Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55
  1. #46
    Elder Member vitruvian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    18,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    On the other side, Odin for centuries has protected Earth from giants and other evils of the nine worlds. So if Odin should have a modicum of respect for mortals it goes the other way around as well. Odin could very well have some respect for individual mortals, but not humanity as a whole. Either way, from Odin's point of view the needs of the gods still trump the needs of humans who have only been around for an eye blink from his perspective.
    That he might have this viewpoint does not necessarily make it ethical, moral, or honorable. That he protected humanity from, say, Frost Giants in the past in no way gives him the right to deliberately kill them all himself.


    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    Humans use the claim of being higher lifeforms to eat other animals, keep them as pets, experiment on them, etc. To gods its the same argument.
    These are not parallel cases; animals by and large lack the ability to express their own case, whereas humans and gods can speak to each other. If dogs and cows and pigs could speak to us and make known their desire not to be castrated or butchered for food, it would be morally wrong to do so, too... and even without that ability to express themselves, I think you can find plenty of reasons that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary harm or pain on them, or to wipe them out as a species. But really, the central point here is that humans and gods can make their own cases to each other, and I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the gods are higher beings in the sense of having greater moral worth, or really, generally even being more intelligent or wise.

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    Gods are for the most part superior to run of the mill mortals: faster, stronger, much longer lives, etc. Several stories have implied or stated they are tied more directly to the construction of the universe and in some way some of the gods at least transcend the physical. From a moral standpoint, there is the question of what extent human views of morality or behavior apply to beings like them.
    Superior in a physical sense. So what? Being faster does not give you a greater right to life. Being stronger does not give you a greater right not to be killed. They might give you a better chance to survive, but they don't make it any more wrong for somebody to murder you. Having the potential for longer life might have some relevance, depending on what you're going to do with that life, but even that's pretty iffy... I don't think it really follows from longevity that, say, Bloodstone or Black Axe or Apocalypse's life has any more value than anybody else's.

    As for being tied to the construction of the universe... the structure of the universe didn't seem to suffer while the Asgardians were in Limbo after Ragnarok. Transcending the physical... mortals explicitly have spirits/souls and can learn to project an astral form in the MU, they transcend the physical as well. And if you want to say that human views of morality should not apply, actually make an argument for that case, including what standards would apply to their behavior so that we could judge, for example, that Odin was better than Cul. But really, in the end these are stories written for human readers who are going to judge things according to their own moral precepts, and as soon as you start saying that Odin was right to overthrow Cul because he was cruel and oppressive, you are applying human concepts of morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    The point is somewhat mute.
    The point is not mute. I've voiced it in this thread, so like any other point that's actually brought up in a discussion, it's not mute.

    And if you meant moot, not that either.

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    In the Marvel Universe, the Asgardians are defined as gods and gods are by definition higher beings than mortals.
    They're defined by what we see happen in the stories, and nothing else. So, sure, they're entities that have declared themselves to be (lower case) gods and that correspond to figures from real world mythology. Does that mean they're actually higher beings from a moral standpoint? We can only judge by how they comport themselves in the stories.

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    Does it mean they are free to do whatever they want to mortals or each other? No. Does it mean they are above questions from mortals? No. But at the end by definition gods are higher beings.
    Only if the stories that define them actually show them to be such.

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    So if Odin felt the destruction of humanity was in the best interest of the gods and the universe as a whole then he would be within his rights to destroy humanity if his judgement was correct just as humans often believe it is in their best interest to exterminate rats or Galactus considers it his right to feed off of planets with technically sentient life.
    I still don't see the argument from which Odin assumes greater rights, and that's a really big if concerning his judgement as to the best interests of the universe, especially in the second instance where Thor's willing sacrifice could avert any such necessity. Your parallels are again somewhat off; if rats were another talking, thinking race of people (that could make such known to us), then humans would be wrong to try to exterminate them, although self-defense if they were aggressive would certainly be permissible. Likewise, Galactus may consider it his right to feed off planets without regard to whether they have objectively sapient inhabitants who are protesting his actions, and he may even have been revealed to serve a cosmic purpose, but that doesn't necessarily make it right so much as an amoral decision, and planetary populations indisputably have the right to fight him off if they can.


