Timeline of South Australian history and Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics): Difference between pages

Name(s)

People, people. This article has been around for ages now, and there has been absolutely nothing added about the period where Thor operated under the alias Sigurd, nor his banishment, and absolutely no mention of Eric Masterson and his time with Thor!

Secondly, there is a HUGE gap between the Surtur War and Ragnarok that needs fixing. I'd normally do this myself, but not being all that knowledgable on the Asgardian, it's necessary for others to do so. C'mon, Thor fans! Kusonaga

It might be an embarrassment of riches, but these sections are now waaaaay too long. This article is 50K -- that's almost twice as much as Wikipedia prefers. I'm sure some of the intense detail can be whittled down. -- Tenebrae 16:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we change it back to Thor (Marvel comics)? I mean there are loads of other Thors around in Comic and as we are speaking about a deity used in comics, the title should not head an article about the version of ONE company. ThW5 15:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In favor of "Thor (Marvel Comics)". It's accurate and precise. -- Tenebrae 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to say this is what happens when you weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid and undescriptive titles. I don't blame Tenebrae——You meant "Marvel", right?——or ThW5, it's just a bad title in general. Anyway...

For starters, Name another comic "Thor". No. No. I don't want to insult you. Name another comic "Thor" with a wikipedia article. Wait...that's...impossiblé. Okay, name a comic "Thor" as notible as this one. Yeah. That's the ticket. Ace Class Shadow 18:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my typo (since corrected). In that same vein, "First off, I'd like to say this is what happens when you weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid and undescriptive titles." isn't a sentence. And "notable" is misspelled.

Calling other editors' points "weak, retarded, idiotic or otherwose stupid" is just not a good or practical way to speak to others, in addition to violating Wikipedia policy about civility. Let's please keep the discussion on a civil level. Thanks.

The character of Thor exsists in the DC universe (as seen in 1999's All-Star Comics 80-Page Giant #1, 1997's Jack Kirby's Fourth World miniseries and elsewhere, including as a recurring character in Neil Gaiman's widely seen Sandman), there's another in the very notable Alan Moore's Glory from Avatar Press (2001), another in Bardic Press' Mythography miniseries, the mythological Thor in at least one issue of Classics Illustrated, there are the similarly named Kid Thor (Image Comics) and Dynamite Thor (Fox Comics), as well as the recurring character Thor in Bill (Fables) Willingham's Comico series The Elementals, another Thor in Hand of Doom Pubs.' Peter Pan and the Warlords of Oz, there was the recurring character Thor in the pre-Marvelo Atlas sieres Venus, and another in the extremely popular, best-selling Image title Savage Dragon, and finally, there have been numerous Thors in standalone, anthological fantasy stories from a variety of publishers.

It's just a matter of accuracy to specify Thor (Marvel Comics), and there's Wikipedia precdent with Daredevil (Marvel Comics) and others. -- Tenebrae 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, He's been moved back and no other Thor articles exist. Ace Class Shadow 02:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, This one for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla_(comic). There was one in a Donald Duck story, of course Gyro's Helper became a Thor once, there is Thor de Holbewoner (=the caveman), the first newspaper comics of the creator of the dominant series in Dutch language comics, Thor is used as either at least an extra or an object of worship in almost any comic dealing with the Nordic gods or the cultures they were worshipped in, so what's your point? Wikipedia should bring balanced articles about the topic, and this article about Thor in comics is just a stub, with lots of information about one version, OK, he might be comercially more interesting, but he is only one of the tens of Thors, so either the article has to change a lot or a word with an M has to be added to the tirle. 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's be serious, if this article was about Jesus(comics)

Not sure what the "Jesus (comics)" unsigned post means, but the 26 April 2006 one above (and taking into account that English doesn't appear to the unsigned user's first language), it seems to validate that there is more than one Thor in comics, and that it's more accurate to say Thor (Marvel Comics) when referring to, well, Marvel Comics' Thor. -- Tenebrae 15:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a Disambiguation link to the top of the article. With that in place, under Wikipedia Comics project naming conventions, Thor (comics) is specific enough for this article. CovenantD 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it? What do you think of these Thors in comics.

