Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[kilderkin]

An absolutely fantastic moment for Thor and the team

[MindofShadow]

Man, Thor in EMH was the best. Heck, EMH was just the best in general .

EMH had the perfect mix of comic book campiness updated

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Thor #407 Sep 1989
"Menace of the Living Universe"
Thor, Eric and the Knights arrive in the Black Galaxy to try and free the High Evolutionary and Hercules;

They battle strange organisms that Thor recognizes as existing inside the Celestial he fought;
They make their way to the null bomb the Colonizers sent to destroy the Black Galaxy,

and Thor redirects the blast;
On top of the mountain summit, they discover Hercules and the High Evolutionary trapped inside strange containers

along with another Celestial.

Script by Ron Frenz (plot) and Tom DeFalco (plot and script), pencils by Ron Frenz (layouts), inks by Joe Sinnott (finished art)

[Frontier]

I was really disappointed he never said this in the movies.

EMH had the perfect mix of comic book campiness updated

Agreed. Much better blend then the diluted movie style that Avengers Assemble ended up going with in my opinion.

[Wall-Crawler]

Why does Aaron have a fetish of undermining and stepping on the original characters we've grown up with and loved for years, in order to prop up a legacy character that no one really likes as much as the original ?

A more capable writer would just simply make the legacy character interesting, a less capable one would try to force on the reader how much "cooler" and "better" the new version is, I think it's very clear which category Aaron falls under.

Screenshot (808).jpg

[Cronus]

Why does Aaron have a fetish of undermining and stepping on the original characters we've grown up with and loved for years, in order to prop up a legacy character that no one really likes as much as the original ?

A more capable writer would just simply make the legacy character interesting, a less capable one would try to force on the reader how much "cooler" and "better" the new version is, I think it's very clear which category Aaron falls under.

Screenshot (808).jpg

We are being force fed this crappola.

[Overhazard]

Why does Aaron have a fetish of undermining and stepping on the original characters we've grown up with and loved for years, in order to prop up a legacy character that no one really likes as much as the original ?

A more capable writer would just simply make the legacy character interesting, a less capable one would try to force on the reader how much "cooler" and "better" the new version is, I think it's very clear which category Aaron falls under.

Screenshot (808).jpg

Im not a fan of that either, It's totally possible to like more than one thing, you don't have to diminish one character to lift up another, it's so lazy.

[Overhazard]

JMS and Coipel got me to read Thor and I really liked it.

[Panic]

IMO I think they were trying to make Thor "more relatable" by humanizing him, but they've lost some of the elements that make Thor..Thor. Its been irritating seeing this manchild running around with that half braided hammer throwing gamma lightening. And like that link pointed out if i want human hero stories i have plenty of human characters to read about.

Well I'm a little more cynical. I don't think they made him less smart, less noble and less competant to make him more relatable - generally if you want to make a hero relatable, you simply put the hero in circumstances that will make the audience feel sympathy with the character, and have the character do what the audience would want to do in those situations; I think they did what they did because they are simply not keen on Thor, and it is difficult to build up a hero if you basically don't want him built up. It happens. It has been happening more and more since we have got away from the sixties and Marvel started hiring writers that were fans before they were professionals. Marvel wants to keep hold of their "Thor" brand, but the current set of writers are not big Thor fans, imo. This is the kind of thing you do when you have a mythology you feel has potential, but the hero central to that mythology just isn't "your guy", for want of a better term: you find a way to sideline the original hero and replace him with your own guy or guys, often by cutting down the original hero a little by making him the object of fun, or by dirtying him up to make him seem morally inferior or less deserving than the new guys, or making him weaker and less effective as a hero, or by all three.

I think Simonson toned down the Shakespearean dialogue in his run without making him sound jarringly contemporary, and I think that worked. I don't think it needs to be taken any further than that.

[GodThor]

I think Simonson toned down the Shakespearean dialogue in his run without making him sound jarringly contemporary, and I think that worked. I don't think it needs to be taken any further than that.

Dan Jurgens brought it back... a lot.

I really, really liked that.

