Do modern Marvel writers hate Thor?

[Cronus]

Thor needs to be shown as clever and noble more than beating one hero after another senselessly.

Once again, agreed completely. Hell, I still remember Thor's first fight with the seemingly unbeatable Absorbing Man. Realizing brute force wasnt the answer, what's he do? Uses Mjolnir to transmute Creel into hydrogen gas! In Origins of Marvel Comics, by Stan Lee, Stan, in creating Thor, muses, "Who could be stronger than Hulk? Who could be smarter than Mr Fantastic?". I feel like one way to interpret the last rhetorical question by Lee is certainly not literally. Obviously, Thor doesn't dabble in string theory, quantum physics or molecular biology for fun. But thousands of years of observing human behavior has to provide some sort of insight into human behavior, for example? Thor should be portrayed as having an insight into human affairs that can only be gained from thousands of years of existence. And for goodness sakes... why hasn't any writer in years expounded on Thor's ability and skill as a fighter and warrior, that can only come from thousands of years of experience in the literal school of hard knocks?

So should he be shown as clever? Absolutely. Should he be shown as noble? Without question! Both these qualities should be underscored by thousands of years of existence.

I would like to see Cates expound on Thors relationship to Gaea as well.

[Cronus]

Holding up a mountain in his weakest incarnation, punching through time, shattering an asteroid twice the size of earth with a punch, wrestling a blackhole, shaking worlds, overpowering worlds being whipped at him, having 90% of his mass repelled off only to keep coming, cracking Onslaughts Armor having the Beyonder straight up call the Hulk's potential limitless. Etc etc.

Even the whole being truly immortal thing dates back to PAD.

Not trying to derail the thread, but the whole "Thor was always clearly stronger than Hulk before X" is largely a myth.

There might have been a period back before the Savage Hulk was established where Hulk was weaker, but that was over by the early 70s at the very latest.

Those are all different versions of Hulk, long before post warp core Hulk, and he had a (semi?) legitimate planet busting feat with RSH? Thor fans could in the same spirit cite Thor overcoming the gravity of a neutron star, the world tree feat, the midgard serpent feat, etc.

Personally, I like the old way, Thor being a god meant that the best Hulk could muster in terms of strength was equaling Thor. There was a reason Stan Lee made Thor a god. Like Captain Mar-Vel 92 said, when Pak took the reigns, he listened to Hulk fans (most who I'm sure are very interested in the old Hulk/Thor rivalry) and gave Hulk a planet busting feat.

Thor fans have not been so fortunate in like over 20 years. Hence, the question, "do Marvel writers hate Thor?"

I'll wait to see where Cates takes Thor, so I'll hold any judgment in abeyance. But I'm of the mind that the last writer to get it right with Thor was JMS.

[Ptrvc]

Those are all different versions of Hulk, long before post warp core Hulk, and he had a (semi?) legitimate planet busting feat with RSH? Thor fans could in the same spirit cite Thor overcoming the gravity of a neutron star, the world tree feat, the midgard serpent feat, etc.

Personally, I like the old way, Thor being a god meant that the best Hulk could muster in terms of strength was equaling Thor. There was a reason Stan Lee made Thor a god. Like Captain Mar-Vel 92 said, when Pak took the reigns, he listened to Hulk fans (most who I'm sure are very interested in the old Hulk/Thor rivalry) and gave Hulk a planet busting feat.

Thor fans have not been so fortunate in like over 20 years. Hence, the question, "do Marvel writers hate Thor?"

I'll wait to see where Cates takes Thor, so I'll hold any judgment in abeyance. But I'm of the mind that the last writer to get it right with Thor was JMS.

Again there's that myth, despite Hulk's strength and anger consistently portrayed as limitless.

I sympathize with Thor fans, I really do. It sucks when you're guy is getting chumped out, when even in their own book they get outdone or replaced. It's happened to a lot of us in the past couple of years, but Thor fans definitely got hit the hardest and longest.

Hell, you could even say Marvel was constantly trying to recreate the sales (and mainstream media attention) that Jane Thor had, at least at first, which led to all the other replacements.

But, there's always that weird fixation on having Thor be the number one guy at everything across the board. In addition to all his other powers, he's got to outdo others at their inevitably includes out muscling the Hulk, the guy whose strength increases with rage, whose tagline is "the strongest one there is,", whose whole raison d'etre is to get hit to take the pain, to get back up even though every bad guy, every good guy, and every other guy seem arraigned against him and hit back.

Harder.

Hulk's not a Thor rogue, he's not a member of Thor's supporting cast.