Willy Vandersteen’s Thor

Thor de Holbewoner (Thor the Caveman) AKA Tor. 1941. Willy Vandersteen’s first published newspaper strip (the Tor-version), returned in the newspapers as Thor the Caveman. (Belgian comics)

Karel Biddeloo’s Thor In “De Rode Ridder” series the existence of the thundergod Thor is shown in #45, (The Hammer of Thor,1970) and the Thunderer has a role in #63 (The Valkyrie, 1974), in which the Rode/Red Knight has been chosen by Odin to complete a mission the gods cannot do themselves without causing Ragnarok. Unlike the Marvel Thor, Biddeloo’s Thor is more or less a country boy, with enormous powers but bound by responsibility. He wasn’t even angry about Johan throwing the Hammer in the Rhine to keep it out of the hands of mortals. (Belgian comics)

Carl Barks’ Thor

The Thor Scrooge McDuck met after being blown to Valhalla in Mythic Mystery(1960), is not the mythic deity. (US-comics)

Weird Thors

In issue 1-5 of the Golden Age anthology Weird Comics, a scientist given the powers of the Thundergod by lightning strike is active as Thor, while in issue 6-8 Dynamite Thor’s adventures were shown. (US comics)

Adventure Thor In adventure comics #78 Sandman and Sandy fought somebody claiming to be the thundergod Thor. (US comics)

Vertigo Thor

In the much later Vertigo Sandman series (another Sandman) the actual Thundergod is featured as well. (US comics)

Thor Tumb

Thor Tumb is at least modelled and named after the thundergod. (UK comics)

Valhalla Thor

Madsen’s version may well be the best comic (in both senses of the word) adaptation of the Elder Edda. Thor is one of the main heroes from the Valhalla series. (Danish comics)

Comico Thor

In Elementals #23 (1984) Comico’s Thor made its first appearance. (US comics)

Of course this is far from complete, but as starter it could sufficient. There are many Thors in comics, versions of the god and just folks and animals with that name. So either you should give them all attention in this article or you should rename the article.

ThW5 17:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

None of those even have an article. If and when they do, it can be listed on the disambiguation page. CovenantD 18:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And this Thor will still have both names. Specifying, I'm afraid, isn't about respect or instint clarification. It's obviously stated in the article which company he's with. Until another Thor article is made, that's all we need to do.

Like...living people. Take "Jason Alexander". Now, there's an actor and an unrelated nobody friend of britney spears. Before the Vegas thing, we wouldn't need to specific which one is which, right? But he exists. As far as I'm concerned, these characters getting articles should come before an otherwise unnecessary specification. Articles first! The Anti-Gnome 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the title for a disambiguation page concerned with the COMICS section of wikipedia, telling things about who was the first to come up with a superhero called Thor and the like is taken overflowing with stuff about that Marvel character, the article with the name Thor(comics) should be about Thor in Comics, not just about the characters called Thor published by Marvel. At least 4 of the Thors mentioned predate the Mighty Thor. 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)~

Is it? I showed there are lots of Thors in comics, in itself already enough information to start an article about that. Don't you see that this is like creating an article New York City (comics) and only talking about New York City as it is shown by DC? 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should those characters get articles first??? An overview of the characters named Thor, their relationship to the Thundergod as known from historical sources etc, and so on is the right way to handle it. Thor is a name and a concept as free for use as Washington, and the name of an article should cover the contents, something this one does NOT. ThW5 22:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay. First, don't separate my comment link that. It's confusing, inpolite and worst of all, unnecessary. Second, if you want to make some new page about the various lesser Thors in comics, go ahead. When you're done, perhaps a name change for this Thor might be in order. Oh and don't forget to cite your sources. The Anti-Gnome 23:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Aed, idiotic or otherwose stupid" is just not a good or practical way to speak to others, in addition to violating Wikipedia policy about civility. Let's please keep the discussion on a civil level. Thanks.

