This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

Above is the panel image of Hercules pulling Manhattan Island in "Marvel Team-Up" #28. This was not from an alternate reality or a "What if . . . ?" comic. This occurred in the mainstream Marvel (Earth-616) continuity. This happened.

I notice you keep editing the Hercules Overview page and adding claims that his feat of pulling Manhattan Island in "Marvel Team-Up" #28 isn't legitimate based on "Hulk" #241. The Problem with your edit is that Hercules is shown on panel performing the feat and has never been shown talking, bragging or boasting about it anywhere or anytime since. Additionally, Manhattan Island, once moved by the "city stealers", has never been said or shown to be returned to it's proper place any other way. Finally, and importantly, this feat hasn't been discredited by Marvel itself.

Your claim that "Hulk" #241 confirms Hercules didn't actually perform the feat is false.

In that comic Hercules is mentioned only once and in that instance it's a villainous member of "They-Who-Wield-Power" who speaks of Hercules being involved in one their plots and then stating Hercules later "boasted of his feat in more grandiose terms." Nowhere does this comic specifically state nor does it at all show that Hercules did not perform this feat as shown in "Marvel Team Up" #128. The villain's statement certainly doesn't prove Hercules didn't pull Manhattan Island and it certainly doesn't show Manhattan Island being returned to it's proper place by some other means. This comic does not discredit of disprove this feat of Hercules. Here is the only panel Hercules is mentioned in:

The above panel certainly isn't confirmation that Hercules didn't pull Manhattan Island, it merely mentions the part where Hercules absorbed the earthquake and describes his subsequent descriptions (though he's never been shown mentioning or describing any of these events) as grandiose boasts. This source you cite doesn't directly or indirectly do away with Hercules' Manhattan Island pulling feat.

That said, it seems clear that you are adamant about putting a negative twist on Hercules concerning this feat. I don't know why that would be. Do you dislike the character? Do you feel he gets treated better than another character you feel is more deserving of good treatment? Do you feel this feat is too ridiculous? Do you feel you have to live up to the "Loki" part of your username by creating mischief and discord regarding this character? Is there some other reason?

Whatever the reason you have for insisting this feat did not happen as shown, I think, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, you should refrain from constantly re-editing the Hercules overview page to reflect your own unproven account of the feat. If this is the kind of wiki writing and/or editing you usually do, then I wonder how much of your huge volume of wiki writing and editing her on the Vine is inaccurate or tainted by your personal bias.

#2 Posted by Blood1991 (8098 posts) - - Show Bio

Hercules is one mad mofo.

Sorry not sure what is going on here exactly, but if you ask me Herc pulling Manhattan seems legit and PowerHerc more than knows his sh!t.

#3 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@PowerHerc said:

Above is the panel image of Hercules pulling Manhattan Island in "Marvel Team-Up" #28. This was not from an alternate reality or a "What if . . . ?" comic. This occurred in the mainstream Marvel (Earth-616) continuity. This happened.

Except that it didn't. Yes, this is what was depicted, but even MTU #28 casts doubt on the veracity of what was shown, to whit

"That's exactly the way that merry Gerry (Conway) told it to us, friend! And quite frankly we're not sure if we believe it, either!"

The City-Stealers allegedly intended to destroy Manhattan's foundations and pull it out to sea, according to MTU #28. I have no problem with allowing for a superhero being potentially strong enough to pull Manhattan back into place, but even allowing for superpowers, that villainous plan is flawed - islands don't float.

The Problem with your edit is that Hercules is shown on panel performing the feat

You think that because it was shown on panel it must be an accurate depiction, and couldn't be one of Hercules' boasts? We know that isn't always the case - we've got the editorial comment above for a start confirming that what is in the issue is what "merry Gerry" said happened, not necessarily the "real" events. And we've seen evidence of Hercules making such dubious boasts at other times

only, in this case, it was immediately confirmed to be a boast on Herc's part. And this isn't the only time we've had comics depict one thing only for it subsequently to be confirmed by a later comic to have been inaccurately depicted - just look at the Thing's fight with Goody Two-Shoes, where one story showed a knock-down, drag out fight between the pair, only for the Thing to angrily storm the Marvel offices in a subsequent story because he took issue at this falsehood - the Thing took out Goody Two-Shoes with a single flick of one finger.

Your claim that "Hulk" #241 confirms Hercules didn't actually perform the feat is false.

In that comic Hercules is mentioned only once and in that instance it's a villainous member of "They-Who-Wield-Power" who speaks of Hercules being involved in one their plots and then stating Hercules later "boasted of his feat in more grandiose terms." Nowhere does this comic specifically state nor does it at all show that Hercules did not perform this feat as shown in "Marvel Team Up" #128. The villain's statement certainly doesn't prove Hercules didn't pull Manhattan Island and it certainly doesn't show Manhattan Island being returned to it's proper place by some other means. This comic does not discredit of disprove this feat of Hercules. Here is the only panel Hercules is mentioned in:

Here's the panel in question

Note that Tyrannus states "one of our pawns would have split New York asunder" - "would", not "did" - the City-Stealers failed to break apart Manhattan from its foundations because of Hercules. What part of Hercules' feats in MTU #28 do you think Tyrannus is referring to, if not the pulling of Manhattan? Why would he big up something less impressive, if he really had that feat to his credit? The Official Marvel Index to Marvel Team-Up #2 confirms this in the entry for MTU #28 - here's the exact quote:

"Comment: This story was embellished in the telling by Hercules. In actuality, as noted in HULK #241, Manhattan was not moved from its foundations but only shaken, and Hercules did not actually move it back but only helped keep it from being shaken apart."

So there is no question - that's an official Marvel source explicitly confirming beyond doubt that the panel above is referring to Hercules' apparently pulling Manhattan, and confirming that said feat is a boast on Hercules' part.