Yet, a lot of Thor fans want to do to Hulk for the sake of Thor, what they assert that writers have done to Thor, for the sake of Jane, Captain Marvel, (she-)Hulk, Captain America, the Sentry and so forth. Nobody wants their guy to he the stepping stone, or the measuring stick.

[Anthony W]

Really? Valkyrie is that Popular? mmmmm I don't think so. I'd like to know WHO is really talking about it.

I just realized that she even had a book when I looked at the Previewsworld.com

Wow I thought that it was obvious that I was joking

[Cronus]

Again there's that myth, despite Hulk's strength and anger consistently portrayed as limitless.

Not a myth at all. This is how Thor was initially portrayed. I get it. As a Hulk fan, you're comfortable with the current portrayal of these characters. There have been statements to that effect that Hulks strength is limitless, but feats to that effect? Hardly.

I sympathize with Thor fans, I really do. It sucks when you're guy is getting chumped out, when even in their own book they get outdone or replaced. It's happened to a lot of us in the past couple of years, but Thor fans definitely got hit the hardest and longest.

We agree here. Hence, the title of this thread.

Hell, you could even say Marvel was constantly trying to recreate the sales (and mainstream media attention) that Jane Thor had, at least at first, which led to all the other replacements.

*flips coin*

Your guess is as good as mine here.

But, there's always that weird fixation on having Thor be the number one guy at everything across the board.

Nothing weird about it at all. That was Stans original intent. Like I said, things didnt change here until De Falco stepped in and said, "Hulk should stronger, but Thor more powerful"

In addition to all his other powers, he's got to outdo others at their inevitably includes out muscling the Hulk, the guy whose strength increases with rage, whose tagline is "the strongest one there is,", whose whole raison d'etre is to get hit to take the pain, to get back up even though every bad guy, every good guy, and every other guy seem arraigned against him and hit back. Harder.

Right. That was the original intent behind the creation of a god, particularly Thor. Stan mentions this in the prologue, "Meanwhile, Back in Asgard" (from Origins of Marvel Comics, by Stan Lee). In Bring on the Bad Guys, he mentions Hulk as an occasional adversary of Thor (I'm paraphrasing), "...the Hulk was so incalculably powerful...we were driving ourselves bonkers trying to come up with villains to fight the Hulk...once he faced off against the Mighty Thor, who was left?" In Silver Surfer 4 (vol 1) Stan as much pointed to Hulk as a not quite so worthy adversary for Thor and pointed to the Silver Surfer as someone closer in power, but even still, not up to the task. His power had to be supplemented by Loki.

Hulk's not a Thor rogue, he's not a member of Thor's supporting cast.

The converse is also true, but as you say, you would never know that from how Thor is crapped on routinely.

Yet, a lot of Thor fans want to do to Hulk for the sake of Thor, what they assert that writers have done to Thor, for the sake of Jane, Captain Marvel, (she-)Hulk, Captain America, the Sentry and so forth. Nobody wants their guy to he the stepping stone, or the measuring stick.

So, in your opinion, Hulk at his angriest only being equal to Thor is a slight to Hulk?

I see it as a return to glory for Thor and not a slight to Hulk in the least.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

Not a myth at all. This is how Thor was initially portrayed. I get it. As a Hulk fan, you're comfortable with the current portrayal of these characters. There have been statements to that effect that Hulks strength is limitless, but feats to that effect? Hardly.



We agree here. Hence, the title of this thread.



*flips coin*

Your guess is as good as mine here.



Nothing weird about it at all. That was Stans original intent. Like I said, things didnt change here until De Falco stepped in and said, "Hulk should stronger, but Thor more powerful"



Right. That was the original intent behind the creation of a god, particularly Thor. Stan mentions this in the prologue, "meanwhile, back in asgard...". In Bring on the Bad Guys, he mentions Thor as an occasional adversary of Thor, "...the Hulk was so incalculably powerful...we were driving ourselves bonkers trying to come up with villains to fight the Hulk...once he faced off against the mighty Thor, who was left?" In Silver Surfer 4, Stan as much pointed to Hulk as a not quite so worthy adversary for Thor and pointed to the Silver Surfer as someone closer in power, but even still not up to the task.



The converse is also true, but as you say, you would never know that from how Thor is crapped on routinely.



So, in your opinion, Hulk at his angriest only being equal to Thor is a slight to Hulk?

I see it as a return to glory for Thor and not a slight to Hulk in the least.

I think they should be on par in terms of strenght and durability, but Thor has more variety in powers.

[Cronus]

I think they should be on par in terms of strenght and durability, but Thor has more variety in powers.

Yup. This was nicely done in an old issue of Defenders where Thor and Hulk were deadlocked for an hour.

