Thor

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
But having the hammer didn't make Steve Rogers or Vision Thor. There is no Dr. Donald Blake that became Thor. Thor didn't stop being Thor when losing his powers and hammer either. The MCU Asgard mythologies doesn't set up that there have been many incarnations of Thor, Odin and Loki either. Thor is just the birthname of Liam Hemworth's character, nothing else. This is definitely the movies forcing a plotpoint that happened in the comics without any of the establishing lore the plotpoint had in the comics.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
But having the hammer didn't make Steve Rogers or Vision Thor. There is no Dr. Donald Blake that became Thor. Thor didn't stop being Thor when losing his powers and hammer either. The MCU Asgard mythologies doesn't set up that there have been many incarnations of Thor, Odin and Loki either. Thor is just the birthname of Liam Hemworth's character, nothing else.
What does any of this have to do with what we know about this development thus far?

This is definitely the movies forcing a plotpoint that happened in the comics without any of the establishing lore the plotpoint had in the comics.
We don't have a clue as to how they'll be going about it. We don't even know for sure that Mjolnir will be involved since it's currently destroyed.
 

Ite

Save your valediction (she/her)
AKA
Ite
^ translation erroneously uses gendered language b/c 60s.

I don’t think anyone could reasonably ask “can Natalie Portman act?” but the question as I understand it is “can Natalie Portman carry the role of a Thunder God?” You need a certain vocal quality/tonality, and physical presence to evoke the living manifestation of thunder. Sigourney Weaver, Gwendolyn Christie, and Charlize Theron spring to mind as actors I immediately trust to excel at the role, although admittedly those three actresses display stereotypical masculine traits, so I may be one of the many who need a wake-up call in this regard. Of course, back in 2010 I thought Hemsworth was also ill-suited for Thor, but he proved me wrong. My main concern is actually going to be the combination of Portman and Waititi, whose constant use of bathos and comedy may undercut and discredit Portman as a believable Thunder God.
 

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
What does any of this have to do with what we know about this development thus far?

The storyline is said to introduce the first female Thor. That's very weird. It'd be like saying this storyline is said to introduce the first female Tony Stark

We don't have a clue as to how they'll be going about it. We don't even know for sure that Mjolnir will be involved since it's currently destroyed.

We don't know for sure yet but I would certainly argue that Waititi handing Natalie Portman Mjolnir on stage during the announcement can be considered a clue pointing in that direction.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
The storyline is said to introduce the first female Thor. That's very weird. It'd be like saying this storyline is said to introduce the first female Tony Stark.

We must have seen different announcement presentations. That wasn't said in the one I watched.

In any case, even should Jane acquire "Thor" as a title here as she did in the comics, who has said Thor Odinson will stop being Thor?

We don't know for sure yet but I would certainly argue that Waititi handing Natalie Portman Mjolnir on stage during the announcement can be considered a clue pointing in that direction.

And it probably will be reconstructed somehow or other -- but my point is that we know precisely dick about what developments this will involve. It's terribly silly to be making any judgments about it, because at the moment all we have to judge is an idea.

As someone who gave the idea of Hydra Cap its fair shake until "Secret Empire" proved to be crap, I'm going to go ahead and call it extra silly to give this idea less than a fair shake when the source material it's going to adapt already proved to be pretty darn good.
 

Roger

He/him
AKA
Minato
We must have seen different announcement presentations. That wasn't said in the one I watched.

What was the exact wording then?

In any case, even should Jane acquire "Thor" as a title here as she did in the comics, who has said Thor Odinson will stop being Thor?

No one. That doesn't mean it isn't weird for another person to be running around calling themselves by his name instead of their own name.

And it probably will be reconstructed somehow or other -- but my point is that we know precisely dick about what developments this will involve. It's terribly silly to be making any judgments about it, because at the moment all we have to judge is an idea.

As someone who gave the idea of Hydra Cap its fair shake until "Secret Empire" proved to be crap, I'm going to go ahead and call it extra silly to give this idea less than a fair shake when the source material it's going to adapt already proved to be pretty darn good.

