@jonny_anonymous: Is that any worse than when Eric Masterson stepped into the role instead of boosting someone like Beta Ray Bill or one of the Warriors Three, or Baldur?

@joshmightbe: That was just as bad but at least he was only pretending to be Thor so others didn't know he was gone, he wasn't claiming to be NuThor

@jonny_anonymous: But he was claiming to be Thor. When Red Norval was claiming to be Thor everyone knew he wasn't the Thor but they still went along with it.

The only significant difference that I see here is that Thor is both the character's real name as well as superhero name. This kind of thing happens a lot.

This has kind of gotten away from my original point that a lot of people have considered this for a long time.

@razzatazz: Gender swaps or female versions of male characters aren't exactly a new thing. In fact this isn't even the first time there has been a female version of Thor. Remember Thor-Girl.

I'd love if this Thor didn't speak in that old English jibberish (is that how you spell that?) I've honestly fallen asleep reading Thor multiple times because the way he speaks makes me tired.

Yes I know, only that this is a very iconic character, and iconically male. Still the idea has been played with a bit before.

@razzatazz: DC even has a whole gender swapped reality in their multiverse. There's nothing quite as unsettling as Black Condor's(Boy Black Canary) booty shorts.

Maybe the reason why for now there only calling the female Thor, Thor is because her real identity is still a secret to everyone and her true name will be revealed once her series starts. (Remember that Marvel is keeping this a secret)..

As for the change of ownership of Mjolnir - I don't mind..I mean Thor will still be Thor , he'll just end up using his old Axe (I just hope they make him as badass as his past self) Also I am expecting marvel to give Mjolnir back to Thor in the future anyways - this is just a passing thing..

As for Angela - I'm guessing she's going to make her debut close with the female Thor but I hope that she's going to have many scenes with the real Thor and bond with him - Like if Loki is the brother that annoys Thor then we could have Angela the sister that Thor can spar with.

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, it's not like this is the first time we've had a female Thor.

This is just another publicity stunt where an established character's race, gender or sexual preference (in this case it's gender) is changed to generate some media buzz and supposedly attract new readers.

Here is what's going to happen:

1. The first few issues will sell well and Marvel will declare the idea a success.
2. Sales will then plummet as the novelty wears off and most readers/buyers stop buying the series.
3. "Thor" will then revert to his true male self again and some fans will return to the character.
4. Some longtime Thor fans will still feel alienated due to the tampering with their favorite character and never return.
5. Thor will eventually be used in yet another publicity stunt to generate media buzz despite the possible harm to the character and alienation of core fans.

@sc:

Specifically not everything can be made curiosity inducing, your example is a significant change in sexual orientation by one of the if not the biggest superheroes of all time and really now its Superman so he is the biggest and sexual orientation is a big huge topic, and if DC decided to make Superman gay it would garner a lot of curiosity from people who don't read Superman comics.

Yes, it WOULD garner 'curiosity' - but the point is Thor is more POPULAR than Superman at this point. The sheer fact that Thor 2, made nearly as much money as Man of Steel, a reboot of the most 'iconic' superhero indicates how popular Thor is.

Thats a different issue as far as the issue of deciding whether its worth it or not. So risk reward. The reward with changing Superman that way wouldn't be worth the risk for DC. The rewards for Marvel in introducing a new female Thor are to them, worth the risk,

But what 'rewards'? Gaining new female readers? Perhaps temporarily, but we're not Marvel executives - we're fans of the comic books, of course we're not going to see eye to eye of how to make more money for Marvel.

Indeed, using controversy to sell is a risky tactic and can be a way to undermine a products long term sustainability and harm a solid and loyal fan base to a product but its common in comics which already has a cycle of reader drop off and readership gain. Regardless of whatever happens readers tend to drop off books only to be replaced and most comics sales trend towards declining save for when events boost them or number ones roll around or occasionally creative changes granting the fame/status of the creative team. That and each controversy has its own risk and reward ratio. Marvel already knows that after the initial buzz sales and attention will fade but thats still a potential extra 5 to 20 thousand dollar boost per issue sale that starts to fade from that point on, just as the book is already fading and has been fading even though you and me think that its a great run with a great character.

But that's the problem right there - Thor is a popular character. He has been because of the MCU - the trick isn't to use some cheap, lazy tactic of changing a character's gender and then billing it as 'diverse' - it's to at-least expand the character, market him more directly to the masses, Marvel changing a character's gender for a few extra bucks is why people are so angry. Though yes, it is a great run, thus far.

That they are throwing something away I can only take as your opinion, unless you want to assert the objective reasoning behind the claim. As an opinion its fair but not one I share, as I haven't read the stories yet. Similar the application of what is necessary and unnecessary? On what foundation do you assert this is unnecessary and as importantly what in comics do you view as necessary so we can make a comparison?

Becuse it is unnecessary, changing a character's gender for the sake of being diverse/gaining a few extra bucks is an unnecessary change, but moreso the former, the foundation is that it's a lazy, uninspired change.

Marvel does focus on many other female characters. Elektra, She Hulk, Ms Marvel, Captain Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Storm, they focus on them as they see fit as a business dealing with the creation of stories involving fictional characters but its priority is not randomly making some female characters more known to be rah rah girl power. Rather its looking at a characters potential and how their gender, background, supporting characters can be assets combined with a creative teams assets to make money and produce great stories and generate sales. The idea of a new female as Thor with the publicity it will generate and how that will affect sales for that title is a different approach than say giving Sif a new solo book. Personally I'd prefer a Sif solo but a Sif solo wouldn't generate the publicity that this new Thor book would, which goes back to my point about what is the motivation behind this new book and who its supposedly pandering towards. Unfortunately for me, a Sif solo book doesn't seem worth the risk or investment on Marvels part.

From a marketing standpoint, making Thor a female would generate publicity but it wouldn't last very long - the fact that Marvel feels the need to replace the main character of the book with a female character, and then bill this as 'diverse' does not speak well. Marvel have already billed Elektra, She-Hulk, etc as 'strong characters' - then why not include them in the Thor books themselves? Or in fact, expand Black Widow, who after all has gained newfound popularity?

