I'm sure this is some kind of sacrelige to someone. I mean, people still actually worship these gods.
And honestly sometimes I feel a bit gloomy when people say "Thor, thats the guy from the comics right?".
But whatever.
I live under the philosophy that people should be able to do as they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
Also, I kinda feel like things like these are forced. As if they do it just to prove, "Hey, we are gender equal too guy- I mean peoples!" to earn some easy respect.
Naaah, I don't think so. That particular comment was meant more as semi-joke, but also as a question sort of. Wondering if it actually WOULD offend someone up there in the north. But I doubt it, they are pretty chill people. HAH..
Well speaking as an Asatru (one of these people worshipping germaic gods) that headline catched my eys immediately, but not because I´m offendet (can´t of course speak for every Asatru), but because, for many young people here, the only things they know about our gods is from the avangers (the comics are not so big in germany). That leads to some funny conversations sometimes. Thor (Donar) once wore a dress and pretedet to be Freyer (goddess of love) to get Mjölnir back (Lokis idea) from the giant Thrymr. They do crazy stuff so we are not so easy to be shocked.
The comic Thor is totaly different from the mythological Thor (red Hair, Loki is no his brother, Jörd but not Frigg is his mother ...) so he does not represent our belives and it is not to much of a mockery. Some like the movies others do not, but nobody takes them too serious. In fact it brought some people who were seaching for something to us (a forum) and we are happy to give more information to people who want to know more.
In also feel like it is forced and to please this ever brewing gender-debate, but germanic (vikings are a germanic "tribe") myths have a lot of strong female characters (sure most of them are a bit archaic) with own traits and storys, why not take one from there and have her do her own thing. This only seems like that without the hammer, Thor and this new girl are nothing, both are kind of weak.
Sure, I can see a way for Marvel to get out of this but not without a retcon. Other characters have held Mjolnir in the past (Storm, Captain America, etc.) and they didn't become Thor. So if now "Thor" is a title given to the holder of Mjolnir, that is a change.
Obviously Marvel wants more readers and hopes that by making one of their most quintessential male characters female, they'll get it. But it's not true to the character (let alone the inspiration).
They could just as easily have given Sif or Valkyrie or a new female character Mjolnir and kept the CHARACTER of Thor intact (but now unworthy for whatever reason) -- but that wouldn't give them all the attention.
But this is just as marketing stunt anyway. Eventually once the hype dies down and readership dwindles even more, Thor will be male again. You know this, I know this, Marvel knows this.
Recently: defying Asgard's ruling council, intentionally causing massive property damage on Midgard, ripping a chunk out of Asgard, and breaking into the most secure Asgardian vault.
I'm okay with the switch, as long as they finish the arcs that they have running now Last days of Midgard was really good and I was looking forward to what they do with the Roxxon arc.
I just want to know what Hercules has to say about this.
So they take the one character with a couple thousand years of lore and a dead religion behind and make him female?
Fun stuff. Can't wait for that comic in a hundred years that has Jesus Tits Christ in a staring role.[/sarcasm][/ridicule]
Seriously, the way to boost the female demographic of your roster is to make new heroes or promote existing ones. Not to slap breasts on a well established character. This is the same thing as slapping "woman/girl" to the end of a male superhero's name but more offensive as this wipes out the original hero. This is like firing a male because you want to hire a female. Firing someone because they're male is just as sexist as not hiring someone because they're female. This is offensive to me as a male and as a comic book fan. I'm absolutely gung ho about producing more appropriate female heroes and promoting them to the same place as the males. But it isn't cool to do it in this way to rob one gender to pay another.
Now, assuming this doesn't gain an influx of female readers, they'll put things back the way they used to be sooner or later. But I'd be just as offended if they'd made the various female characters male.
Recently: defying Asgard's ruling council, intentionally causing massive property damage on Midgard, ripping a chunk out of Asgard, and breaking into the most secure Asgardian vault.
I'm okay with the switch, as long as they finish the arcs that they have running now Last days of Midgard was really good and I was looking forward to what they do with the Roxxon arc.
I just want to know what Hercules has to say about this.