    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    What If?s often force certain story aspects to ask a particular question or story regardless of how much sense it makes in the main MU. We have had What Ifs where Hulk was killed by his neck being snapped or Sentry being destroyed by Black Bolt's voice. Nothing about Jane Foster indicates she would be worthy to wield Mjonlir over the likes of Ben Grimm.
    What If? stories explicitly take place in Earths observable to the Watcher, and there was nothing to indicate that the Jane Foster of Earth-788 was any different in character from the Jane Foster of Earth-616. Which is not to say Ben Grimm would not be worthy as well; we know that Steve Rogers has been found worthy, and Ben's character is of similar excellence. But of course, the more examples we can find, the stronger the point that there are mortal humans more worthy to wield the hammer than many of the Asgardians, by the terms of Odin's own definition of 'worthy' as embodied in his enchantments.


    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    Odin's dumb decisions tended to be about Thor's personal life and Odin trying to get Thor focused back on Asgard for the good of Asgard. In times of crisis the stories I read usually portray Odin as a wise being whose decisions while often harsh are ultimately correct and for the best. Before Fear Itself, the worst major plan of his that I know of to blow up in his face is "The Lost Gods" saga and even then he showed better judgement than in Fear Itself.
    He also showed a distinct tendency to trust crooked advisers and Loki, especially when bad-mouthing Thor, than was at all reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    Given what little we have to go on we have to accept it as the right one. Since we do not know how long ago to was the Eternals and Deviants may not have existed yet. The Celestials could have easily chosen to bypass Earth if Cul was still ruling it. The other pantheons chose to ignore Cul this time around and considered it was an Asgardian problem. Given how self-contained the pantheons tend to be for all we know Odin did try to go to them for help and they told him to go away. Cul was returned for only a few days and had the hell-lords and fear-lords cowed so in all likelyhood he had them or whatever were their equivalents cowed as well. It is reasonable to rule out these things. So all we are left with is Odin, a benevolent god and being higher than mortals, is the only options he has is to overthrow his brother which apparently requires the destruction of humanity or let Cul continue to oppress humans for perhaps forever. Odin chose to get rid of his mad brother and build a better world for a future race of humans.
    So, you think that none of the other pantheons were involved with Earth at all in the past? That doesn't seem too likely, given what we know about the antiquity of the Elder Gods including Gaea and their relationship to Atum/Demogorge and all that. And with the Celestial intervention, the Eternals and Deviants were created at the same time as humanity, so having any modern humans running around before that point requires some explanation. Even if so, at the return of the Serpent, the Olympians (of comparable or equal power to the Asgardians) were actually living on Earth, their failure to do anything to save themselves defies belief.

  2. #47
    Elder Member vitruvian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    18,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jphamlore View Post
    In Thor: For Asgard, at some point in time Odin forced himself on Gaea; whereas in 616 Fraction's run, Odin refrains from forcing relations on Freyja. Thor in Thor: For Asgard becomes the ruler and does the best he can, whereas in 616 although Thor has been the ruler at times, that is not his final destiny (well, until Aaron's future run apparently), in theory the actual uniter being the unborn (and maybe never born) child of Odin and Freyja.
    Except that both Balder and Hermod fit that bill, if Freyja is Frigga as Fraction and Gillen have stated.

