The tragedy of Jobber Thor

[HaveAtThee]

I haven't read a comic in quite some time, so I'm not here to comment on any specific narrative or story, but the last time I did was Aaron's run on Thor, and while it was entertaining in parts I just noticed that he (and Marvel in general) wants to tell a human story using mythological/magical/superhuman characters. Whereas other writers take on Thor (or any other powerful character) seeking to write a story about Asgardian characters. It's one thing to inject human or humanistic elements in a fantasy adventure story, it's another to treat said characters as basically regular people who happen to have powers. It's how I feel about movie Thor as well. He doesn't seem like a mystical space god with crazy powers, but rather a goofball frat boy who happens to be a powerful alien. I think Aaron mostly built his run off of Matt Fraction's previous work. Fraction sort of turned Thor and Odin into brutish and thuggish boors with deep issues, whereas JMS' Thor was a slightly modernized take on classical Thor. Similar proper speech pattern (not quite Shakespearean), quite powerful and examining the meaning of Asgardian godhood among humans. Only issue I had was bringing Asgard to Earth at the time, though we'll never know how JMS would have concluded his first arc and where he would've taken Thor afterward. Everything after 2007 has made me really appreciate Dan Jurgens' quite excellent run on Thor from 1998-2004 that often gets overlooked.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

I haven't read a comic in quite some time, so I'm not here to comment on any specific narrative or story, but the last time I did was Aaron's run on Thor, and while it was entertaining in parts I just noticed that he (and Marvel in general) wants to tell a human story using mythological/magical/superhuman characters. Whereas other writers take on Thor (or any other powerful character) seeking to write a story about Asgardian characters. It's one thing to inject human or humanistic elements in a fantasy adventure story, it's another to treat said characters as basically regular people who happen to have powers. It's how I feel about movie Thor as well. He doesn't seem like a mystical space god with crazy powers, but rather a goofball frat boy who happens to be a powerful alien. I think Aaron mostly built his run off of Matt Fraction's previous work. Fraction sort of turned Thor and Odin into brutish and thuggish boors with deep issues, whereas JMS' Thor was a slightly modernized take on classical Thor. Similar proper speech pattern (not quite Shakespearean), quite powerful and examining the meaning of Asgardian godhood among humans. Only issue I had was bringing Asgard to Earth at the time, though we'll never know how JMS would have concluded his first arc and where he would've taken Thor afterward. Everything after 2007 has made me really appreciate Dan Jurgens' quite excellent run on Thor from 1998-2004 that often gets overlooked.

I have the same issues with the MCU asgardians as well.

I do agree that Dan Jurgens run is overlooked. Just, ugh, just skip the part with the clone of Thanos.

[kilderkin]

I have the same issues with the MCU asgardians as well.

I do agree that Dan Jurgens run is overlooked. Just, ugh, just skip the part with the clone of Thanos.

I agree with the quoted summary and I also loved jurgens run, much underated imo

The thanks clone thing I liked until it was retconned into a clone, when it was written as real thanks it's a great win for thor

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

I agree with the quoted summary and I also loved jurgens run, much underated imo

The thanks clone thing I liked until it was retconned into a clone, when it was written as real thanks it's a great win for thor

After Infinity Gauntlet Thanos was no longer a nihilist villain obsessed with getting macguffins to convince Mistress Death to love him as he learned that he is his own worst enemy and that destruction and macguffins will never impress her, and he became a reclusive farmer and explorer who would occasionally help Adam Warlock and other heroes save the universe. Jurgens ignored Thanos character development and regressed him into his old genocidal self while also making him dumber. I don't have issues with the Thanosi clones since you Can give Thor epic feats without having to mess up the philosophical and morally grey character Thanos became

If some writer would turn Magneto into a Snidely Whiplash type of villain, the X-MEN fans would throw a issy fit. And rightly so.

[U.N. Owen]

If some writer would turn Magneto into a Snidely Whiplash type of villain, the X-MEN fans would throw a issy fit. And rightly so.

Hello, Ultimate Magneto.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

Hello, Ultimate Magneto.

Different universe. Different character.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Hello, Ultimate Magneto.

Millar doesn't know how to write any other type of head villain. Look at all of 'Wanted'.

[U.N. Owen]

Different universe. Different character.

X-Fans were still pissed that Magneto was a mutant supremacist who ate humans.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

Millar doesn't know how to write any other type of head villain. Look at all of 'Wanted'.

Everyone in the Ultimate universe is a douchebag. Except for Spiderman.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Everyone in the Ultimate universe is a douchebag. Except for Spiderman.

Not true. At all.

They are douche bags. Cool douche bags, but douche bags all the same.

Or they are losers. Completely. Utterly. See: Hank Pym, Black Panther.

But yeah, not much in the way of depth or contradictions.

[kilderkin]

After Infinity Gauntlet Thanos was no longer a nihilist villain obsessed with getting macguffins to convince Mistress Death to love him as he learned that he is his own worst enemy and that destruction and macguffins will never impress her, and he became a reclusive farmer and explorer who would occasionally help Adam Warlock and other heroes save the universe. Jurgens ignored Thanos character development and regressed him into his old genocidal self while also making him dumber. I don't have issues with the Thanosi clones since you Can give Thor epic feats without having to mess up the philosophical and morally grey character Thanos became

If some writer would turn Magneto into a Snidely Whiplash type of villain, the X-MEN fans would throw a issy fit. And rightly so.

