Thor's "Thematic" Section

[Deceived3596]

I'll keep this simple: why does Thor have an entire section on his "thematic" when literally no other profile has this, from what I've seen? Has there been a recent addition to how we can formulate profiles, or should this be removed since, from my knowledge, it doesn't coincide with our profile standards.

 

[LegendariumOfLies]

Probably for SBA of what is in character.

 

[UchihaSlayer96]

Probably for SBA of what is in character.

Except it doesn't really delve into his standard tactics at all. It more so delved into the Thematics Section's author's perspective on Thor's portrayal, character progression, and public reception on a meta level.
I personally don't see what that section really adds to an indexing site focused solely on VS debating.
Not to mention the fact that there seems to be no real precedents nor basis in our standards for it. I'm just confused by it more than anything because it's so out of place given context of the Wiki.

 

[Nierre]

@Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

Sigh. I thought that it seemed appropriate given the neverending author controversies, upheavals, and massive personality distortions regarding the character, but am willing to compromise if there is a large community opposition to its wording or inclusion.

 

[Antvasima]

Would removing the "Thematics" section combined with adding the following shortened version of the text to Thor's initial "Summary" section be more acceptable?

"Thor's characterisation has changed over the years. Although writers such as Stan Lee and especially Tom DeFalco portrayed him as extremely noble, brave, responsible, heroic, and compassionate, several later writers have gradually distorted Thor's character to turn him increasingly unsympathetic.

Writers such as J. Michael Straczynski and Al Ewing have attempted to return Thor to his much more sympathetic and thoughtful characterisation roots, more positive and humane narrative, and very well-written storyarcs, but most of the times he has appeared outside of his own comic book in recent years, other writers have recurrently portrayed him as a one-dimensional punchline to be depowered and humiliated."

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

I don’t think any one person should preaching anything (good or bad) about a character as fact on their profiles. Interpretations about characters are very subjective, such is the nature of art. Unless you’re okay opening the door for anyone to place their interpretations of characters on profiles without implementation threads it should be removed. Plus I don’t think it’s beneficial to this community to alienate Thor fans because you have gripes with his character, I think that’s rather shortsighted. I know you don’t have an ill intent here; however, it’s good to think of potential consequences of our actions. If anything profiles should reflect the love and effort put into properly indexing them as opposed to the disdain of how they’re subjectively portrayed.

 

[Hasty12345]

I personally like the idea of the section for majorly popular characters with vast histories, noting down different major authors and contributors to the characters lore and maybe brief history of the character can make for a more holistic profile. I think, however, the particular implantation of what I believe to be an otherwise good idea, on Thor's profile can come across as jarring to some fans and does seem to stray from objective and useful information to potentially biased views of the characters publication history.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't have a problem with Thor. When he is written well he is extremely noble, altruistic, and heroic.

I have a problem with the authors who have distorted his character and power level due to disliking him, and am asking for input regarding my suggested replacement text above, which can be further shortened down and modified if necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

How about this text instead then? Is it acceptable?

"Through his history as a Marvel Comics character, Thor has most prominently been portrayed as extremely noble, brave, responsible, heroic, altruistic, idealistic, and compassionate, although certain writers have distorted his character to turn him more unsympathetic, or even portrayed him as a one-dimensional punchline to be depowered and humiliated."

 

[Hasty12345]

I have a problem with the authors who have distorted his character and power level due to disliking him, and am asking for input regarding my suggested replacement text above, which can be further shortened down and modified if necessary.

Here's how I would rewrite you points to try and be more objective and perhaps less confrontational to Thor's fanbase:

"Thor's characterisation has changed over the years. Although writers such as Stan Lee and especially Tom DeFalco portrayed him as extremely noble, brave, responsible, heroic, and compassionate, several later writers have gradually distorted Thor's character to turn him increasingly unsympathetic. later authors would focus on other aspects of Thor's character, shifting the focus from his prior portrayal.

