He is at least twice as powerful now.
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've never been into Thor since I got into comicbooks, and I found both Aaron and the MCU Thor to be really lame. But reading all of these comments, I think I'll give this one a try.
Same here. But I actually did like this Issue.
IMO: Giving Thor the Power of Cosmic is not necessary. Because that tells me you think him weak that you need to boost his already high power. And it makes me think Marvel thinks him weak. I think this damages the character more because any feat he does would be met with: "Well, his powers are amped so.." But again My Opinion.
Overall, I thought the Issue read great. I'm interested. Sexy Costume as well.
Last edited by CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree; 01-02-2020 at 05:06 PM.
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’s what other people have said and I see the concern. I never cared for the character, but I’ve been aware of how strong he was and supposed to be, so seeing him be silly and weak-ish in the movies didn’t help me formulate a good image of him.
I’ll read this new run’s first few issues.
I dunno, lol. They’re kinda different and I think Diana’s publication history made her cooler to me.
No matter how it happened, I am just glad it was changed. This looks to be a promising story. A creative writer can probably figure out a way to explain the discrepancy, remember we put up with a Thor that wasn't worthy inspite of over 600 issues of stories that said he was, and then gave the hammer to a character that was given the choice to be an Asgardian and rejected it.....time to forget it and move on.
I am committed to the idea that any work of art should be judged on its own merit, not on the behavior or beliefs of its author.
So, this was pretty metal- I'm into it. I loved Cates' SS: BLACK. This looks to be another wild ride, with rad art.
Please give any one of these runs on Thor a chance: Lee/Kirby (some of it is dated, but much of it still plays, plus a lot of the material in their run introduces ideas for the Marvel Universe, like FF #1-101.
Gerry Conway/John Buscema, there is a collection of these books being solicited again in the Marvel Preview.
Roy Thomas/Buscema/Pollard these stories hook up a lot of the ideas from the seventies and finish off some from the sixties. Issue #'s 298-301 are particularly good.
Walt Simonson's run on the book was the stepping off point for a lot of the movie material.
Dan Jurgens/John Romita's run is perhaps my personal favorite.
J. M. Straczynski's Thor may be the easiest to start with, start with his first book, its a number 1 from 2008
Any way, I am sure I am leaving out a lot, but off the top of my head, these runs are entertaining reading.
I am committed to the idea that any work of art should be judged on its own merit, not on the behavior or beliefs of its author.
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 definitely understand what your saying. However, MCU Thor is a pale comparison to Comic Thor. Weakish and silly is nothing, but Hollywood’s doing. The best way to form any opinion about this character is to read Thor comics. I’m not trying to say that you don’t. I’m saying we can’t judge comic book Thor based off of the performance of MCU Thor.