  3. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jphamlore View Post
    Odin keeps to himself and thus governs through secrets, but the times have changed, and now there is a spirit of democracy and transparency. Thor is the most transparent of all, in that he is predictable is seeming to be foolish. Yet his nobility and strength eventually rescues matters.
    Thor's nobility and strength is not enough to rescue matters. As much as I despised Fraction's run it proved this. Odin's use of secrets was necessary to safeguard Asgard in the past and time and again it worked. Thor's predictability and straightforwardness nearly doomed the realm during SIEGE, Fear Itself, and Everything Burns. It was Loki's use of secrets and lies that enabled Thor to safe Asgard during the last two crises. Like under Odin, to Loki Thor was the weapon who struck the final blow, but it was lies and secrets that made that blow possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by jpbl1976 View Post
    Fraction's run was garbage
    .
    That may be a bit extreme, but for the most part I agree. For decades Odin has been a hardheaded, pompous, manipulative jerk. Yet he always had good intentions with some respect for mortal life. He has usually the plan that saves the day during a major crisis. Even some of his more questionable decisions like interfering in Thor's love life make a good deal of sense when you think about it. Then Fraction comes along and Odin goes to a obtuse perpetually angry hothead lacking any of the wisdom or grandeur of the old stories. Fear Itself did more damage to Odin than any other or perhaps even all stories previously.


    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    Except that both Balder and Hermod fit that bill, if Freyja is Frigga as Fraction and Gillen have stated.
    Gillen was asked this on Forumspring because a lot of people brought it up. He stated Balder and Hermod were born before the wedding and so are technical not legitimate heirs. The hatred between the Aesir and Vanir was so great they would use any excuse not to accept an heir.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    That he might have this viewpoint does not necessarily make it ethical, moral, or honorable. That he protected humanity from, say, Frost Giants in the past in no way gives him the right to deliberately kill them all himself.
    If Odin had not good reason to kill off humanity then he has no right, but if it was for the greater good of the universe and Odin is correct in his decision I can see him having the right to destroy all of humanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    These are not parallel cases; animals by and large lack the ability to express their own case, whereas humans and gods can speak to each other. If dogs and cows and pigs could speak to us and make known their desire not to be castrated or butchered for food, it would be morally wrong to do so, too... and even without that ability to express themselves, I think you can find plenty of reasons that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary harm or pain on them, or to wipe them out as a species. But really, the central point here is that humans and gods can make their own cases to each other, and I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the gods are higher beings in the sense of having greater moral worth, or really, generally even being more intelligent or wise.
    What then gives Galactus the right to feed on inhabited worlds? He has shown a wide range of emotions. He is a thinking being who can be reasoned with. Many of the planets he feeds upon have thinking beings. Yet we are repeatedly told and supposed to accept as a universal fact in the MU that Galactus is beyond good and evil and one of the constants in the universe are he must feed.


    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    Superior in a physical sense. So what? Being faster does not give you a greater right to life. Being stronger does not give you a greater right not to be killed. They might give you a better chance to survive, but they don't make it any more wrong for somebody to murder you. Having the potential for longer life might have some relevance, depending on what you're going to do with that life, but even that's pretty iffy... I don't think it really follows from longevity that, say, Bloodstone or Black Axe or Apocalypse's life has any more value than anybody else's.
    Should all humans become vegetarians then? Certain animal species are regarded as more intelligent than others, but humans for the most part still see themselves as superior to them without necessarily being morally superior. We have greater power to effect change in the world then animals. I would imagine gods feel the same way.


    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    As for being tied to the construction of the universe... the structure of the universe didn't seem to suffer while the Asgardians were in Limbo after Ragnarok. Transcending the physical... mortals explicitly have spirits/souls and can learn to project an astral form in the MU, they transcend the physical as well. And if you want to say that human views of morality should not apply, actually make an argument for that case, including what standards would apply to their behavior so that we could judge, for example, that Odin was better than Cul. But really, in the end these are stories written for human readers who are going to judge things according to their own moral precepts, and as soon as you start saying that Odin was right to overthrow Cul because he was cruel and oppressive, you are applying human concepts of morality.
    When Kly'bn was killed the Skrull invasion started going downhill. The gods generally control the afterlife and act as a line of defense against many of the mystical threats out there. We have seen advanced societies like the Shi'ar still worship gods. To them the gods are the ones who run the universe so they have a higher station in it.

