The Mighty Thor #1: Spoilers and Discussion

[Taral-DLOS]

Thinking about this, we havn't actually seen Odin yet. He could be absent.

Maybe. We saw him in the previous Thor volume (when he and Cul were trying to kill the new Thor). But that was before Secret Wars. Hard to say if anything changed between now and then.

On an unrelated note, I loved this book. I didn't even care that the original Thor wasn't in it (and it might've been stronger without him, so we can focus on the current Thor). I hope he does come back at some point (presumably to wield Ultimate Thor's hammer), but I hope it isn't until at least the second arc.

I don't think they should give the previous Thor his own book (at least not yet), as there is the risk that people will abandon this one in favour of the original guy. Give her more time to establish herself in this title and then we'll see. It wouldn't be bad to have one book about Thor and one about numerous other Asgard-based characters (including original Thor and Loki; possibly a reimagining of Loki: Agent of Asgard, with unworthy Thor as his trusted companion).

[Dr. Banner]

Maybe. We saw him in the previous Thor volume (when he and Cul were trying to kill the new Thor). But that was before Secret Wars. Hard to say if anything changed between now and then.

On an unrelated note, I loved this book. I didn't even care that the original Thor wasn't in it (and it might've been stronger without him, so we can focus on the current Thor). I hope he does come back at some point (presumably to wield Ultimate Thor's hammer), but I hope it isn't until at least the second arc.

I don't think they should give the previous Thor his own book (at least not yet), as there is the risk that people will abandon this one in favour of the original guy. Give her more time to establish herself in this title and then we'll see. It wouldn't be bad to have one book about Thor and one about numerous other Asgard-based characters (including original Thor and Loki; possibly a reimagining of Loki: Agent of Asgard, with unworthy Thor as his trusted companion).

I couldn't agree more!

[jphamlore]

I compare think Aaron has earned trust that he knows what he's doing with the character of Thor Odinson as shown by his Gorr arc, similar to how Ed Brubaker showed he was worthy of trust for the character of Steve Rogers before Brubaker made epic changes in Captain America with Bucky.

[JKtheMac]

I compare think Aaron has earned trust that he knows what he's doing with the character of Thor Odinson as shown by his Gorr arc, similar to how Ed Brubaker showed he was worthy of trust for the character of Steve Rogers before Brubaker made epic changes in Captain America with Bucky.

Absolutely, he certainly earned mine throughout the God of Thunder run. He has demonstrated he understands what a Thor book should be about, how it should feel, the kinds of themes that should be present, and generally who Thor should be. He is producing great work at Marvel and Image and I will at least check out anything he is working on.

[oldschoolfan]

Absolutely, he certainly earned mine throughout the God of Thunder run. He has demonstrated he understands what a Thor book should be about, how it should feel, the kinds of themes that should be present, and generally who Thor should be. He is producing great work at Marvel and Image and I will at least check out anything he is working on.

I am curious how much Thor stuff you have read prior to Aaron taking over. Aaron's Jane Foster Thor is like the Thor I remember, but anything else seems like its more like a Hercules story. Most of the stuff I have read by Aaron has been interesting but not great. Mediocre at best.

Have you read the Lee/Kirby Thor? Conway/Buscema Thor? Thomas/Pollard/Buscema Thor? Simonson's Thor? Jurgens/Romita's Thor? JMS/Copiel Thor? Each of these creative teams was able to tell creative Thor stories and keep Thor in character and consistent with prior material.

Aaron had to majorly change stuff. Why? And were the changes improvements?

I respectfully disagree. The art on this book since Ribic left has been awesome, but the stories have left me wondering if Aaron has any idea of what Thor is really about. Well I guess he does, but he had to make him a her to accomplish that.

And a lot of this decision hangs on whether or not Thor really was unworthy to begin with.....just an odd direction to go.

[jphamlore]

I am curious how much Thor stuff you have read prior to Aaron taking over. Aaron's Jane Foster Thor is like the Thor I remember, but anything else seems like its more like a Hercules story. Most of the stuff I have read by Aaron has been interesting but not great. Mediocre at best.

Have you read the Lee/Kirby Thor? Conway/Buscema Thor? Thomas/Pollard/Buscema Thor? Simonson's Thor? Jurgens/Romita's Thor? JMS/Copiel Thor? Each of these creative teams was able to tell creative Thor stories and keep Thor in character and consistent with prior material.

Aaron had to majorly change stuff. Why? And were the changes improvements?

I respectfully disagree. The art on this book since Ribic left has been awesome, but the stories have left me wondering if Aaron has any idea of what Thor is really about. Well I guess he does, but he had to make him a her to accomplish that.

And a lot of this decision hangs on whether or not Thor really was unworthy to begin with.....just an odd direction to go.

