The next Thor movie will be based on one of the worst modern storylines
Well look at that. True to his word, Kevin Feige and company have confirmed the Marvel movieverse will be taking up the same social justice themes and gender-swapping tactics Marvel gained notoriety for in the past several years, with Jason Aaron's Thor story where Jane Foster takes possession of his Uru hammer, powers and a man's name:
Predictably, Aaron himself couldn't have been more thrilled such a shoddy story he penned was considered the best material they could adapt for the silver screen:
And I'm sure he's proud at ensuring so many real Marvel fans would remain alienated as overrated writers like him keep the quality in as degraded and denigrated a situation as possible. And wouldn't you know it, even the Birmingham News site back in Aaron's native Alabama sugarcoated everything:
Well, it looks like the Marvel movie franchise is on its way to the decay it was bound to reach sooner or later. The question for now is - will it make money? Good question, when you consider how some people are just too naive to understand when a franchise loses whatever quality it may have had. Hopefully, more of the public will wake up and realize Disney's going downhill with their bad influence on their commercial properties, and it's time to start avoiding these farces taking their cues from bad publicity stunts.
To cheers loud enough to shake Valhalla to its foundations, Natalie Portman took the stage at San Diego Comic-Con’s Hall H with the mighty hammer Mjolnir in hand. Yes, Portman’s Jane Foster will become Thor in director Taika Waititi’s next Marvel Studios film “Thor: Love and Thunder.”Oh wow, look at them gush all over that overrated farrago, without even mentioning the jabs Aaron made at Gamergate for that matter. Not even the storyline where Thor lost his ability to lift the hammer because Nick Fury seemingly whispered something in his ear! Simply blatant.
The astrophysicist Foster became the Goddess of Thunder in comic book writer Jason Aaron’s extraordinary “Thor” series starting in 2014. Foster was dying of cancer but she found herself worthy of Mjolnir when Thor himself suddenly became unworthy — he would go on to call himself the Odinson and ride a freaky giant goat, while Foster’s Thor fought for justice. The only problem was that when she became Thor, the transformation each time would cause all the progress Foster had made with her chemotherapy to vanish. Being a superhero, being Thor, was the right thing for Foster to do — but it was literally killing her. Which made her all the more heroic, and thus all the more worthy of wielding Mjolnir.
Predictably, Aaron himself couldn't have been more thrilled such a shoddy story he penned was considered the best material they could adapt for the silver screen:
As one might expect from a comic creator who was just namedropped by Kevin Feige and Taika Waititi as a major inspiration for an upcoming blockbuster, Aaron took to Twitter earlier this morning to share his excitement over the film and Marvel Studios' decision to adapt his run.
Consider me thunderously excited. The Jane Foster Thor storyline I did with @rdauterman, (Eisner winner!) @COLORnMATT & so many more talented artists is one of my proudest moments in comics. I can't wait to see @TaikaWaititi & Natalie Portman bring the Goddess of Thunder to life. pic.twitter.com/3pylwsfR9e— Jason Aaron (@jasonaaron) July 21, 2019
And I'm sure he's proud at ensuring so many real Marvel fans would remain alienated as overrated writers like him keep the quality in as degraded and denigrated a situation as possible. And wouldn't you know it, even the Birmingham News site back in Aaron's native Alabama sugarcoated everything:
Flash back to 2014: Marvel announced the debut of a female Thor penned by comics writer Jason Aaron, who attended high school in Shelby County and graduated from UAB before moving to Kansas City. This generated a small furor among fans who accused Marvel of doing a cheap gender-swap on an iconic character just to generate attention, but Aaron’s storyline proved to be something much more substantial.Seeing how it left her mostly bald by the end of the story, that's why I thought it was insulting to the intellect. In any event, the whole notion she'd have to go through such nonsense and not at least get her own codename was artistically bankrupt, compounded lately by their changing her into a new Valkyrie. And since when hasn't sacrifice, moral or otherwise, been a part of any heroism in pop culture fiction? They're just virtue-signaling for the sake of it.
Jane Foster was a doctor suffering from cancer. When she transformed into the Goddess of Thunder she became near-invincible -- but the process interfered with her chemotherapy, leaving her ever-weaker when she resumed her human form. The character's bravest moments weren't when Thor battled dire cosmic foes. They were when the increasingly frail Foster repeatedly took up the hammer, knowing that each time she did so she took a step toward death. Sacrifice has rarely been such a large part of comic-book heroism.
