Love And Blunder

As you're no doubt aware, Marvel's new Thor: Love And Thunder movie features the triumphant return of Jane Foster (played once again by Natalie Portman), who becomes the new, female version of the God Of Thunder.

From the moment it was announced, this plot development has been extremely divisive among fandom.

Critics claim this Jane As Thor plot is nothing but pure SJW pandering. Supporters of the idea constantly point out that this storyline actually happened in the comics several years ago, and is 100% accurate.

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I firmly believe the MCU should have ended with Avengers: Endgame, as it was the perfect place to wrap it all up. Everything Marvel's done since has been so much dross, and at this point the MCU's dead to me. 

So despite the fact that I don't care, Girl Thor is indeed comic book accurate. But is that a valid argument? Is comic accuracy really a good thing?

Remember the time that Wolverine slashed the Thing's face, so he started wearing a full-head helmet because he thought his wounds made him look "ugly?" That happened in the comics. Definitely not the Fantastic Four's best moment.

And then there was the time Captain America turned into a werewolf— who somehow still dressed in his costume and wielded his shield! That happened in the comics as well!

Speaking of Cap, there was also the time it was revealed that for the past seventy or eighty years he'd secretly been an evil undercover HYDRA agent! Happened in the comics!

And of course who could forget the time Thor himself was transformed into a frog by Loki. Yes, this actually happened in the comics.

So... given all that, do we still think "comic book accuracy" is a good thing?