That said, it seems clear that you are adamant about putting a negative twist on Hercules concerning this feat. I don't know why that would be. Do you dislike the character? Do you feel he gets treated better than another character you feel is more deserving of good treatment? Do you feel this feat is too ridiculous? Do you feel you have to live up to the "Loki" part of your username by creating mischief and discord regarding this character? Is there some other reason?

I have no desire to put a negative twist on Hercules concerning this feat, just to see it reported accurately. I have no dislike of Hercules, and I'm not so infantile as to start feeling that one character is being "better treated" than another. The feat is ridiculous, but no more or less than many others comics have depicted over the years. I don't feel the need to live up to a randomly picked username.

Whatever the reason you have for insisting this feat did not happen as shown, I think, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, you should refrain from constantly re-editing the Hercules overview page to reflect your own unproven account of the feat. If this is the kind of wiki writing and/or editing you usually do, then I wonder how much of your huge volume of wiki writing and editing her on the Vine is inaccurate or tainted by your personal bias.

You'll note that I have not edited the mentions of Hercules toppling Godzilla or taking Atlas' place holding up the heavens - I have no problem with his feats being listed, including the truly impressive ones. I do take issue at using a panel which has been explicitly discredited as a falsehood as evidence of how strong he is. If that fake feat is mentioned or depicted, then, in the interests of accuracy, it needs to also be clearly noted as being a falsehood. Not doing so would be as misleading as showing the panel I used above where Hercules claimed to have uprooted Manhattan while fighting Thor out of context and without clarifying that a panel or two later it was revealed to be a lie.

If this is the kind of wiki writing and/or editing you usually do, then I wonder how much of your huge volume of wiki writing and editing her on the Vine is inaccurate or tainted by your personal bias.

Nice. Feel free to cast aspersions. I prefer to debate this based on the actual information from the comics.

#4 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard said:

@PowerHerc said:

Above is the panel image of Hercules pulling Manhattan Island in "Marvel Team-Up" #28. This was not from an alternate reality or a "What if . . . ?" comic. This occurred in the mainstream Marvel (Earth-616) continuity. This happened.

Except that it didn't. Yes, this is what was depicted, but even MTU #28 casts doubt on the veracity of what was shown, to whit

"That's exactly the way that merry Gerry (Conway) told it to us, friend! And quite frankly we're not sure if we believe it, either!"

The City-Stealers allegedly intended to destroy Manhattan's foundations and pull it out to sea, according to MTU #28. I have no problem with allowing for a superhero being potentially strong enough to pull Manhattan back into place, but even allowing for superpowers, that villainous plan is flawed - islands don't float.

Islands don't float, that true, but this isn't the first law of physics to be shattered in a comic book. The editor taking a poke a Gerry Conway doesn't disprove the feat. Sorry.

If Manhattan was never moved, then why is the Mayor of New York City complaining of broken bridges and tunnels in need of repair?

You think that because it was shown on panel it must be an accurate depiction, and couldn't be one of Hercules' boasts? We know that isn't always the case - we've got the editorial comment above for a start confirming that what is in the issue is what "merry Gerry" said happened, not necessarily the "real" events. And we've seen evidence of Hercules making such dubious boasts at other times

only, in this case, it was immediately confirmed to be a boast on Herc's part. And this isn't the only time we've had comics depict one thing only for it subsequently to be confirmed by a later comic to have been inaccurately depicted - just look at the Thing's fight with Goody Two-Shoes, where one story showed a knock-down, drag out fight between the pair, only for the Thing to angrily storm the Marvel offices in a subsequent story because he took issue at this falsehood - the Thing took out Goody Two-Shoes with a single flick of one finger.

Hercules did pull Manhattan on panel in the context of the story, not it the retelling of it. In fact he has never been shown talking about or retelling this adventure. Hercules tall tale from "Thor" #356 (published about 11 years later) was revealed to be something that didn't actually happen immediately during the story, but that has nothing to do with Herc pulling Manhattan. The two stories are unrelated.

You're trying to demonstrate that Hercules will, at times, embellish a story. I concede that he will. But nowhere has Hercules ever been shown admitting this feat wasn't real. Show me where Hercules is making a grandiose boast about pulling Manhattan. If Herc was telling a tall tale about pulling Manhattan it should have been shown that way. It wasn't shown then and it hasn't been shown that way since.

I get the point of your examples but providing these examples doesn't prove that any actual retcon of the event in question ever occurred, thus your examples are irrelevant.

Your claim that "Hulk" #241 confirms Hercules didn't actually perform the feat is false.

In that comic Hercules is mentioned only once and in that instance it's a villainous member of "They-Who-Wield-Power" who speaks of Hercules being involved in one their plots and then stating Hercules later "boasted of his feat in more grandiose terms." Nowhere does this comic specifically state nor does it at all show that Hercules did not perform this feat as shown in "Marvel Team Up" #128. The villain's statement certainly doesn't prove Hercules didn't pull Manhattan Island and it certainly doesn't show Manhattan Island being returned to it's proper place by some other means. This comic does not discredit of disprove this feat of Hercules. Here is the only panel Hercules is mentioned in:

Here's the panel in question

Note that Tyrannus states "one of our pawns would have split New York asunder" - "would", not "did" - the City-Stealers failed to break apart Manhattan from its foundations because of Hercules. What part of Hercules' feats in MTU #28 do you think Tyrannus is referring to, if not the pulling of Manhattan? Why would he big up something less impressive, if he really had that feat to his credit? The Official Marvel Index to Marvel Team-Up #2 confirms this in the entry for MTU #28 - here's the exact quote:

"Comment: This story was embellished in the telling by Hercules. In actuality, as noted in HULK #241, Manhattan was not moved from its foundations but only shaken, and Hercules did not actually move it back but only helped keep it from being shaken apart."

So there is no question - that's an official Marvel source explicitly confirming beyond doubt that the panel above is referring to Hercules' apparently pulling Manhattan, and confirming that said feat is a boast on Hercules' part.

