posted
Don't anybody waste their money or even their time on the latest issue of Thor. Verily, it doth suck. Even Pasqual Ferry seems to be going through the motions.
I personally believe the only two Thor runs where the book achieved its potential were Stan & Jack's run and Walt Simonson's run.
posted
^I bought the first Fraction/Ferry issue yesterday based on good reviews and curiosity about the book after having just read the first two trades of JMS's run. Haven't read the issue yet, but I'll let y'all know what I think.
I was intrigued enough by the two trades (which go thru Thor 600) to look into buying the final JMS issues and possibly the Gillen run as well.
[ October 18, 2010, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Chief Taylor ]
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So I bought a lot from eBay that bridges the gap between the first two JMS trades and right before Fraction takes over. Yesterday, I read the first four which concluded JMS's run (601-603 + the "Giant Size Finale"). As I had suspected from reading reviews, JMS's "finale" wasn't really one at all for the most part.
Overall, I enjoyed JMS's work on the character quite a bit. Though you can argue the story was a bit on the decompressed side, but I think this approach served reintroducing the character and his mythos to the Marvel Universe very well.
The slower pace also helped showcase the stunning Coipel and Djurdjevic artwork, IMO. These two were definitely capable of drawing the hell out of anything JMS threw at them! These were absolutely beautiful pages of comic books aided and abetted by terrific coloring. I think, as much as I love Coipel, that Djurdjevic's stuff may have impressed me a bit more. (His covers definitely beat Coipel's hands-down.) He just has more of a feel for conveying mood and drama, IMO. But you can't go wrong with either.
I like that JMS is moving Thor ahead in his stories particularly by the obvious change in setting and by putting Ragnorak firmly in the past. I hope that future writers won't just erase all of that as they tend to do as quick as they can. JMS didn't exactly reinvent the wheel here (and actually restored some things like the Donald Blake identity and even his need for the cane at the end), but there was definitely a sense of forward motion and new horizons.
Speaking of Donald Blake, I was a little confused. The last I understood was that Blake and Thor were really the same guy all along despite all prior portrayals, but JMS definitely paints them as seperate people. I'm not sure if JMS was building on a prior writer's reversing that or if he just decided that they should always have been different people. If someone reading this can clarify, I'd appreciate it.
Loki was interesting working his/her wiles. Not sure what the point ever was of Loki being a female in the first place. At some point, he was just simply himself again, with nothing but a hint to Thor that Loki's female form was somehow tied to Sif. Didn't really make any sense to me.
I was a little saddened by the death of Click Here For A SpoilerBill in the finale. Not as saddened as I could have been, though, because I don't feel we ever got very deep characterization for him. I personally think JMS had bigger plans for him but decided to take the character out with his own premature exit to insure later writers wouldn't mess up his ideas for the character.
It's a shame that Marvel's Powers That Be wouldn't let JMS keep doing his thing for a while longer. I certainly would've liked to have seen where JMS was going with his plot threads. I've heard here and elsewhere that Gillen did a terrific job of making it feel like the run was continuing, but I always prefer to see a creator finish what he started. Still, I now own the Gillen issues and intend to start reading them tonight.
Overall, this has been the most interesting Thor has been since the Walt Simonson era that I love so much. Though I can't say that I've read everything or even most of what's been published in the interim between Walt and JMS, I can say that this is the best Thor I've read since that point. I'm pretty confident I'll enjoy the Gillen issues from what I've heard, but the onus is now on Fraction and Ferry to see if Thor will once again be a book I follow faithfully.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
i dropped the main Thor title slowly after coipel left ...
but, i did pick up Ultimate Thor which was one of the best Thor's I've read in a while. It's a bit straightforward but i enjoyed it.
and it's drawn by Carlos Pacheco
(not his best but still Carlos Pachecos average work is leaps and bounds beyond others)
I always found the Ultimate Thor premise to be one of the best examples of the ultimate line. 'Thor' seems fresh and interesting.
From: Ninja Land | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
also, what's with this general trend of humans being able to even harm an average asgardian. i thought they were all impervious to gunfire much less hacking and slashing.
