I'm sure Siege will repair their relationship. It's billed as reuniting the trinity. Thor and Tony have had an on and off again relationship, but they've always been friends. It was only in recent years, most notably Civil War, did Thor and Stark's relationship disintergrate. (I know many didn't like Civil War but it really was an event that actually changed a lot of stuff)
If you look back at some classic Avengers, Tony and Thor had the occasional scuffle in order to see heroes clash (One of the best being the fight over Latveria, which Cap got involved in) but Tony was always in admiration of Thor and Thor respected Tony (see the dissassembled aftermath issue). The formation of the Avengers was due to Iron-man aiding Thor against his half-brother. Even in Millar's reimagining of the Avengers, whilst retaining their core values a.k.a the Ultimates, Tony and Thor had a strong relationship.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People keep overlooking how serious Stark's actions during Civil War were.-AC
I haven't forgetten, and was glad Thor brushed Tony off in his various attempts to reconcile. But I think the circumstances going on are going to heal some old wounds. Steve didn't want Tony to be burdened forever for what happened during Civil War, and he has a great relationship with Thor. I think peace will come.
I'd still like it if Thor still gave a smackdown to Reed Richards for Clor, though. 😈
Just a general post regarding the discussion the past few pages.
At the very least, Tony will need to earn Thor's trust and friendship again.
There's a difference between saving a man's life you've been teammates/friends with for years compared to trusting and associating with him.
Though this latest gesture by Thor may be a preview of mending fences.
I must admit, Marvel hypes events very well. Just as I'm growing sick of hearing that "nothing will ever be the same again" Marvel manages to lure me in with the notion that the "good ol times" of the Avenger's trinity might be back again.......
Although personally, I want THE Cap of the MU to be Bucky for the foreseeable future. I want more of his relationship with the Avengers, rather than Steve, who, as awesome as he is, should move onto to something different (hopefully Director of SHIELD, post Siege) ✅
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Yay everybody, let's turn the clock back another ****ing 20 years! This will be awesome, now we've COMPLETELY undone any character development Thor had the last decade, so we might as well put him back in the Avengers!
But if they don't, will you be complaining that the character isn't progressing enough, especially in the wider MU?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Thor has always had tension with Stark and Cap; he's never liked taking orders from mortals.Add to the fact that Stark BETRAYED him. He stole his essense to clone him so that the clone could fight their mutual friends. That clone then brutally killed one of them.
This isn't something I, as a reader, can accept Thor ever forgiving.
If you're gonna ride my ass on this forum like a parasite, then at least be correct.
-AC
While true I think Reed Richards should be number one of everyones hitlist.
What you've got to remember, Will, is that Kris is one of those crystal ball fans.
He imagines where he wants a story to go with a character HE likes, and then blames the writer for not doing what he wants.
People on this board, for the most part, spend so much time talking about how they want their fav characters to be, that they lose touch with the fact that they're...just people on a messageboard. The way they think is not fact to how their favourite characters should act.
Thor is one character and you could probably find a million fans with a million different takes on Thor. There can only be one writer at a time, and if that man's take doesn't please you, it doesn't mean Marvel are shit. It means that man's opinion of Thor doesn't coincide with your own.
Kris could be signed up to do a run on Thor and everyone could think he was the worst thing to happen to it, despite having the freedom to do what he's always wanted. Some would undoubtedly think he is awesome.
Fans have to consider that only one or two people can write or co-write a character at the same time, and that character has millions of fans with differing opinions. They can't please everyone.
I swear most people here forget that.
"Oh, let's turn the clock back and shit on all the things that's happened to Thor.".
What would you suggest in a company that's as old as Marvel? Look at Surfer. He has been written CONSISTENTLY for as long as he has been around, more or less. He's one of the most consistently portrayed characters in comics.
It's also why he's as much fun as watching paint dry and why they won't give him an on-going. It's at a point where I don't care who the next writer is as long as they change it up.
Is that what you want? A Thor so consistently written that he becomes stale and therefore gets dropped?
Originally posted by ExodusCloak
While true I think Reed Richards should be number one of everyones hitlist.
Why? Reed thinks too much. For someone so smart, he can't see but two feet in front of him sometimes. Hence why he had such a troubled relationship with Sue during that period.
Stark knew what he was doing. He had what was necessary to clone Thor since their first meeting.