In addition, it's a question of notability - if someone is looking for a comic character called "Thor", which character are they likely to be looking for? At least seven - probably more - times out of ten, they'll be looking for THIS Thor, as the one with a 40-year history and his own title for most of that time.

In regard to this, I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. - SoM 03:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, and calling this article Thor (comics) is not following the Be Precise When Necessary guideline. This article is about Thors of just one publisher, while other Thors may be less well known, but are not less noteworthy for an encyclopedia, as they existed as well and are referred to sometimes, somebody may be looking for THEM in an encyclopedia, rather than the one easily found using google. People would expect them here, look at Starfire (comics)or look at Nightwing, a name that is used for different characters in comics, should not be claimed as has happened here for the one by coincidence the most popular. No, I do not deny that the Avenger should have its own position, but as the name Thor refers to a god, and is a rather common name as well, it has been used many in comics, Thor (comics) should try to give an overview of that, pointing out differences and giving indications which Thor can be expected to be found where. ThW5 16:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

ThW5, I'd suggest that you add those versions of Thor to both the Other uses of Thor in comics section of the main article and Thor (disambiguation) until you get full articles written on them. CovenantD 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? I don't see the point, putting all Thors from comics in disambiguation would just clutter that, I propose to radically change this set up, and make this article a sort of comics disambiguation page, listing every Thor shortly and giving links to all those Thors, (I mean not just those of other publishers, but Thor 2099, Ultimate Thor, Red etc, as well), should get their own articles, or at least entries on the page dealing with Thor(comics), but I am not gonna do all that work myself to have it reversed by some Marvel zombie, who has not even read a kiddy's version of the Elder Edda and is unable to tell what Marvel character Madsen's Thor's disguise was based on. This should be an encyclopedia, not a Marvel promotion site. Perhaps Hercules (comics) gives the best exanple of what I think the article should become.

ThW5 10:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions

A few things we might want to add to the Marvel section:

• Eric Masterton's period as a substitute for Thor will the real one was banished.
• The subsequent history of Thor with Jake Olsen and the Lord of Asgard stuff (I haven't followed it in recent years though).
• The latest position on "was Donald Blake a real person" - this last I heard he was but was split off from Thor, who ran around the world thinking he was Blake, and later destroyed and replaced by an artificial magical construct which soon collapsed upon itself. Or something like that.

Anyone knowledgable enough to try?

Timrollpickering 19:07, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've added about half the Simonson stuff, skimmed over the LoA stuff, and summarised the recent Ragnarok tale that ended the current book. But, since most of it was plagarised straight fromt The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition #13, I've removed the "Superhuman Powers" section. That had to be breaking copyright, since most was word-for-word. --SoM 00:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I put in a whole bunch of information on Jurgens' King Thor storyline, under "Lord of Asgard" and "Lord of Earth." Sorry if it's incredibly verbose. I tried to pare it down as much as I could, but I quite liked Jurgens' arc so I wanted to include as much of it as I could. Feel free to edit it down to something more manageable if you like. --TheCorpulent1 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just put in a section on Eric Masterson. Feel free to clip and crop as you please; it's long again. --TheCorpulent1 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Move "Deviations from Norse mythology"

Would anyone be mad if I move "Deviations from Norse mythology" closer to the bottom of the page? It seems to be presented too early in the reading of the page. Maybe if it was towards the end and each deviation was listed and subbulleted, it would be a better presentation.

