Comment John McAfee? (Score 1) 124
Didn't he retire to a life of sex and drugs, preferably of the illegal kind?
I'm all for privacy, but I'm not sure if that argument gets more weight if it's John McAfee who says it.
Didn't he retire to a life of sex and drugs, preferably of the illegal kind?
I'm all for privacy, but I'm not sure if that argument gets more weight if it's John McAfee who says it.
There was a proposal once to replace the airbag in the steering wheel with a steel spike.
Appropriating mythological characters is fine and dandy, but making fundamental changes to them that don't serve a greater purpose to the audience is not.
Simply moving them from mythology to a superhero universe is already a fundamental change. Marvel has made many, many, many other changes to Thor. In fact, when he was first introduced, it was as a normal human finding Thor's hammer in a cave and turning into Thor. There already have been "what if?" stories exploring the scenario where his wife/girlfriend found the hammer instead. Storm has wielded Mjolnier on several occasions and turned into Thor. An alien has turned into Thor.
Fundamental differences compared to the mythological Thor are central to Marvel's Thor.
To take a non-mythological example, I've enjoyed the change from "John Watson" to "Joan Watson" in Elementary (the John Watson associated with Sherlock Holmes, in case you aren't familiar with it). Why? Because in the original Sherlock stories there has always been a kind of weird relationship between Sherlock and John. Changing John to a female character presents those relationships in a different light, just as it would if the characters were gay. So that's interesting.
And so is this. This is also an interesting new twist to the character. It's not as if they're turning Thor into Spiderman or something. It's just that now, a woman is Thor.
To take another example, in the Thor movie, making Heimdall black was stupid. That added nothing.. though since he was a minor character it wasn't a big deal.
Did it take anything away? To a lot of people, it most certainly did add something. There was nothing stupid about making him black.
Hypothetically, if they had made Loki black to make his "otherness" more obvious, that could have been interesting on many levels so it would be a worthwhile change to explore.
I feel like we're getting to the heart of the matter here. You associate black with "otherness". Let me guess: you are white? And male? Do you associate female also with "otherness"?
Do you realize that there are people like you who are black and/or female? That to them, there's nothing "other" about black or female? And if culture continues insisting that black and female are "other", then they will be forced to see themselves as "other", or all of culture will become "other". Wouldn't it be better to accept blacks and women as people just like yourself?
So what does changing Thor into a woman bring to the table?
Well, apparently it exposes these kind of preconceptions. That's something.
For now, I can't think of anything interesting that comes up as a result of Thor being a woman. So to me this was a stupid change.
To you maybe, but to many others, it's a wonderful change. And even you may eventually see something interesting coming from this. I hope you will.
Also the god of protection, strength, thunder/lightning/storms, etc. Those are masculine traits. If marvel wants a female character based on norse mythos, pick a female deity to base it on or make one up. Hell, they already have Storm, right?
Yeah, so thunder, lightning and storms are not the sole domain of men. Also, Storm has been Thor at some point in the past.
thor is the person wielding mjolnir and busting asses.
Okay. So what's the name of the guy who will shortly have used to wield mjolnir and bust asses?
Donald Blake.
Marvel has substituted characters since time immemorial. Captain America has been at least two different people. Thor has been several different people, including another woman and a space alien. Maybe you don't consider this interesting, but Marvel apparently does. You don't have to buy their comics if you don't want to.
If I were Christian I don't think I'd care about anyone's portrayal because Christianity is so strong that people would know my beliefs regardless. But if I felt Norse mythology was a part of my heritage I'd be pretty concerned about what Marvel did because that would be the major exposure a lot of people got to my heritage.
True, but the time to complain about that is when Marvel first appropriated Thor and other mythological characters. What happens here is already well-established in Marvel canon.
They also made Thor come from space, speak English, made Asgard not an afterlife, and changed all sorts of other details.
What makes this change particularly galling to you?
The previous changes were necessary to integrate Thor into the Marvel universe.
This change unnecessarily alters a core characteristic of who Thor is.
No it doesn't. You just think it does, because you don't know what the core characteristic of Marvel Thor is. Thor has been different people before, including another woman and an alien.
Thor's gender is such a significant feature of his established identity that to change his gender is to change his identity from Thor into Something-that-is-not-Thor.
Thor's gender is such a significant feature of his established identity that not just a woman, but also an alien have been Thor in the past. Being Thor isn't about what's between your legs, it's about being worthy to wield Mjolnir.
Thor is a Norse God, NOT a USA Hollywood invention.
This is about the Marvel character, not Norse mythology or Hollywood.
If your problem is with Marvel appropriating mythological characters, then that's a different complaint. A totally valid one, but also one that has nothing to do with the new female Thor.
Thor is a character in Norse mythology. Those stories are part of our cultural heritage. And in those stories, Thor is male.
Yes, but Thor is also a Marvel character. The Marvel character is not the same as the one from Norse mythology, even if a lot of the trappings are the same. The Marvel Thor is whoever happens to be worthy to wield Mjolnir. The old Marvel Thor wasn't born a god, he's a mortal who is worthy to become Thor.
If you object to that, then you object just as much to the old male Thor as to the new female Thor. If you don't object tot he old Thor and you still object to the new Thor, then you're sexist. There's no reason in Marvel canon why a woman can't become Thor, so the problem is entirely in your own preconceptions.
I disagree. Aunt May has a mysterious side that is only hinted at in the comics. On a more serious note: Rogue, Moonstone, Songbird (screaming mimi), Emma Frost, Mystique, AoA Blink, She-Hulk, and plenty of other women have compelling stories (and no, She-Hulk isn't just tits on a Hulk). Granted, Ororo, Jean Grey, Sue (Storm) Richards, and Alyson Blaire are all pretty boring,
Storm is an introvert, but not boring. She's the best leader the X-Men ever had, and continued to lead them when she lost her powers. Jean Grey was the central character of the most dramatic Marvel story ever. Though it's possible that post-Claremont writers don't know what to do with them.
Parent seems to be the comment that this entire uninformed discussion has been waiting for. Where are my mod points?
The question isn't if you're paranoid, it's if you're paranoid enough.
Ku-Klux-Klan were Democrats, not Republicans.
They certainly were, until FDR and later LBJ wanted to turn the Democrats into the civil rights party, and distanced the party from the racist southern democrats, after which Nixon decided that the Republicans should appeal to those southern former-democrats in order to gain more votes, and the parties basically switched position on this issue.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