Writers such as J. Michael Straczynski and Al Ewing have attempted to return Thor to his much more sympathetic made an effort to focus on Thor's initial characterisation, shifting back to Thor's roots and thoughtful characterisation roots, more leaning more on Thor's positive and humane narrative. and very well-written storyarcs, However, most of the times he has appeared outside of his own comic book in recent years, other writers have recurrently portrayed him as a one-dimensional punchline focused on few attributes of his character, which is often the case in stories concerning multiple protagonists. to be depowered and humiliated."

It's by no means perfect, but this is more the route I would take regarding your points.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I feel like this is wholly unnecessary? Like the point of our profiles are to index powers and abilities. This seems like an excess of personal anecdotes.

 

[Antvasima]

I feel like this is wholly unnecessary? Like the point of our profiles are to index powers and abilities. This seems like an excess of personal anecdotes.

Well, brief personality summaries seem acceptable and very relevant at least.

Here's how I would rewrite you points to try and be more objective and perhaps less confrontational to Thor's fanbase:

It's by no means perfect, but this is more the route I would take regarding your points.

It was not intended to be confrontational to most of his fanbase, just to make a point against the willful distortion of his character by writers and editors who seem to have an agenda against him.

How about removing his "Thematics" section and adding the following text to his "Summary" section instead then?

"Through his history Thor has most prominently been portrayed as extremely noble, brave, responsible, heroic, altruistic, idealistic, and compassionate, although certain writers have severely distorted his character, or even portrayed him in a one-dimensional manner while depowering and humiliating him."

 

[Antvasima]

I handled it.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics)?diff=8978384&oldid=8972706

 

[Hasty12345]

I'll leave it to others if anything goes or remains on the profile, however, "severely distorted his character, or even portrayed him in a one-dimensional manner while depowering and humiliating him." these words come across as quite harsh, and not everyone reading the profile is going to know you wrote it and understand it's not meant to be so.

"Through his history Thor has most prominently been portrayed as extremely noble, brave, responsible, heroic, altruistic, idealistic, and compassionate, although certain writers have severely distorted his character, or even portrayed him in a one-dimensional manner while depowering and humiliating him."

 

[Antvasima]

It is entirely accurate as far as I am aware. Quite a lot of writers seem to have very blatantly, disrespectfully, and disdainfully treated the character in such a manner.

 

[Damage3245]

We don't need to add that kind of thing to Thor's profile.

This is like adding to Sakura's page: "Throughout most of the manga Sakura has been a shallow love interest for Sasuke despite the many times he has treated her appallingly showcasing an unhealthy obession on her part."

Like... it doesn't have much to do from a VS Battles perspective.

 

[Hasty12345]

It is entirely accurate as far as I am aware. Quite a lot of writers seem to have very blatantly, disrespectfully, and disdainfully treated the character in such a manner.

The issue I'm pointing out isn't the accuracy of your statements, it's more so the almost "attacking" connotations of them towards the Marvel writers.

 

[Antvasima]

We don't need to add that kind of thing to Thor's profile.

This is like adding to Sakura's page: "Throughout most of the manga Sakura has been a shallow love interest for Sasuke despite the many times he has treated her appallingly showcasing an unhealthy obession on her part."

Like... it doesn't have much to do from a VS Battles perspective.

Brief personality/portrayal summaries are entirely acceptable and relevant as far as I am concerned.

 

[Antvasima]

The issue I'm pointing out isn't the accuracy of your statements, it's more so the almost "attacking" connotations of them towards the Marvel writers.

Many Marvel writers have continuously been extremely irresponsible or outright ideologically amoral, either in the respect of systematically glorifying pure satanic evil or character-assassinating and gleefully humiliating extremely virtuous and noble characters, so extremely lightly and briefly pointing it out seems entirely harmless in comparison.

 

[Damage3245]

Brief personality/portrayal summaries are entirely acceptable and relevant as far as I am concerned.

Portrayal such as "the character is a protagonist/antagonist" or personality like "the characters prefers a drawn-out battle, or is hesitant to use a certain ability" are all well and good.

But not "the writers enjoy humiliating them" and "sometimes the character is written one-dimensionally".

 

[Hasty12345]

We don't need to add that kind of thing to Thor's profile.

