Thor's done some pretty stupid stuff that's not consistent what so ever when it comes to strength.

I think that Hulk is physically stronger than Thor, but Thor's powers and hammer make him stronger overall. But Hulk wins in the physical strength.

@fifthchild said:

Yes but now your dealing with subjective elements, the comic and the story and the interactions between two characters. Your speculation, my speculation, every other readers speculation. Like clearly that issue definitely showed that Thor was superior and eventually definitely break Hulks neck with a sweet chin music to the face - thats what would have happened, and you can't prove me wrong... wait wait what basis do I have for my assertion? I probably have some, but those reasons would be speculation again. Subjective interpretation - something which leads to multiple assertions about what eventually would have happened and who was depicted to be more powerful.

You are presumably assert here that people interpret Stan Lee as discussing such matters as if he was posting on a battle board? Correct me if I am wrong please. Is that to imply some bias as far as fans reading into a writers comments to paint their character more positively in a competitive situation such as the battle boards? I reject that premise if so, I hardly ever post in the battle boards, nor do I care about painting characters in a way that falsely reflects them to sate my own personal views anyway. So I am interpreting Stan Lee talking candidly about characters he created. Lets look for some sources eh?

"How do you make someone stronger than the strongest person? It finally came to me: Don't make him human — make him a god. I decided readers were already pretty familiar with the Greek and Roman gods. It might be fun to delve into the old Norse legends... Besides, I pictured Norse gods looking like Vikings of old, with the flowing beards, horned helmets, and battle clubs. ...Journey into Mystery needed a shot in the arm, so I picked Thor ... to headline the book"

Presumably the ellipses indicate its paraphrased which is okay, unless in one of the intermediary sentences Stan Lee adds in some contradictory account. He starts off with the premise of how do you make someone stronger than the strongest human? Rhetorical question, then he gives that an answer. You don't make another human character you make a god character. From what I can tell you seem to be suggesting after all the times Stan Lee phrases that rhetoric question (presumably you think it wasn't a rhetorical question?) that he couldn't figure out how to make a character stronger than Hulk but then goes off on some tangent as far as god characters? If so I don't think thats clear at all, in fact I think thats a large leap to make considering his phrasing especially as far as his phrasing as far as indicating he was asking a rhetorical question because he was retelling a moment where now with hindsight he already has his answer. lets look at another source. Straight from the Stan himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEgIfpb5NHY

"One day Jack and I were talking and we wanted to do another hero, and Jack said well, we got the Hulk who is the strongest guy in the world, and we have Spider-man who climb walls blah blah and who can we get who is bigger, better, stronger, and it occurred to me that the only thing we can do perhaps is come up with a god, I thought it would be fun to make a god a hero. So I am not the worlds greatest authority on gods, but I brushed up a little on the Roman gods, and I said ah we have seen a lot of them, looked into the Greek gods, ah well everybody knows them, and then I stumbled on the Norse gods, and I realized they are not as well known, so I was reading about them, and I came across the mighty Thor"

He carries on to talk about Thor's weather powers and his strength as one of if not the strongest Norse gods and having a weapon. So I am sorry, I am not seeing anywhere which supports your notion that clearly he "couldn't figure it out" and didn't want to create a character stronger than Hulk which leads to him going away and creating a god character. I don't usually like to use words like clearly or obviously when discussing characters in comics, usually the use of words are used by fans who are trying to lend superficial weight to their claims by tacking on words designed to convince others of their validity, I am sure you have probably seen your fair shares of "clearly if Thor and Superman stopped holding back they would definitely curb stomp and slaughter Hulk" heh heh something I disagree with, but here talking about a writer and the way people usually talk and language, I am okay in asserting that clearly Stan Lee is using rhetoric questioning to explain how he envisioned Thor a god as stronger than the strongest human in the Hulk. In some instances when Stan has been quoted about Thor's creation, he has joked that he couldn't create an Abrahamic Super God, before eventually considering the Roman, Greek and Norse gods, perhaps you read that as joke as Stan Lee not being able to figure out how he can incorporate such a character, forgetting the idea of making a character stronger than Hulk and also in a related but not direct way going of to explore Norse mythology for a new character unrelated to his statements about making a stronger character than Hulk?!?! Is that it maybe?

I am trying my best to try and see how your assertion can otherwise apply, but based on multiple sources where Stan Lee directly follows up his own question talking directly about Hulk as the strongest human/guy then talking about gods and eventually Thor, without actually mentioning how he couldn't conceive a stronger character or without actually mentioned how the two things were unrelated I just don't see it objectively or reasonably. Incidentally Stan's phrasing doesn't discount the possibility of an Abomination type character.

Oh my mind is like a yoga practicing snake who won silver medal in the two consecutive Olympic Tournaments and then getting banned at the third for the use of illegal substances, its very flexible you could change my mind provided adequate reasoning or evidence heh heh its true though I am not trying to change your mind, but I do disagree with your interpretation, and my reasons are above. Always great talking to you all the same, take care.

Like I said before - just as a Marvel fan on the side-lines, I always considered Thor the strongest of all the characters as intended by his creator.

I know it does not always play out this way in various stories but the way I see it is Hulk might be stronger but Thor is almost as strong and has other powers to draw upon so I would give the edge to Thor.

BULLLL! The day World war Hulk is worthy is the day I quit comicvine, No lies. I will simply never log on.

You know 616 Thor is God of Strength right as-well ?

Sentry is stronger than Hulk who is stronger than Thor.

Thor was originally meant to be stronger, but that's not the case any more.

@theacidskull: Hulk is stronger, I am not even going there.

But WWH, That goes against so many reasons to be worthy, When Thor did that, HE went unworthy, In the King Thor Saga Thor did exactly the same as Hulk and lose worthiness..... No offence but your Hulk Bias shows.

This new Hulk, Fair enough he MAY be worthy with a bit of PIS, but WWH I stop there. I refuse to even acknowledge that, pure Fanboy garbage. I don't care who's opinion it is, Its just garbage.

@theacidskull: I'm being serious man, If they don't give a solid reason why Hulk lifted it I am never reading a Thor comic again, Fuck it. I don't MIND Hulk lifting it, That is fair as-long as its legit and done right, but if the reason is PIS I will rage more than World breaker Hulk on roid rage.

But I seriously cannot cope with WWH being worthy. Not one freakin bit, but current hulk.....Fair enough...Fair enough...I can see why, I can.

:P

@theacidskull: I will go and Grape the writers, with no mercy.

@theacidskull: Indeed, they have the best on the job...Shame the art sucks donkey balls.

@theacidskull: shooowww meee

Thor was meant to be stronger but Hulk is just stronger than him.

Shouldn't Sentry have won then?

Well Hulk didn't actually take over the world like Thor did. He (Hulk) only wanted vengeance against those that he felt wronged him. And even the Sprirt of Vengeance itself thought what he was doing was "ok." So, not really comparable, imo.

