Poll of the Day > A whole bunch of MCU stuff got announced at Comic-Con.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Blade (no other details AFAIK)
Black Widow (May 1st, 2020)
Eternals (November 6th, 2020)
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (February 12, 2021)
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (May 7th, 2021, Scarlet Witch will be in it)
Thor: Love and Thunder (November 5th, 2021, Natalie Portman will reprise her role as Jane Foster)

Disney+ Stuff:
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Disney+. Fall 2020)
Hawkeye (Disney+, Fall 2021)
What if...? (Disney+, Summer 2021, animated series)
Loki (Disney+, Spring 2021)
WandaVision (Disney+, Spring 2021)

I'm excited for the movies, but the TV shows just make me burn out on superhero stuff really fast.
---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (May 7th, 2021, Scarlet Witch will be in it)
Thor: Love and Thunder (November 5th, 2021, Natalie Portman will reprise her role as Jane Foster)

looking forward to these

the rest....meh
---

Ive lost some excitement for the MCU after Endgame.

It kinda feels like that was a good way to end it
---

Very exciting. But Im concerned that we didnt see a date for Guardians 3. I thought it was atleast coming in 2021 at the latest? Anyone know any details?
---

FrozenBananas posted...

Very exciting. But Im concerned that we didnt see a date for Guardians 3. I thought it was atleast coming in 2021 at the latest? Anyone know any details?

https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/07/21/kevin-feige-teases-black-panther-2-guardians-3-captain-marvel-2/

Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3 has been in the works for some time. It hit a snag when director James Gunn was fired for inappropriate jokes made on Twitter years ago. Marvel never found a replacement, and he was rehired in March following pressure from the cast. Since Gunn is finishing up a Suicide Squad sequel for Warner Bros., the Marvel movie had to be put on hold and it is not clear when production will start.

^ Article posted 02/07/2019
---

Blade is uninteresting since we already had a trilogy, a tv show, and an anime. Plus he's not played by Terry Crews (who VA'd him in some of the more recent cartoon cameos)

Black Widow is meh unless they're recasting ScarJo. In general, BW basically killed ScarJo for me. I was iffy on her in IM2 and then Avengers was ugh.

Eternals is vaguely interesting mostly because I'm less familiar with the franchise, although I know Sersi from her Avengers run.

Shang-Chi I don't really know anything about, or care about.

Multiverse of Madness has my attention just for the possibility of Shuma-Gorath.

New Thor is... well, new Thor.

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Disney+ Stuff:
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Disney+. Fall 2020)
Hawkeye (Disney+, Fall 2021)
What if...? (Disney+, Summer 2021, animated series)
Loki (Disney+, Spring 2021)
WandaVision (Disney+, Spring 2021)

All of those titles -- except maybe Hawkeye -- sound intriguing.

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Blade (no other details AFAIK)

Well, they also announced that he wouldn't be played by Terry Crews >_> (By virtue of naming somebody else.) Presumably because Terry Crews will be too busy playing Triton in the LA Little Mermaid.
---

I have enough faith in the MCU at this point to trust they'll make stuff that sounds shit good.
---

Mead posted...

Ive lost some excitement for the MCU after Endgame.

It kinda feels like that was a good way to end it

Same. I still want to see more but I'm just kinda not compelled to anymore. If they start teasing Galactus that'd be lit

Zeus posted...

Blade is uninteresting since we already had a trilogy, a tv show, and an anime.

So was Spiderman, Xmen, and a lot of other movies. It can still be interesting on as its own thing
---

-Komaiko54- posted...

Mead posted...

Ive lost some excitement for the MCU after Endgame.

It kinda feels like that was a good way to end it

Same. I still want to see more but I'm just kinda not compelled to anymore. If they start teasing Galactus that'd be lit

idk, does Disney/Marvel actually have the rights back at this point?

-Komaiko54- posted...

Zeus posted...

Blade is uninteresting since we already had a trilogy, a tv show, and an anime.

So was Spiderman, Xmen, and a lot of other movies. It can still be interesting on as its own thing

Blade is no Spider-Man and the X-Men is a whole team with multiple configurations so that's something else entirely.
---

DevilSummoner1 posted...

