Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[GodThor]

honestly I don't think it's coincidence that Aaron chose Jane to be so wanked to high Heavens to the point where he destroyed everything related to Thor because MCU failed hard with Jane.

[Prof. Warren]

honestly I don't think it's coincidence that Aaron chose Jane to be so wanked to high Heavens to the point where he destroyed everything related to Thor because MCU failed hard with Jane.

Or, more likely, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Aaron had a story he wanted to pursue and did, regardless of outside influences. The fact that readership responded so positively allowed him to double down and follow his ideas through.

It's even more ridiculous to suggest that anything in Aaron's run has anything to do with how the "MCU failed hard with Jane." How did they fail? She was a supporting character in the first two Thor's and was - from all evidence - not intended to be anything more. Developing Jane as anything more than a love interest did not seem to be a part of Marvel's agenda. And as the saga of the MCU Thor went on, there wasn't much room to keep even that going.

Where do fans even come up with these theories? More importantly, why? Why go through the mental gymnastics to come up with a preposterous theory to "explain" something that's as easy as "the writer had a story they wanted to tell?"

[Daedra]

honestly I don't think it's coincidence that Aaron chose Jane to be so wanked to high Heavens to the point where he destroyed everything related to Thor because MCU failed hard with Jane.

In some way I feel like MCU was the begging of the end for Thor, it was all about turning gods into glorified space-aliens, thor 2 was totally luck-luster and Ragnarok despite the depicted tragedy of a world ending was mostly comedy and catchy phrases.

[GodThor]

Where do fans even come up with these theories? More importantly, why? Why go through the mental gymnastics to come up with a preposterous theory to "explain" something that's as easy as "the writer had a story they wanted to tell?"

because people have different view on things???

LoL

In some way I feel like MCU was the begging of the end for Thor, it was all about turning gods into glorified space-aliens, thor 2 was totally luck-luster and Ragnarok despite the depicted tragedy of a world ending was mostly comedy and catchy phrases.

Asgard getting destroyed was more funny than sad, especially when that rock guy said about rebuilding Asgard the moment it blew up.

I couldn't take it seriously.

[brettc1]

That is the entire point. Lots of people speak like this and act like this and they may be acting misogynistic but that doesn’t mean you know how they actually feel about women, and unexamined we will never address the issues. Stories are a way of examining this. Aaron has spent half of his career examining this.

That’s nice. I should thank him for turning a character I quite like into a pompous misogynist ass I don’t enjoy. But thanks for pointing out how if I don’t like done ones writing it’s actuslly my fault.

You were describing a Mary Sue, even if you were not using the name. You were claiming Jane’s only flaw was ‘too heroic’. That’s one of the standard definitions of this overused form of criticism.

The problem with the Mary Sue criticism was best summed up by Camille Bacon-Smith, who pointed out that the paranoia of characters being labelled a Mary Sue was effectively stifling creativity. It so often gets directed at female characters and the definition has drifted to the point of restricting writers.

I would go further and say the overuse of the label has until recently made it nearly impossible to write a powerful female superhero that wasn’t labelled a Mary Sue, precisely because the genre is one of wish fulfilment. They all had to somehow be damaged or flawed, or have undergone some deep seated trauma. Not actually reflective of normal women.

Write a male wish fulfilment character and nobody bats an eyelid. Write a female wish fulfilment character and you get jumped on by armchair critics.

No, you’re wrong, and I’m going to explain to everyone who might read this why.

Jane makes mistakes, but mistakes are not character flaws. The problem with you using the term Mary Sue here is that it is designed to shut down all possible debate on the grounds that it is based on an unreasonable sexist agenda.

If Jane were written as she was and Thor and Odin shown less like drunks and failures, there wouldn’t be as many complaints.

But guys, if you don’t like the way either or both of these characters were shown for the time Jane had the hammer, that does not necessarily mean you are are insecure closet sexist JM would imply. It might ACTUALLY be that you just didn’t think they were written well.

The irony here is that while I’m complaining about how Odin is a misogynist ass I’m actually being passive aggressive accused of furthering a misogynist agenda. I’m glad I found my my issues now before I took my daughter to see Captain Marvel on Sunday, JUST so she can see a powerful female hero on screen while we both wait for the next Wonder Woman movie. How dare I.