Not saying WWH IS worthy, though (I actually think he's not.) Just wouldn't say he and Thor did the same thing.

@evilvegeta74: Yea sure thing, let's get started shall we? I have my doubts about the authenticity of though's Hulk's. I'm going to address you as well a few other remark's I've seen . You see right after Thor knocked the HULK into orbit two thing's happened. 1. Thor being rendered unconscious from the force of his own blow. 2. Hulk rising unscathed from a smoldering crater after being hit with enough force to be knocked to the other side of the planet.

I will show scans to prove this as well. I will show scans of Thor fighting the Hulk with murderous intent. I will show Hulk saving Thor from a nuclear blast. And throughout that entire slug-fest the Hulk never hit Thor as hard as did to save his life. So who was holding back?

@verotikryptonite: That last scan is of the Ult Universe.

The one above it I'm not sure but looks like the time he was losing his power.

@pyrogram: I don't think that was 616 Thor's hammer he picked up. Thor had no Idea who Banner or Hulk were. On top of that Thor was sitting on the thrown and that only happened after they already met. So that might be an alt reality Thor where the enchantments are different. It seemed very much like a set up for a WTF misleading cliffhanger to drum up attention.

@dernman: Yea it's from the Ultimate universe. I wish there was something more definitive to go. In The Mighty Thor 385 which was penned by Stan Lee. The Hulk after having goaded Thor into fighting without Mjolnir ended the fight in a stale mate . But that was once Mjolnir returned and the Hulk being satisfied that he was stronger no longer had interest in fighting Thor. Thor without the help of Mjolnir is at best at the mercy of the Hulk. So who's stronger ? The Hulk

Wasn't debating you on the subject. I honestly don't care. I was just pointing something out. Can't use a Ult Scan while talking about 616.

@dernman: I was answering your question and the rest are my thought's on this topic in general. At no time did I believe we had engaged in a debate.

@verotikryptonite: The first thing you addressed me on is purely wrong, Thor didn't fall unconscious because he knocked the Hulk in orbit. He just defeated the Thing/Angrir and the Hulk/Nul in a two against one, and was exhausted. Second of all your scans prove nothing to support whatever it is you're trying to state, why are you showing them. Oh and the third thing which is most irritating of all is a scan where you have 1610 / Ultimate Thor who has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing. In all honesty 616 Thor dwarfs (1610)Ultimate Thor in power, strength and feats, why would you even mention him,http://www.comicvine.com/forums/battles-7/616-thor-vs-ultimate-thor-736465/ it doesn't help your cause. Go get me something to support what you believe or yield, which would save you some valuable time.

@pyrogram I have to agree with @theacidskull in regards to the Green Scar/Planet Hulk/Green King/World War Hulk incarnation being worthy of wielding Mjolnir. But the current Hulk seen thus far in Waid's run? Not at all. The version of Hulk during Pak's run wanted justice not murder when he came after the heroes of Earth, unlike that alternate reality (which I can prove) Thor whom couldn't lift Mjolnir despite being a Sky-Father and killed a lot of heroes. That's what caused that Thor to lose his way, yet the Green Scar incarnation didn't kill a single person, hero or otherwise, in the events of World War Hulk.

What puzzles me is that you think the current incarnation of Hulk, who thus far is about close to the Savage Hulk incarnation in terms of personailty traits, can lift Mjolnir yet a Hulk incarnation that wanted justice against the heroes who shot him into space, the same incarnation who fought a patheon of gods and was willingly sacrificing himself to a Zeus (who is equal to Odin in power) and the gods to help his family can't?! Where's the logic in that?!

@greenscar1990: What part did you not get I was having a joke? Woah, Hulk fans are slow.

@pyrogram: HA! Got ya!

Good one, eh? :)

@greenscar1990: Honestly? Hulk fans....

( This was also a joke )

:P

@evilvegeta74:

The Thing/ Angrir was a non issue and was dispatched with minimal effort, are you fucking kidding me guy? The fight was with the Hulk/ Nul. And perception is a hell of thing I guess ! Where you saw Thor fall from exhaustion after defeating both the Hulk and Thing, I saw a desperate attempt to create space because Nul was absolutely having his way with him. And I'm glad to see a high post count is not automatic immunity from being dense. You honestly cant see how my scans are relative to the topic at hand ?

@theacidskull: Noted .......

Didn't hulk move a bunker door that the combined might of Thor and Thing couldn't even budge? Or was that non-canon? It was in Iron Man Vol 2 #6.

Yes but now your dealing with subjective elements, the comic and the story and the interactions between two characters. Your speculation, my speculation, every other readers speculation. Like clearly that issue definitely showed that Thor was superior and eventually definitely break Hulks neck with a sweet chin music to the face - thats what would have happened, and you can't prove me wrong... wait wait what basis do I have for my assertion? I probably have some, but those reasons would be speculation again. Subjective interpretation - something which leads to multiple assertions about what eventually would have happened and who was depicted to be more powerful.

Sure we are dealing with subjective elements but i think some interpretations are more credible than others. Besides something of the backstory of Thor 385 is known in that it was a story that Erik Larsen sold to Jim Shoter which was supposed to finally demonstrate that "Hulk was the stronger while Thor with Mjolnir was the more powerful". There were many hands in the kitchen with Shooter, Larsen and Lee all having a hand in on it and possibly adding their own spin but i think the story clearly pushes this message, and its no surprise perhaps that Larsen's Hulk Annual 2001 tries to ram the same idea down the readers throat.

@fifthchild said:

I dont agree with this. There are multiple sources where Thor discusses the challenges behind coming up with new characters such as Thor that have been interpreted as if he was posting on a Battleboard but when considered in context i think its pretty clear what he is saying and its not that he wanted to make a character stronger than Hulk but "couldnt figure out how to do it" and that led him to the God angle. Stan did create a character stronger than the Hulk - The Abomination. And he didnt have to make him a God to do it. Anyway we've done this dance a few times from memory so we probably wont change each others minds.

You are presumably assert here that people interpret Stan Lee as discussing such matters as if he was posting on a battle board? Correct me if I am wrong please. Is that to imply some bias as far as fans reading into a writers comments to paint their character more positively in a competitive situation such as the battle boards?

Yes thats what i'm saying more or less. Perhaps not so much as a result of bias but of the comments being used and interpreted in a completely ifferent context as to how they were originally intended.

I reject that premise if so, I hardly ever post in the battle boards, nor do I care about painting characters in a way that falsely reflects them to sate my own personal views anyway. So I am interpreting Stan Lee talking candidly about characters he created. Lets look for some sources eh?

I wasnt necessarily commenting on you personally.

