Thor Odinson Appreciation 2018

[Panic]

As to the question of how many Thors? Who cares as long as they're written well! Look how many Spider-characters there are or Wolverine types, among others. To me it's not how many. I don't feel that Jane dilutes Thor. Each has their own unique qualities. Just because they both have a hammer doesn't make them the same character. If written well, both can be equally great to read and enjoy!

Well this is the thing: Jane is pretty much being written like Odinson used to be: she's smart, resourceful, civilised and reasonable and the reader's point-of-view character when dealing with Asgard; oh, and she's got medical training. That was Thor when he was popular. A few years ago Thor started being portrayed more and more as a barbarian god with a magic club, a little stupid and macho in an old fashioned way, kind of more like the knuckle-draggers that probably bullied many of us at high-school age; basically not someone you fantasise about being, and therefore not really who he was when the character was popular. Aaron has increased that more and more to make a contrast between Odinson and Jane, with Jane possessing the traditional heroic virtues and Odinson being more of a deconstructed supporting character. If you do write Thor like he was in his heyday, there isn't much difference between him a n Jane at all. Except he has thousands of years worth of backstory, enemies, family ties, and fighting experience. If you write him well, imo he will simply put Jane in the shade much like he did Thunderstrike.

I'm fine with Jane continuing to be a Thor (though I wish she'd get her own name and hammer), I don't want to take her away from her fans, but I'd like Odinson written by someone other than Aaron, who I feel has a conflict of interest when writing the two heroes. Odinson fans are not going to get our hero back while Aaron is writing him, as far as I can see.

[Frontier]

With the way Marvel and Aaron have handled things I just cannot see a world where Thor and Jane are put on equal footing as Thor given how much they've dragged Thor into the mud and handled his characterization, contrasted with their handling of Jane.

Maybe it could work like the Spider-Men where they're in the same universe as Thors but are as far away from each other as possible so whoever's writing one Thor doesn't need to acknowledge the other.

Also, you have to be able to distance yourself with what you feel is right to be done by a character. The writers, editors and admin of Marvel, may have felt that they wanted to do away with Jane's family, and by having her divorce and release custody, they gave it a "real world" take as opposed to a magical wipe out, but for the writers and so on, they may just want to make as it's in the past or won't mention it as its not something they wish to deal with. Talking about how bad a mom or parent Jane is or that she' s not worthy due to her "lack or care' for her son, becomes irrelevant when the writers themselves have no care or desire to even mention or discuss or have recollection on that matter. Long time readers know, but newer readers no nothing about it and writers have no desires or wants to bring it forward, so it fades away (so they hope).

So as a reader, we have to be able to remember those concepts, but go with new dynamics in story telling and slightly adjusted character universes. Not all stays "true" and carries through.

So story over continuity strikes again .

[kilderkin]

Well this is the thing: Jane is pretty much being written like Odinson used to be: she's smart, resourceful, civilised and reasonable and the reader's point-of-view character when dealing with Asgard; oh, and she's got medical training. That was Thor when he was popular. A few years ago Thor started being portrayed more and more as a barbarian god with a magic club, a little stupid and macho in an old fashioned way, kind of more like the knuckle-draggers that probably bullied many of us at high-school age; basically not someone you fantasise about being, and therefore not really who he was when the character was popular. Aaron has increased that more and more to make a contrast between Odinson and Jane, with Jane possessing the traditional heroic virtues and Odinson being more of a deconstructed supporting character. If you do write Thor like he was in his heyday, there isn't much difference between him a n Jane at all. Except he has thousands of years worth of backstory, enemies, family ties, and fighting experience. If you write him well, imo he will simply put Jane in the shade much like he did Thunderstrike.

I'm fine with Jane continuing to be a Thor (though I wish she'd get her own name and hammer), I don't want to take her away from her fans, but I'd like Odinson written by someone other than Aaron, who I feel has a conflict of interest when writing the two heroes. Odinson fans are not going to get our hero back while Aaron is writing him, as far as I can see.

I agree in general

Whilst he may write jane well I do not like or appreciate his take on thor at all, I know a lot of people do and that's fine, but even prior to jane having the hammer I thought thor was being handled badly, I didn't like the Gorr storyline one bit, but I appreciate I'm likely in a minority there

For me he writes him as a deadbeat - and there's no real reasoning to me for this other than to push jane - and I don't think she needs it coz she's a solid character, I'm certainly okay with her as a thor, but like all the other pretenders before, she is not the thor,

and I don't think the current creative can write that properly in my opinion

[Rogue Star]

How on earth are they going to undo the damage that Aaron has done to Thor with his feminist bullcrap. What a joke.