[Frontier]

Well I'm a little more cynical. I don't think they made him less smart, less noble and less competant to make him more relatable - generally if you want to make a hero relatable, you simply put the hero in circumstances that will make the audience feel sympathy with the character, and have the character do what the audience would want to do in those situations; I think they did what they did because they are simply not keen on Thor, and it is difficult to build up a hero if you basically don't want him built up. It happens. It has been happening more and more since we have got away from the sixties and Marvel started hiring writers that were fans before they were professionals. Marvel wants to keep hold of their "Thor" brand, but the current set of writers are not big Thor fans, imo. This is the kind of thing you do when you have a mythology you feel has potential, but the hero central to that mythology just isn't "your guy", for want of a better term: you find a way to sideline the original hero and replace him with your own guy or guys, often by cutting down the original hero a little by making him the object of fun, or by dirtying him up to make him seem morally inferior or less deserving than the new guys, or making him weaker and less effective as a hero, or by all three.

I think Simonson toned down the Shakespearean dialogue in his run without making him sound jarringly contemporary, and I think that worked. I don't think it needs to be taken any further than that.

I think a lot of the changes they've tried to make to Thor's characterization as of late (be it movies or comics) has been working under the assumption that Thor and the way he used to be portrayed just doesn't appeal to people.

[Panic]

Except Jane's Thor was pretty much like OG Thor used to be, and she was a success.

Part of the problem, imo, is that the top writers at Marvel for the last twenty years are big Cap fans, and they've altered Thor, Iron Man, and whoever else is perceived a threat to Cap's top status, to now function as very different personalities so as not to crowd Steve. Thor is now stupider and less noble, Stark is a selfish snark-machine, even Spidey has lost ground, largely because Marvel are event-based now, and it's too difficult to write all the headliners with their original personalities and competence when they're all together for a story. Marvel have put together an American football team of star quarterbacks, but there is only one quarterback position per game and that is usually reserved for Captain America; everybody else has been forced into lesser roles. Or at least that's how I see it.

[Cronus]

JMS and Coipel got me to read Thor and I really liked it.

Reading JMS stuff was the first time in years I really started wanting to read Thor again. Seems I heard they were having trouble meeting monthly deadlines so left the book. Or some such.

[Panic]

No, JMS knew there was an event coming up and he didn't want to write for it, so he jumped ship.

[Frontier]

Except Jane's Thor was pretty much like OG Thor used to be, and she was a success.

Part of the problem, imo, is that the top writers at Marvel for the last twenty years are big Cap fans, and they've altered Thor, Iron Man, and whoever else is perceived a threat to Cap's top status, to now function as very different personalities so as not to crowd Steve. Thor is now stupider and less noble, Stark is a selfish snark-machine, even Spidey has lost ground, largely because Marvel are event-based now, and it's too difficult to write all the headliners with their original personalities and competence when they're all together for a story. Marvel have put together an American football team of star quarterbacks, but there is only one quarterback position per game and that is usually reserved for Captain America; everybody else has been forced into lesser roles. Or at least that's how I see it.

I dunno. I really don't think Cap is put on that much of a pedestal, at least now. I mean, Time Runs Out wasn't a very good showing for Steve, especially compared to how Hickman depicted Thor, and I don't think that's an isolated instance.

Tony was going to become what he is now the moment RDJ became a hit. And that didn't negatively impact him in the MCU, especially when played off Chris Evans' Cap who was basically his co-lead in the MCU.

I think Spidey's momentum had less to do with Cap and more to do with Marvel wanting to reboot Spider-Man to the way they "remembered" him being, not really caring if the writing set him back a decade maturity or career-wise. I don't think it's as much of an issue now as it was post-OMD though.

Thor I think is just Aaron's own perceived necessity to make Thor more relatable or "human" to audiences. Look at how he updated Dr. Strange by re-emphasizing his arrogance, fallibility, and making him more womanizing. He didn't even talk the same way he used to.

I agree he wrote Jane like old Thor and that turned out well but it could be they view the contrast with her frail, human, cancer identity as the necessary contrast to make the Thor-side more interesting. I don't agree, but it could be their take on it.