The effect was very similar to the early issues of Gaiman's SANDMAN in that the reader really felt this god was being beset on all sides. Thor seemed to have more and larger problems that he could ever hope to solve. I hadn't read much Kirby at that point, so the scope of the action was just stunning. Like Morrison's JLA, everything just seemed to be huge and full of portends.

To be honest, the title fizzled for me well before Simmonson left. I never really engaged with the cast, so once the buzz of the epic-ness of the title wore off I was done.

I tried to read Walt Simonson’s Thor once, since I heard it was really good. Pretty much every time Thor opened his mouth I wanted to stop reading, so after a few pages…I did.

Walt really downplayed the overbearing dialogue, actually, and let Thor talk like a normal bloke.

What, you too?!? LOL... I also end up saying the same thing during the last five minutes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Amazing that suspects will lawyer up at the drop of a hat and keep their mouths clamped shut on the original Law & Order, driving Sam Waterston completely up the wall in his efforts to secure a conviction, but on Criminal Intent as soon as Vincent D'Onofrio starts quirkily tilting his head while making a left-field shot-in-the-dark psychoanalysis, suddenly perps are tripping over themselves to confess.

Um, what where we talking about again? Oh, yeah, Walter Simonson's Thor. Yeah, that was a good run

with that said, i bought one of the SImonson Thor trades and had a hard time getting thru it. however, i wonder how much more enjoyable the comics would be as back issues instead. probably far more enjoyable for me.

-His insistence in bringing more "mythologically correct" details to the series, up to and including directly hinting that the fact the current Asgard was a recreation and not the original (a detail Roy Thomas and/or Mark Gruenwald had come up to explain the differences between the "real" Thor and the Marvel comics version) was false. I understand why he wanted to do it, but thrashing a previous continuity just to fit your personal vision doesn't sit well with me.

-Going along with that, he also started redesigning everything, from having the Golden City of Asgard made of wood rather than metal (!!) to changing the original designs for Surtur and the Midgard serpent. (Not that his designs were bad, just not explained.)

-Also, and this is more personal taste than anything, but, his artwork here always looked kinda crude to me. As if he needed a better inker. Otherwise, it was awesome. DOOOM! indeed!

But there was plenty I enjoyed: from the humor of "Thor the Frog" to the despair of Hela's Curse and of course, the Epic battle with Surtur. Oh, and as for Bill? Yeah, it was pretty much obvious he was invented to -pardoning the expression- "steal the Thunder" off of Thor. As such, he never bothered me much because I knew he was never more than a temporary annoyance- no way this guy was really going to replace Thor in his own book! I do agree he was more interesting before he became all Thor-ified, tho.

In general, while I do not agree with all the changes Walt did, I think he injected a new, enjoyable atmosphere to the series, and he did create several new interesting characters, like Lorelei and Malekith. His run deserves to be called a classic.

I have to say my enjoyment was greatly enhanced by reading the original issues complete with video game ads, letters pages and bullpen bulletins. These details make great little time capsules for my childhood.

Another thing I liked that Simonson did was actually play down the overblown dialogue. I know a previous poster complained about it but Walt actually took out a lot of Shakesperean thees and thous. He still spoke with god-like gravitas in dramatic situations but in general it seemed like this Thor was way better at adapting to the vernacular in Midgard, which actually made him seem a lot smarter than he'd been portrayed in the past.

Overall it's a great, fun, dense 40+ issue superhero run. They don't make 'em like these anymore.

What issues are the Reed vs. Doom time travel story, by the way?

As for Simonson's Thor being "wimpy", I never really saw him like that. In fact, when I first read those comic books, I thought Thor was kind of a refreshing change compared to other, "wimpy" and conflicted Marvel heroes such as Spider-Man or the X-Men or Daredevil. Simonson's Thor has no deep guilt or some hidden, terrible weakness in him, he's merely a relatively well-adjusted and easy-going god with a strong sense of honor and morality. I suspect that's the reason Simonson got rid of Donald Blake: he wanted to do a protagonist who was not like the "Marvel type" of conflicted superhero that made the company so popular back in the 60s. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the "Marvel type", but Simonson's Thor felt like a nice alternative to that.