The source material took place in a world where Dr. Donald Blake, Jane Foster's friend was a real person that became Thor. Eric Masterson and Beta-Ray Bill had been a thing by then. In that universe Ragnarok had happened many times already and there had many incarnations of Thor. MCU felt all that was convoluted and unneccesary. Thor is this one particular Asgardian who comes to Earth himself and doesn't need a human alterego, even when he loses his worthiness, he's still just Thor. That's cool with me, but I don't think it's silly to say that it is now not very well positioned to abruptly do a adaptation of the female Jane Foster Thor storyline.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
What was the exact wording then?
"While we were shooting 'Ragnarok,' I was reading one storyline by Jason Aaron, 'The Mighty Thor,' and for those of you who know that storyline, it's incredible. It's full of emotion and love and thunder. And it introduces, for the first time, Female Thor. So ... for us, there's only one person who could play that role. Only one. And she's here. I'm going to introduce her to you now. Please welcome to the stage: Natalie Portman."

So, yeah, nothing about the plan for this storyline introducing "the first female Thor" to the films. At least not as you worded it.

Could that end up happening? Sure. At the moment, though, we have no idea whether this is going to be a character actually called "Thor" or if this is just a character heavily based on the Jane Foster Thor. And we have even less inclination about how any of this -- whatever it happens to be -- will come to pass.

No one. That doesn't mean it isn't weird for another person to be running around calling themselves by his name instead of their own name.

It never struck me as weird in the comics. Maybe that's because I'm so used to the X-Men, where it's mucho common to have multiple alternate versions of the same person walking around with the same name, or maybe it's because Thor himself bestowed the title on Jane.

If she does get the title here as well, I'd bet top dollar that the Odinson himself once again gives it to her rather than it being something she christens herself.

The source material took place in a world where Dr. Donald Blake, Jane Foster's friend was a real person that became Thor. Eric Masterson and Beta-Ray Bill had been a thing by then. In that universe Ragnarok had happened many times already and there had many incarnations of Thor. MCU felt all that was convoluted and unneccesary.

Well, I have to agree with them where Blake is concerned, what with the decades of going from where he was a) a human doctor to b) where he was just a magical construct and identity Odin planted in Thor's mind to c) where he had been a real guy who went into suspended animation when Odin had him supplant the poor man's identity to d) where there had been a real Donald Blake, but the one who had been in suspended animation actually was just a magical construct because the real dude had been vaporized before he could quite get involved ...

...

It's quite a mess, and not even one worth ever addressing again to unfuddle.

Thor is this one particular Asgardian who comes to Earth himself and doesn't need a human alterego, even when he loses his worthiness, he's still just Thor. That's cool with me, but I don't think it's silly to say that it is now not very well positioned to abruptly do a adaptation of the female Jane Foster Thor storyline.
We'll see what they do with it. It really shouldn't even be that hard to find a fitting method for this. Hell, give me a little time to think on it and I'll come up with an adequately comic-book-y-but-still-better-than-the-worst-kind-of-examples-of-that-(e.g.-the-Donald-Blake-thing) idea as an explanation even for Jane literally becoming Thor on some level.
 

Tetsujin

he/they
AKA
Tets
OLVUfpj.jpg
 

Rankles

Pro Adventurer
As someone in the minority of those who didn’t like Ragnarok, I’m hoping for better here. Not massively optimistic though…
 

Wol

None Shall Remember Those Who Do Not Fight
AKA
Rosarian Shield
This is going to be bonkers and I'll love it. As someone cold towards the first movie, and that despised the second (boring asf), Ragnarok managed to completely win me over. It was both fun and epic.
 

Erotic Materia

[CONFUSED SCREAMING]
I'm jazzed for this! That comparison shot is legit, too. I might have to track down a copy of the comic... or maybe not. Spoilers etc.
As someone in the minority of those who didn’t like Ragnarok, I’m hoping for better here. Not massively optimistic though…
"In the minority" is right, blasphemer!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wol
Top Bottom