This villain (he is not Tyrannus, btw, it's Prince Rey) is saying "would" instead of "did" is because he didn't consider the entirety of New York City to have been split asunder. This panel doesn't show or explain that the City-Stealers failed to break Manhattan free from it's foundation in any way. You're drawing conclusions not supported in or by the story. Why would this villain bring up something less impressive than the pulling of Manhattan? He did it because that was the part of the occurrence that was important to him. He and his cronies were feeding their flame through "violent geographical activity transmitted through the Earth's crust." They got that energy from the earthquake but they didn't get any energy for their flame when Hercules pulled Manhattan. That's why he mentioned the one less impressive feat but not the other more impressive one. That makes sense because he's a villain in the story not a comic fan reading it.

You're telling me that Marvel retconned this in an obscure index with one sentence, huh? That could be, but why then hasn't Hercules been depicted back-tracking on this feat? Why hasn't it been shown on panel in an actual story?

That said, it seems clear that you are adamant about putting a negative twist on Hercules concerning this feat. I don't know why that would be. Do you dislike the character? Do you feel he gets treated better than another character you feel is more deserving of good treatment? Do you feel this feat is too ridiculous? Do you feel you have to live up to the "Loki" part of your username by creating mischief and discord regarding this character? Is there some other reason?

I have no desire to put a negative twist on Hercules concerning this feat, just to see it reported accurately. I have no dislike of Hercules, and I'm not so infantile as to start feeling that one character is being "better treated" than another. The feat is ridiculous, but no more or less than many others comics have depicted over the years. I don't feel the need to live up to a randomly picked username.

Your wording has been something quite less than neutral when describing this event. You've changed it a bit once or twice but judging by your choice of words you seemed to be motivated by more than accuracy. The way you constantly check in on to edit and re-edit Hercules' page, it seems you have some sort of compulsion regarding the character.

Whatever the reason you have for insisting this feat did not happen as shown, I think, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, you should refrain from constantly re-editing the Hercules overview page to reflect your own unproven account of the feat. If this is the kind of wiki writing and/or editing you usually do, then I wonder how much of your huge volume of wiki writing and editing her on the Vine is inaccurate or tainted by your personal bias.

You'll note that I have not edited the mentions of Hercules toppling Godzilla or taking Atlas' place holding up the heavens - I have no problem with his feats being listed, including the truly impressive ones. I do take issue at using a panel which has been explicitly discredited as a falsehood as evidence of how strong he is. If that fake feat is mentioned or depicted, then, in the interests of accuracy, it needs to also be clearly noted as being a falsehood. Not doing so would be as misleading as showing the panel I used above where Hercules claimed to have uprooted Manhattan while fighting Thor out of context and without clarifying that a panel or two later it was revealed to be a lie.

I did notice that you deemed those feats to be worthy. Considering Godzilla is no longer a character licensed by Marvel, I guess we Hercules fans should be glad you did. Thank you for not taking it upon yourself to draw the conclusion that since Godzilla is no longer in the MU, he probably never was and therefore Hercules tossing him on his back didn't happen. In the interests of accuracy; thanks for that.

Herc pulling Manhattan wasn't a falsehood when it happened and it hasn't been determined to be a falsehood in any story since. The only leg you have to stand on is a sentence from an editor in an obscure index. Assuming that is the case, the feat needs to be retconned out of cannon in a better manner than that. Preferably on panel.

Oh, by the way, I notice you don't long stick to you previously claimed "no desire to put a negative twist on Hercules" when you choose the word "lie" over embellishment or tall tale which is how the writers and editors have described Hercules story in "Thor" 356. Lie. That's not negative, is it? Maybe you lied about not wanting to be negative where Hercules is concerned.

If this is the kind of wiki writing and/or editing you usually do, then I wonder how much of your huge volume of wiki writing and editing her on the Vine is inaccurate or tainted by your personal bias.

Nice. Feel free to cast aspersions. I prefer to debate this based on the actual information from the comics.

Aspersions, huh? If the shoe fits . . .

I debate this issue based only on the actual information found in the comics, not on biased conclusions drawn from a single panel in "Hulk" #241 or a totally unrelated story from "Thor" 356.

I guess our edit, re-edit, edit, re-edit thing will continue.

#5 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@PowerHerc said:

Islands don't float, that true, but this isn't the first law of physics to be shattered in a comic book. The editor taking a poke a Gerry Conway doesn't disprove the feat. Sorry.

If Manhattan was never moved, then why is the Mayor of New York City complaining of broken bridges and tunnels in need of repair?

The editorial comment is a straight out questioning of the veracity of the story, and makes it clear that events depicted were not necessarily what actually happened. On its own it wouldn't overrule what was shown, but in conjunction with the other evidence it becomes valid evidence. As for the Mayor's complaints, if other parts of the story are cast in doubt then his exact words might also be, but even without that, the City-Stealers causing earthquakes would still have done that kind of damage anyway. So what the Mayor says doesn't support your stance.

Hercules did pull Manhattan on panel in the context of the story, not it the retelling of it. In fact he has never been shown talking about or retelling this adventure. Hercules tall tale from "Thor" #356 (published about 11 years later) was revealed to be something that didn't actually happen immediately during the story, but that has nothing to do with Herc pulling Manhattan. The two stories are unrelated.

They are related in as much as it proves that Hercules does have a propensity for embellishing his feats, and that what a comic shows on panel might not be an accurate account of "real" events. And like I said, it isn't the only other time we've been shown one thing only to be subsequently told that the comic depicted false events. It goes towards proving that just because it is seen on panel does not mean it can be taken as gospel; later evidence can retcon things.

You're trying to demonstrate that Hercules will, at times, embellish a story. I concede that he will. But nowhere has Hercules ever been shown admitting this feat wasn't real. Show me where Hercules is making a grandiose boast about pulling Manhattan. If Herc was telling a tall tale about pulling Manhattan it should have been shown that way. It wasn't shown then and it hasn't been shown that way since.

Hercules doesn't tend to admit his boasts being fake. Even in the Thor issue, he didn't admit as much, he just gave way and modified his story when challenged over accuracy. Just as Jarvis and then Hercules' young audience challenged it in the Thor story, we have Prince Rey refuting it in Hulk. Villain he might be, but he has no reason to lie and downgrade Hercules' feat.