    The gods are similar enough to humans that to a degree standards of morality to one can apply to the other. It is almost universally agreed that sadism is bad whether it be done to other humans or animals. Yet different standards of morality are still applied to each.

    Stories use human concepts of morality because it is all readers have to go on unless the writer is trying to create an alien ethical system to portray a radically different type of being. Trying to create a different ethical system is difficult since all we have to go on is our own. At the same time a reader can try and look at things from the viewpoint of the other. And in the end Odin is a radically different type of being than a human who is also a king from a culture radically different then our own. These fact alone would not give him license to do whatever he wants, but to understand his actions you have to try and see things from his perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    They're defined by what we see happen in the stories, and nothing else. So, sure, they're entities that have declared themselves to be (lower case) gods and that correspond to figures from real world mythology. Does that mean they're actually higher beings from a moral standpoint? We can only judge by how they comport themselves in the stories.
    No, as far as the Marvel Universe is considered they are gods. They are called gods in the handbooks, they are worshipped as gods, the Eternals have called them gods, alien civilizations have called them gods, etc. They are a type of being that is classified as gods. Since they are not human one cannot strictly apply human morality to them. A sentient species of herbivores would probable consider it abnormal or even evil for one of their kind to eat meat. Yet a species of sentient carnivores would consider one of their own who was a vegetarian to be abnormal or evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    Likewise, Galactus may consider it his right to feed off planets without regard to whether they have objectively sapient inhabitants who are protesting his actions, and he may even have been revealed to serve a cosmic purpose, but that doesn't necessarily make it right so much as an amoral decision, and planetary populations indisputably have the right to fight him off if they can.
    Yes, planetary populations have the right to fight off Galactus if they want. It does not change the fact Galactus is a higher being with different standards of morality applying to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    What If? stories explicitly take place in Earths observable to the Watcher, and there was nothing to indicate that the Jane Foster of Earth-788 was any different in character from the Jane Foster of Earth-616. Which is not to say Ben Grimm would not be worthy as well; we know that Steve Rogers has been found worthy, and Ben's character is of similar excellence. But of course, the more examples we can find, the stronger the point that there are mortal humans more worthy to wield the hammer than many of the Asgardians, by the terms of Odin's own definition of 'worthy' as embodied in his enchantments.
    I'm afriad there is. Ben Grimm once tried to pick up Thor's hammer and failed. Balder, who is often considered the most noble of Asgardian, has never been able to lift the hammer. Captain America and Thor are similar in they are both noble warriors. What it takes to lift the hammer has never been properly defined, but considering in his youth Thor was a noble warrior who had performed many heroic deeds yet was still not worthy. The most we have to go on is Simonson stated in an interview one time he felt a willingness to use the hammer as a weapon to kill in war was necessary to be worthy. That is one of the criteria he used in making Beta Ray Bill. I can't see Jane Foster willing to do that on a regular basis.

  4. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    As for being tied to the construction of the universe... the structure of the universe didn't seem to suffer while the Asgardians were in Limbo after Ragnarok. Transcending the physical... mortals explicitly have spirits/souls and can learn to project an astral form in the MU, they transcend the physical as well. And if you want to say that human views of morality should not apply, actually make an argument for that case, including what standards would apply to their behavior so that we could judge, for example, that Odin was better than Cul. But really, in the end these are stories written for human readers who are going to judge things according to their own moral precepts, and as soon as you start saying that Odin was right to overthrow Cul because he was cruel and oppressive, you are applying human concepts of morality.
    When Kly'bn was killed the Skrull invasion started going downhill. The gods generally control the afterlife and act as a line of defense against many of the mystical threats out there. We have seen advanced societies like the Shi'ar still worship gods. To them the gods are the ones who run the universe so they have a higher station in it.

    The gods are similar enough to humans that to a degree standards of morality to one can apply to the other. It is almost universally agreed that sadism is bad whether it be done to other humans or animals. Yet different standards of morality are still applied to each.

