Thor: Love and Thunder **BEWARE SPOILERS**

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Wait this guy

5100430282d8c7d0f80f3ba320786a54.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. That’s the one.

“His strength is deadly.....his gaze is even deadlier.

Coming to theaters in 2021, you’ll know his name....Gorr the God Butcher.”
 
That’s why I’ve been worried about the direction Waititi will take this film. I hope it’s more serious for reasons you pointed out.

Even with the comedic tone, it's still possible that they could do his character decently as long as they keep Eric Pearson away from the script and get a good screenwriter to replace him.
 
I had a thought, thinking about how Thor is a name and not a title (which is true) what if the Disney Marvel people said, F- the comic books and decided to make Jane Foster when she picks up the hammer, to actually change into Chris Hemsworth as Thor? The first trans Marvel Character that'll piss off everyone. :lol
Makes for a more interesting and funny story than cancer woman Thor.
 
Its just going to be a really hard sell to try and justify why all of the other Avengers (sans Cap) were not worthy but somehow Jane Foster is.
 
Its just going to be a really hard sell to try and justify why all of the other Avengers (sans Cap) were not worthy but somehow Jane Foster is.

Maybe they weren't worthy during AoU when they all tried to lift it. At that point Tony isn't quite the sacrifice for the greater good guy he is in Endgame and Widow and Hawkeye both have some things in their past. Rhodes? Nah. Maybe Tony could've wielded it in the Endgame final battle?
 
I feel like it's always been ambiguous about what qualifies as being worthy or not. Cap's past isn't immaculate, having killed people in WW2, yet he was worthy.
 
Maybe they weren't worthy during AoU when they all tried to lift it. At that point Tony isn't quite the sacrifice for the greater good guy he is in Endgame and Widow and Hawkeye both have some things in their past. Rhodes? Nah. Maybe Tony could've wielded it in the Endgame final battle?

They weren't saints, but by this point they had all repeatedly put thier lives in danger to save others. Jane on the other hand seems like a decent enough person, but by no means is a hero.

I can buy the premise that for whatever specific reason none of the other Avengers were worthy. The question is that given those strict criteria, why Jane is.
 
I feel like it's always been ambiguous about what qualifies as being worthy or not. Cap's past isn't immaculate, having killed people in WW2, yet he was worthy.

Mjolnir is a weapon used to kill Frost Giants, being willing to kill is a prerequisite to wield Mjonir.
Which is why Foster should've never been able to lift it because as a doctor, she is a healer and not a killer. Unfortunately Marvel is being run by nincompoops so nothing matters.
 
Mjolnir is a weapon used to kill Frost Giants, being willing to kill is a prerequisite to wield Mjonir.
Which is why Foster should've never been able to lift it because as a doctor, she is a healer and not a killer. Unfortunately Marvel is being run by nincompoops so nothing matters.

Isn't her doctorate in physics? So she isn't really healing anyone.
 
Jye's out!


of the closet!


Mjolnir is a weapon used to kill Frost Giants, being willing to kill is a prerequisite to wield Mjonir.
Which is why Foster should've never been able to lift it because as a doctor, she is a healer and not a killer. Unfortunately Marvel is being run by nincompoops so nothing matters.

Just for the mere fact that you actually used the word nincompoops in a sentence instantly made this the post of the day lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Back
Top