Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[JKtheMac]

More intrinsically, the real Thor never had his own identity stripped in those arcs, in all prior cases lifting the hammer granted you the power but did get written as you being truly thor

And there is the fundamental difference between the premises of these stories. You have answered your own question.

[JKtheMac]

To write him out of the book so Jane could strut her stuff more?

If that is all you are reading in the story then no wonder you didn’t enjoy it. However, you have often touched on the other elements of the story in our conversions so I assume that’s just a rhetorical statement. Surely you can see why this wasn’t the underlying reasoning behind the story?

[JKtheMac]

Man, I love what Hickman did with Thor on the Avengers book, we had an Unworthy Thor, but one who despite that, always fought the good fight, always did what was right and faced the problems face to face, even with impossible odds, which ultimately led him to be worthy once more before his death against the Beyonders, now that's the greatness we could have had from a story with an Unworthy Thor, because the idea that Aaron had wasn't bad, it was his execution that was awful, but Hickman took that concept and made it a great story, a great little arc for Thor in the big scale epic that was his Avengers book, and he got way more development and character growth than in the entirety of Aaron's run.

When Thor became worthy just prior to fighting the Beyonders, that felt EARNED, it felt logical and the natural progress of the story.....War of the Realms, not so much.

You are making an assertion about what Hickman did that he himself would probably not recognise. He did indeed tell a great Thor story, but he never attempted to make him worthy. The story was written entirely in collaboration. The way Marvel operates means nobody can do significant things with characters without the say so of the person who is writing the solo or that editor.

From interviews with Hickman he was given a lot of leeway because Aaron’s story was not really being affected by what Hickman chose to do. Hickman solves a puzzle. He wanted Thor as part of his story and he created a different hammer to allow him to do it the way he envisioned it. He neither made Thor worthy nor wrote a story that asserted this. He simply showed that he was not unworthy in the way that an alternative version of the hammer from a mirror image world would recognise.

You could just ask him. If he answers you I expect him to say no, he wasn’t doing that at all.

[Overhazard]

I think a major part of the story is identity, how one sees oneself vs how others see that person. Maybe the Unworthy version is how Thor really sees himself, and Jane's version is how she and the rest of the world see him.
I don't know, Im grasping at straws here, I'm trying really hard to be positive here, but I'm fighting my own nature.

[JKtheMac]

I think a major part of the story is identity, how one sees oneself vs how others see that person. Maybe the Unworthy version is how Thor really sees himself, and Jane's version is how she and the rest of the world see him.
I don't know, Im grasping at straws here, I'm trying really hard to be positive here, but I'm fighting my own nature.

Keep up the good fight. At least that way you are raising points we can discuss.

Aaron does indeed portray Thor as doubting himself. Just as charliehustle415 was saying earlier in the debate, there is a reason that we have multiple Thors in this story.

Young Thor represents the desire to be worthy. That active struggle to become recognised and be someone. A simple and at times naive view of Thor. A version of Thor we have all seen in the comics even when he was carrying Mjolnir. The heroic imperative as aspiration but without complete success. A raw adventurous Thor.

Jane as Thor is the mortal who lifts the hammer. She is like Blake in a world where Blake no longer exists. She is the aspiring hero that isn't naive. She has a clear mission and she is up for the challenge. She's more like a Silver Age hero. Her worries are the mundane worries of the real world. She is pragmatic. There is no question over her worthiness, she lifted the hammer. Her struggle is to be accepted by the gods, just as Blake often felt pulled between two worlds. When she is being purposefully heroic she is indeed how many see Thor. The Mortal / God Thor is a firm favourite of mine. Hence my enjoying JMS and Lee/Kirby more than other runs.

War Thor is the angry Thor. A god of battle and vengeance. Righteous through his cause but consumed by it. We occasionally see that Thor in stories. He is the berserker Thor. The Thor we saw killing an army of frost giants. Thor when the chips are down and the villain is out to kill loved ones.

Old King Thor represents the burden of Thor. The kingly or princely Thor. More stoical and measured. A patriarchal figure, especially to his grandchildren. A Thor that aspires to be his father and build a new world. A Thor that rages against the dying universe and seeks to defy the chaos. He is effortlessly worthy but he knows worthiness for what it is. He has lived with it. It has taken its toll on him. He knows it is the hard fight but he fights it anyway. He knows it is potentially a loosing battle but he doesn't care. We occasionally see a grim Thor in the comics. He's the one that broods easily. The one that feels the knocks but eventually gets up and tries things differently. He grits his teeth but doesn't loose control. His perspective and seriousness brings focus. Old King Thor is an exaggerated version but we recognise him.

