHAT? HOW CAN THEY JUST TURN THOR INTO A GIRL? FUCKING TUMBLR SJW FEMINAZI SHITCUNTS, I NEED TO BUY THIS SO I CAN READ IT AND GET ANGRY OVER HOW SHIT IT IS." "WOW, THOR IS A WOMYN NOW! THAT'S SO PROGRESSIVE! IT'S GOOD TO SEE MORE STRONG INDEPENDENT FEMALES IN COMICS INSTEAD OF THE USUAL SEXIST MALE POWER FANTASIES. I'M GOING TO BUY THIS TO MAKE A SOCIAL STATEMENT."
She doesn't look nearly tanky enough. Her biceps should be bigger than her boobs.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;45402931]Dan Slott assured people that Superior Spider-Man (ie. Doctor Octopus' brain in Spider-Man's body) would be the new status quo.[/QUOTE] It was the status quo for a time. Then it changed. So, in a certain way, he was right. It was the new status quo.
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;45402917]you take that back[/QUOTE] Superior was a lot better than I was afraid it was gonna be (for the most part, anyways), but there's no way anyone actually believed it was "the new status quo" and that "Otto Octavius is the new Spider-Man forever".
Yeah, I knew going in that it wouldn't last, but I for one loved it and would have liked it to go on at least a little longer.
[QUOTE=Zuimzado;45402953]It was the status quo for a time. Then it changed. So, in a certain way, he was right. It was the new status quo.[/QUOTE] I recall them saying something to the effect of "the way people know Peter Parker as Spider-Man now, they're going to know Otto Octavius as Spider-Man in the future". Just like with this. If they said "this is a storyline where Thor loses his hammer and a woman takes up the mantle while he gets his shit together", that would be a fine, accurate description of what we're gonna get. But that doesn't get people excited ("hooray for female representation!") or angry ("FUCK THIS TUMBLRSHIT"). It would just be another storyline, so they wouldn't have an excuse to make a big deal out of it and advertise it on The View. Instead we get "BE READY FOR THE TIDAL WAVE OF CHANGE, THOR IS NOW PERMANENTLY A WOMAN, THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE FROM HERE ON OUT". I don't care that this new Thor is a lady (I'm more than a little miffed that this probably means they're cancelling one of the best books Marvel is currently putting out for this, but that's besides the point). I'm just annoyed at this whole "WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING [i]CRAAAAZY[/i] THAT'LL TOTALLY SHAKE THINGS UP FOREVER!" schtick. It's clearly just a marketing gimmick, an example of sales winning out over storytelling.
[QUOTE=BanthaFodder;45403032]I recall them saying something to the effect of "the way people know Peter Parker as Spider-Man now, they're going to know Otto Octavius as Spider-Man in the future". Just like with this. If they said "this is a storyline where Thor loses his hammer and a woman takes up the mantle while he gets his shit together", that would be a fine, accurate description of what we're gonna get. But instead we get "BE READY FOR THE TIDAL WAVE OF CHANGE, THOR IS NOW PERMANENTLY A WOMAN, THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE FROM HERE ON OUT". I don't care that this new Thor is a lady (I'm more than a little miffed that this probably means they're cancelling one of the best books Marvel is currently putting out for this, but that's besides the point). I'm just annoyed at this whole "WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING [i]CRAAAAZY[/i] THAT'LL TOTALLY SHAKE THINGS UP FOREVER!" schtick. It's clearly just a marketing gimmick, an example of sales winning out over storytelling.[/QUOTE] nothing new for the comic book industry
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45403044]nothing new for the comic book industry[/QUOTE] Exactly my point. It just annoys me, is all. It's pretty clear that the people who believe this is a permanent change (and are now voicing their joy/rage over that "fact") don't read comics. Or at least don't read enough to know better.
