Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

just read the following interview which stan lee gave just a few years back in 1998 when asked who he thought was stronger thor or the hulk here's what he had to say.

Roy: And now I have what Evans and Novak would call on their show, "The Big Question," which the editor requested me to ask you: Which is stronger, Thor or the Hulk?

Stan: I would have to guess that Thor is stronger, only because he is a god and probably can't be killed. Again, I don't know how the guys have been writing him lately, but I thought of him as invulnerable

he did go onto say that it was posssible that the hulk might be able to eventually get to thor strength level but in his opinion thor would win a fight between the two of them

Interesting stuff, but most likely irrelevant. Stan hasn't written anything in ages. We're probably more versed in Marvel continuity than he is. And the question was worded poorly. "Who is stronger" and "Who is more powerful" are two different questions, and it sounded as though they asked him "Who's stronger" and Stan gave them the answer for "Who is more powerful".

Still, he's still the man, so I won't argue with anything he says about his own creations. But at this point he's just another fan of comics...albeit an insanely rich and influential fan of comics.

Yea ok im going to belive u I guess u dont understand LIMITLESS STRENGTH!!! Hulk would pulverize thor.

Originally posted by bigboygreen
Yea ok im going to belive u I guess u dont understand LIMITLESS STRENGTH!!! Hulk would pulverize thor.

Maybe if Thor lost all his limbs and was struck blind, deaf, and dumb, and was asleep.

I love how all these Hulk fans want characters to throw away their hammers, not to fly, no heat vison, no energy absorbtion, yada yada yada...should Dr. Strange challenge Hulk to a fight; no spells??

Sorry that the Hulk has limited power compared to some other characters. Get over it, or cheer for someone else.

This is no surprise. Stan Lee always wrote Thor as the top dawg in Marvel.

Originally posted by Dayscribe
Maybe if Thor lost all his limbs and was struck blind, deaf, and dumb, and was asleep.

Originally posted by paolo2143
just read the following interview which stan lee gave just a few years back in 1998 when asked who he thought was stronger thor or the hulk here's what he had to say.

Roy: And now I have what Evans and Novak would call on their show, "The Big Question," which the editor requested me to ask you: Which is stronger, Thor or the Hulk?

Stan: I would have to guess that Thor is stronger, only because he is a god and probably can't be killed. Again, I don't know how the guys have been writing him lately, but I thought of him as invulnerable

he did go onto say that it was posssible that the hulk might be able to eventually get to thor strength level but in his opinion thor would win a fight between the two of them

In the olden days (when Stan and Jack were running things), Hulk ranked as stronger. The Thing was #2 and Thor was third place. This was not to say, however, who would win in a fight, with all powers in full deployment.

Originally posted by bigboygreen
Yea ok im going to belive u I guess u dont understand LIMITLESS STRENGTH!!! Hulk would pulverize thor.

I don't believe the whole "unlimited strength" bullshit.... it's the dumbest thing i've ever read (and i've read Wolverine8888's posts)

Originally posted by Scoobless
I don't believe the whole "unlimited strength" bullshit.... it's the dumbest thing i've ever read (and i've read Wolverine8888's posts) its the closest thing to unlimited among marvel hero's...and it has been stated that he has the possiblility to become the strongest living humanoid...

Thor shouldnt be able to beat Thor without Mjolnir.

With Mjolnir though he most definitly can.

But, back to Stan Lee. Everybody loves Stan. He created the MU and characters like Spider-Man, Hulk, the Thing, Dr. Doom, Magneto, Cyclops. But lately in his old age, I think its safe to say that Stan is off his rocker.

Originally posted by Scoobless
I don't believe the whole "unlimited strength" bullshit.... it's the dumbest thing i've ever read (and i've read Wolverine8888's posts)
scared

From what I can remember, in all of the old fights, the Hulk never seemed to exceed Thor's level of strength. He'd match it when he got to the full-blown angry level, but that's about it. So while his strength was theoretically unlimited, practically its limit was about Thor's level.

In more recent years, the Hulk seems to jump to around Thor level (usually) and then surpass him as the fight goes on. And before someone says it, I know the Hulk's strength is tied to his anger and can jump to just about any level if he's mad enough.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Thor shouldnt be able to beat Thor without Mjolnir.