From: Ninja Land | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
quote:Originally posted by Power Boy: also, what's with this general trend of humans being able to even harm an average asgardian. i thought they were all impervious to gunfire much less hacking and slashing.
They are terribly inconsistent with how tough Asgardians are supposed to be. Thor used to not even be bulletproof, and had to spin his hammer to deflect gunfire, and the Marvel Universe handbooks described the Asgardians as having tissues about three times as dense as human tissue, making them about as 'bulletproof' as a leather jacket or sheet of plywood.
But then Thor gets punched by Hercules or shot by Celestials or hurled down from orbit, and rises looking a little beat up, but not the drifting ash-on-the-wind he should be, if he's not any tougher than a crocodile...
Between Image and the Ultimates, there seems to be a surreal notion that knives and guns work on anything, no matter how 'invulnerable' it was twenty minutes ago. The baddest of the bad get stabbed and shot all the time, and if it 'looks cool,' then someone with a gun will be able to shoot anyone in the head and kill them, even if they have to make up some nonsense about 'quantum bullets' or whatever.
Liefield liked to draw blood, and his characters getting stabbed (and even stabbing themselves, to stab people behind them!), and was rightly and justly mocked for it.
Then Millar and Bendis jumped on that bandwagon in the Authority and the Ultimates, and were praised for their 'edginess.'
Now it shows up in mainstream comics in the 'big two' universes. I imagine we'll see Spider-Man or Captain America shanking and shooting people soon enough.
Having Asgardians be knife or bullet-proof would take away from the perverse desire to show that a knife or gun can solve *any* problem.
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I know you're talking about early / '90's Image, Set, but FYI, the Image of today is a totally different company and quite the opposite! If anything, Image is better at story-telling these days than Marvel and DC, who have reverted to those same 90's mistakes.
I've also read the first two issues of Fraction & Ferry's Thor. So far, it's not bad, but I'm still waiting to be wowwed. I guess, in a way, that's not a good thing, because by his third issue, Fraction should have already gotten to the point.
The main problem I have with Fraction's writing on X-Men and Iron Man is all his characters are nipping at each other constantly while nothing of any real significance happens storywise. That trend isn't here yet, but it looks like it could arrive.
Meanwhile, I think Pascuel Ferry is doing an extraordinary job as always, so his art is able to improve just about any story (unlike the art on Iron Man). I like how his panels just look "bigger" than other comics out there, and he does a great job making things feel very grandiose. I've always enjoyed his work and think his unique style is a good fit here.
A few notable things:
- hate the portrayal of sullen, brooding Balder.
- like Jane Foster setting up shop with Don Blake with the two of them both being partners in a practice. This is a long overdue plot development.
- Fraction is already diving into bringing Loki back--NOOOOOOOO. We need a break from Loki.
I'll continue for awhile and update my opinions as they become clearer.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chief Taylor: Speaking of Donald Blake, I was a little confused. The last I understood was that Blake and Thor were really the same guy all along despite all prior portrayals, but JMS definitely paints them as seperate people. I'm not sure if JMS was building on a prior writer's reversing that or if he just decided that they should always have been different people. If someone reading this can clarify, I'd appreciate it.
Lardy, historically Marvel has gone back on this several times over the years, beginning all the way back during Kirby's run. He had been on the title so long that at the latter part of his run, Stan & Jack (really Jack plotted the title by then) redid the origin of Don Blake. This was actually spurred on by a letter's page debate that erupted over the course of a few issues on the nature of Don, since the canon had produced several elements that made the initial stories not make sense.
Since then, in the 70's, the 80's and the 90's there have been stories reversing things and then re-reversing things several times.
Two summers ago when I reread most of the run I could have given you actual issue #'s but now I'm just tired and lazy.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chief Taylor: Speaking of Donald Blake, I was a little confused. The last I understood was that Blake and Thor were really the same guy all along despite all prior portrayals, but JMS definitely paints them as seperate people. I'm not sure if JMS was building on a prior writer's reversing that or if he just decided that they should always have been different people. If someone reading this can clarify, I'd appreciate it.