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (May 7th, 2021, Scarlet Witch will be in it)
Thor: Love and Thunder (November 5th, 2021, Natalie Portman will reprise her role as Jane Foster)

looking forward to these

Add Blade to that and I agree.
---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (February 12, 2021)

This got me excited until I looked up who this dude is.
Was hoping they were FINALLY introducing The Mandarin, but...nope. Seems to be completely unrelated.
I guess now it would be rather pointless to introduce him, since Iron Man is dead

Might see the Black Widow movie though again, the timing of it is pretty terrible for....reasons.

I always unironically liked Hawkeye, but not getting some Disney streaming service just for that show.

streamofthesky posted...

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (February 12, 2021)

This got me excited until I looked up who this dude is.
Was hoping they were FINALLY introducing The Mandarin, but...nope. Seems to be completely unrelated.
I guess now it would be rather pointless to introduce him, since Iron Man is dead

Yeahhhhh... admittedly I had to google that myself just to see if it was the Mandarin's real name. Granted, the only upside is that anything involving the rings has the potential to include Fin Fang Foom who would be awesome to see in film -- and, if the hero is after the rings, then FFF (or one of the other alien dragons) could be the villain.
---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Blade (no other details AFAIK)
Black Widow (May 1st, 2020)
Eternals (November 6th, 2020)
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (February 12, 2021)
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (May 7th, 2021, Scarlet Witch will be in it)
Thor: Love and Thunder (November 5th, 2021, Natalie Portman will reprise her role as Jane Foster)

I'm super disappointed. I was hoping they'd reveal that they'd be releasing 1 new MCU per month. But nope, not enough MCU movies for me.
---

the Mandarin was literally in iron Man 3, they just made him shit

oh, no, I guess not

the Mandarin is actually gonna be in that movie

https://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/marvel/66539/shang-chi-movie-will-introduce-the-real-mandarin
---

Yeah the ten rings in the title is a dead giveaway that itll be mandarin related
---

Mead posted...

Yeah the ten rings in the title is a dead giveaway that itll be mandarin related

The Ten Rings part is why I automatically thought it had The Mandarin, yeah. But apparently he's going to be spoiler? the villain in that movie

Which honestly pisses me off more than if they just never did a true Mandarin in the MCU at this point, because he's Iron Man's best antagonist, and I wanted to see him in an Iron Man movie, and now we can't! If they were willing to portray him, he should've fucking been in the Iron Man movies!

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Blade (no other details AFAIK)
Black Widow (May 1st, 2020)
Eternals (November 6th, 2020)
Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (February 12, 2021)
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (May 7th, 2021, Scarlet Witch will be in it)
Thor: Love and Thunder (November 5th, 2021, Natalie Portman will reprise her role as Jane Foster)

Disney+ Stuff:
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Disney+. Fall 2020)
Hawkeye (Disney+, Fall 2021)
What if...? (Disney+, Summer 2021, animated series)
Loki (Disney+, Spring 2021)
WandaVision (Disney+, Spring 2021)

I'm excited for the movies, but the TV shows just make me burn out on superhero stuff really fast.

Here for all the bolded. Also if the Netflix/Hulu/TV Marvel didn't wear me out, I doubt disney+ will.
---

Mead posted...

Yeah the ten rings in the title is a dead giveaway that itll be mandarin related

Yup and they tell you who is playing he mandarin too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tViYoCHyS3Y" data-time="
---

streamofthesky posted...

Mead posted...

Yeah the ten rings in the title is a dead giveaway that itll be mandarin related

The Ten Rings part is why I automatically thought it had The Mandarin, yeah. But apparently he's going to be spoiler? the villain in that movie

Which honestly pisses me off more than if they just never did a true Mandarin in the MCU at this point, because he's Iron Man's best antagonist, and I wanted to see him in an Iron Man movie, and now we can't! If they were willing to portray him, he should've fucking been in the Iron Man movies!

in the comics, sure

in the cinematic universe, it's thanos
---

Zeus posted...

Black Widow is meh unless they're recasting ScarJo. In general, BW basically killed ScarJo for me. I was iffy on her in IM2 and then Avengers was ugh.

No, they're not recasting her. My assumption is they're going to turn that movie into a simultaneous prequel/launching point.

ie, it sort of starts out as the prequel origin story of Scarlett Johansson's character, so they use her pre-established star power/character to pull existing fans in. But then because it's almost certainly going to also involve her early life and the training program she was part of, it gives them the opportunity to introduce other characters, and they can ultimately bring a new Widow into future movies.

