The Marvel Cinematic Universe: The Avengers, etc.

[JessePinkman]

58 minutes ago, benteen said:

Mendes is a great director and has actually directed a comic book movie before (Road to Perdition).  This would be an unbelievable get for Doctor Strange.

Sam Raimi, not Sam Mendes lol.

[benteen]

My mistake then.  Raimi would be good too.

[Kel Varnsen]

5 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

Sam Raimi, not Sam Mendes lol.

In all seriousness I am curious to see if this happens. I watched the Spider man movies and they are still fun but there is a lot of cheezy overly dramatic dialog about ridiculous things and really over the top dramatic music (even in 2). But the stories are good and Raimi is great at action, so I am curious to see how he would work in the MCU style.

[Bruinsfan]

While Raimi has quite the super-hero and horror pedigree, it's mostly visceral super-hero action and horror rather than cerebral, with slapstick comedic touches thrown in. I don't think he's quite right for Dr. Strange, though he'd be a good candidate for an MCU Deadpool movie or something with a similar tone.

[BetterButter]

'Doctor Strange 2' Lands New Writer With 'Loki' Show Creator

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

'Doctor Strange 2' Lands New Writer With 'Loki' Show Creator

Well, if nothing else, it’s an indicator that they are happy with the direction of Loki. 

[Guest]

During an Instagram live Jaimie Alexander hinted that Sif may re-appear soon when answering a question about riding a horse while wielding a sword. 

Quote

"Yes, once upon a time I was able to do that and I might have to do that again in the future so hopefully I haven't lost that gift," 

"What am I working on now? I do wish I could tell you, but I would probably cease to exist, don't you think, if I actually told what I have coming up, so I can't tell you guys but thanks for asking anyway!"

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by Guest

[swanpride]

Well, I certainly want to know what happened to her....

[Cobalt Stargazer]

Heh, Sam.


 

[swanpride]

lol...

 

I really hope that they will continue to bicker....

[Morrigan2575]

On 2/8/2020 at 1:30 AM, Dani said:

During an Instagram live Jaimie Alexander hinted that Sif may re-appear soon when answering a question about riding a horse while wielding a sword

I so want Sif back. I feel denied my Sif/Thor relationship.  I can't believe they'd do more Jane/Thor the relationship was boring and the actors had Zero chemistry (IMO).

 

[swanpride]

Well, Jane was simply not particularly well written. Maybe Portman does better with better material.

[Raja]

1 hour ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I so want Sif back. I feel denied my Sif/Thor relationship.  I can't believe they'd do more Jane/Thor the relationship was boring and the actors had Zero chemistry (IMO).

 

Oscar versus TV star.

[Morrigan2575]

2 hours ago, swanpride said:

Well, Jane was simply not particularly well written. Maybe Portman does better with better material.

Not likely. IMO Postman doesn't do well in anything Sci-fi/fantasy related.

[swanpride]

Well, she never got a well written character in anything Fantasy related.

On a different note, has Disney gotten someone new to design their posters? The new New Mutant poster and the new Black Widow one look really cool. Usually their posters are more run of the mill and somewhat exchangeable.

[Bruinsfan]

49 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Not likely. IMO Postman doesn't do well in anything Sci-fi/fantasy related.

She was pretty good in Annihilation, and I heard she was amazing in Black Swan; maybe her limitations come up in respect to romance storylines rather than sci-fi/fantasy settings? The Prequel trilogy and Thor movies involved both elements.

[Morrigan2575]

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

She was pretty good in Annihilation, and I heard she was amazing in Black Swan; maybe her limitations come up in respect to romance storylines rather than sci-fi/fantasy settings? The Prequel trilogy and Thor movies involved both elements.

I think Portman does well with something that excites/interests her but, with with big budget sci-fi movies she seems to phone it in.  I'm actually a Portman fan, i was excited when i heard she was cast in Thor but, the 2 Thor movies and the Prequel Trilogies she didn't (IMO) put much into the roles.

I also don't know how she'll do with a comedy, she did Mars Attacks and Your Highness (both comedies) but, she played the straight person in both movies so it's hard for me to say how she'll do with Thor 4

[benteen]

Annihilation was one of the most overrated movies of all time.