Lardy, historically Marvel has gone back on this several times over the years, beginning all the way back during Kirby's run. He had been on the title so long that at the latter part of his run, Stan & Jack (really Jack plotted the title by then) redid the origin of Don Blake. This was actually spurred on by a letter's page debate that erupted over the course of a few issues on the nature of Don, since the canon had produced several elements that made the initial stories not make sense.
Since then, in the 70's, the 80's and the 90's there have been stories reversing things and then re-reversing things several times.
Two summers ago when I reread most of the run I could have given you actual issue #'s but now I'm just tired and lazy.
But originally, Don Blake and Thor were introduced as two separate people, right? I'm no Thor expert by any stretch, but during Simonson's run (which is where I really got introduced to the character and his milieu), I remember it as Thor losing the ability to turn into Blake, and I got the impression there that they were essentially the same person all along. Then, much later when Jurgens relaunched the book, Thor co-existed with a teenager or college student who was definitely a separate being.
Like I said, though, the only times I've ever really read Thor were Simonson's run, a good chunk of DeFalco's run and maybe the first year of Jurgens's run. But JMS's relaunch really seems to stick out for portraying Don Blake as a different guy in anything I've ever read.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, originally-originally, Don Blake was the real guy, he found Thor's hammer and got his power in the way Johnny Storm got zapped with cosmic rays and got the original Human Torch's power without suddenly realising he was Jim Hammond all along.
That lasted about an issue, but they just flipped it so that Thor became Blake rather than Blake became Thor. I don't think there was a time Thor had a mortal switcheroonie with an separate personality (in the sense JMS had it) until Eric Masterson.
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
posted
So you're saying that JMS's take on Blake/Thor is unprecedented the way he presents it?
Actually, in a way, JMS doesn't exactly go to any lengths to try to explain or expound upon them. The two "talk" to each other and have separate interests, but he kinda just presents it matter-of-factly as if this is the way it's always been. I suppose one could interpret as them being split personalities of the same person. I kept waiting for JMS to focus on this and give us a clear explanation, but it never happened. I just finished Gillen's run, and it was basically just ignored there, as well.
Personally, I prefer whatever explanation is the most interesting to read about. If Thor and Blake are the same guy, then Thor's no more interesting to read theoretically than Billy Batson/Captain Marvel. The way JMS presented it also feels different from, say, Rick Jones/Captain Marvel in a way that's hard to describe, but in a good way.
I own the first two Fraction issues but haven't read them yet. I hope it's in the cards for him to explore the dynamic further. Hopefully, he'll decide not to oversimplify it. How he handles this aspect will probably be the key to whether I'm onboard the book for a while.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, is Kelda still alive? Gillen's run kind of left it vague, the way he ended it. I mean, she got run through with a sword, but there was no "death scene" from what I could tell. I hope she sticks around. She has potential as a newer character in Thor's cast of characters.
...okay, it doesn't exactly hurt that she's pretty hot, too!
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Kelda a lot too and appreciate the newer addition to Thor's supporting cast. Since youve read Gillen's run now Lardy, it doesn't spoil things to tell you she's now shown up in Fraction's run.
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
While I kinda liked Kelda, I would like to see more Asgardians who are gods of something, and not just generic people. Her role could have been filled with Freya or Idunn or Skadi or Eir or any of a half-dozen other Norse goddesses who have yet to be developed in the Marvel-verse.
Too many generic Asgardians just seem to be hanging out and not have any real mythic significance. Even if they make up a goddess named Kelda, she should be the goddess of *something,* and not just 'random hot blonde.'
Being a mythology-junkie, I'd rather that the rank and file 'Asgardians' we've been seeing be Einherjar or something, while the actual Aesir and Vanir (including Thor, Baldar, Heimdall, etc.) be the ones who are really 'gods.' Where that places comics inventions like Fandral, Hogun and Volstagg (and Kelda and Amora and Lorelei) would be up to the writers, as Kelda could become a goddess of doomed loves (heh) or something.
With the exceptions of Sif and Hela, the Marvelverse has mostly ignored the female Norse dieties, making up characters like Amora and Karnilla and Lorelei and Kelda, rather than using Frigga or Sol or Ran.
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[shrug]](graemlins/shrug.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Love]](graemlins/love.gif)
