Thor #1 Spoilers

[Rosebunse]

That there is no afterlife could be for any number of reason. It might be destroyed for that reality or that reality might just be cut off from the central afterlife of the universe. It might also be that the humans King Thor created never had souls anyways due to the lack of resouraces he had when creating them.

[brettc1]

That there is no afterlife could be for any number of reason. It might be destroyed for that reality or that reality might just be cut off from the central afterlife of the universe. It might also be that the humans King Thor created never had souls anyways due to the lack of resouraces he had when creating them.

The last seems the least likely.

Methinks Aaron's aetheism is showing.

[comicscollector]

I still have not got my copy,but next time i go to my LCS,i will be getting a copy.
Looks quite interesting.

[Del torro]

My first thought was it somehow gets destroyed during the war of the realms.

There's more than one type of after life. It doesn't make sense that there isn't any where for a soul to go after death.

We know death makes towers to house souls, and the Phoenix has the white hot room where dead souls go and other cosmic entity's or hell lords or beings. If Valhalla is destroyed, there are still places the soul can go in the marvel universe

[GrandEleven]

So I'm a little torn on this one.

On one side, I kind of like the idea of there being an armory of magical weapons for Thor … on the other hand … a bit bummed most of said smashing/leveraging happened off panel. Could have been fun to see various hammers do various things.


The far distant future Thor story could be fun … but I wonder, especially in light of the phoenix wolverine, if this is a direct reaction to the Thanos Wins arc that was so popular. "Far future" seems to be the new alternate universe were writers can really cut-loose and write off the wall things without worry about anything else. This could be the beginning of a fun sub genre (I do love my cosmic comics) or it could get really stale really fast (I admit, Old Man Phoenix is pushing it … even if I _do_ love me OML).


The one thing I decidedly don't like is the art … The Jane run spoiled me. Maybe it will grow on me? But first impressions are "meh".

[brettc1]

Interesting to see the references to Odin's enchantments for the hammers.but still no consideration on panel for why he couldn't lift Mjolnir.

[kaimaciel]

I liked it too. Nice to see Thor FINALLY able to accomplish something positive.

But I don't understand why there is no longer an afterlife. Seems dumb.

Honestly, I think it's just Aaron's atheism showing.

As for Kid Loki, his creation and relationship with Thor bother me a bit. Don't get me wrong, I love Kid Loki and cried after Journey into Mystery, but if you think about it, Thor basically created a version of Loki based on his nostalgia, basically creating an idealized version of his brother. I'm not defending Ikol's actions, but Thor creating an idyllic version of Loki, then claiming that version is the brother he deserved and his "true brother" while denying the person who Loki really was while Loki was trying to make amends and be a better person is very twisted.

I doubt we'll ever see this address in the comics, and don't even know if Aaron is keeping the fact that Thor learned that adult Loki isn't Kid Loki as the main reason for their falling out, but it would be something interesting to see addressed.

[Danvidar]

I liked it too. Nice to see Thor FINALLY able to accomplish something positive.

But I don't understand why there is no longer an afterlife. Seems dumb.

I can't recall which issue it was, I think it was the issue in which he created Jane and Steve, but a previous look into King Thor showed he was about to receive a message from the Republic of Hel about overcrowding. Something might have happened to it between that point and this one.

[JKtheMac]

If you don't care, that's fine.

Just don't go around telling me that I'm wrong

You are technically wrong.

From my perspective you are doing a number of things that I wouldn't agree with:

You place too much weight on an incident in the middle of another story.
You interpret those events as something that will still be a major issue now.
You insist that Loki was truly incapable of lying to Verity.
You insist Loki we have in this story is the same as a single aspect of a divided Loki.
You interpret the trap that Loki placed himself into in issue 10 as not a part of Loki's plan.

Those are all impersonal 'wrongs'. Nobody is saying you don't have the right to place a greater weight upon that incident in your own interpretation, but Aaron is not wrong. That is the thing you are doing that is technically wrong. The thing that connects all those other things. You are wrong to call out the current writer for not addressing something that was tied up with a bow and moved beyond just because you personally don't like it.

As Loki says himself in the final issue of AoA: "I cant be this Loki forever".

In Ewing's story there is more than one Loki, but they are both Loki. Even as Odinson is beating up Loki he responds with "I'm not who you think I am". There was a bigger plan in that story. An overly complex and in my opinion best forgotten about plan that only really served to demonstrate how much Ewing like Gillen's JitM. Ewing divided Loki, in a story about controlling ones own destiny. It ultimately didn't go anywhere interesting for me. I would rather forget all about it.

[The Cool Thatguy]

You are technically wrong.

From my perspective you are doing a number of things that I wouldn't agree with:

You place too much weight on an incident in the middle of another story.
You interpret those events as something that will still be a major issue now.
You insist that Loki was truly incapable of lying to Verity.
You insist Loki we have in this story is the same as a single aspect of a divided Loki.
You interpret the trap that Loki placed himself into in issue 10 as not a part of Loki's plan. .

Loki was unable to lie, and his statement was confirmed by another mystical lie detector. I don't see much in the way of wiggle room there, nor should it matter that it wasn't the climax of an arc. It earned him a beatdown, and again, every story that addressed the arc from the first one has treated it as murder.

The evidence is on my side, until another writer changes it. But that's not happened yet.

[Prof. Warren]

If you don't care, that's fine.

Just don't go around telling me that I'm wrong

I'm telling you that you're wrong to insist that your take on a story is the only correct one.

Fiction is open to multiple interpretations. You're not citing facts. You're citing your interpretation of a story and calling it a fact.

And you're also wrong to insist that the importance you place on a particular past story must be shared by everyone who goes on to write the characters involved.

That's not how serialized storytelling works. The fact that you as a reader choose to assign a story a certain value doesn't mean that other readers and writers have to give the same story the same weight to inform future stories.

[brettc1]

Which I guess is your way of saying you have no proof that the death of Kid Loki wasn't murder?

Because unless you can point to a retcon I'm unaware of, the word of Loki himself, while unable to lie and verified by a mystical human lie detector should be enough to confirm as fact that Kid Loki was murdered.

I'll be honest and say I can barely remember this storyline, but one thing that might be important is that truth is a matter of perspective. If you asked Doctor Doom was he smarter than Reed Richards he would say yes. He would also vaporize you for even asking the question, but the important thing here is that Doom would not be lying.

Becaaaaaaause...

[The Cool Thatguy]

I'm telling you that you're wrong to insist that your take on a story is the only correct one.

Fiction is open to multiple interpretations. You're not citing facts. You're citing your interpretation of a story and calling it a fact.

And you're also wrong to insist that the importance you place on a particular past story must be shared by everyone who goes on to write the characters involved.

That's not how serialized storytelling works. The fact that you as a reader choose to assign a story a certain value doesn't mean that other readers and writers have to give the same story the same weight to inform future stories.

Some things are open to interpretation, yes.

But the main incident, in which Loki confesses, is pretty definitive. The fact that a writer may later change it does not mean that now, in its unaltered form, it is false.

[Factor]

God, I loved Jane's run so much, but this is so bad in comparison. That last page was so dumb, I already wish Logan was dead again. I truly can't imagine how that would get anyone excited.

[Prof. Warren]

Some things are open to interpretation, yes.

But the main incident, in which Loki confesses, is pretty definitive. The fact that a writer may later change it does not mean that now, in its unaltered form, it is false.

Again, in a serialized universe, not every event is assigned equal weight in the ongoing narrative.

Not every past story has to be addressed or acknowledged to every reader's satisfaction in order to tell future stories.