We already know they've cast Yelena Belova for the film, so there's the first blatant option right there. There've also been a few other Black Widows in the comics (and a few Red Widows as well), so I could see them going that route. Or they could just introduce an entirely new character they invent for the films to be a new Black Widow. Probably complete with a throughline where there's a scene where "new Widow" is inspired to idolize Nat in a moment of great importance, then at the end of the film you have the new Widow learn that Nat basically sacrificed herself to save the entire universe (well, half of it, anyway), and then be all like "Well, the world needs a Black Widow", and then bam, guest appearances in future films/Avengers 5.

It kind of feels like they're pushing the idea of legacy characters a bit harder in Phase 4 - Falcon Cap, shitty Jane Foster Thor, probably keeping either Pepper or Rhodey around with Iron Man suits and probably bringing Miles Morales into Spider-Man eventually (and potentially introducing Kamala Khan in a Captain Marvel sequel) - so I could definitely see them going that route with Black Widow.

(It's probably too much to hope for that they use the movie to introduce the Soviet Super-Soldiers/Winter Guard, But we basically already got that movie anyway, when the Russians made "Guardians" as an Avengers rip-off a few years back.)


---

Are we getting the new Asian hulk though?! I think his mom was in Age of Ultron.
---

Mead posted...

Ive lost some excitement for the MCU after Endgame.

It kinda feels like that was a good way to end it

yeah, we watched them hype up thanos and the Infinity stones for like 10 years. Staying as invested as I was after all that sounds exhausting
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Staying as invested as I was after all that sounds exhausting

I don't understand how it could be exhausting. Were you so hyped that you couldn't sleep or something?
---

SpeedDemon20 posted...

Are we getting the new Asian hulk though?! I think his mom was in Age of Ultron.

She was, but there's issues with making a straight Hulk movie, so we might never get Amadeus.

The best way to do him might be if they could do a Professor Hulk movie where they hang out for a while, though personally I think the only time he really worked as a character was when he was with Hercules. And I do really want an MCU Hercules film, but at this point they've sort of just turned Thor into Hercules' character.


---

Eventually we're going to reach a point where the MCU is making up superheroes out of whole cloth and the fans are going to lose their collective shits
---

Blighboy posted...

Eventually we're going to reach a point where the MCU is making up superheroes out of whole cloth and the fans are going to lose their collective shits

I dunno. The MCUnis being surprisingly delicate with a lot of these heroes, and theres also the fact that theres been like 100 versions of each character so theres never a 100% true version
---

We're dangerously close to the point where they're using comics characters who were probably only created to become MCU heroes, like Jane Thor and Ironheart. At this point I think the MCU might outlibe Marvel comics.
---

So are we going to have vampires in the MCU all of a sudden?

DrunkCaveman posted...

So are we going to have vampires in the MCU all of a sudden?

Wouldnt be too tough to explain since Agents of SHIELD has about every type of monster / mutant we can think of.
---

Blighboy posted...

We're dangerously close to the point where they're using comics characters who were probably only created to become MCU heroes, like Jane Thor and Ironheart. At this point I think the MCU might outlibe Marvel comics.

Im all for new kinds of characters but if they try to over-diversify the way they did with the comics itll probably hurt their bottom line, just like it did with their comic sales
---

I think the assumption that the average MCU fan has any relationship to the average comics fan is incorrect though.

Hell, I'd say at least half the "comics purists" who complain about the MCU online are only familiar with the characters through secondary media like cartoons and video games.

I think if the MCU fails now it will be because both of the major actors just left their roles. I don't think falling back on more obscure comic characters or less popular storylines will have a notable impact.
---

Blighboy posted...

Eventually we're going to reach a point where the MCU is making up superheroes out of whole cloth and the fans are going to lose their collective shits

That requires effort and thinking, and there are about 47 billion existing Marvel characters to use, from the major all the way down to that one guy who appeared in one comic back in 1974 but who's still listed in the Marvel wiki.

Most of the movies seem to start from the point of finding a popular storyline from the comics and then jumping off from there anyway, so most of the movies already have their cast list provided for them in advance.

You'll certainly get cases where a character is radically changed from their comic version (like Mordo in Doctor Strange, where they changed him from one-dimensional bad guy to legitimate good guy - and then eventually a more sympathetic and conflicted villain), and some things are never going to make it to the screen (ie, if they ever used someone like Brother Voodoo, he's going to be WAAAY different), and they might invent minor supporting characters here or there to help facilitate a plot or for comic relief (like Selvig and Darcy in Thor), but you likely won't get completely new characters.

The closest we might get is cases like where they're going to retcon Kate Bishop as a character into Hawkeye's daughter (hence the archery training in Endgame), or if they ever use Tony's daughter Morgan as the basis for Ironheart (which they probably won't, because stupid people will scream about whitewashing the character - though I can definitely see them playing her as a gender-swapped teen Tony to some degree).

My fear is more that, when they run out of the good characters that actually have stories worth telling, they're going to start dipping into the shittier ones, and we're going to get an avalanche of garbage characters. Basically, when people with childhood nostalgia for the worst excesses of the 90s or for the terrible stories of the 2010s start directing films.



Blighboy posted...

We're dangerously close to the point where they're using comics characters who were probably only created to become MCU heroes, like Jane Thor and Ironheart.

They weren't created to become MCU heroes, they were created to pander to Tumblr.

Which is much, much worse.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The closest we might get is cases like where they're going to retcon Kate Bishop as a character into Hawkeye's daughter (hence the archery training in Endgame)

I remember seeing people saying this, but I honestly don't think that just because Hawkeye was showing his daughter how to shoot a bow that she's going to take the place of a character. I do think it could happen, but not that it means it is going to happen.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Blighboy posted...

We're dangerously close to the point where they're using comics characters who were probably only created to become MCU heroes, like Jane Thor and Ironheart.

They weren't created to become MCU heroes, they were created to pander to Tumblr.

Which is much, much worse.

Wait what? I thought Jane Thor was already in the comics before? I swear I heard that.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

I remember seeing people saying this, but I honestly don't think that just because Hawkeye was showing his daughter how to shoot a bow that she's going to take the place of a character. I do think it could happen, but not that it means it is going to happen.

They're literally doing a Disney+ TV series that is supposed to be Hawkeye and his daughter having adventures. They just announced it.



AllstarSniper32 posted...

Wait what? I thought Jane Thor was already in the comics before? I swear I heard that.

Yes. In the comics, which were pandering to Tumblr.

They were literally quoting memes in the stories. And not in an "Oh, that's appropriate and/or clever" sort of way (the way they pop up in Ms Marvel, because Kamala is a teenager in the modern world, and is slightly nerdy/lame, so of course she's making doge references), but in a massive, ham-fisted, "Dear Jesus I am now less intelligent for having read that" sort of way.

Pretty much that entire run was a textbook example of how not to write stories. It was so, so bad.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

I remember seeing people saying this, but I honestly don't think that just because Hawkeye was showing his daughter how to shoot a bow that she's going to take the place of a character. I do think it could happen, but not that it means it is going to happen.

They're literally doing a Disney+ TV series that is supposed to be Hawkeye and his daughter having adventures. They just announced it.

From what I've heard about it, he's training Kate Bishop, which doesn't mean it's automatically his daughter. It could be, but I don't think his daughter's name is Kate Bishop. Unless the Barton family has two different last names or something.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Wait what? I thought Jane Thor was already in the comics before? I swear I heard that.

Yes. In the comics, which were pandering to Tumblr.

They were literally quoting memes in the stories. And not in an "Oh, that's appropriate and/or clever" sort of way (the way they pop up in Ms Marvel, because Kamala is a teenager in the modern world, and is slightly nerdy/lame, so of course she's making doge references), but in a massive, ham-fisted, "Dear Jesus I am now less intelligent for having read that" sort of way.

Pretty much that entire run was a textbook example of how not to write stories. It was so, so bad.

Doing a quick search, Jane Foster was first shown as Jane Thor in What If #10 in 1978. So they had the idea of having her as Thor long before it being it could pander to Tumblr.

oooo, it says there's a time when she becomes a Valkyrie?! I'd love to see Natalie Portman as a Valkyrie!!
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Doing a quick search, Jane Foster was first shown as Jane Thor in What If #10 in 1978. So they had the idea of having her as Thor long before it being it could pander to Tumblr.

Technically, she did not. In that comic, she became "Thordis". Not "Thor".

Either way, What If's rarely count for anything, as they're basically "fictional" stories even in the context of comics. It's the same reason we don't talk about that time when Aunt May was a herald of Galactus or when Stan Lee joined the Fantastic Four as serious parts of continuity.

Jane, as the female Thor, who calls herself "Thor" (as opposed to using a new name for herself), replacing the actual Thor who has become "unworthy", in a story set in the real Marvel universe as part of canon continuity, was effectively created in 2014, as part of a terrible, terrible story arc. THAT'S the version of the character we're going to be getting. There's no chance in hell the movie is going to be inspired by a one-off story from 40 years ago that most people don't even remember anymore. It will almost certainly be based, even if only in part, on one of the worst Thor storylines of the last 20 years.

And if that was the only problem with the concept, we could maybe assume they were clever enough to just lift the idea and work around the flaws (ie, what they tried to do with Civil War), but I don't feel like they can salvage the idea in the current environment.


---

I dunno I didnt like a lot of the forced wave of diversity comics that Marvel pushed for a while but I thought the Jane Foster Thor run was actually pretty good. Especially the whole dynamic around the fact that being Thor was giving her cancer and killing her
---

It's ironic because diversinazis is giving the movies cancer and killing masculinity among the nerd culture
---

Mead posted...

Especially the whole dynamic around the fact that being Thor was giving her cancer and killing her

It was sort of the other way around - she had the cancer first, and then becoming Thor was what kept her alive (because being Thor gave her strength). Constantly transforming was making her worse because it was preventing the chemo from working, so she eventually had to give up being Thor so she could give the treatment time to work.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Mead posted...

Especially the whole dynamic around the fact that being Thor was giving her cancer and killing her

It was sort of the other way around - she had the cancer first, and then becoming Thor was what kept her alive (because being Thor gave her strength). Constantly transforming was making her worse because it was preventing the chemo from working, so she eventually had to give up being Thor so she could give the treatment time to work.

Oh guess I remembered it wrong

Thats not as cool
---

Blighboy posted...

It's ironic because diversinazis is giving the movies cancer and killing masculinity among the nerd culture

Sarcasm aside, diversity isn't the problem. Forced diversity written by people who don't really relate to the characters they're writing in any way is the problem.

Miles Morales and Kamala Khan are probably two of the better characters Marvel's invented over the last 20 years or so (with only the flaw that both are legacy characters, because no one seems able to push diversity characters as their own entity without bolting them onto a more popular existing character first). Comic fans tended to latch onto them with a minimum of backlash. The same goes for Spider-Gwen, who was an unexpected success - even Marvel was surprised how quickly the fanbase fell in love with her as a concept.

DC hasn't been as good about this (and both Marvel and DC went through a desperate phase of trying to pander to everyone because their sales have been abysmal for like 15 years now), but even they have Jaime Reyes (though again, legacy character), Kyle Rayner (sort of), and they even managed to make Static pretty popular for a while (and then completely squandered him, but that's DC for you). And for about 20 minutes, "Batwing" almost seemed like it could be one of the few New 52 titles to be interesting... until it wasn't. But still!

We've seen enough successes to show that "diversity" characters can become popular if written well, and even the stereotyped "comic nerd" is willing to accept them (no matter how often people try to dismiss comic nerds as racist, sexist assholes), but there actually has to be more TO them as a character than "Hey, it's Iron Man, only now he's a black teenage girl".

The whole "character you know, only now in spicy ethnic flavor!" trend isn't even new - Marvel had Rhodey take over as Iron Man in the 80s, after all (and again, it was generally well-received because it was actually well-written). But there was definitely a period a few years back when both Marvel and DC seemed to be trying to reset, replace, or replicate nearly every major character they had in ways that just screamed pandering to Tumblr, because they loved how Tumblr would explode every time they made a new announcement.

Unfortunately, Tumblr doesn't actually buy comics, even if it enjoys complaining about them. So it didn't really help all that much, and Marvel at least has dialed things back a bit since then.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

they even managed to make Static pretty popular for a while

Are you referring to the television series that Cartoon Network aired over ten years ago?
---

EclairReturns posted...

ParanoidObsessive posted...

they even managed to make Static pretty popular for a while

Are you referring to the television series that Cartoon Network aired over ten years ago?

The show's actually closer to 20 years old at this point. It was originally on the WB, not Cartoon Network.

But the character was created in the 90s, as part of DC's independent "Milestone" imprint, which was itself basically an initiative to create a setting where most characters were minorities (mostly African-American). It kind of suffered from the killing blow of the comic crash of the era, and most of the characters were never really incorporated into the main DC universe due to complex rights issues, but after the Static cartoon was kind of a surprise success in the 2000s DC kind of brought the character into the main universe.

Static's a character who probably would have been pushed to the moon if he'd been invented by DC itself and wasn't tied up in the rights mess.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

THAT'S the version of the character we're going to be getting.

I never said it wasn't, I was just pointing out that Jane as female Thor was a concept already put to print long before Tumblr was a thing to pander to.

I'm not trying to make you like any of the upcoming MCU movies. You clearly show that you're not going to like them.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

I never said it wasn't, I was just pointing out that Jane as female Thor was a concept already put to print long before Tumblr was a thing to pander to.

Yes, but I'm dismissing that as something that doesn't matter.

Throwing out the idea of "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if Jane got Thor's hammer and got Thor's powers?" as as a one-off joke in a non-canon comic in the 70s doesn't really mean anything or influence anything if they proceeded to ignore the idea for 40 years. It's about as meaningful as some of the ridiculous things Superman did in Silver Age comics, or again, like the What If where Aunt May was chosen as a herald of Galactus. Or where Wolverine became king of the vampires. Or the story where Storm from the X-Men got a duplicate version of Thor's hammer and took his place as god of thunder in Asgard. Or the issue where Conan got transported to modern day NYC, had a sword-fight with a cab, and then sort of had a one-night stand with the wife of the guy who wrote the comic. What If? was a fun title, but it had a LOT of "let's throw it at the wall and see what sticks" ideas, because the people writing it knew that nothing really mattered.

Treating Jane as Thor as a serious concept and as a canon character that would be part of continuity going forward is something that didn't really exist before 2014. I'm not saying the mere idea of the character couldn't have been thought of or referenced earlier, but the only version of the character that really matters - especially in the context of this movie - is a very recent phenomenon.

But ultimately, it isn't even Jane as Thor (or any woman as Thor) that's the problem. It's how the story was handled in the comics. It was poorly written, poorly justified, and when people pointed that out the writer immediately became overly defensive and childish.

At least some of the problems of the comic won't be an issue in the movie (ie, the comic had an asinine justification for why Thor became "unworthy", in the films you have the Endgame justification of his failures, self-doubt and self-loathing, and years of wallowing in self-pity and gluttony/sloth to erode his worth), but some of the problems from the comic could easily still be adapted, and the film can create entirely new problems (ie, if he was still worthy enough in Endgame to literally steal Mjolnir from his past self and use it in combat with Thanos, what happens after that to suddenly make him not worthy enough to wield it? And what justification will there be to make JANE worthy, when she never really seems overly worthy in any way in prior films? Remember, just being a good person isn't enough - none of the Avengers other than Cap were able to lift it.)

It's not impossible to adapt a bad comic story into a good movie, and it's possible that Taika Waititi could pull it off. But as is it's more apt to inspire dread than optimism.

(And that's before we even get into issues like how making Thor 4 means that Thor won't be in Guardians of the Galaxy 3 - something James Gunn has already commented on - so we're basically sacrificing what could have been a neat idea for something that probably won't be as good. Or how the whole Jane thing kind of comes across as being a stunt, because Natalie Portman is unlikely to agree to keep doing these movies long-term - so either she only has the hammer for like 5 minutes in the movie as a swerve, loses it before the end of the movie, or keeps it but just never shows up in later stuff and people just ask where the hell she is the next time an alien invasion happens and she's nowhere around.)


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Treating Jane as Thor as a serious concept and as a canon character that would be part of continuity going forward is something that didn't really exist before 2014. I'm not saying the mere idea of the character couldn't have been thought of or referenced earlier, but the only version of the character that really matters - especially in the context of this movie - is a very recent phenomenon.

This is literally all you needed to post. And again, I never said the initial version was a serious concept or is what this movie is based on so I don't know why you keep saying that.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

This is literally all you needed to post. And again, I never said the initial version was a serious concept or is what this movie is based on so I don't know why you keep saying that.

That essentially IS what I posted. It really only became an issue because you decided to be pedantic.

And people already whine that I'm overwordy and tend to overexplain things. If I went out of my way to annotate and clarify every possible facet of everything I say, I'd be ten times worse and people would ignore what I was saying anyway, so it's not as if what you're suggesting would be a better option.


---

Somebody mention Captain America so PO can go on a tangent about how much he likes Nomad again
---

Blighboy posted...

Somebody mention Captain America so PO can go on a tangent about how much he likes Nomad again

Captain Marvel >>> Captain America

Jane Thor >>>> Thor Thor
---