[Panic]

I tend to think feminism is a red herring in this case. Nothing wrong with empowering women, nothing wrong with seeing more female heroes, super-hero comics should be empowering and I'm all for fairness. Looking at the way Aaron has handled things I'm not convinced that fairness to everybody is a top priority.

[Prof. Aegis]

Well this is the thing: Jane is pretty much being written like Odinson used to be: she's smart, resourceful, civilised and reasonable and the reader's point-of-view character when dealing with Asgard; oh, and she's got medical training. That was Thor when he was popular. A few years ago Thor started being portrayed more and more as a barbarian god with a magic club, a little stupid and macho in an old fashioned way, kind of more like the knuckle-draggers that probably bullied many of us at high-school age; basically not someone you fantasise about being, and therefore not really who he was when the character was popular. Aaron has increased that more and more to make a contrast between Odinson and Jane, with Jane possessing the traditional heroic virtues and Odinson being more of a deconstructed supporting character. If you do write Thor like he was in his heyday, there isn't much difference between him a n Jane at all. Except he has thousands of years worth of backstory, enemies, family ties, and fighting experience. If you write him well, imo he will simply put Jane in the shade much like he did Thunderstrike.

I'm fine with Jane continuing to be a Thor (though I wish she'd get her own name and hammer), I don't want to take her away from her fans, but I'd like Odinson written by someone other than Aaron, who I feel has a conflict of interest when writing the two heroes. Odinson fans are not going to get our hero back while Aaron is writing him, as far as I can see.

Yes, I completely see how Jane fits with what Odinson used to be. And how Odinson has gone from a strong, caring, thinking hero to a brutish, unthinking force of nature. However, over the course of Unworthy Thor, it showed how he had gone down to the depths of being just filled with rage and anger and power for destruction to by the end, thinking again, realizing he doesn't need a hammer to do good and be Thor and seemed to be coming out of those crazed depths of savagery. So it's the journey Aaron has had him on. Nope I have no idea what then end result will be or how it will go, but I do see a journey taking place. Hopefully Jane won't fall into the role of Thunderstrike...since we all know how that needed. But if you look at the Spider-verse and see all the variations on a theme and how they have their own strong following, that can be a good thing. Again, if written well.

[Rogue Star]

So why does Thor have to learn this lesson after all these years? Aaron would have been better off writing a series about Thor before he became worthy of wielding Mjolnir.

[Panic]

Yes, I completely see how Jane fits with what Odinson used to be. And how Odinson has gone from a strong, caring, thinking hero to a brutish, unthinking force of nature. However, over the course of Unworthy Thor, it showed how he had gone down to the depths of being just filled with rage and anger and power for destruction to by the end, thinking again, realizing he doesn't need a hammer to do good and be Thor and seemed to be coming out of those crazed depths of savagery. So it's the journey Aaron has had him on. Nope I have no idea what then end result will be or how it will go, but I do see a journey taking place. Hopefully Jane won't fall into the role of Thunderstrike...since we all know how that needed. But if you look at the Spider-verse and see all the variations on a theme and how they have their own strong following, that can be a good thing. Again, if written well.

Except you are ignoring that Aaron has been writing stories about Thor in the past depicting him as brutish and unthinking, and particularly telling he's actually written Thor as saying he cheated on Jane with several women when they were together - he's not showing that Thor is emotionally in a bad place, he's basically rewriting Thor history to say he's always been a brute; also he's actually depicted as not just angry but actually stupid, confused by basic politicking and right and wrong, basically an unsophisticated barbarian. This is not showing Thor going through some stuff as you're suggesting, it's reworking Thor into a different, less likable, less relatable, less intelligent character and then saying he was always that way. He's ignored who Thor was in order to portray him the way he wants him and that is not, imo, good writing.

[Sutekh]

Except you are ignoring that Aaron has been writing stories about Thor in the past depicting him as brutish and unthinking, and particularly telling he's actually written Thor as saying he cheated on Jane with several women when they were together - he's not showing that Thor is emotionally in a bad place, he's basically rewriting Thor history to say he's always been a brute; also he's actually depicted as not just angry but actually stupid, confused by basic politicking and right and wrong, basically an unsophisticated barbarian. This is not showing Thor going through some stuff as you're suggesting, it's reworking Thor into a different, less likable, less relatable, less intelligent character and then saying he was always that way. He's ignored who Thor was in order to portray him the way he wants him and that is not, imo, good writing.