    Stories use human concepts of morality because it is all readers have to go on unless the writer is trying to create an alien ethical system to portray a radically different type of being. Trying to create a different ethical system is difficult since all we have to go on is our own. At the same time a reader can try and look at things from the viewpoint of the other. And in the end Odin is a radically different type of being than a human who is also a king from a culture radically different then our own. These fact alone would not give him license to do whatever he wants, but to understand his actions you have to try and see things from his perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    They're defined by what we see happen in the stories, and nothing else. So, sure, they're entities that have declared themselves to be (lower case) gods and that correspond to figures from real world mythology. Does that mean they're actually higher beings from a moral standpoint? We can only judge by how they comport themselves in the stories.
    No, as far as the Marvel Universe is considered they are gods. They are called gods in the handbooks, they are worshipped as gods, the Eternals have called them gods, alien civilizations have called them gods, etc. They are a type of being that is classified as gods. Since they are not human one cannot strictly apply human morality to them. A sentient species of herbivores would probable consider it abnormal or even evil for one of their kind to eat meat. Yet a species of sentient carnivores would consider one of their own who was a vegetarian to be abnormal or evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    Likewise, Galactus may consider it his right to feed off planets without regard to whether they have objectively sapient inhabitants who are protesting his actions, and he may even have been revealed to serve a cosmic purpose, but that doesn't necessarily make it right so much as an amoral decision, and planetary populations indisputably have the right to fight him off if they can.
    Yes, planetary populations have the right to fight off Galactus if they want. It does not change the fact Galactus is a higher being with different standards of morality applying to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    What If? stories explicitly take place in Earths observable to the Watcher, and there was nothing to indicate that the Jane Foster of Earth-788 was any different in character from the Jane Foster of Earth-616. Which is not to say Ben Grimm would not be worthy as well; we know that Steve Rogers has been found worthy, and Ben's character is of similar excellence. But of course, the more examples we can find, the stronger the point that there are mortal humans more worthy to wield the hammer than many of the Asgardians, by the terms of Odin's own definition of 'worthy' as embodied in his enchantments.
    I'm afriad there is. Ben Grimm once tried to pick up Thor's hammer and failed. Balder, who is often considered the most noble of Asgardian, has never been able to lift the hammer. Captain America and Thor are similar in they are both noble warriors. What it takes to lift the hammer has never been properly defined, but considering in his youth Thor was a noble warrior who had performed many heroic deeds yet was still not worthy. The most we have to go on is Simonson stated in an interview one time he felt a willingness to use the hammer as a weapon to kill in war was necessary to be worthy. That is one of the criteria he used in making Beta Ray Bill. I can't see Jane Foster willing to do that on a regular basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    He also showed a distinct tendency to trust crooked advisers and Loki, especially when bad-mouthing Thor, than was at all reasonable.
    I admit Odin during the Silver Age was at times an idiot. The Asgardian Royal Family has always had a screwed up relationship with each other. Odin tends to be at his wisest in dealing with crises like Fear Itself. That is where Fraction dropped the ball by Odin not having a better Plan A then kill all humans.


    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    So, you think that none of the other pantheons were involved with Earth at all in the past? That doesn't seem too likely, given what we know about the antiquity of the Elder Gods including Gaea and their relationship to Atum/Demogorge and all that. And with the Celestial intervention, the Eternals and Deviants were created at the same time as humanity, so having any modern humans running around before that point requires some explanation. Even if so, at the return of the Serpent, the Olympians (of comparable or equal power to the Asgardians) were actually living on Earth, their failure to do anything to save themselves defies belief.
    Disagree-The Elder gods were banished before the rise of the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs themselves were destroyed about 65 million years ago. The Eternals and Deviants were created only about one million years ago. That leaves a large chunk of time the Serpent could have ruled. Odin implied if not outright stated he destroyed ever human. This implies he created more humans. The other pantheons refused to intervene against the Serpent stating they could create more mortals if necessary. Odin, or other gods probable created more mortals sometime after Cul was defeated.