"How do you make someone stronger than the strongest person? It finally came to me: Don't make him human — make him a god. I decided readers were already pretty familiar with the Greek and Roman gods. It might be fun to delve into the old Norse legends... Besides, I pictured Norse gods looking like Vikings of old, with the flowing beards, horned helmets, and battle clubs. ...Journey into Mystery needed a shot in the arm, so I picked Thor ... to headline the book"

Presumably the ellipses indicate its paraphrased which is okay, unless in one of the intermediary sentences Stan Lee adds in some contradictory account. He starts off with the premise of how do you make someone stronger than the strongest human? Rhetorical question, then he gives that an answer. You don't make another human character you make a god character. From what I can tell you seem to be suggesting after all the times Stan Lee phrases that rhetoric question (presumably you think it wasn't a rhetorical question?) that he couldn't figure out how to make a character stronger than Hulk but then goes off on some tangent as far as god characters? If so I don't think thats clear at all, in fact I think thats a large leap to make considering his phrasing especially as far as his phrasing as far as indicating he was asking a rhetorical question because he was retelling a moment where now with hindsight he already has his answer.

And this is the problem IMO - you are already interpreting it through the Battleboard prism. As if Hulk was the stronnest human and Stan literally couldnt make another character stronger than Hulk if he was a human. But why might that be a problem? Because Stan was obviously talking not about powerlevels but about uniqueness. If Stan just made a guy stronger than the Hulk than that would take away from the Hulk. All the superlatives, strongest, smartest etc were already taken.

Lets look at another account from Stan of the creation of Thor which makes all this very clear. From "Origins of Marvel Comics":

"Look at it this way: Suppose you had a newly created stable of superstars which consisted of a teenager who could burst into flame and fly through the air, a stretchable scientist with skin like Silly Putty, his ofttimes invisible lady love, and a multimuscled misfit with lumpy orange skin-to say nothing of a wall -crawling Wunderkind and a jolly green giant-what in the name of comicdom assembled would you do for an encore? Sure, we were always striving for variety, but now it was getting ridiculous."

He continues two paragraphs down:

"But what was left to invent? Who could be stronger than The Hulk? Who could be smarter than Mr Fantastic? We already had a kid who could fly, one who could walk on walls and ceilings, and a female who could fade away whenever danger threatened-or whenever the artist ran out of ink. As you can see, we were hooked on superlatives at that time, always trying to come up with characters who were bigger, better, stronger. However, we had painted ourselves into a corner. The only one who could top the heroes we already had would Super-God, but I didn't think the world was quite ready for that concept just yet. So, it was back to the ol' drawing board."

The Battleboard minded perspective might be to conclude that Stan was saying that he created Thor to be smarter than Mr Fantastic. I think even the most rabid Thor fan would admit this isnt the case.

The reason Thor was a God wasnt because it was a way to make someone stronger than the Hulk - when Stan actually wanted to do that he just created the Abomination - who was originally twice as srtong as the Hulk and very much not a God. Thor was a God because it made him unique. Stan could easily have made him the strongest if he had wanted but that was the Hulk's schtick. It didnt really solve the problem of creating a new character.

lets look at another source. Straight from the Stan himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEgIfpb5NHY

"One day Jack and I were talking and we wanted to do another hero, and Jack said well, we got the Hulk who is the strongest guy in the world, and we have Spider-man who climb walls blah blah and who can we get who is bigger, better, stronger, and it occurred to me that the only thing we can do perhaps is come up with a god, I thought it would be fun to make a god a hero. So I am not the worlds greatest authority on gods, but I brushed up a little on the Roman gods, and I said ah we have seen a lot of them, looked into the Greek gods, ah well everybody knows them, and then I stumbled on the Norse gods, and I realized they are not as well known, so I was reading about them, and I came across the mighty Thor"

and this is more of the same...

He carries on to talk about Thor's weather powers and his strength as one of if not the strongest Norse gods and having a weapon. So I am sorry, I am not seeing anywhere which supports your notion that clearly he "couldn't figure it out" and didn't want to create a character stronger than Hulk which leads to him going away and creating a god character.

You've misinterpreted me. I didnt say he couldnt solve the riddle of making a character stronger than the Hulk. I'm saying it was never his intention in the first place.

I don't usually like to use words like clearly or obviously when discussing characters in comics, usually the use of words are used by fans who are trying to lend superficial weight to their claims by tacking on words designed to convince others of their validity, I am sure you have probably seen your fair shares of "clearly if Thor and Superman stopped holding back they would definitely curb stomp and slaughter Hulk" heh heh something I disagree with, but here talking about a writer and the way people usually talk and language, I am okay in asserting that clearly Stan Lee is using rhetoric questioning to explain how he envisioned Thor a god as stronger than the strongest human in the Hulk. In some instances when Stan has been quoted about Thor's creation, he has joked that he couldn't create an Abrahamic Super God, before eventually considering the Roman, Greek and Norse gods, perhaps you read that as joke as Stan Lee not being able to figure out how he can incorporate such a character, forgetting the idea of making a character stronger than Hulk and also in a related but not direct way going of to explore Norse mythology for a new character unrelated to his statements about making a stronger character than Hulk?!?! Is that it maybe?

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. At any rate i hope i have made my psition clear in this post.

I am trying my best to try and see how your assertion can otherwise apply, but based on multiple sources where Stan Lee directly follows up his own question talking directly about Hulk as the strongest human/guy then talking about gods and eventually Thor, without actually mentioning how he couldn't conceive a stronger character or without actually mentioned how the two things were unrelated I just don't see it objectively or reasonably. Incidentally Stan's phrasing doesn't discount the possibility of an Abomination type character.

The interpretation that reads Stan as saying:

1) Hulk was the strongest human

2) He wanted to make someone stronger than the Hulk

3) the only way to do this was to make someone of non-human divine origin

certainly does contradict the creation of the Abomination as i see it.

This is why i think the main problem with that quote is people interpret it as if someone had said "Stan who's stronger - the Hulk or Thor" and Stan replies "Well let me tell you a little story about how we came up with Thor..." When it isnt being interpreted through this context then i think its pretty clear that Stan was actually talking about the desire to come up with a unique character given all the niches that had already been filled.

Stan does have a quote that i think clearly discusses the idea of powerlevels Thor's creation and thats when he said "I thought it would fun to invent someone as powerful as, or perhaps even more powerful than, the Incredible Hulk." but thats about as far as it goes.

Oh my mind is like a yoga practicing snake who won silver medal in the two consecutive Olympic Tournaments and then getting banned at the third for the use of illegal substances, its very flexible you could change my mind provided adequate reasoning or evidence heh heh its true though I am not trying to change your mind, but I do disagree with your interpretation, and my reasons are above. Always great talking to you all the same, take care.

Same. All the best.