I fail to see how anyone who has read the past issues of Thor by the above writers would be phased by any of the changes in the current status quo. The one constant in the character of Thor Odinson is dramatic upheaval.

[Shin Ji]

Some of the discussion from a few pages back has me thinking - what if the secret to Thor's unworthiness has been right in front of us this entire time.

When Jane wields the hammer, the hammer seems to have its (her?) own motivations and desires. Jane works with the hammer as a partner and ally.

Thor has always wielded the hammer as a tool. What if Thor has known of the hammer's sentience all this time, and simply kept it to himself? He's pushed it down, perhaps even sought help from the dwarves to keep it down. He was unwilling to share glory at first, but over time the lies became deeper and deeper, and he couldn't admit it - even to himself!

Somehow, Fury's whisper reminded Thor of the true nature of Mjölnir, causing whatever enchantment Thor had put on it to slip, and the hammer to reassert itself.

Biggest problem with this is it doesn't really square with Odinson's subsequent efforts to regain the hammer, unless that was meant to be him working through the stages of grief.

[oldschoolfan]

I fail to see how anyone who has read the past issues of Thor by the above writers would be phased by any of the changes in the current status quo. The one constant in the character of Thor Odinson is dramatic upheaval.

And I struggle with staying quiet or popping off about it as I have done here.

I have a lot of great memories of reading Thor's adventures. I would hate to ruin for someone else. BUT I can't stand by and not point out that what Aaron gave us prior to the Jane Foster/Thor arc wasn't really in character at all. And if anyone asked me I would tell them to read Infinity or Avengers because Hickman did a better job with the character.

If they liked Aaron's Thor Odinson stories, they really should go back and read Pak's Hercules stories with Amadeaus Cho.

[oldschoolfan]

Some of the discussion from a few pages back has me thinking - what if the secret to Thor's unworthiness has been right in front of us this entire time.

When Jane wields the hammer, the hammer seems to have its (her?) own motivations and desires. Jane works with the hammer as a partner and ally.

Thor has always wielded the hammer as a tool. What if Thor has known of the hammer's sentience all this time, and simply kept it to himself? He's pushed it down, perhaps even sought help from the dwarves to keep it down. He was unwilling to share glory at first, but over time the lies became deeper and deeper, and he couldn't admit it - even to himself!

Somehow, Fury's whisper reminded Thor of the true nature of Mjölnir, causing whatever enchantment Thor had put on it to slip, and the hammer to reassert itself.

Biggest problem with this is it doesn't really square with Odinson's subsequent efforts to regain the hammer, unless that was meant to be him working through the stages of grief.

The other object in the Marvel U that seems to have developed sentience is the Siver Surfer's board, Toomie.

And again, Thor suppressing a sentient being to be subservient is so anti the Thor from earlier era's. Look at how Thor treated the Recorder. Thor isn't about suppression or oppression.....and yet if your theory is true, its another example of Aaron ignoring what makes the character Thor noble and respected.

But, I guess it sells books, so its okay.

[jphamlore]

And I struggle with staying quiet or popping off about it as I have done here.

I have a lot of great memories of reading Thor's adventures. I would hate to ruin for someone else. BUT I can't stand by and not point out that what Aaron gave us prior to the Jane Foster/Thor arc wasn't really in character at all. And if anyone asked me I would tell them to read Infinity or Avengers because Hickman did a better job with the character.

If they liked Aaron's Thor Odinson stories, they really should go back and read Pak's Hercules stories with Amadeaus Cho.

Well I have read the old Thor stories and there is nothing in what Aaron is doing that is against their spirit. I am fairly confident in any era these great writers would have unanimously said the two words that could really kill off Thor as a concept are "you shouldn't," and that's what the critics of Aaron are basically saying.

Seriously, ask any of these writers in any era and no two words would have ticked them off more than what the critics of Aaron are saying, "you shouldn't."

[oldschoolfan]

Well I have read the old Thor stories and there is nothing in what Aaron is doing that is against their spirit. I am fairly confident in any era these great writers would have unanimously said the two words that could really kill off Thor as a concept are "you shouldn't," and that's what the critics of Aaron are basically saying.

Seriously, ask any of these writers in any era and no two words would have ticked them off more than what the critics of Aaron are saying, "you shouldn't."

I didn't say he shouldn't. I am just wondering if it was a good idea.

I am surprised that you don't see how different Thor Odinson is in Aaron's run from what has come before. Aaron's Thor (prior to the Fosthor) has no nobility about him, like he didn't really learn the lesson he was supposed to. Aaron's Thor is arrogant, like Hercules. And I am surprised you don't see it.

[jphamlore]

I didn't say he shouldn't. I am just wondering if it was a good idea.

I am surprised that you don't see how different Thor Odinson is in Aaron's run from what has come before. Aaron's Thor (prior to the Fosthor) has no nobility about him, like he didn't really learn the lesson he was supposed to. Aaron's Thor is arrogant, like Hercules. And I am surprised you don't see it.

