Amora the Enchantress: Is she deliberately being kept out of The MCU?

[phantom1592]

The big problem is she doesn't really bring much. She's basically Female Loki. She's a magic-user trying to accrue power through manipulation and deception. The big difference is that she also has guys hanging off her. Yippee.

She can bring plenty to the comics. She would bring very little the movies. There's just no point in using her, especially since she doesn't really have any iconic stories. She had a cool character arc in Simonson's Thor, but that was a long game. There's no iconic Enchantress story.

Meanwhile, Malekith did have an iconic Thor story. Which is why it sucks that it was adapted so poorly, but still. Malekith is totally logical villain to use.

This.

I've never been impressed with Amora as a character. Add in the fact that her major motivation was seduction of Thor... and she can be a REALLY offensive female stereotype that REALLY doesn't add anything that Loki doesn't already bring.... and wonderfully acted by Hiddleson. To replace one with the other... I think we'd lose a lot there. She made the cut in the original Secret Wars... but she was a weak link there too.

Now, Skurge... I'd LOVE to see him throw down a bit... but enchantress? Meh. For such a limited run time... Thor needs more villains he can hit.

Have we even seen Baldur yet in the franchise??

[Jadis]

A competent writer should certainly be able to write Amora as something other than a female Loki. Creative people that cannot should probably not be entrusted with a movie that will cost many millions to make and be expected to earn even more millions. Offensive? If someone is actively seeking to be offended, comparatively little cannot be seen as such. A weak link in Secret Wars? IIRC she overrode and shut down Charlies Xavier's powers there.

In Malekith's debut story (when characters are often shown at their best) Thor dusted his knuckles on Malekith and beat him unconscious inside of a page or so. In his own realm and with Malekith powering up into warrior mode to boot. That is under Walt Simonson. Honestly I have never found anything standout compelling about Malekith. Except maybe Kurse's desire to kill him. Which is more about Kurse and his contradictions.

They definitely should have chosen someone else besides Malekith as a central foe for the second movie. Amora and Skurge, Mangog, Surtur, Ares, The Midgard Serpent, Bloodaxe, Hela, you name it. If you want to go esoteric, Mephisto would have been preferable. He's much cooler and has fought Thor enough to sell him there. And Loki's comic interactions with him are more interesting than anything Malekith has ever done, as far as I know.

[Charlie_1981]

This.

I've never been impressed with Amora as a character. Add in the fact that her major motivation was seduction of Thor... and she can be a REALLY offensive female stereotype that REALLY doesn't add anything that Loki doesn't already bring.... and wonderfully acted by Hiddleson. To replace one with the other... I think we'd lose a lot there. She made the cut in the original Secret Wars... but she was a weak link there too.

Now, Skurge... I'd LOVE to see him throw down a bit... but enchantress? Meh. For such a limited run time... Thor needs more villains he can hit.

Have we even seen Baldur yet in the franchise??

And with that, you are showing clearly that you do not have even the slightest knowledge of the character and you are relying on superficial details that are not so like that.

Seriously, these justifications seemed incredibly stupid and ignorant.

And to say it's basically a female version of Loki, is a deep ignorance without the slightest argumentation because Amora is a character with a lot more of history than it seems, the problem is the writers who do not want to explain it and they go to the easy way without developing nothing of her personality that is far more complex than Loki as probably her history when people of Marvel will have the intention to explain it.

The current writers seem terribly mediocre to me and the really good writers are for other things (own projects, indie series ...) than getting themselves into superhero books, Thor´s book should be the best by far in Marvel to the level of Spider-Man or the early days of the Fantastic four but writers who get to write Thor only focus their sight on a handful of characters that can be counted on the fingers of one hand and ignore the rest.

Seriously, things like that make me feel so angry.

[RobinFan4880]

And with that, you are showing clearly that you do not have even the slightest knowledge of the character and you are relying on superficial details that are not so like that.

Seriously, these justifications seemed incredibly stupid and ignorant.

And to say it's basically a female version of Loki, is a deep ignorance without the slightest argumentation because Amora is a character with a lot more of history than it seems, the problem is the writers who do not want to explain it and they go to the easy way without developing nothing of her personality that is far more complex than Loki as probably her history when people of Marvel will have the intention to explain it.

The current writers seem terribly mediocre to me and the really good writers are for other things (own projects, indie series ...) than getting themselves into superhero books, Thor´s book should be the best by far in Marvel to the level of Spider-Man or the early days of the Fantastic four but writers who get to write Thor only focus their sight on a handful of characters that can be counted on the fingers of one hand and ignore the rest.

Seriously, things like that make me feel so angry.

What will the General audience say?

They will call her a poor man's Loki.

If you want her to succeed, you need to build her up over several movies. She IS too similar to Loki to just be used for one movie. She needs to be built up, for her story to take root before you tap her for a lead villain role.

[Tiamatty]

It's important to remember that we are talking about 2-hour movies here. Enchantress is a character who's actually more suited to long-form storytelling. In a limited space, she does end up coming across as a female Loki. Certainly the general movie audience would see her that way. Again: Magic-user trying to accrue power through manipulating others. They both even dress in green! It would be hitting too many similar beats. She's no physical match for Thor, so she'd be striking through a powerful minion. The same way Loki tried to strike at Thor through the Destroyer.

For my part, I'd be more inclined to use the Enchantress as the antagonist in a Warriors Four movie. Of course, that movie's not going to be made. But if they do any more Asgard-based movies - with Valkyrie, perhaps - then sure, use the Enchantress for that.

But she's just not a good choice for a Thor movie.

[Charlie_1981]

What will the General audience say?

They will call her a poor man's Loki.

If you want her to succeed, you need to build her up over several movies. She IS too similar to Loki to just be used for one movie. She needs to be built up, for her story to take root before you tap her for a lead villain role.

And once again, it is a demonstration of the little knowledge that general people have about the character (even the veteran readers from 60-70s), and similar to Loki? no, it´s false, that's an argument of the poorest in the world and a way to devalue or destroy a good character that need a lot more and you need a good male/female writer who really understands the character and make her to evolve, I hate involutions of the characters because only become them, incredibly superficial and one-dimensional characters that ultimately are the first to die because screenwriter is unable to do anything to change the situation.

I find it hard to understand that the only one who was able to do something decent with her was Walt Simonson and then anyone else.

Now I prefer to stay away from the Marvel Movies (no TV series that I liked except for Agents of SHIELD that I still believe that it is very bad) because they are each and every one of them, a simple Blockbuster and little else, changing and removing characters from the comic research that has very little to do with their counterpart on comics without developing them (seriously a first Avengers movie without recognizable characters like Wasp and Henry Pym? c´mon). I recognize that some movies that have been made are very good but in the end you are left cold from them after a few weeks just looking for something better.

[Charlie_1981]

It's important to remember that we are talking about 2-hour movies here. Enchantress is a character who's actually more suited to long-form storytelling. In a limited space, she does end up coming across as a female Loki. Certainly the general movie audience would see her that way. Again: Magic-user trying to accrue power through manipulating others. They both even dress in green! It would be hitting too many similar beats. She's no physical match for Thor, so she'd be striking through a powerful minion. The same way Loki tried to strike at Thor through the Destroyer.

For my part, I'd be more inclined to use the Enchantress as the antagonist in a Warriors Four movie. Of course, that movie's not going to be made. But if they do any more Asgard-based movies - with Valkyrie, perhaps - then sure, use the Enchantress for that.

But she's just not a good choice for a Thor movie.

Thor TV series would work a lot better than these two terrible Thor movies because of multiple storylines and seasons and if it really can be a good chance.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

I was watching Thor the Dark world again and realized how weak the villain was in that movie. They have Thor's 2nd best antagonist just sitting there and with no evidence they want to use her. Was Malekith really seen as a more viable villain?

I so very much want it to be confirmed that the character will appear in the Loki Disney+ series and Thor: Love and Thunder.

[Phoenixx9]

I do not know why there is so little love, especially from Marvel, on such a great, powerful, original character?

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

IMO, marvel comics is to hire the writer William Messner-Loebs to capture intriguing sides of the marvel character Amora the Enchantress' character...

Right from the start when Messner-Loebs wrote the character..

..he wrote Amora getting physical against two muggers!

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

..And when Cap led the Zodiac killers to Amora's apartment..

..Messner-Loebs wrote Amora having the foresight to rig the place with wall-mounted guns!

Messner-Loebs also writes Amora doing this with non-fatal means since she cares about those who serve her.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

..And, in order to deal with a situation quickly,

Messner-Loebs writes how invaluable Amora is at getting the necessary information out of those subdued.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

..And when Thor and Amora got hired to protect a man's wife and daughter..

..Messner-Loebs wrote Amora to deal with working out the details regarding their expenses!

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

..Messner-Loebs also wrote that Doctor Strange admitted Amora's love for Thor to be compelling,

and that Amora can be most convincing!

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

..And when the Frost Giants revealed they had no battle plan against the Trolls,

Messner-Loebs writes Amora concocting a battle plan for them.