Those who are worthy

* In the classical Norse Stories, only Thor and his son Magni can lift Mjolnir. In Marvel, only those worthy can lift it, which is a list of people that includes Captain America, USAgent, Beta Ray Bill, Odin, etc. In the crossover Superman in Avengers/JLA #4 (2003) and Wonder Woman in Marvel vs. DC #3 (1996) were worthy to lift Mjolnir.

When did the USAgent lift it? He doesn't strike me as worthy. This may be someone confusing him with Steve Roger's identity of "The Captain", which he used when he first wielded Thor's hammer (and which was later copied as USAgent's first costume). Timrollpickering 01:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it was Steve Rogers as 'The Captain' who hefted it. And I think in classical Norse stories, you need to be wearing the belt and both gloves to even lift the hammer.GeoffB

I don't believe the U.S. Agent ever used Mjolnir. Captain America during his stint as the "Captain". Also, Superman was allowed to wield Mjolnir not because he was worthy but because Odin thought it was appropriate for the situation at hand. Lastly, the crossovers aren't considered canon so not sure I would add them. Lochdale

Which doesn't explain the fact that Superman held it mid-strike while Thor was wielding it. Also it would seem ironice that Superman isn't "worthy". Most people accept that Odin was rather miffed at Supes that's why he wasn't allowed to lift it at the end of JLA/Avengers. Kind of funny since he allowed someone like Beta Ray Bill to wield the damned thing. GeoffB

TRUTH!?! Superman "lifted" Mjolnir in mid-strike. Thor was busy with a number of foes. He probably thought his hammer toss was not enough to destroy the barrier to Korna and Superman HELPED in mid-toss. The is nothing new. Eric Materson had done this with Thor before. Moshun11 moultrie11@hotmail.com

I thought crossovers in which the charecters reside in separate universes are considered canon, albeit events that rarely get referenced to again. Timrollpickering 22:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Marvel are quite specific when they say that they are not canon. That is, nothing that happens in a crossover affects Marvel continuity. The DCU, however, seem to accept some crossovers (Avengers/JLA) but not others (DC v. Marvel -rejection of the "two brothers" notion). Lochdale

Yeah, Marvel gets all iffy when DC gets to be the 'stars' of the show. I even hear that last part where Superman didn't get to lift the hammer was an add-on and not in the original script and Busiek got a little bit pressured into it. Ah well. Que cera cera.GeoffB

That is not my understanding of this at all. I heard that in the first draft Thor beats Superman but DC went through the roof. Indeed, they had to go to great pains to explain why Thor's hammer wasn't magical thus ending the fight in one panel.

Lochdale

Don't believe everything you hear is my advice, and don't let your love for the character hamper your objectivity. if DC "went through the roof" with Superman being beaten by Thor, why the heck would it allow Hawkeye (of all people) to put the kibosh on Krona with a 2-pound grenade arrow? Why didn't they just have Batman whup Captain America's ass? Why would they agree to Superman not being "worthy" and only just a one-time-Odin-decision?

In this instance, just as Busiek says, if the enchantment just makes the hammer (a material object) hit really hard and Superman is invulnerable... and he's beaten DC versions of gods before... and DC gods are more powerful... etcetera, etcetera.

GeoffB

Hawkeye defeating Krona was just an easy plot device. Krona is a villan and all villans lose due to silly plot contrivances like that. They had Batman take out the Punisher yet would not allow him to be defeated directly by Captain America. I'd imagine my sources are as good as yours but that's not really the point here. DC will never let Superman lose to a Marvel character (one of the reasons he's never directl fought the Surfer as the Surfer would curbstomp him (see their cross-over)). The worthiness issue was a sop to Marvel to counter the result of the Thor-Superman fight. Or perhaps, the writer just read enough Thor issues to show how most people aren't worthy unless 1) Thor is in trouble and needs someone to get the hammer to him (Captain America, Eric Masterson) or, 2) Odin wants a Thor "back-up" (Beta Ray Bill).

DC gods aren't more powerful actually. Further, Thor fought like an utter idiot (wading through heat vision is real smart) and his hammer should have gone through Superman's shielding (magical attack) and all.

Not that any of this is relevant. This page is about Thor and it should be edited by those who have more than a passing knowledge about Thor. For example, I asked you to cite some issues where Thor has lost a fight and then said something to the extent that "he underestimated his foe and would have won otherwise". Other than in the Avengers/JLA cross-over I have never seen Thor say this. It was put in the crossover because I think the writer genuinely believes that a Thor/Superman fight could go either way and that Thor could indeed defeat Superman. If I am wrong then please provide the issue number where Thor has said this before.

Thanks.

Lochdale

That's not a valid argument that "all villains lose to silly plot contrivances". Maybe back in the day. These days, the idea that Krona, all high-mucketty-muck didn't use something sturdier than glass to hold his prized sources of might is plain oversight or a compromise.

And yes this is relevant, since we are to consider all avenues when discussing a point of reference. Which is, by the way, a reason for adding Weaknesses and Flaws, of which I notice you keep editing in favor of the character. That is not very objective. Let it be noted that Thor, while one of my faves since Journey 112 when first got to fight Hulk mano y mano( an often forgotten tale), will receive no special treatment from me regarding his foibles and limits.

GeoffB

No-one is suggesting that Thor receive special treatment here. You made the following statement (several times actually):

"Regardless, Thor does have a thing about acknowledeging being soundly beaten and makes passing note that essentially means "I lost because I underestimated..." ^_^"

I asked you for some support for this. To provide some examples that Thor has done this is the past. You have provided none. Not even one example. I have every issue of Thor ever published (both volumes) and nearly every Avengers and I have not seen this before. I could be wrong which is why I asked you for examples. That's what being objective is about. Again, it's not about special treatment but about the actual facts. Thor does not have a "thing" about being beaten and then saying he underestimated his foe. That was a specific note in the Avengers/JLA crossover put there because the writer genuinely believe that Thor could beat Superman.

As for Krona, it is a valid argument because villans lose in fiction to plot devices all the time. This isn't exclusive to comics. Further, Krona is not a hero so most readers have a lot less invested in him then they do in a flag-ship character of an entire company. The villan had to lose somehow and what's more traditional way for a villan to lose than due to his own hubris?

Lochdale

Weaknesses and Flaws

There are several inconsistencies in this section.

Thor's history with bullets is, at best, mixed. He skin has been pierced by bullets before and he has even expressed dismay at the thought of being shot. He has also, however, survived a nuclear bomb, a world destroying bomb and direct shots from machine guns, grenades and mines. For example, in Thor, Vol. 1, Issue 496 Thor leaps directly into the path of multiple heavy machine guns without any ill effect. I think we should note the inconsistencies by referencing both sides (as is currently the case on the page now).

Noting that Thor has "weakness" to psychic attack really isn't accurate. If we do include it as a weakness then we should note Thor's ability to survive psychic attacks that have put down being as diverse as Iron-man and the Superman-clone Gladiator. Thor's resistance to pyschic manipulation has been a key plot-point in several stories.

Lochdale

So are you saying simply ignore those instances? And, in your examples, Thor always had Mjolnir with him. It is arguable that Mjolnir's enchantments helped in those instances.

And as for weakness to psychic attacks, it refers to him being susceptible to them. In your example with Adam Warlock which was during his bout with dementia in Blood and Thunder ( a rare one-time eveent that Norse gods go through). Had it been on more common grounds the results would have been different. In that series of events he's even more of a dupe because he was effectively fooling himself (in the form of Valkyrie), though I haven't decided to touch upon that. Curious as to why Blood and Thunder isn't acknowledged in his Wiki yet considering it was a major storyline in the 90's.

Also, the mere fact that Moondragon could manipulate means Thor is not immune to psychic powers. Heck, Loki does it all the time.

GeoffB

No, I am not. What I am saying is that we should note the inconsistency which is what we do. It is not arguable that Mjolnir's enchantments help him in those instances because none of Mjolnir's enchantments relate to, or affect Thor's durability.

I don't think the situation with Warlock would have been different at all. All Warlock says is that Asgardians have a higher resistance to mental attacks. The High Evolutionary launched a similar attack on Thor without affect.

Loki manipulates events to manipulate Thor. That is, he affects situations so that Thor can react. Other than when he used the power of the Sword of Twilight to turn Thor into a frog, Loki has not directly controlled Thor under his own power.

Lochdale

I've edited the Flaws section to note the inconsistency regarding guns. I think we should have a "Blood & Thunder" section. Would you like to take a shot (no pun intended) at it Geoff or would you like me to?

Lochdale

Thor's Personality

I can only think of one instance where this statement is actually applicable to Thor:

Thor is also has a high-regard for his personal pride; many times he has been defeated by a foe but after which he dismisses this fact as 'underestimating' his foe. As he puts it "I have thy measure now", implying he merely miscalculated. This, of course, does not explain the number of times he has been defeated by the Hulk in their history.

Thor, to my knowledge, has never said that about any opponent other than Superman. Indeed, Thor tends to admit defeat when he is defeated and give credit where it is due. If I am incorrect, then please state the issue number where Thor has said this or acted to the contrary.

Thanks.

Lochdale

He does say it in several instances. The most recent on the top of my head is during Busiek/Perez run referring to Lord Templar "I have thy measure now and I find thee lacking!" as well as during Ultron Unlimited. In neither instance was Thor "victorious", simply the upper hand in Templar's case and Ultron waxed him in the latter. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe I recall him saying that about Hercules and Surtur, among others.

Regardless, Thor does have a thing about acknowledeging being soundly beaten and makes passing note that essentially means "I lost because I underestimated..." ^_^

GeoffB

He does? Can you provide some examples of this please. Specific comic issues would help. Thanks.

Lochdale

Geez! Go look at Avengers Vol. 2 Issue 7. The fight's not even over, and Thor's already saying he's going to win.

Also read the Ultron Unlimited storyline when a powered up Ultron catches Mjolnir-swinging-Thor and blasts him. Of course both were written by Busiek.

GeoffB

Reading both right now. Let's be clear, there is no example of your statement in any Thor issue ever published.

Secondly, Thor routinely holds back when he's with the Avengers (much like Superman with the JLA) because if he unleashed his full powers he would kill or injure both friend and foe. Indeed, being over-confident is not the same as Thor making a back-handed comment that he would have won but for underestimating his foe. That goes against Thor's fundamental character which is that of an honorable warrior.

In the fight with Ultron Thor notes how he has underestimated Ultron due to Ultron's new armor and his increased powers. It isn't an arrogant comment at all but an acknowledgement by Thor of just how powerful Ultron had then become. That is, Thor isn't saying "well I would have won but for holding back". What he's saying is that Ultron is much deadlier than before.

To be sure, Thor can be arrogant but that does not mean he is dishonorable. In fact, Thor's sense of honor is the cornerstone of his character. To suggest that he would cheapen an opponent by saying "I could have beaten him if I tried" is both factually incorrect and a direct contradiction to the character of Thor himself.

Indeed, in his most recent ongoing mini-series, Bloodoath, Thor admits that Hercules is a better hand-to-hand fighter. Thor may be arrogant but he isn't petty. There's a big difference.

Lochdale

Ok now you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say Thor is dishonorable? Or petty? I point to the fact that many times Thor underestimates his foes and overestimates himself. He values his pride highly, to the point that he sometimes denies his own limitations. And we're not only referring to Thor issues... otherwise you are implying if it isn't a Thor issue it's not valid.