    The Olympians refused to intervene because of the Council of Godheads edict against one pantheon interfering in the internal affairs of another. The Serpent was viewed as an Asgardian matter. If humanity was destroyed in the process than the gods could always create more mortals. Zeus argued against it, but was forced to agree. When Hercules asked Hermes about it Hermes stated something like "Should I mourn every leave that falls." Thanks to their longevity that is how most gods view mortals. I imagine the Olympians went back to their home dimension.


    I think in the end what we disagree about is morality. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be applying human standards of morality to any and all lifeforms. I tend to view radically different lifeforms as having different standards of morality that apply to them even if they do share certain standars. Would you agree with this?

  5. #50

    Default

    ...have you guys really been going over this all this time?

  6. #51
    Elder Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    25,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    This is probable my fault, but are we talking about What if Thor was in Odin's place millions of years ago or current day? We have been talking about both so I'm trying to make sure which we are discussing. Millions of years ago I cannot help but think Thor would lose since several stories implied Odin had to wage a war of attrition against Cul. Modern day is obviously different for a number of reasons as you yourself point out.
    No, not your fault. We have been flicking between now and a What If? Thor from millennia ago. Certainly, when I was saying Thor wouldn't kill humans, I am assuming the Thor that that we have today. Who knows, the Thor of a previous Ragnarok cycle may have been as blood thirsty as Odin, for al, we know.




    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    This may be a case where we have to agree to disagree. Remember in SIEGE where Loki told Balder that if he did not want Thor exiled for killing Bor he would have pardoned him. To me, this makes it a legal law one could bend, repeal, or brake. If so many Asgardians thought of Cul as evil then they could have easily pardoned Odin. I think Vili and Ve standing with him would go along way to proving that. The way Odin and Cul spoke of being unable to kill each other to me implied this was more a law of the universe or fate. They could not because Fate would always intervene to prevent it. The birth of Thor and Loki does not matter because neither are strong enough to kill Cul. Thor was only able to do so in modern day thanks to Odin giving him magical equipment, Fate, and the intervening of Loki.
    That may be the case, but I do wonder if Baldar had that option, why he didn't take it? Baldar loved Thor, but he felt his hands were tied about this point of law.







    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    All the prophecies have spoken of a new race of gods emerging to replace the Aesir led by a resurrected Balder. Several storylines dealing with Ragnarok have spoken of some variation of new gods or at least lifeforms taking the place of the current ones. The whole idea of Ragnarok is it is both an end and a beginning. If it is the last Ragnarok that means the current gods of Asgard: Odin, Thor, Loki, etc. will die for the last time. New gods would arise to take their place.
    I suppose if we are talking about the real actual Norse prophecies, and not the MU prophecies, then yes, Baldar becomes the new All-Father of some as yet unknown future. What I would find curious about this is that this then portends heaven. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, after the death of everything, we all come back in the second resurrection.
    Visited NY and DC and saw Spider-Man Turn off the Dark.

  7. #52
    Radical Chick BooCoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    South of the Styxx, DC
    Posts
    1,367

    Default

    I had a lot of issues with the Fraction/current run. Things making no sense in the mythos, although they may have made great individual stories. For example, Loki didn't create Hela. She already had her own history, so the shoehorning mess of Leah/Hela was contrived for the storyline. And I won't even go into the supposed romance story between Bill and "I'm a wimp goddess" Kelda. Why were the Vanir so oppressed if they were equal to the Aesir with apparently the same resources? And Freyja and Odin waited to have a kid because...why now? They've been married a long time. What, it wasn't dramatic enough in the day? And who seriously believes a kid is gonna unite two peoples at war since time's dawn? How about intergrating their societies for true equality, or does that make too much sense? This stuff is straight from the middle ages. Enchantress made a good put down of Sif, I liked it. Her keep? Stupid. So much hype, chika. That the best you can do, that mess? It still ain't Thor. Odin still showing to be the big bad...AGAIN? I thought he was a wreck fighting Surtur in an endless fight (no wait, no more). And was there a reason blood ties were so pounded over our heads nearly every issue? Okay, so? We get it. What I never got was all the agonizing over the Child Loki vs. Adult Loki. One and the same, it seemed clear. The question is, where to take the character from here? The previous version seems out of the question, but the "cute" version will never be taken seriously among Marvel heavyweights, and Loki is part of a pantheon.
    Last edited by BooCoo; 11-09-2012 at 10:50 AM.