Fans don't all have the same opinion, preference or idea about what they deserve or don't deserve. Your argument lacks any exclusivity. Its like if I said this is the book every single human who has ever lived has been waiting for and deserves. I mean its a bit empty, I get that you feel that way, but you and I can't speak for every fan.

But I can speak for MANY fans - you act as I am the only one who is complaining, but I'm not - otherwise there would not be controversy. I think, to deny that fans of the series have reacted negatively, cannot be ignored because there is a valid reason for the backlash.

Your basis for such claims? Every study and business related article, professional consensus on how comic book movies affects comic book sales points to CBM have little to no effect on comic sales. You are right that it does make more people aware of such characters and that in itself can be very valuable and that there is benefit and smoothing the lines between the comic reality and comic book reality but most of that is for fans of both mediums stories rather than a serious hook for fishing in new readers. Which doesn't matter too much as I explained Thor is still around and going to be around and if anything closer to his MCU incarnation with his grizzled look and probably rougher moral edges.

My basis for this claim is this website. Many people joined this website because of the MCU, and many people joined because of the Batman movies, many people get into comics because of animated media. I can find several threads which say they joined because of Batman TAS, or The Dark Knight, comics actually push what the movies show. Superman's been modelled after Christopher Reeve and Henry Cavill, Bane's been modelled after TDKR Bane, Marvel have made attempts to base their comics on the MCU, it's clear that comics are able to capitlize on the movie counterpart's success.

Who needs a optimistic view when you can have a realists view and understanding of the comic book industry and why and how it aces creative decisions? =p Do the things I assert above sound like sucker to Marvel or DC?

But we're not Marvel executives, unless you are, I'm sure as hell not - a creative decision needs to be CREATIVE, is making Wally West black a creative decision? Is making Alan Scott creative? Or does it cry desperate/pandering?

Marvel has done their market research of course before doing this. They wouldn't have done it if they were not convinced 100% that it would make more money.

Of course......

Changes like this can only work for so long, temporarily that is, just as Superior Spider-Man and Bucky Barnes Captain America were only temporary.

Hey you want to bet on that? Oh wait, I would lose.....it wouldn't even be close. Too easy to call eh?

@wardishy, thanks for posting the link to the Jason Aaron interview. What I thought was interesting was this line....

"I knew when I took over Thor that at some point I wanted to do a Beta Ray Bill-style story...."

Man, when the heck is BRB going to get a push? In all likelihood, it probably wouldn't do well if it was a solo series but he is due! Again, if there was to be another Thor/Asgard book, they already have enough characters to push.

Well as I said before, people will always say that something is impossible until it is proven otherwise. Those resisting female Thor are just literary luddites.

@frozen said:

If thats your point then why make a statement like anything can gain curiosity? It feels like a bit of a merry go round where you just take a contrarian stance. Individuals assertions about the perception of popularity of fictional characters never holds any real weight in the way you applied it, so even though movie sales involve hard numbers and can be used as a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions, your example here in movie sales isn't a good basis for gauging a fictional characters popularity, especially when dealing with characters across multiple mediums whose property is also tied to other characters and entity's and where dealing with such a large audience as presumably everyone. There are factors like cultural osmosis and the various and multiple reasons individuals invest into products and the differences between investing in a product feating a character and the character themselves. Your example is basically oversimplified is what I am saying. I mean I could just say nah uh Superman is more popular at this point, but as popularity as defined by how and to who and by what measurements? In what context? In what relevance to ability to sell product? Or attract attention to other products? Superman for example is traditionally an attraction of his own contrasted with his association with DC who could be reduced as that company who owns Superman. Thor on the other hand benefits much greater being associated with Marvel as much as he is an attraction on his own. All these little subtle nuance details that should be factored in.

I already listed the rewards. Mainstream media attention and the level of which right now will probably boost the first couple of the new Thor title by multiple thousands (dollars in profit) even with the initial drop off from issue one sales, and will probably last a few months before dropping back as almost all titles do regardless of online internet fan backlash or praise. So just more general readers of any gender. We don't have to be Marvel execs or see eye to eye, a few months from now we can compare Thor's current sales to the sales of the new title and its patterns and see who drew accurate conclusions or not.

Thor's been pretty popular even prior MCU, in fact his rise in popularity began when JMS started his run and its JMS's run that was a large catalyst and source for the MCU Thor. Thor was selling in the top 20 then even though its release schedule was erratic and often delayed which usually kills other books. You continuously make assertions about how the move is "lazy", "cheap" and "unnecessary" but you haven't established that it is yet, outside of your opinion. This creative decision is inspiring, beautiful, amazing, incredible, wonderwoser and fanflippingtastically hunky dory but me repeating that to you and others over and over doesn't really mean anything. So what secret insider information do you know that this change was for the sake of being diverse and "making a few extra bucks"? Oh wait sorry sorry, Mr Jason Aaron? I had no idea I was talking to an actual writer. My apologies, big fan here, especially of your awesome beard.

I jest naturally, hopefully I don't come off to annoyingly sarcastic heh heh. When Marvel released Thor issues two months ago, that too was to make a few extra bucks, and I am willing to take the writers word at face value as far as them having planned this for a while and for organic reasons that they see fit creative wise. I mean name some titles you like and some creative decisions you thought were good and I can just as easily apply skepticism to tell you how it was actually communism propaganda and completely unnecessary. When we are speculating about such things in this context its very easy to run away with assumptions and speculations. So do you think Jason Aaron is deceptive and duplicitous and towing the line as a Marvel stooge?

