Discussion in 'Thor: The Dark World' started by one4smoke, Dec 20, 2013.
Which Thor is your favorite and why?
My favourite Thor, is the Walt Simonson Thor (from Simonson's run on the book back from 1983-6). The fact that Thor TDW features characters and storylines from that
time shows just how epic Simonson's influence was.
He was an artist with a unique (and later often imitated) style, and writer who raised the level of Thor comics, from bombastic shout fests to truly epic and apocalyptic storylines, but with an underlying sense of humour.
Movie Thor has his moments, and Hemsworth does a good job, but not even close to Simonson's Thor. Just IMO.
Check out the awesomeness .........
My current favorite is Jason Aaron's Thor in the current Thor: God of Thunder run.
One of the biggest reasons for that is that Aaron really embraces Thor being a god where Thor listens to, and is affected by, prayer. Seeing Thor in three very different stages of his life in the same story is also very interesting.
I still like the Modern Thor over the movies. Tho Walt and the recent God of Thunder imo are part of those stories too.
As a character I find Hemsworth's Thor to be much more likable than any of the comics I've read.
I grew up mesmerized with the classic comic book Thor. Still like him 40 years later. But the movie Thor has taken him to a new level. The redesign of the costume, Mjolnir, etc.. for the movie has been outstanding. I always thought Thor was cool looking, but I must admit, after the movie the comic book Thor isn't nearly as appealing visually. It's funny how the blue pants and yellow boots always worked in the comics, but would look absolutely silly on the big screen.
No Ultimate Thor?
I guess that would fall under "Other."
Good comment !
I still prefer Simonson's Thor, perhaps less for Thor himself but for what Simonson did with the surrounding cast and storylines.
As for the Thunderer himself, I will have to agree with you, Ultimate Thor is pretty damn good. A simpler concept than the whole prayer-god-butcher-thorforce thing, I find that **** just weird, and makes the character unrelatable....well more unrelatable than a demi-god who looks like a pro-surfer on steroids, anyway, just IMO.
In terms of modern comics versions of Thor, I agree Ultimate Thor is the best, hands down. Sticks with what makes the character great, his noble intentions, and doesn't get all weird with his powers.
So, while not quite Simonson Thor, Ultimate Thor is highly worthy to wield the hammer. (BTW I would suggest that Movie Thor draws as much on ultimate Thor as Simonson Thor, so again good call).
That's pretty funny because Simonson has shown more weird powers than anything in God of Thunder. What makes Aaron's good isn't powers but that he really uses the concept of a God, plus that he handles Thor's personality extremely well.
I'm not a fan of Ultimate Thor. His hammer-axe is a monstrosity. I don't care much for the Ultimate universe at all though.
Just to clarify.
1) Yes, Simonson did weird stuff, but I liked it - a lot. Have only read a little of Aaron's stuff and it didn't do much for me, particularly the God concept, but you and I have discussed that already, so it's just something we disagree on. Agree to disagree, after all, it's only IMO and IYO.
As I mentioned earlier, what I liked best about Simonson, is what he did with the supporting cast and the overall story arcs, perhaps not so much what he did for Thor himself - although he gave Thor a really tough time, Beta Ray Bill and brittle bones, ouch !
2) As far as powers go, Ultimate Thor (well at least in the Ultimate titles I've read) are pretty straightforward, and in line with how I view the character - he's definitely not as powerful as other iterations of Thor, but has a lot more personality, all in all that makes him a better character.
Actually, I kind of like the Axe/hammer thing, as it looks like a weapon, whereas mjolnir in mainstream Thor looks more like a tool.
Again, just IMO.
I can see how you wouldn't like the ultimate titles, I don't have much time for Ultimate Spider Man or Ultimate X Men, yawn ! They stripped away most of what made those characters great and replaced it with unnecessary crap. The Ultimates is the only book I liked from that universe, which is saying a lot as I usually don't have much time for the Avengers at all.
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).
Thor has always been a god and hearing prayers from their followers has been fundamental to the concept of gods in most religions and other fiction. One can like or dislike it but I don't see the weird part (apart from why no one else has included it before).
When it comes to powers Aaron's Thor is pretty straight forward as well. He's strong, he hits hard, he flies extremely fast and he summons lightning. The Thorforce is exactly the same as the Odinforce, ergo the same thing that's been in most Thor stories that's ever been. King Thor hardly even uses it "on screen" either.
I like Simonson's run just like everybody else but that is certainly more "weird" to me. It kind of starts right away when they show that they can just order a new Mjolnir, this iconic superweapon, on overnight delivery. Just so they can create a horse Thor that shares a name with a pony in LotR. Now that's weird to me.