  8. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    No, not your fault. We have been flicking between now and a What If? Thor from millennia ago. Certainly, when I was saying Thor wouldn't kill humans, I am assuming the Thor that that we have today. Who knows, the Thor of a previous Ragnarok cycle may have been as blood thirsty as Odin, for al, we know.

    The Thor we have today I do not think would kill humans during the current Fear Itself crisis. If Thor of today were in Odin's shoes millions of years ago and knew the whole situation he might have taken Odin's path. If he had tried to spare humans while battling the Serpent he probable would have lost. Given what we know and for reasons I stated in a post above we have to assume Odin's path was the correct one. Odin had no other options.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    That may be the case, but I do wonder if Baldar had that option, why he didn't take it? Baldar loved Thor, but he felt his hands were tied about this point of law.

    I know Loki is a liar, but he implied Balder did not lift Thor's exile because Balder wanted to be king. Thor did not bother to defend himself during his trial. During JMS's run, Thor never wanted to be king and Balder wanted his chance to prove himself and his birthright. Thor's exile was a convenient way for both to get their wishes.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    I suppose if we are talking about the real actual Norse prophecies, and not the MU prophecies, then yes, Baldar becomes the new All-Father of some as yet unknown future. What I would find curious about this is that this then portends heaven. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, after the death of everything, we all come back in the second resurrection.
    In the MU this has been implied or stated as well. In at least one of the previous Ragnarok cycles Balder and several other Asgardians survived only to merge together to form a new Odin. Brahma once stated the dead Asgardian essences could be used to create new gods. In Defalco's Ragnarok storyline Odin stated several times a new race of gods was supposed to emerge after the destruction of Asgard. JMS confirmed the prophecies of Balder fathering a new race of gods thus continuing the line of Odin. That is one reason Odin hid Balder's parentage.

    I don't think it portends to heaven because while Balder may rule over a new heaven and earth it would not be a perfect one. Thor's sons, Modi and Magni were supposed to survive and wield Mjolnir as their weapon. Some stories indicate the dragon Nidhoggr is supposed to survive. Aside from destroying Earth whether or not Ragnarok destroys the other nine worlds is debatable even in myth. So giants might survive. The only thing known is Odin and Thor are supposed to be dead (for a time at least) with Balder ruling after Ragnarok.
    Last edited by seekquaze; 11-09-2012 at 02:39 PM.

  9. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BooCoo View Post
    I had a lot of issues with the Fraction/current run. Things making no sense in the mythos, although they may have made great individual stories. For example, Loki didn't create Hela. She already had her own history, so the shoehorning mess of Leah/Hela was contrived for the storyline. And I won't even go into the supposed romance story between Bill and "I'm a wimp goddess" Kelda. Why were the Vanir so oppressed if they were equal to the Aesir with apparently the same resources? And Freyja and Odin waited to have a kid because...why now? They've been married a long time. What, it wasn't dramatic enough in the day? And who seriously believes a kid is gonna unite two peoples at war since time's dawn? How about intergrating their societies for true equality, or does that make too much sense? This stuff is straight from the middle ages. Enchantress made a good put down of Sif, I liked it. Her keep? Stupid. So much hype, chika. That the best you can do, that mess? It still ain't Thor. Odin still showing to be the big bad...AGAIN? I thought he was a wreck fighting Surtur in an endless fight (no wait, no more). And was there a reason blood ties were so pounded over our heads nearly every issue? Okay, so? We get it. What I never got was all the agonizing over the Child Loki vs. Adult Loki. One and the same, it seemed clear. The question is, where to take the character from here? The previous version seems out of the question, but the "cute" version will never be taken seriously among Marvel heavyweights, and Loki is part of a pantheon.
    1. Leah/Hela is strictly Gillen's doing. Hela in the MU has always been a mystery. She is often called Loki's daughter, but was fully grown and ruling Hel when Loki was still a kid. Yet everyone accepted her as Loki's daughter as fact.