Aaron's present-day Thor Odinson was portrayed as nothing but noble from the very beginning so this critique is nonsense.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?p...review&id=6392

[JKtheMac]

I am curious how much Thor stuff you have read prior to Aaron taking over. Aaron's Jane Foster Thor is like the Thor I remember, but anything else seems like its more like a Hercules story. Most of the stuff I have read by Aaron has been interesting but not great. Mediocre at best.

Have you read the Lee/Kirby Thor? Conway/Buscema Thor? Thomas/Pollard/Buscema Thor? Simonson's Thor? Jurgens/Romita's Thor? JMS/Copiel Thor? Each of these creative teams was able to tell creative Thor stories and keep Thor in character and consistent with prior material.

Aaron had to majorly change stuff. Why? And were the changes improvements?

I respectfully disagree. The art on this book since Ribic left has been awesome, but the stories have left me wondering if Aaron has any idea of what Thor is really about. Well I guess he does, but he had to make him a her to accomplish that.

And a lot of this decision hangs on whether or not Thor really was unworthy to begin with.....just an odd direction to go.

I have read all of some and a smattering of all, but we all have different tastes. I appreciate the very early stories for their context but they are dated. I am sacrilegious in that I don't really care for much of the 80s and most of the 90s but that holds true for much of Marvel, IMO they began to loose their way as the 90s approached. I personally prefer everything from around JMS onwards. I have read everything from that point on twice or more. That's what I chose to read all of because that's what works for me. However I am still exploring the older material between deep explorations of X-Men comics. And I am still finding good stuff.

My perspective is always going to line up better with the more recent writers. They are my generation (or youger), and many of them are mythological in their story telling. I come to Thor primarily from that mythological background, and appreciate those aspects. Therefore Aaron is a pretty good match for me, but so was Gillen and some of Fraction. That is also why some of the more respected classic writers are not a match for me, they tend to be informed by comic culture and haven't quite got that comic/myth mix down. That makes them more academically and historically interesting to me but not necessarily enjoyable.

[JKtheMac]

I didn't say he shouldn't. I am just wondering if it was a good idea.

I am surprised that you don't see how different Thor Odinson is in Aaron's run from what has come before. Aaron's Thor (prior to the Fosthor) has no nobility about him, like he didn't really learn the lesson he was supposed to. Aaron's Thor is arrogant, like Hercules. And I am surprised you don't see it.

See, again you are holding up a vague notion of what Thor should be and then asking us to compare that to the current Thor. I am not saying the notion itself is vague, but to us it isn't clear exactly what you are pointing at. It might be best to explain why you consider the Herc/Thor comparison important (it seems central to your argument) and then expand from there to explain why Aaron's Thor drifts over that line. It may of course come down to taste and references to your favoured eras but I am prepared to do some background reading if you point to things that interest me. That part of the argument also interests me from a mythological perspective because I have never quite gotten a handle on why Marvel write Herc the way they do.

In Aaron's defence, he and his editors are technically in the middle of redefining Thor. Marvel appear to be changing things up with him, and the unworthiness is almost certainly a subtle retcon so I can understand why a fan of certain eras would find that unsatisfactory. But for a modern fan, who can see the way some of the older continuity actually restrains the writers and stops Thor from being who he could be in the current era, I welcome Aaron's approach.

[JKtheMac]

Aaron's Thor (prior to the Fosthor) has no nobility about him, like he didn't really learn the lesson he was supposed to.

While I am not sure I agree totally, Aaron has specifically set out to write a long story about that very nobleness, and early on took time to contrast three different eras of Thor's timeline to bring those ideas into focus. I suspect Aaron is writing about the nature of the apotheosis and how that can only be informed by the original humanity in the process. He is seeking to show Thor today as removed from his humanity, he has moved too far into the godly domain and although he protects Earth and still performs some of his earlier ritual functions on Earth, he is slightly detached from it.

Look at the first arc, it is about someone who seeks to destroy all gods, and unwittingly attains apotheosis through his actions. Then we move into a Malekith arc where he deliberately manipulates the way Thor handles diplomacy and demonstrates a weakness of the godlike hero. Then that weakness is explored in the context of Earth, by choosing an environmental rallying cry where Thor is ill equipped to do more than pick a side and hit things. That launches us into an arc where the new Thor is also a human. This is a gradual theme, politics is a human endeavour, leadership through divine right is a tricky thing to juggle and fraught with a dehumanising aspect that must be guarded against.

What exactly is the definition of a noble, if not a man who is granted his power over others by an extension of the divine right of kings. Nobility is a very tricky thing to pull off, it contains contradictions.

Thor for the modern world needs to be more human. This is why I suspect the arc is all an elaboration on the story of Blake.