It was very calculated.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why? Reed thinks too much. For someone so smart, he can't see but two feet in front of him sometimes. Hence why he had such a troubled relationship with Sue during that period.Stark knew what he was doing. He had what was necessary to clone Thor since their first meeting.
It was very calculated.
-AC
I don't think that excuses him though. It feels that all he got was a slap on the wrist. While the rest of the Illuminati "suffered" to some extent. Then we get Dark Reign: Fantastic Four explaining that it would have worked had the other members not been present it's too much of an easy way out IMO.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Oh, let's turn the clock back and shit on all the things that's happened to Thor.".What would you suggest in a company that's as old as Marvel? Look at Surfer. He has been written CONSISTENTLY for as long as he has been around, more or less. He's one of the most consistently portrayed characters in comics.
It's also why he's as much fun as watching paint dry and why they won't give him an on-going. It's at a point where I don't care who the next writer is as long as they change it up.
Is that what you want? A Thor so consistently written that he becomes stale and therefore gets dropped.
What does consistency have to do with lack of variety? You're talking about lack of change as its a negative thing while wavering a banner supporting it. Virtually NOTHING has changed about the Surfer in ages and the sales suffered/lost his book. Do you think this is what I want for Thor? Clearly You must be confused about something here.
Jurgens took Thor to new places and Oeming continued to build on that. Both wrote a great Thor, a character so great the likes of which have not been seen since Walt "God" Simonson wrote him. The sales answered in accordance. JMS wrote a good Thor and did a good job where Oeming should have continued instead. JMS did some great things, and not some great things. He started turning the clock backwards on Thor's power level, but at least he assured us that Odin would not return. Now, during the Kierron interlude things seems to be going even further back. Thor is pal'ing with Asgard, old enemies are returning and building up to Bendis' big turn of the clock. Reuniting Thor with Avengers and lobotomizing him.
So what are you talking about really? Bitching about how I'm dissatisfied with them flipping off 7-10 years of character development whilst making a statement about how important change and variety is? There is not a million different ways to handle a character's development, you either acknowledge it or you don't. Everything is pointing to Bendis not doing so.
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
The butt are you talking about here?What does consistency have to do with lack of variety? You're talking about lack of change as its a negative thing while wavering a banner supporting it. Virtually NOTHING has changed about the Surfer in ages and the sales suffered/lost his book. Do you think this is what I want for Thor? Clearly You must be confused about something here.
Jurgens took Thor to new places and Oeming continued to build on that. Both wrote a great Thor, a character so great the likes of which have not been seen since Walt "God" Simonson wrote him. The sales answered in accordance. JMS wrote a good Thor and did a good job where Oeming should have continued instead. JMS did some great things, and not some great things. He started turning the clock backwards on Thor's power level, but at least he assured us that Odin would not return. Now, during the Kierron interlude things seems to be going even further back. Thor is pal'ing with Asgard, old enemies are returning and building up to Bendis' big turn of the clock. Reuniting Thor with Avengers and lobotomizing him.
So what are you talking about really? Bitching about how I'm dissatisfied with them flipping off 7-10 years of character development whilst making a statement about how important change and variety is? There is not a million different ways to handle a character's development, you either acknowledge it or you don't. Everything is pointing to Bendis not doing so.
All signs point to Thor returning to The Avengers and even I have openly said I don't think that's a good move, but until they do it, I'm not going to blame them for doing it...because it hasn't been done. IF, big IF, they don't then you're just going to look rather foolish.
Also, why does everyone around here have such a hard-on for power levels? I care about story, not who my favourite characters can beat up in a fight. I could understand if one minute Thor is immensely powerful to the point that he's untouchable (Cos that's SO much fun to read...), then he gets beat by Hitman Monkey or Squirrel Girl. That doesn't seem to be happening, though.
Unless it's not how they did it, but the fact that they did it that bothers you.
I'm not supporting and bitching about anything.
I'm all for consistency, but within realism. Surfer has been written consistently forever, and he's suffered for it. That is an example of consistency being bad.
You're right, there are so many ways to develop a character. My issue is that people seem to think that their way is the best and anything else is shit.
Do you have any idea how many people bitched about Frank Miller changing Daredevil's aesthetic back in the day? Granted, there wasn't as much back story, but it was more than a hundred issues of consistently portrayed character and then Miller comes in with ninjas and organised crime.
It turned out to be the best thing to ever happen. You'll never know if one of these people who is changing Thor happens to have the right idea unless you stop viewing change with such vicious mentality.
-AC