This is the same Thor who has been tricked by Loki, over and over again, for millennia, the same comic-book character who was kicked out of Asgard for being a churlish bully who needed a lesson in humility *by Odin, of all people,* only, in comic-book time, as 'recently' as the Fantastic Four taking a rocket-ship into space and Iron Man building his armor, *after* centuries, if not millennia of being occasionally doltish (which I remember him being way back in the old Kirby-era 'Prince Thor' stories, when he had a sword, because he hadn't yet earned his hammer).

I don't recall him *ever* being written as Buddha, all wise and gentlemanly.

He's always been hot-headed and jumped straight to 'hit it with my hammer' even when the 'it' in question was someone like Zeus, with whom his father had a truce, or one of the Hindu gods (Shiva?) who he basically just wanted to smack around for being disrespectful. Aaron's hardly miswriting him, if he's not portraying him with any more deep founts of wisdom than Kirby or Simonson (who had him throw down with Beta Ray Bill over a rookie assumption / mistake) and many other writers have.

Ditto Odin, who was kind of a jerk in his very first appearance, banishing Thor, and contined to be a jerk in the eighties, when he was stealing the power (and life-energy!) of every other Asgardian god to fight the Celestials while channeled into the Destroyer (and wielding the Odinsword).

It's fine to not like what Aaron is doing. But I don't get the need to make stuff up and act like he's somehow disrespecting Thor (or Odin) by portraying them as pretty much the same people they've been for millennia, and even coming up with an explanation for the jump to violence (by suggesting strongly that Mjolnir and Ultimate Mjolnir influences their wielders and make them crave conflict, showcasing both Jane and Volstagg being swept away by their respective hammers, *far more* than Thor himself ever has been, and suggesting, to people who aren't knee-jerk reacting to this storyline that *Thor* has been a more successful Mjolnir-wielder, because he hasn't let the hammer drive as much as these new 'Thors' have...).

Oh look, suddenly the story *could be* about how Thor has, for centuries, if not millennia, kept a rein on a hammer that walks all over lesser wielders, like Jane or Volstagg, and bends them to it's will. But that would make Thor look good, and we mention that, because it would upset all the Aarons haters, who are making up some version of Thor that's some sort of very wise super-genius or something, which describes very few Marvel heroes (maybe Captain America?).

Thor is not Kal-El or Billy Batson. This is Marvel. Heroes, whether they be Stark or Richards or Pym or Banner or Parker or Murdock, have feet of clay, and occasionally screw up.

Being perfect and right all the time and never doing anything 'controversial' doesn't make you a hero. It just makes you a boring Mary Sue caricature, something that Thor has never been, and, I hope, never becomes.

[GodThor]

So why does Thor have to learn this lesson after all these years? Aaron would have been better off writing a series about Thor before he became worthy of wielding Mjolnir.

Ikr

much better.

currently, everyone is a better Thor than himself.

[Alpha to Omega]

This is the same Thor who has been tricked by Loki, over and over again, for millennia, the same comic-book character who was kicked out of Asgard for being a churlish bully who needed a lesson in humility *by Odin, of all people,* only, in comic-book time, as 'recently' as the Fantastic Four taking a rocket-ship into space and Iron Man building his armor, *after* centuries, if not millennia of being occasionally doltish (which I remember him being way back in the old Kirby-era 'Prince Thor' stories, when he had a sword, because he hadn't yet earned his hammer).

Wrong. Thor wasn't banished because he was a "churlish bully", he was banished because he violated a truce when he trespassed into Niffleheim while stopping a monster that had killed people. Odin even says when banishing him that Thor is as noble as he could be and that his honor is unsullied which doesn't like any bully I've heard of.

Also the Prince Thor stories only portrayed Thor as doltish concerning Loki where he ignores how obviously evil his brother is.

He's always been hot-headed and jumped straight to 'hit it with my hammer' even when the 'it' in question was someone like Zeus, with whom his father had a truce, or one of the Hindu gods (Shiva?) who he basically just wanted to smack around for being disrespectful. Aaron's hardly miswriting him, if he's not portraying him with any more deep founts of wisdom than Kirby or Simonson (who had him throw down with Beta Ray Bill over a rookie assumption / mistake) and many other writers have.

