Thor Odinson Appreciation 2018

[Thor-El]

a Thor book deserves/needs a better art team. I'm used to Copiel, Immonen, and Dauterman. it's hard to settle after that.

Yeah, I agree. Its not terrible but is very different. I'm loving McGuinness rendition of Thor in Avengers though.

[cc008]

Yeah, I agree. Its not terrible but is very different. I'm loving McGuinness rendition of Thor in Avengers though.

I'm ready for Marquez to take over in that book. I like McGuinness, but I don't think he should be on the one and only Avengers title.

[Anthony W]

I'm ready for Marquez to take over in that book. I like McGuinness, but I don't think he should be on the one and only Avengers title.

Really? McGuinness is killing it IMO. He is giving the book the blockbuster status it needs. His Thor inspires awe and he actually makes the dumb gold arm and hammer work. He is drawing hands down the absolute best Captain Marvel as well.

[Thor-El]

I'm ready for Marquez to take over in that book. I like McGuinness, but I don't think he should be on the one and only Avengers title.

I'll probably stop reading once McGuinness leaves, he is the main reason I look forward to that book. Marquez is nothing special and I've always based my picks solely on artwork.

[cc008]

Really? McGuinness is killing it IMO. He is giving the book the blockbuster status it needs. His Thor inspires awe and he actually makes the dumb gold arm and hammer work. He is drawing hands down the absolute best Captain Marvel as well.

I'll probably stop reading once McGuinness leaves, he is the main reason I look forward to that book. Marquez is nothing special and I've always based my picks solely on artwork.

I think McGuinness is great and I'd absolutely welcome him on the Thor book. I don't know, the main Avengers book feels sort of "meh" to me right now and I don't know if it's the story, the cast, or the art just yet.

[Aioros22]

Same boat on the Avengers. Three issues in and I`m out. I feel it is remarkably bland and can`t shake the feeling of "did we just traded the previous team for this"?

The synergy with MCU is..well, a trade of effects now. Ragnarok Thor sounded fresh mostly because he doesn`t sound like traditional Thor one bit. He sounds like Hercules. Not sure that translation works when you already have Hercules in the comics.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

Thor #462 Jun 1993
Infinity Crusade crossover "Devotions"
Thor and Valkyrie finally get off on their own when their romantic interlude is interrupted by the Goddess

who wants Thor to join her Infinity Crusade;

Valkyrie battles the Goddess and is destroyed;

Thor joins the Crusade.

Script by Ron Marz, pencils by Bruce Zick, inks by Mike DeCarlo

[JKtheMac]

Is everyone is jumping on the 'Thor is like Hercules now' bandwagon?

Firstly, the whole point of Hercules originally was as a foil for Thor. That means he necessarily was LIKE Thor. BUT Thor has never been written like default Hercules on anything other than a superficial level as a mythically strong and self confident warrior.

Thor comes from a boastful culture but he is rarely the kind of character to say: "Stand aside watch ME sort this out."
Thor has never been the guy that would ask: "Take me to the city, where there are many people to dazzle with my magnificence. I want to drink huge quantities, bed all of the women and generally out-carouse everyone."

The MCU Thor of Ragnarok was frustrated that he wasn't noted as the strongest. Hercules would just laugh and declare that they were all wrong and challenge everyone to a contest of strength.

Now, it is a given that Hercules has been written differently to this (thankfully). He occasionally is interpreted as more noble with more self-reflection, but even that character is not the same as any version of Thor I have seen in books or on screen.

[GodThor]

wow chapter 2 was actually good.

[kilderkin]

Is everyone is jumping on the 'Thor is like Hercules now' bandwagon?

Firstly, the whole point of Hercules originally was as a foil for Thor. That means he necessarily was LIKE Thor. BUT Thor has never been written like default Hercules on anything other than a superficial level as a mythically strong and self confident warrior.

Thor comes from a boastful culture but he is rarely the kind of character to say: "Stand aside watch ME sort this out."
Thor has never been the guy that would ask: "Take me to the city, where there are many people to dazzle with my magnificence. I want to drink huge quantities, bed all of the women and generally out-carouse everyone."

The MCU Thor of Ragnarok was frustrated that he wasn't noted as the strongest. Hercules would just laugh and declare that they were all wrong and challenge everyone to a contest of strength.

Now, it is a given that Hercules has been written differently to this (thankfully). He occasionally is interpreted as more noble with more self-reflection, but even that character is not the same as any version of Thor I have seen in books or on screen.

Whilst I don't think it's a major shift, I do think the mcu thor is more hercules like than comic book thor

That given

Thor for most of Aaron's run, in reflection, reminded me of hercules in the period on hydrolase and at the time of the siege on avengers mansion

Dour, depressed and imo with a taste of dependancy and desperation

Others might not see that in thor under Aaron

to me its everywhere

but he is nothing like the current hercules imo

[Prof. Warren]

wow chapter 2 was actually good.

Yeah, really good.

