Tom Brevoort is continuing to look at the problems of perception around their “core four” non-Spider-Man, non-X-Men, franchises:
Back when I used to post around the web a bit more than I have the chance to do these days, a certain truism became apparent: The boards with the toughest audiences inevitably belonged to the Hulk and Thor, with Iron Man really close behind. In each case, there was a particular classic run that was held up as the ne plus ultra of the character, against which almost anything that was going on in the books failed to measure up at least with a segment of these folks (And let me state for the record that I’m not speaking of all HULK, THOR or IRON MAN fans here. This is a generality.) And inevitably, whenever teh discussion turned towards who they’d like to see handle the characters, the same litany would be heard again: Simonson on THOR, Michelinie & Layton on IRON MAN, Peter David on HULK.
Additionally, and maybe this is just a byproduct of one’s favorite character not being the most popular hero on the block, but all three groups of these fans always seemed to me to be inordinately concerned about the amount of “respect” these characters got in the books–respect being defined as being shown to be powerful and capable, and held in esteem or awe by the other heroes of the Marvel U. This would especially become a heated topic when you got any two of these guys together in the same story–one group would salute the excellent way in which Iron Man was able to come out ahead of Thor, while another group would decry the obvious lack of respect that all of Marvel’s creators and editors had for Thor, allowing him to be momentarily bested by Iron Man, which any sane person knows could never happen. Mix up the character names as you like, the same pattern repeated itself over and over again.
Now I feel kind of guilty for feeling that Thor without Walt Simonson just isn’t as good…
May 14th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Don’t feel guilty. Simonson definitely gave the THOR franchise a mythopoeic rigidity that anyone following him had to tap into. Before Simonson, the grasp of norse legend was looser, less structured. It was Kirby’s thought processes: he remembered the legends of the old country, but he was more interested in shaping his own wacky tapestry.
I see Simonson’s influence in Ell1s’s work, Oeming’s work, Humourless Joe’s work, now Matt Fraction’s. Thor, these days, has to be yer actual norse legend, rewritten as pop culture SF. As opposed to Kirby taking the old myths and flying, whee-ooh, into god knows where.
Whereas Iron Man is this rich vein of Americana.
It’s yer different strokes fer different folks.
And yes, I’ve had a few glasses of red wine.
May 14th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
JMS is writing my kind of Thor. My first Thor solo was Dan Jurgen’s JRJR’s run on the title and that was pretty good. But after Dan left so did I…so came back with JMS and it’s great stuff. Feels mythological while set in current MU and how that clashes.
It helps that is set in my state.
May 15th, 2008 at 8:51 am
As far as one hero showing the other up, I thought the unspoken rule between creators was whichever character was the guest got to come out on top of the title character.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I’ve always seen it as the opposite. The guy in the title always wins.
Before Infinite Crisis Wonder Woman beat up Superman right before she killed Max Lord. That was part of a storyline that took place mainly in the Superman comics, but the fight with WW happened in the Wonder Woman comic.
I have a Black Lightning from the original run where he manages to fight Superman to a draw. I love Black Lightning, but that was kinda ridiculous.
Where did Batman beat Superman? In Dark Knight Returns.
Hmm, maybe the rule about the hero always beating the guest only applies when Superman is the guest.