KManX89 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 14 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Critical Acclaim is now synonymous with, "How woke is it?" That's why Wonder Woman is the 11th best movie ever made if you follow Rotten Tomatoes and its rating system. Female Thor is stupid. You don't have to be a sexist to think so. If Jane Foster gets Thor's powers that's great and I think it could be and will be a great movie. If Jane Foster takes over and starts getting called Thor instead of her Goddamn name, that would bother me because that would be stupid. At this point I don't even care if I'm called a sexist because it's getting stupid and people are literally delusional if they can't understand the concept. Pepper Potts wore an Iron Man suit. She wasn't called Iron Man or Tony Stark. Peggy Carter picked up Captain America's shield. She wasn't called Steve Rogers or Captain America. Captain America wielded the Powers of Thor. He wasn't called Thor, he was Captain America with Thor powers. Batwoman did not become Bruce Wayne or Batman, she became Batwoman. If that's being sexist, I don't want to have to do the delicate egg walking mental gymnastics to conform to delusional norms and I'm content being that old sexist boogieman. I just can't keep up with it all anymore. I got called an incel for laughing at the fact that SJWs are calling The Lion King white patriarchy (probably by a literal incel neckbeard who calls women m'lady), and I really don't care what I get called for this post. If Jane Foster literally becomes Thor and gets called Thor, that's stupid. Bottom line. The difference between those examples and Lady Thor is Portman will actually be taking up the mantle of Thor, not just wielding his powers/suit like the others. Unless Hemsworth is/will still be Thor and I'm missing something here, in which case Lady Thor will suffice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Just now, KManX89 said: The difference between those examples and Lady Thor is Portman will actually be taking up the mantle of Thor, not just wielding his powers/suit like the others. Unless Hemsworth is/will still be Thor and I'm missing something here, in which case Lady Thor will suffice. Right, and I don't have an issue with that. I have an issue with her becoming Thor. If Falcon becomes Captain America, that's fine. Captain America is a title, not an identity. Somebody could even become Iron Man and I wouldn't care. I think it would be stupid if a woman became Iron Man instead of being called Iron Woman, but I'd even accept that. Thor is Thor's name. His powers do not have a title. Jane Foster is Jane Foster. She is not Thor. If she has Thor's powers, she is Jane Foster with Thor's powers. Exactly how Steve Rogers was Steve Rogers with the power of Thor and he was not Thor. It's literally that simple. And Lady Thor is stupid, too. Call her Lady Odinson if you have to. In no circumstance in comics nor literally anything else does the female version become the male version nor does any other version of anything take on the name of the character. When Miles Morales becomes Spider-Man, he's Spider-Man. He doesn't start going around as Peter Parker. It's literally that simple. The same thing with James Bond. If there is ever a female James Bond, I will literally vomit. That's not 007. If a woman becomes 007, that's fine because that's a title or whatever, but if they seriously expect me to take seriously a woman introducing herself as Bond, James Bond, they're dumber than literally anything. And what really pisses me off is that I'm a sexist for saying these things when it has nothing to do with sexism. It's about the effing name. It bothers me. Jane Foster is not Thor, she's Jane Foster regardless of what powers she has. It's literally that simple, and it's literally as simple as thinking my cousin is a stupid delusional moron because he legally changed his name to a color. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Fresh Prince said: Anyone actually interested in any of there tv shows. Don’t care for SW, Hawkeye, or Falcon. Pass Hawkeye doesn’t interest me as a solo character. Falcon does if only because he’s now Captain America. I’m curious to see where they take that arc. Scarlet Witch is a badass so I’m all-in for anything including her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Outpost31 said: Right, and I don't have an issue with that. I have an issue with her becoming Thor. If Falcon becomes Captain America, that's fine. Captain America is a title, not an identity. Somebody could even become Iron Man and I wouldn't care. I think it would be stupid if a woman became Iron Man instead of being called Iron Woman, but I'd even accept that. Thor is Thor's name. His powers do not have a title. Jane Foster is Jane Foster. She is not Thor. If she has Thor's powers, she is Jane Foster with Thor's powers. Exactly how Steve Rogers was Steve Rogers with the power of Thor and he was not Thor. It's literally that simple. And Lady Thor is stupid, too. Call