@theacidskull: But wasn't that in Heroes Reborn? I know at that time the true Hulk was running around screaming "I want more". I never really thought that was cannon. I guess I'm just not sure if all feats by characters in that bubble universe should considered feats within cannon. Now Thor 385 which was by Stan Lee showed that Thor without Mjolnir is in no way or form close to Hulk class strength. I don't care about random comment's by Stan Lee, I do however care about his published work. He made it a point to show that the difference maker between these two power houses is Mjolnir. So logic dictates without the Hammer Thor is the weaker of the two. I can't believe anyone would ever think Thor is stronger than the Hulk.

thor is stronger

@fifthchild said:

Sure some interpretations are more credible than others, since there are limitless possibilities for interpretations, tis why I gave a quite absurd example as far as Thor possibly ending the battle with the signature move of a wrestler who wasn't really big until the 90's. The more credible interpretations, especially the ones that rely on assumptions or speculations will be, even if more credible relatively as assumptions and speculations (I assume that Thor and Hulk won't realize they are both pacifists who decide to go on and team up and kill all the other heroes who fight so much) won't really have that much exclusivity as far as what does happen, even if there are countless scenarios that will definitely not have happened. Generally the most credible interpretation will be the one that acknowledges and understands the various points in which multiple consequences could arise from multiple moments and actions, which generally as far as comics go is enough to make all sorts of fans with opposing views potentially content depending on how they read into such things.

Well I am not sure how a comic from a couple of years later involving multiple writers influences the inception of a character by a writer earlier, but I do know where your interpretation of the back story starts and where the writers and which writers input ends. Supposedly the person you quote is Erik Larsen? His quote would indicate he was talking in the in story? Finally demonstrate in what context? If Matt Fraction writes a story tomorrow which is to suppose to finally demonstrate that the Thing is stronger how does that bare relevance to the creative process of the characters creations? You give reasoning to why the story clearly pushes a certain message, based on Larsen's intent and view, and so are you suggesting that Stan Lee's involvement in the issue is a sign that he agrees with Larsen? Is that the conclusion you drew and the basis you use for clarity?

Since you haven't really established or defined what the Battleboard prism/attitude is other than somewhat confirming my guess as far as bias? I am not sure what you mean exactly when you bring it up as far as criteria, other than it appears to be a way you can undermine other peoples points in a less direct than saying your biased. If you want to call me biased thats fine, I am just not sure what your reasoning is at all yet. Furthermore, nothing I state or Stan says literally reads as Stan not being able to make another character stronger than Hulk and be human. That assumes rhetorical questions only have one answer which is basically a way to create a strawman argument. Its much more reasonable to assume that Thor process lead to Thor the answer and doesn't discount or rule out the creation of other characters or problems that would arise furthermore.

You use terms like clearly and obviously a lot? I dunno you don't see how someone familiar with skepticism, psychology might find that phrasing a bit too much? Maybe thats how you just communicate though, its just odd in the context that you must be aware that a person can speak of both ability and uniqueness correct? The two aren't mutually exclusive and so I am not sure why you would posit that I am only interpreting Stan talking about power levels here when he is talking about the creation of a character, there are more than one subject being discussed and more than two at that. Incidentally creative processes, should be a factor in arenas like Battles, and often are albeit I think in a crude form and so I am not even sure I buy the idea of a "Battleboard context" and the "other context" when both should fall under the context of reason, which is the context I am applying.

Plus yeah sure it would take away from the Hulk if Stan Lee made a stronger character, it would take away something from Thing and Namor as well, and Superman just like Hulk took a little something from those characters as well, as well as taking something away from Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde, but only to a degree and characters have come along and taken bits from both Thor and Hulk as well. Hulk's not dependent on his strength now or then, its not like every Thor and Hulk issue had Hulk exclaiming he is the strongest with Thor swooping down and exclaiming not stronger than I green one then beating him in an arm wrestling contest. Its not as if Stan "just made a guy stronger than Hulk either" since Thor was a lot more than just that and as history has shown not a character dependent on his strength either.

On to the quote. Well a reason-minded (reasonable?) person might conclude that Stan Lee did want a character that excelled both in strength, power, wisdom, intelligence and a number of things when creating Thor. You don't have to be any kind of fan, or like Thor or Marvel or Marvel comics to reason that 1960's Stan Lee view on intelligence isn't the same as say modern day Jonathan Hickman's, and naturally how they both write and see Reed Richard's in their respective eras and how they would both write Thor in their respective eras differ. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Thor was from a futuristic mythical Asgard. Reed Richards intelligence and smarts have likewise evolved with the times. It might be a little strange to have some fan today trying to claim and insist that Thor is more intelligent and scientifically literate and knowledgable than Reed Richards today in light of both characters histories and changes in characterization, depiction in stories and writer consensus, but not that odd to understand that a writer writing fictional characters who thought that viking gods had horned winged helmets and picked words like gamma because they sounded cool could envision a god character from a futuristic mythological technological super city would be smarter than one of the smartest if not smartest human minds at the time. The two things are very different you see, because conflating both or assuming that one has to be excessively biased to a character or beyond to distinguish the two things is a bit too simple. After that you basically rehash your earlier argument, which I can respect but also believe I thoroughly refuted. I even explained how Abomination doesn't contradict anything Stan Lee said.

Oh yes I see now, okay so how do you know his intention and how do account for where he directly makes a rhetorical question regarding Hulk's strength and then talks about Thor? Oh I know you answered above but what your saying seems to contrast with what he is saying, and yes I get that you are attempting to explain that when Stan Lee says what he says, that he is "clearly" talking about uniqueness as if uniqueness and strength were mutually exclusive and it has to be one or the other and therefore he must be talking about uniqueness because Hulk's shtick was being really strong, monstrous, transforming, getting stronger with anger being the strongest... hmm its a bit like the Reed Richards thing. Do you believe Stan Lee viewed Hulk being 'the strongest' as being the most valuable and vital part of the character? Or just an important aspect?

I'll offer my take.

1. Stan considered Hulk the strongest human at that point.

2. He questioned (rhetorically) about making a character stronger than the Hulk.

3. He talks about his creative solution to that question in a godly character.

4. He explores godly pantheons/characters and settles on Thor, a character who wasn't defined as human but a character that was godly.

It doesn't contradict the creation of Abomination unless one assumes that questions can only have one answer. If Stan Lee had said "the only way you can make a stronger character than Hulk is by making a god character, and nothing else or nothing more, and that is why I made Thor" then that would contradict what he said and even then Abomination is only stronger than Hulk in one sense, so even that statement has some room for argument even if I am not bothered to go into it - that an a creators ability to change their mind, learn, and reconsider another entire argument that can be applied in the thereafter - but since Stan Lee is quoted as saying perhaps you make a stronger character in a god - "and it occurred to me that the only thing we can do perhaps is come up with a god" perhaps, not definitely, I don't really have to apply any other arguments. So not only does he not directly say anything contradictory he even implies this is just the idea that they happened to run with.

