Page 164 of 181 FirstFirst ... 64114154160161162163164165166167168174 ... LastLast
Results 2,446 to 2,460 of 2707
  1. #2446
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I have a hard time believing Thor won't get his arm back. Not really sure what point there is in keeping it beyond adhering to Aaron's future Thor.
    Maybe just because it looks cool? I have never understood the problem with it. To some extent, if you keep the prosthetic arm long enough it would become problematic to have him regrow or reattach it. Amputees would rightly start asking why it was so important to take away an aspect of a character they had identified with as a child. There are some people who have now grown up with Thor being an amputee during their most formative comic reading lives.

    Regardless of that point what’s so wrong with him loosing an arm? It doesn’t have a major impact on his effectiveness or his motivations.

    As to the eye, my point is that if they ever decide to draw him with two eyes they could just as easily follow the movies and not stress it. That way they don’t reverse anything, they just conveniently forget about it for a bit.
    ďAnd I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.Ē ― Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

  2. #2447
    Astonishing Member DurararaFTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Maybe just because it looks cool? I have never understood the problem with it. To some extent, if you keep the prosthetic arm long enough it would become problematic to have him regrow or reattach it. Amputees would rightly start asking why it was so important to take away an aspect of a character they had identified with as a child. There are some people who have now grown up with Thor being an amputee during their most formative comic reading lives.

    Regardless of that point what’s so wrong with him loosing an arm? It doesn’t have a major impact on his effectiveness or his motivations.

    As to the eye, my point is that if they ever decide to draw him with two eyes they could just as easily follow the movies and not stress it. That way they don’t reverse anything, they just conveniently forget about it for a bit.
    Being crippled is unquestionably seen as an important aspect of Xavier's character that most people have grown up with as part of this character during their most formative comic reading years. Yet he has regained and lost and regained his ability to walk over and over again and it has never been problematic. Because comics as Frontier put it. Never is a long time in any medium with continuous publication, but especially comics.
    Last edited by DurararaFTW; 09-13-2019 at 01:24 AM.

  3. #2448
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DurararaFTW View Post
    Being crippled is unquestionably seen as an important aspect of Xavier's character that most people have grown up with as part of this character during their most formative comic reading years. Yet he has regained and lost and regained his ability to walk over and over again and it has never been problematic. Because comics as Frontier put it. Never is a long time in any medium with continuous publication, but especially comics.
    I have always considered it problematic even if you haven’t.
    ďAnd I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.Ē ― Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

  4. #2449
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    43,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Maybe just because it looks cool? I have never understood the problem with it. To some extent, if you keep the prosthetic arm long enough it would become problematic to have him regrow or reattach it. Amputees would rightly start asking why it was so important to take away an aspect of a character they had identified with as a child. There are some people who have now grown up with Thor being an amputee during their most formative comic reading lives.
    I don't know what's so cool about it. It just stands out as an eyesore to me that he' stuck with it now. All it serves is a as a reminder of when Malekith cut his arm off and that he's supposed to end up as Aaron's Old King Thor, and I don't feel like that's worth keeping it around.

    Misty Knight is a much better amputee rep then Thor is given Thor with a normal arm and eye are how he is primarily showcased everywhere but the comics. Or Cable. Or Bucky. It's much more important for them to be missing an arm then it is Thor.

    I think most young people probably think more of Hemsworth then they do comic Thor. Which has it's own problems, but what can you do. I don't see much kids looking to Aaron Thor as their Thor.
    Regardless of that point what’s so wrong with him loosing an arm? It doesn’t have a major impact on his effectiveness or his motivations.
    Well, the way it happened was kind of bad. And it's associated with his Unworthy period, so that's another knock against it in my opinion.

    If it's not that important I don't see what the point is in keeping it.
    As to the eye, my point is that if they ever decide to draw him with two eyes they could just as easily follow the movies and not stress it. That way they don’t reverse anything, they just conveniently forget about it for a bit.
    Same difference. I hope they don't do it through movie synergy .

  5. #2450
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    331

    Default

    I was a little disappointed in King Thor. Am I the only one who liked the younger, alternate , and heroic-to-morally dubious versions of Loki?

  6. #2451
    Mighty Member Electricmastro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    TIL Captain America first met Thor during World War II, as seen in The Invaders (1978).


