Apparently it took all of 30 nanoseconds after the announcement was made at San Diego Comic-Con that Natalie Portman would be taking up the mantle — or the hammer — as Thor in the Marvel Cinematic Universe for the delicate-snowflake misogynist whiny-ass crybaby fanboys to lose their shit. From We Hunted the Mammoth:
You can always count on the dude who calls himself One Angry Gamer to have a highly nuanced reaction to developments in the gaming and comics worlds. For example, take his reaction to the news yesterday that the upcoming Thor: Love and Thunder movie will feature Natalie Portman — a LADY — as none other than Thor
himherself.“This is the kind of news that strips the threads away from the very fabric of your soul,” he declared in a post on his One Angry Gamer site, really leaning hard on that fabric metaphor. “As always, Marvel is moving the dial ever further Left.”
Imagine the very fabric of your soul being determined by what goes on in a movie.
There’s more, and it’s quite hilarious, if in a pathetic way, but Mammoth’s David Futrelle sums it all up accurately thusly:
By Grabthar’s hammer, what a dingus.
Maybe not paying attention to idiots, and thus not giving them a bigger platform, is the first step to a better world.
The pollsters and journalists tried that during the last presidential election. It didn’t work.
We already know that is not the case.
Is this from the comics? Does her character become Thor? I know nothing about any of this, and wonder why this is happening.
edit: Ok, I’ve read the link and see that this does happen in the comics. Very cool!
I also know nothing about the comics, but Hemsworth-Thor has had three films dedicated to him as well as appearances in the ensemble pieces. That’s more than most characters get. Why not let someone else have a go, and try to do something that isn’t rooted in 1960s white male insecurities?
Also, three seconds got me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Foster_(comics)
Oh, don’t get me wrong! I’m totally cool with this happening, and her doing it.
I did read up on it, hence my edit.
I’m sure we’ll get actual people(dudes) with issues on this, though. No doubt.
I’m just puzzled that you’d ask the question in the first place, because it’s answered in both of the links MaryAnn provided, and—as Roger pointed out—you could also have found the information with a quick Google search. It always looks bad when you ask other people to do your homework for you, but in this case, the answers were almost literally right in front of your face.
I spent a day going back and forth about whether to say anything, but when MaryAnn posts web links that she thinks are worth reading and you go out of your way to let us know you haven’t read them, it makes you sound clueless and a little rude.
Apparently the time is ripe for a remake — okay, another remake — of the 1987 movie Adventures in Babysitting — preferably not one starring Jonah Hill…
manbaby????
Yup.
I thought gendered terms to denote negative behavior was considered inappropriate?
Not sure what you’re talking about, but it is literally grown men acting like whiny toddlers, so the name is factually accurate.
Womanbabies: Grown women acting like whiny toddlers. Is that a fair assessment?
I can’t tell if you’re giving this way too much thought or way too little. If a specific man is acting like a whiny toddler, he could be described as a manchild or a manbaby. If a woman is doing the same sort of thing, she could be described the same sort of way. This doesn’t imply anything about the character of all men or all women, unless you’re putting in special effort to be sexist–in which case you, too, may be acting like a toddler.
I don’t remember asking you. Move on.
When you’re a guest on someone else’s site –which you are right now — it never hurts to be polite. Not submissive but polite.
However, if you insist on acting like a jerk anyway, I see little reason for me or anyone else to take your questions seriously.
“Move on”? Nope. You, a fly-by here, do not get to talk like this to my regular readers and commenters.
If you are unable to behave yourself in mixed company, YOU move on.
If an adult is behaving like a baby, sure. But there’s no poetry in “womanbaby” — too many syllables, for one. How about “ladybaby”?
There are terms like this, too, depending on the situation.
But I suspect Spasmolytic is gearing up to argue that if we can say “manbaby,” then it’s okay for him to use gendered slurs like “wh-re” and “c-nt.” Because of course the history, context, and connotation of all those terms is exactly the same. :-/
That’s one reason I try to avoid using certain words like “spic”, “greaser” and “Polack” on my blog. It’s not that I’ve never heard those words before; it’s because once I start using them, I automatically give others “permission” to use them too — regardless of whether or not that’s what I intended to do. Of course, there are other reasons too but that’s the main one I think about.
I’m sure you’re correct.
A now deceased acquaintance of mine used to use the term “Mama’s girl” when she wanted to address the fact that another female acquaintance was acting childish. It was not meant as a compliment.
i’m sorry but they should be using an actual norse goddess to portray Thor.
Personally, I’d prefer another Hela movie.
And yet every time I get too skeptical about this premise, I remember this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4iRSbmpJGQ
Even as a Marvel apostate, if Tessa Thompson and Natalie Portman actually become an onscreen couple, that would be enough to get me into the theatre.
How did Disney get Portman back for Thor 4? was it because Uncle Taika is directing it? However they got her back I’m glad as she’s going to be badass as fuck. Glad to see Thompson is back too.
Maybe she was drawn in by the fact that this time, she’ll get to be the protagonist instead of The Girlfriend.
This. It’s much more interesting playing Thor. :-)
And if the movie follows the comics storyline at all, Jane’s adventures as Thor could very well be a rich source of character drama. I suspect that would be very appealing to Portman too.