<-< Oh........Damn. I'd ask why he did all that, but I'd also guess it's a LONG story.
Thank you.
erbkaiser said:
Sure, I can see a way for Marvel to get out of this but not without a retcon. Other characters have held Mjolnir in the past (Storm, Captain America, etc.) and they didn't become Thor. So if now "Thor" is a title given to the holder of Mjolnir, that is a change.
Obviously Marvel wants more readers and hopes that by making one of their most quintessential male characters female, they'll get it. But it's not true to the character (let alone the inspiration).
They could just as easily have given Sif or Valkyrie or a new female character Mjolnir and kept the CHARACTER of Thor intact (but now unworthy for whatever reason) -- but that wouldn't give them all the attention.
But this is just as marketing stunt anyway. Eventually once the hype dies down and readership dwindles even more, Thor will be male again. You know this, I know this, Marvel knows this.
-_- Here is the problem with your complaint: THOR IS STILL A MAN!
Again, if they had taken Thor and made him a girl I could understand your complaint. However, Thor is still around, and still male.
There is now just someone else owning his hammer and taking over his role in Asgard (defending it from their enemies, especially during the "Odin sleep").
Also, if you believe the status quo will be brought back anyway, why are you getting so mad about this?
Aquaman/woman? I thought we we're talking about Marvel, not DC. ;D
Anyway.
"Seriously, the way to boost the female demographic of your roster is to make new heroes or promote existing ones. Not to slap breasts on a well established character. This is the same thing as slapping "woman/girl" to the end of a male superhero's name but more offensive as this wipes out the original hero. This is like firing a male because you want to hire a female. Firing someone because they're male is just as sexist as not hiring someone because they're female. This is offensive to me as a male and as a comic book fan. I'm absolutely gung ho about producing more appropriate female heroes and promoting them to the same place as the males. But it isn't cool to do it in this way to rob one gender to pay another.
Now, assuming this doesn't gain an influx of female readers, they'll put things back the way they used to be sooner or later. But I'd be just as offended if they'd made the various female characters male."
Again, the problem is that they didn't change Thor into a woman. They replaced him with one. Thor isn't even dead, he just lost his hammer, and it picked someone else to use it.
To give an example, it's like if a white Heimdall did something bad and lost his job, so they gave his weapon/power to a black Heimdall who also took his name along with his role to watch over Asgard.
If you still don't like that, fair enough. But this isn't a genderswap in the way of giving Jesus breasts and a vagina.
In fact, now we have two Thors! We get our cake and can eat it too.
Okay, here's how to transcarnate Thor-dom. Firstly the writers watch Vikings and get a fanboner.
Then Thor does a whole lot of shit, as mentioned earlier in the thread. He is called out on his bullshit (maybe he can't lift mjolnir anymore) and gets so embarrassed with himself he renounces his divine birthright, name and 'some-kind-of-essence' before heading out for an epic redemption arc the comic will inevitably cross several times to keep us posted. Now that not-anythor is out of the picture,there is a big Thor-off to find someone fill the gap. Some Valk gets the job Arthur-style and Gods save the Thor!
Then she gets some epic adventures and in the end not-anythor finds some kind of uber-epic other weapon, Thor(f) trades it for the Hammer because "I've always liked spears/swords/axes/whatevs better, anyway." and we are back on track.
Oh, and Loki gets raped by a horse and we need a crossdressing scene with Thor(f). Yay, mythology!
It is a rather amusing aside, though, when in such circles men are presented the issue of equal representation, told that they are not going to lose their 'precious toys', that the result is they, indeed , DO lose their...
ummm, is there something wrong with the quote button?
Well still it kind of devalues both of the characters, Mjolnir becomes something like the ironman-suit (power of money). In my eyes it still is a cheap move for the quick cash.
"Hey look we have strong female chars with no story of their own."
It is also a missed opportunity to use some lore. I mean they are using it anyway, why not now?
Is this some sort of stupid attempt to pander to feminists or are they just absolutely retarded? I mean I understand making a new female protagonist that can probably kick Thor's ass (which already exists btw, phoenix Jean), but seriously a female Thor is just dumb. No matter marvel says, this new person isn't Thor.
It is a rather amusing aside, though, when in such circles men are presented the issue of equal representation, told that they are not going to lose their 'precious toys', that the result is they, indeed , DO lose their...
ummm, is there something wrong with the quote button?
I've seen that brought up a few times today. I noticed one person who quoted me recently had issues getting it to work right and there have been others saying it wasn't working.
So far it's been fine for me though.... <-< Hmmm...........................Kross?
Also, as I told others, we still have Thor(male). Unless your comment was a joke about his Hammer. xD
If so, never mind.
El Comandante said:
Imp Emissary said:
In fact, now we have two Thors! We get our cake and can eat it too.
Well still it kind of devalues both of the characters, Mjolnir becomes something like the ironman-suit (power of money). In my eyes it still is a cheap move for the quick cash.
"Hey lock we have stron female chars with no story of their own."
It is also a missed opportunity to use some lore. I mean they are using it anyway, why not now?
The comics will speak for themselves. If they're good, great. If they're crappy, then we know this change was half-hearted.
Also, Mjolnir has been known to be picky with who gets to use it. If it found Thor "unworthy" I don't think there's anything that says it has to wait for him to be worthy again.
It does what it wants! It's a strong independant hammer! ;p
Is this some sort of stupid attempt to pander to feminists or are they just absolutely retarded? I mean I understand making a new female protagonist that can probably kick Thor's ass (which already exists btw, phoenix Jean), but seriously a female Thor is just dumb. No matter marvel says, this new person isn't Thor.
Well, not Thor as we know him. But as I pointed out above, she could be Thor for the purposes of the comic if Thor-as-we-know-him renounces his name and godhood/essence/thingamajigthatmakesoneanasgardian along with the hammer. This makes the successor effectively Thor but not the same character or personality. I don't think this is an attempt to cash in with the feminists. She effectively picks up the shit some guy just threw away. This kind of develuates her as her ascension is only in part her own achievement (she is still apparently 'worthy') and that is what the feminazi crowd will use against the series. "She is imitating the guy or needs a male rolemodel to aspire to...", blablabla.
Also this is unlikely to last forever. Comics just don't do permanent change on that scale. They will use this to give Thor(m) renewed validation and maybe establish a female character into the franchise.
Two points: Namor isn't as lame as Aquaman so it wouldn't have been a bad thing to call him/her the next Namor. I also didn't indicate that said farcical future offensive comic on Jesus Tits Christ was necessarily a Marvel or DC comic. Merely that their functional use of the female Jesus just ends up being lame like Aquaman.
Let's keep our jokes consistent people !
Again, the problem is that they didn't change Thor into a woman. They replaced him with one. Thor isn't even dead, he just lost his hammer, and it picked someone else to use it.
Is her name Thor? If so, how is this functionally different? If not, then Thor is not a girl and these titles are misleading. Making Captain Marvel (yes, I'm aware it's DC) into a female would be the same thing even if Batson was still alive because Captain Marvel is his own thing and the alter ego is a different person. Thor is Thor Odinson. He is literally (in the Marvel Universe) a living and breathing person with a past and lore even if he lost all of his power. You don't become Thor Odinson by weilding a hammer. You get the power of Thor but you don't become Thor. If they are calling this person Thor then they've gone beyond that.
In fact, now we have two Thors! We get our cake and can eat it too.
I said this in the other thread on the same topic already but I would FAR rather have had Sif show up in a more important role. She was always more badass than Thor ever was and deserves her own spot in the Universe. Bringing these characters into the spotlight is how you beef up the female demographic. Not just duping the male characters.
So, Thor is now female, hmm? Sure, just like Superman was really dead. Or Bane really broke the Batman. Or Doc Octopus is Spiderman. Or Captain America was shot dead during the Civil War. Or... Well, you get where I'm going with this. I give it a year, year and a half at the outside before we're back to the regular old status quo. It's a stunt to push up the number of comics sold in the short term, just like every other "Shocking Change Which Will Be Permanent, Really It Will!"