So to me it seems more than your forcing odd hypotheticals when you add in "people interpret it as if someone had said "Stan who's stronger - the Hulk or Thor" to paint the idea that the only people who read Stan Lee saying he created Thor, a god as stronger than another really strong character he made are reading it in a "Battleboard context" when actually its quite easy to dismiss the fandom or character preferences to either or any character here and just take Stan Lee's words as him talking about the creation of a character and the process behind it. I mean its as if I were to say that - only Hulk fans who love Battleboards would try to undermine Stan Lee's creative process here clearly talking about Thor being stronger since it ruins the idea that the Hulk was always meant to be the strongest fictional character evar! Except I don't see it that way either.

Its also just as easy to conclude that Stan Lee is just innocently talking about characters strength (among other things naturally - I emphasis strength because thats what your point of contention is) and he originally entailed one character to be stronger than another without the loaded meanings that comes after years and years of rivalry and disagreement and opinion of fans, writers, editors. I mean sure anyone can take what someone says and then explain how they aren't actually saying what they are saying as other people think they are saying, but all the reasoning you have provided thus far is pretty easy to dismiss. You can label it bias, but I haven't seen it demonstrated, you can conflate how a writer saw the characters 40 years ago with how the characters are viewed today to try and undermine a related characteristic that is no longer the case, but even that doesn't bare relevance to the intent behind characters, another writers opinion and writing and Stan Lee participating? As if another writer interpreting the characters differently would cause Stan Lee to walk out and disassociate with the issue? The implied assumption of rhetorical questions only having one answer? All pretty good attempts, but they don't even really get past Occams Razor. Let alone the ambiguity you open up by trying to really know what Stan Lee really meant. 100 of us could claim to know what Stan Lee really meant, like really really meant.

Then I am not sure that your clear quote line is clearer than the video where he talks about the characters in more detail.

Cheers! Have a good one.

Sure some interpretations are more credible than others, since there are limitless possibilities for interpretations, tis why I gave a quite absurd example as far as Thor possibly ending the battle with the signature move of a wrestler who wasn't really big until the 90's. The more credible interpretations, especially the ones that rely on assumptions or speculations will be, even if more credible relatively as assumptions and speculations (I assume that Thor and Hulk won't realize they are both pacifists who decide to go on and team up and kill all the other heroes who fight so much) won't really have that much exclusivity as far as what does happen, even if there are countless scenarios that will definitely not have happened. Generally the most credible interpretation will be the one that acknowledges and understands the various points in which multiple consequences could arise from multiple moments and actions, which generally as far as comics go is enough to make all sorts of fans with opposing views potentially content depending on how they read into such things.

Well I am not sure how a comic from a couple of years later involving multiple writers influences the inception of a character by a writer earlier, but I do know where your interpretation of the back story starts and where the writers and which writers input ends. Supposedly the person you quote is Erik Larsen? His quote would indicate he was talking in the in story? Finally demonstrate in what context?

It wasnt a quote so much as a blog post i came across some years ago from someone who had dealings with Marvel at the time. I honestly cant recall if it was as an editor/creator at this stage. Anyway he was at some comics-related dinner/function and went to the bathroom only to come back and find Erik Larsen, quite rudely, sitting in his seat. Supposedly Larsen was telling anyone who would listen that he had an idea for a story that would finally show who was stronger Thor or the Hulk and it would show that Hulk was stronger but Thor was more powerful with Mjolnir. Anyway fast-forward a few months and the same guy ran into Jim Shooter who was raving about some story he had bought from this new guy that would resolve the Hulk/Thor strength ambiguity. IIRC Shooter may have been pushed out between this time and the time when the issue finally saw print.

I will try to find the source though i fear it may have been lost in the internet somewhere.

If Matt Fraction writes a story tomorrow which is to suppose to finally demonstrate that the Thing is stronger how does that bare relevance to the creative process of the characters creations? You give reasoning to why the story clearly pushes a certain message, based on Larsen's intent and view, and so are you suggesting that Stan Lee's involvement in the issue is a sign that he agrees with Larsen? Is that the conclusion you drew and the basis you use for clarity?

Thats more or less one of the things i think the story showed. Though i doubt Stan really cares much either way he at least didnt seem to disagree too much with the premise. Though from memory their may have been some art changes requested - i cant quite recall the details. This may be why Thor suddenly appears so beaten up in the final panel.

Since you haven't really established or defined what the Battleboard prism/attitude is other than somewhat confirming my guess as far as bias? I am not sure what you mean exactly when you bring it up as far as criteria, other than it appears to be a way you can undermine other peoples points in a less direct than saying your biased.

The "Battleboard prism" i am referring to is a way of thinking in which people jump the gun in terms of interpreting something, in this case creator comments, as being statements about powerlevels etc. Its more something i chalk up to a cognitive error known as the "framing effect" rather than bias towards one character in particular and no, its not a veiled way for me to call people fanboys.

If you want to call me biased thats fine, I am just not sure what your reasoning is at all yet. Furthermore, nothing I state or Stan says literally reads as Stan not being able to make another character stronger than Hulk and be human.

Thats the entire reasoning given for assuming that this quote proves Stan wanted Thor to be stronger than the Hulk. That at that time at least that the God option was the only way they could create such a character.

That assumes rhetorical questions only have one answer which is basically a way to create a strawman argument. Its much more reasonable to assume that Thor process lead to Thor the answer and doesn't discount or rule out the creation of other characters or problems that would arise furthermore.

It doesnt change the argument if there were other ways that Stan couldnt think of or didnt bring up. What i hope i have showed is that Stan wasnt actually trying to answer the question in the first place. The implicit question which is lost in the abbreviated form of the quote is "What can we come up with next?".

You use terms like clearly and obviously a lot? I dunno you don't see how someone familiar with skepticism, psychology might find that phrasing a bit too much?

Perhaps i do. I apologise if that comes off as a bit patronising. I'll try to scale it back as much as possible.

Maybe thats how you just communicate though, its just odd in the context that you must be aware that a person can speak of both ability and uniqueness correct? The two aren't mutually exclusive and so I am not sure why you would posit that I am only interpreting Stan talking about power levels here when he is talking about the creation of a character, there are more than one subject being discussed and more than two at that.

Again, just to keep things simple, this seems to be the chain of logic that people have previously used to argue Stan created Thor to be stronger than the Hulk:

1. Stan wanted to create someone stronger than the Hulk.
2. Stan felt Hulk was the strongest "human".
3. Stan couldnt figure out how to achieve his goal because "no human could be stronger than the Hulk".
4. The solution was to have a character who was not a "human". This character could then be stronger than the Hulk.

Here is what i think is actually being said

1. Stan wanted to create a fresh, new, exciting character
2. Stan had already launched characters as the strongest, the smartest etc and thus there didnt seem to be anywhere to go to come up with a character with an exciting new hook.
3. Stan felt that having a character that was literally "a God" provided the necessary "wow factor" to launch a major new character.

Basically i am saying that Point 1 in the original argument is a mistaken assumption and that the quotes should be interpreted in the context of Point 1 from my own list. I think that pretty clearly sums up the differences in our interpretations.

Incidentally creative processes, should be a factor in arenas like Battles, and often are albeit I think in a crude form and so I am not even sure I buy the idea of a "Battleboard context" and the "other context" when both should fall under the context of reason, which is the context I am applying.

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here but i suspect its mostly based on a misunderstanding over what i meant by "Battleboard context"

Plus yeah sure it would take away from the Hulk if Stan Lee made a stronger character, it would take away something from Thing and Namor as well, and Superman just like Hulk took a little something from those characters as well, as well as taking something away from Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde, but only to a degree and characters have come along and taken bits from both Thor and Hulk as well.

I dont think thats true. To be clear by "take something away from" i dont mean "draw inspiration from" as you seem to interpret me here - i mean "diminish another character" in some way.

Now i dont think the Hulk being the strongest takes something away from The Thing because The Thing was never that sort of character. He was a guy defined by his heart and his willingness to fight even when outmatched etc. In fact hes the very definition of "not the most powerful guy" around and is often viewed as a somewhat uniquely Marvel creation in that sense.

Hulk's not dependent on his strength now or then, its not like every Thor and Hulk issue had Hulk exclaiming he is the strongest with Thor swooping down and exclaiming not stronger than I green one then beating him in an arm wrestling contest. Its not as if Stan "just made a guy stronger than Hulk either" since Thor was a lot more than just that and as history has shown not a character dependent on his strength either.

Strength is a huge part of the Hulk's concept, his appeal and the role he plays in the MU. Its not everything about the character but i would have to strongly disagree with the idea that the Hulk would be the same concept if he was just another strongman amongst many. As someone on another board once said when a debate about "powerlevel vs character" came up, the Hulk would be a very different character if he was someone that the local Sheriff and a few good old boys could russle up if he got out of control.

On to the quote. Well a reason-minded (reasonable?) person might conclude that Stan Lee did want a character that excelled both in strength, power, wisdom, intelligence and a number of things when creating Thor. You don't have to be any kind of fan, or like Thor or Marvel or Marvel comics to reason that 1960's Stan Lee view on intelligence isn't the same as say modern day Jonathan Hickman's, and naturally how they both write and see Reed Richard's in their respective eras and how they would both write Thor in their respective eras differ. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Thor was from a futuristic mythical Asgard. Reed Richards intelligence and smarts have likewise evolved with the times. It might be a little strange to have some fan today trying to claim and insist that Thor is more intelligent and scientifically literate and knowledgable than Reed Richards today in light of both characters histories and changes in characterization, depiction in stories and writer consensus, but not that odd to understand that a writer writing fictional characters who thought that viking gods had horned winged helmets and picked words like gamma because they sounded cool could envision a god character from a futuristic mythological technological super city would be smarter than one of the smartest if not smartest human minds at the time. The two things are very different you see, because conflating both or assuming that one has to be excessively biased to a character or beyond to distinguish the two things is a bit too simple.

OK, and i hesitate to use words like obvious or self-evident, but i think 99% of people would not think of Thor as a particularly amazing intellect after reading a bunch of Lee/Kirby stories. Not an idiot? Sure. But a rival to the smartest mind on Earth? Hmmm. I think its a real stretch to argue that thats how Lee or Kirby wanted him to come across.

After that you basically rehash your earlier argument, which I can respect but also believe I thoroughly refuted. I even explained how Abomination doesn't contradict anything Stan Lee said.

Actually i dont think you did and i'm kind of curious to hear this argument. The Abomination is every bit as "human" as the Hulk. Are you saying that the Abomination was the result of a moment where Lee realized there was actually no dilemma in creating a "human" stronger than the Hulk and no special trick needed?

@fifthchild said:

You've misinterpreted me. I didnt say he couldnt solve the riddle of making a character stronger than the Hulk. I'm saying it was never his intention in the first place.

Oh yes I see now, okay so how do you know his intention and how do account for where he directly makes a rhetorical question regarding Hulk's strength and then talks about Thor?

I believe i know his intention by interpreting his words and actions - short of mind reading pretty much the only way we can divine much about someones intentions.

Oh I know you answered above but what your saying seems to contrast with what he is saying, and yes I get that you are attempting to explain that when Stan Lee says what he says, that he is "clearly" talking about uniqueness as if uniqueness and strength were mutually exclusive and it has to be one or the other and therefore he must be talking about uniqueness because Hulk's shtick was being really strong, monstrous, transforming, getting stronger with anger being the strongest... hmm its a bit like the Reed Richards thing. Do you believe Stan Lee viewed Hulk being 'the strongest' as being the most valuable and vital part of the character? Or just an important aspect?

From his words it seemed to be a pretty important part of the characters "hook" or one of his marketable characteristics. Perhaps not the most important part of his character but apparently it was right up there when discussing the characters place within the MU.

I'll offer my take.

1. Stan considered Hulk the strongest human at that point.

2. He questioned (rhetorically) about making a character stronger than the Hulk.

3. He talks about his creative solution to that question in a godly character.

4. He explores godly pantheons/characters and settles on Thor, a character who wasn't defined as human but a character that was godly.

That seems to be fundamentally identical to the interpretation i outlined above. At this stage i suppose i will just say that i think the other interpretation i have proposed seems to fit better.

It doesn't contradict the creation of Abomination unless one assumes that questions can only have one answer. If Stan Lee had said "the only way you can make a stronger character than Hulk is by making a god character, and nothing else or nothing more, and that is why I made Thor" then that would contradict what he said and even then Abomination is only stronger than Hulk in one sense, so even that statement has some room for argument even if I am not bothered to go into it - that an a creators ability to change their mind, learn, and reconsider another entire argument that can be applied in the thereafter

If the Abomination is another answer to the question then yes, this completely invalidates the whole "strongest human => God" dilemma. What can be stronger than the strongest human? Another human apparently. You could say Stan later changed his mind but essentially its not Stan coming up with another solution to the problem so much as realising there was no conflict there in the first place.

Which in my mind raises the more important consequence of the "Abomination objection" - the supposed dilemma is absurd. Its not like Stan or Jack had to obtain Plutonium or the blood fo a Vampire in order to come up with a stronger character than the Hulk. They just had to say "This guy is stronger than the Hulk". Which is exactly what they did in the case of The Abomination. Every indication is that the reason it was a dilemma in the creation of Thor was because they didnt want to make someone stronger than the Hulk. They wanted something new.

- but since Stan Lee is quoted as saying perhaps you make a stronger character in a god - "and it occurred to me that the only thing we can do perhaps is come up with a god" perhaps, not definitely, I don't really have to apply any other arguments. So not only does he not directly say anything contradictory he even implies this is just the idea that they happened to run with.

Sure. If you ignore the added context that i feel pretty strongly suggests that this is not what he is saying. Even in that quote you are now referncing Stan mentions Spider-man climbing on walls just before he concludes that the way to go was to make Thor a God. Can Thor walk on walls? Is the only way to come up with someone more powerful than Spider-Man to introduce a character who was also a God? That interpretation is a very bad fit for these expanded quotes.