  7. #2452
    Benefactor / Malefactor H-E-D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Maybe just because it looks cool? I have never understood the problem with it. To some extent, if you keep the prosthetic arm long enough it would become problematic to have him regrow or reattach it. Amputees would rightly start asking why it was so important to take away an aspect of a character they had identified with as a child. There are some people who have now grown up with Thor being an amputee during their most formative comic reading lives.

    Regardless of that point what’s so wrong with him loosing an arm? It doesn’t have a major impact on his effectiveness or his motivations.

    As to the eye, my point is that if they ever decide to draw him with two eyes they could just as easily follow the movies and not stress it. That way they don’t reverse anything, they just conveniently forget about it for a bit.
    Sadly they turned Barbara Gordon back into Batgirl rather than keep her as Oracle, so no disability is safe.

  8. #2453
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H-E-D View Post
    Sadly they turned Barbara Gordon back into Batgirl rather than keep her as Oracle, so no disability is safe.
    And in her case, it was a much more important part of the character...it effected what she did, altered her life completely.

    In Thorís case...it alters the way heís drawn. For me...itís a complete and utter cop out, surely nobody believes itís a realistic portrayal of a handicap.

  9. #2454
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    And in her case, it was a much more important part of the character...it effected what she did, altered her life completely.

    In Thor’s case...it alters the way he’s drawn. For me...it’s a complete and utter cop out, surely nobody believes it’s a realistic portrayal of a handicap.
    In the new and brave age of modern prosthetics this kind of thing will be increasingly common. So it’s not necessarily about realism (which is sadly almost a cliche thing to say about comics that really shouldn’t need saying) it’s about relatability. We can guarantee there is a young amputee kid out there somewhere struggling with their body image, for whom this is an inspiration.

    But my point was partly that it is just a way of drawing him. It isn’t a big part of his motivations etc. Which is precisely why we should be careful when dismissing it. A prosthetic arm should not necessarily be a defining characteristic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Misty Knight is a much better amputee rep then Thor is given Thor with a normal arm and eye are how he is primarily showcased everywhere but the comics. Or Cable. Or Bucky. It's much more important for them to be missing an arm then it is Thor.
    Misty and Bucky are an entirely different case. For Misty for example, the prosthetic becomes a key part of her character and sure for some people that can be inspiration, but everyone is different and for some they just want to have a functioning and neutral arm or leg that does not become a defining feature. So contrasting that example doesn’t negate the example seen in Thor.

    In other words, let’s be sensitive to each other’s perspectives. And bear in mind how important some neutral and understated elements of character can be.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 09-14-2019 at 02:24 AM.
    ďAnd I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, 'If this isn't nice, I don't know what is.Ē ― Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

  10. #2455
    Astonishing Member Panic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,036

    Default

    I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Aaron's robo-arm idiot-Thor is an inspiration for disabled readers. He's a pretty negative version of the character, hardly an inspiring example.

  11. #2456
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    5,505

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panic View Post
    I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Aaron's robo-arm idiot-Thor is an inspiration for disabled readers. He's a pretty negative version of the character, hardly an inspiring example.
    Agreed, and frankly, there never was much examination of that, was there?

    Thor pretty much shrugged it off and got a replacement without much issue.

    Lot of wasted potential, but that's Aaron

  12. #2457
    Incredible Member charliehustle415's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panic View Post
    I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Aaron's robo-arm idiot-Thor is an inspiration for disabled readers. He's a pretty negative version of the character, hardly an inspiring example.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Cool Thatguy View Post
    Agreed, and frankly, there never was much examination of that, was there?

    Thor pretty much shrugged it off and got a replacement without much issue.

    Lot of wasted potential, but that's Aaron
    I agree with this sentiment that there isn't a deeper meaning to the physical change, because writers do this all the time. They simply want to leave their mark on the character and what better way then to leave a visual mark especially for this visual medium.

    Short haired, one eyed, and one armed Thor will be synonymous with Jason Aaron (it was even cemented in the MCU sans losing an arm).

    Other writers do other things, for example, Morrison gave Bruce Wayne a child, Bendis completely changed The Avengers (Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men, Guardians of The Galaxy etc), Hickman is currently doing it with the X-Men, Johns did it with Green Lantern, Slott did it with Spider-Man and so on and so forth.