In all honesty I never had any faith thanos would stay that way after the infinity series, but at least he was coniving in the thor story, recently I think he's too much of a one trick pony

[Marvell2100]

I haven't read a comic in quite some time, so I'm not here to comment on any specific narrative or story, but the last time I did was Aaron's run on Thor, and while it was entertaining in parts I just noticed that he (and Marvel in general) wants to tell a human story using mythological/magical/superhuman characters. Whereas other writers take on Thor (or any other powerful character) seeking to write a story about Asgardian characters. It's one thing to inject human or humanistic elements in a fantasy adventure story, it's another to treat said characters as basically regular people who happen to have powers. It's how I feel about movie Thor as well. He doesn't seem like a mystical space god with crazy powers, but rather a goofball frat boy who happens to be a powerful alien. I think Aaron mostly built his run off of Matt Fraction's previous work. Fraction sort of turned Thor and Odin into brutish and thuggish boors with deep issues, whereas JMS' Thor was a slightly modernized take on classical Thor. Similar proper speech pattern (not quite Shakespearean), quite powerful and examining the meaning of Asgardian godhood among humans. Only issue I had was bringing Asgard to Earth at the time, though we'll never know how JMS would have concluded his first arc and where he would've taken Thor afterward. Everything after 2007 has made me really appreciate Dan Jurgens' quite excellent run on Thor from 1998-2004 that often gets overlooked.

You're right. Jurgens run on Thor was pretty good.

[Anthony W]

People are saying Wiccan is the breakout star from Young Avengers and... God, I wish lol. Kate Bishop it's the real one.

Wolverine is a breakout star. Deadpool is a breakout star. Kate Bishop is just a character that popular writers like for reasons that escape me. How did this character become the Young Avenger to get all these comic appearances, when she has the least interesting origin, look and skills? Yeah, I know Hawkeye uses a bow and arrow as well but the character is a master at it and was trained by Cap in hand to hand combat over a number of years.

Kate Bishop is Roy Harper, but not the Red Arrow or Arsenal version of Roy. Kate Bishop is Roy back when he was Speedy right before the horrible downfall.

Yeah, I said it.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

In all honesty I never had any faith thanos would stay that way after the infinity series, but at least he was coniving in the thor story, recently I think he's too much of a one trick pony

Ron Marz, Peter David and Keith Giffen were pretty faithful to Starlin's post-Gauntlet Thanos though.

[JKtheMac]

I think the characterisation of Odin and Thor goes beyond "a fair bit annoying" to actually really weakening a fair bit of what run should be about: "What does it mean to be worthy"?

Okay Aaron has come up with a defendable answer...if you're a drunken selfish guy (like His Thor is portrayed quite often in run), or a drunken coward (Odin) you're unworthy, but if you're noble, brave, and totally skilled (like Jane instantly becomes when she lifts the hammer) then you're worthy.

Sure it's a defendable answer. But it relies on writing on three characters in a way not really seen before, and in many ways an unsatisfying answer...it's easy to imagine writers like Alan Moore or John Ostrander coming up with much more profound thoughts on same topic ("what is worthy").

I don't think you are being fair here. There seem to be a whole heap of associated characteristics that people often quote as representive of Aaron's Thor that can not truely be substantiated by the actual text.

Drunkard is the most obvious and easy to refute. He is portrayed as being drunk once and only once by Aaron and in the context of a long night in a tavern getting frustrated by his inability to work out who the new Thor is and having an identity crisis over his role. Personally I belive anyone that calls someone a drunkard just because they drank themselves into a stupor on a single occasion is being somewhat prejudiced over alcohol.

He is never shown to be cowardly. Not in a single panel. He is occasionally shown to be doubting his ability but that is fundamental to the story being told. The self doubt is key to his inability to call on his storm powers consistently. This is actually in the text in Thor's own words, so not open to interpretation. So nothing to do with Mjölnir excepting the obvious that unworthiness leads to self doubt and that reflectively doubt over the worthiness of gods leads to unworthiness.

As to comparisons to Jane as Thor, I honestly belive Aaron goes out of his way not to do this. It is not the story he was telling. Yes there are occasional references to people considering Jane as the 'Best Thor' etc. Importantly we never get any direct comparisons in deed or competition, and Jane herself expresses the opposite sentiment, that Thor Odinson is THE Thor.

The run is far more subtle than just being about worthiness, even though that is the central theme. The story is also about what kind of god should be worthy of worship. This is where Aaron sometimes gets criticised for being an atheist. Anyone that understands theology at any level other than Sunday school knows that the questions and answers surrounding the anthropomorphic nature of deities, are not simply a question of faith. Aaron doesn't make this a simple question either. He is not advocating atheist beliefs, he is advocating reflection and examination of what we belive in. Something that some religious people find challenging despite millennia of debate within their own religions suggesting this is a valid thing to question.