From a marketing perspective no changes including the ones you are in favor of last long (relatively), marketing and comic companies are always having to change things up and attempting implementing new and fresh ideas, tweaking and modifications, creating new buzz and generate new excitement over and over constantly. Its a cycle, especially in comics because of the way the fan life cycle works in comics. Its understood that long time and short term readers tend to drop off and that new readers come aboard and that somewhere in the middle is a large percentage of ongoing readers. So when you say "it won't last very long" - this is not new news to anyone who knows and is involved in this decision, and as such its not expected to last long, just long enough to get that boost in sales which does gradually decline but is well worth it and has the potential to create a new valuable IP that can be an attraction in the future. Lots of users have tried to criticize the idea as this new character will just be remembered as a temporary Thor, but thats working really well for Beta Ray Bill who also tends to produce sales spikes and is a cult favorite character. Then you can't just fan idea solutions or alternatives into place. Why doesn't Marvel just team up with DC and create a mini series promoting its top female characters? Why doesn't Marvel just make a Black Widow and Wolverine mini series, since Wolverine sells everything? Why doesn't Marvel give Tigra Thor's hammer and so give her a power boost? Its because they aren't. That and maybe Jason Aaron doesn't want to write those stories and maybe Marvel understands that those creative decisions and announcements can't be exploited the same way to gain mainstream media attention and publicity the way this creative decision would. Its very simple. That and Marvel is already taking advantage of Black Widows popularity with her ongoing series, a series mind you that is outsold by 10k by another female character who has no connection to the MCU, Ms Marvel who again was heavily criticized and victim to accusations of pandering to PC types and feminists but yet whose mainstream media attention has resulted in strong sales helped by the fact its quality writing and story telling. Incidentally rechecking some numbers Kamala outsells Thor too now and then. Pretty telling.

Perhaps better to say that your comments echo that of many others and I am well aware that many, many, many others are compiling and have similar complaints and criticisms, just as many did for Ms Marvel, and Loki being turned into a kid, and Loki being turned into a woman, and Thor losing his Kirby designed costume and Marvel Now and New 52 and Superman's speech about belonging to the entire world and not just the USA and Shatterstar being gay, and a lot of those times the assumptions and fears were inaccurate and we got great stories out of those creative ideas with both short term and long term ramifications. Some of those decisions actually becoming the new default status quo. There is always controversy its human nature to assume, fear, worry, and obsess about things, especially to do with change and especially when it comes to things they are invested in. So I understand and empathize with fans heavy dislike and distaste and criticism for such changes and I think some of that can be well founded. Also doesn't mean that a bunch of people with little to no understand of comics industry or creative story telling are having severe knee jerk reactions to a creative change not yet experienced as far as the actual product and its quality because they are emotional and prone to make inaccurate assumptions and because they are heavily invested in an idea and change is unexpected and hard to understand. The same can apply to those that blindly defend ideas and concepts too, hence why sincere dialogue can help distinguish between the two. Oh and the number of people complaining about something has no bearing on the validity or soundness of their collective complaints and criticisms. it might be nice finding people to agree with you but ultimately inconsequential to how things may actually end up. The best thing about all this is that we can just wait a few months and see how good the female Thor written Aaron stories

Oh I know many cite CBM's as reasons they joined this site but those are small insignificant numbers in the grand scheme of things. Based on this website and how much Thor is talked about compared to Kamala Kahn, and that he is MCU popular one could assume his book sells a lot more, alas.

I don't need to be a Marvel executive to know the comic books industry and marketing especially well. My post is already long enough with talking about other characters creative decisions, but I can point out that not all creative moves and decisions are the same, naturally. Each can be discussed in depth as far as the motivations behind, risks and rewards associated, fan perception and fan action and how they can differ and all that.

Not wanting a character, especially an all-time great character, unnecessarily altered/tampered with doesn't make one a literary luddite. It simply means one finds the existing character is fine the way he or she already is and doesn't want to, in a sense, 'lose' that character.

And to add to this, it's pointless to make a new female character a replacement of a male hero. Because at the end of the day, this new female hero won't be her own unique character that stands out from the others in the Marvel Universe. Her sole claim to fame will be the one time she replaced Thor for a year or so. Has Eric Masterson gone down in the history books as an important change in Thor's history? Or has it been just a blip on the overall quality of Thor stories? This criticism does not make one a literary luddite Razza, it's a highly fallacious and incorrect claim to make of critics of this move. It means there's no point changing something for a temporary PR stunt that's going to changed in a year or when the next Marvel movie comes out. Thus making it pointless pandering in the first place.

@sc: Much of your post does include Sarcasm, that aside.

If thats your point then why make a statement like anything can gain curiosity?

Why not? Superman being made gay can gain curiosity. Batman being made black can gain curiosity. And Thor being replaced by a female, can gain curiosity.

It feels like a bit of a merry go round where you just take a contrarian stance. Individuals assertions about the perception of popularity of fictional characters never holds any real weight in the way you applied it, so even though movie sales involve hard numbers and can be used as a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions, your example here in movie sales isn't a good basis for gauging a fictional characters popularity, especially when dealing with characters across multiple mediums whose property is also tied to other characters and entity's and where dealing with such a large audience as presumably everyone.

Let’s break this down. Movies increase the popularity of the character – the character in question here, is Thor. Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy, undoubtedly increased Batman’s popularity as a character, as did Tom Hardy’s Bane, which made the character of Bane known to the people. Richard Donner’s Superman: The Movie, clearly made the character even more popular – the movies are what cement the character to the public, or can accomplish that. Robert Downey Jr’s Iron Man for example, did just that.

There are factors like cultural osmosis and the various and multiple reasons individuals invest into products and the differences between investing in a product feating a character and the character themselves. Your example is basically oversimplified is what I am saying. I mean I could just say nah uh Superman is more popular at this point, but as popularity as defined by how and to who and by what measurements? In what context? In what relevance to ability to sell product? Or attract attention to other products? Superman for example is traditionally an attraction of his own contrasted with his association with DC who could be reduced as that company who owns Superman. Thor on the other hand benefits much greater being associated with Marvel as much as he is an attraction on his own. All these little subtle nuance details that should be factored in.

Let’s factor in the nuance details. Let’s compare the two comic book characters from their latest respective movies. 2013’s Man of Steel, made $668,045,518, by comparison, 2013’s Thor: The Dark World made $644.8 million, nearly as much with a much smaller budget of at-least $40 million less, despite all of Superman’s iconic baggage, Thor was able to establish himself with more obstacles against him as a character – that’s a good, clear and empirical indication that Thor is more popular, yes, the movie made less money (slightly), but with YOUR admissions of details, etc, Superman had more, or should have had more going for him.

I already listed the rewards. Mainstream media attention and the level of which right now will probably boost the first couple of the new Thor title by multiple thousands (dollars in profit) even with the initial drop off from issue one sales, and will probably last a few months before dropping back as almost all titles do regardless of online internet fan backlash or praise.

These aren’t really rewards, an early boost in sales doesn’t cement anything, the Superman/Wonder Woman book was written for the same reason and it plummeted in the expectations it was held to, this ‘’boost’’ is only temporarily and is a cheap gimmick, a reward is moreso in line with something that can be made sure, the New-52 could have been seen as a ‘reward’ by gaining new readers, but instead, new readers joined and old readers left, they were left with the same dilemma.

People won’t instantly flock to their nearest comic book store to buy the new Thor, however people can easily just stop buying the book altogether.

So just more general readers of any gender.

Making a change doesn’t necessitate ‘general’ readers – did making Wally West black gain general black readers? Did making Alan Scott gay gain gay readers? Etc.

We don't have to be Marvel execs or see eye to eye, a few months from now we can compare Thor's current sales to the sales of the new title and its patterns and see who drew accurate conclusions or not.

Not really, you’re going to have to compare the sales over a long period of time, at-least by November 2015, we can have a good picture of how the sales went down

Thor's been pretty popular even prior MCU, in fact his rise in popularity began when JMS started his run and its JMS's run that was a large catalyst and source for the MCU Thor. Thor was selling in the top 20 then even though its release schedule was erratic and often delayed which usually kills other books. You continuously make assertions about how the move is "lazy", "cheap" and "unnecessary" but you haven't established that it is yet, outside of your opinion. This creative decision is inspiring, beautiful, amazing, incredible, wonderwoser and fanflippingtastically hunky dory but me repeating that to you and others over and over doesn't really mean anything. So what secret insider information do you know that this change was for the sake of being diverse and "making a few extra bucks"? Oh wait sorry sorry, Mr Jason Aaron? I had no idea I was talking to an actual writer. My apologies, big fan here, especially of your awesome beard.

Here’s the thing, this change being lazy and uninspired has a base. The comments from the Marvel executives themselves confirm this. Now, you say they aren’t pandering – cool. But…let’s look at the comments, shall we?

Marvel is excited to announce an all-new era for the God of Thunder in brand new series, THOR, written by Jason Aaron (Thor: God of Thunder, Original Sin) complimented with art from Russell Dauterman (Cyclops).

This October, Marvel Comics evolves once again in one of the most shocking and exciting changes ever to shake one of Marvel’s "big three" – Captain American, Iron Man and Thor – Marvel Comics will be introducing an all-new THOR, GOD OF THUNDER. No longer is the classic male hero able to hold the mighty hammer, Mjölnir, a brand new female hero will emerge will who will be worthy of the name THOR. Who is she? Where did she come from and what is her connection to Asgard and the Marvel Universe?

"The inscription on Thor’s hammer reads ‘Whosoever holds this hammer, if HE be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.’ Well it’s time to update that inscription," says Marvel editor Wil Moss. "The new Thor continues Marvel’s proud tradition of strong female characters like Captain Marvel, Storm, Black Widow and more. And this new Thor isn’t a temporary female substitute – she’s now the one and only Thor, and she is worthy!"

Series writer Jason Aaron emphasizes, "This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe. But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before."

THOR is the latest in the ever-growing and long list of female-centric titles that continues to invite new readers into the Marvel Universe. This female THOR is the 8th title to feature a lead female protagonist and aims to speak directly to an audience that long was not the target for Super Hero comic books in America: women and girls.

Seems like pandering to me, does it not?

From a marketing perspective no changes including the ones you are in favor of last long (relatively), marketing and comic companies are always having to change things up and attempting implementing new and fresh ideas, tweaking and modifications, creating new buzz and generate new excitement over and over constantly. Its a cycle, especially in comics because of the way the fan life cycle works in comics.

And that’s the problem. The cycle needs to be broken. Aaron was leaving things open in his run, Aaron was teasing making Thor’s run more cosmic, expanding the 9 realms and introducing a love interest….now, this change came out of nowhere, and we’re at a time where comics are becoming annoyingly desperate. Which is WHY they’re not ‘’fresh’’ --- hey, let’s make Thor a female! We’ll bring diversity! Isn’t fresh, it stinks of what’s wrong with comics these days.

Its understood that long time and short term readers tend to drop off and that new readers come aboard and that somewhere in the middle is a large percentage of ongoing readers. So when you say "it won't last very long" - this is not new news to anyone who knows and is involved in this decision, and as such its not expected to last long, just long enough to get that boost in sales which does gradually decline but is well worth it and has the potential to create a new valuable IP that can be an attraction in the future.

Not really. Making Superman and Wonder Woman a couple brought new readers, but it also lost old – did it create a new ‘IP’? Or did it simply anger people because they didn’t want the respective company to screw them around? Superior Spider-Man was the same, did it bring new readers? It made a change to Marvel’s (truly) biggest character, was it ‘’well worth it’’? Nope. It doesn’t create attraction, creating an attraction needs real creativity, deciding to change Thor’s gender is a fad.

Lots of users have tried to criticize the idea as this new character will just be remembered as a temporary Thor, but thats working really well for Beta Ray Bill who also tends to produce sales spikes and is a cult favorite character. Then you can't just fan idea solutions or alternatives into place

Beta Ray Bill isn’t Thor’s replacement, and in fact he very much is his own character, he wasn’t created to appeal to a certain demographic (women). Who do you think Beta Ray Bill would appeal to? Horses? Donkeys? He’s very much a Cosmic character with his own story, whereas Fem Thor is a literal replacement with Aaron’s own words….

‘’This IS Thor’’

Why doesn't Marvel just team up with DC and create a mini series promoting its top female characters? Why doesn't Marvel just make a Black Widow and Wolverine mini series, since Wolverine sells everything? Why doesn't Marvel give Tigra Thor's hammer and so give her a power boost? Its because they aren't. That and maybe Jason Aaron doesn't want to write those stories and maybe Marvel understands that those creative decisions and announcements can't be exploited the same way to gain mainstream media attention and publicity the way this creative decision would. Its very simple. That and Marvel is already taking advantage of Black Widows popularity with her ongoing series, a series mind you that is outsold by 10k by another female character who has no connection to the MCU, Ms Marvel who again was heavily criticized and victim to accusations of pandering to PC types and feminists but yet whose mainstream media attention has resulted in strong sales helped by the fact its quality writing and story telling. Incidentally rechecking some numbers Kamala outsells Thor too now and then. Pretty telling.

Because DC has it’s own character – Wonder Woman. And DC have shoehorned with Superman in the most forced, dull and boring relationship one could imagine. Marvel does sell Black Widow, but she actually has appeared in Aaron’s run, surprise surprise. Would making Wonder Woman a man help male readers? Would making Batman black help black readers? Would making Superman gay help gay readers? If each of these changes had ‘’strong storytelling’’, it wouldn’t escape the fact that the characters in question are getting ruined. To assert that looks don’t matter, and that ‘what’s inside counts’ in comics is simply fallacy.

Perhaps better to say that your comments echo that of many others and I am well aware that many, many, many others are compiling and have similar complaints and criticisms, just as many did for Ms Marvel, and Loki being turned into a kid, and Loki being turned into a woman, and Thor losing his Kirby designed costume and Marvel Now and New 52 and Superman's speech about belonging to the entire world and not just the USA and Shatterstar being gay, and a lot of those times the assumptions and fears were inaccurate and we got great stories out of those creative ideas with both short term and long term ramifications.

Here’s the thing – what you’re listing is adding to the dump. People are getting tired of too many changes in such a short space of time. They’re tired of being shoe-horned and DC/Marvel saying ‘’we’re aiming for diversity’’ etc etc. Why can’t people just have Thor’s story continue as they want? Why must everyone who deny such changes be labelled as ‘raging fanboys’? Has it not gotten to the point where people will blindly defend the companies without question? That fans don’t have a right to be angry with pandering companies?

Oh I know many cite CBM's as reasons they joined this site but those are small insignificant numbers in the grand scheme of things. Based on this website and how much Thor is talked about compared to Kamala Kahn, and that he is MCU popular one could assume his book sells a lot more, alas.

How? Thor’s overall status, being increased in popularity with the MCU benefits the overall Avengers books/stories, it gives Marvel incentive to CAPITALIZE on the success, many on this website, did join because of the MCU, is that not an indication of how people have joined because of a popular film franchise? Just as they did with Nolan’s Batman trilogy.

But you don't know that the character is lost, that is a knee jerk reaction which is impossible to know at this point. Whatever the writer has in mind, it has to involve more than "a female Thor". There has to be a lot of story behind it and I am sure that it will be good. A lot of such cases in comics have provided some of the best stories.

I think in the interest of the book and in the overall point of this discussion, that SM-WW was not designed with some great story in mind (or at least from what I can see from JL, SM and SM-WW.) It was created for the novelty of the relationship, something which a few Superman fans thought would be awesome. I didn't read anywhere in reference to this decision that Johns though that he had a great story in mind. In contrast to that though the new writer of Thor says that he does have a great story in mind. I am not sure why people would want something else. A writer evolves alongside their characters, and if this is the evolution of the writing, then so be it. Give it a chance.

It's not knee-jerk to want a character to remain the same character. The story might turn out to be good, that's not hard to admit, but when something as integral as the character's gender is changed then the character is effectively a new character and the original character is lost. You say you're "sure that it will be good" but how can you be sure? Your certainty of the story being good could be construed as a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of female Thor.

As I pointed that out. Its almost as if I am aware of my own sarcasm. Saying everything can cause curiosity and then using select examples of incredibly popular characters changing in characteristics in ways that are already controversial and subject to much interest and attention is very strange. Its like if I said that everyone can be an A-List celebrity because look Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp are.

You have made a common assumption that has been proven factually incorrect. You still haven't established your definition of application of popularity. If by "popularity" you mean general awareness then sure, but characters are multifaceted, and a facet of a character becomes more generally known to an audience but whole that affects the popularity of the character depends on how you define and distinguish popularity and that character.

Your movie evidence is that the Thor movie made similar amount of money to a Superman movie, but unless you assume that the only reason that people go to see movies corresponds to the definition of popularity you are using in your example for these characters then your evidence isn't good evidence. People we know don't go to see movies because of how attracted they are to the title character. That may be how you select movies and comics but not the general mainstream. Oh and yeah sure, in one sense Superman does have more going for him in cinema, thats why Marvel was praised so heavily for their successes with Thor and Iron Man and their MCU because they took "risks" as far as what characters many asserted could garner public interest with minimal mainstream recognition. Then again Marvel/Disney factor and knowing how to market a movie helps a lot so arguably the risks weren't really actual and more to do with perceptions.

Except they are rewards. Look, I enjoy talking discussing this with you but if you are going to reject thousands of dollars for a product where thousands of dollars is a good sizable percentage of that products sales generation as "not a reward" then we should probably just focus all our discussion there. What assumptions have you made on what is intended to be cemented here? I haven't followed Superman/Wonder Woman book sales wise nor do I know Charles Soule well enough to know what DC expected of him nor do I know what DC was really expecting as well to gauge whether it was a success, moderate success, acceptable loss or a failure but I also do not know the criteria you are applying and how credible it is as well. Either way using it as an example isn't really necessary is it, granting that you presumably know as much about Marvel and its expectations and so can gauge whether they will met, exceed or fail with their expectations? Oh and most books major creative changes are made for the same reason, and they all vary in success and meeting expectations naturally. New 52 is a moderate success. It put a lot of pressure on Marvel who were able to take pointers from DC and apply it to Marvel now another moderate success. Competition has been good for both companies.

People already stop reading regardless of creative changes. You could name the best Thor issue of the last decade and that issue would have still been the last for plenty of readers. Marvel and DC know this and figuratively speaking people actually do flock to comic stores for such issues. As Razzatazz pointed Marvel are committing to this, they are making it an issue number one, its probably going to make over three times what the current sales of TGOT are and then dip to half that.

You say is Marvel looking to get more female readers… I say its going to get more readers of all genders… you reply by asking if a character made black is going to attract more black readers? Its the merry go round thing again.

Yeah sure I am still going to be here in November 2015, and I'll probably remember this conversation and blog, I can bump it then if you wish? A few months and longer time spans will reveal all sorts of answers to speculation and assumptions made by us today.

Some of it sounds like PR talk, thats generally true of all announcements to the public made by comic companies and just businesses and companies that sell products to the public. Some of it sounds pretty sincere and to dispel misconceptions that some readers might have. An important aspect here is that some people understand that this is an announcement designed to create buzz and attention and its attempting to gain the interest of a majority that for who comics is just a casual interest rather than an announcement made for those that have a deep understanding of comics industry. So I can understand he claim of Marvel being duplicitous or appearing as pandering but actual pandering? Much more likely the claims of someone unfamiliar with how the comics industry or general company and business public relations work.

So your basically you made assumptions about where Aaron's run was going but they turned out incorrect? Aaron teasing certain story plots is your assumption that you should acknowledge. Don't worry, this announcement took me by surprise as well, but I generally don't make assumptions and then expect them to come true. our also a fan of comics yes? So every creative decision and idea you have been a favor of has been because of that cycle. Picking and choosing what works and doesn't is a subjective process. Generally one would hope the favorable ideas and exception of ideas happens more often than not.

Then you continue to assert things not established. I mean, would you prefer I just answered your post by saying "I am right over and over" again hoping that if I am confident about it I don't have to explain or reason the foundations of my point? I know this might not be how other users construct arguments with you in say Battles, but repetition and vehemence doesn't make a point more valid or sound. No company or writer just thinks, hey lets make Thor a female. Hell, Thor was drafted from mythology and you have no problem with that because you are used to it and it didn't exceed your personal expectations or assumptions because you were familiar with it presumably from your first exposure. So if I could sum up your entire posts criticisms and arguments is that they rest entirely on your assumptions and what you think Marvel is aiming for. When your arguments consist of you magically knowing why Marvel is doing this of course its easy to come up with an argument that sounds semi reasonable.

Yes really (great argument right heh heh) Wonder Woman and Superman are existing IP's so naturally different situation and I am not familiar with the goals of what DC were trying to do there but its fallacious to think that all creative decisions are similar because you just happen to think they are. I am not familiar with the reasons why DC put Superman and Wonder Woman together, I am critical of that general idea myself with my own reasons, but a lot of my reasons include speculation and assumptions which I am fine with acknowledging. So I have multiple layers of arguments and criticism, some that rely on assumptions, others that don't. They are specific and nuanced to that situation because why would I risk oversimplifying a situation just because I am critical of something? Oh and from what I remember Superior Spider-man did actually bring in new readers and it was received many favorable critical praise. On some internet sites where people will complain about anything and everything it had a negative reputation. Different situation, different rewards and different risks ultimately as well. To explain even further Sif is an IP and even though her starring role in Journey Into Mystery was financially a failure it helped flesh out the character and modernize them a fair bit, something that can be capitalized on in the future. Different risks, different rewards.

Beta Ray Bill was a replacements of sort, his character questioned Thor's worthiness and there was a period where it was unrevealed who would take upon the mantle and contract to many peoples ideas Beta Ray Bill actually has had the title of Beta Ray Thor because of the transformation, and if you are familiar with letter pages printed back then there was much outrage about the idea of this character replacing Thor. He's very much his own character now after decades of development and story telling naturally. Hence the comparison. In a few months or years if you look back and see that Thor book sold the numbers I asserted it will and that this new character may have carved out their own small niche, how would you react? If the new female Thor book comes out and it sells under 40k and dies a quick death and ever is seen again, you'll definitely find me admitting I was wrong and that Marvel overestimated this move and that it was a poor creative decision from Jason Aaron. That would be no problem for me to admit at all.

You have to be careful how you use the word literal. A bit of semantics here but words have multiple meanings and applications depending on context. The new female Thor is a direct placement in the sense she is going to be referred to as Thor. Not a replacement in that she physically will take the same spacial dimensions as Thor occupies, not a replacement in the sense she is Thor physically altered to be a woman. If you are just here to make assertions and defend them vehemently you will not find me accommodating at all, understanding what another person or a writer says and means is much more important than insisting what they mean because it suits the argument you have created to justify how you feel about something. Especially if you are wrongly assuming I am acting as if you are the only one making criticisms, as it demonstrates a pattern of making inaccurate assumptions. This also may mean we can disagree and agree even if it doesn't sound like it. Like if your argument for why Beta Ray Bill is not a considered replacement is because he maintained his Beta Ray parts of name, and was only transformed whilst holding the hammer and Thor could have held the hammer as well and that it was only a relatively short story after which Beta Ray Bill received his own hammer then I would agree with you but that would be a fairly specific application and exclusion of the word replacement also hinging on hindsight some decades later after the event.

Some people are getting tired of changes, some people also make assumptions and consider them gospel lacking either the knowledge or self awareness to consider they might not be accurate. Well your speak to me now, so I am not sure where I have labelled anyone as a raging fanboy, but generally when people make assumptions, introduce tangents that do not relate to addressing other arguments its typically a sign of frustration or emotive reactions to ideas, stimuli, processes and change. Like you keep introducing extreme hypotheticals for examples even though the examples have different ideas behind their changes. Then you address challenges to your points where no challenges or counter arguments have been made by me and declare them fallacious. You make big leaps like that a few times, its like as if I told you that its really wrong for people to kick puppies. It just is and anyone that thinks that because having bit feet justifies kicking puppies is guilty of making fallacious arguments.

I'd guess I could probably criticize Marvel and DC more deeply and harshly than you could, I am a naturally critical person, so your rhetoric falls flat. Oh how about this one, okay so I am going to assert that Marvel and DC are racist? I won't established how thats accurate but now i am going to say how is it okay for Marvel and DC readers to blindly support pro racist companies and get annoyed by fans of people like me who oppose racism when I criticize Marvel and DC for being racist. See now anything you say as criticism I can just dismiss as being blind even if your trying to tell me my accusation/assertion Marvel and DC is inherently racist is inaccurate. When you vehemently assert that your accusation is right its easy to make any sort of argument. So yeah folks have the right to be angry, but being angry doesn't mean being accurate, right, sound, valid or reasonable, and anger usually impairs a persons ability to be those things as well. Which is why many people suggest many peoples reactions is a knee jerk reaction or why people use the term luddite.

Many people also think the world is flat. Numbers are relative, so your personal experience or my personal experience with a website and other individuals history of and relationship with characters and IP and companies use of doesn't hold up on the bigger scale of selling, marketing and utilizing IP and characters. The introduction of TPB's has had a bigger direct affect on comic sales than the MCU. When Disney brought Marvel it wasn't because they were interested in comic books, it was because they wanted access to Marvels large catalogue of characters/IP and how they could use that in other mediums. For every fan that joins a website because of a movie there is a fan who joins for other reasons and a significantly larger percentage of fan who doesn't join a comic site or even buy a comic book. An aspect of Thor gained popularity but not one that translates to direct comic sales not one that means the creative motivators behind comics need to tailor their stories to such fans. Many will try to bridge the gap naturally because there is overlap. Either way this new creative decision isn't going to hurt the Thor franchise or the comic, except in the minds of people who have assumed too much and are too stubborn to consider they may not be accurate and even then Marvel and DC already knows that a small selection of their fans are that fickle because comic book fans have always been that fickle and we can even go back to letters to see people angry and opposed to Beta Ray Bill, to Throg to Sif replacing Thor to female characters not being put in their place, to characters not beating other characters, for Captain America being nomad, for Superman losing the red underwear and everything, and like everything to do with Sentry. Some of that backlash I would actually agree with but oct of the time my objections don't require me to make assumptions, I can actually structure my arguments with accurate basis in fact. Ultimately though its just comics, and things area always changing anyway so.

Sorry for long reply, my next reply won't be as long because I'll probably just pick one counter point you make and hammer on it and ignore everything else. Mainly this is because I find you make a lot of assumptions and introduce new points and I am not here to just disagree for the sake of disagreeing hence why my posts invariably end up longer than yours because I am explaining my position whilst having to point out why your assertions may not be accurate and rather assumptions. That requires more effort. Take care.

@powerherc: The characters gender isn't being changed, a new character with a different gender is going to have the name Thor and position generally associated with the Thor character.

Have you enjoyed the Jason Aaron run so far?

Even so it's still not "Thor."

I have read the JA run so far and I've really enjoyed it.

@powerherc: I can understand that part, just that there seems to be some confusion about whether Thor the character we know was getting a gender change when they aren't. What's your general opinion about the period where Captain America was known as Nomad? Not saying the two situations are the same, but just curious.

I have enjoyed Aaron's run so far as well. Not so much the Malekith arc but that was okay, but I think his solid writing could be a good reason to assume that his future writing would be good as well. Its a personal reason why I don't mind this creative change up. If this was Fraction though I'd probably be more critical and worried.

@sc: I didn't like Steve Rogers as Nomad. I didn't enjoy it when he became "The Captain" in the late '80s, either. I didn't like Cap getting killed and having Bucky take over in the wake of "Civil War."

To me there are certain things about a character (any character) that should remain sacred. Changing the race, gender or sexual orientation of a character isn't necessary and a truly creative comic creator would be able to make completely new and compelling characters of whatever race, gender or sexual orientation without having to hijack established characters.

Thor as a girl?

Thor should be a guy. He should ALWAYS be a guy. Turnin' him into some girlie is a crap idea.

@powerherc: Thats fair, and since then have you enjoyed any Captain America stories and the character still or did those changes ruin the character for you forever? I guess what I am saying is that you are familiar with this happening to your favorite characters before, and then they came back and you enjoyed them again. You know it happens, you don't like it but you understand and basically have to play the waiting game.

Thor's gender isn't changing, the replacement Thor just happens to be a different gender. If during the time Steve Rogers wasn't Cap and one of the various replacement Caps had been female would that have ruined Cap for you? Thats the crux to me in this particular line of conversation. Well its a fictional medium, everything is unnecessary. A truly creative writer could have killed off all Marvel's characters during Secret Wars and introduced new characters that aged in real time and once killed stayed dead and all that. Thor and Hercules themselves after all are "hijacked" right out of mythology so basically comes down to individuals discretion and preference which is fair but not always consistent.

I know who THOR truly is. Its not like male THOR will be written out of the marvel universe.

In past cases I did enjoy it when Captain America was returned to his true identity of Steve Rogers/Captain America but what I didn't enjoy was having other characters assume his identity and take over his comic. Nor did I enjoy it when he assumed identities other than his rightful "Captain America" identity. In these past cases, Steve Rogers did indeed eventually return to being Captain America and it can be argued this is what will continue to happen. That said; there is no guarantee that it will always happen, which mean every time Marvel pulls this shit it opens the door for a character being permanently replaced/displaced and even if the character does eventually return, I (and I assume many other fans) are stuck waiting for the return while an imposter occupies our character's title.

Having any Cap, male or female, other than Steve Rogers does ruin the title for me. Same thing with Thor. Same thing when my any of my favorite characters are replaced or depowered. Character like Cap and Thor have become and remain amongst Marvel's longest running and most popular because people like them the way they are. We don't want publicity-stunt alterations.

Killing off all of the Marvel characters in Secret Wars and replacing them would've been truly creative? Strongly disagree with that but having Marvel characters age in real time (which is how they did age from 1961 until about 1970 or so) and eventually being replaced due to age, injury and death would have been interesting. The truth is doing either of the above could have permanently cost Marvel readers if new characters weren't as well-liked and didn't sell as well as the popular characters whom were eliminated. Marvel would never risk killing off there most profitable properties to prove or maintain creative ideals. No comic publisher would because it would be an unnecessary business risk.

You use the term "hijacked" to describe Hercules and Thor presence in the Marvel Universe but in those cases I feel the comparison to what Marvel is currently doing isn't valid because, due to those names legally being in 'the public domain', both are Marvel characters/Marvel versions based on mythological characters created thousands of years ago which are unique to Marvel though based on mythological characters of the same names.

Regarding, once again, these character replacements/substitutions, many people have an opinion differing from mine and that's fine, their opinions don't have to mirror mine. It's also true that mine don't have to mirror theirs. Long live freedom of choice.

@powerherc: Oh I get that the change ruins the character for you or that you dislike it, my basic point was that it happens and that it doesn't permanently ruin the character for you presumably. When regular Thor is back to being the one and only Thor I'd assume you might return eventually.