With Mjolnir though he most definitly can.

But, back to Stan Lee. Everybody loves Stan. He created the MU and characters like Spider-Man, Hulk, the Thing, Dr. Doom, Magneto, Cyclops. But lately in his old age, I think its safe to say that Stan is off his rocker.

He knows more about comics than you do.

It shall be stated again - WHO is the STRONGEST, and WHO is the MOST POWERFUL, are not necessarily THE SAME THING. Even if I acknowledged Hulk could be stronger than Thor, overall Thor is more powerful, and so higher up. The Hulk IS stronger than Dr. Strange, but Dr. Strange is more powerful overall. Two different things.

Originally posted by Mindship
In the olden days (when Stan and Jack were running things), Hulk ranked as stronger. The Thing was #2 and Thor was third place. This was not to say, however, who would win in a fight, with all powers in full deployment.

When were Hulk or Thing portrayed as being stronger than Thor? In fact, did you read the first fight between Thor and Hulk?

That said it!

Thor is still kinda top dog in marvel. You can see how writers view Thor's power thru the awe of the characters they write.

hmmm, whats the strongest thing you'd say the hulk has ever done?
like wise with thor?

Originally posted by Scoobless
I don't believe the whole "unlimited strength" bullshit.... it's the dumbest thing i've ever read (and i've read Wolverine8888's posts)



digi's initial post summed this thread topic up quite well i thought. lee does live in the past. his opinion should still be respected, but it is no longer the be all end all in the world of comics.

Originally posted by Jarshewa
hmmm, whats the strongest thing you'd say the hulk has ever done?
like wise with thor?

Hulk= carried a 150 billion ton mountain in secret wars.

Thor= Flung the Midgard serpent that weighs as Earth.

sorry but just read this thread for first time in ages and i cannot believe that anybody thinks the thing was originally stronger than thor,thor was always portrayed as being clearly above the thing in strength and as i said and big stan agrees thor was clearly at least as strong as even an angry hulk in the silver era.

Who says Thing is stronger?

Originally posted by Mindship
In the olden days (when Stan and Jack were running things), Hulk ranked as stronger. The Thing was #2 and Thor was third place. This was not to say, however, who would win in a fight, with all powers in full deployment.
How was Thing ever stronger than Thor? Ben started out at Class 5 and gradually increased to his current level. Thor has always been top tier while Ben still isn't.

Originally posted by joesha28
Hulk= carried a 150 billion ton mountain in secret wars.

Thor= Flung the Midgard serpent that weighs as Earth.

Actually, the best feats Hulk has is punching an astroid twice the size of earth to pieces. He also resisted the anti-matter.

Originally posted by paolo2143
just read the following interview which stan lee gave just a few years back in 1998 when asked who he thought was stronger thor or the hulk here's what he had to say.

Roy: And now I have what Evans and Novak would call on their show, "The Big Question," which the editor requested me to ask you: Which is stronger, Thor or the Hulk?

Stan: I would have to guess that Thor is stronger, only because he is a god and probably can't be killed. Again, I don't know how the guys have been writing him lately, but I thought of him as invulnerable

he did go onto say that it was posssible that the hulk might be able to eventually get to thor strength level but in his opinion thor would win a fight between the two of them

I've heard about this b4, you couldn't post a link to the interview could you ?

Originally posted by Grimm22
Thor shouldnt be able to beat Thor without Mjolnir.

With Mjolnir though he most definitly can.

But, back to Stan Lee. Everybody loves Stan. He created the MU and characters like Spider-Man, Hulk, the Thing, Dr. Doom, Magneto, Cyclops. But lately in his old age, I think its safe to say that Stan is off his rocker.

I agree ... there's no way Thor can beat THOR. shifty

Originally posted by joesha28
Thor is still kinda top dog in marvel. You can see how writers view Thor's power thru the awe of the characters they write.

Ehhh .... what a load of garbage. They are hardly in 'awe' of him, that expression on the other characters faces is one of confussion. Confussion because they can't understand anything he is saying.