Don't really have a problem with it. Might even be an interesting arc, but I don't believe even for a second that it's gonna stay that way for long.
Sorry, Imp Emissary, but yeah, my quote button still seems to be broken. Might be Firefox. S'been letting me down, these last few months...
Anyways, it's the fact that for all intents and purposes a man is being replaced by a woman for the sake of inclusiveness that irritates me. It means that characters I like could concieveably be replaced by characters that I MAY not like, but will have no choice but to deal with because... well, because it was forced to happen. Instead of money being dumped into development of a new IP.
On the other hand, since all press is good press, it certainly has the PR power to get noticed, so congrats on that. I just wonder if it was a move that will have any true staying power for Marvel.
(Although in hindsight you were more clever- the Hammer being taken away is a much better analogy to boys having their toys taken away!)
Two points: Namor isn't as lame as Aquaman so it wouldn't have been a bad thing to call him/her the next Namor. I also didn't indicate that said farcical future offensive comic on Jesus Tits Christ was necessarily a Marvel or DC comic. Merely that their functional use of the female Jesus just ends up being lame like Aquaman.
Let's keep our jokes consistent people !
Again, the problem is that they didn't change Thor into a woman. They replaced him with one. Thor isn't even dead, he just lost his hammer, and it picked someone else to use it.
Is her name Thor? If so, how is this functionally different? If not, then Thor is not a girl and these titles are misleading. Making Captain Marvel (yes, I'm aware it's DC) into a female would be the same thing even if Batson was still alive because Captain Marvel is his own thing and the alter ego is a different person. Thor is Thor Odinson. He is literally (in the Marvel Universe) a living and breathing person with a past and lore even if he lost all of his power. You don't become Thor Odinson by weilding a hammer. You get the power of Thor but you don't become Thor. If they are calling this person Thor then they've gone beyond that.
In fact, now we have two Thors! We get our cake and can eat it too.
I said this in the other thread on the same topic already but I would FAR rather have had Sif show up in a more important role. She was always more badass than Thor ever was and deserves her own spot in the Universe. Bringing these characters into the spotlight is how you beef up the female demographic. Not just duping the male characters.
xD Hey now, when talking about fictional comics in a thread about a new woman Thor, it's only natural that you assume we're talking Marvel fictional comics. Also, how was I suppose to know how you wanted me to read your joke? ;p
Though I do understand what you meant. :/ Poor Aquaman. First you're made the joke of superheroes, then they break up your marriage. ;p
As for the functional difference, the first Thor is still alive and doing stuff. As I said, we have two Thors now.
As for the hammer thing, yeah they other got to use the Hammer, but I assume they didn't "keep" it. Thor is his name, but it was also his job ("Thor: God of Thunder!" and what not). It's a bit odd, but so are a lot of Asgard things. Like a weapon that can pick who gets to use it. ;p
By them saying she is now "Thor", I think what they mean is she's now the new God of Thunder.
As for Sif, fair enough. I can see an argument for having her take up the role. Though, doesn't she already have one?
If she's Thor, who will be Sif? And who will be whoever replaces Sif?
xD Maybe Mjolnir chose someone else to avoid causing a fuss of secession?
Jim_Callahan said:
Imp Emissary said:
Again, the problem is that they didn't change Thor into a woman. They replaced him with one. Thor isn't even dead, he just lost his hammer, and it picked someone else to use it.
Yes. And as several of us have pointed out, there have been a number of MALE characters that have picked up the hammer and just been "that guy plus Thor's hammer", the 'Thor is disgraced and passes the widget' thing isn't new.
So the fact that when a woman does it her identity's completely displaced (because the maguffin is the only important thing about her) where her male compatriots just got a power boost is about as unfortunate a set of implications as is mathematically possible without Tony Stark and Pym putting on blackface and holding a minstrel show with some watermelons and fried chicken.
Really? You think it's almost as bad as Blackface+stereotypes? xD
Anyway, she's not just taking the hammer for a little while, Mjolnir chose her to be it's new user. She's taking on the role of the Thunder God while Thor has lost it and goes off to do whatever he was doing while he lost his "worth".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