Wrong. Thor didn't jump straight to fighting Shiva (later retconned to be Indra), he asked for the Hindu pantheons help, when they refused he offered to trade with them and only after they both refused that and insulted him did he challenge Shiva to a fight, in order to resurrect Asgard. And it was Bill who started the fight with Thor.

Ditto Odin, who was kind of a jerk in his very first appearance, banishing Thor, and contined to be a jerk in the eighties, when he was stealing the power (and life-energy!) of every other Asgardian god to fight the Celestials while channeled into the Destroyer (and wielding the Odinsword).

Wrong, Odin's first appearance was just him saying Thor had defeated Loki again. The first appearance where he did something, was when he reminded Thor he could time-travel to chase Zarrko.

Also how was attempting to stop the Celestial's from wiping out the Earth a bad thing? The means were shady but the motive was pure.

It's fine to not like what Aaron is doing. But I don't get the need to make stuff up and act like he's somehow disrespecting Thor (or Odin) by portraying them as pretty much the same people they've been for millennia, and even coming up with an explanation for the jump to violence (by suggesting strongly that Mjolnir and Ultimate Mjolnir influences their wielders and make them crave conflict, showcasing both Jane and Volstagg being swept away by their respective hammers, *far more* than Thor himself ever has been, and suggesting, to people who aren't knee-jerk reacting to this storyline that *Thor* has been a more successful Mjolnir-wielder, because he hasn't let the hammer drive as much as these new 'Thors' have...).

Oh look, suddenly the story *could be* about how Thor has, for centuries, if not millennia, kept a rein on a hammer that walks all over lesser wielders, like Jane or Volstagg, and bends them to it's will. But that would make Thor look good, and we mention that, because it would upset all the Aarons haters, who are making up some version of Thor that's some sort of very wise super-genius or something, which describes very few Marvel heroes (maybe Captain America?).

Thor is not Kal-El or Billy Batson. This is Marvel. Heroes, whether they be Stark or Richards or Pym or Banner or Parker or Murdock, have feet of clay, and occasionally screw up.

Being perfect and right all the time and never doing anything 'controversial' doesn't make you a hero. It just makes you a boring Mary Sue caricature, something that Thor has never been, and, I hope, never becomes.

Nobodys asking for Thor to be perfect, they're asking for him to not be the drunken barbarian he's been reduced to under Fraction and now Aaron. Thor used to be written to have nobility, actual brains and heroism, now he's been turned into a drunken idiot who believes a serial killer like Gorr was right and then helped Hydra's regime and did nothing when they killed millions in Las Vegas besides get drunk and let HydraCap yell at him.

And it's strange you bring up your dislike of Mary Sues and perfect characters since that's pretty much exactly what Aaron has made Jane into. How anyone could read the Asgard-Shi'ar War without gagging I'll never know.

[Panic]

This is the same Thor who has been tricked by Loki, over and over again, for millennia,

Well to be fair most of Marvel's heroes have been tricked by Loki, he is the trickster god after all. Thor's never been stupid about it though, never been portrayed as stupid.

the same comic-book character who was kicked out of Asgard for being a churlish bully who needed a lesson in humility *by Odin, of all people,*

Well lets take a look at that: Thor enters forbidden Storm Giant land in order to hunt down a deadly birdbeast which he fears will kill both Asgardians and giants; having killed the beast, a giant sees him, ignores his explanation and tries to kill him, leading to a very brief fight where Thor knocks the giant down and traps his giant buddies under a rockfall. At that point Balder shows up, tells Thor to stop fighting as he's in the wrong, which Thor does quite happily, because, you know, he might be a bit rash but he's not stupid or unreasonable despite Aaron's characterisation of him. That was episode 1 of Thor's "churlish bully" moments. And actually, apart from being over-eager and always ready for a fight, he's actually perfectly reasonable as far what we're shown.
Thor fg1.jpg
Episode 2 of "churlish bully" Thor has Thor in an Asgardian tavern engaging in an arm-wrestling contest with another warrior, Gondolff; Volstagg accidentally spoils the match by knocking the table over, leading to the warrior threatening to behead Volstagg and insisting Thor confess to being a cheat; Thor then calls the guy a liar, at which point Gondolff draws his sword and he and his buddies rush Thor and the Warriors Three, leading to a bar fight. The fight ends when Odin calls for Thor to stop, which he does without argument. This is Thor being a "churlish bully"? Really?
thor bfght2.jpg
Stan needed a reason for Odin to have turned Thor into Blake, but he also obviously didn't want to make Thor look like a jerk, so we get these two episodes where Thor is a little proud and impulsive on the fighting front, but where he is also quite reasonable and *not* stupid or a bully. Odin seems to have overreacted once again, which he tended to do, though his heart was usually shown to be in the right place. These episodes are far from Aaron's unsophisticated, stubborn and unreasonable Thor, and I feel you are misrepresenting them. I have supplied scans where possible, though minor editing was required to adhere to CBR's rules regarding posting comic pages. If you feel I've edited anything important out (I don't think I have, but you may disagree), I'll post the offending panels you indicate.

