RayeGunn's forum posts

#1 Edited by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

There is no contest here, for me, only one had be bawling. Kid Loki. I mean sure I've read a lot of the other deaths mentioned here and many of them were impactful on the stories, some kinda sad, and Nightcrawler is one of my all time favorite characters, so yeah that one was sad as a fan. But as far as actual emotional rollercoaster goes? Kid Loki all the way. I mean, he's a child, and just as he proves he can be good, he is manipulated into sacrificing himself to save the world by by his older self, who now parades around in his stolen body? (riddled with guilt over the incident, but still) harsh.

#2 Edited by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

... Why does everything need to be turned into some twisted conspiracy theory? Occam's Razor applies here, I think.

Why these changes now? cus that's the story they wanted to tell. The end. And I bet a lot of people will be changing their tune after they actually read it, just like happened with Superior Spider-Man. Do you think replacing him with Doc Ock for a while was a conspiracy to sell licenses, too?

I mean... why would they even want to sell licenses when they make more by keeping it in house? Now that they have the power of Disney behind them, anyway. The licenses were sold to Fox and Sony in an act of desperation when they were facing bankruptcy, that's not the case now. And if Disney was 'twisting their arm' in all this, it wouldn't be THESE characters. Marvel Studios (a subsidiary of Disney) already owns the rights to all characters affected. There is literally nothing to gain here for Disney. If it was possible to win back rights to (a version of) a character simply by radically changing them, they would have done it already. Superior Spider-Man would have meant they could have a MCU Spidey. But the licenses don't work that way, if anyone is doing a Superior Spider-Man movie, it will be Sony. The licenses are distributed by character-family, not individual characters. This is why Quicksilver can appear in both the MCU and Fox's X-Men movies. He belongs to both the X-Men and Avengers family of characters. But Wolverine and Spider-Man don't count because they joined the Avengers after the deal was signed. Sticking them on the Avengers after the fact didn't mean Marvel/Disney was suddenly able to use them. So as you can see, doing all this with the comics accomplishes nothing as far as winning rights back for movies and whatnot. If they sold the rights to Falcap and female Thor, it would mean selling the rights to the originals as well, severely screwing over the MCU. Same goes for toys and whatever, they sell licenses for groups of characters. Also, Tony Stark is still Iron Man, so all licensing remains exactly the same for him, as far as use goes. It's just the armor and the plot of the story that's different, no new characters at all, and the armor design is irrelevant with licensing, unless you seriously believe every new costume a character wears leads to a new licensing deal. I mean, HOW many armor designs has Iron-Man had? So why is THIS one a conspiracy all of a sudden?

#3 Edited by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

@arthurkerr: I dunno about Sif, but Odin is coming back in the 10th Realm, and I would imagine he, along with both Freyja and Gaea will be concerned about him, he's their son. No, let me rephrase that, he's their favorite son, they won't throw him under the bus like they did with Loki. Unless he did something VILE, like, eating babies level of evil. But I doubt that (though favored son may flip to Loki if he somehow proves himself and they don't learn about the whole body snatching incident, never know. But saving the world at least three times so far hasn't been sufficient, so I doubt it) Also, Aaron said at SDCC that Loki is going to be in the story, trying to figure out who the new Thor is. He's a curious sort who likes to figure things out, and I am sure wants to help his brother, now that they are on good terms. I also really doubt he is going evil again, because I think his current characterization is pretty well received and it would kinda kill his solo book, and they have future-him to get up to the bad stuff for the next while, until present day-Loki hopefully gets rid of him somehow (one would hope by ensuring he never comes to exist in the first place... though that would create a mess of paradoxes, so I dunno.). I know he is on the villain half of the Axis covers, but so is Magneto, who is also doing the good guy thing at the moment, and I suspect it will be the 'villains' minus Red Skull who actually end up saving the day in that one. But his evil future self may interfere, somehow, he seems to be getting up to all sorts of bad stuff. So Sif aside, (and I agree, we need more of the awesomeness that is Sif) you are actually probably getting what you want with this story in terms of relationships and teamups. Most likely not the exact plot you want, but...