[QUOTE=kimchimafia;45402476]Nothing wrong with this at all tbh. Characters swap around a title; it happens all the time and I don't see why people think it's an exclusive DC thing? Classic Thor is most likely gonna be back at some point and it's good they're putting a female character in the spotlight. Besides it's extremely hard to focus on a brand new female superhero and make her appealing to the small comic book reading audience so of course they're gonna use a big name like Thor. I see this posted a lot but it's got a few problems. Probably because the person who wrote it doesn't know anything about armour? This [URL="http://diligentdwarves.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/a-message-for-garcia-or-another-myth.html"]counter-argument[/URL] is worth a read. Nope, they were purely for show. Absolutely no practical use. In fact, dicks don't even go in there. They were just meant to imitate fashion in clothing at the time. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Giovanni_Battista_Moroni_009.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] [quote] 6. “The divet separating each breast will dig into your chest, doing you injury. It might even break your breastbone. With a strong enough blow to the chest, it could fracture your sternum entirely, destroying your heart and lungs, instantly killing you. It is literally a death trap” Again, no basis in fact. Properly fit armour will not press an area of your body anywhere near hard enough to cause injury. In addition, a fractured sternum will not destroy your heart and lungs, instantly killing you. This is highly exaggerated BS. For this to happen, you would have to wearing an axe blade inside your armour with its edge resting on your sternum and get hit by a car. (To quote a medical web site: “…sternal fracture from motor vehicle accidents showed a 1.5% incidence of cardiac dysrhythmia requiring treatment and a mortality rate of 1%”, another quote; Management (for fractured sternum)involves treating associated injuries; people with sternal fractures but no other injuries do not need to be hospitalized.)[/quote] his problem is that he assumes that the "boob plate armor"(for lack of a better phrase) would be of a good fit, as in, ballooned out from the body. It's obvious in every incarnation of the armor that this isn't the case, that the armor sticks almost right on top of clothing, no space in between. [editline]15th July 2014[/editline] He also seems to assume that the original writer thought boob plate armor was an actual thing as opposed to an overused sexualization route in media, which is incorrect.
[QUOTE=Zuimzado;45402871]Because unfortunately it's way easier to sell people and executives on a female version of a well-established hero than creating a new female hero altogether. I mean, for all the praise people give to the new Ms. Marvel... she is the new [I]Ms. Marvel.[/I] Kamala Khan is an original character but as a superhero, she's just taking the mantle of someone that came before. It's a way of opening a door that wouldn't be open normally. A new female superhero leading her own ongoing that's a Muslim? Too risky! Oh, wait, she's just the new Ms. Marvel? Well step right in. I don't have a problem with this, and I don't think it's a cheap stunt. For me, I feel like it's a way to weed out any 'fans' who aren't open to change and to present people with a new point of view in an old classic.[/QUOTE] Expect they didnt shit all over Carol to do this. They didnt shit all over johnny blaze when Alejandra became the ghost rider. And why do lady sif and valkyrie not get the hammer?
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;45399645]Looks like Beta Ray Bill has a love interest now [img]http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081224185739/marveldatabase/images/thumb/9/98/Beta_Ray_Bill_(Earth-616).png/200px-Beta_Ray_Bill_(Earth-616).png[/img] I eagerly await the fanfic. [/QUOTE] Beta Ray Bill got his love at the end of the Godhunter series. Why is the world would they not make a series around Sif? She's cool as shit.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;45403171]his problem is that he assumes that the "boob plate armor"(for lack of a better phrase) would be of a good fit, as in, ballooned out from the body. It's obvious in every incarnation of the armor that this isn't the case, that the armor sticks almost right on top of clothing, no space in between. [editline]15th July 2014[/editline] He also seems to assume that the original writer thought boob plate armor was an actual thing as opposed to an overused sexualization route in media, which is incorrect.[/QUOTE] ? He didn't say anything about armour being ballooned out from your body. Most breastplates are pretty tightly fitted and yeah the armour does almost stick right on top of clothing. They worked fine. Besides, it wouldn't "press" against an area of your body hard enough to cause injury. Certainly not a broken sternum and a completely destroyed heart and lungs. The original writer did write an article, speculating on the "real life" consequences boob armour would have. So isn't it totally fair for the armourer with years of experience both working with armour, being in armour, working with more experienced armourers to say why she's wrong with the facts and speculation she brings up? edit: Like it's a perfectly fine thing to argue about how female characters are presented in skimpy bikinis while males are always burly and decked out in 100 ton armour but the "boob shaped" breastplates are not instant death suicide armour everybody claims they are.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.