only, in comic-book time, as 'recently' as the Fantastic Four taking a rocket-ship into space and Iron Man building his armor, *after* centuries, if not millennia of being occasionally doltish (which I remember him being way back in the old Kirby-era 'Prince Thor' stories, when he had a sword, because he hadn't yet earned his hammer).

If you want to post scans or simply list examples I'd appreciate it; I can then post the panels so we can all see what you're talking about. I don't ever remember Thor being "doltish", but then I don't remember the Tales of Asgard very well either, so...

I don't recall him *ever* being written as Buddha, all wise and gentlemanly.

He's always been hot-headed and jumped straight to 'hit it with my hammer' even when the 'it' in question was someone like Zeus, with whom his father had a truce, or one of the Hindu gods (Shiva?) who he basically just wanted to smack around for being disrespectful. Aaron's hardly miswriting him, if he's not portraying him with any more deep founts of wisdom than Kirby or Simonson (who had him throw down with Beta Ray Bill over a rookie assumption / mistake) and many other writers have.

He has always been rather hot-headed. This is not the same as portraying him as stupid, unsophisticated, sexist, intractable and unreasonable, mean, or unfair. Which Aaron has done repeatedly. Though I don't have access to all of Aaron's run, if you like I can post a scan of Thor being what I consider to be awful and out-of-character, then you can try to match it with a comparable scan from Lee/Kirby or Simonson Thor. I think I'll win quite easily because I think you are wrong in suggesting that Lee and Simonson portrayed Thor in the same manner as Aaron has been. And definitely Thor was written as being "gentlemanly" in the Lee stories I've read. Again, if you have a scan, or at least an issue number to refute my belief I'd appreciate it.

Ditto Odin, who was kind of a jerk in his very first appearance, banishing Thor, and contined to be a jerk in the eighties, when he was stealing the power (and life-energy!) of every other Asgardian god to fight the Celestials while channeled into the Destroyer (and wielding the Odinsword).

It's fine to not like what Aaron is doing. But I don't get the need to make stuff up

What have I made up? I don't think I've made anything up.

and act like he's somehow disrespecting Thor (or Odin) by portraying them as pretty much the same people they've been for millennia,

I honestly don't see how you can see Aaron's portrayal of Thor as being on the same page as Lee's or Simonson's.

and even coming up with an explanation for the jump to violence (by suggesting strongly that Mjolnir and Ultimate Mjolnir influences their wielders and make them crave conflict, showcasing both Jane and Volstagg being swept away by their respective hammers, *far more* than Thor himself ever has been, and suggesting, to people who aren't knee-jerk reacting to this storyline that *Thor* has been a more successful Mjolnir-wielder, because he hasn't let the hammer drive as much as these new 'Thors' have...).

Oh look, suddenly the story *could be* about how Thor has, for centuries, if not millennia, kept a rein on a hammer that walks all over lesser wielders, like Jane or Volstagg, and bends them to it's will. But that would make Thor look good, and we mention that, because it would upset all the Aarons haters, who are making up some version of Thor that's some sort of very wise super-genius or something, which describes very few Marvel heroes (maybe Captain America?).

Thor is not Kal-El or Billy Batson. This is Marvel. Heroes, whether they be Stark or Richards or Pym or Banner or Parker or Murdock, have feet of clay, and occasionally screw up.

Being perfect and right all the time and never doing anything 'controversial' doesn't make you a hero. It just makes you a boring Mary Sue caricature, something that Thor has never been, and, I hope, never becomes.