This is like adding to Sakura's page: "Throughout most of the manga Sakura has been a shallow love interest for Sasuke despite the many times he has treated her appallingly showcasing an unhealthy obession on her part."

Like... it doesn't have much to do from a VS Battles perspective.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Ant's comments are comparing and contrasting the handling of a character with 60 years of publication history across upwards of 40 authors.

Your example boils down to shit talking Sakura, whereas Ant is at least attempting to contextualise Thor's feats from a meta sense, which I personally do believe is important context to how we power scale some prominent characters.

 

[Damage3245]

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Ant's comments are comparing and contrasting the handling of a character with 60 years of publication history across upwards of 40 authors.

Your example boils down to shit talking Sakura, whereas Ant is at least attempting to contextualise Thor's feats from a meta sense, which I personally do believe is important context to how we power scale some prominent characters.

We already have an existing Explanation section on Thor's page that is relevant to Thor's feats. Antvasima's section in his summary has nothing to do with Thor's feats.

 

[Antvasima]

I have now compromised to extremes by shortening down the text even further. It currently seems completely harmless, relevant, and blatantly accurate.

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Comics)?diff=8978411&oldid=8978384

 

[LordTracer]

A thematic section seems completely unnecessary and out of place for this site. People come here to see stats, powers and general VS debating stuff. If they wanted a full personality and portrayal breakdown for a character, I’m pretty sure they’d go to the dedicated wiki for that character’s series.

 

[Damage3245]

I have now compromised to extremes by shortening down the text even further. It currently seems completely harmless, relevant, and blatantly accurate.

If you'd like to see what I'd write from a more neutral position:

Throughout his history, Thor has most often been depicted as noble, brave, responsible, heroic, altruistic, idealistic, and compassionate. However, interpretations of his character have varied over time with over 60 years of publications, with different writers presenting him in a range of characterization, sometimes emphasizing his flaws or portraying him with vastly reduced power or status.

 

[Antvasima]

We already have an existing Explanation section on Thor's page that is relevant to Thor's feats. Antvasima's section in his summary has nothing to do with Thor's feats.

We do not only portray feats and power levels. We are supposed to accurately portray their personalities through characteristic quotes and summary sections as well.

I have been far from unreasonable here and compromised to extremes, but there are limits to how far I am willing to go. I am not willing to go out of my way to either whitewash pure satanic evil or extreme mischaracterisation of what are intended to be virtuous ideals to strive towards.

Are you willing to compromise in the slightest?

 

[Antvasima]

A thematic section seems completely unnecessary and out of place for this site. People come here to see stats, powers and general VS debating stuff. If they wanted a full personality and portrayal breakdown for a character, I’m pretty sure they’d go to the dedicated wiki for that character’s series.

I have already gotten rid of the thematics section...

 

[Damage3245]

Are you willing to compromise in the slightest?

Of course I am. Look at my post above.

 

[Hasty12345]

We already have an existing Explanation section on Thor's page that is relevant to Thor's feats. Antvasima's section in his summary has nothing to do with Thor's feats.

I don't see any harm in contextualizing a characters meta standing should it serve to enrich the profile. I am not saying Ant's particular wordings do that, but the sentiment and rationale behind the idea of doing so isn't bad. A characters narrative is infinitely more important than their feats, Afterall the feats a character performs are nothing more than a byproduct of their narrative. Some characters could benefit from meta context to explain certain aspects of the profiles.

 

[Hasty12345]

A thematic section seems completely unnecessary and out of place for this site. People come here to see stats, powers and general VS debating stuff. If they wanted a full personality and portrayal breakdown for a character, I’m pretty sure they’d go to the dedicated wiki for that character’s series.

That's not even true, the summary sections of profiles solely explain the characters and versus matches are heavily reliant on character traits and character tendencies.

 

[Antvasima]

Of course I am. Look at my post above.