As for the hammer-axe there's at least the part where Mjolnir actually has been described as an axe on some rare occasion in the myths. I still don't think naming an axe "crusher" or "pulverizer" makes that much sense, but it's there. My main problem is that I think it has an ugly design though. The original Mjolnir isn't purely a weapon, it is a tool as well. And it of course looks like it does because it's a battle hammer where the hilt came out too short due to an accident caused by Loki.
The problem with Ultimate Thor is that the "is he a god or is he insane" question can only really be stretched out so long ( barring inane arguments over the definition of the word "god" ). Even if you don't get actual confirmation one way or another soon, its not long before no one can really care anymore.
The movie handled it right, by having the issue resolved before the movie was over, and leaving any remaining arguments as minor character points that aren't overly important.
Dude, I thought that issue was resolved after Ultimates 2.
Anyway, the movie clearly used ultimate Thor for source material, (particularly the insanity) as well as the look of the character (of course not the look of mjolnir).
I suppose the ideal Thor would blend Ultimate Thor with comic book Thor, again I'm not too keen on Thor in the last few years but there are those that are, and more power to them.
Peace out Asgardi-fans !
I voted other as Ultimate Thor is my favorite incarnation. I loved the is he a God or is he insane premise I would have liked to see more of 1610 in the MCU incarnation but I can see why they might want to please 616ers more so.
I leave you with these two images
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.
I find it funny since you say that Aaron's Thor is weird power-wise, despite that he has fewer powers than Simonson's (which you said was your favorite) and Simonson's have all the powers Aaron's has. The only thing Simonson's Thor doesn't have is the Thorforce, but that's only because Odin has it in Simonson's run so it's still definitely not something new. King Thor is also not the main Thor in Aaron's run so the Thorforce is a marginal thing.
You can sigh all you want but I'm fully entitled to finding something you say funny, even if it's a subjective opinion. I didn't say that you were objectively wrong, quite the contrary as I said that I'm not the least bothered by what you prefer. This is a discussion board so the very point is to have opinions on what other people write.
So your comment about Thor going away from the original the reality of it is actually that Aaron has a more toned down version than what's been in the past, including Simonson's (which certainly isn't the original incarnation in Marvel). Thor is definitely not invulnerable in Aaron's run either. He gets beaten several times in the first arc alone. I doubt that you know what "today's Thor" is, judging from your comments.
Why you bring in a bunch of other writers other than Aaron, which have nothing to do with what's been said previously, I don't really understand. Aaron is writing Thor today, on top of the Avengers stuff of course.
This thread says which Thor is your favourite ? Which suggests it is about sharing opinions rather than critiquing those of others. If you really aren't bothered about what I like, why do you keep attacking my comments ?
Why don't you instead divert your energies to promoting your own opinions and telling us why modern Thor is such an engaging hero and why its your preferred iteration of the character? That's something I would enjoy reading and respect.
So, why don't you share some of your favourite "today's" Thor moments, and what makes them so great ? I always read other people's opinions with an open mind,
That way someone might think "Hmmmm that sounds like an interesting Thor story, maybe that guy is on to something and I should check that out." instead of something less charitable.
If that's too cryptic for you, I don't diss your opinions, so don't diss mine, whether you agree/disagree or you think I'm completely wrong. You're entitled to disagree, but you aren't entitled to disrespect.
If this was an argument thread, and we were having an argument about something that actually involves rational thought, then feel free to ruthlessly deconstruct my argument, but this isn't such an argument, it's merely opinion.
Admittedly I am probably a bit out of touch with "today's Thor" if you don't count movie Thor or Ultimate Thor, so we're specifically talking about Aaron's Thor. I admit I haven't read a lot of Aaron's work, but the little bit I did, didn't work for me, so enough to form an opinion. Could I engage in a detailed argument on the merits of Aaron vs Simonson, no, haven't read enough.....but again this is an opinion thread.
I brought in the other writers (John Byrne and Geoff Johns) to make a comparison between Superman and Thor, in terms of how writers like to mess around with super-heroes' powers in order to further storylines.
If we post our opinions then we make them open for comments an discussion, that's one of the core points of a discussion board. My feeling is that you're being overly sensitive as I'm just questioning one of the arguments for why you have your opinion, not to mention that you were the one that called Aaron's Thor "****" (the word is obvious) which I see as more disrespectful/provocative than anything I've written here.
What actually would be constructive would be for you to explain exactly what you find is being more weird about it, rather than just going into defense mode. The thing I've tried to discuss, and wrote clear examples for, is the weirdness and not whether or not we find it good or bad, which are two different things. I'm not trying to change your opinion since there's nothing that says that you have to like the same things I do, I'm trying to understand how Aaron's stuff can be seen as more weird than Simonson's.