[Ohiopirate02]

2 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

She was pretty good in Annihilation, and I heard she was amazing in Black Swan; maybe her limitations come up in respect to romance storylines rather than sci-fi/fantasy settings? The Prequel trilogy and Thor movies involved both elements.

I get the feeling that Natalie needs a strong script, the right director, and the right costar for her acting to really work.  When it comes to her work on Star Wars, I lay the blame solely on George Lucas.  Very few actresses can overcome an atrocious script, bad direction, and a block of wood as your costar.  

[swanpride]

I am actually not a fan of her at all, I always find her boring. But I still think that the difference between roles in which she works for her fans and those in which she doesn't is not the genre but the quality of the writing.

[starri]

I still have no idea how they're going to reconcile the tone of Ragnarok with the Goddess of Thunder story.  But the latter was one of the best Thor stories I've ever read, and I do honestly think Natalie could play it well.

[swanpride]

My main worry is that the movie tips too much into humour...but that was a problem I already had with Ragnarök.

[ICantDoThatDave]

I'm actually afraid they're gonna venture into what happened with the comics if they aren't careful:

Introducing Female Thor!!!

Current readers: "blehh, no interest, I'll stop reading. Jane Foster is terrible."

The Internet: "That is awesome! I support this!"

Reporting: "Oh, great, are you gonna start buying the comic now?"

Actual People: "Oh, no, I was never gonna buy a Thor comic book regardless, but This is awesome!  I support this!"

I dunno. In Feige I Trust.  He can probably pull it off.  Bu I admit I'm wary of this.

[swanpride]

...as far as I know, the Lady Thor Comic sold particularly well. Like: Better than a regular Thor comic.

Maybe you should realise that the Marvel readers are not necessarily thinking the same way you do.

[starri]

Jane was Thor for about four years, and while a big part of me wishes she could have kept going, the story came to a natural ending.  If Marvel hadn't been happy with what was going on, they had opportunities to pull the plug much earlier.

There's always pushback when a legacy character hands over the mantle to someone.  This is about the best I've ever seen it done.

[ICantDoThatDave]

The first issue of Jane's run sold well (112,000), but sales quickly plummeted (down to 46,000 by issue 10 & hovered around 40,000 the rest of its run).  Once the novelty wore off the run sold very poorly.

[AimingforYoko]

Bryan Tyree Henry and Haaz Sleiman will play Marvel's first gay couple in Eternals.

[Bruinsfan]

Called it that Phastos (with his blank slate background) would be the natural choice for the LGBTQ Eternal!

[Danny Franks]

Interesting that Marvel are going all in with this now, after being heavily criticised for dancing around the issue for so long - 

A mixed race, gay couple (one of whom is played by an actor previously known for playing the macho rapper, Paper Boi) married and raising a child together? Some noses are going to be bent out of joint over this.

I imagine all those people who were 'outraged' over Captain Marvel and Black Panther will also be outraged over The Eternals. For completely valid reasons, you know? Hopefully Marvel and Disney stand their ground on this, and refuse to cut anything from the movie.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Interesting that Marvel are going all in with this now, after being heavily criticised for dancing around the issue for so long - 

A mixed race, gay couple (one of whom is played by an actor previously known for playing the macho rapper, Paper Boi) married and raising a child together? Some noses are going to be bent out of joint over this.

I imagine all those people who were 'outraged' over Captain Marvel and Black Panther will also be outraged over The Eternals. For completely valid reasons, you know? Hopefully Marvel and Disney stand their ground on this, and refuse to cut anything from the movie.

I’m a little surprised but this really is the smart move. Dancing around it just pisses everyone off. Those that are going to be outraged will be outraged at even the tiniest hint so why not go all in. 

[swanpride]

Quote

The first issue of Jane's run sold well (112,000), but sales quickly plummeted (down to 46,000 by issue 10 & hovered around 40,000 the rest of its run).  Once the novelty wore off the run sold very poorly.

Yes, I am aware. You are apparently not aware that it is normal for the first issue to sell way better than the later ones (since some people will like a new story and other don't, ir they lose interest at one point) and that the so called "plummeted down" sales were still better than Thor's usual sales, which is the bench mark here. don't make the mistake to compare numbers like this with, say, Spider-Man sales.

You should btw start watching some different youtubers. Or at least bother to check what people who have "nerd", "geek" and especially "gamer" as their username are telling you. Usually they mislead their audience with half-truths.

