Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[JKtheMac]

But now you're just blatantly cheating. I specifically said Thor (Odinson), and you're arguing that differentiating between Thor Odinson and Jane with Thor's powers is invalid, which flies in the face not only of my point, but of the whole idea of this forum having separate appreciation threads for these two characters. You are unable to deal with my point, so you've gone for a semantic cheat.

But that was my point, and this was never a ‘Thor Oddinson’ thread until recently, which shouldn’t be necessary at all. It’s not cheating the book was called Thor! The character was just a gender swapped Thor. She’s the same! Jane turned into the goddess of thunder when she lifted the hammer. Just like Blake did. That is the entire point of the story.

[Panic]

Jane is not the same character as the guy who co-formed the Avengers and fought against Surtur. You are totally at odds with the intention of this thread.

[JKtheMac]

Jane is not the same character as the guy who co-formed the Avengers and fought against Surtur. You are totally at odds with the intention of this thread.

No, you are twisting my words to make them seem somehow out of alignment with the thread. I am saying that Jane picked up the hammer and transformed into an ASPECT of Thor. The story was about how that ASPECT was the same as Thor and how it was different. How she stayed somewhat similar to Thor and how she differed. The baseline of the story was always Thor Odinson. He was the underlying comparison by which the whole story is brought into context and without which the story would be pointless. Aaron didn’t swap out Thor for giggles, or to wind up Thor fans, he did it to tell a story that examines the whole history of Thor. It is a story about Thor comics and in a Thor comic.

[GodThor]

Thor fans need to 100% avoid taht leaked footage and anything talking about it.

In fact, I would get off practically everything if you are trying to avoid spoilers.

This thead is gonna be wild in a couple weeks lol

I did and I'm in speechless awe... negatively.

[Panic]

I did and I'm in speechless awe... negatively.

How bad is it?

[MindofShadow]

How bad is it?

It gives you a snap shot midway through and the snap shot isn't flattering lol.

But it really depends on what happened in act 1 and how it ends in act 3 to see if it pays off.

Russos are madlads

[Agent Z]

Was she?

Aaron has delegitimized Gods through the worthiness clause, he retconned the power of the hammr to be something else entirely, turned Odin into a Men's Rights strawman, will likely never stop with young Thor's virtue signalling, and the only issues Jane had carrying the mantle of Thor was that it was physically killing her. If she didn't have cancer, she would have been just fine.

If Aaron has a passion for any God, it seems to have been Hercules. He just shoved Thor into his mold.

While the rest is debatable, Odin's always bee n an *******.

[GodThor]

Aaron has delegitimized Gods through the worthiness clause, he retconned the power of the hammr to be something else entirely, turned Odin into a Men's Rights strawman, will likely never stop with young Thor's virtue signalling, and the only issues Jane had carrying the mantle of Thor was that it was physically killing her. If she didn't have cancer, she would have been just fine.

plus, Asgardians going around and casually saying that Odin is an idiot.

never before was Odin portrayed like that.

EVER.

[GodThor]

meh I'm just waiting for Aaron to get off the book.

he is easily the worst writer in Thor's history IMO.

bring back Dan Jurgen or Simonson to wash this all away.

[Panic]

No, you are twisting my words to make them seem somehow out of alignment with the thread. I am saying that Jane picked up the hammer and transformed into an ASPECT of Thor. The story was about how that ASPECT was the same as Thor and how it was different. How she stayed somewhat similar to Thor and how she differed. The baseline of the story was always Thor Odinson. He was the underlying comparison by which the whole story is brought into context and without which the story would be pointless.

Except that Aaron wrote Thor Odinson lacking in many of the good qualities that he used to have, and which Jane displayed. So as comparisons go it was rather meaningless. Aaron compared his version of Thor Odinson, who was so much less than he was under Lee or Simonson, with his version of Jane, who he made smart, brave, and heroic. All it did was show us how Aaron feels about those two characters.

While the rest is debatable, Odin's always bee n an *******.

He hasn't. I've been through this before, so I'll just quote from myself from previous arguments:

The Lee/Kirby Odin was used as a dangerous authoritarian figure that would sit in judgement over Thor, sometimes helping him, other times antagonistic, but at the end of the day he had to be seen to be someone worthy of Thor's love and loyalty otherwise the reader wouldn't respect Thor for supporting him. Yes he could appear harsh (his judgement of Thor as arrogant, for example), but even at his worst he was never portrayed in the way he has been in recent years - unpleasant and lacking in wisdom.

Simonson goes out of the way to explain the Lee/Kirby Odin's bipolar nature by saying that Odin's actions are often not what they appear to be on the surface, but are the attempts of a mentor to lead a student where he needs to go in order to grow. Simonson's Odin is playful and deceptive, but above all wise and kindly. You never roll your eyes at Simonson's Odin and think "wow, what a tool" like you do with the more modern interpretation.

[kilderkin]

Jane is not the same character as the guy who co-formed the Avengers and fought against Surtur. You are totally at odds with the intention of this thread.

