Thor Odinson, God of Thunder Appreciation 2019

[kilderkin]

The other way of looking at that is that you were not as interested in that thesis as some of us were, or as Aaron was. For me it never lost focus, because the book has stayed on that wider idea for the entire run and continued to explore it. If it had lost focus then the story would have moved on or meandered but it hasn’t. The main themes are continually addressed in every arc.

Just as readily I could argue that for those with an interest in it, they don't see the lack of focus on Thor, meandering or repetition rather than exploration as suggested in Thor once again saying mjolnir is what makes him Thor in spite of all the proof positive to the contrary

I do agree with you, it hadn't moved on, it's just tangented away from Thor continually

With all due respect to suggest he hasn't meandered in the writing of this is imo a little ridiculous

But I'll agree to disagree

[Frontier]

Apart from my timeloop theory I have also wondered if the future of Mjölnir will be based on Yggdrasil. I first considered it when we saw the sap of the tree represented as golden, at the same time as being introduced to a golden hammer. This got a little clouded by the Avengers Thor wielding a golden hammer, something he has rarely done in his own book.

Thematically it could work, because it would define his character as connected to all of the realms. A champion and protector of the Ten Realms perhaps. For a few years now that outcome has felt logical as an end point. A hammer that reflects this makes sense.

This ties in with a confusion over the title after WotR. Initially it was suggested that Thor would continue into a new arc with a new status quo in Thor #15, then #16 says he has ‘disappeared’, and there is no #17 solicited and instead we have the King Thor solicitation. Now it is entirely possible that this title has replaced the main one, but I am not so sure. We will have to wait and see I guess, but it seems strange we would have a four issue mini and not the main title. Perhaps the book is being relaunched under a new writer earlier than hinted, and will overlap.

Maybe if the Yggdrasil hammer is stronger then Mjolnir and not, well, alive...

[Digifiend]

https://www.newsarama.com/45737-thor...the-stage.html

Aaron's run has been condensed into a single act COMEDY stage play.
https://marvelspotlightplays.com/

[Frontier]

"Hammered?" Well, I guess that sums it up pretty well .

[The Cool Thatguy]

The other way of looking at that is that you were not as interested in that thesis as some of us were, or as Aaron was. For me it never lost focus, because the book has stayed on that wider idea for the entire run and continued to explore it. If it had lost focus then the story would have moved on or meandered but it hasn’t. The main themes are continually addressed in every arc.

Perhaps, but personally, I don't think much of a theme that consists of an entire race proving itself of value. Just sayin'.

[Daniel22]

I kind of get where you're coming from, but at the same time, as far as Thor is concerned, all these "new behaviors" have seemed more regressive then they have added. I can't think of anything Aaron has done with Thor, as a character, that has made him more compelling other then indicating that he may be weaker mentally or morally then he was before.

If we want to get into something "additive," I guess it would be Jane but I think that in the end came at the expense of Thor himself.

If these new reactions or behaviors seemed to actually have a root in what I've seen from Thor prior I would probably be more receptive to them then I am.

I mean, I think any good run probably has a good mix of both, ultimately.

I think with Superheroes it's always about balancing the spectacle with the story. So obviously there's the need for the heroes to do cool stuff, actually accomplish things, and establish why they are heroes but it's also important to have a good emotional core and resonance underpinning it as well.

Although I do find the depiction of Thor and Jane as Thor's capability and the contrast to be a tad...disingenuous.

And, kind of off-topic from what you're talking about...but I just really don't like the name "Odinson" anymore. All it seems to represent now is a period where Thor was deprived of his actual name and was seen as Unworthy, and it's where a lot of my issues with his current characterization propped up.

I don't begrudge you for using it but I just am kind of done with Thor being referred to that way as it was nonsensically forced into being the only way to refer to him as.