And how do you know the midgard serpent weighs as much as the earth. ?

It is ever been stated in both comics and myth.

This has to do a lot with hype and roles in the comics universe. Because strength and toughness is all the Hulk has, his boast that he's the strongest one there is wouldn't mean anything if there is someone bigger on the block ( even though characters like Thanos & Champion most likely exceed Hulk in strength and toughness.) It doesn't matter that Thing or Colossus aren't the strongest & toughest; ther are part of ensembles, contributing what they have in a group attack. Versatile characters - Thor, Superman, Captain Marvel, Thanos, Wonder Woman etc. - are known for being powerful in many ways, and don't have to claim some title to assert greatness.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Interesting stuff, but most likely irrelevant. Stan hasn't written anything in ages. We're probably more versed in Marvel continuity than he is. And the question was worded poorly. "Who is stronger" and "Who is more powerful" are two different questions, and it sounded as though they asked him "Who's stronger" and Stan gave them the answer for "Who is more powerful".

Still, he's still the man, so I won't argue with anything he says about his own creations. But at this point he's just another fan of comics...albeit an insanely rich and influential fan of comics.

So, it's irrelevant what the creators of the characters think? If Stan never created these characters, none of the 'writers that matter' would even be working on them. Characters change, but it is important to respect where they started out. If Stan says the Thor beats Hulk, that's the way it should be. Anything to the contrary is going against the grain. If anyone deserves an opinion on the characters, it's the creator.

Yes hulk has the potential for unlimited strength, but his strength is limited only to how mad he can get.

Take note, one can only get so mad. There is always a limit to one's anger.

Originally posted by superman41082
So, it's irrelevant what the creators of the characters think? If Stan never created these characters, none of the 'writers that matter' would even be working on them. Characters change, but it is important to respect where they started out. If Stan says the Thor beats Hulk, that's the way it should be. Anything to the contrary is going against the grain. If anyone deserves an opinion on the characters, it's the creator.

First off, did you read my post? Yes? Good, then you'll see that I give Stan the credit he deserves and I say that I would never argue with him about his own creations. One of my biggest peeves about "debating" on this forum is when posters pick out a sentence or two of someone else and magnify it to make their counter-point seem more credible, and don't take into account the entire post.

I stand by the statement that we're probably as versed in Marvel continuity as Stan (if not moreso) and that in many respects he's just another fan of comics. Yes, he's the creator (of Hulk at least....Thor's from myth), and yes he deserves a ton of respect. But that doesn't mean he's always right....no one's infallible.

And yes, it's important to respect where the characters started out, as you said. But it's also important to resepct the dynamic nature of any character...and that dynamic nature does not belong to Stan alone, nor to any other individual, but to the entirety of the character and any who have experienced the character. In that sense, the outcome of such a fight (or any fight) doesn't belong to any single creator or to the whims of the character's current writer, but to the continued continuity of the character, which belongs to all of comicdom.

Coincidentally, I agree with The Man. He concludes that Thor would win. But even Stan remarks in the interview that "I don't know how they're writing him these days..." which defers some of the power of validity to the current writers, rather than imposing his will on the contest simply because he created them.

Originally posted by superman41082
So, it's irrelevant what the creators of the characters think? If Stan never created these characters, none of the 'writers that matter' would even be working on them. Characters change, but it is important to respect where they started out. If Stan says the Thor beats Hulk, that's the way it should be. Anything to the contrary is going against the grain. If anyone deserves an opinion on the characters, it's the creator.

this implies that the characters remain or have remained unchanged in all the time since stan created them or left. are you saying writers who have changed them since that time are wrong and shouldn't have done so? if they HAVE changed, and stan knows little of the circumstances that brought about those changes or about the changes themselves, is he still to be considered an 'expert' on such characters?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes hulk has the potential for unlimited strength, but his strength is limited only to how mad he can get.

Take note, one can only get so mad. There is always a limit to one's anger.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Ppl act like Hulk can become friggin Galactus. Adrenalin always runs out at some point. We've all experienced this when we no longer have the enthusiasm to argue and yell anymore.......

