• 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by Thor's hammmer (7184 posts) - - Show Bio
@sgtnickrage said:



                    @Thor's hammmer: True enough, you are obviously a big Thor fan and know your Thor history, but as a comic book reader you understand that the consistency of each characters story line especially one as old as Thor( The marvel Character not the actual Norse Myth) can be inconsistent at times. For example the Wolverine character when he first started was get his neck slit and he would not be fast enough to heal before he bled out. Thor use to fly by throwing his hammer and hanging to the inertia, that has certainly changed.  My only experience with the Sentry was reading the Dark Avengers and they raised the Sentry passed superman levels. The last Marvel-DC confrontation between those two, superman dominated over Thor. 

                   

               


 
I know characters can be largely inconsistent. witch explains things like Thor being Hurt my missles but then tanking world destroying bombs. Superman doesn't have anything to do with this. in terms of overall abilities I would agree that Sentry Surpassed Superman with his void Powers. Superman vs. Thor in  non canon crossover doesn't prove much because as you said it is an inconsistency. Thor has certaintly beaten far more powerful than Superman and DC isn't likely to let their flagship character lose.
#52 Posted by Thor's hammmer (7184 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:


                    @Lance Uppercut said:

@Thor's hammmer said:

@sgtnickrage said:


                    In a character to character comparison Sentry is far more powerful than Thor, as proven in the siege books. He practically took on Asgard by himself, ripping Areas in half. Now I understand that Thor is Marvels "big gun", and if their was a story line where it was Thor and Sentry, Thor would figure out a way to defeat this second rate character, but a power to power comparison, and each characters past achievement taken into account, you have to give it to Sentry. After reading the siege story I would think a better fight would be Galactus and Sentry.  (by the way I hate Sentry)

                   

               

@sgtnickrage said:


                    @SC: Sentry ripped Ares in half and destroyed Asgard.

                   

               
Thor has easily defeated Ares at 3X power while Thor was Holding Back faster than the sentry could defeat regular Ares. Thor one shotted Namor in the pouring Rain without the use of his hammer. Even after sentry pounded Namor into the Ground Namor was back up within one panel.Sentry almost burned up entering into earths sun whereas Thor has stood in the centre of the Sun without it even drying out his eyes. Herules who is Equal to Thor in strength was wooping the Sentry and Hercules doesn't have any of Thor's other powers.  Odin admittted that if Thor ever reached his full potential he would be more powerful than even Odin.  Thor has beaten far better than the Sentry even people who are Skyfather level. Thor on panel has defeated Galactus. Spider-man claims Sentry stalemated Galactus. Sentry Claims to have the power of a thousand or million exploding suns. Thor has actuallly demonstrated the power of 1000 suns and has Dealt with Galaxy destroying level energy before.Thor held back when fighting armies of regular asgardian warrors because he didn't want to murder his people and has already proven himself strong enough to destroy asgard itself.   Nothing the Sentry has done overshadows what Thor has done.

                   

               
1. Ares isn't that strong to begin with. Defeating him at 3x power would be like defeating Thing or Colossus. Sentry has easily restrained Ares, and if he wanted to kill him, he would. 2. Which is ridiculous, considering Namor has taken blows from people like Thor and Hercules and Blue Marvel for ages, but Thor can suddenly one-shot him? No. 3. Sentry was once again holding back against Hercules. This is the same story where Ares was going blow for blow with Typhon, and Hercules was struggling to hold Sentry back until Herc kneed him in the groin. Athena was blindsided by the bloody titan girl. Hell, they had Daken fighting Pluto of all people. 4. Galactus was vastly weakened when Thor drove him away from earth (with his most powerful attack, mind you.) Sentry has weakened dramatically since his encounter with Galactus, and we have no idea what level Galactus was even at.  5. Sentry got the exploding suns thing from a comic book. It's not an actual indicator of his power level. It's just something he liked, and took.  6. Yeah, so could Sentry. The average Asgardian? Not that strong. HAMMER soldiers were gunning them down. 

                   

               
 
1. What you say applies with relativity to any and all characters. Its a broad based argument. Thor can't restrain or kill Ares? He has killed objectively proven stronger and restrained objectively proven stronger. Easily is a relative term, with subjective interpretation. Actually demonstrating the relativity of ease is what helps ideally, otherwise the argument you present is guilty of the same flaws your argument addresses.   2. Its only ridiculous if someone holds the absurd notion that a person only has one power setting for their punch. Its like saying that because a boxer can regularly take punches from other boxers, its impossible, that some couldn't be knocked out with one, good, clean, unrestrained punch. Its easy and a great point to attack the creative decision behind this action, and instance/example, and to attack the consistency, but of course as far as the consistency, one would have to find other examples, where Thor had the same motivation and failed to not Namor out with one blow, AND, I mean, when the guy who created Blue Marvel, himself says that Thor is stronger than Blue Marvel, I am not sure raising the idea that because Namor has taken blows from him it makes it inconsistent unless one is going by Namor's word of mouth, which is flawed. Then to address attacking the creative decision, well if one says no here, what can say no to anything. Hell, now Namor is stronger than Sentry and Thor combined because their interactions with each other? No.   3. I agree.   4. A retcon introduced much later, and ambiguous so, so define vastly weakened? We know he had recently fed, that doesn't actually mean he still wasn't vastly weakened, but you know? If one is trying to compare the two characters, and as you say we have no idea what level Galactus was at, or even Sentry was at either, or whether Sentry stalemated him with help, or like how Reed did, or maybe even the possibility he was powered up unnaturally.   5. I agree.   6. Not sure what specific point you refer to lol, but it appears the person you were addressing, is aware that Sentry could and has did that, but was referring to how Thor could and has as well, since if that is the reason the person he addressed, holds his view, then pointing it out makes sense, its not an admission that Sentry could not. Especially if it seems he is purposefully comparing two things that he acknowledges has happened. 