Re: The Gay couple: Well, I guess now that the Chinese market has basically been shut down, they have to do their maths without it anyway, just in case.

[Captain Carrot]

5 hours ago, swanpride said:

Yes, I am aware. You are apparently not aware that it is normal for the first issue to sell way better than the later ones (since some people will like a new story and other don't, ir they lose interest at one point) and that the so called "plummeted down" sales were still better than Thor's usual sales, which is the bench mark here. don't make the mistake to compare numbers like this with, say, Spider-Man sales.

I have to agree 100%. As an example I bought every issue of the Aaron's run onThor, and didn't buy issue two of the new one. (After the new creative team undid all of Aaron's work in one panel).

I also wanted to add that Jane Foster is the main character in the new Valkyrie book, so her Thor run was probably considered a success by Marvel.

[Bruinsfan]

I'm very much not a fan of Jason Aaron's work, but will admit that Jane Foster is one (perhaps THE one) character that he writes well.

[ICantDoThatDave]

On 2/14/2020 at 4:34 PM, swanpride said:

Yes, I am aware. You are apparently not aware that it is normal for the first issue to sell way better than the later ones (since some people will like a new story and other don't, ir they lose interest at one point) and that the so called "plummeted down" sales were still better than Thor's usual sales, which is the bench mark here. don't make the mistake to compare numbers like this with, say, Spider-Man sales.

Of course I'm aware that sales go down after the "Collector's Item Issue #1!!!"  Everyone knows that.  Well, except for kids I suppose.  I still have my polybagged silver Todd McFarlane Spider-Man#1 that was totally going to make me rich later in life!  I'm just saying sales of Jane-Thor fell off a cliff after the first couple issues.  Comparing it to pre-Jane Thor numbers isn't a great measurement IMO since they were both so poor they got scrapped.  "Slightly less bad" is still bad from a sales POV.

Comparing sales to Amazing Spider-Man or Batman or even Walking Dead, contemporaneous books at the time, is exactly the benchmark to use.  They show what the metric for success looks like.  What does 41,600 copies for Mighty Thor mean (from a few months before the end of Jane's run) if you don't know that Doomsday Clock #2 sold 158,600 copies?

Quote

You should btw start watching some different youtubers. Or at least bother to check what people who have "nerd", "geek" and especially "gamer" as their username are telling you. Usually they mislead their audience with half-truths.

Here I think you've confused me with another poster maybe?  I didn't link to any youtube videos or even quote any other posters.  I'm just looking up actual sales numbers by month.

EDIT: FWIW I hated the Civil War comics story but Captain America: Civil War is one of my favorite MCU movies, so as I said upthread, hopefully Feige & co. can make Jane-Thor work despite it not being a particularly popular story in the comics.

Edited February 16, 2020 by ICantDoThatDave

[clack]

Spoiler

 

If a supporting, originally non-superpowered character has been around for 60 years, chances are that he or she will at some point acquire the powers of the superhero, comics being comics. Mary Jane gets spider powers, Pepper Potts dons the iron man suit. Every variation gets explored, every potential plot line gets its day, before the status quo is (mostly) restored.

The MCU is getting to that point prematurely, imo, what with Sam Wilson and Kate Bishop already waiting in the wings. With the original Hawkeye's character and adventures remaining so unexplored, do we really need his replacement so soon?

Jane Foster is an exception, though. Her cancer storyline makes her temporary adoption of the Thor powers unique and compelling. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Comparing sales to Amazing Spider-Man or Batman or even Walking Dead, contemporaneous books at the time, is exactly the benchmark to use.  They show what the metric for success looks like.  What does 41,600 copies for Mighty Thor mean (from a few months before the end of Jane's run) if you don't know that Doomsday Clock #2 sold 158,600 copies?

No it’s not. That’s like comparing the box offices numbers for Shazam to Endgame or even Captain Marvel just because they were released near each other. There are way too many other factors in play to make that kind of direct comparison. Previous versions of the same character is the the simplest and usually the most accurate comparison. 

If you are going to compare completely different characters drop-off percentage from issue to issue is more effective than raw numbers. 
 

2 hours ago, clack said:

The MCU is getting to that point prematurely, imo, what with Sam Wilson and Kate Bishop already waiting in the wings. With the original Hawkeye's character and adventures remaining so unexplored, do we really need his replacement so soon?

