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."
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
esoxnepa wrote: I really want to know what the new female 4* thor will be called. Thor -> Lazy Thor -> (.)(.)
KevinMark wrote: I find this stupid. Also, the comments from the lead writer or w/e in the article sound very tacky.
MikeHock wrote: Dear Marvel Universe, Mjollnir is not Excalibur.
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?
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.
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.
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. purely to troll one guy on the internet.
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.
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/