Originally Posted by Mjölnir
I'm not bothered about what you like and don't like, I just found the reasoning funny. Not good is easy to get as it's how you recieve it, but I have a hard time seeing what's "weird" about it (especially since the base of the discussion is about a Norse god coming to Earth on the Rainbow Bridge etc).
Sigh. That bit where I said, it's just IMO and IYO, there's no reasoning involved dude. How can you dispute or criticize my reasoning when I've not offered any reasoning to begin with, only opinion as to why I prefer Ultimate Thor. So, everything that comes next is pure opinion. Feel free to disagree, as I know you will, and that's cool - but don't try and bring reason into it, as this thread is, by defintion, an opinion thread, this is a reason-free zone.
Again, Simonson's weirdness worked for me, I prefer Thor the Frog of Thunder and Beta Ray Bill to King Thor, Rune Thor or King-Rune-Thor-Thorforce-god-Thor. The way I see it, today's Thor has gone waaayyyy too far past the original concept to make him enjoyable (kind of like the Silver Age Superman) But that's just my opinion.
I read stuff like this and go, WTF ?
maybe the writers at Marvel can't make up their mind about what Thor's powers are or should be, but if you read that and believe it, then Thor wouldn't have much trouble with Galactus, or the Beyonder for that matter, how Hulk smacks him around from time to time I don't know.
In fact, if you read that, and you ask "what are Thor's powers" well the answer is "all of them" because according to this he can do pretty much everything.
Superman's writers mess with his powers all the time, but usually just the level of power, as opposed to what he can actually do. There's stuff in that wikia that I've never seen Thor do, "spin the hammer at twice the speed of light ? " now that's just weird, if he threw the hammer faster than the speed of light, it would travel back in time.
Something I preferred about the 80's versions of Superman and Thor, is that they were a lot less invincible and all-powerful (Something Geoff Johns, and Grant Morrison have done a good job with today, in respect of Superman).
They were just strong, tough guys who hit hard, and had a bit of personality. In Simonson's stories, you really felt like Thor was vulnerable, and really had to give his all in order to overcome the challenges he faced (and I preferred Simonson's villains to and all the God-butchers, God-bakers and God-candlestick-makers) Thor gets his ass-kicked a bunch of times, (even by Beta Ray Bill) and all that makes him much more relatable and more interesting and fun - he does win in the end, but as the reader you feel a bit of angst about how he's going to overcome the odds.
Ultimate Thor, IMO, had elements of that. I loved the comic where the Avengers team up to fight him, and only barely overcome him. I didn't follow him that carefully after that, but I liked what they started. I also
vastly prefer Thor without a cape.
Have to say, that movie Thor also sticks to the concept a bit more religiously, pun intended, of the tough guy. Sure he's still lord of the lightning and thunder, but other than being really strong and tough
he's not a genius (IQ of 355, oh for ****'s sake !) or able to any of the weird stuff in the wikia, which is why the films are such fun.
If you like today's Thor, that's cool, I respect your opinion. There's no reasoning necessary, you don't have to justify it or back it up or compare.
Just say you like it, and it's all good.