I really can't see where you are coming from at all. I think you are trying to bend facts to fit your argument, and you keep avoiding posting examples, leaving your arguments vague and unsubstantiated. Please play fair.

[juan678]

art by camw1n

[JKtheMac]

I really can't see where you are coming from at all. I think you are trying to bend facts to fit your argument, and you keep avoiding posting examples, leaving your arguments vague and unsubstantiated. Please play fair.

The very idea that this is an argument that can be won conclusively by pointing to pages and panels in old books is somewhat flawed. I equally do this, but usually to prove a narrow point, not an entire thesis. Indeed any argument that took-in the whole history of Thor, as a counterpoint to Aaron, would actually be work that deserved payment or at least an established blog that allowed the person doing such work some recognition. It would be a huge undertaking precisely because Aaron's run is now quite considerably long, and the history referenced and drawn upon stretches back over many decades. I have been tempted to do this myself, as a form of annotation of the comics, but I recognise how much work it would require. Probably comparable to writing the run in the first place, and certainly many more words.

[GodThor]

Well to be fair most of Marvel's heroes have been tricked by Loki, he is the trickster god after all. Thor's never been stupid about it though, never been portrayed as stupid.

Well lets take a look at that: Thor enters forbidden Storm Giant land in order to hunt down a deadly birdbeast which he fears will kill both Asgardians and giants; having killed the beast, a giant sees him, ignores his explanation and tries to kill him, leading to a very brief fight where Thor knocks the giant down and traps his giant buddies under a rockfall. At that point Balder shows up, tells Thor to stop fighting as he's in the wrong, which Thor does quite happily, because, you know, he might be a bit rash but he's not stupid or unreasonable despite Aaron's characterisation of him. That was episode 1 of Thor's "churlish bully" moments. And actually, apart from being over-eager and always ready for a fight, he's actually perfectly reasonable as far what we're shown.
Thor fg1.jpg
Episode 2 of "churlish bully" Thor has Thor in an Asgardian tavern engaging in an arm-wrestling contest with another warrior, Gondolff; Volstagg accidentally spoils the match by knocking the table over, leading to the warrior threatening to behead Volstagg and insisting Thor confess to being a cheat; Thor then calls the guy a liar, at which point Gondolff draws his sword and he and his buddies rush Thor and the Warriors Three, leading to a bar fight. The fight ends when Odin calls for Thor to stop, which he does without argument. This is Thor being a "churlish bully"? Really?
thor bfght2.jpg
Stan needed a reason for Odin to have turned Thor into Blake, but he also obviously didn't want to make Thor look like a jerk, so we get these two episodes where Thor is a little proud and impulsive on the fighting front, but where he is also quite reasonable and *not* stupid or a bully. Odin seems to have overreacted once again, which he tended to do, though his heart was usually shown to be in the right place. These episodes are far from Aaron's unsophisticated, stubborn and unreasonable Thor, and I feel you are misrepresenting them. I have supplied scans where possible, though minor editing was required to adhere to CBR's rules regarding posting comic pages. If you feel I've edited anything important out (I don't think I have, but you may disagree), I'll post the offending panels you indicate. If you want to post scans or simply list examples I'd appreciate it; I can then post the panels so we can all see what you're talking about. I don't ever remember Thor being "doltish", but then I don't remember the Tales of Asgard very well either, so...
He has always been rather hot-headed. This is not the same as portraying him as stupid, unsophisticated, sexist, intractable and unreasonable, mean, or unfair. Which Aaron has done repeatedly. Though I don't have access to all of Aaron's run, if you like I can post a scan of Thor being what I consider to be awful and out-of-character, then you can try to match it with a comparable scan from Lee/Kirby or Simonson Thor. I think I'll win quite easily because I think you are wrong in suggesting that Lee and Simonson portrayed Thor in the same manner as Aaron has been. And definitely Thor was written as being "gentlemanly" in the Lee stories I've read. Again, if you have a scan, or at least an issue number to refute my belief I'd appreciate it.

What have I made up? I don't think I've made anything up.

I honestly don't see how you can see Aaron's portrayal of Thor as being on the same page as Lee's or Simonson's.


I really can't see where you are coming from at all. I think you are trying to bend facts to fit your argument, and you keep avoiding posting examples, leaving your arguments vague and unsubstantiated. Please play fair.

perfectly said.