Now Playing Tracks

When Thor gets asked how in the world an almost-godly prince like he could get together with an as good as unknown human astrophysicist, he is quite aware of what his answer should be: because Jane Foster has the wit, smarts and smiles of his brother, the resolve and warmheartedness of his mother, and the wisdom he once believed his father to own. Also, and this is a word Darcy taught him, because she’s the cutest little dork. But usually he just says “luck”. Sums it up best.



there’s a convo going on on my dash that I won’t butt into, but I am really confused over the idea of it not being ok to dislike or hate Jane Foster based on her characterization in the movies

like people must absolutely 100% love her based on what? fanon? Because the woman I saw portrayed in the movies generally in no way matches the way she’s held up in the fandom. I intensely dislike the woman in the movies a lot, and I have a very hard time ignoring canon

So that’s personal preference, not canon. “I don’t like it” and “it’s crap” carry two different messages, after all.

I for one regret you wouldn’t butt into the conversation, especially when I consider my own dislike of Natalie Portman measuring up to my love for Jane Foster, a character whom I love based on her acts and attitudes in both movies in which she appeared (the second one with reservation.) because I am canon’s bitch, precisely.

I wonder what it’s like to love anything at full percentage, as I’ve never appreciated anything unreservedly, but many percents of my affection certainly go to Jane Foster in the movie(s), with probably her gender as major additional incentive. Good gods did it feel good to have a female character be like she was.

If anyone’s wondering, I ship Jane/Science.

The situation is this: Jane Foster is a character with a rather small fanbase, but a disproportionally large amount of haters whose most common “reason” for their reaction to her is that she’s a) a woman and b) in the way of their ships. I am not exaggerating. Just as it says in the proverb “The way you shout into the woods”, it tends to make fans of the character rather itchy when so much as a hint of dislike comes up, because it’s highly likely that any argument like that will turn into ways of fans wanting to erase the character based on her gender, not her actual character traits. Is it okay that they leash out in such a way? No, it’s not. But I think it’s understandable when you’re faced with so much misogyny and narrow-mindedness in a place that should be fun.

Mind you, there are still people who differentiate very clearly between writing, personal feelings, and that everyone is allowed their own taste and preferences, as shown in this discussion for example. If all arguments centred around Jane Foster were as civilised and well-thought-out as this one, there simply wouldn’t be bad vibes in this part of fandom. Thing is, I for one would love to join that discussion, but still haven’t because I’m afraid it’d look as if I were trying to “convert” anyone into liking the character, or jump at anyone who didn’t. That’s not the case at all, and I think that as long as the tone stays levelled and the arguments fact-based and reasonable, this kind of discussion could be very interesting and informative.


Anonymous asked:

Jane Foster hosted a complete loss of potential in the MCU. There were so many moments for her to be a badass, but instead she becomes a damsel who can't even go that long without losing affection for Thor. I hope she dies.


A) You don’t understand what a headcanon is. Look it up. Because the definition definitely isn’t your petty complaints. We’re not that kind of blog.

B) Don’t use the word badass. Women don’t exist to be “badass” or any other variant. Frankly, it isn’t Thor’s brilliant plan of beat it til it dies that saves the day, but rather the combined genius of Erik Selvig and Jane Foster. They’re the ones that come up with a plan and execute it. Hell, the thing that Thor “saves” her from? Yeah, that’s some weird assumed infinity gem like poisoning that thrives off life force, so it was kind of vital to get that removed from her before she died.

You know what an infinity gem is, right? That thing that destroyed Carina in Guardians of the Galaxy when she touched it? Kind of not to be fucked with? Definitely nothing no person on Earth could help Jane survive, not that the Asgardians knew what to do either? Yeah that. Also, the only person to really save her life damsel in distress style is Frigga when she saves Jane from being killed by Malekith, since, despite the what you think, most scientists aren’t trained combatants. I know, it’s weird.

Now, could there have been more detail? Sure. But there could be more detail for Thor as well instead of making everything the Loki show. And to bash anyone for missing a significant other they don’t get to see is kind of ridiculous. Like, you realize that long distant relationships and falling in love with someone exist outside of cinema? I mean, she pretty much fell for a guy who just vanished. It’s not a fucking crime for her to still be a bit hung up.

So in closing, go the fuck away with your “if they aren’t overtly kicking ass they aren’t cool” views about the limited female characters of the MCU, ok? OK.


He didn’t contact her in any way for two years, during which he came to Earth at least once, noticable for everyone. That he doesn’t even leave her a message was one of the huge plot holes “Avengers” pretty much consists of, and it should be easily understandable that Jane takes that as a sign that he’s lost interest. Also, it’s her right as a human being to choose whoever she likes to be with. They were not a couple at the end of the first “Thor” movie, they barely flirted, there were no promises whatsoever except that he’d come back - which he clearly broke. Jane didn’t even get mixed signals, from her perspective she got a clear “I got over you, pathetic human”.

Also, had she pined over him forever after, wouldn’t that have been the opposite of “badass” (whatever that’s supposed to mean)? Double standards, anons have them.

"The Dark World" had a lot of plot flaws, it didn’t give any of the characters the development they deserved, it was misogynist and little more than a try of milking an ever growing audience for more ticket money - and failing insofar as it betrayed its own storyline. The little work they put into Loki was a mere catering to his large and audible fanbase (he was supposed to die in the original drafts), and apart from that it makes you wonder what the movie was actually supposed to contain, although I’m sure Mr Hemsworth’s amazing abs were featured from the beginning, and even that they messed up.

So basically, don’t blame a female lead character who displays a wonderful set of talents and character features (thickheadedness, determination, innocence, a heart of gold, and last but not least wit and stamina) - character features we rarely get to see for non-male characters - for a badly assembled movie. Blame the people who made the movie what it is, and don’t reward more works of the same kind.

C’est tout.

Children of a Fleeting World - Chapter 52 - ArticulatioHumeri - Marvel (Movies), Thor (Movies), The Avengers (Marvel) - All Media Types [Archive of Our Own]

New chapter up - in which Loki learns more about his family relations than he ever wanted to know, and Jane approaches her brother-in-law with a serious request regarding Darcy.

We make Tumblr themes