No doubt, whether the themes and story threads are additive or regressive is gonna come down to personal preference. And I see where you're coming from... certainly any time a character reaches a low point (or in his case, the lowest point) it's understandable to look at what is lost to the character as opposed to what is gained by the reader. He did lose some incredibly important things, like his faith in himself and the gods, his defining weapon, the worthiness that allowed him to overcome the largest challenge of his youth and wield Mjollinir, and more. From my view, those are additions in the sense that it deepened the character by making him question things that had become second nature to him and ingrained in his very self-identity. Having him take a real look at parts of himself that he had taken for granted for thousands of years added layers and dimensions, imo. The character Odinson lost many things for a time, but as a reader I gained as a result of his losses. Our mileage is varying wildly here, but hopefully I'm doing a good job of showing why I see the changes as additive.

I can definitely see the argument against giving Jane the "Thor" name. I liked it but I could also make a good case against it. I do know that for some people, Jane is their Thor. She's what they think of when they think of Thor. She brought in people who not only didn't read Thor comics, but didn't read Marvel at all. I've heard multiple young kids come across Odinson comics (not poking at you here, it's just for clarity's sake) and say "There's a guy Thor"? I guess time will tell if the Jane-as-Thor period will stick long term. Her taking up the Valkyerie mantle will probably help with distancing her from the Thor name.

[Frontier]

No doubt, whether the themes and story threads are additive or regressive is gonna come down to personal preference. And I see where you're coming from... certainly any time a character reaches a low point (or in his case, the lowest point) it's understandable to look at what is lost to the character as opposed to what is gained by the reader. He did lose some incredibly important things, like his faith in himself and the gods, his defining weapon, the worthiness that allowed him to overcome the largest challenge of his youth and wield Mjollinir, and more. From my view, those are additions in the sense that it deepened the character by making him question things that had become second nature to him and ingrained in his very self-identity. Having him take a real look at parts of himself that he had taken for granted for thousands of years added layers and dimensions, imo. The character Odinson lost many things for a time, but as a reader I gained as a result of his losses. Our mileage is varying wildly here, but hopefully I'm doing a good job of showing why I see the changes as additive.

The thing of it is, for me, is that the way they have been taken away and the way Thor has been made to learn from them have either not felt believable as a long-time fan or just made him a more shallow character by reducing him down to those traits to make it seem like he needs to become "deeper" by losing them and weakening his integrity.

I can definitely see the argument against giving Jane the "Thor" name. I liked it but I could also make a good case against it. I do know that for some people, Jane is their Thor. She's what they think of when they think of Thor. She brought in people who not only didn't read Thor comics, but didn't read Marvel at all. I've heard multiple young kids come across Odinson comics (not poking at you here, it's just for clarity's sake) and say "There's a guy Thor"? I guess time will tell if the Jane-as-Thor period will stick long term. Her taking up the Valkyerie mantle will probably help with distancing her from the Thor name.

They obviously haven't seen the movies, I guess .

[Immortal Hulk]

So, you're saying that a character who is one of the stars of a multi billionaire franchise and the comics (for over 60 years) and a Norse Deity is, for a part of comic readers, not Thor? Haven't they heard about such character? "Is there a guy Thor"? That's kind of strange. LOL.

[Daniel22]

Thank you for validating me as another shallow Thor fan .



Fair enough. I place more emphasis on it than some I suppose. I venture to say it is just as important to say, fans of Hulk or Superman, for example.



We actualy agree on this. The main difference between us appears to be I place more emphasis than you do on how well Thor is depicted in a given battle.

Several years ago, Stan Lee appeared on "Comicbook Men". One of the main questions asked? Who is stronger Thor or Hulk? Stan gave a very diplomatic, "...when you have two popular characters like this, the fight should end in an ambiguous way...one without a clear winner..." (paraphrasing -- Stan actually grew to HATE that question).

It's a question that is still on the minds of many today...no matter how frustratingly infantile it may be to writers who are trying to carve new ground for the character...but one that if handled the right way, could boost sales where those two (or similarly classed opponents) face each other down.

I suppose I would sum my preference as...Thor can have intriguing stories told about him without sacrificing what (to me) is an intrinsic part of his character: vast strength and power (RE: Odins words to Thor in Infinity War..."Thor is the God of what?").

Nevertheless, I respect your view.