I get the point of your examples but providing these examples doesn't prove that any actual retcon of the event in question ever occurred, thus your examples are irrelevant.

I agree that the other examples don't prove a retcon for the Manhattan pulling incident - what they do however show is a propensity for embellishing things which supports the other, more explicit, evidence of lies being told in this instance.

This villain (he is not Tyrannus, btw, it's Prince Rey) is saying "would" instead of "did" is because he didn't consider the entirety of New York City to have been split asunder. This panel doesn't show or explain that the City-Stealers failed to break Manhattan free from it's foundation in any way. You're drawing conclusions not supported in or by the story. Why would this villain bring up something less impressive than the pulling of Manhattan? He did it because that was the part of the occurrence that was important to him. He and his cronies were feeding their flame through "violent geographical activity transmitted through the Earth's crust." They got that energy from the earthquake but they didn't get any energy for their flame when Hercules pulled Manhattan. That's why he mentioned the one less impressive feat but not the other more impressive one. That makes sense because he's a villain in the story not a comic fan reading it.

Yes, I got Rey and Tyrannus mixed up for a moment there. Doesn't change what was said. And you miss the whole point of the scene - the writer of the Hulk tale had no reason to specifically mention the details of the MTU story, as the chess board visual alone shows which past tales were being alluded to. Rey bringing up that one story and specifically saying that Hercules boasted events up is the Hulk story writer taking time out his own story to retcon the past story, just the same way John Byrne took time out in an issue of FF to retcon Dr. Doom's (then) recent interactions with Arcade and the X-Men. We're being explicitly told that Hercules has boasted about the events we saw to make himself look more impressive - but if the events we saw were 100% accurate, what need did Hercules have of embellishing any of it? It's hard to get much more impressive than pulling Manhattan single-handedly.

You're telling me that Marvel retconned this in an obscure index with one sentence, huh? That could be, but why then hasn't Hercules been depicted back-tracking on this feat? Why hasn't it been shown on panel in an actual story?

No, I'm telling you they hinted at it being not as depicted within the very same issue, made it explicit that Hercules bigged himself up in Hulk #241, and then reiterated things very, very clearly in the Index. It doesn't matter if you consider the Index obscure - it is a Marvel title, and it states categorically that Hercules never pulled Manhattan. There's no need for another story to show it on-panel - the vast majority of older stories rarely get referenced later, and retcons, once made, don't usually get revisited. The Hulk story retconned the MTU one; the Index just reconfirmed it.

Your wording has been something quite less than neutral when describing this event. You've changed it a bit once or twice but judging by your choice of words you seemed to be motivated by more than accuracy.

You've kept stating the feat as fact, and my amendments have been of the variety "however, this did not happen, and later stories have confirmed what was depicted to have been a boastful exaggeration by Hercules". That's factual, and neutral - it is part of Hercules character, arguably part of his charm, that he boasts about himself, and this was one of those instances, per Hulk #241 and the Index.

The way you constantly check in on to edit and re-edit Hercules' page, it seems you have some sort of compulsion regarding the character.

Again with the aspersions. I'd point out that I could easily say the exact same about you.

I did notice that you deemed those feats to be worthy. Considering Godzilla is no longer a character licensed by Marvel, I guess we Hercules fans should be glad you did. Thank you for not taking it upon yourself to draw the conclusion that since Godzilla is no longer in the MU, he probably never was and therefore Hercules tossing him on his back didn't happen. In the interests of accuracy; thanks for that.

It has nothing to do with whether I consider those events to be worthy or this one not worthy - it simply has to do with accuracy. There's nothing to suggest that those events were boasts on Hercules' part (bar, perhaps, that he does like to boast). And Godzilla is still part of the Marvel Universe; the fact that licensing issues prevents him being shown or namechecked again doesn't change that, any more than it wipes out all the other licensed characters who once regularly showed up.

Herc pulling Manhattan wasn't a falsehood when it happened and it hasn't been determined to be a falsehood in any story since. The only leg you have to stand on is a sentence from an editor in an obscure index. Assuming that is the case, the feat needs to be retconned out of cannon in a better manner than that. Preferably on panel.

Overlooking the fact that there is more than just the Index as evidence that this was a falsehood, including an on panel comment you choose to discount, the Index alone would be enough. It was written by people working for Marvel, edited by people working for Marvel and published by Marvel; you tag it as "obscure" because if you can't find a way to discount it then your case is utterly blown out the water, but it is no less or more obscure than most comics published by Marvel, and still remains a valid and official source.

Oh, by the way, I notice you don't long stick to you previously claimed "no desire to put a negative twist on Hercules" when you choose the word "lie" over embellishment or tall tale which is how the writers and editors have described Hercules story in "Thor" 356. Lie. That's not negative, is it? Maybe you lied about not wanting to be negative where Hercules is concerned.

And now an accusation that I am a liar. Pardon me for not wanting to repeatedly use the same words for describing Hercules bigging up himself. The panel in question depicted Hercules literally ripping the island of Manhattan up at one end and lifting the entire island by that point; a subsequent panel confirmed that no such event happened. So, yes, Hercules lied. When you claim to have done something something you never actually did, then you are lying. It wasn't intended by Hercules to be a malicious lie, but yes, it was a lie. Accurate statement, not a negative one.

Aspersions, huh? If the shoe fits . . .

I debate this issue based only on the actual information found in the comics, not on biased conclusions drawn from a single panel in "Hulk" #241 or a totally unrelated story from "Thor" 356.

I guess our edit, re-edit, edit, re-edit thing will continue.

I debate this based only on the actual information found in the comics - I haven't taken a poke at you based on your username, called you a liar, questioned your character (as in personality, not comic character) or suggested you have acted out of some sort of favouritism towards one character or dislike of another, all of which you have done to me. I'd argue that your claim of drawing biased conclusions from that panel in Hulk #241 could as easily be applied to your reading of it.

#6 Posted by Vance Astro (91118 posts) - - Show Bio

I've been trying to find the scan in the OP for like 5 years....Thanks Herc.

Moderator
#7 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard:

When something, like the Mayor of NYC wanting repairs made) doesn't support your view you disregard it out of hand.

You may have point with the Marvel Index but you put way to much stock in one single panel from Hulk 241.

You insist a non-related comic/story is proof of your point about embellishment in the issue at hand when there is no actual example of it ever happening in the issue at hand.

You profess to not care a bit about the character Hercules but you obsessively check on his page several times a day. Your words and actions don't match.

You profess not to be negative about Hercules but insist on calling him a liar. Words and other words not matching now.

I do check in on Hercules' overview quite regularly. Hercules is my favorite character. I don't and never have denied it. Still, I stick within the confines of what has been shown not what I'd like to have seen or think would happen next.

I haven't taken a poke at you about your username, either. My question to you was legitimate. When someone's words and actions don't match I call that lying, which makes the person guilty of it a liar. I'd argue that neither of us will agree with the other one's point of view, but that I'm not drawing conclusions; I'm going by what has been written and shown on panel, not what I think the writer intended.

#8 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

Super heroes pulling cities, continents or bigger (WW pulling a planet with her lasso) are the dumbest feats ever, and I mean dumb by comic book standards.

#9 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@PowerHerc said:

@lokiofmidgaard:

When something, like the Mayor of NYC wanting repairs made) doesn't support your view you disregard it out of hand.

You may have point with the Marvel Index but you put way to much stock in one single panel from Hulk 241.

You insist a non-related comic/story is proof of your point about embellishment in the issue at hand when there is no actual example of it ever happening in the issue at hand.

You profess to not care a bit about the character Hercules but you obsessively check on his page several times a day. Your words and actions don't match.

You profess not to be negative about Hercules but insist on calling him a liar. Words and other words not matching now.

I do check in on Hercules' overview quite regularly. Hercules is my favorite character. I don't and never have denied it. Still, I stick within the confines of what has been shown not what I'd like to have seen or think would happen next.

I haven't taken a poke at you about your username, either. My question to you was legitimate. When someone's words and actions don't match I call that lying, which makes the person guilty of it a liar. I'd argue that neither of us will agree with the other one's point of view, but that I'm not drawing conclusions; I'm going by what has been written and shown on panel, not what I think the writer intended.

I don't disregard the Mayor wanting repairs. I simply note that he'd still be wanting similar repairs if the City-Stealers had merely caused earthquakes. But I also acknowledged that the Mayor's comments may also not have happened as depicted, per the editorial note in MTU #28.

I'd argue that you are putting way too much stock in a single panel, while I am looking at that panel, plus the panel in Hulk #241, plus what the Index said about BOTH panels, plus the editorial note in MTU #28, plus other evidence that Hercules does embellish his feats on occasion. You've got one panel showing the feat, while the Thor story shows Hercules does boast about such things (and making a not dissimilar boast), the editorial note suggests that details of the Manhattan pulling story may be in doubt, the Hulk #241 panel states that Hercules definitely did boast about events in MTU #28, and the Index makes it absolutely explicit that the boast relates to the pulling of Manhattan.

You insist a non-related comic/story is proof of your point about embellishment in the issue at hand when there is no actual example of it ever happening in the issue at hand.

There doesn't need to be, not if a later story states it was embellished. But you are wrong anyway, as the editorial note in the "issue at hand" does call into question the accuracy of the whole story, and specifically, by mentioning the bridges and tunnels, the bit about Manhattan being moved.

You profess to not care a bit about the character Hercules but you obsessively check on his page several times a day. Your words and actions don't match.

I never said I didn't care about him - I said I didn't dislike him. As for checking his page, I didn't do so to begin with. I made my edits and moved on. A few weeks later I found that my edits had been undone, so I redid them, and, because they'd been undone, I rechecked the page a few days later. I started checking more regularly once it became clear that there was someone else repeatedly undoing the edits I made - not an obsession, simply a recognition that I'd need to persist with the edits until the other person either stopped undoing them or identified themselves so we could talk it out properly.

You profess not to be negative about Hercules but insist on calling him a liar. .... When someone's words and actions don't match I call that lying, which makes the person guilty of it a liar.

Which, by definition, makes Hercules a liar. Is he bad person? No. Does he generally lie? No. But does he embellish things and make false claims about his feats now and again? Yes. And, by definition, those are lies. You want to read negativity into my use of that word, but but I simply saw it as a factual statement.

#10 Edited by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@PowerHerc said:


Herc pulling Manhattan wasn't a falsehood when it happened and it hasn't been determined to be a falsehood in any story since. The only leg you have to stand on is a sentence from an editor in an obscure index. Assuming that is the case, the feat needs to be retconned out of cannon in a better manner than that. Preferably on panel.

Marvel No-Prize book, which specifically listed blunders and errors in past stories:

That "on panel" enough for you?

#11 Posted by RazzaTazz (9478 posts) - - Show Bio

 @PowerHerc@lokiofmidgaard
I think there is a bit of a problem here is context of trying to make this too accurate.  If we compare this to say Paul Bunyan pulling a river to being straight, then it is no less accurate than this for the reasons of things which would get wrecked on the way.  I see no problem including this in the wiki (if that is where this is going) as long as there is a caveat as to when and where this occurred and that there is some debate about it.  

Moderator
#12 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

The problem is that currently, and what Powerherc wants, is for the wiki to simply say that Hercules pulled Manhattan island, with the image as evidence of said feat. When I tried to change it to say otherwise, he removed it. I added a comment that other comics have since confirmed that this was a boast on Hercules' part. Powerherc removed it. He only wants the version that says "Hercules pulled Manhattan" without any clarifiers.

We've got an editorial comment in the issue in question casting doubt on the event, we've got a statement in another story (Hulk #241) that Hercules protected Manhattan by absorbing the shockwaves aimed at its foundations (which means it wouldn't have needed to be towed back as that panel depicted) and noting that Hercules embellished by boasting about the events in MTU #28, we've got the Marvel Index and the Marvel handbooks (I checked them after a previous post and they say the same) saying across multiple years and multiple entries quite explicitly that Hercules boasted about pulling Manhattan and that he never actually did so, and we've got the Marvel No-Prize Book in both 1982 and 2007 specifically citing that panel of Hercules pulling Manhattan as being in error, noting that it couldn't have happened for several reasons. So it is entirely fair to say that other titles have said that the feat in question did not happen, and that what we saw in the panel was a boast that Hercules made.

#13 Edited by BiteMe-Fanboy (7556 posts) - - Show Bio

lokiofmidgaard has a point, folks. And it seems, the proof to back it.

#14 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

More evidence, as if it was needed. Here's a quote from Roger Stern, the writer of Hulk #241, regarding what that panel with Prince Rey is about

"Yes, the reference in Incredible Hulk #241 is the explanation for what really happened in Marvel Team-Up #28.

Hercules never towed Manhattan back into place because it had never been torn loose from bedrock. He had, instead, saved the city -- with a little help from Spider-Man's scientific direction -- in the manner revealed in the Hulk story.

Of course, that wasn't dramatic enough for Herc who padded his resume with a wildly exaggerated explanation. (As I recall, there was even a disclaimer to that effect at the end of the Team-Up story.)

There were a lot of problems with that Team-Up story, of course, the main one being that islands don't float. And even if there had been some outlandish explanation given for how it could float -- and there wasn't -- a loose-floating Manhattan would be too wide to fit through the Verrazano Narrows. Also, in the course of the story, Hercules somehow supposedly turned the island around so that he put it back with the NYC Battery facing north towards the Bronx. Mildly amusing, maybe ... but mainly ludicrous.

The whole mess was recounted in the Marvel No-Prize Book.

If anyone believed that Marvel Team-Up #28 was the true story ... well ... both Geology and Geography (not to mention, Physics) says they're wrong."

http://comixfan.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1574898&postcount=112

#15 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz:

Your point about Paul Bunyan straightening rivers and such is a good one. Many comic characters have had parts of their pasts retconned away yet their wiki pages still contain information about the characters from before the retcons. DC and Marvel have both completely rebooted their respective universes yet it would be ridiculous to do away with every feat each character performed previous to said retcons. Each character's past history is still his/her past history and it should be listed.

lokiofmidgaard contends that the apparent stealth retcon (the feat was never invalidated on panel in the context of a actual story ) makes the feat invalid years after the fact based on editorial comments and one vague panel from a comic published four years later that does not provide proof that Hercules didn't perform the feat. I contend the feat should stand based on the fact that it was shown happening in the context of a mainstream Marvel Universe story and it has not been changed or invalidated on panel.

Your suggestion that the feat could be listed with caveat stating "some people doubt" or "there is some question" regarding the feat is a good one. I wouldn't have a problem with that if the caveat is fair and not negatively written. lokiofmidgaard did add what he refers to as a "clarifier" (several versions, in fact). Some of his so-called clarifiers were relatively neutral but most reflected negatively on Hercules by calling him a liar or stating he has exaggerated or boasted about this feat when Hercules has never been shown recalling the feat at any time. Not boastfully. Not exaggerating. Not at all.

lokiofmidgaard has posted editorials backing his side of this argument. If the those editors want us to believe the feat never happened then why hasn't the story been shown to have happened differently. Until there is an actual showing of the story happening differently or Hercules is shown on panel admitting he didn't perform the feat, I contend the feat stands; lazy post-editorial comments be damned.

I'm fine with a caveat, which allows for either belief or doubt on the part of the reader, regarding this feat. I don't want to argue with lokiofmidgaard anymore. I just want him to leave his personal negativity regarding this feat left out of the wiki.

@lokiofmidgaard:

Contending real-world physics make certain feats impossible when applied to comic universes is pointless because real-world physics would invalidate the majority of super-powers and feats in all of comics. Go ahead, apply real-world physics to comics, then you can have fun shooting down every power, device and feat above street-level heroes and villains.

Btw: The above text I wrote to RazzaTazz is for you, too.

#16 Posted by RazzaTazz (9478 posts) - - Show Bio

Put it in there however you like.  If you wish just quote the thing from the Marvel No Prize.   
 
Also moving this to E&T 

Moderator
#17 Edited by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz: @lokiofmidgaard:

I have edited the entry and used the word "dubious" (which means doubtful, questioning or suspect) to describe the feat in both the caption of the image and in the body of the wiki text itself.

I hope that caveat will suffice.

#18 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

“I have edited the entry and used the word "dubious" (which means doubtful, questioning or suspect) to describe the feat in both the caption of the image and in the body of the wiki text itself.

I hope that caveat will suffice.”

No, it won’t. You’ve put “Some find this dubious”. That’s an understatement if ever I saw one. Let’s just check who “some” are. Roger Stern, long-time Marvel writer. Mark Gruenwald, editor of the Marvel Index that stated the island-pulling didn’t happen, Marvel’s continuity expert and one-time editor in chief. Stan Lee, writer of the Marvel No-Prize Book. Marvel itself, which has stated now in multiple books that the incident didn’t happen and what was shown was a boast on Hercules’ part, even going so far as to include that specific panel in a book whose subtitle was “Mighty Marvel’s Most Massive Mistakes.” Yet you remained convinced that my attempt to get the page to reflect this is down to my “personal negativity” towards Hercules, a negativity that only exists in your mind. Or do you believe that Roger Stern, Mark Gruenwald, Stan Lee, etc, all also share this supposed “personal negativity”? You “contend the feat stands”; fine for you, but Marvel indisputably says otherwise. That you consider this a “stealth retcon” and that all of the evidence listed across multiple posts above and multiple titles published by Marvel is insufficient to convince you that this is Marvel’s official stance on the scene, is simply proof of your own admitted Hercules bias. The irony of this is that no one is attacking the character; the problems with the scene that led to it being retconned have nothing to do with whether or not Hercules is strong enough to have done the feat in question. He may very well be. It’s down to details such as the fact that Manhattan wouldn’t float if ripped from its bedrock. And we know Hercules boasts – we’ve seen it very firmly established in other stories.

“Many comic characters have had parts of their pasts retconned away yet their wiki pages still contain information about the characters from before the retcons. DC and Marvel have both completely rebooted their respective universes yet it would be ridiculous to do away with every feat each character performed previous to said retcons. Each character's past history is still his/her past history and it should be listed.”

Apart from the error in saying that Marvel has completely rebooted its universe, I agree with you. However, this scene is one such instance of something that has been retconned. “Some find it dubious” is not accurate; “Marvel has since retconned this to have not happened, with what was depicted in the issue now considered to be a boast on Hercules’ part” is entirely accurate.

“lokiofmidgaard has posted editorials backing his side of this argument. If the those editors want us to believe the feat never happened then why hasn't the story been shown to have happened differently.”

They’ve covered it in story, with the Incredible Hulk scene, and Roger Stern has confirmed that scene does indeed refer to the MTU panel in question; they’ve covered it in print in the Marvel No-Prize Book, Marvel Handbooks and Marvel Index. As far as they are concerned, they’ve done the retcon, they don’t need to keep revisiting it just to satisfy you.

“If the those editors want us to believe”

– there’s no “if” about it.

I propose that “some find this dubious” be changed to the factually accurate “Marvel has since retconned this to have not happened, with what was depicted in the issue now considered to be a boast on Hercules’ part”

#19 Posted by weaponx (1566 posts) - - Show Bio

Hercules pulled Manhattan. It is a credible feat.

#20 Posted by X35 (5981 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard: And Bucky was never dead!

#21 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@X35 said:

@lokiofmidgaard: And Bucky was never dead!

The thing is, what Powerherc wants is the equivalent of modifying Winter Soldier / Bucky's page to say

"Bucky died. Some people think he might have survived."

Bucky died. Later it was retconned to reveal he didn't die. The page in question rightly reflects this, as his death was a major plot point for the character (and Captain America), as is his survival and return. Hercules pulling Manhattan was a single panel in a single comic, not that important to Hercules in the grand scheme of his history. It doesn't need to be included on his page. But if it is included, then it is entirely appropriate to also note that the scene has been retconned to no longer have happened as originally depicted.

#22 Posted by X35 (5981 posts) - - Show Bio

In a case like this, the "retcon" didn't benefit or have any relevance to a story. It was just disgruntled Marvel staff being whiny about someone else's work. It was obviously intended to be and was part of canon until people took issue with it. Yeah, it doesn't have much point on Herc's page, besides bigging him up to pointless degrees, but if you take issue with nonsense like that being put on a page then head on over to any major female member of the X-Men's pages. They're full of crap like that.

#23 Posted by pikahyper (11490 posts) - - Show Bio

why is this still going?

Moderator Online
#24 Posted by X35 (5981 posts) - - Show Bio

And loads of nonsense happened in Marvel Team-Up anyway. Seems redundant to single out one specific moment.

#25 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@pikahyper said:

why is this still going?

Because no resolution has been reached. The current "solution" PowerHerc has gone for doesn't accurately report the situation. "Some people" don't "think it dubious" - Marvel has outright retconned it, and confirmed same multiple times. The panel and mention of same don't need to be on Herc's page, because they add very little of relevance to it, but if they are going to be included, then a proper note about the retcon needs to be included. Otherwise the page is misleading, and at this point knowingly and deliberately so.

#26 Posted by pikahyper (11490 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard: It was retconned out, describe what happened and that it is no longer in continuity, that "feat" doesn't need much space so show both sides in no more then one paragraph with a maximum of one image, once done put it to bed.

Moderator Online
#27 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@pikahyper said:

@lokiofmidgaard: It was retconned out, describe what happened and that it is no longer in continuity, that "feat" doesn't need much space so show both sides in no more then one paragraph with a maximum of one image, once done put it to bed.

Done. Based on your comments about no more than one paragraph, I've removed it from his list of strength feats in the text (otherwise the clarification about the retcon would need to be listed twice, once at each place that discusses / shows the feat). I've amended the text under the picture to say

Hercules pulling a floating Manhattan Island in Marvel Team-Up #28. Later titles have retconned this out of continuity, writing it off as Hercules' boast.

which I hope covers the facts fully but as briefly as possible.

#28 Posted by pikahyper (11490 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard: so you've only included it as an overly long caption to an image? it should be included at the end of the Superhuman Strength section and explained there, the image if kept should have a basic caption and be near the section added.

Moderator Online
#29 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@pikahyper said:

@lokiofmidgaard: so you've only included it as an overly long caption to an image? it should be included at the end of the Superhuman Strength section and explained there, the image if kept should have a basic caption and be near the section added.

Okay, I've amended it. Lenghty caption removed, replaced with a much shorter

Hercules towing Manhattan, from MTU #28

and image now placed at the end of the strength section alongside a new paragraph

In Marvel Team-Up #28 Hercules was seen to pull a floating Manhattan island, which weighs over 100,000 tons, after it was broken free from its bedrock. However, Marvel has since retconned this event not to have actually happened, writing it off as a boast on Hercules' part.

#30 Posted by pikahyper (11490 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard: much better, the subject is closed.

Moderator Online
#31 Posted by Billy Batson (57763 posts) - - Show Bio

BB

#32 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@pikahyper said:

@lokiofmidgaard: much better, the subject is closed.

You might think so, Powerherc disagrees. He's modified the page again, changing what I added to try and cast doubt on Marvel's stance, to whit adding

though Manhattan Island being restored to it's proper place has never been explained or shown to be accomplished differently nor has Hercules ever been shown boasting about it.

Aside from the bad grammar (it should be its, not it's), Manhattan being restored to its proper place has been explained, in as much as they've said it was never removed from its proper place (something the Incredible Hulk panel and Index quote both make clear), and they don't need to show it being accomplished differently. That they've not shown it to Powerherc's personal level of satisfaction does not mean they haven't retconned it.

#33 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard @RazzaTazz:

You just can't get over it, can you? Despite what RazzaTazz suggested, your revised explanation was one-sided (no surprise there) and therefor insufficient.

I have edited it to reflect both of our views.

#34 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@lokiofmidgaard said:

Because no resolution has been reached. The current "solution" PowerHerc has gone for doesn't accurately report the situation. "Some people" don't "think it dubious" - Marvel has outright retconned it, and confirmed same multiple times. The panel and mention of same don't need to be on Herc's page, because they add very little of relevance to it, but if they are going to be included, then a proper note about the retcon needs to be included. Otherwise the page is misleading, and at this point knowingly and deliberately so.

Marvel has not outright retconned it. If they had the feat would've been shown clearly happening differently on panel. It hasn't.

Marvel editorial made statements years later to apparently retcon it. That is far from outright. Get it straight.

#35 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

@PowerHerc said:

@lokiofmidgaard @RazzaTazz:

You just can't get over it, can you? Despite what RazzaTazz suggested, your revised explanation was one-sided (no surprise there) and therefor insufficient.

I have edited it to reflect both of our views.

It's not my view. It is Marvel's. That's the whole point. You are, by your own admission, a biased Hercules fan. I am not, despite your inability to grasp it, anti-Hercules.

Marvel has not outright retconned it. If they had the feat would've been shown clearly happening differently on panel. It hasn't.

Marvel editorial made statements years later to apparently retcon it. That is far from outright. Get it straight.

I have it straight; you don't. Marvel has outright retconned it. There's no "apparent" to it. The panel in the Hulk refers to the scene in question, as confirmed by the writer of said Hulk issue. Then, to make it more explicit, Marvel listed that MTU panel amongst their "biggest mistakes" in the No-Prize book, and very clearly and outrightly said in multiple Indexes and handbooks that this event never happened. There's no need for them to revisit it just to satisfy you. There's no need for them to provide an explanation for how Manhattan got back to its proper place, because they've said it never left it in the first place.

#36 Posted by RazzaTazz (9478 posts) - - Show Bio

This is so much easier at DC where hypertime exists and every panel is part of some reality.  If you guys can't find an amicable solution for this, I will write it myself.

Moderator
#37 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz:

I have tried but he found it insufficient.

lokiofmidgaard has re-edited it but I find what he has written too one-sided.

Maybe you should be the one to decide how this feat is written up, though I'm not sure that he would accept or respect what you decide.

#38 Posted by RazzaTazz (9478 posts) - - Show Bio
@PowerHerc: On the new site pages should be followable and lockable so if moderators see something like this going on we should be able to observe (and moderate) it.  
Moderator
#39 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@RazzaTazz: That sounds good to me.

#40 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (332 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes, I found "some find it dubious" to be insufficient, when "some" are Marvel, and specifically include Mark Gruenwald, Roger Stern and Stan Lee, and where "find it dubious" is "have stated clearly multiple times that it never happened." That's a clear retcon. As for finding what I wrote too one-sided, I simply stated the facts, but Powerherc wants it to include his personal requirements for accepting it, despite requirements such as "they need to explain how Manhattan got restored to its proper place" having already been covered.

And : I've not modified the page since this discussion started, except after discussing it with a moderator. I've only ever stated the evidence, and then made changes requested by a moderator, unlike Powerherc. I've wanted these changes moderated since the outset of this discussion, because it is clear Powerherc won't compromise. I agree that the event was depicted, and did "happen" (in as much as any story in a comic does), but I also recognise that Marvel has subsequently retconned this out of continuity. That's all I ever wanted to have the page reflect, but Powerherc originally wanted it to only include the original version, and now, after overwhelming evidence that there has been a retcon, he's still only willing to go with "but it's not been retconned to my satisfaction, so that retcon doesn't count." That flies in the face of Roger Stern's statement on the panel, which makes it clear that a retcon happened

"Yes, the reference in Incredible Hulk #241 is the explanation for what really happened in Marvel Team-Up #28.

Hercules never towed Manhattan back into place because it had never been torn loose from bedrock. He had, instead, saved the city -- with a little help from Spider-Man's scientific direction -- in the manner revealed in the Hulk story.

....

The whole mess was recounted in the Marvel No-Prize Book.

If anyone believed that Marvel Team-Up #28 was the true story ... well ... both Geology and Geography (not to mention, Physics) says they're wrong."

#41 Posted by RazzaTazz (9478 posts) - - Show Bio
@lokiofmidgaard: Right, well pika already weighed in on this.  When I get the chance I will write this up to the point where both sides will be happy.  
Moderator
#42 Posted by RazzaTazz (9478 posts) - - Show Bio

I edited the page this morning. I recommend that it stay like it is.

Moderator
#43 Edited by xxxddd (3572 posts) - - Show Bio

@powerherc: Sorry to burst your bubble, but that feat was retconned by a Marvel No-Prize book edited by Stan Lee himself.

#44 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio

@xxxddd said:

@powerherc: Sorry to burst your bubble, but that feat was retconned by a Marvel No-Prize book edited by Stan Lee himself.

Where have you been? This matter was settled a long time ago.

#46 Posted by xxxddd (3572 posts) - - Show Bio
#47 Posted by PowerHerc (81637 posts) - - Show Bio
#48 Edited by Renchamp (2286 posts) - - Show Bio

This whole discussion takes nerd to a completely new level. I am proud to say that I am a part of this community.

#49 Posted by westy206 (576 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm glad everyone is happy now. Lol just read ll of this. I do find it strange to retcon this when there are many other impossibilities within comics.

#50 Edited by Radie (34 posts) - - Show Bio

All I took from this was that Prince Rey of El Dorado was the inventor of HeroClix. The second image (bottom panel) is clearly proof.