[Ptrvc]

Why should Hulk be forced to merely match Thor on the area Hulk is known for, while woefully behind elsewhere? Hulk's got his own fanbase that's no more receptive than Thor's to their favorite being weak.

Thor should be powerful , sure, but he shouldn't have exclusivity to the trait.

[JackDaw]

Wow I thought that it was obvious that I was joking

Two signs of a good joke..

The first..whether it makes some people laugh. (And it passed this test, for me.)

The second..whether it gets some people “going” (And it passed this test, for others)

[Anthony W]

But if this is sarcasm, then well done!

Thank you very much.

[H-E-D]

The Thor you guys seem to want doesn't sound very interesting to me. Kinda just seems like you don't want him to have any significant character flaws and to never be anything less than successful.

[Panic]

The Thor you guys seem to want doesn't sound very interesting to me. Kinda just seems like you don't want him to have any significant character flaws and to never be anything less than successful.

I think you'll find that most people here are wanting the Thor from the Lee/Kirby or Simonson eras. If you don't find that Thor interesting, so be it. As many of us have pointed out though, Jane was written much like "classic" Thor, and Captain America has no real character flaws at all, and both those characters receive praise.

There is a difference between having a hero who is fallible and can make mistakes, and one who has new and awful character flaws bolted on "to make him interesting." There is a difference between a hero having hurdles he must overcome, which is good as you get to see how the hero learns from adversity and overcomes his problems, and a hero basically himself being the problem. Which is something that has dogged Thor's characterisation since at least Fraction's run.

Thor the heroic but occasionally fallible good-guy is a fun, empowering hero; Thor the arrogant ***hole who needs (and deserves) to get slapped down is something else again. Stupid heroes are not interesting to read about, and Thor has become stupider, less resourceful, and generally a much worse person than he traditionally was. That is an unnatural direction for a hero to move in, especially as seems to have so much less going on between his ears for us to read about.

I know some people will see it as Thor fans wanting there hero to be absolutely perfect and flawless and all-conquering (they don't), but they generally just want him to return to his heroic baseline which worked fine for him, and works just fine for many other heroes currently out there.

[CaptainMar-Vell92 of the Kree]

I think you'll find that most people here are wanting the Thor from the Lee/Kirby or Simonson eras. If you don't find that Thor interesting, so be it. As many of us have pointed out though, Jane was written much like "classic" Thor, and Captain America has no real character flaws at all, and both those characters receive praise.

There is a difference between having a hero who is fallible and can make mistakes, and one who has new and awful character flaws bolted on "to make him interesting." There is a difference between a hero having hurdles he must overcome, which is good as you get to see how the hero learns from adversity and overcomes his problems, and a hero basically himself being the problem. Which is something that has dogged Thor's characterisation since at least Fraction's run.

Thor the heroic but occasionally fallible good-guy is a fun, empowering hero; Thor the arrogant ***hole who needs (and deserves) to get slapped down is something else again. Stupid heroes are not interesting to read about, and Thor has become stupider, less resourceful, and generally a much worse person than he traditionally was. That is an unnatural direction for a hero to move in, especially as seems to have so much less going on between his ears for us to read about.

I know some people will see it as Thor fans wanting there hero to be absolutely perfect and flawless and all-conquering (they don't), but they generally just want him to return to his heroic baseline which worked fine for him, and works just fine for many other heroes currently out there.

Thank you for writing this, i Couldn't have said it better myself. Superman also suffers from this idea that because he doesn't have psychological flaws he's a boring character, which i think is BS.

[Cronus]

Why should Hulk be forced to merely match Thor on the area Hulk is known for, while woefully behind elsewhere?

That was Stans original vision for Thor. Like Stan mentions in Origins of Marvel Comics, "...we were hooked on superlatives at the time". I happen to agree with that view. Not everyone, including writers, agree with that perspective, but I do. Evidently, so does Kevin Grevioux.

Hulk's got his own fanbase that's no more receptive than Thor's to their favorite being weak.

.

I find this an odd notion. Hulk at his angriest...is as strong as a god...and likely among the strongest in the entire marvel universe....and this is an affront to Hulk fans? I dont see it as being problematic. Prior to De Falco, Thor and Hulk were seen as two of the BMOCs at Marvel, so why a return to this is a slight for Hulk is beyond me.

Thor should be powerful , sure, but he shouldn't have exclusivity to the trait.

Equal by definition doesn't equate to exclusivity.

[H-E-D]

I think you'll find that most people here are wanting the Thor from the Lee/Kirby or Simonson eras.

I think you're more interested in the memory of those eras than the substance.