    2. The Aesir/Vanir conflict was only alluded to once before in a story line back from the late seventies/early eighties. Part of the problem of "Everything Burns" is the total lack of build up on Fraction's part. The conflict comes out of nowhere, serves its purpose for two issues to focus on Surtur, and is resolved in one panel. It is like everything else Fraction has done. There has never been anything else to indicate the Vanir are oppressed especially since one of them was made Asgard's watchman and another was made supreme rule of Asgard. That and they were allowed to keep their own weapons and armies. I suppose the resented a foreigner ruling them, but again it was all Fraction and as usual came out of nowhere and served no purpose.

    3. The child would be a legal heir that both societies would be force to accept according to their customs and codes of honor.

    4. It seems to be the societies are already equal what with each having their own cities, armies, and the Vanir holding several high-ranking positions among the greater pantheon. It was Fraction's poor storytelling.

    5. The way the Asgardians have been written since their return they are ignorant hicks from the middle ages.

    6. Agree about the Keep.

    7. When Thor resurrected Odin it allowed Surtur to build in strength. Kid Loki freed Surtur as part of a series of deals needed to defeat the Serpent. Surtur was going to eventually escape anyway without Odin to keep him in check. Another boneheaded move on Thor's part thanks to Fraction. Thor knew about Odin keeping Surtur in check.

    8. Adult Loki and Kid Loki were different enough to matter. Thanks to different memories they have almost totally different personalities. Kid Loki was still prone to mischief and lying yet able to overcome his faults to become a force for good and would have been accepted by Asgard. Adult Loki had allowed his vices and bitterness to rule his life making him a force of evil. That is where the agonizing came from. Adult Loki may be in a younger body, but he still has centuries of baggage. He may try to change, but he has to overcome his own evil nature. Kid Loki did not have an evil nature since he didn't have the bitter memories so he was more neutral or good.

  10. #55
    Elder Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    25,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seekquaze View Post
    The Thor we have today I do not think would kill humans during the current Fear Itself crisis. If Thor of today were in Odin's shoes millions of years ago and knew the whole situation he might have taken Odin's path. If he had tried to spare humans while battling the Serpent he probable would have lost. Given what we know and for reasons I stated in a post above we have to assume Odin's path was the correct one. Odin had no other options.




    I know Loki is a liar, but he implied Balder did not lift Thor's exile because Balder wanted to be king. Thor did not bother to defend himself during his trial. During JMS's run, Thor never wanted to be king and Balder wanted his chance to prove himself and his birthright. Thor's exile was a convenient way for both to get their wishes.



    In the MU this has been implied or stated as well. In at least one of the previous Ragnarok cycles Balder and several other Asgardians survived only to merge together to form a new Odin. Brahma once stated the dead Asgardian essences could be used to create new gods. In Defalco's Ragnarok storyline Odin stated several times a new race of gods was supposed to emerge after the destruction of Asgard. JMS confirmed the prophecies of Balder fathering a new race of gods thus continuing the line of Odin. That is one reason Odin hid Balder's parentage.

    I don't think it portends to heaven because while Balder may rule over a new heaven and earth it would not be a perfect one. Thor's sons, Modi and Magni were supposed to survive and wield Mjolnir as their weapon. Some stories indicate the dragon Nidhoggr is supposed to survive. Aside from destroying Earth whether or not Ragnarok destroys the other nine worlds is debatable even in myth. So giants might survive. The only thing known is Odin and Thor are supposed to be dead (for a time at least) with Balder ruling after Ragnarok.
    It's been a pleasure to chew over the fat about Asgard.
    Visited NY and DC and saw Spider-Man Turn off the Dark.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •