Jason Aaron's Thor vs Walt Simonson's Thor

[Jcogginsa]

This rumble will be using the same rules as my Claremont X-Men thread. That means:

-The only feats that matter for Aaron Thor are the ones that come from Comic Books written by Jason Aaron set in Marvel's Main continuity. That goes for both Thor and any character's he is scaled to.

-The only feats that matter for Simonson Thor are the ones that come from Comic Books written by Walt Simonson set in Marvel's main continuity. That goes for both Thor and any character's he is scaled to.

To be clear "Jason Aaron's Thor" refers to the son of Odin, not Jane Foster

Final Note: I know Jason Aaron's Thor is controversial within the fandom. Please remember that this is a rumble, not a debate over the quality of the comics.

[Pendaran]

Not for nothing, but the thread premise seems like a way of dodging board evidence standards, as threads like this tend to have.

"Even if some of the feats from this run might otherwise be questionable one way or another under the rules, too bad, I am saying they count."

If that's not the intent, hey sure, but this board has a history of threads like that with that vibe.

[Jcogginsa]

Not for nothing, but the thread premise seems like a way of dodging board evidence standards, as threads like this tend to have.

"Even if some of the feats from this run might otherwise be questionable one way or another under the rules, too bad, I am saying they count."

If that's not the intent, hey sure, but this board has a history of threads like that with that vibe.

Threads specifying "Classic Doctor Strange" or "classic Kingpin" seem to be okay, and I see these threads as being similar to those. Or to an extent, threads that specify "DCAU Batman" or "Post Crisis Wonder Woman".

Board consistency Rules are still in effect

[Pendaran]

Those though are huge, multi writer stretches of time, are able to use an actual full bore setting reset as a demarcation point, or in DCAU Batman's case, the existence of an entire alternate version of a character that has nothing to do with canon comics Batman, would be what I would say there. And "Classic Kingpin" and "Classic Strange" came into being largely because you could look at the runs of those characters and go "and then past this point, they didn't get to be that potent anymore, for years on end, under multiple writers". It's not really analogous.

[Jcogginsa]

Those though are huge, multi writer stretches of time, are able to use an actual full bore setting reset as a demarcation point, or in DCAU Batman's case, the existence of an entire alternate version of a character that has nothing to do with canon comics Batman, would be what I would say there. And "Classic Kingpin" and "Classic Strange" came into being largely because you could look at the runs of those characters and go "and then past this point, they didn't get to be that potent anymore, for years on end, under multiple writers". It's not really analogous.

Yeah, and at the end the day, all those are the same thing: "These feats are what count for this match."

You can argue that some of those are more firm demarcations (and I would agree at least as far as the DCAU and Post Crisis points go) but otherwise they're still the same thing

[Pendaran]

Yeah, and at the end the day, all those are the same thing: "These feats are what count for this match."

You can argue that some of those are more firm demarcations (and I would agree at least as far as the DCAU and Post Crisis points go) but otherwise they're still the same thing

"Everything this writer did counts in this thread because I say so" is not in the same place as being able to notice when a character takes a sustained, years long multi writer downturn from a previously pretty consistent level of oomph and referring to "before that era." One of those is just "because I want it to be", the other is at least attempting to work within the idea that these things can be looked at and weighed.

You're really just mostly making a case that we shouldn't bother with the "Classic Strange" or "Classic Fisk" stuff, since apparently it mostly just serves to open a window for "well if we can specify that, I can take things even further to 'everything this writer did counts for the purpose of this thread'". There's no real way to say "but I mean board rules still count" within that as far as a premise of "based in this one entirely narrow chunk of time and nothing else". You've already tossed them out when you're acknowledging that if placed within a wider whole, either run and its performances might be viewed differently.

[Jcogginsa]

"Everything this writer did counts in this thread because I say so" is not in the same place as being able to notice when a character takes a sustained, years long multi writer downturn from a previously pretty consistent level of oomph and referring to "before that era." One of those is just "because I want it to be", the other is at least attempting to work within the idea that these things can be looked at and weighed.

You're really just mostly making a case that we shouldn't bother with the "Classic Strange" or "Classic Fisk" stuff, since apparently it mostly just serves to open a window for "well if we can specify that, I can take things even further to 'everything this writer did counts for the purpose of this thread'". There's no real way to say "but I mean board rules still count" within that as far as a premise of "based in this one entirely narrow chunk of time and nothing else". You've already tossed them out when you're acknowledging that if placed within a wider whole, either run and its performances might be viewed differently.

Okay we're obviously looking at this with two completely different perspectives, because what I have bolded there is not my intent.

To speak hypothetically "Author A wrote a hundred issues of Character B. Character B was mostly depicted with continental levels of power, but there's one issue where he destroys a solar system without explanation"

Under the rules of this thread, Character B would be a continent buster, because while Author A did write a moment where he destroyed a solar system, it was outliar compared to the majority of their work.

The Board's consistency rules still the exact same way that they do normally. The only thing different about this match is how the elligible feats are demarcated. We are capable of determining that something is an outliar within a single author's body of work. As evidence, look at One Piece. All Written by a single author, but whenever someone brings up Luffy dodging a laser that definitively made of actual light, it's always dismissed as an outliar. If it can be done with Eichiro Oda, then there is no reason that it can't be done with Jason Aaron or Walt Simonson.

[Pendaran]

The problem of that is that there's a difference between, say, Luffy, who is essentially a character whose entire frame of reference exists within One Piece, and then Marvel's Thor, whose frame of reference as a character exists under multiple titles, multiple writers, and a purportedly never rebooted continuity stretching into the mists. Which is to say, One Piece exists in reference to itself. Jason Aaron's Thor run exists, for instance, in reference to things well beyond itself, and makes active use and participation of those things like they are supposed to mean something to the reader just for seeing them and he doesn't need to explain why. At various times characters and instances are treated as impressive references due to knowing them from other stuff. It's not something that even moderately neatly exists in a vacuum compared to even something as basic as observing "in this era they clearly nigh consistently suck, but in this era they clearly nigh consistently rock."