EDIT: May I ask...do you enjoy what Aaron is writing? Who are your favorite Thor writers and/or story arcs/issues?

Well, at least you can look at the pretty pictures! I kid. You're totally right, those explorations of power levels and who could beat up who are baked into the comics. They're not going anywhere and I don't think they should. And as someone who also likes characters like Hulk and Superman, I really do get how those things are important to the characters and many of their fans. And I've witnessed and participated in the Hulk vs Superman argument plenty of times (Superman would win, obviously). And things like "A vs X" show that those things can drive interest and sales, to your point.

I agree again, we're just putting different emphasis on different aspects. Nothing wrong with that. The best characters have people who like them for a bunch of different reasons. I think for me it breaks down like this: cool expressions of power and amazing feats? I like that as a minor part of the story, but if they're not there that's ok too. Nice, but not necessary. The more character driven stuff is more of a necessity to me. But best case scenario we get a lot of the latter and some of the former. If it's all the former, it's not really a story, it's more like watching a video game being played imo.

I love Aaron's run. It's my favorite Thor run. It's the first time I've connected with any characters and enjoyed a Thor run on a level other than seeing a great action/drama movie (which, again..not that there's anything wrong with that). And Aaron has been blessed with an embarrassment of riches for artists..I mean, Ribic, Dauterman and Del Mundo?! That's an insanely talented lineup imo.
My other favorite would be the JMS and Gillen era. I liked Simonson a lot at the time and think it holds up pretty well. My favorite Asgardian-related title would easily be Gillen's Journey into Mystery with Kid Loki. That thing is amazing.

[Daniel22]

The thing of it is, for me, is that the way they have been taken away and the way Thor has been made to learn from them have either not felt believable as a long-time fan or just made him a more shallow character by reducing him down to those traits to make it seem like he needs to become "deeper" by losing them and weakening his integrity.

They obviously haven't seen the movies, I guess .

I see where you're coming from. We differ in that I don't think it's really an issue of integrity. Or, I could argue that the willingness to admit fault and honestly self-examine is a display OF integrity. Holding the same position for thousands of years can be a good thing, but questioning is good too.

I've heard the "there's a male Thor" from adults, too. If I had to guess they just weren't into the movies for whatever reason or maybe because they weren't into Marvel.The adults weren't your average Marvel reader. They read the Jane stuff based on recommendations or media coverage. As for the kids.. who knows? It's entirely possible they DID see the movies and forgot, or maybe just didn't make the connection between that Thor and the comic Thor...? It happens with adults so I could definitely see it happening with kids.
I'm not saying I see it every day, just that I've seen it.

[Daniel22]

So, you're saying that a character who is one of the stars of a multi billionaire franchise and the comics (for over 60 years) and a Norse Deity is, for a part of comic readers, not Thor? Haven't they heard about such character? "Is there a guy Thor"? That's kind of strange. LOL.

Some parents don't let their kids see the Marvel movies. The movies are ridiculously popular, no question, but not everyone watches them. I don't think many young kids are familiar with the old Thor comics, and even less with the concepts of Norse deities.

I can definitely see how it seems strange. I'm not saying it is or will become the norm. I haven't seen it more than a handful of times but I've seen it.

[Frontier]

I see where you're coming from. We differ in that I don't think it's really an issue of integrity. Or, I could argue that the willingness to admit fault and honestly self-examine is a display OF integrity. Holding the same position for thousands of years can be a good thing, but questioning is good too.

I'm not saying I disagree, it's only that the events that have set off this questioning just haven't felt believable to have left Thor in such a rut or to have a point when, ostensibly, he's supposed to end up being back into the character he was before the questioning.

And suddenly when he has to face these questions Thor turns into a shirtless, hammer and mead-obsessed, aggressive viking. I mean, we're past that stage, but only barely. So that's where it becomes an issue of integrity for me.

This is all the more noticeable to me when we have Jane, who is 99% of the time never depicted as having any self-doubt or concern at all in her efforts as Thor, effortlessly pulling off the things she pulls off.

