>He isn't a superhero
John Carter is superhuman. He's already ancient when he's introduced at the end of the Civil War, he's an immortal who appears to be 30 years old. Truefact.
Disregarding the two comic runs that factually aren't about Superman, the Walt Simonson run alone stacks up pretty well against stuff like All-Star, yes.
The only thing I don't like about Thor is that they don't know whether to make him a meathead or a muscle wizard that is a lot more smart and cunning than he lets on, and I greatly prefer the latter characterization. Him being made a fool of by a god whose entire shtick is outthinking and outmaneuvering people gave people the impression that he's an idiot, rather than that Loki is just really really good at being a conniving shit.
yeah, I like Thor best when he is a really competent powerhouse,because he's used to operate in a realm of beings at least comparable to himself. Like the Ragnarok plotline, Remender's Uncanny Avengers, some parts of Avenger's Thor in God of Thunder and - I hope - now Immortal Thor.
well that's what's most jarring about Waitthor, he lost every shred of feeling "alien" or "larger" that he had before. I hope that character won't return ever, at least they seemingly stopped the "synergy" in the comics for now.
before UA I always associated Remender with more grounded stories, and I found it funny that he wrote best Thor and best Sentry in YEARS before and after.
Thor is actually fairly competent and has a huge list of abilities that lets him take down a villain in a variety of ways. It's just that he would rather brawl with them because he thinks it's fun.
It's generally in Avengers or other team situations where he is just the dumb jock.
Classic Thor is a lot more fun to read. His flaws are more along the lines of him being a dumb meathead that means well, and he loves getting into a scrap with giant monsters. Reading anything Superman post 70s or so feels like reading a PSA that is meant to be inspiring than entertaining. Like I am supposed to get something out of how non corruptible he is. When that is not really what I am looking for in entertainment in the first place.
But the biggest thing for me is how Thor has a huge side cast and setting that is much more on his level, he has way more wizards, eldritch monsters, and cosmic beings in his villain stable. on top of the costumed supervillains. Superman never really had an impressive villain cast I liked much. And in the last decade or so they have been boiled down to evil kryptonian, or evil alien that is 99% a Kryptonian-ish.
I think Thor is cooler, but I've never found him as compelling a character as Superman. He always just seems like the heavy hitter they drag out in Marvel to finish the job. Any recs for stories to change that opinion?
I like both.
Superman is the original (1st) superhero.
Ehhhh that's a bit of a reach. Plenty of 'superheroes' long before Superman was even conceived.
Which ones?
John Carter
He isn't a superhero though and also not a comic book but a novel. The comics came in 1939 after superman
>Only comics can have superheroes
Herakles is also a superhero.
>hurr durr superheroes are modern mythology
Shut up
No he isn't
Learn to read
>He isn't a superhero
John Carter is superhuman. He's already ancient when he's introduced at the end of the Civil War, he's an immortal who appears to be 30 years old. Truefact.
Okay. He's not a superhero.
You are right though there were other superheroes before superman, but they weren't that well known.
I looked it up, I have never heard about phantom lol
But superman did start the golden age of comic books.
>Superman is the original (1st) superhero.
No he's not.
I'll always pick Zorro he has all the tropes just no powers.
Zorro had a liar, secret identity, love interest, Arch-villain, a legacy, a symbol and all before most characters
Jack Kirby did great work with both characters I prefer his Thor
Has Thor inspired comics as good as these?
Disregarding the two comic runs that factually aren't about Superman, the Walt Simonson run alone stacks up pretty well against stuff like All-Star, yes.
>Walt Simonson run alone stacks up pretty well against stuff like All-Star
Not really.
For all Seasons is kinda overrated.
Thor being in the Marvel U was always really dumb.
You're dumb.
Superman. I’ve had more history with the character.
>Whose the better character in your opinion?
Beta Ray Bill
remind me who is Bill fragging here?
I like Superman better as a character. Thor is propped up by his setting/themes, but talking about strictly him it's hit or miss at best
The only thing I don't like about Thor is that they don't know whether to make him a meathead or a muscle wizard that is a lot more smart and cunning than he lets on, and I greatly prefer the latter characterization. Him being made a fool of by a god whose entire shtick is outthinking and outmaneuvering people gave people the impression that he's an idiot, rather than that Loki is just really really good at being a conniving shit.
yeah, I like Thor best when he is a really competent powerhouse,because he's used to operate in a realm of beings at least comparable to himself. Like the Ragnarok plotline, Remender's Uncanny Avengers, some parts of Avenger's Thor in God of Thunder and - I hope - now Immortal Thor.
yeah, thor really needs to have some divine dignity and majesty
well that's what's most jarring about Waitthor, he lost every shred of feeling "alien" or "larger" that he had before. I hope that character won't return ever, at least they seemingly stopped the "synergy" in the comics for now.
he started losing that by Avengers 1, anon.
before UA I always associated Remender with more grounded stories, and I found it funny that he wrote best Thor and best Sentry in YEARS before and after.
I don’t read comics so I don’t know what goes on there, but the MCU really fricked up Thor.
Thor is actually fairly competent and has a huge list of abilities that lets him take down a villain in a variety of ways. It's just that he would rather brawl with them because he thinks it's fun.
It's generally in Avengers or other team situations where he is just the dumb jock.
Thor = Aryan, >1,000 years old
Superman = israelite, <100 years old
Classic Thor is a lot more fun to read. His flaws are more along the lines of him being a dumb meathead that means well, and he loves getting into a scrap with giant monsters. Reading anything Superman post 70s or so feels like reading a PSA that is meant to be inspiring than entertaining. Like I am supposed to get something out of how non corruptible he is. When that is not really what I am looking for in entertainment in the first place.
But the biggest thing for me is how Thor has a huge side cast and setting that is much more on his level, he has way more wizards, eldritch monsters, and cosmic beings in his villain stable. on top of the costumed supervillains. Superman never really had an impressive villain cast I liked much. And in the last decade or so they have been boiled down to evil kryptonian, or evil alien that is 99% a Kryptonian-ish.
I think Thor is cooler, but I've never found him as compelling a character as Superman. He always just seems like the heavy hitter they drag out in Marvel to finish the job. Any recs for stories to change that opinion?
Thor.
Superman is boring.
Reverse that
Nice bait. We're talking about comics
Always Supes
Why though? Superman's only good appearance in the last 20 years has been in MAWS. Meanwhile Thor has had multiple great appearances.
I don’t read comics, I only watch content. But what on earth are you talking about?