So to me it seems more than your forcing odd hypotheticals when you add in "people interpret it as if someone had said "Stan who's stronger - the Hulk or Thor" to paint the idea that the only people who read Stan Lee saying he created Thor, a god as stronger than another really strong character he made are reading it in a "Battleboard context" when actually its quite easy to dismiss the fandom or character preferences to either or any character here and just take Stan Lee's words as him talking about the creation of a character and the process behind it. I mean its as if I were to say that - only Hulk fans who love Battleboards would try to undermine Stan Lee's creative process here clearly talking about Thor being stronger since it ruins the idea that the Hulk was always meant to be the strongest fictional character evar! Except I don't see it that way either.

Thats not really what i'm saying though as i've said a few times. Its less about bias towards a particular character and more about interpreting the quotes in a context in which they didnt originate.

Besides which, the "I am calling people biased" idea is just a distraction from the main point which is concerned with the most sensible interpretation of Stan's words given the information/context that we have now. I mean i can absolutely see why people draw the conclusion they have when the quote/s are presented to them in the context that they usually are. But with all the information at hand I think it seems extremely likely (i hesitate to say clear) that this isnt what Stan meant.

Its also just as easy to conclude that Stan Lee is just innocently talking about characters strength (among other things naturally - I emphasis strength because thats what your point of contention is) and he originally entailed one character to be stronger than another without the loaded meanings that comes after years and years of rivalry and disagreement and opinion of fans, writers, editors. I mean sure anyone can take what someone says and then explain how they aren't actually saying what they are saying as other people think they are saying, but all the reasoning you have provided thus far is pretty easy to dismiss.

With respect, i dont think you have done much to dismiss it, thusfar. You kind of made the argument that in a way Thor was perhaps more intelligent than Reed Richards and you restated your initial position and restated what Stan said. But i'm not getting the sense of why your interpretation is more likely to be accurate than the one i proposed.

You can label it bias, but I haven't seen it demonstrated, you can conflate how a writer saw the characters 40 years ago with how the characters are viewed today to try and undermine a related characteristic that is no longer the case, but even that doesn't bare relevance to the intent behind characters, another writers opinion and writing and Stan Lee participating? As if another writer interpreting the characters differently would cause Stan Lee to walk out and disassociate with the issue?

If he felt strongly about it he could have rewritten it, not been associated with it, whatever. As said I doubt he would feel strongly about it either way - i dont think Stan feels strongly about the characters he created except as a constant source of surprise that other people found such joy and fascination in them. Still, all these options were open to him and would hardly be a big deal i would imagine given he was essentially scripting someone elses story.

The implied assumption of rhetorical questions only having one answer? All pretty good attempts, but they don't even really get past Occams Razor. Let alone the ambiguity you open up by trying to really know what Stan Lee really meant. 100 of us could claim to know what Stan Lee really meant, like really really meant.

This seems ridiculous - how are you not presuming to know what Stan really meant when you argue that my interpretation is wrong and yours is right? I mean this is the whole point of contention.

Then I am not sure that your clear quote line is clearer than the video where he talks about the characters in more detail.

I suspect we wont agree on this in the end. Still I feel comfortable in letting anyone who has made it this far make up their own mind based on whats been put out there.

@fifthchild said:

Oh its okay I have already found it I think - Steven Grant piece published around 2001? He talks how Larsen had a pitch about Hulk being stronger than Thor then about Shooter buying it? It never said anything about showing how Hulk was always meant to have been stronger than Thor, sounds more like Larson's interpretation and I am already aware of many writers who believe Hulk is stronger and so isn't a point of contention to me, and the only relevant part here is the role Stan Lee plays - and whether being associated with the issue means agreeing with every creative premise of the issue. I don't think its logical to assume creators attached to issues agree with every creative decision and angle within the issue. Hence using this as evidence to Stan's quotes doesn't work.

Oh well why not just call them out on bias? I am aware of cognitive biases, I can see what you mean, the only problem I find is when you create a situation where everyone not agreeing with one, means all the others are guilty. Then sure at that time is a moment, which means the moment after Thor was envisioned additional alternatives could have been considered. So you didn't really show Stan Lee wasn't trying to answer the question, anyone who can watch that video, see's Stan Lee start talking about Thor, add a rhetorical question about strength and Hulk then talk about gods and Thor. A good way you demonstrate Stan Lee wasn't trying to answer the question, is you prove that the video where he continuously talks about these things was spliced together and or edited. I mean, really if we put our skeptic hats on we can say each time Hulk says he is the strongest "Hulk is the strongest" in third person is actually Hulk declaring his name, then is applying existential philosophy, then making a general statement about life being strong but never actually saying he is the strongest - thats what he is actually trying to say?!? I mean err maybe but...

Oh nah its cool, not patronizing it just feels a little used car saleman, no offense intended? I mean I probably have lots of weird idiosyncrasies too, and I sincerely just want people to post how they feel comfortable, but I like to think we are both reasonable people, so if something is clear and obvious we don't need to be made aware of that.

That first line of thinking is a bit dodgy yeah as far as yeah which is why I put. Oh and I will add a part that might help.

I'll offer my take.

1. Stan considered Hulk the strongest human at that point.

2. He questioned (rhetorically) about making a character stronger than the Hulk.

3. He talks about his creative solution to that question in a godly character. Stan Lee uses the word perhaps to you know emphasis that he wasn't committing legally to the creative idea that the absolutely only a godly character can be stronger than Hulk.

4. He explores godly pantheons/characters and settles on Thor, a character who wasn't defined as human but a character that was godly.

5. Now that Stan Lee has answered his own rhetorical challenge its open ball game on what ideas may come next, including the creation of more gods not intended to be stronger than Hulk and human characters like Abomination.

Okay does that help now? Since what I type here looks very different to what you say is the typical chain of logic.

I think if Stan Lee wanted to make a new exciting character he probably wouldn't have mentioned Hulk and strength and how do you make a character stronger than the strongest human. I mean hey, maybe I am just being a lil crazy here, just a little wild.

Nah I meant diminish too, but only in a relative sense, and it evens out because all characters give and take. For all we now if Hulk had never been invented there could be a trilogy of Jekyll and Hyde block buster movies, but no, chances with Hulk being a more popular now in the general mainstream there isn't really much demand for Jekyll and Hyde, Hulk is where people can see a dramatic transformation from human to monster man. The Thing is the FF 4 strongman, he use to be the heavy hitter, his strength even rapidly increased fast over a short period too around his original writing, and him being a strongman doesn't mean that he wasn't also the guy with the heart the terms are not mutually exclusively. Its over time with the introduction of characters like Colossus, Ms Marvel, She Hulk, that he had to rely more and more on being Blue Eyed Thing. Actually with so many strong guys even now with a lot of them also having a softer gentle side alongside a gruff exterior and toughness and having a lot of heart isn't so unique to him now either. Now he basically just has his publication age and history, which is nothing to sneer at.