    Every writer wants to add to the larger mythos in one way or another and this isn't the first time it has happened with Thor. Simonson introduced another who is just as worthy i.e. Bill, JMS brought the Gods to Earth and changed the concept of "Ragnarok" from the twilight of the Gods to the Rebirth of the Gods.
    Last edited by charliehustle415; 09-14-2019 at 10:36 AM.

  13. #2458
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    43,863

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JackDaw View Post
    And in her case, it was a much more important part of the character...it effected what she did, altered her life completely.
    And regressed her character several years. Not as badly as when Burnside happened, but still.
    In Thor’s case...it alters the way he’s drawn. For me...it’s a complete and utter cop out, surely nobody believes it’s a realistic portrayal of a handicap.
    And that's part of the issue for me. Thor just looks off with a metal arm and missing eye while sporting his traditional look.

    It was worse when his arm and hammers were gold but it still just stands out in a bad way to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    In the new and brave age of modern prosthetics this kind of thing will be increasingly common. So it’s not necessarily about realism (which is sadly almost a cliche thing to say about comics that really shouldn’t need saying) it’s about relatability. We can guarantee there is a young amputee kid out there somewhere struggling with their body image, for whom this is an inspiration.
    I kind of doubt that was Aaron's intention and I'm kind of not sure if people even take it that way. I think it would need to actually be emphasized enough to come off that way, and it doesn't seem to have helped make Thor more relatable. It's more of a visual gimmick.
    But my point was partly that it is just a way of drawing him. It isn’t a big part of his motivations etc. Which is precisely why we should be careful when dismissing it. A prosthetic arm should not necessarily be a defining characteristic.
    It definitely isn't for Thor.
    Misty and Bucky are an entirely different case. For Misty for example, the prosthetic becomes a key part of her character and sure for some people that can be inspiration, but everyone is different and for some they just want to have a functioning and neutral arm or leg that does not become a defining feature. So contrasting that example doesn’t negate the example seen in Thor.
    I think for a character to where it is more of a key part of them it would stand out as more of an inspiration compared to how it was handled for Thor. Especially when the visual was emphasized with the "Unworthy Thor" period of the character.

    If media adaptions had more of a metal-armed Thor I think it would be a different matter altogether. But I don't think comic Thor stands out that much in that regard.
    In other words, let’s be sensitive to each other’s perspectives. And bear in mind how important some neutral and understated elements of character can be.
    I also think we need to be aware that even with the best of intentions some things may not work as well as intended or even serve a purpose at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by charliehustle415 View Post
    I agree with this sentiment that there isn't a deeper meaning to the physical change, because writers do this all the time. They simply want to leave their mark on the character and what better way then to leave a visual mark especially for this visual medium.

    Short haired, one eyed, and one armed Thor will be synonymous with Jason Aaron (it was even cemented in the MCU sans losing an arm).

    Other writers do other things, for example, Morrison gave Bruce Wayne a child, Bendis completely changed The Avengers (Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men, Guardians of The Galaxy etc), Hickman is currently doing it with the X-Men, Johns did it with Green Lantern, Slott did it with Spider-Man and so on and so forth.

    Every writer wants to add to the larger mythos in one way or another and this isn't the first time it has happened with Thor. Simonson introduced another who is just as worthy i.e. Bill, JMS brought the Gods to Earth and changed the concept of "Ragnarok" from the twilight of the Gods to the Rebirth of the Gods.
    I think that's more Jane Foster as Thor then it is the visual for his Thor. Especially when the latter is much more easily backed away from.

  14. #2459
    Incredible Member charliehustle415's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post

    I think that's more Jane Foster as Thor then it is the visual for his Thor. Especially when the latter is much more easily backed away from.

    Aaron will for sure always be remembered for introducing Jane Thor; but in regards to Thor Odinson, Aaron will be remembered Thor's unworthiness and losing his arm because of it.

  15. #2460
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    43,863

    Default

    Taika Waititi says the star of Love and Thunder is still Thor/Chris Hemsworth.

    A positive development given concerns about how they would balance things, but one that I feel we're stuck with when it comes to Thor and Jane as Thor .
    Quote Originally Posted by charliehustle415 View Post
    Aaron will for sure always be remembered for introducing Jane Thor; but in regards to Thor Odinson, Aaron will be remembered Thor's unworthiness and losing his arm because of it.
    Which makes me all the more hopeful for this to be undone and forgotten about...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •