Thor & Loki in 1950's Venus

[StrayLamb]

Just noticed that Thor and Loki, and possibly other Asgardians and Olympians, have had their appearances in Venus eliminated, with the characters being relegated to separate entities, eg Thor II, etc. I've searched the MCP threads to the best of my ability, and can find nothing relating to the elimination of these issues from Thor and Loki's, and possibly others, timelines. Since Thor's appearances in Venus are noted in the Thor Index sidebar, i was wondering if anyone can give me a brief idea of the reasoning for this.. Thanx.. Nick.

[vanhornluke]

Yeah, don't the handbooks confirm that the Thor and Loki in Venus are the same characters?

[Somebody]

Just noticed that Thor and Loki, and possibly other Asgardians and Olympians, have had their appearances in Venus eliminated, with the characters being relegated to separate entities, eg Thor II, etc. I've searched the MCP threads to the best of my ability, and can find nothing relating to the elimination of these issues from Thor and Loki's, and possibly others, timelines. Since Thor's appearances in Venus are noted in the Thor Index sidebar, i was wondering if anyone can give me a brief idea of the reasoning for this.. Thanx.. Nick.

Technically, they weren't eliminated, they were never there - I'm the one who analysed the Venus series for the MCP in the first place, and as I pointed out when I analysed it:

"Loki" is a generic devil figure, and is referred to as both "Lucifer" (by one of his own servants) and "Satan" (for a whole story, including by himself) in the course of the series – the one time he appears on-panel with "Thor", there's no hint of any relationship between the two. Might he be Hellstrom's dad? ..."Loki" is well,... he looks and acts like Mephisto, gets called "Lord Lucifer", "Satan" and described as "the King of the Lower Regions...banished forever to the Underworld...the Prince of Hades", and has Pluto's backstory (banished by Jupiter/Zeus to the Underworld thousands of years before). About the only one I'm sure he ISN'T is the Asgardian Loki we know.

and

*Thor's an Olympian who fights with a "club" (a spiked mace). ... "Thor" resides on Olympus, fights with a generic club or *thrown* thunderbolts (like Zeus) and only occasionally carries a hammer.

Once you actually read the stories, it becomes pretty damn hard to credit them being the Asgardians.

Yeah, don't the handbooks confirm that the Thor and Loki in Venus are the same characters?

I believe they used to say that, but more recent Handbooks/Guidebooks have removed any reference (including first appearances) from Thor/Loki entries. That generally means they've changed their minds on something (c.f. X-Men: First Class), and we've treated it as such.

[StrayLamb]

Thanks Somebody, i knew there would be a reason, just didn't know what it was..

[Nausiated]

I disagree with Somebody. I think these characters should be considered the Thor and Loki. I have a few reasons to rebut Somebody's assessment (with all due respect of course):

The Handbooks

Marvel actually hasn't removed reference to these Venus appearances in the handbooks. I believe Somebody is mistaken in saying that Marvel has removed away from referencing these Venus appearances. Those references are still there actually.

Thor and Loki last had profile updates in the Handbooks were in Avengers: Roll Call #1 in 2012 and that one still lists the Venus issues as their first appearances. The only difference is they list the Venus stories as their first appearance and their first appearances in Journey into Mystery as modern appearances. This is a similar thing they have done with Doctor Nemesis (to pick an unrelated example) listing his first appearance in Ace Magazine's Lightning Comics #1, but also lists Invaders Vol 2 #1 as his first modern appearance.

Then there are the last "full" profiles for the characters that were published in the A-Z hardcovers (Vol 6 & 12). Those do not mention the Venus stories, but the omission does not mean they don't happen as those handbooks are notorious for glossing over less significant events for narrative pacing/page restrictions. The editors had to balance completeness with page limits. There are a lot of things not mentioned in those handbooks for both Thor and Loki, not to mention countless other characters. More to the point, the Venus profile (also Vol 12) lists her encounters with Loki and Thor and the narrative is unambiguous as to who they actually were. Also, the Thor: Son of Asgard handbook (published in 2010) has a profile for the "Son of Satan" that appears in these Venus stories and it lists Loki Laufeyson as his father.

Conversely, when you compare this to the Marvel Boy's of the 40s (the two both named Martin Burns) when they were originally published, both characters made claims to having connections to Hercules. One believed he was the reincarnation of Hercules while the other was given his power by Hercules. The handbooks that have profiles about those two (Marvel Mystery Handbook and the A-Z Vol. 14 hardcover) state that this was not the Hercules, but an entity that called itself Hercule for unknown reasons. Since all of these handbooks were published roughly around the same time, I think that further supports that these were actually Thor and Loki who appeared in the Venus books because the handbooks have quashed inconsistencies or explained ambiguities. If they didn't want these stories to be considered part of Thor and Loki continuity, there would have been some sort of explanation in both the Venus and Son of Satan profiles.

How to explain the differences in appearance/motivations/mythology etc.

Marvel has a built-in way of explaining away discrepancies between the Timely/Atlas era stories that has been in place for years. The going rule is that those stories happened but "in universe" those aren't the real events, but stories adapted from the real events. This explains away a lot of the discrepancies, conflicting continuity, as well as some of the intolerant or racist depictions of these past eras. This idea was first presented in Blaze of Glory which puts forward that all the western stories prior to publication were actually "Dime Store Novels" based on real events. During Marvel's 70th Anniversary Marvel went the same direction for their wartime comics. Young Allies 70th Anniversary Special and Captain America: Forever Allies uses that contrivance to keep the Young Allies stories of old are part of continuity but also work around the problematic issues raised by Whitewash Jones. Those series explained that the US Army commissioned Timely Comics to produce comic books for propaganda purposes featuring enlisted superhumans in order to sell the war to Americans. By that logic, all the Timely hero comics of the 40s are those "commissioned comic books" as opposed to what "really happened". This theme was visited again in Marvel Boy: The Uranian, when Robert Grayson ended up selling his stories to Atlas Comics and in that story, Martin Goodman (I think?) said he'd make alterations to Marvel Boy's accounts in order to better sell the stories to his reading audience.

In Universe References

The closest thing to an in-universe reference to these is Marvel: The Lost Generation #5 which features both Thor and Venus. The two characters interact with each other with a fair deal of familiarity. John Byrne was well known to bridge the gap between the golden and silver age (Lost Generation is another example) So their inclusion in a story set in the early 60s and where they act as though they have known each other for years is probably a nod to those old Venus stories (Remember, this is a series that revived the Living Brain who only appeared in Red Raven Comics #1 before that, so Byrne wasn't a stranger to the obscure) They don't flat out reference the Venus stories, but I'm really struggling to think of a story that was published since where the two characters interacted prior to the "Modern Age".

My Take

These Venus stories were published in the 40s and 50s, so it's not impossible to include them in the "based on true events" situation that has been adopted to the other Timely/Atlas era stories. Especially when you consider that these "adaptations" have been cited as being different from "reality" because the writer and artist took creative liberties to be more appealing to the reading audience.

When you look at these Venus stories through that lens that these are "adaptations" of "real" Venus adventures the discrepancies (Thor having red hair and a beard/Loki stated as being the ruler of Hades) can be chalked up to artistic license and the creative team creating these stories not really knowing a lot about Norse and Greek mythology and the differences between the two -- which also stands as an explanation as to why those stories were originally written this was as well.

If you remove those components they don't irreversibly alter the stories. With the number of documented incidents showing the Asgardians and Olympians interacting with each other (over centuries of Marvel history) it doesn't take a lot of mental acrobatics and some speculation on how to make it work.

Like, for example, maybe instead of Hades, Loki was actually in Hel and the writer didn't know there was a distinction between the two.

Still, there might be some clarification coming... Marvel's new History of the Marvel Universe #2 is coming out and it looks like it is covering the American Frontier to the end of the 20th Century, so maybe that'll have some answers? I'd be surprised if they took page space to clarify that, but the last issue they used a panel tying Tuk the Caveboy to Inhuman history to explain how Inhuman DNA ended up in the human gene pool. So it's not outlandish.

[Col_Fury]

Marvel actually hasn't removed reference to these Venus appearances in the handbooks. I believe Somebody is mistaken in saying that Marvel has removed away from referencing these Venus appearances. Those references are still there actually.

The comic sections of the Cinematic Guidebooks (from 2015) dropped Venus as Thor & Loki's first appearance, and went with Lee/Kirby's Journey Into Mystery. I can't get into the reasons for the change, but having worked on those books, I can say it wasn't an oversight.

Yes, at one point Marvel considered these the same versions of the characters, but have since changed their mind.

[Somebody]

Well, Col_Fury's already addressed the point about Marvel's current official stance; and lots of the rest is opinions and "Maybe it could have happened this way..." (with which I respectfully disagree, but is hard to do a point-by-point rebuttal to, since it's coming down to personal preferences rather than hard facts, especially given Russ' high bar for changing things).

I will say that my post in this thread didn't come in isolation - I read through all of the pre-Agents of Atlas Venus appearances a few years back, including the full series, and this was in response to listings that I had proposed.

However...

In Universe References

The closest thing to an in-universe reference to these is Marvel: The Lost Generation #5 which features both Thor and Venus. The two characters interact with each other with a fair deal of familiarity. John Byrne was well known to bridge the gap between the golden and silver age (Lost Generation is another example) So their inclusion in a story set in the early 60s and where they act as though they have known each other for years is probably a nod to those old Venus stories (Remember, this is a series that revived the Living Brain who only appeared in Red Raven Comics #1 before that, so Byrne wasn't a stranger to the obscure) They don't flat out reference the Venus stories, but I'm really struggling to think of a story that was published since where the two characters interacted prior to the "Modern Age".

The thing about M:/LG 5 is that the Project regards that as the first published appearance of the siren Venus (i.e., the Agent of Atlas), not the Olympian Venus/Aphrodite (who gets pretty much all of the other pre-Agents of Atlas "Venus" appearances, including the Venus series). And yes, I argued for that too

[The characterisation and powers are both a lot more in line with Agents of Atlas Venus than the Olympian Venus/Aphrodite - I strongly suspect it influenced Jeff Parker's take on the character - but the main point is actually the Marvel Valentine Special story where the Venus series Venus has been off-Earth since "forty years ago" in the early 1950s - i.e., between the conclusion of her series and the mid-90s present of the story - during which time Whitney Hammond grew old. So she couldn't have been in an Earth-set story in the 60s.]

[dimadick]

Conversely, when you compare this to the Marvel Boy's of the 40s (the two both named Martin Burns) when they were originally published, both characters made claims to having connections to Hercules. One believed he was the reincarnation of Hercules while the other was given his power by Hercules. The handbooks that have profiles about those two (Marvel Mystery Handbook and the A-Z Vol. 14 hardcover) state that this was not the Hercules, but an entity that called itself Hercule for unknown reasons.

The Hercules from Daring Mystery Comics #6 was depicted on panel, as having blond hair. Also depicted was his associate Jupiter and their home, Valhalla. See here for images: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix7/marvel_boydm.htm

The Hercules from U.S.A. Comics #7 is just a shadowy figure who talks to Burns while standing outside Burns' bedroom window. See: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix7/marv ... m#hercules

Another blond Hercules appeared in Captain America Comics #38, as one of Captain America/Steven Rogers' past incarnations. See here: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Hercules ... Earth-616)

[Nausiated]

Just read History of the Marvel Universe #2 not a single mention of the above. However, it doesn't mention any of Venus' exploits either. It kind of glosses over the late 40s and 50s of Marvel history which is kind of disappointing, but I guess they needed to consider page count.

[Nausiated]

The Hercules from Daring Mystery Comics #6 was depicted on panel, as having blond hair. Also depicted was his associate Jupiter and their home, Valhalla. See here for images: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix7/marvel_boydm.htm

The Hercules from U.S.A. Comics #7 is just a shadowy figure who talks to Burns while standing outside Burns' bedroom window. See: http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix7/marv ... m#hercules

Another blond Hercules appeared in Captain America Comics #38, as one of Captain America/Steven Rogers' past incarnations. See here: https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Hercules ... Earth-616)

Yes, I am aware of these appearances, I've read the comics myself (Incidentally, I wrote the Fandom profile for "past life" Steve Rogers). Despite what is said in those stories, the Handbooks for both Marvel Boys clarify that it is not actually Hercules of Greek mythology but someone other entity using a similar name. As for the "past life" of Steve Rogers, I think that it can be chalked up to the fact that Doctor Natas' machine wasn't actually showing past lives, but some kind of vivid dreams. The validity of the "past life regressions" that Rogers experienced were likely a whole lot of bunk. I'd like to think that is the case since, in real life, past-life regressions are a whole lot of woo that is actually implanting of false memory by unethical hypnotists trying to make a buck by exploiting people gullable to buy into their claptrap.

[Nausiated]

The comic sections of the Cinematic Guidebooks (from 2015) dropped Venus as Thor & Loki's first appearance, and went with Lee/Kirby's Journey Into Mystery. I can't get into the reasons for the change, but having worked on those books, I can say it wasn't an oversight.

Yes, at one point Marvel considered these the same versions of the characters, but have since changed their mind.

You know I never would have thought to look in the Cinematic Universe handbooks because of my assumption that they only tackled the MCU. Since you have some insider knowledge to know that it wasn't an oversight makes sense to me.

Oh... Oh... Oh... I think I figured out what you mean here.

Spoiler:

You don't have to confirm or deny anything, but it sounds to me like this is for legal reasons. My guess would be Thor movies and comics now say "Based on a character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby", instead of Hy Rico and Don Rosen (and whoever the writer was) since that opens Marvel up to some legal challenges as to who "created" the Marvel version of Thor. Marvel had a long legal battle with the Kirby estate I'm sure they don't want to open another can of worms like that again.

Which would make all the silliness of the whole "that wasn't the Thor make sense.

[Col_Fury]

Yeah, the Cinematic Guidebooks had a "In The Comics" section for each of the characters, groups, items, etc. as a comparison for readers to see how the movie and TV show versions matched up. It was a fun series to work on!

Also, it's a theory!