Your version does not accurately portray what has actually happened though. If writers suddenly portray Thor as a one-dimensional raving hallucinating madman, a Nazi-sympathiser, a general tier 9-B punching-bag, or any number of other things that have repeatedly happened over the years, it isn't just focusing on different personality traits, it is maliciously and spitefully inventing an entirely different character out of thin air in order to make some kind of misguided and pointless ideological points.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't see any harm in contextualizing a characters meta standing should it serve to enrich the profile. I am not saying Ant's particular wordings do that, but the sentiment and rationale behind the idea of doing so isn't bad. A characters narrative is infinitely more important than their feats, Afterall the feats a character performs are nothing more than a byproduct of their narrative. Some characters could benefit from meta context to explain certain aspects of the profiles.

Yes. Strongly agreed.

 

[Robo432343]

i mean whats the problem with having it

its just an optional thing

 

[Damage3245]

Your version does not accurately portray what has actually happened though. If writers suddenly portray Thor as a one-dimensional raving hallucinating madman, a Nazi-sympathiser, a general tier 9-B punching-bag, or any number of other things that have repeatedly happened over the years, it isn't just focusing on different personality traits, it is maliciously and spitefully inventing an entirely different character out of thin air in order to make some kind of misguided and pointless ideological points.

Sorry, but I think you're allowing your personal biases to cloud your judgement here. You claim you're not being unreasonable, but quite often we never recognize our own personal flaws.

We need to approach our profiles from a neutral position; you taking a hardline stance against what you personally believe to be writers promoting "satanic evil" is not very neutral.

 

[Antvasima]

Considering the repeated idealisation/endorsement of, for example, many characters such as Thanos, Mystique, Apocalypse, or Doctor Doom, despite that they are psychopaths who have elsewhere committed acts or displayed attitudes fully comparable to or even worse than those of the worst people in real world human history, I am far from exaggerating in that regard, just matter-of-fact observing what has happened in the many thousands of Marvel Comics stories that I have read.

I do not believe there truly is such a thing as a neutral position. Either we strive for genuine ethics, based on empathy, conscience, and empathy, or we descend into, and as such automatically take a stand for, sadistic, egomaniacal, morbid, and absolutely callous amorality. Pick a side.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, here is all that is currently stated within the wiki page itself, which I personally think seems completely harmless.

"Through his history Thor has most prominently been portrayed as extremely noble, brave, responsible, heroic, altruistic, idealistic, and compassionate, although certain writers have severely distorted his character, or depowered and humiliated him."

 

[SamanPatou]

I expressed my opinion of this matter some time ago in the Marvel Discussion Thread.

This section is not only unnecessary, but also completely biased and not written neither with accuracy nor a neutral point of view, no disrespect meant for who wrote it, Ant, I believe.
As others have said, this isn't the purpose of our wiki and we simply cannot dedicate the necessary room and details such type of section would require. At most I can picture the idea of making a separate blog, but it needs to be written in a professional, neutral and accurate way, if it demands to address a character's characterization in the proper way.

 

[DaReaperMan]

There's no damn point in this, such as the massacre you've done to a profile's summary that should have been deleted and split in two four years ago.

Put blunty: As much as ya don't promote controversy Ant, you really have a way to stir the pot by letting biases get into a profile. I don't need to hear about Thor's woes as a character when someone could very easiky get pissy with you for inserting that in like a semitruck into a carpark, I want to see why big hammer man Low 1-C. Show personality in quotes, not going on a rant on our versus indexing profile. It makes you and the wiki look ridiculous, which you state you sometimes want to avoid, yes?

 

[Antvasima]

I can definitely understand why the long thematics section was inappropriate, and as such I have removed it, but not brief accurate personality summaries and character-defining quotes. That is entirely relevant to the identities and portrayals of the characters as a whole, and I don't want us to get in the business of acting as whitewashing apologists for genuine evil just because some fiction authors (including Bill Willingham, who systematically used Bigby Wolf as the voice of the author) have the attitudes of ideologically amoral and sociopathic social Darwinian political extremists.

Taking the whole "let's be entirely neutral" approach too far regarding genuine evil reads like "So you want to torture thousands of children to death for sport or due to general supremacism. Would you settle for just torturing them all into comas instead to meet us halfway?" to me.