Silverspetz said:
Nazrel said:
Silvanus said:
webkilla said:
never mind that it takes a huge crap on established comic-Thor lore. You wield the hammer, fine? You wield the power of thor, but you don't get his name. That has never been how it worked.
Well, no, but there's nothing stopping Foster calling herself Thor. As I understood it, she took the name because she believed the world needed a Thor in Odinson's absence-- much like Jean-Paul Valley or Dick Grayson taking the mantle of Batman. They're not literally becoming him, but they believe the role needs to be filled.
That's not a crap on Thor-Lore (Thore?).
Thor wasn't gone, he was just unworthy to wield the hammer... because of "reasons".
He still had his inherit godly powers, still on the avengers, but gives up the name he was born with because of "contrivance".
Odin can't lift the hammer, despite the fact he controls the Odinforce, the thing powering both the hammer and the worthiness spell, and Mj?lnir has traditionally been the plaything of him and any others who might posses even the tinyist fraction of the Odinforce, including when old school God of Evil Loki was possessing his body... because of "reasons".
Jane, among all who might try to pick it up, is alone worthy because of "reasons".
She then appropriates the name of this still living god without permission (after the fact doesn't count.)
This half dead mortal with no martial training is now wielding it better then the actual god with the millennia worth of experience... because of "reasons".
There is a half Black half Hispanic Spider-Man, a Black Captain America, and a woman Wolverine, but these threads always inevitability turn to an argument about Thor.
Want to know why? Because it's the one that's stupid!!!
P.S. Read the Masterson arc to see this concept done competently.
1. The mystery of what exactly made Thor unworthy is just that, a mystery. You don't need to know it.
You have a massive character development of the hero the story's been following, that's completely independent of the development of said hero i.e. Nick Fury whispers something in his ear and instant unworth, and the author can't even be bothered to let the audience know why.
Then they shift to a new main character, who's plot doesn't seem to be in anyway playing into finding this out.
That's bad writing.
Silverspetz said:
2. He only gave up his name AFTER a new Thor was chosen. It makes sense because he is no longer the God of thunder and that title now belongs to Jane. It's not that hard to understand. (And as a matter of fact that IS how it worked since the beginning. You pick up the hammer and you become Thor. Then they retconned it.)
No, he was being emo, and calling himself "the Odinson" when the hammer was still just laying on the moon; and yes the title is God of Thunder, not Thor, Thor's his given name.
It would still be contrived regardless, of when he started calling himself the "the Odinson".
and though it the initial conceit was that you turned into Thor, (though an argument could be made it was simply changeling his power.), the retcon that was made, was that Donald Blake never existed and he was Thor the whole time, stripped of his memory and bonded to human form to teach him humility, and this happened back in 68 (the character only being introduced in 62.) so that was only the case 6 years out of the 54 years of the franchise.
Silverspetz said:
3. I don't know why Odin can no longer cheat the hammer spell by using the Odinforce but it seems pretty obvious that he isn'the worthy himself because a subplot of the story is that there is something very wrong with Odin.
You
might have a point, there could be a valid plot reason for this, though unless he's lost the Odinforce it really shouldn't matter what else is happening to him.
Silverspetz said:
4. As for why Jane alone is worthy, that is a lot easier to explain. It has always been pretty vague as to what the hammer considers "worthy" but one key virtue has always been humility. That is literary why Odin originally punished Thor by putting him in the body of a disabled mortal. Physical prowess has absolutely nothing to do with it so bringing up that she is "half dead" as if it should be a disqualifier is pointless. It makes a great deal of sense that Jane, a mortal who is constantly aware of her own mortality due to being sick with cancer, would have the kind of humility the hammer seeks. She is also a sufficiently good and very intelligent person and having seen the hammer in action numerous times she could use it reasonably well. No one has said she uses it better than the original Thor but she is smart enough to find new and inventive ways of using it.
I can't really say, yeah or nay on what makes her worthy.
As for the half dead, it relates more to an issue of lack of agency, and the no martial training was the more relevant point.
The hammer is doing everything, she's contributing nothing; the idea of her of picking this stuff up just by watching him is ridicules.
Let's go back to the Masterson arc shall we; he was literally sharing his body with Thor before hand, and when he was shoved into role of interim God of Thunder (though the title was actually "protector of earth"), had absolutely no idea what he was doing and had his ass kicked by a single troll, and never got anywhere close to Thor in skill. (At least as interim God of Thunder, no idea if did as Thunder Strike.)
She kicks the asses of several frost giants and does stuff that real Thor didn't know was possible with the hammer first day.
You need a balance between magic macguffin and character, otherwise the character is irrelevant.
It's the difference between one who has mastered a weapon of legend, and a flesh puppet moved around by a magic mallet.
Also, the "I'm more awesome then you." moment; kinda obnoxious, which is not helped by the fact we have no idea why he's unworthy in the first place.
Silverspetz said:
5. As I recall, she never really referred to herself as Thor until the original gave it to her.
Also, "appropriated"? Really? That isn't really something you can do with personal names you know.
(Double checks)
You appear to be correct.
Still contrived.
Silverspetz said:
In short, no one is dismissing your criticisms because the character is a woman. We are dismissing them because they are poorly thought out and easily dismissable. At best they are nitpick about the kind of minor inconcisatncies that all comics are guilty of, yet somehow they become unforgivable sins when it is about a female character.
No, these are unforgivable sins regardless of race or gender. Perhaps I just have high standards.
Maybe some of this stuff will eventually be explained in an acceptable manner, but some of it is just a matter of poor execution.
I'll admit to not having kept up with it, but it's been almost 2 years and as far as people have told me none of this has been addressed.
(All right, to be fair, secret wars did throw a speed bump in everyone's way.)