I've heard the "there's a male Thor" from adults, too. If I had to guess they just weren't into the movies for whatever reason or maybe because they weren't into Marvel.The adults weren't your average Marvel reader. They read the Jane stuff based on recommendations or media coverage. As for the kids.. who knows? It's entirely possible they DID see the movies and forgot, or maybe just didn't make the connection between that Thor and the comic Thor...? It happens with adults so I could definitely see it happening with kids.
I'm not saying I see it every day, just that I've seen it.

Huh. Interesting.

[Daniel22]

I'm not saying I disagree, it's only that the events that have set off this questioning just haven't felt believable to have left Thor in such a rut or to have a point when, ostensibly, he's supposed to end up being back into the character he was before the questioning.

And suddenly when he has to face these questions Thor turns into a shirtless, hammer and mead-obsessed, aggressive viking. I mean, we're past that stage, but only barely. So that's where it becomes an issue of integrity for me.

This is all the more noticeable to me when we have Jane, who is 99% of the time never depicted as having any self-doubt or concern at all in her efforts as Thor, effortlessly pulling off the things she pulls off.

Huh. Interesting.

I think we'll get him completely back to his old self by the end of Aaron's run. Besides that just being the way of comics, I think it was always the plan for Odinson to go through a prolonged down period followed by his reclaiming his worthiness but defining it in a different way. If you're not into the story in general or his depiction of a laid-low Thor in particular, I sympathize, because it's been a long second act. Knowing the third act is coming might not help much if you really don't like the second act.

The Jane thing is another thing I do understand but don't agree with. I think it's pretty standard to put over a new character pretty strong. Not too often do we see "New version! Not quite as good as the old"! It's always "New and improved"! But even that is me really simplifying things... Jane had advantages in the very areas Odinson was struggling with, so they seem more pronounced. In those cases Jane had an insight and position that Odinson didn't have, through no fault of Odinson. I don't think it was a matter of always making Jane strong by making Odinson look weak, sometimes it was just that both things happened, without there being an intent to compare. Other times, certainly there was.

I can see the view that Jane's character might have been better served by not excelling in the physical realm so much, so fast. Especially since it was never about physical strength, anyway. Having Odinson remain as the clearly better physical warrior could arguably be the better choice (although I do think Odinson's lack of physical accomplishments in this run has been drastically overstated).

[JKtheMac]

I'm not saying I disagree, it's only that the events that have set off this questioning just haven't felt believable to have left Thor in such a rut or to have a point when, ostensibly, he's supposed to end up being back into the character he was before the questioning.

Just as readily I could argue that for those with an interest in it, they don't see the lack of focus on Thor, meandering or repetition rather than exploration as suggested in Thor once again saying mjolnir is what makes him Thor in spite of all the proof positive to the contrary

Both quoted, because this is where I believe the disconnect is.

Both of you are making huge assumptions that you know what is planned or exactly what the run is about. Yet both of these things I would disagree with fundamentally. Aaron is not telling a story that will eventually put him back where he was. Aaron is not suggesting that the hammer is what makes Thor.

By being frustrated by either of those things, you are effectively making up your own reasons to be frustrated which are not based on the actual story.

[JKtheMac]

I can see the view that Jane's character might have been better served by not excelling in the physical realm so much, so fast.

Although the direct parallel that Aaron is clearly referencing is Journey into Mystery #83. In other words, the equation Jane is an equivalent of Blake was being set up right from the start. Thor was instantly physically powerful in that first appearance, despite Blake being lame.

This was deliberately crafted to make us think about that early appearance and ask questions. Especially in the context of the later assertion that Blake never existed, and the even later assertion that actually he did. Aaron's core ideas rely upon this reflection. We are supposed to question what is going on and how it is happening. Having Jane weaker and less of a thunder deity wouldn't have provoked this line of thinking.

She would just have been a pale shadow. A mere mortal carrying a hammer that gives her superpowers. Whereas making her claim to be a deity and over time prove this, makes us consider something fundamental about what a god is. Who Thor is. Insight into the answer will most likely be given tomorrow. From two angles. Young Thor's fight with Gor, and what Thor learns on the new Yggdrasill.