DarkDay's forum posts

#1 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: As I said in my post, I'm not saying you are being misogynistic, but I've discussed this enough to have seen a good amount of it, in fact I point out in the same post there that I wasn't going to aim that at anyone and I'm not. That however doesn't stop it from having happened. Here is the thing...I don't care about outstanding female characters, I don't care about outstanding minority characters, and at my core I don't care a whole lot for people in general. By in large I'm pretty anti-social, but like Abridged Alucard before me...I feel that I hate all peoples equally. So with that said I'm going to point out that I don't really care what Marvel's ulterior motives are with the female Thor. I do not care. Business practices while affecting the comics, don't really have a place when discussing if comics or the characters within them are going to be good or interesting. What I do care about are if said characters are going to be good or interesting and I don't really need time travelers telling me how long this or that story development is going to last.

So far the argument has been a matter of semantics. I'm sorry Lvenger, you and anyone else have the right to feel exactly as you'd like about this and how things are going, but again we have no idea if the character is actually going to refer to themselves as Thor and more than that if she does, there is a precedent in the comics of Thor's mantle being taken up by other characters. People are free to feel how they like, but this just keeps coming back to people being upset for the sake of being upset with no idea about what is going to happen within the story in particular and the canon at large. Marvel isn't beholden to anything except maybe their investors and the rest of us are more than capable of voting with our wallets for what we do or do not want.

@arthurkerr: That was the later retcon. So yeah, I read the comics. Oh and lets not forget that it is later quasi-retocnned again as Blake exists after the deaths of the Asgardians and it was him that brought Thor back from death for us to actually have the Ragnarok cycle broken series going on now. Also Donald Blake current being a head lulled eternally by nightmare creatures sort of again points to him not being Thor transformed by Odin.

Edit:

@allaric said:
@darkday said:

@allaric: That was my point. I didn't call it a failure, asked you if that made it a failure...see the question mark at the end.

My example had two ideas because when Butcher took the bet, he was so confident that he said...you know what...give me another one. So not one terrible idea, but two. And that hardly somehow debunks to point of my bringing it up. The point being made and if you don't understand, I apologize for not making it more clearly, was that ideas mean next to nothing against the talent and imagination put into the final work.

@jayc1324 : None of that has anything to do with Marvel's Thor. Marvel's Thor is derived from its source material this is true, but your statement just now about Thor's name...think about that for a second. When has it been said within the pages of Thor that Odin named Thor? Within Marvel it is just as likely that Gaea named him Thor and even then the canon is completely and utterly up to the writers. The mythology nor the fans have any influence over what Marvel considers canon, no more so than historical Europe or Norse myth has in most Tolkienesque fantasy settings.

Whoa... no no no , you can't compare the relationship between Marvels Thor and Norse mythology with that of Tolkien's and Norse mythology are you kidding. Marvel uses the entire Norse pantheon and mythos , Tolkien doesn't even come close to doing that. Tolkien created all his own original mythos, characters, languages, etc., etc.. Marvel on the other hand has high-jacked Norse mytholgy, the entire pantheon of norse gods , all the mythology , Odin , Sif , Loki , Heimdal , etc., etc., the World Tree , the Nine Worlds , Bifrost , Midgard , Asgard , etc., etc. , Frost giants , the Midgard Serpent , Ragnarok. Marvel comics does represent their Thor as the Thor from Norse mythology.

You can totally make that comparison. Because while Tolkien created his own mythos, that mythos still draws heavily both from Norse myth, European mythology, and European history. His characters are unique, their circumstances and cultures not necessarily so. I for one get tired of the Joseph Campbell style examination of archetypes and themes but just because it has become tiresome that doesn't in turn change the truth of it. Also I didn't say Tolkien personally but rather I said Tolkinesque which covers a variety of modern fantasy works that borrow both from his works (and by default their inspirations as well). Let me just say, at the end of the day the writer only owes the source material as much respect as they are willing to give it against the needs of the story or the rules on the established world.

Marvel for the most part uses the outline of Norse Mythology, the cliff notes as it were. If you know Norse myth, then you know we haven't seen anything close to the entire pantheon in the pages of Thor and honestly at anytime they are more than okay with just making up a god or goddess on the fly. Marvel within the Marvel Universe does indeed considered their Thor to be the god of myth but that has nothing to do with the mythology beyond that being the setting. All the time in Thor characters fail to match up with their mythological counterparts and the in universe answer is always, this is the truth that was just legend or if not that exact explanation, then something to that extent anyway.

#2 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@a_a_a: Ah. The cave in Norway thing makes more sense when I see it that way.

They are referring not to Thor's actual mythological birth but of the original Thor story which starts :

or at least that is my assumption.

#3 Posted by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@vitalius said:

@dagmar_merrill:

I thought i thought you said Courts of Owls. I honestly i dont think i ever saw any judge or any court member. Plus Arkam Asylum probably gives a gun, the blueprints, a scapegoat and the keys to every imate when they arrive.

So Batman is the jerk for letting Joker live but the legal system that Gotham has that doesn't give Joker the death penalty is just fine? that was my point.

Have to agree with this actually. The Gotham Legal System are the greatest jerks/villains comics has ever seen.

#4 Posted by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@fresh_prince said:

Thor's a name and not a title/mantle. Did they ever even confirm that the woman who'll be worthy of Mjolnir will call herself Thor?

Nope, people are just running with what was said in an interview and here we are down the rabbit hole. Never mind that fact that Donald Blake wasn't originally Thor and that at the time of its inception the character was someone else becoming the mythological god in a literal sense.

@a_a_a: I honestly can't say one way or another. I think Marvel likes to reference mythology when they can, but I know for a fact that they couldn't care less if it conflicts with the story they want to tell. If we need an example of this, look no farther than Ragnarok as a concept. It became too inconvenient and now it is gone.

As for Thor fans having a problem with it..I'm a Thor fan. I don't care what she calls herself, I care if the stories are good and I care what happens to Thor in general and I care that people aren't making the fandom look bad by freaking out unprovoked and spouting off misogyny as if that is somehow justified by the situation. I'm not aiming that last at anyone, but it is definitely something I don't want to see. I've said it once, I'll say it again, time will tell the tale as far as this goes and I'd argue that no one knows anything and that is sort of why this all is pretty depressing because of how uninformed we all are.

#5 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@adamtrmm said:

Apocalypse and Proteus are not Omegas btw.

I really stopped caring about the term, maybe it did mean something in the beginning, but so much has changed since I don't really think even the writers know what to do with that title besides entitling their pet characters lol

To me it has always been writer speak for... "Watch out for these guys, they can potentially be story breakers." Almost all of the confirmed Omegas are people that on a team can completely destroy all tension in a story, so yeah I just have always thought of it as such.

@macyordie said:

@moonlighterstone:

I heard that Dazzler was an Omega level? Not sure though, as I'm still new to the [real] X-Men (curse those movies).

She is. I could have sworn there was some line or another about her having limitless potential because there is no limit to the amount of energy she can create so long as there is sound available.

#6 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

Not sure. How does he feel about Immortal Death Knight Tyrannosaurus rexs?

#7 Posted by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@allaric: Indeed. Which is why time will tell the tale no matter what.

#8 Posted by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@squares: because most writers have bombed when it comes to Jean or because of Bendis more specifically?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

#9 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@allaric: That was my point. I didn't call it a failure, asked you if that made it a failure...see the question mark at the end.

My example had two ideas because when Butcher took the bet, he was so confident that he said...you know what...give me another one. So not one terrible idea, but two. And that hardly somehow debunks to point of my bringing it up. The point being made and if you don't understand, I apologize for not making it more clearly, was that ideas mean next to nothing against the talent and imagination put into the final work.

@jayc1324 : None of that has anything to do with Marvel's Thor. Marvel's Thor is derived from its source material this is true, but your statement just now about Thor's name...think about that for a second. When has it been said within the pages of Thor that Odin named Thor? Within Marvel it is just as likely that Gaea named him Thor and even then the canon is completely and utterly up to the writers. The mythology nor the fans have any influence over what Marvel considers canon, no more so than historical Europe or Norse myth has in most Tolkienesque fantasy settings.

#10 Edited by DarkDay (634 posts) - - Show Bio

@phoenixofthetides said:

@darkday said:

Considering his wings can break bones, he's fast enough to give most combatants trouble keeping up, and that he is enhanced physically... a lot of people. He has just come to rely on the metal wings for combat and he doesn't use weapons and training when he probably should.

Add to that the fact that he could descend on someone like a hunting bird, and use the energy generated by his acceleration/deceleration and gravity to swoop down on an enemy and break their bones - technically he would be able to generate as much or more kinetic energy as displayed by energy blasters, depending on how he dives unto an opponent in that way. He's often under-utilized in favor of his expanded Angel of Death powerset, but he's pretty lethal if used right. Most writers simply don't put him in situations that really allow him to shine.

Agreed. That is something I've never got about Angel, why he doesn't do more to take advantage of his physical abilities. Someone like Beast isn't particularly more dangerous than him or even Nightcrawler if I'm being super honest. I like both of those characters but the only edge they really have physically on Angel is that they don't need to stay in the air to keep their agility and Beast is physically stronger.

As a whole I feel like most purely physical X-Men that aren't named Wolverine don't get enough love and giving them a higher level of martial skill would be in line with comics logic and probably make them more appealing as characters. Or at least that's my opinion on it.