[JKtheMac]

Whilst I don't think it's a major shift, I do think the mcu thor is more hercules like than comic book thor

That given

Thor for most of Aaron's run, in reflection, reminded me of hercules in the period on hydrolase and at the time of the siege on avengers mansion

Dour, depressed and imo with a taste of dependancy and desperation

Others might not see that in thor under Aaron

to me its everywhere

but he is nothing like the current hercules imo

But that isn’t Hercules, that is a Hercules under pressure. Because Herc and Thor are literally a mirror of each other then there will always be similarities. They will deal with things in similar ways, or in directly opposite ways depending upon the writer or the story. That's what a foil is.

It would be like criticising Doyle for Holmes being too much like Moriarty. Consider, if we told two separate stories about them each dealing with substance abuse. They would necessarily be similar because one character was deliberately modelled upon the other.

If we deliberately wrote two stories that were connected they would have to be similar in some ways, such that we could see the comparison between Holmes and Moriarty, and different in others so we could see the contrasts in their characters. That is an important form of exposition. One of the most important tools in the writer's toolbox. To criticise that would be to say good writing is bad writing. Black is white.

In other words the criticism is not only very difficult to demonstrate due to the differences, the similarities themselves are self-evident. Saying 'Thor reminds me of Herc' is like saying 'Thor reminds me of a slightly different Thor'. It contains very little substance as an argument. It’s picking something to be upset about for the sake of it.

Of course he reminds you of Herc, but he isn’t Herc. Herc and Thor are mirrors of each other. Often Herc only exists to be that mirror, and sometimes he is exists to tell slightly different stories in contrast to Thor stories.

[cc008]

wow chapter 2 was actually good.

Agreed. Fun read. Taking me a little while to get used to the art though.

[GodThor]

Agreed. Fun read. Taking me a little while to get used to the art though.

the part with the hammers annoyed me and the fact that Thor cannot destroy the bridge was BS.

I don't like the art either.

[Panic]

But that isn’t Hercules, that is a Hercules under pressure. Because Herc and Thor are literally a mirror of each other then there will always be similarities. They will deal with things in similar ways, or in directly opposite ways depending upon the writer or the story. That's what a foil is.

It would be like criticising Doyle for Holmes being too much like Moriarty. Consider, if we told two separate stories about them each dealing with substance abuse. They would necessarily be similar because one character was deliberately modelled upon the other.

If we deliberately wrote two stories that were connected they would have to be similar in some ways, such that we could see the comparison between Holmes and Moriarty, and different in others so we could see the contrasts in their characters. That is an important form of exposition. One of the most important tools in the writer's toolbox. To criticise that would be to say good writing is bad writing. Black is white.

In other words the criticism is not only very difficult to demonstrate due to the differences, the similarities themselves are self-evident. Saying 'Thor reminds me of Herc' is like saying 'Thor reminds me of a slightly different Thor'. It contains very little substance as an argument. It’s picking something to be upset about for the sake of it.

Of course he reminds you of Herc, but he isn’t Herc. Herc and Thor are mirrors of each other. Often Herc only exists to be that mirror, and sometimes he is exists to tell slightly different stories in contrast to Thor stories.

Traditionally Hercules was used as a counterpoint to Thor in the Avengers: where Thor was serious and angst-ridden, Herc was funny and existed for the moment; where Thor was smart and resourceful, Herc thought with his fists; where Thor strove to do the right thing, Herc was more of an anti-hero, often fighting to prove his own superiority rather than for purely altruistic reasons.

Thor's combination of power, intelligence, and moral courage made him a hero of the first rank, singling him out as a Marvel star capable of supporting a comic; Hercules' character traits were just what you'd expect in a supporting character: he was dumb muscle, he was comic relief, he was sometimes an obstacle for the hero of the story to overcome, or at least win over, but he was not someone who solved other people's problems himself, he merely implemented the plans of the actual hero of the story. I'm sure when he got his own comic Hercules was shown to be smarter and more resourceful than in the pages of the Avengers because to be the star of a heroic story the protagonist needs a careful balance of traits in order to work as the stand-in for the reader - the writer would need to modify Hercules' original supporting character traits in order for him to be the star of his own stories.

And this is a big part of what people are talking about when they say that Thor has become more like Hercules in the last few years - the traits that are being emphasised, or in some cases new traits grafted-on, to Thor's heroic make-up are things that take him out of the well-rounded hero bracket and push him into a supporting character niche where he can be used to contrast against another, more favoured hero, in much the same way that Hercules was used in the past. Seeing Thor degenerate in certain important areas for a hero, such as intelligence, resourcefulness, moral character... it is not a good direction. Not if you want Thor to be a hero rather than a supporting character. Thor was one of the most idealised Marvel heroes, and whilst I don't personally like the whole business of putting heroes on pedestals to be worshiped, the reader shouldn't be invited to look down on them, which with Thor the philandering barbarian, does seem to be the direction he's been pushed in. I think it is perfectly valid for fans who see this direction to point it out and complain.