So thanks for that armchair criticism. We should get matching recliners LOL

[brettc1]

Of course the super-hero genre lends itself to overly-gifted demi-gods; as you have pointed out, it is a wish fulfilment genre.

The issue with the current "Mary Sue" criticism is not, however, purely a gender-specific double standard coming into play, and I feel it is disingenuous to argue that it is. What we have got is a problem with what I will call "deconstruction" (I know you don't like the term in this context, but I don't have another label for it) in comic-books coexisting with what I will term "legend-building" (for want of a better label): on the one hand we have comic book writers arguing that heroes today need a greater level of complexity and perhaps moral ambiguity, more flaws and layers, great big feet of clay... but then for other heroes they change their mind and pile strength upon strength, glory upon glory. And when you have this double-standard happening with heroes sharing the same comic, when the gulf between the have and the have-nots looks like becoming a permanent fixture, then in a wish fulfilment genre where one wish fulfilment hero is no longer performing the function for which he or she was created, you are going to get complaints. You're going to get anger. And you are going to get cries of "this isn't fair". And it's not. It's perfectly fine for people to voice these complaints if they back them up with something.

You are not hearing this complaint about Wonder Woman in the WW movie. The reason is that she is the only super-hero there, and is fighting her own specific enemies. Basically she's building her own world, she's supported by her own mythology, she's not getting a boost from anyone else's credibility. Ditto with Lara Croft (though her films have not been so good), ditto with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't think Kamala Khan gets this criticism either.

Mainly where the criticism is cropping up is where a hero such as Jane is appearing in an already defined mythology established around another hero or heroes, in this case Thor, and takes a level of prominence above the existing hero. You nearly always get criticism of this kind of thing regardless of gender - take a look at how the Sentry was received, hell, take a look at how Red Hulk was received - he came onto the scene and outshone all the established characters he came into contact with, mainly by being totally awesome while the pre-existing characters just became punching bags. It's a short-cut taken at the expense of someone else.

I have complained a lot about this kind of thing. In a wish fulfilment genre such as Marvel makes their money out of, it is poison. You've got a genre originally aimed at empowering kids who got sand kicked in their faces, then you go kick sand in their faces. You are going to get complaints. Of course you are.

I regularly complain about the level of deconstruction foisted on certain heroes, ones out of favour with the current writers. More and more I see it weaponised to clear one hero out of the way of a writer's favourite. It is a nasty short-cut to give a hero a boost in importance and popularity rather than slowly building up their own mythology. You can't pile on the negatives onto one hero when you have made it a highly competitive environment where the winner is the hero who is the most dominant, the most flawless, the smartest. Marvel have emphasised this over solid mythology building because it is quicker and easier for them, but readers are well aware of this, so now they scream at every loss their own favourites suffer, every new flaw grafted onto their hero, because it all adds up. You get too much and your hero will dwindle away to being a supporting player other heroes will wipe their boots on. This is modern Marvel, unfortunately.

Well said! I rise from my armchair to applaud.

[Prof. Warren]

because people have different view on things???

LoL

Having different views on a work of art, whether it be a comic, a book, or a movie, is one thing.

Coming up with theories as to why they came into existence in the first place - especially when these theories are totally out of touch with reality - is another.

[brettc1]

Having different views on a work of art, whether it be a comic, a book, or a movie, is one thing.

Coming up with theories as to why they came into existence in the first place - especially when these theories are totally out of touch with reality - is another.

I'm quite frankly expecting Jane Thor to turn up in the MCU.

Won't be surprised at all if the post credit scene for Endgame featured someone who's collected the fragments of Mjolnir.

[Prof. Warren]

I'm quite frankly expecting Jane Thor to turn up in the MCU.

Won't be surprised at all if the post credit scene for Endgame featured someone who's collected the fragments of Mjolnir.

Possibly. Who knows?

I would probably bet against Jane Foster becoming a big deal in the MCU simply because I don't think she was ever primed to break out in a major way and it's easier at this point to introduce other female heroes but, hey, anything could happen.

[Frontier]

It's even more ridiculous to suggest that anything in Aaron's run has anything to do with how the "MCU failed hard with Jane." How did they fail? She was a supporting character in the first two Thor's and was - from all evidence - not intended to be anything more. Developing Jane as anything more than a love interest did not seem to be a part of Marvel's agenda. And as the saga of the MCU Thor went on, there wasn't much room to keep even that going.

I mean, when the character is touted as the female lead of the franchise and one of the main driving forces for your protagonist and gets written out without any fanfare by the third movie...kind of tells me somebody dropped the ball somewhere.

I'm quite frankly expecting Jane Thor to turn up in the MCU.

Won't be surprised at all if the post credit scene for Endgame featured someone who's collected the fragments of Mjolnir.

I'm not expecting it, if only because I don't think the MCU is going to go down doing to do replacement stories so soon.

Feige has expressed how much he sees the current stars as embodying those characters and identities so he might focus on more original concepts and ideas instead of trying to do a series of succession stories.

Like, look at Captain America. People kept wondering whether we'd see Sam or Bucky take up the shield but they're now getting their own Disney+ show in their typical identities.

Maybe way down the line we might see those legacy heroes but I don't think it will be immediately.

I also am not expecting a return by Natalie Portman anytime soon either.

[brettc1]

Back on topic, I am looking forward to Thor FINALLY smashing every bone in Malekiths body witb Mjolnir, and leaving him to suffer in miserable wretchedness for the million years it takes him to die.

Or better yet chaining him in a life sized Barbie doll house where quantum visions of everyone he's ever made suffer play out happy ever after Infront of his skinned eyeballs.

[Prof. Warren]

I mean, when the character is touted as the female lead of the franchise and one of the main driving forces for your protagonist and gets written out without any fanfare by the third movie...kind of tells me somebody dropped the ball somewhere.

I wouldn't say anyone "touted" her as the female lead of the franchise. She was there. Maybe under different circumstances, things could have worked out better for the character but past the first movie there didn't seem to be a great need, narratively speaking, to include her. If anything, the fact that one of Dark World's problems was that the character felt shoehorned into it likely led to Jane being phased out.

In short, Jane Foster worked fine in the first movie. Worked less well in the second and wasn't missed at all by the third.

And seeing as the third Thor movie is generally regarded as by far the best Thor movie and one of the better MCU entries overall I would say, no, no one dropped the ball on that.

[Prof. Warren]

Back on topic, I am looking forward to Thor FINALLY smashing every bone in Malekiths body witb Mjolnir, and leaving him to suffer in miserable wretchedness for the million years it takes him to die.

Yes, I really think that Malekith is going to suffer mightily by the end of WotR. I don't think he's going to get off easy whatsoever. I eagerly look forward to seeing what just punishment is visited on him.

[Frontier]

I wouldn't say anyone "touted" her as the female lead of the franchise. She was there. Maybe under different circumstances, things could have worked out better for the character but past the first movie there didn't seem to be a great need, narratively speaking, to include her. If anything, the fact that one of Dark World's problems was that the character felt shoehorned into it likely led to Jane being phased out.

In short, Jane Foster worked fine in the first movie. Worked less well in the second and wasn't missed at all by the third.

And seeing as the third Thor movie is generally regarded as by far the best Thor movie and one of the better MCU entries overall I would say, no, no one dropped the ball on that.

I mean, I feel like that's really underselling how her role or importance in the franchise was originally set in the initial movies. She was said to be one of the main reasons Thor even cared about Earth to begin with. If she wasn't the female lead they sure didn't do a good job of underselling it 2/3 into the trilogy.

Considering how much they had to drop or outright destroy of the Thor mythos in Ragnarok for a very widely different take on the franchise...I think they didn't do as good a job of presenting the material or mythos on the silver screen. So they didn't drop the ball on that specific film but with Thor overall.

[brettc1]

I mean, I feel like that's really underselling how her role or importance in the franchise was originally set in the initial movies. She was said to be one of the main reasons Thor even cared about Earth to begin with. If she wasn't the female lead they sure didn't do a good job of underselling it 2/3 into the trilogy.

Considering how much they had to drop or outright destroy of the Thor mythos in Ragnarok for a very widely different take on the franchise...I think they didn't do as good a job of presenting the material or mythos on the silver screen. So they didn't drop the ball on that specific film but with Thor overall.

I’d have paid $1000 to see Odin and Surtur really go at it on screen.