Heh heh you didn't really answer the question. Is Hulk being the strongest the most vital part of the character? Or is strength just important to the character? What do you think is more important? Hulk's catchphrases of claiming to be the strongest or actually being the strongest? I mean I can say well Thor has to be the strongest, because the alternative is Thor being a cowboy from Australia who rides kangaroos since apparently if Thor isn't the strongest he has to be a cowboy from Australia who rides kangaroos and since obviously the idea of Thor being an Australian who rides Kangaroos is absurd (albeit cute) naturally it only makes sense that everyone should agree Thor is the strongest? I mean I am sorry but that is an odd point to make, or you know that other guy to make. Its odd because well I just made the same argument and you did just read what I wrote right? You can see how its flawed?

Given what I know of intelligence and strength then Lee/Kirby failed to get a lot of stuff across, thats okay, different eras, so rival? Sure, why not, I mean we are talking 40 years of character histories here, a few months ago Magneto sounded like a technologically inept caveman and still may be with some writers when 30 years ago he had inventions that Reed had trouble wrapping his head around. Reed Richard's didn't use to be the ultimate idiot savant, the idea of characters being as smart or smarter than him, (smarts being pretty broad) isn't that alien a concept as it might be for people today.

Your argument.

"The reason Thor was a God wasnt because it was a way to make someone stronger than the Hulk - when Stan actually wanted to do that he just created the Abomination - who was originally twice as srtong as the Hulk and very much not a God. Thor was a God because it made him unique. Stan could easily have made him the strongest if he had wanted but that was the Hulk's schtick. It didnt really solve the problem of creating a new character"

My arguments.

All the assertions here assume that questions only have one answer. Rhetorical question? What can I have for breakfast? Pancakes. So I eat pancakes. Wait wait but I can't have had pancakes, because I also had fruit juice after. Fruit juice is not pancakes, my first answer was not fruit juice but I did have fruit juice, this invalidates that I had pancakes.

I am saying that every moment after the creation of Thor allows the possibilities for many types of characters that can be gods and weaker than Hulk and humans and stronger than Hulk. Time is not a static thing with the past and present, again Stab Lee even used the word perhaps in the video. Stan Lee never had an absolute attitude that you are either applying or think I am applying. Its not some ultimate concession either.

Know I use pretty specifically, do you think knowledge is demonstrable? If its not demonstrable what do you call that? Oh and cool you sort of answer my other question, with Hulks strength not necessarily being his most important feature, cool, then we at least agree on that.

If you set up a situation where Stan Lee took on an absolute stance that only a godly character could be stronger then you have a point. Given that along other arguments that Stan Lee did not have an absolute stance here even using the word perhaps do you still think this argument? I don't need to say Stan changed his mind, that would imply that Stan Lee was originally of the mind that there was only ever one answer to this rhetorical question of his. Here is my problem with your arguments? Maybe this might save us typing.

You offer two opposing views, one seems to be the "Thor" angle" and then the other is the "Hulk" angle. In the Thor angle the argument is "Stan Lee clearly absolutely is saying that in order for a character to be stronger than Hulk they absolutely have to be a god and only a god definitely only a god and that god shall be Thor" and then that being quite absolute and by virtue of that among other things unreasonable you swoop in with the Hulk angle - which in contrast to that strawman actually by comparison looks reasonable - well Stan Lee appears to be contradicting himself there with that logic in the Thor argument, since he created Abomination which according to the Thor poster should be impossible - Abomination is human, he is created by Stan, he is stronger than the Hulk ergo Thor poster argument doesn't really make as much sense as me saying that he is speaking of some other context... forgive me if you feel this does not represent what you are doing, but to me it kind of seems like this is what you are doing.

I think I will end there - I briefly skimmed the rest of your post and feels above applies, so I will be more brief and just address...

I will post two things below, Stan's quote but one is different.

One day Jack and I were talking and we wanted to do another hero, and Jack said well, we got the Hulk who is the strongest guy in the world, and we have Spider-man who climb walls blah blah and who can we get who is bigger, better, stronger, and it occurred to me that the only thing we can do perhaps is come up with a god, I thought it would be fun to make a god a hero.

One day Jack and I were talking and we wanted to do another hero, and Jack said well, we got the Hulk who is the strongest guy in the world, and we have Spider-man who climb walls blah blah and who can we get who is bigger, better, stronger, and climbs walls really really good and it occurred to me that the only thing we can do perhaps is come up with a god, I thought it would be fun to make a god a hero.

So Thor uses his hammer to fly around but I am not sure that they were trying to have him wall crawl and if they did they would have mentioned it like in my modified post. I never made an argument that perhaps Thor was more intelligent, fictional characters, fictional histories, if Stan Lee intended a mythical god character from a futuristic techno mystical world to be wiser and smarter than a smart science guy, I can buy that. Things obviously deviated very differently from that plan, at least in a general sense, I still actually remember one issue - not sure if was under Stan Lee though - where out of a select group of Avengers are with Reed but only Thor is understanding all the science angles Reed is playing. So to clarify, I am not saying Thor is perhaps a bit more intelligent than Reed, I am saying I am not surprised that Stan Lee could have intended that Thor was as smart of not smarter given the characters as they once were. Maybe not as articulate, then again Beast tended to be a lot more articulate and verbose than Reed - basically quantifying intelligence especially as far as Stan Lee's intent a bit tricker. So using this as an example to show that a the comparison between Thor and Hulk is unreasonable is as unreasonable as the comparison between Thor and Reed isn't strong.

Oh maybe you misunderstand, I am not presuming to know what Stan Lee meant, I am presuming to accept what I think is most probable, based on what evidence I am in possession of, and its not really set in stone, and I am considering that a few scenarios and interpretations that may potentially be more accurate as far as the truth, sadly without the ability to directly ask Stan for clarification I may die never knowing what he really meant, alas I do feel pretty confident in my interpretation.

Oh okay I didn't miss out as much, let me know if I overlooked anything you felt was important, I do not think we will change each others mind, but my next reply I will try to make shorter, in fact what I might try and do is put your own arguments into my own words in a concise summary then wait to see if you think its a fair representation of your arguments. Oh and I hope I do not come across short and or moody, or too flippant, snarky or anything like the sort, I do appreciate your time and views even if I disagree and I can always look for more than typical conversation with you regarding these sort of topics, good day.

Oh and thank you for the Sentry and Siege link from the other thread, much appreciated - this may not be the original blog, but I am assuming it is the same person and blog as the one you mentioned? It was interesting read if so, thanks and hope it was the one you were looking for.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=13756

@sc: @fifthchild: One of the best debates I have ever read on the site, This was/is amazing!

@theacidskull: @pyrogram: I think of you two as rivals :P