This video shows all the canonical fights between Hulk and Thor before he became the god of jobbers.
Hulk: 5 wins
Thor: 8 wins
Tie: 15
This video shows all the canonical fights between Hulk and Thor before he became the god of jobbers.
Hulk: 5 wins
Thor: 8 wins
Tie: 15
I think an easy way to look at Thanos stories is that anything written by Jim Starlin, Ron Marz and Keith Giffen is the real Thanos while anything written by other authors should be dismissed as a Thanosi clone.
Aaron seems to have a tendency of writing godly characters steeped in fanciful mythology as ''too human'' as seen in Thanos Rising which is like a bad remake of My Friend Dahner that simplifies the lore of Thanos and the Titanian Eternals and turns Mistress Death into a very different character than Starlin's Death.
I think an easy way to look at Thanos stories is that anything written by Jim Starlin, Ron Marz and Keith Giffen is the real Thanos while anything written by other authors should be dismissed as a Thanosi clone.
That video is wrong on so many levels and it's not surprising since it's from Fernando, it ignores blatant context, it favors Thor when he BFR's Hulk but doesn't do the same when Hulk BFR's Thor, it also counts different versions of Hulk that are weaker than regular Hulk as regular Hulk and it uses amped versions of Thor from alternate timelines as regular Thor, etc...
Hulk and Thor have almost always tied or had inconclusive fights, the only real time Thor has won against Hulk was in Hulk annual 2001 when he KO'd him and the only real time Hulk has won over Thor is when he KO'd him in the same comic in Let the Battle Begin and the Immortal Hulk stuff, so that's Thor: 1, Hulk:3. I could count when Hulk cheapshoted him and KO'd him in Bendis Avengers run but i don't feel like cheapshots are a fair way to count wins.
I think an easy way to look at Thanos stories is that anything written by Jim Starlin, Ron Marz and Keith Giffen is the real Thanos while anything written by other authors should be dismissed as a Thanosi clone.
I understand but those 2 are horrible in being "objective" so i wouldn't use either as a source of informatio... Fernando is such a huge Thor fanboy and is so biased and BannerIncredibleHulk is exactly the same but for Hulk that i can't take those guys seriously at all. They are not as bad nowadays as they used to be a few years back but they still can't get rid of their overwhelming bias. And don't get me wrong we are all bias to a certain degree it's human nature, nobody is truly above it but when it goes into the territory of being deceptive and lying about stuff that's when it crosses the line for me.
Nothing personal, obviously watch whoever you wanna watch, i too sometimes watch superhero fights on youtube if it's a cool fight with kickass music, but i wouldn't take those channels opinions as serious.
When do you guys think Aaron’s run on Thor dipped in terms of quality?
issue 12 onwards of god of thunder
it started off on a high note then kept going lower
For me...the actual writing quality has been consistent, it's just the character portrayals and depictions have become more exaggerated and prone to accentuating the negative aspects of characters I care about, to the point of disregarding past continuity in a major way.
Hey, remember when Thor teamed up with Thanos and Genis-Vell?
And remember the epic quote of Thor in that story?
''All the power of the storm, from all the world, flows through my veins, and can be summoned by mine hammer at any time, wherever it is. A lightning storm in Japan? Mine. A hurricane off the coast of Barbados? Mine again. A brace of tornadoes in Kansas? Aye...mine. All that might, all that destructive force, mine to command. Channeled and guided through the mystic might of this hammer, guided right at thee!''
I think an easy way to look at Thanos stories is that anything written by Jim Starlin, Ron Marz and Keith Giffen is the real Thanos while anything written by other authors should be dismissed as a Thanosi clone.
I kind of agree with both Ichijinijisanji and Frontier when they say:
The twelve issue God Butcher arc was very good, and very different for a Thor story: most Thor writers either try to channel Lee or Simonson (or sometimes both), and lean heavily on the continuity from those eras; Aaron's first twelve issues almost totally ignore past continuity in favour of new characters, which I thought was unexpected and kind of refreshing. Immediately afterwards, though, we got the Dark Elf arc, which just didn't work for me, neither the writing or the art. I bailed after an issue or two. I had felt in the God Butcher arc that one thing that worried me a little was that "middle Thor" seemed a little off - a little lifeless, a little stupid at times, like Aaron wasn't sure how to write him - and that got worse as the subsequent arcs developed. I actually wonder if Aaron was perhaps largely unfamiliar with Thor continuity at first, and after reading the older stuff decided he didn't really like Thor himself? Whatever the reason, after the first arc we start getting Thor being less likeable and competent, which was a turn-off for me. I hoped with Ribic returning to the art chores I might find things back to those original 12 issues in terms of my enjoyment, but I wasn't gripped.
When Jane picked up the hammer, though I didn't really like the idea (I'm not keen on copycat heroes in general), I actually felt the comic became pretty compelling, particularly because we suddenly had a hero that Aaron was comfortable writing as a hero; unfortunately, in order to make Jane's Thor shine, I felt Aaron really trashed a lot of the other characters. I thought the story was very good if you didn't mind Aaron screwing with the mythos to back up his own vision. There are bits that are awful - particularly the bits where I feel Aaron is directly addressing reader complaints in a petty manner - that really take me out of the story, and that's never good; if I'd never picked up a Thor comic before Aaron, I'd probably think it was great, though.
I think an easy way to look at Thanos stories is that anything written by Jim Starlin, Ron Marz and Keith Giffen is the real Thanos while anything written by other authors should be dismissed as a Thanosi clone.
I feel like Aaron's run was a deconstruction that went on far too long. The mystery of the whisper went on too long and was unsatisfying, Jane concealing her identity went on too long. He spent so much time deconstructing Thor that he forgot he had to build him back up, and he did, but he did it in such a way that undermined his own story. Thor didn't feel like himself again until he got the hammer back. If he was trying to tell a story about toxic masculinity through thor, he missed the point. Aaron's thor is just as insecure as when he first became unworthy.
Even when he got Mjolnir back he Is still a drunken oaf with cringy dialogue and depowered to f****. While Jane, as a normal human with a sword, was able to beat Dario, a minotaur with Hulk-like strenght.
Aaron is to Thor what Bendis is to the Guardians of the Galaxy.
I think an easy way to look at Thanos stories is that anything written by Jim Starlin, Ron Marz and Keith Giffen is the real Thanos while anything written by other authors should be dismissed as a Thanosi clone.