Let's take a look at Marvel Team-up # 70 where he fights the Monolith with Spider-Man. Obviously, Thor acknowledges the Monolith's power (and note that I never said Thor doesn't acknowledge a foe's prowess) but always has to say in essence "I'm still holding back". And that's just one instance. And that's where we go back to the flaws. Thor can be proud to the point of self-denial. And that's no contradiction. That's part of what makes him tick and endearing.

And then there's his temper. When he's miffed he can even go so far as to brandishing his hammer on mere mortals...as in the case of reporters hounding him for an interview.

GeoffB

What you were originally saying (which I quoted for you) is that when Thor loses a fight he suggests that he would not have lost but for his underestimating his opponent. That is what you were saying. Thor has never said or done anything like that. He is cocky, arrogant and often over-confident but that does not mean he is petty. When Thor loses he admits that he has lost. The Superman incident was the writer's acknowledgement that the fight could go either way. It was not, and is not, a character flaw.

Lochdale

During the crossover Thor was talking to Aquaman (of all people) and stated that he now know Superman abilities and that another confrontation would be a different outcome from Thor and Superman's first. Thor lost and admitted it, BUT he KICKED Superman's ass for a minute. hiiyah, heeeyah heh, heh, heh!!!! moshun11 moultrie11@hotmail.com

====== Ultimate Thor ========

Someone should make note that ultimate Thor and normal Thors personalities are nothing alike.

Also being that they are essentially different characters I think ultimate Thor should be split from the normal Thor page like they did with the hulk page.

Leon Evelake 06:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That makes more sense to me. 616 Thor and Ultimate Thor have about as much in common as 616 Thor and DC's Thor. --TheCorpulent1 22:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I’m glad someone agrees, but I don’t know how to make new pages much less link them. But I think that someone defiantly needs to separate the two pages. Leon Evelake 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sif's hair

Was it always originally golden or was this a retcon to cover up the difference with Norse mythology? Timrollpickering 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Sif's hair in the myths was indeed made from gold by dwarves. However because the Marvel Sif had black hair, they changed it and claimed that the dwarves made it out of "the stuff of the night" instead of gold, since Loki refused to pay them (it was his fault she lost her real hair.) But Thor loved her even better as a brunette, so she kept it. :) Wilfredo Martinez 03:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thor in Incredible Hulk

Does anyone find it rather strange that in the TV movie The Incredible Hulk Returns, Thor is not Blake's alter ego, but is a seperate character who is Blake's "servant"? Scorpionman 03:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The Thor in The Incredible Hulk Movie-

No, I didn't. That is just another sad example of Hollywood Directors not getting a darn thing right when it comes to making a Large Budget Hollywood movie from a Comic Book.

Michael 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Needed Addition - Dargo Ktor

The future Thor, Dargo Ktor (More about him here: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/thordargoktor.htm ), needs to be included in the article as well. I might have the Thor and Guardian of the Galaxy issues he is a part of. If I do (and I can find them) I'll add the section. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to I would welcome the addition, considering I might not be able to find the source material I would need.

Article evolution

The point has been made that this article doesn't cover enough of Thor's history. I'm of the opinion that it covers too much. I'm all for keeping it a functional coverage of the topic. If we detail every event, then we have to cover every major plotline in every decade. This is quite a chore. AS a basis of comparison, I would point to the Superman Wiki entry. It covers every functional point that I would dream of about a superhero w/o going into detail of every plotline.

AlGorup 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we do every little bit of history, but the Eric Masterson piece is vital to the character's history and identity. It would not need such a large piece. One of the reasons the Superman article works so well, is because large pieces are contained in sub-articles! Kusonaga 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeffwright 4:12pm, 1 February 2006 (CST) I wouldn't agree that the Thor page shouldn't cover more. It seems like other S.H. pages cover the major story arcs through the history of the character. Thor is a relatively major character in the Marvel Universe and therefore deserves the attention. I would agree that the most significant issue right now is the addition of the Eric Masterson piece. However, considering other Wiki pages on superheroes contain known "future" incarnations of the character (see for example the Silver Surfer page), the Dago Ktor page is needed as well.

This article truly needs to be cut down. It's 50K, and the level of detail in some of the articles is unnecessary and not of much real use to anyone seeking an encyclopedia article about the Marvel character Thor. Too much detail, and no one outside the fan community is going to read anything. -- Tenebrae 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Some points

Odinson? Does the name appear in any Norse source, or did Marvel just make that up? Also, one comment, when Thor reads "Modern Bride", could that be a reference to the Þrymskviða? Maybe it's just me, but I think that that reading is very funny. 惑乱 分からん 13:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's not in the Norse sources, my guess is that Marvel made it up using the typical Norse naming convention. Son of Odin = Odinson. Magni's called Magni Thorson for the same reason. I don't know if the Modern Bride thing was intended that way, but it is pretty funny. --TheCorpulent1 00:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, in the real world Thor was worshipped as a fertility god (of people and soil) and as a marriage god, so both magazines would be of interest to him as profesional literature. 10:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Norse Innacuracies

Some of the statements on Thor's deviation from classical Norse mythology are not entirely accurate based upon current knowledge. For instance, the ability to bear Mjolnir is stated to be exclusive to Thor and his son Magni. Logically speaking, the ability to use Mjolnir is predicated upon bearing magical iron gloves (which protect from Mjolnir's heat) and a magical belt of strength (which is required even for Thor to carry the hammer). Also, the spelling of Mjolnir (as Mjollnir) is somewhat irrelevant since it is often up to an English translator or writer to decide which sounds better. Translator consensus actually says that "mjolnir" is the correct spelling. I removed the Mjollnir part, but left the Thor and Magni part since they are technically the only ones to ever wield Mjolnir. However, I can find no information as to the exclusivity of its use. Bsaark 05:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thor and Magi are not the only people to lift Thors hammer in Norse myth, first the dwarves who forged it were of course able to lift it, second Loki delivered to Thor as a part of his penance for cutting Sifs hair also a giant whose name I forget stole Thors hammer. So obviously in the mythology there Thor and his son aren’t the only ones who can lift the hammer.

It should also be noted that Thor only needed the gloves to keep from being burnt in battle and that both the gloves and the belt have appeared in the comics and were prominently used by Red Norvel.

Leon Evelake 03:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Article size and detail

Since this is a long Discussion page, and since my other two mentions of this point where specific responses to others' concerns, I'm adding this as its own topic here.

This article is immense and unwieldly, and filled with so many small, fannish details that it has reached 50K -- with Wikipedia policy is to keep all but the most complex topics down to 32K or less. If something is so significant that a subhead is the size of an article itself, then the general policy is to make it its own article, and have a couple of sentences of a short paragraph about it here and use the template

{{main|NAME OF ARTICLE HERE}}

as in this example from Marvel Comics:

Timely Comics

Main article: Timely Comics

Paragraph here about Timely Comics that gives
enough description to let a layperson understand
where it fits into the hsitory of Marvel, and links
readers directly to the full article.

The level of detail in some of the articles is unnecessary and not of much real use to anyone seeking an encyclopedia article about the Marvel character Thor. Too much detail, and no one outside the fan community is going to read anything.

Most of these sections are, as well, heavily weighted toward recent years' events, which throws the article's proportionality out of balance, making it, ironically, non-encyclopedic. If you had a history of the United States, and most of the article was taken up by, the last 10 years, that would destroy any sense of perspective, significance, etc. I hope we can talk about some of these things -- Tenebrae 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead

I think now that mjolnir has landed on earth we can safely assume that he's dead. 83.226.148.184 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? This article needs to remain objective. We can't just say "deceased" now, if that's what you're suggesting. Ace Class Shadow 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And it didn't really fall to Earth, but fell to Hell, I believe. Because they haven't had a dodgy plot point for a while... Satan's Rubber Duck 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)