Avengers Thor (pre unworthy) was the Thor we take for granted. The heroic Thor. The superhero. He does what he thinks is right. He sometimes worries about what is and isn't right but he usually makes good choices. He's a great guy on the surface but we know he is actually quite deep. There is more to him than meets the surface. He's the guy who worries about Midgard when so few of his peers care. He's the one that loves working in a team, but always stands slightly separate, be they the Avengers or the Warriors Three. He is a god amongst men and he knows that brings responsibilities.

Unworthy Thor is the Thor that is just under the surface. The Thor that doesn't really have a moral compass and instead relies upon being able to lift that hammer everyday. He knows that normal rules don't necessarily apply to the gods. He follows rules anyway, but he worries which ones are good rules and which are not. He is Thor's doubts and fears. As you pointed out he is like his midlife crisis. We have seen worrying Thor before but never this bad. This was the one that was shaken to the core. One of his set of rules, that the gods are the good guys, was shattered. He categorically isn't Hercules, who is much more like some of the other Thors here but there is equally more than one Herc and Herc is designed to be very much like Thor so that's not a hard rule.

New King Thor is a purposeful Thor. He still has many of the traits of all of those other Thor's, but he has a mission and a new moral compass. He has realised he is more than a Thunder God, he is the God of Worthiness (however he wants to express that at any moment). He wants to be an example to his peers. He wants to rebuild Asgard in his image. He's a new Thor. (Same as the old Thor? Not quite.) He isn't a Silver Age superhero he is a modern Thor. He will prove complex. He will probably become some of these other Thors occasionally but his compass will steer him.

[Frontier]

Ah, I like this intriguing point of view; so we are exploring Thor's mythos via Jane by removing Thor Odinson.

I like this interpretation a lot.

Hmmm.. I gotta chew on this nugget for a bit...

That just seems....so weird to me. That you would need to take out the character who the mythos revolves around and just put someone else in their place like that.

But that's just me.

If that is all you are reading in the story then no wonder you didn’t enjoy it. However, you have often touched on the other elements of the story in our conversions so I assume that’s just a rhetorical statement. Surely you can see why this wasn’t the underlying reasoning behind the story?

I think it was part of the reasoning behind the move.

You are making an assertion about what Hickman did that he himself would probably not recognise. He did indeed tell a great Thor story, but he never attempted to make him worthy. The story was written entirely in collaboration. The way Marvel operates means nobody can do significant things with characters without the say so of the person who is writing the solo or that editor.

From interviews with Hickman he was given a lot of leeway because Aaron’s story was not really being affected by what Hickman chose to do. Hickman solves a puzzle. He wanted Thor as part of his story and he created a different hammer to allow him to do it the way he envisioned it. He neither made Thor worthy nor wrote a story that asserted this. He simply showed that he was not unworthy in the way that an alternative version of the hammer from a mirror image world would recognise.

You could just ask him. If he answers you I expect him to say no, he wasn’t doing that at all.

I think Hickman did his own take on Thor's worthiness and capped off his character arc within the confine of that book. It wasn't meant to overrule Aaron's stuff but it was Hickman's own stance on it.

I think a major part of the story is identity, how one sees oneself vs how others see that person. Maybe the Unworthy version is how Thor really sees himself, and Jane's version is how she and the rest of the world see him.
I don't know, Im grasping at straws here, I'm trying really hard to be positive here, but I'm fighting my own nature.

Man, that's a really depressing thought .

I can see Jane though since she acted the most like Thor compared to, well, Thor at the time...so she was the standard Thor.

Keep up the good fight. At least that way you are raising points we can discuss.

Aaron does indeed portray Thor as doubting himself. Just as charliehustle415 was saying earlier in the debate, there is a reason that we have multiple Thors in this story.

Young Thor represents the desire to be worthy. That active struggle to become recognised and be someone. A simple and at times naive view of Thor. A version of Thor we have all seen in the comics even when he was carrying Mjolnir. The heroic imperative as aspiration but without complete success. A raw adventurous Thor.