Do they have any other choice? Marvel signs the actors for very long contracts and by the time it’s done most of them are more than ready to move on. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Guest

[starri]

22 minutes ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

Comparing sales to Amazing Spider-Man or Batman or even Walking Dead, contemporaneous books at the time, is exactly the benchmark to use.  They show what the metric for success looks like.  What does 41,600 copies for Mighty Thor mean (from a few months before the end of Jane's run) if you don't know that Doomsday Clock #2 sold 158,600 copies?

You're also looking at an ongoing comic versus an event series.  Civil War II, which was hated, still sold north of 100K per issue.

  

[ICantDoThatDave]

1 hour ago, Dani said:

No it’s not. That’s like comparing the box offices numbers for Shazam to Endgame or even Captain Marvel just because they were released near each other. There are way too many other factors in play to make that kind of direct comparison. Previous versions of the same character is the the simplest and usually the most accurate comparison. 
 

But that's exactly what people do.  And studios.  Do you not think Thor 4 is going to get compared to Doctor Strange 2 or the early Phase 5 MCU movies?  Was Birds of Prey not compared to Joker, box office-wise?  Was The LEGO Movie Part 2 (failure) not compared to Captain Marvel (success) since they came out roughly the same time?  Things are compared to what comes out near them.

Granted sequels also get compared against their predecessor(s), but success/failure is not generally based on that - it's measured independently of prior success/failure.

Quote

You're also looking at an ongoing comic versus an event series.  Civil War II, which was hated, still sold north of 100K per issue.

That's also a good point.  Kinda brings me back to what I initially posted on this topic.  Sales <> Good.  In either direction.  Something critically panned (Civil War) can sell great.  Something critically supported (Jane as Thor) can sell poorly.  Hopefully the MCU can make Jane-Thor both "good" & "successful", even though the comics made that storyline neither, similar to Civil War.

EDIT: I realized I phrased that last sentence very poorly.  2nd attempt: Hopefully the MCU can make Jane-Thor both "good" & "successful" like they did with the Civil War storyline.

Edited February 16, 2020 by ICantDoThatDave

[Guest]

On 2/16/2020 at 3:14 PM, ICantDoThatDave said:

But that's exactly what people do.  And studios.  Do you not think Thor 4 is going to get compared to Doctor Strange 2 or the early Phase 5 MCU movies?  Was Birds of Prey not compared to Joker, box office-wise?  Was The LEGO Movie Part 2 (failure) not compared to Captain Marvel (success) since they came out roughly the same time?  Things are compared to what comes out near them.

People on social media may do that but no one who understands statistics is going to compare raw numbers unless the two projects share a lot of similarities.  Your first two comparisons are somewhat fair but the last one makes no sense. If a studio or comic book publishers judges a projects success like that almost everything would be deemed a failure. If anything these companies work very hard to break the numbers down in a way that is favorable. 
 

If Marvel was going to compare Jane’s Thor to Batman they wouldn’t have even bothered making the comic. It would have been a failure before the first panel was drawn. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Guest

[clack]

My understanding is that monthly sales under 20,000 is the cutoff point below which books are subject to cancelation.

(That said, Ms Marvel sells less than 15,000, and Squirrel Girl sold less than 10,000 for years before it ceased publishing, supposedly voluntarily on the writer's part. Both titles are or were kept alive for reasons other than commercial viability).

Sales of 40,000 are quite respectable.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

7 hours ago, clack said:

  Reveal spoiler

 

The MCU is getting to that point prematurely, imo, what with Sam Wilson and Kate Bishop already waiting in the wings. With the original Hawkeye's character and adventures remaining so unexplored, do we really need his replacement so soon?

 

5 hours ago, Dani said:

Do they have any other choice? Marvel signs the actors for very long contracts and by the time it’s done most of them are more than ready to move on. 

I don't know about "choice", but while they do sign the actors for years, Hawkeye's the one character who hasn't even had an entire arc of his own in the films. Even Banner's gotten more attention, and they can't give him his own movie because of the legal stuff.

[ICantDoThatDave]

2 hours ago, Dani said:

People on social media may do that but no one who understands statistics is going to compare raw numbers unless the two projects share a lot of similarities.

I almost think we're saying the same thing, just coming at it from different directions.  I agree that the comparisons of raw numbers are often irrational, which is why I've been trying to focus on equivalent comparisons.