However, I myself have wondered that exact same question. It's amazing how many grown adults hold grudges over the character even 25 years later, some even laced with a deep hatred that makes me -a person who can hold a grudge with the best of them- cringe. I'd like to think that Bill has been or is starting to be developed as a seperate entity from Thor. Your mileage may vary, but I like the direction Kieron Gillen is taking him, since given what he's gone through since 'Stormbreaker', it only makes sense. Again, strictly IMHO there.

Since we're on the subject, I really liked Walt's Thor -the character- too, since he was failable, but not a wimp. I hate this idea that the Thor fandom enforces on people that he [Thor] MUST be invulnerable. He MUST win every single battle and God forbid he lose even once or have a slight loss. Walt's run wasn't afraid to challenge those and I bet you dollars to nothing that if Walt tried to pull that sort of thing today, the Thor fen would be crying for his head on a silver platter.

I'd say Simonson's Thor run is equal to Miller's Daredevil run, but because it's not hyper-serious, it's not the critic's darling.

- The FF go to Washington to testify in front of Congress re: their opposition to the Superhero Registration Act (which is weird in light of Reed's 180 degree switch in Civil War). They have a hilarious bout with a series of fourth-rate supervillains who keep interrupting the proceedings. Also, Apocalypse shows up and the FF are too busy changing clothes to stop him. (Seriously.)
- There's a lengthy storyline in which the FF go to the future to stop the Dreaming Celestial from conquering the universe. It guest-starred Thor and Iron Man, and wrapped up some lingering plot threads from Simonson's Avengers run.
- The FF end up in an alternate universe where Stalin is still the Russian premiere and the Cold War is about to go nuclear. Not important (and terribly dated--Dan Quayle is the U.S. President), but kinda fun.
- The FF end up powerless on an island full of dinosaurs. Not important, but kinda fun.
- The FF are apparently killed and replaced by Spider-Man, the Hulk, Wolverine, and Ghost Rider. The Punisher has an entirely sales-driven cameo. It says so on the cover.
- Reed and Doctor Doom have the most badass time-travel story ever. The reader can either read the story chronologically (and see random Reeds and Dooms popping up through the story), or from the combatants' perspective, which requires you to flip back and forth through the book. The cover was part of this battle.

Simonson drew most of the run, but Art Adams filled in on the "new FF" arc, and somebody else drew the Congress issues. There were also two fill-in issues which were injected into the middle of ongoing stories.

The "bump into Clark Kent" joke was a lot funnier back then, precisely because this comic is pretty old. In the early '80s, that kind of thing just wasn't done. Of course, any self-referential joke is bound to get old fast. Fury's reaction to seeing Thor in a t-shirt remains funny, though.

Beta Ray Bill is something of a wasted opportunity. I think he would have been much more popular in the long run if he had remained his own man and not a cheap copy of Thor. Ersatz characters rarely become great on their own, unless they really go their own way. For example, She-Hulk was pretty boring as long as she was merely a female Hulk; she started to be cool when she became something else entirely, just retaining the color and the muscles. Compare her to Beta Ray Bill, Thunderstrike, the Sharon Ventura Thing, War Machine or USAgent... "the same as the old character, only less interesting".

Simonson's Thor did many important things : reconnect with the character's mythical roots, give him a sense of majesty once more, unbalance the status quo somewhat (but not enough to go the boring way of "everything will be changed FOREVER!") and made readers care about what happens in the mag. The book also looked beautiful; such great designs, such great use of norse motifs.

The all splash page fight with the World Serpent has got to be (along with Miracleman vs kid Miracleman) the best superhero battle ever.

And the Skurge's sacrifice in Hel always brings a tear to my eye. "He stood alone at Gjallerbru...and that answer is enough!" Just beautiful stuff.

My favorite memory of ads in comics is that portion of time where it seems like Legends Of the Dark Knight was sponsored completely by the second Predator film. Posters, back cover ads...it felt like that movie was in the process of coming out for about six years.

I was wondering about his Fantastic Four run, what issues were those, and did he draw ALL of them?

Near the end of Simonson's run, when Buscemi was pencilling it, Marvel printed a lot of letters from fans complaining that Thor had been turned into a wimp. He couldn't beat Beta Ray Bill, Surtur, Kurse or Hela.

I've never understood that complaint. Who wants to read a string of easy victories, personally I'd like to see the villains win a few more.

But then I always spend the last ten minutes of CSI shouting at the screen - "Demand to see a lawyer, don't confess you fool, they've got nothing on you, just sit tight, c'mon you can do it". So maybe I'm in the minority.