Jane as Thor is the mortal who lifts the hammer. She is like Blake in a world where Blake no longer exists. She is the aspiring hero that isn't naive. She has a clear mission and she is up for the challenge. She's more like a Silver Age hero. Her worries are the mundane worries of the real world. She is pragmatic. There is no question over her worthiness, she lifted the hammer. Her struggle is to be accepted by the gods, just as Blake often felt pulled between two worlds. When she is being purposefully heroic she is indeed how many see Thor. The Mortal / God Thor is a firm favourite of mine. Hence my enjoying JMS and Lee/Kirby more than other runs.

War Thor is the angry Thor. A god of battle and vengeance. Righteous through his cause but consumed by it. We occasionally see that Thor in stories. He is the berserker Thor. The Thor we saw killing an army of frost giants. Thor when the chips are down and the villain is out to kill loved ones.

Old King Thor represents the burden of Thor. The kingly or princely Thor. More stoical and measured. A patriarchal figure, especially to his grandchildren. A Thor that aspires to be his father and build a new world. A Thor that rages against the dying universe and seeks to defy the chaos. He is effortlessly worthy but he knows worthiness for what it is. He has lived with it. It has taken its toll on him. He knows it is the hard fight but he fights it anyway. He knows it is potentially a loosing battle but he doesn't care. We occasionally see a grim Thor in the comics. He's the one that broods easily. The one that feels the knocks but eventually gets up and tries things differently. He grits his teeth but doesn't loose control. His perspective and seriousness brings focus. Old King Thor is an exaggerated version but we recognise him.

Avengers Thor (pre unworthy) was the Thor we take for granted. The heroic Thor. The superhero. He does what he thinks is right. He sometimes worries about what is and isn't right but he usually makes good choices. He's a great guy on the surface but we know he is actually quite deep. There is more to him than meets the surface. He's the guy who worries about Midgard when so few of his peers care. He's the one that loves working in a team, but always stands slightly separate, be they the Avengers or the Warriors Three. He is a god amongst men and he knows that brings responsibilities.

Unworthy Thor is the Thor that is just under the surface. The Thor that doesn't really have a moral compass and instead relies upon being able to lift that hammer everyday. He knows that normal rules don't necessarily apply to the gods. He follows rules anyway, but he worries which ones are good rules and which are not. He is Thor's doubts and fears. As you pointed out he is like his midlife crisis. We have seen worrying Thor before but never this bad. This was the one that was shaken to the core. One of his set of rules, that the gods are the good guys, was shattered. He categorically isn't Hercules, who is much more like some of the other Thors here but there is equally more than one Herc and Herc is designed to be very much like Thor so that's not a hard rule.

New King Thor is a purposeful Thor. He still has many of the traits of all of those other Thor's, but he has a mission and a new moral compass. He has realised he is more than a Thunder God, he is the God of Worthiness (however he wants to express that at any moment). He wants to be an example to his peers. He wants to rebuild Asgard in his image. He's a new Thor. (Same as the old Thor? Not quite.) He isn't a Silver Age superhero he is a modern Thor. He will prove complex. He will probably become some of these other Thors occasionally but his compass will steer him.

I really don't like young Thor.

And Unworthy Thor just seems paradoxical to some of the other Thors. I don't think Thor has ever believed that gods are inherently good because he fights evil gods occasionally (hello Loki and Serpent). I think he believes most Asgardians are inherently noble then he believes gods are inherently good. I think this version was definitely plagued by more traditional Hercules-isms then Thor is typically depicted with and that carried over even when he was written as normal Thor. Especially his Avengers characterization.

In practice I don't expect new King Thor is going to be much different from Avengers Thor. Maybe he'll finally stop talking about mead and come off more competent and less of a joke in the Avengers books.

[GodThor]

btw, for those who thought that Ragnarok cycles were retconed, they aren't.

spoilers:

in History of the Marvel Universe, Ragnarok cycles were there way before 1,000,000 BC.

end of spoilers

[THORPERION]

That just seems....so weird to me. That you would need to take out the character who the mythos revolves around and just put someone else in their place like that.

But that's just me.

I think it was part of the reasoning behind the move.

I think Hickman did his own take on Thor's worthiness and capped off his character arc within the confine of that book. It wasn't meant to overrule Aaron's stuff but it was Hickman's own stance on it.

Man, that's a really depressing thought .

I can see Jane though since she acted the most like Thor compared to, well, Thor at the time...so she was the standard Thor.

I really don't like young Thor.

And Unworthy Thor just seems paradoxical to some of the other Thors. I don't think Thor has ever believed that gods are inherently good because he fights evil gods occasionally (hello Loki and Serpent). I think he believes most Asgardians are inherently noble then he believes gods are inherently good. I think this version was definitely plagued by more traditional Hercules-isms then Thor is typically depicted with and that carried over even when he was written as normal Thor. Especially his Avengers characterization.

In practice I don't expect new King Thor is going to be much different from Avengers Thor. Maybe he'll finally stop talking about mead and come off more competent and less of a joke in the Avengers books.

Exactly. Just from that scene with Iron man in a hot tub (Good Lord! smh) you clearly see the purpose of the steadfast “NEW KING THOR”. He’s so worried and traumatized that he’s hot tubbing and making inane jokes. Don’t talk to me about relaxation after a “War”. After what he went through and the alleged concern some here assign to him with his “worthiness” there’d be no time for relaxation. Period. He’d be out remaking Asgard. Quite frankly he wouldn’t even be with the Avengers at this time. Last time he was King he left them back in the brief Johns run.

All those descriptions JK gives are nice. Two things though:

1. We don’t need these divided alleged versions of Thor. A fan knows Thor’s personality already. The division is of no help. The fact here is the reason for the unworthiness and showing us the versions of Thor (if that’s even the intent) does nothing to answer the question! What is THOR? So now he’s a force that is split up in varied hammers each with its own characteristic/personality of Thor? So when the “Thors” combine their hammers they’ll call down and form ALL-FATHER THOR ala Captain Planet?!

2. The above just tries to justify the existence of Jane Foster as Thor and appease her humiliating of him. Now she represents him as the “Hero”. Problem is he never needed that to be represented. That’s the ONE aspect that he NEVER lost through any of his tribulations in the past! Further, if they really wanted to represent that aspect you use the best example of that archetype within his mythos: his blood brother BETA RAY BILL. It should’ve been him who “inspired” him. He’s been beaten by berserker Thors in the past and not raised a finger against him. Why? He understands Thor’s frustrations and even when Thor is acting off kilter. It’s he who represents the “mundane” focus. He’s the first to wield the hammer other than Thor. He’s the reason we have this alleged Thor-damned examination yet he’s left completely out save for a worthless cameo. He would’ve been impactful! He beat Thor to gain that power to save his people.

I stand by my opinion: Jane Foster is a feminist movement ploy. Had they used Sif or god forbid ANGELA (his sister! Gasp!) the story wouldn’t have the feminist/atheist slant. It had to be a human to prove man is superior to the gods they “imagine” and a human frail woman to show “girl power”. Sif and Angela are part of the patriarchy and the privileged thus they are the enemy.

Lastly, an “examination” of THOR is only necessary for new fans. I don’t need it. A lot of fans here don’t either. Quite frankly most of this was retread of old Thor stories. New fans, jumped on for the female empowerment spin. That’s the truth. Plenty on these boards and others have stated: “she is my Thor” or “I never liked Thor until her” so let’s put to rest this whole theory that Aaron wanted to examine what Thor is. It’s already plainly known who he is. This was just him pandering to leave something to transcend comic book fame. Now he has it! Congrats on your self promotion Mr. Aaron! Hope the Hollywood version of your tale butchers your story as badly as you’ve butchered Thor.

[JKtheMac]

That just seems....so weird to me. That you would need to take out the character who the mythos revolves around and just put someone else in their place like that.

But that's just me.

Well not just you it would seem, but yes that's the structure of the story from my perspective. Its a technique writers use sometimes to better explore characters. Remove the actual character and replace them with a foil. A very similar but not quite the same character. Specifically lacking one of the key ingredients that the original takes for granted. That the readers take for granted.

I think it was part of the reasoning behind the move.

Only in so much as it was a fun ride to have a mortal in the role again.

I think Hickman did his own take on Thor's worthiness and capped off his character arc within the confine of that book. It wasn't meant to overrule Aaron's stuff but it was Hickman's own stance on it.

Well this got argued to death at the time. My thoughts are on record here somewhere. We have brand new Hickman goodness to worry about now.

I really don't like young Thor.

I am not sure that's the point of him. He is naive and obsessed.

And Unworthy Thor just seems paradoxical to some of the other Thors. I don't think Thor has ever believed that gods are inherently good because he fights evil gods occasionally (hello Loki and Serpent). I think he believes most Asgardians are inherently noble then he believes gods are inherently good.

And it turned out that they are not inherently noble. They are fickle and changeable. They can fall into bad ways. They can become god of other things through neglect.

I think this version was definitely plagued by more traditional Hercules-isms then Thor is typically depicted with and that carried over even when he was written as normal Thor. Especially his Avengers characterization.

Personally I think this is a strange way to look at things. I don't see Herc in there at all, aside from the obvious that Herc was created as a subtly different mirror image foil of Thor.

In practice I don't expect new King Thor is going to be much different from Avengers Thor. Maybe he'll finally stop talking about mead and come off more competent and less of a joke in the Avengers books.

Maybe. Certainly Aaron will write him in the Avengers as different to whoever takes over. He has been set up to be different now though. I hope he always drinks mead in copious amounts. That's part of the character for me.

[Overhazard]

Man, that's a really depressing thought .

Given all the evidence we have, it's the only thing I can think of. Thor placed too much of his self-worth into that hammer, and he became a disheveled drunk when he lost the only thing that made him feel like he had any value. I know I've joked about this before, but Thor is in dire need of mental health counseling. This behavior Is. Not. Healthy. I know that heroes in the marvel universe have some kind of psychological issue. Bruce Banner with his anger and his D.I.D. Spider-man and his crippling guilt complex, so I guess it was Thor's turn to have some kind of issue.

[JKtheMac]

1. We don’t need these divided alleged versions of Thor. A fan knows Thor’s personality already. The division is of no help. The fact here is the reason for the unworthiness and showing us the versions of Thor (if that’s even the intent) does nothing to answer the question! What is THOR? So now he’s a force that is split up in varied hammers each with its own characteristic/personality of Thor? So when the “Thors” combine their hammers they’ll call down and form ALL-FATHER THOR ala Captain Planet?!

This isn't about what we already know, it is about questioning what we know. Digging into our assumptions. Yes many of these things were clear to us. Some of us have been here for a very long time. Some of these things had got lost along the way. Looking at you Fraction.

We have had many discussions here and in other Thor threads before you jumped in about the dreaded word deconstruction. I usually distrust the term because many think it is about de-powering and breaking down characters. Now I still don't think deconstruction is the correct word to use, but this technique is all about pulling the character apart, not necessarily breaking them down. Aaron literally placed many notions of Thor into separate characters to better explore where Thor comics have been and where they should go in the future. He clearly believed that the worthiness issue was not being handled properly. Or at least he thought it would make a good story to really look closely at it and then position Thor as more focused on that issue. The various characters help him explore this as a story.

2. The above just tries to justify the existence of Jane Foster as Thor and appease her humiliating of him. Now she represents him as the “Hero”. Problem is he never needed that to be represented. That’s the ONE aspect that he NEVER lost through any of his tribulations in the past! Further, if they really wanted to represent that aspect you use the best example of that archetype within his mythos: his blood brother BETA RAY BILL. It should’ve been him who “inspired” him. He’s been beaten by berserker Thors in the past and not raised a finger against him. Why? He understands Thor’s frustrations and even when Thor is acting off kilter. It’s he who represents the “mundane” focus. He’s the first to wield the hammer other than Thor. He’s the reason we have this alleged Thor-damned examination yet he’s left completely out save for a worthless cameo. He would’ve been impactful! He beat Thor to gain that power to save his people.

I am not trying to justify it. I am seeking to better explain why he did what he did in my opinion. His only justification is him being the Thor writer and the editors letting him tell the story.

I am sure he could have used Beta-Ray. It could have been a great story too. It just wasn't this story. This story was about a mortal and as I have said many times Beta-Ray is not really a mortal.

I stand by my opinion: Jane Foster is a feminist movement ploy. Had they used Sif or god forbid ANGELA (his sister! Gasp!) the story wouldn’t have the feminist/atheist slant. It had to be a human to prove man is superior to the gods they “imagine” and a human frail woman to show “girl power”. Sif and Angela are part of the patriarchy and the privileged thus they are the enemy.

Well I personally think that is a very cynical way of looking at it, and having got to know Aaron though his books and his interviews over the last few years I don't think he is cynical. But even if the story was about girl power so what? That's his prerogative as the writer. I enjoyed it regardless.

Lastly, an “examination” of THOR is only necessary for new fans. I don’t need it. A lot of fans here don’t either. Quite frankly most of this was retread of old Thor stories. New fans, jumped on for the female empowerment spin. That’s the truth. Plenty on these boards and others have stated: “she is my Thor” or “I never liked Thor until her” so let’s put to rest this whole theory that Aaron wanted to examine what Thor is. It’s already plainly known who he is. This was just him pandering to leave something to transcend comic book fame. Now he has it! Congrats on your self promotion Mr. Aaron! Hope the Hollywood version of your tale butchers your story as badly as you’ve butchered Thor.

I am not a new fan and I was literally cheering along during God of Thunder because I could tell Aaron was going to dig deep and examine Thor on a non-trivial level. I certainly do not expect everyone to like that kind of story but I do.

The movie won't be able to do this. It won't have time. Some will thereby claim it was done better or that it 'fixed the problems'. In reality it is just a very cool idea to have Jane lift the hammer. Not original but cool.

[JKtheMac]

Given all the evidence we have, it's the only thing I can think of. Thor placed too much of his self-worth into that hammer, and he became a disheveled drunk when he lost the only thing that made him feel like he had any value. I know I've joked about this before, but Thor is in dire need of mental health counseling. This behavior Is. Not. Healthy. I know that heroes in the marvel universe have some kind of psychological issue. Bruce Banner with his anger and his D.I.D. Spider-man and his crippling guilt complex, so I guess it was Thor's turn to have some kind of issue.

This is comics. Batman could be a simple miniseries and be all over if he was properly guided through his grief and avoided the bargaining stage or advised to make more healthy choices.

[Frontier]

Well not just you it would seem, but yes that's the structure of the story from my perspective. Its a technique writers use sometimes to better explore characters. Remove the actual character and replace them with a foil. A very similar but not quite the same character. Specifically lacking one of the key ingredients that the original takes for granted. That the readers take for granted.

I understand it as a technique and am not inherently against it, I just don't think Jane as a foil served OG!Thor very well.

Only in so much as it was a fun ride to have a mortal in the role again.

I don't think that mattered at all to the point I was getting at.

Well this got argued to death at the time. My thoughts are on record here somewhere. We have brand new Hickman goodness to worry about now.

I like Hickman's Thor .

I am not sure that's the point of him. He is naive and obsessed.

And as such, not very likeable unless you're into that kind of thing. My issue is some of his characterization seems to have been latched back onto present day Thor.

And it turned out that they are not inherently noble. They are fickle and changeable. They can fall into bad ways. They can become god of other things through neglect.

I don't think that would be a huge revelation to Thor, and seems completely separate from the issue of whether gods are inherently good or not.

Personally I think this is a strange way to look at things. I don't see Herc in there at all, aside from the obvious that Herc was created as a subtly different mirror image foil of Thor.

The drinking. The issues with female relationships. The short hair and beard. The buffoonish-ness and irreverent personality. That's much more Hercules then Thor in my opinion.

Maybe. Certainly Aaron will write him in the Avengers as different to whoever takes over. He has been set up to be different now though.

I certainly hope he writes him differently from how he's been writing him before. But I hope the same for the new writer, so I guess we'll have to see. Anything would be an improvement from how he's handled in Avengers now.

(I don't know if Aaron will drop the She-Hulk relationship but will the next writer completely ignore it?)

I'm just waiting for the arm and eye to come back.

I hope he always drinks mead in copious amounts. That's part of the character for me.

(Cough) Hercules (Cough) .

Given all the evidence we have, it's the only thing I can think of. Thor placed too much of his self-worth into that hammer, and he became a disheveled drunk when he lost the only thing that made him feel like he had any value. I know I've joked about this before, but Thor is in dire need of mental health counseling. This behavior Is. Not. Healthy. I know that heroes in the marvel universe have some kind of psychological issue. Bruce Banner with his anger and his D.I.D. Spider-man and his crippling guilt complex, so I guess it was Thor's turn to have some kind of issue.

I'm so over the hammer obsession.

[charliehustle415]

That just seems....so weird to me. That you would need to take out the character who the mythos revolves around and just put someone else in their place like that.

But that's just me.

Think about Batman Knightfall, when Bruce was taken out by Bane and was replaced by Jean-Paul Valley; it is then that we learn the true nature of Bruce as Batman. Even Gothamites recognized the true Batman compared to Knightfall Batman

[JKtheMac]

Think about Batman Knightfall, when Bruce was taken out by Bane and was replaced by Jean-Paul Valley; it is then that we learn the true nature of Bruce as Batman. Even Gothamites recognized the true Batman compared to Knightfall Batman

Indeed we had a few conversations about this story early on. As wall as Superior Spider-Man. They all do slightly different things but their technique is the same.