#4 Edited by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

With the way they left Gaea on Earth, I think that may just be in the cards. The pieces are in the right place for it, anyway.

@arthurkerr: And where in there does it tell male readers to go away? How does writing it so that it speaks to female readers mean it's exclusionary to male readers? You are reading far too much into that. They are hoping to add some female readers to the existing fans, they are not telling the existing fans to go away. Trust me, all it takes to 'speak' to female readers is to not treat female characters as nothing but sex objects, or props for the male characters. Make them well rounded characters with agency. As long as he does that, nothing else has to change. I am sure it will read largely the same as God of Thunder, just with a new character in the mix offering a new perspective.

TIME: Do you change the way you write for a female character at all?

Aaron: No. I mean, it doesn’t change for me. The story didn’t come about because of any sort of mandate. It’s not like we threw a dart at a board and said we’re going to change this character and make it a female. This was the natural progression of the story I was telling and that’s been building in Thor history for decades now.

I’ve written stories about Canadian mutants who are 150 years old and about aliens in space. It doesn’t matter: I’m clearly not any of those people. But it doesn’t matter the race or gender or where those people are from. It’s all about figuring out that character and telling your story.

http://time.com/2987551/thor-marvel-woman/

To me, that says it will be pretty much just a continuation of God of Thunder, just with a new #1 to drum up some sales and to mark the start of a big story.

And i don't understand how this 'trashes' his character, especially since we don't actually know anything about the story yet. As near as I can figure, he's going through a rough spot, has become unworthy to wield Mjolnir and someone else picks it up. That is literally all we know. It's not enough to really decide if it will be good or bad, but that's not 'trashing' him. A lot of great stories can come of that, it's stories where a character goes through a dark time, or when you remove them from their comfort zone, when you learn what a character is really made of.

#5 Posted by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't think he's just going to go 'whelp, don't need this anymore' and drop it. Something will happen that will force the matter, make it so it's impossible for him to pick it up. You do drop it and walk away if it is impossible for you to pick it back up. I am sure he won't exactly be happy about it, but there isn't a whole lot he can do about it if he can't lift it, aside from trying to become worthy again.

#6 Posted by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

They never said that about women readers, and especially about not caring about male readers. Where are you getting that? Links please. They probably are hoping to get some female readers who had previously not read Thor comics, but that doesn't mean old fans, male or female, are being excluded somehow. the old Thor is still going to be in the book, just without Mjolnir, he's not going anywhere, we're just getting a story of him going through a rough time, and as that is happening, she picks up the hammer. I don't see how this is bad, it adds drama and intrigue.

The reason I keep responding is because your ideas about why this is happening, or what is happening, are so far off base from what has actually been revealed it's kind of baffling. It's like you are LOOKING for reasons to hate on it, and are twisting facts to do so. But it really just boils down to it not being familiar enough for you, apparently. If that's the case, fine, I think maintaining the status quo is boring, but whatever. But just leave it at that, no need to cook up wild conspiracy theories. Almost nothing you said has any basis in fact. Royalties are not behind the creation of female Thor, it's not going to be a clone, they're not giving the finger to male readers. You are grasping at straws here to support your decision to hate it before seeing anything of it besides a couple covers and character sketches.

#7 Posted by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

Why WHO has a say in it? the All-Mother? or the new Thor? Either way, since this happens in present day, he's not king yet, so it's not like he is in any position to be making decisions on the matter. I don't think anyone is making any decisions here, except the new Thor deciding to pick up the hammer. Even Odin doesn't know who she is. (and I presume the old Thor and others will be trying to find out her identity as part of the story)

But I think we can safely assume it's not a clone.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that because you don't like the idea, that no one does. (that everyone will just be keeping up with it online and stuff) That's simply not true. Also, how is this an 'insult to males'?

#8 Edited by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

@arthurkerr: ... Wait... So you are saying you are against creators, you know, creating, because they get royalties? And that you think this is his primary motivation? Are you SERIOUS? That is absurd. For one, We don't know she ISN'T an existing character, we have no idea who is under that helmet. May be a new character, may be an old one, too soon to say for sure. But IF she is new (which does seem most likely), he has a situation baked right into the story in the form of scenes of King Thor in the future that means it's entirely possible she may never be used again after he leaves. We already KNOW Thor will get the hammer back, and once he does, she will go the way of Thunderstrike and Beta Ray Bill, with occasional appearances now and then, the number of which likely depends on how well she is received by fans. Could end up with her never appearing again, or she could get her own series, or anything in between, too early to say. But he has no way to force a future writer to use her if they don't want to, even if he DIDN'T have that baked in back door of King Thor. Secondly, royalties for creating characters are intended to entice creators to make new characters, Marvel WANTS them to do that. New characters are a good thing, they help keep the universe fresh and interesting. Where would we be if no new characters were ever created for any of the books? X-Men still just Scott, Jean, Bobby, Warren, and Hank. No Nightcrawler or Storm or Gambit or Multiple Man and so on. That really what you want? But anyway, in the end, if you compare them to his page rate, the royalties he gets for TPB's, or the royalties he gets for Scalped or Southern Bastards, which are creator owned, the royalties for character appearances after he leaves are probably pretty paltry in comparison, unless the character becomes wildly popular which, let's face it, is pretty unlikely. I really don't think he's creating characters with money as his primary motivation. The reason she is (probably) a new character is most likely to serve the story, nothing more. An existing character simply may not fit what he has planned, he's actually come right out and said as much in some interviews, and I am willing to take him at his word on that. I mean, what if she dies at the end? What if she's actually evil (though, her being able to pick up the hammer doesn't really jive with that, I'm just saying.) Would you want Valkyrie or whoever to die or go evil if it could be avoided by having her be a new character?

The rest of your post makes very little sense. I am not really sure how to respond, because I am not really sure what you are trying to say, except that the only way writers can 'sell' readers on their story or a character they created is to write good stories, it starts and ends there. If the story is good, people will read it, if it is bad they will drop it (or they should, anyway. Some fans' collector mentality gets in the way, but that's on them) I have read enough of Jason Aaron's work, and specifically his Thor work, that I feel fairly confident I will like the new book as well. I am not going into it just to read about the new female Thor, and if I end up liking her, that's not some trick being played on me, that's them doing a good job.

*edit - ok, I think i get what you are saying now... maybe? Yeah, the story might be bad. It's all in the telling. A good writer can make a ridiculous concept work. I'd read a Galactus clone story written by Grant Morrison, or maybe Warren Ellis. that'd kick ass, most likely. Thor was a frog once, that worked out allright. Crazy premise does not equal bad story. Anyway, just because a story is bad, (and I doubt this will be bad) doesn't mean some good things can't come out of it. I can think of examples of writers taking some lemons (aftermath of a bad story) and making lemonade. Fear Itself was dumb, but had some good things emerge from it, such as Kid Loki. Hell, a lot of 'events' go this way, they tend to be meandering messes with contrived endings, but often the shakeup after the fact produces some good stories. And some of the big shakeup stories are good from beginning to end. Some are awful, but they are usually not anything that won't be undone, if it's really that unpopular. (... usually. exceptions exist, but still) I would rather take the risk that it might suck (and may need to be fixed or swept under the rug later) than to have it be boring and repetitive, the status quo just maintained forever. These characters are resilient, they can bounce back from nearly anything.

As for continuity stuff. enh. Don't care, especially if it happened a long time ago. Continuity is and always will be a mess, there's just too much to keep track of, much of it contradictory, and it's a problem that just keeps getting worse. Good story trumps it. We also don't know yet that it won't be addressed.

#9 Edited by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

@arthurkerr: Why change? because status quo gets boring after a while. Do you want the same story over and over again? Or just a guarantee that everything gets reverted in the end, thus removing the weight of any consequences? Good stories involve change.

I man sure, it may suck, all stories have the potential to be bad. But the changes in and of themselves doesn't guarantee it will be bad. Some of the best stories involve a radical change to the characters or the world they inhabit. If we never allowed major change, we'd have never gotten the Dark Phoenix Saga, for instance. They gave Jean brand new powers, then turned her into a villain that obliterated entire planets, then killed her. But it is one of the most well regarded stories in comics. I get more annoyed when a new status quo gets reverted a couple years later, which is depressingly common in comics. I mean, I can understand if it's widely reviled or something, but more often than not it's clear it's simple nostalgia at work when it comes to pressing the reset button, and it just fuels fan cynicism, no one thinks anything will ever stick, because more often than not it doesn't, and that saddens me. It's part of why I have really enjoyed Loki's story ever since he was resurrected, there is a lot of meta story there that relates to this, and I hope he never reverts back to a villain, because that would just destroy the entire message.

I'm looking forward to it. Aaron's run on Thor has been great, and I can't see why it would start sucking now. From all we have heard, i think it sounds interesting. I am interested to learn how he becomes unworthy, how he loses the arm, how he replaces the arm, (some art shows him with a more traditional prosthetic, but future Thor has the Destroyer's arm, I want to see how that happens. That's got to take some magic to get that working. Does Loki do it for him now that they are all BFFs? I am curious.) I want to see how he deals with losing the hammer on a personal level as well as in a fight, and I want to see how he becomes worthy again, since we know he must, because of the future shown, and what he takes from that. I am less interested in his replacement, though that may change when we learn more about her. but having someone else wield it is more interesting than to just have it sit around waiting for him to come pick it up again. More potential conflict, mystery about her identity, and all that.

#10 Posted by RayeGunn (96 posts) - - Show Bio

@danhimself said:

Should Dick have done better?

HA! And to do what exactly? I've seen where N52 Midnighter gave J'onn a nose bleed, cut off a Red Lanterns arm off, fought some vampires along with Apollo and Jack, etc. Midnighter would've just killed him from behind and Dick wouldn't even notice he was there. Midnighter is in a whole different level from Dick. I don't see a reason why DC brought him there just to tackle with him in the first place, like that issue with Nightwing vs Shiva. Also, just because he's a 'parody' of Batman that doesn't mean he should be related to him or his universe in any way. Then again, it's N52 so whateve's.

Obviously, Midnighter is capable of obliterating Dick, but it's stated in the issue quite clearly that he's toying with him early on, to figure out who Dick is working for and whatnot. Once he found out he was with Spyral, he was about to get serious about the fight, and it got ended by Ninel. I'm ok with that, even if it's convenient. It's Dick's book, they can't have him crippled or worse in the first issue. As for why it was Midnighter and not someone more on Dick's level, I don't think this was a one-time appearance just brought in to fight Dick. I mean, if you read it that way, it does seem really random, but it's just the opening scene of his involvement in the story. Seeley himself has said that Midnighter will be back in issue 2 and beyond, it sounded like he will be featured in a lot of issues, they said they had a reason up their sleeves to 'keep him around' and flat out said they were adapting some ideas from Warren Ellis' Wildstorm work for the series. I have hopes he will have better showings in the future once (I would assume, it would get awfully repetitive for them to keep fighting only for Dick to somehow escape certain death at the hands of Midnighter by some improbable means over and over) they realize they have a common foe and team up. I mean, if you pay attention, some details even line up with Midnighter's Wildstorm origins. He's pretty clearly going to be a bigger part of this book than a one-off guest fight. Whoever is growing these organs may even be Bendix for all we know.

If Seeley and King want to take a stab at fixing Midnighter after the trainwreck that was Stormwatch, I welcome it, he needs fixing. And if it's a choice between this and space owls, will pick this every time. And I don't see how this would connect him much at all to the Bat-family, aside from the fact that afterwards, he will know one of them. He's not with Spyral, and his creation, though the details will be revealed here, happened long before. The connection is tenuous at best.