I use the Secret Wars example to make a point about creativity and the term creative as far as your application. You see this as an uncreative move but it would be very easy to say that creative decisions you personally like are uncreative. What's creative or not can depend on a lot of things, many can be subjective. Except based on your last sentence I think we both acknowledge that and that its a matter of taste and opinion.

Oh and with Marvel and mythology? Well sure the names are public domain, but factually Marvel took preexisting characters and changed them and for many this was good as we had a myth Thor and a comic Thor. Now Marvel has taken a preexisting character and is using them to create a new character. If your personal preference is that this is a bad move, for the specifics thats fine, naturally, your right your choice. As far as consistency though well Marvel isn't doing anything they haven't already done before, just the earlier time you happened to have a different position which again is fine. There has been plenty of negative feedback from people towards Marvel that Thor and Hercules aren't portrayed how they "should" be but I wouldn't imagine that you think their idea of what the characters "should" be is valid, an opinion? Sure. Similar situation applicable to yourself.

So to me its about acknowledging and understanding the difference between subjective opinions and objective arguments and then disagreements may come. Personally I am glad that Marvels Thor and Hercules got a chance, and I am glad that Marvels new Thor will get a chance by most as well. I can also extend my sympathies for those unhappy about the decision though, I can understand where you are coming from.

I got ya. Well put.

Well said @powerherc, I would also add that I am a fan of the Marvel Mythology, specifically the Asgardian line. If they decide to put a female in for Thor, then just make the title Thor for those who actually wield Mjolnir The actual Thor is now rumoured to be called Thor Odinson, so make this girl Thor: Chick-Wielding-Mjolnir or Thor OdinDaughter. My other thought is this is the way for Thor Odinson to take the mantle of Odin and finally ascend to the Asgard Throne, with earth having a Thor in its Avengers ranks protecting Midgard (i guess similar to where Eric masterson should have landed).

@lvenger: I think someone used a thunder stone on him and he is evolving.

I think its more than just being "unhappy about the decision" or " ruins the character for you ". You seem to be cleverly ignoring and trivializing some valid points that several of the poster are trying to make as well as making some BIG assumptions "new Thor will get a chance by most " , Oh Really ?

Frozen is correct in the observation that the changes to Thor are a clumsy attempt at feminism , but you are also correct in pointing out that its also being done in a way to stir curiosity for the Thor comic but sensationalism would be more accurate hence the dramatic changes but these are not the reasons behind the sensationalism and faux feminism.

Hello. Well if your going to start off a conversation by making assumptions about another individual and their behavior (as opposed to making assumptions about on topic subjects) how can you possibly hope to have a sincere conversation? So I do not find that I am not ignoring or trivializing valid points and but if you feel that way how about actually giving an example instead of making an easier short cut and just questioning my behavior and motivations? It would be just as easy as any poster to say that any other poster is ignoring something or trivializing something. I think its more than an individual being unhappy or about it ruining a character too, but I was being specific to that individual, hence specific questions and assertions, no biggie.

I agree I make an assumption about many giving the new Thor a chance. Sure, I don't mind. Its an assumption that eventually I'll be able to see the results of. I don't find that assumption is a dirty word or concept.

An individual would first have to establish that such changes are for a purpose before it can be asserted as accurate or correct. Every single Marvel creative is actually making a brilliant attempt to appeal to interstellar aliens… I mean I can't prove this factually but you can't prove me wrong either so I'll just assert that its correct over and over no matter what. Some claims can be affirmed naturally, like sensationalism wouldn't really be something Marvel or Marvel employees would necessarily deny and or if one wanted to spend the time, it could be actually easy to demonstrate. Comics industry has a history of hyping products to excite its fan base and appeal to a wider audience. Its usually what works as far as playing it safe. By the same token its actually possible to see how appeals to feminism are more about perception than actuality. If Marvel or DC really were pandering to a small minority its creators wouldn't be afraid of using the word feminism in articles, and they would be more careful about randomly employing a lot of its female characters as notches on the bedposts of many of its male super star characters, as well as plenty of other creative moves and decisions. So your right when you say fake feminism, fake in the sense its not a "clumsy" attempt by Marvel either, its just a very safe and predictable move by Marvel to generate publicity, talk and attention. A lot of the publicity around the new Captain America has generated around ethnicity and "race" as well. Iron Man had a bit of news as well, its almost as if these three creative moves were designed to hit in fast order to generate a lot of publicity and garner mainstream attention like rarely occurs.

@sc:

Your remark stating to one poster that "ruins the character for you" is a bold attempt to trivialize the posters concerns about the character as if they were the only person that had the same concerns when CLEARLY they are not. Also you are wrong on your remarks about feminism ,it is a clumsy attempt at feminism , in that they failed to fool people that the changes to Thor is Marvels intention to represent a female audience , but even Gloria Steinem would criticize such a lame move by Marvel. Ms. Steinem stated many times in interviews that the goal of feminist is not to replace men but to be treated as equals and given equal opportunity to use their skills and ideas , NOT to be piggy back onto or carried by a mans successes. The real truth underneath it all though is that it is all pretense and fake feminism if you take a more cynical point of view toward Marvels actions in which you understand the real motivation for the new Thor. Because of all of this and that Marvel under estimates the acuity of their audience the she Thor experiment is doomed to failure.

@allaric said:

No, my statement is not, your insistence that its a "bold attempt to trivialize the posters concerns" doesn't automatically make it so anymore than if I were to claim that your "CLEARLY" "just upset about this decision and just looking to disagree with anyone that doesn't share your opinion" because using language like clearly doesn't automatically lend any credibility or validity to your claim. That and I don't know your intent or motivation just as you do not know mine, just like ultimately both if us are the ultimate authority on what we intend and mean aside from potentially being deceptive. If your at that state then you should not address myself or other posters you think are guilty of such.

Marvels intention is to sell comics and make money, thats not so much a cynical view as much as an understanding as where Marvel is as a company and comics industry being niche and slowly declining in overall sales. So we can wait a few months and see if they succeed with this particular venture. You assert this is going to be a big mistake on Marvels part? Okay well we can just what and see then. Will be interesting. I think Marvel knows their audience as far as this decision. A lot of people who criticize such moves tend to still support Marvel, and the influx of new readers generally tends to make up for loss of readers especially around big announcements/creative changes.