her Lady Odinson if you have to. In no circumstance in comics nor literally anything else does the female version become the male version nor does any other version of anything take on the name of the character. When Miles Morales becomes Spider-Man, he's Spider-Man. He doesn't start going around as Peter Parker. It's literally that simple. The same thing with James Bond. If there is ever a female James Bond, I will literally vomit. That's not 007. If a woman becomes 007, that's fine because that's a title or whatever, but if they seriously expect me to take seriously a woman introducing herself as Bond, James Bond, they're dumber than literally anything. And what really pisses me off is that I'm a sexist for saying these things when it has nothing to do with sexism. It's about the effing name. It bothers me. Jane Foster is not Thor, she's Jane Foster regardless of what powers she has. It's literally that simple, and it's literally as simple as thinking my cousin is a stupid delusional moron because he legally changed his name to a color. Lady Odinson actually sounds pretty awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Just now, D82 said: Hawkeye doesn’t interest me as a solo character. Falcon does if only because he’s now Captain America. I’m curious to see where they take that arc. Scarlet Witch is a badass so I’m all-in for anything including her. Make Scarlett Witch Evil Again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 Also I'm super pumped for the new Blade. Gonna be weird to see it as something other than as a good bad movie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Make Scarlett Witch Evil Again I think her being involved in some way with the introduction of actual mutants and the X-Men would be pretty sweet. 1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Also I'm super pumped for the new Blade. Gonna be weird to see it as something other than as a good bad movie Ali as Blade is going to be amazing, especially if they stick with an ‘R’ rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvert28 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, KManX89 said: The difference between those examples and Lady Thor is Portman will actually be taking up the mantle of Thor, not just wielding his powers/suit like the others. Unless Hemsworth is/will still be Thor and I'm missing something here, in which case Lady Thor will suffice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KManX89 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 25 minutes ago, D82 said: Ali as Blade is going to be amazing, especially if they stick with an ‘R’ rating. What's funny is, I've read a bunch of YouTube comments today saying "lol, you know it's gonna be PG-13 'cuz it's Disney" despite the fact that they said they were gonna make R-rated comic book movies, including Deadpool. And it pretty much has to be R. Seriously, a PG-13 movie about a guy who shoots and hacks hordes of bloodsucking vampires to bits, it makes no sense. Imagine the Underworld movies with a PG-13 rating, they wouldn't work. I'd have a little more faith given that it's Marvel, but I'd still have a degree of skepticism. Obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 13 hours ago, thrILL! said: Prolly for the best. Avengers vs vampires would be over in the first act. LoL They could still put Blade in an avengers movie. If Black Widow can hold her own, Blade can too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acgott Posted July 21, 2019 Author Share Posted July 21, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manny/Patrick Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, theJ said: They could still put Blade in an avengers movie. If Black Widow can hold her own, Blade can too. Blades language wouldn’t mesh well with the rest of the avengers. Same reason we won’t see Deadpool in the avengers films. He may make a cameo breaking the 4th wall but he won’t be a focal point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingseanjohn Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Acgott said: I just can't get excited for this. We know BW's story and how it ends. Unless this is just to introduce Taskmaster for a bigger role in the future, what's the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 28 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said: I just can't get excited for this. We know BW's story and how it ends. Unless this is just to introduce Taskmaster for a bigger role in the future, what's the point? Considering it is the start of Phase 5, I’d think it will deal with something that is relevant in future movies the same way Captain Marvel did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 49 minutes ago, kingseanjohn said: I just can't get excited for this. We know BW's story and how it ends. Unless this is just to introduce Taskmaster for a bigger role in the future, what's the point? Yeah...it’ll probably be the first MCU film I don’t see in theaters or possibly watch at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.