Heck, I never thought I'd get all comic book nerd into this - I initially just expressed wariness about Jane-Thor in the MCU based on actual, documented past events from Jane-Thor in the comics:  The people that celebrated the *idea* of "female Thor! rah!" were not comic book buyers, so it didn't translate into sales, beyond the typical "#! Collector's Edition" that happens to all #1's..  Was wary it might be the same for the movies.

But now I'm down this rabbit-hole & I'm a comic book nerd, so...

Mighty Thor #1 sold well, as do most #1 issues.  So that's not really useful.  It dropped precipitously after that.

Monthly sales compared to pre-Jane Thor aren't really useful either, since old Thor was so bad it got scrapped & Jane-Thor was also so bad it got scrapped.  Both were in the "this is selling poorly, let's scrap it" range. 

All that said....

Quote

If Marvel was going to compare Jane’s Thor to Batman they wouldn’t have even bothered making the comic. It would have been a failure before the first panel was drawn. 

...doesn't follow.  They did it as an experiment, right?  A novelty.  They didn't have a crystal ball or else as you say, they wouldn't have bothered.  If Thor was already a top monthly seller along the lines of Batman or Amazing Spider-Man we both agree they wouldn't have experimented with it, right?

So they took a poorly selling title & were like "what if we made Thor female?  May as well try it. Can't actually hurt?" It was a decision by the studio & then the writers had to figure out how to make it happen.  It wasn't like "everything that has led up to now implies Jane = Thor"

They did it as a gimmick.  It didn't succeed.  They killed her off a few years later & brought "real Thor" back.  The gimmick didn't make it a successful title.  If they had a crystal ball & knew the results they wouldn't have even tried it, as you say.  I agree with you.  But they didn't know.  They tried it, it failed.  They wanted Batman numbers, thought Jane-Thor might do the trick, it didn't..  They killed her off & reset.

[ICantDoThatDave]

36 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

 

Hawkeye's the one character who hasn't even had an entire arc of his own in the films. Even Banner's gotten more attention, and they can't give him his own movie because of the legal stuff.

Wait, Hawkeye hasn't gotten his own film but has definitely gotten an arc.  From "the Hawk" in Thor to Loki's pawn in Avengers to family man in Ultron to "he's on house arrest" in Infinity War (and even here I'm glossing over his participation Civil War) to his whole family dusting & then becoming Ronin in Endgame & Laura's return & "it should have been me!".  He got an arc.  I mean, he's probably not most people's favorite character, but he got a storyline.

[Bruinsfan]

8 hours ago, clack said:

  Reveal spoiler

 

The MCU is getting to that point prematurely, imo, what with Sam Wilson and Kate Bishop already waiting in the wings. With the original Hawkeye's character and adventures remaining so unexplored, do we really need his replacement so soon?

I think with Chris Evans being ready to bow out of the movies, Sam Wilson's development and the passing of the shield was done at just the right time. And frankly based on Renner's apparent stability they probably should have squeezed Kate Bishop into the mix a couple of movies ago just in case.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

I almost think we're saying the same thing, just coming at it from different directions.  I agree that the comparisons of raw numbers are often irrational, which is why I've been trying to focus on equivalent comparisons.

No what I am saying is that comparison’s that you are making to deem Jane’s Thor a failure are not remotely equivalent. 

 

42 minutes ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

They did it as a gimmick.  It didn't succeed.  They killed her off a few years later & brought "real Thor" back.  The gimmick didn't make it a successful title.  If they had a crystal ball & knew the results they wouldn't have even tried it, as you say.  I agree with you.  But they didn't know.  They tried it, it failed.  They wanted Batman numbers, thought Jane-Thor might do the trick, it didn't..  They killed her off & reset.

I don’t see any point in hashing this out any longer so I’ll just say that I completely disagree with your conclusion. You’re making a lot of assumptions about what Marvel’s goals were with Jane’s Thor that I find doubtful. 

 

1 hour ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

 

I don't know about "choice", but while they do sign the actors for years, Hawkeye's the one character who hasn't even had an entire arc of his own in the films. Even Banner's gotten more attention, and they can't give him his own movie because of the legal stuff.

Hawkeye just doesn’t really work that well as a main character on the big screen and he’s not going anywhere just yet. Even if his series has a short run he will still be the equivalent to the other characters trilogies. 

