So, I've been thinking, and I feel this might be a bit of a dupe thread, but I'm genuinely curious here.
See, during my time on the Vine, I've heard the term 'Planet Buster' being thrown around a lot; specifically, in the generalised version of "Character X is strong, I mean, He's a Planet Buster." or "Character Y can beat Character Z because Y is a Planet Buster."
Now, I don't know much about this sort of thing, but I find the term a little... flawed. Really, there are a variety of interpretations here, and simply throwing the title around, at least in my book, holds little weight. before things are assumed, no, I'm not complaining about anything, I'm still genuinely curious and don't really understand. If anything, the term confuses me.
See, I understand Planet-Buster in one of two ways: Either, the character has enough power to bust a planet (proven via the actual act of doing so, or utilising ABC logic), or has busted a planet in the past.
The thing is, there are a lot of ideas as to what either one means, and a lot of the time, ABC logic is used from these points to generate an assumption that could be wrong.
Here's the thought process I've had running through my mind recently regarding this (spoilers! It may be an old movie by now, but still, spoilers!):
In Crisis on Two Earths, Owlman designs and builds a bomb that can destroy the planet Earth. There's no instance where the Justice League and the Injustice Syndicate are fighting over significant resources, so it might be assumed that what was needed to make the bomb wasn't too difficult a task.
Technically, through his intelligence alone, Owlman can be considered a Planet-Buster, yes? And a repeat one too, since he could make more than one bomb.
He goes one better by finding Earth Prime, the one Earth from which all other, infinite Earths exist. By destroying that Earth, he can destroy all of existence, technically making him an Existence buster.
In the movie's finale, Batman stops him from doing that, by strapping him to the bomb and sending him, bomb in tow, to another Earth, one that's a frozen wasteland. Owlman could have stopped the Bomb, but he'd simply die of cold, so he doesn't. Since Batman both is and defeated Owlman, by ABC Logic, doesn't that make Batman an existence buster too?
And if it's not Owlman who's any of that, but the bomb, I'm not sure it means the bomb could beat a lesser being like Batman. The bomb is a planet-busting bomb, but it can't fight back, it can't think for itself and it requires an independent being to activate the one function for which it was designed.
It got me thinking that maybe the term could be applied in a different way? I mean, there are instances where folks have destroyed a planet, but it's not stated whether what they did was collateral damage, a huge show of force or the use of a thing that is designed to destroy a planet and nothing more. On top of that, the physical nature of the planet needs to be taken into account and whether the planet was destroyed or simply moved out the way or something.
Going back to the bomb thing, a planet itself isn't that impressive, all things considered, at least in my opinion; not too much more than destroying a boulder. After all, what is a planet other than an even bigger boulder (that is filled with lava or something else depending on where you go)? Other than Ego or Mogo, it won't directly fight back. It'll just sit happily in orbit regardless of what happens until it crumbles into dust. Speaking of Mogo, since John Stewart destroyed Mogo, wouldn't that be a little more impressive? I mean, I know Mogo didn't really fight back, but still.
What do you guys think? When the term Planet-buster is brought up, what comes to mind, and how do you apply Planet-busting when it's brought up?