Thor is Now Female

2

Comments

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    What's the point of an armored breastplate if you have a wide vertical slit of exposed skin RIGHT BELOW IT?

    "Sword goes here."
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Ghast wrote:
    What's the point of an armored breastplate if you have a wide vertical slit of exposed skin RIGHT BELOW IT?

    "Sword goes here."

    Because Marvel (and everyone else in comics, Hollywood, video games, etc.) thinks if we can't see skin on a female character we'll all get bored and wander off. Because it's "sexy". This is far from the worst example, but it is dumb. Sword goes here, indeed.
  • Zifna
    Zifna Posts: 170 Tile Toppler
    Ghast wrote:
    What's the point of an armored breastplate if you have a wide vertical slit of exposed skin RIGHT BELOW IT?

    "Sword goes here."


    Are you sure that's skin? I thought it was just a decorative different colored bit
  • HairyDave
    HairyDave Posts: 1,574
    Zifna wrote:
    Ghast wrote:
    What's the point of an armored breastplate if you have a wide vertical slit of exposed skin RIGHT BELOW IT?

    "Sword goes here."


    Are you sure that's skin? I thought it was just a decorative different colored bit
    It's pretty close to skin tone but it could just be a couple of extra plates.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    I find this stupid. Also, the comments from the lead writer or w/e in the article sound very tacky.
  • esoxnepa
    esoxnepa Posts: 291
    I really want to know what the new female 4* thor will be called.

    Thor -> Lazy Thor -> (.)(.) icon_e_wink.gif
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    esoxnepa wrote:
    I really want to know what the new female 4* thor will be called.

    Thor -> Lazy Thor -> (.)(.) icon_e_wink.gif

    LazyLazyThor
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    KevinMark wrote:
    I find this stupid. Also, the comments from the lead writer or w/e in the article sound very tacky.

    Yeah, at first glance it seems kinda lazy and uninspired from the character viewpoint based on the comments. Marketing has decided that they should target the female audience, but instead of building an actual strong female character from ground up (it is hard and time consuming) they just strap a generic fantasy boobplate on Thor and call it a day. Hey, its gotta work, since Thor is strong, and a female too! The way Frog Thor was a strong amphibian character!

    The coming story arc may be awesome, and she may develop actual personality, who knows, but at the moment I have hard time seeing new Thor as a strong female character instead of a lazy marketing gimmick.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Dear Marvel Universe,

    Mjollnir is not Excalibur.
  • Dayv
    Dayv Posts: 4,449 Chairperson of the Boards
    MikeHock wrote:
    Dear Marvel Universe,

    Mjollnir is not Excalibur.
    If I worked for Marvel, I'd write a story where it was revealed that Excalibur was actually Mjolnir's in disguise, and King Arthur was actually an incarnation of Thor.

    A) because it would be awesome.

    B) purely to troll one guy on the internet.
  • Polares
    Polares Posts: 2,643 Chairperson of the Boards
    gamar wrote:
    soenottelling wrote:
    It requires a huge mental retcon for the name of Thor to simply be a name bestowed upon those who wield the hammer...as Thor has gone without it and still been Thor plenty of .times.

    It's like a double-twist-retcon, because the original Marvel Thor origin was that human Donald Blake found the hammer which gave him the power of Thor, and much later this was retconned into Donald Blake was Thor all along (having been made a human by Odin and lose Thor's memories to teach him humility) and the hammer just revealed his true self

    And others (like Beta Ray Bill) have wielded Mjolnir and not "become" Thor. Now it's going to be re-retconned so all the power is in the hammer again I guess?

    This is going to be really, really stupid, as you have said, Mjolnir can be wielded by anyone worhty and not become Thor, in fact it has this inscription "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", so, Thor is Thor, the Odinson, if you can wield Mjolnir you will have his powers, but not his name!!!! Calling her Thor is a lame way of calling her, they should have used any other name (it is not that I don't want a female Thor, what I think it is stupid is to call her Thor).

    Sometimes I think that comic book writers doesn't read their own comic books ...

    PS: And Thor will continue as a Marvel character now wielding the axe Jarnbjorn, killer of Celestials!!!

    Avengers_35_Cover.jpg
  • jojeda654
    jojeda654 Posts: 1,162 Chairperson of the Boards
    Funny that you posted the cover to Avengers #35. Kotaku is reporting that Falcon might assume the mantel of Captain America. Goggles and shield? Seems legit.

    So now we have Lady Thor, Axe Thor, and Falcon America. Whoo!
  • JamieMadrox
    JamieMadrox Posts: 1,798 Chairperson of the Boards
    soenottelling wrote:
    Ehh, in the end ...if the story is good, stupid discrepancies can be forgiven. Especially if/when Thor gets his hammer back and all is right in the world again.
    Jason Aaron is writing it so you know it's going to be good. He's an awesome writer and an awesome guy too.
  • Eddiemon
    Eddiemon Posts: 1,470 Chairperson of the Boards
    DayvBang wrote:
    MikeHock wrote:
    Dear Marvel Universe,

    Mjollnir is not Excalibur.
    If I worked for Marvel, I'd write a story where it was revealed that Excalibur was actually Mjolnir's in disguise, and King Arthur was actually an incarnation of Thor.

    A) because it would be awesome.

    B) purely to troll one guy on the internet.

    I am on board with King Ar'Thor.
  • kensterr
    kensterr Posts: 1,277 Chairperson of the Boards
    I seriously don't think there'll be a female Thor in MPQ or a 4* Thor, but a 3* Angela might be a possibility now that she's Asgardian and sister of Thor and Loki! (Though Angela could become the female Thor? Hmmm)

    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/04/26/ ... loki-c2e2/
  • Moon Roach
    Moon Roach Posts: 2,863 Chairperson of the Boards
    I quite liked it when Eric Masterton was Thor for a while, and the follow-up title Thunderstrike didn't suck too badly.

    But first they take Thor out of Journey Into Mystery, now they take Thor out of Thor? Where will it end?
  • Marty17
    Marty17 Posts: 503 Critical Contributor
    From what I understand, isn't this temporary? I mean, they're not literally retelling Thor's origin starting from Asgard & now Odin's offspring is a daughter? (<- genuine question here) I assume it's kinda like a character taking over Capt. America's mantle until Steve Rogers reclaims it again.

    I have to admit, if they're going for a female Thor, I prefer they rehashed Thor Girl's origin. Then again with PC, guess that name) is not viable.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    Marty17 wrote:
    From what I understand, isn't this temporary? I mean, they're not literally retelling Thor's origin starting from Asgard & now Odin's offspring is a daughter? (<- genuine question here) I assume it's kinda like a character taking over Capt. America's mantle until Steve Rogers reclaims it again.

    I have to admit, if they're going for a female Thor, I prefer they rehashed Thor Girl's origin. Then again with PC, guess that name) is not viable.

    It'll last a year or so and then they'll restore the status quo. They always do.
  • kensterr
    kensterr Posts: 1,277 Chairperson of the Boards
    Usually they give the writer(s) 6-12 months for a particular storyline
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    kensterr wrote:
    I seriously don't think there'll be a female Thor in MPQ or a 4* Thor, but a 3* Angela might be a possibility now that she's Asgardian and sister of Thor and Loki! (Though Angela could become the female Thor? Hmmm)

    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/04/26/ ... loki-c2e2/

    Looks like Angela and Thora are two different (fictional) people.

    avengers-now.jpg

    I'd like to think Ant-Man is shrinking so he won't be seen with the rest of those C-listers.

Categories