Originally posted by DigiMark007
First off, did you read my post? Yes? Good, then you'll see that I give Stan the credit he deserves and I say that I would never argue with him about his own creations. One of my biggest peeves about "debating" on this forum is when posters pick out a sentence or two of someone else and magnify it to make their counter-point seem more credible, and don't take into account the entire post.

I stand by the statement that we're probably as versed in Marvel continuity as Stan (if not moreso) and that in many respects he's just another fan of comics. Yes, he's the creator (of Hulk at least....Thor's from myth), and yes he deserves a ton of respect. But that doesn't mean he's always right....no one's infallible.

And yes, it's important to respect where the characters started out, as you said. But it's also important to resepct the dynamic nature of any character...and that dynamic nature does not belong to Stan alone, nor to any other individual, but to the entirety of the character and any who have experienced the character. In that sense, the outcome of such a fight (or any fight) doesn't belong to any single creator or to the whims of the character's current writer, but to the continued continuity of the character, which belongs to all of comicdom.

Coincidentally, I agree with The Man. He concludes that Thor would win. But even Stan remarks in the interview that "I don't know how they're writing him these days..." which defers some of the power of validity to the current writers, rather than imposing his will on the contest simply because he created them.

Ok, I did only read that one sentence in your post, but it was a pretty straight forward sentence. First, no one cares what and what does not bother you. Second, if you don't want ppl to overreact to one sentence without reading the rest, then you shouldn't make such outlandish sentences. You did say, it's irrelative what he says, and that just set me off. How can it be irrelevant. I would have read the rest if what you said wasn't so explicit and outlandish. No matter how you back a statement like that up, it's still an outlandish statement. I'd've read the rest had you used more tact in your one sentence.

The rest of your argument was ok, but I still disagree. Of course no one is infallible, but a character can not be contradicted to the creator. That'd be like someone watching a movie where they think they know the character pretty well, and says, 'no that character doesn't do that,' when the character did do that. Stan created these characters, and if he's disputed, then they were never really created. If the creators can be contricted then all characters become vague pieces of blank paper and have no real presence. I uderstand you agree with Stan on this topic, but even if you didn't, Stan would still be right, because he's the creator. If I invent my own special sauce and call it zango, you can't come over to my house and tell me that I'm using the wrong ingredients............ That doesn't make sense.........

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Interesting stuff, but most likely irrelevant.

"Interesting", and also "most likely". I'm hardly writing off Stan's opinion with that sentence. Also, my advice on taking into account the entire post should be repeated here, since you can't simply extract sentences from their context without distorting the facts a LOT. As it is, you seem to be taking offense here on Stan's behalf when none was intended, and so aside from my comments here there's not much I can do to convince you otherwise.

Secondly, and more importantly, your examples are a bit false. A movie has one director, one plot, character, etc. Similarly, your special sauce is a pretty static entity. But comic characters are changing, dynamic, and "living" creations. The upgrades given to them are one example of proof of this, as are the dozens of writers any character has had. So yeah, Stan created them. But he's not the only word on them. If he was asked "Who would win, Hulk or Spider-Man" (both Stan's creations) and Stan answered "Spider-Man"....I'd feel relatively safe being able to defend myself to the contrary opinion. And if I presented material to Stan in a coherent, respectful, and intelligent manner, I'm sure he'd be reasonable enough to concede the point to me. This scenario is no different, regardless of whether or not I agree with him.

You're trying to create a false absolute. As their creator, he deserves an intense amount of respect for starting the phenomenon that is Marvel comics. But like falting a Shakespearean critic's interpretation of Hamlet because it's not approved by the Bard himself, Stan's creations have a life beyond him that makes them more public figures than private creations.

Originally posted by bigboygreen
Yea ok im going to belive u I guess u dont understand LIMITLESS STRENGTH!!! Hulk would pulverize thor.
Hulk doesn't have limitless strength. He has the potential, but not the actual ability due to him not having infinite rage.

Originally posted by long pig
Hulk doesn't have limitless strength. He has the potential, but not the actual ability due to him not having infinite rage.

Exactly right. You only get so angry, then you have a stroke or aneurysim.
LONG PIG! Where you been, man?