In regards the character, you are totally correct

And I would add I maintain janes journey with the hammer was the best part of Aaron's run

But like bill, Eric, dargo and cap, that is not the same as being Thor

As for Donald Blake, that's muddled enough, but, if it was the intended story that it was a human who gained Thor's power and later it was always Thor and then it was a swap, or whatever, it's clearly all over the show with that

Holding the hammer does not make you Thor, it grants you a duplication of his power in effect if you are worthy, the biggest point for that is that it's never changed caps form when he's held it, just as Thor not holding it does not stop him being so

It's literally in the inscription

Shall posses the power of Thor

Not be thor

[charliehustle415]

Thor fans need to 100% avoid taht leaked footage and anything talking about it.

In fact, I would get off practically everything if you are trying to avoid spoilers.

This thead is gonna be wild in a couple weeks lol

Damn, thanks for the warning. Goodbye forum! See you after premiere weekend!

[JKtheMac]

Except that Aaron wrote Thor Odinson lacking in many of the good qualities that he used to have, and which Jane displayed. So as comparisons go it was rather meaningless. Aaron compared his version of Thor Odinson, who was so much less than he was under Lee or Simonson, with his version of Jane, who he made smart, brave, and heroic. All it did was show us how Aaron feels about those two characters.

He wasn’t comparing Jane to a depowered Odinson, so your objections are not addressing my point. He could equally have chosen to use Kincaid as his choice for his comparison. Indeed we know Jane wasn’t chosen specifically, because there were other candidates in his mind when he was drafting his story. The story is about a mortal lifting the hammer and how that relates to Thor. In a way that was not explored when mortals have lifted the hammer before.

Simonson goes out of the way to explain the Lee/Kirby Odin's bipolar nature by saying that Odin's actions are often not what they appear to be on the surface, but are the attempts of a mentor to lead a student where he needs to go in order to grow. Simonson's Odin is playful and deceptive, but above all wise and kindly. You never roll your eyes at Simonson's Odin and think "wow, what a tool" like you do with the more modern interpretation.

And this is where it is taste based. Not all of us raise Simonson up on a pedestal. Some of us don’t like Simonson’s Odin and consider it out of character. YMWV

Simonson’s solution is just not as interesting as Aaron’s for me. I like dysfunctional father Odin. Toxic masculinity was not as big a topic back in Simonson’s day, and comics reflect the real world and its issues. This is why many people drift away from comics. Sometimes they just want everything to stay the same, but the world changes and so do the comics that reflect it.

[JKtheMac]

Holding the hammer does not make you Thor, it grants you a duplication of his power in effect if you are worthy, the biggest point for that is that it's never changed caps form when he's held it, just as Thor not holding it does not stop him being so

It's literally in the inscription

Shall posses the power of Thor

Not be thor

This is one of the disconnects between writers and a certain group of fandom. Stories are about asking questions, challenging assumptions, seeing where the limits of what we know are. All Aaron was doing was looking at this more closely than previously. He did it in the normal mode of comics, via analogy.

We have a mortal with the hammer, we think we know what that means, but there are ambiguities. Even the way you try and boil it down has ambiguities. Why was that inscription there? What does it mean exactly? If it is magical can it change? If it can what does that mean? If you look like Thor and act like Thor are you in some way Thor? In what ways are you Thor and in what ways are you not?

That is how good writers think. They explore these questions. Instead of giving them closed and uninteresting answers based on what Lee, Simonson or Thomas wrote, they ask the big questions and fashion story around them.

Some of us, as readers and fans of Thor are also like this. We look at the cracks in continuity instead of hand waving them away. We like discontinuity because we are detail oriented and fascinated by how different writers look at things. I like varied and changing approaches to continuity because if you hang around long enough you get that anyway, whether you like it or not. The Tao of comics, go with it, don’t resist. Resisting just leads to dissatisfaction.

It’s like if you are told a familiar story but the details were deliberately changed. There are two things you can do, resist the difference or enjoy the difference. The way to enjoy the difference is to listen carefully and try and understand why the differences are there. If you just spend time pointing out why the original was better you will never understand the story being told, and thereby never appreciate it. Never even be in a position to know if you like it or not.

IMO Some fans resist change because of how fandom often operates. To prove we are fans we need to somehow know the ‘canonical answers’ to these big questions. Then when a story challenges those answers we have a more difficult choice. Either maintain our card carrying fandom status and point out why the writer is wrong, or recognise that the writer is usually one step ahead of all this. They also know the canonical answers and if not their editorial team can guide them. They are not wrong, they are creating new canon.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Simonson’s solution is just not as interesting as Aaron’s for me. I like dysfunctional father Odin. Toxic masculinity was not as big a topic back in Simonson’s day, and comics reflect the real world and its issues. This is why many people drift away from comics. Sometimes they just want everything to stay the same, but the world changes and so do the comics that reflect it.

While I have no issue addressing modern issues, I think it a bit much to rewrite the entire history of a character to act as a strawman for any issue, especially one as sensitive as that. It;s like revealing Hank beat all his girlfriends, every day of the weak.