[ICantDoThatDave]

14 minutes ago, Dani said:

No what I am saying is that comparison’s that you are making to deem Jane’s Thor a failure are not remotely equivalent. 

I mean, OK, I'd just like to know why you disagree or why I've said is wrong.  I mean, just saying...

Quote

I don’t see any point in hashing this out any longer so I’ll just say that I completely disagree with your conclusion. You’re making a lot of assumptions about what Marvel’s goals were with Jane’s Thor that I find doubtful. 

...just knowing you disagree doesn't help me understand why I should change my mind & it doesn't really leave me anything to debate or even acknowledge.  Can you at least expand on what you find doubtful or what assumptions I'm making are faulty?  I fully admit I might be wrong, but you haven't given me anything to re-evaluate.

Bit of deja vu here (not from you), so maybe it's me.  If we need to just agree to disagree that is fine as well.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

I mean, OK, I'd just like to know why you disagree or why I've said is wrong.  I mean, just saying...

In order to effectively make comparisons you need to start with two things that are roughly equivalent and publication date isn’t enough of a similarity without adjusting the data. For example you were talking about ~40,000 for Jane’s Thor and ~150,000 for Batman. Just comparing those numbers it seems to be clear cut which one is more successful.  Now let’s say that the previous issue of Thor sold 20,000 and the previous issue of Batman sold 300,000. That changes the picture completely. The less similarity the more data that is needed to effectively evaluate success or failure. 

 

1 hour ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

..just knowing you disagree doesn't help me understand why I should change my mind & it doesn't really leave me anything to debate or even acknowledge.  Can you at least expand on what you find doubtful or what assumptions I'm making are faulty?  I fully admit I might be wrong, but you haven't given me anything to re-evaluate.

Bit of deja vu here (not from you), so maybe it's me.  If we need to just agree to disagree that is fine as well.

My main point of disagreement is with your idea that Marvel’s goal was to get Batman level sales. I’m sure they would have been thrilled if that happened but it’s more likely that their goals were a lot smaller and probably went beyond just sales numbers. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by Guest

[ICantDoThatDave]

45 minutes ago, Dani said:

In order to effectively make comparisons you need to start with two things that are roughly equivalent and publication date isn’t enough of a similarity without adjusting the data. For example you were talking about ~40,000 for Jane’s Thor and ~150,000 for Batman. Just comparing those numbers it seems to be clear cut which one is more successful.  Now let’s say that the previous issue of Thor sold 20,000 and the previous issue of Batman sold 300,000. That changes the picture completely. The less similarity the more data that is needed to effectively evaluate success or failure. 

I mean, sure, OK, I agree.  But those are made up numbers that never happened.  I've been posting real numbers, so I'm honestly not sure what your points is? 

Quote

My main point of disagreement is with your idea that Marvel’s goal was to get Batman level sales. I’m sure they would have been thrilled if that happened but it’s more likely that their goals were a lot smaller and probably went beyond just sales numbers. 

No, my point is that they want something remotely successful.  They took a gambit, it failed.  They cancelled it.  That's all.  Not Batman level, just "worth keeping around".  It wasn't.  No value judgment meant.  Happens all the time.

I'm not even sure what we're debating at this point, so I'll bow out.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, ICantDoThatDave said:

I mean, sure, OK, I agree.  But those are made up numbers that never happened.  I've been posting real numbers, so I'm honestly not sure what your points is? 

My point it that when you only compare two data points in a situation like this the results are meaningless. When you add more data the results can change drastically. I could just as easily post the sales numbers from the worst performing comic in that time frame and declare Jane’s Thor to be a massive success. Both comparisons are incomplete and based on logical fallacies.

I’m not saying that Jane’s run as Thor was a success or a failure because I really don’t care either way. I am saying that you can’t determine if it’s a success or failure using the numbers you are posting alone.

Suddenly it occurs to me that this was a very long winded way of saying you’re comparing apples and oranges. Sometimes my brain really annoys me. 

[swanpride]

...I don't think that the Jane as Thor Comic was cancelled...they had a story they wanted to tell, which was, if I understand correctly, actually more about Thor than Jane, and once it was finished they did what they always do and reverted back to the status quo.

That is btw the reason why it makes so much sense to adapt the story now, because Thor in the MCU is in the right mind-set so that the story would make sense.