Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
![]()
Well, in all fairness, Eric Masterson didn't use the "Thor" name, and Donald Blake was a fake alter-ego to Thor rather than the other way around. So it's still a more complicated case. Now personally I don't care much about this change- at worst I find it a bit weird but nothing intolerable- but I can understand those who feel uneasy with it.
I'm pretty sure Swanpride isn't a dude.
I'd never even heard of Eric Masterson.
Isn't the idea that Donald Blake is the actual Thor? Before they made that retcon, the idea was that "Thor" was simply a mortal acting as the avatar to the god of thunder. If that was still the case, then it would make some modicum of sense for various people to be able to take the mantle of Thor, but with the idea that Donald Blake is and always was Thor, the concept just doesn't strike me as meshing very well anymore.
Nope, I am not a dude. And I don't like the idea that anyone else "becomes Thor" in general.
For the record, I don't like "replacements" in general. But in the case of Thor it is particularly stupid. What defines the hero Thor is not just the fact that he can lift a hammer, but also that he is the son of Odin, the prince of Asgard who has decided to protect humans. A lot of heroes have lifted the hammer over time. And they didn't have to turn into Thor to do so.
![]()
It's kind of impossible to dislodge a thought from your head isn't it?
I don't like any Legacy Character's that weren't made specifically to be a Legacy Character.
![]()
![]()
'S not like I'm the only stubborn one around here.
edited 7th Dec '15 6:54:34 AM by Wackd
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.Eh, I don't really care that much.
But I guess I wasn't really contributing, so I'll be on my way.
Visit my Tumblr! I may say things. The Bureau ProjectFor anyone who says Thor, the Blood Knight Proud Warrior Race Guy Boisterois Bruiser Warrior Poet is a uninteresting character I only have this to say.
I say thee NAY (''tosses hammer')
edited 7th Dec '15 7:21:46 AM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."The thing you are objecting to never actually happened.
edited 7th Dec '15 7:58:40 AM by alliterator
Thor might not be the best written character, but he's not really that bad either, at least better than Jane who is even more poorly written IMO. Not to mention Darcy wasn't exactly a great character in the second Thor movie.
@alliterator
I'm not a dude, and and I don't have a problem with Jane or anyone else in general taking over as Thor in principle, but thus far the execution for her has... not been great. Hopefully other writers can do her better.
edited 7th Dec '15 8:02:03 AM by AlleyOop
Honestly movie Thor IS interesting, he just has the misfortune of being overshadowed by Loki in his two movies. One thing I liked about Thor: The Dark World despite the movie's flaws was that unlike the Iron Man sequels, they actually let Thor's lessons stick; he is much less reckless, actually does go for cunning rather than brute strenght at a few points, and tries a peaceful approach on a few occasions. All things he most likely wouldn't have done in the first movie pre-Character Development. Not perfect of course, but still appreciable.
I dunno, man. His character development sticking made him even less interesting to me than he was in Thor 1, and I didn't even know that was possible! He felt like a real blank-slate sort of character. The sort that if you gender-swapped them everyone would be giving the movie a ton of shit.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.The problem is that while the first movie did really well with Loki, they didn't really focus on Thor because they were too busy to throw in useless characters in the story (and no, I don't mean Jane or even Darcy, I mostly mean Dr. Selvig), and never really showed how the experience humbled him or why he learned that attacking the Ice Giants was wrong. That could have been easily solved by showing him talking with Jane about those issue and perhaps allowing Darcy to actually use her Political science knowledge and explain some ideas to Thor.
Same in the Dark world. Somehow the writers missed out the actual interesting struggle, Thor's desire for a simpler life instead of taking the throne. It just hovers in the background instead of being one of the main themes.

Is it that hard to make it work? Thor was originally Thor's name but when the Odinson got in a slump he stopped using it and when somebody who looked a lot like Thor and was using the same hammer turned up the in-universe general public and the other heroes decided calling her Thor too made sense (or she decided to do it first and they all went along with it because, again, it made sense) because he had no proper title to inherit, so the closest thing became one.