Well, it looks like the Marvel movie franchise is on its way to the decay it was bound to reach sooner or later. The question for now is - will it make money? Good question, when you consider how some people are just too naive to understand when a franchise loses whatever quality it may have had. Hopefully, more of the public will wake up and realize Disney's going downhill with their bad influence on their commercial properties, and it's time to start avoiding these farces taking their cues from bad publicity stunts.
Labels: conventions, dreadful writers, marvel comics, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, Thor, women of marvel
Fine by me. I would prefer, however, if they're going to do a gender switch with large muscular "eye candy" men, that at least they star women with actually developed breasts, butts and hips. The "15 year old boy" look of Daisy Ridley and Natalie Portman may placate the ugly women who aren't stable enough to not be triggered by actually attractive women on screen but it's just another poke in the eye to the male audience.
#fireiger
Posted by
Mr. Bee |
12:55 PM
"Seeing how it left her mostly bald by the end of the story, that's why I thought it was insulting to the intellect."
She was on chemotherapy. Baldness is a side effect of it. it would be an insult to the intellect if she was on chemo and had flowing locks.
Natalie Portman unattractive? I think Mystery Bee is in a minority on that one!
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:03 PM
"without even mentioning the jabs Aaron made at Gamergate for that matter."
No reason why they should mention it; it has nothing to do with the movie.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:01 PM
Apparently, Love and Thunder's going to be even worse than what you reported, since they just outed Valkyrie as... well, technically bisexual, but really just a lesbian since they don't actually focus on the man-woman relationship side of things, and they're apparently going to make that a major focus of the film. Don't believe me? Here's more:
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/07/thor-love-and-thunder-will-see-valkyrie-in-lgbtq-relationship/89383/
Now it sounds like Disney's going to be making porn films just from the title.
Posted by
eotness |
7:18 PM
The issues for the movie makers are that actors age and superheros don't anymore, and that actors want more money when their contracts are up for renewal. To have a cinematic universe, you have to replace the aging actors with younger stars; and you can't just do remakes with new actors in the old roles, as that destroys continuity and takes a lot of the fun and momentum out of the movies. So, after 4 Avengers movies and 3 Thor movies and a guest star role in Captain America, they need a new Thor. One who is not a carbon copy. Hence, Jane.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:42 PM
Disney executives : "Let's make large tentpole movies that appeal to a tiny fragment of the population. If anyone asks it's not propaganda , it's representation."
me: The elites are in no shape or form trying to encourage young people to be gay or abandon normal gender behavior. This is the result of the masses clamoring for more queer representation and to discourage normal gender behavior. What was deemed alternative lifestyles twenty years ago, are now the lifestyles they aspire to.
lying sack of crap anon writes: "Natalie Portman unattractive? I think Mystery Bee is in a minority on that one!"
You need to work on your reading comprehension, anon .
Mr. Bee writes: "The "15 year old boy" look of Daisy Ridley and Natalie Portman may placate the ugly women who aren't stable enough to not be triggered by actually attractive women on screen but it's just another poke in the eye to the male audience."
Tomboys are often ugly in the eyes of straight men, that is the entire purpose of tomboys dressing like men; to repel men.
Posted by
Saber Tooth Tiger Mike |
3:54 PM
Natalie Portman dresses like a man?
Styles in sexiness change with time, like any other fad. One year it is Mae West, next year it is flappers. In the 50s people liked Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell; in the 60s it was Twiggy. Mistah Bee may prefer Roseanne Barr to Natalie Portman but not everybody feels that way. Meanwhile a lot depends on the individual- who you had your first romantic and sexual experiences with, who your most recent one was with, really shapes what turns you on.
Thing is though, if you want an action heroine, you want someone lithe and athletic, not someone with lots of body mass.
Women dressing like men used to be sexy and provocative; think Marlene Dietrich doing her number in Morocco. But now it don't mean nothing; there is no male item of clothing short of a jockstrap that women don't wear routinely as part of normal attire. They may wear their jeans tighter or with more rips, but unisex is an old pattern by now.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:58 PM
Lois Lane used to dress in a jacket and tie in the old 1940s Max Fleischer Superman cartoons; she looked cute.
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:19 AM