                   

               

thank you for clearing that up while I wasn't around :P
#53 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Lance Uppercut said:
@SC:   1. Agreed  2. As I recall, it was Namor's narration. If Namor was making an observation how hard he's been hit by both characters, then wouldn't he have the necessary information to make that kind of a judgement call? It doesn't seem like he'd need some kind of scientific set up with pressure pads to measure the exact force in order to tell readers via his personal thoughts of who has been able to hit him the hardest. He wasn't trying to make himself look better, it was just an admittance on his part that Adam can indeed swing like a mofo.   4. Nate was quite clear the he was there in the Dark X-men run. Once again, he's not a character who's personality is to lie through his teeth. If he were untrustworthy or known for a blatant misrepresentation of events. But that's two characters that can confirm that the Sentry has faced Galactus. But once again, the exact context or factors of the fight are rather unknown until such a time as some other writer decides to elaborate on it. Thor's skirmish with Galactus however is far easier to draw a conclusion from. 
 
2. It depends if he was knocked out or not. lets say we had one of those Dragon Ball Z level punch testers they used for one tournament (yey for references) and Thor punched 10 times, and got a consistent score of 90. Blue Marvel did the same, and his score was 85. Thing did it as well and he scored a 70. Now if we could measure the force required to generally and consistently knock Namor out, and we could apply that in relative measure to the punch machine. Say it was decided that his durability score was going to be translated as being 80. Then Namor would probably be a pretty good judge and determining that Blue Marvel and Thor punch harder than Thing. Thing didn't knock him out, but Thor and Blue Marvel both did, and... from Namors perspective, it could easily be concluded that Blue Marvel and Thor might have the same strength level/force. Even if Namor had a score of 100 in durability 5 points is a bit hard to discern, but still, maybe he might notice? Depending how broad he is being, he could even assert that Thor, Blue Marvel, and Thing all hit as hard as each other... and he wouldn't be lying necessarily, especially if we introduce another character, like Aunt May. If he was being really general, he could lump in Thing with Blue Marvel and Thor. At the same time, this whole time, Thor has been objectively stronger than all. Now if he could look at the numbers and if he was one to care about the numbers? Well then he could apply a deeper perspective on the matter. So this is how he can always have more information, that can help provide, more accurate and objective evidence. Plus remember we can always bear in mind the writer, who will write characters with views that don't necessarily echo their own. Maybe Namor as well was comparing a time Thor punched him and didn't knock him out because he can't remember or even realized he was knocked out once. Maybe Blue Marvel knocked him out too, hence his statement and where I already cover earlier about how a knocked out guy isn't a good judge. (to strengthen that, if Namor's threshold was 9, then he could accurately (but not as accurately as possible) describe Thing as hitting as hard as both Blue Marvel and Thor.  
 
4. Define quite clear? Lies fit the context. If Nate had to lie for the greater good in his estimation, would he? What if Nate knew that Sentry was more good than bad and a white lie would have been a more simple way to deal with him? The truth or reality of the situation, could be what you say, or what I just said, so I am not sure its that clear at all. There is nothing to suggest its that clear at all. Yet much to suggest ambiguity. I mean, Paul Cornell right? If I really really wanted to know, I'd try and track him down on Formspring, but as a fan of his writing, he strikes me as more of a fan of ambiguity. Meaning he teased that scene rather than being objectively factual. You disagree? I say the burden of proof is on you, in my estimation. Since I am not claiming anything, rather offering as many likely scenarios which have not been disproved.  
 
If you or one wants to draw a conclusion sure, but one doesn't need to draw a conclusion with either example. Its okay that there are still unknown, elements about both, and even unlikely that its marvels express desire to not try and clarify such details, only few relatively care about (more Thor example here) (since Sentry's example, might be a potential mini series down the line) so I would assert although your conclusion has logic and support, as far as accuracy goes? Well 1. There are alternatives that have as much logic and support. 2. They could be more accurate as well. Hence, not strictly disagreeing with you. More supporting the poster you address has a similar validity with many of their statements and points. 
Moderator
#54 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Thor's hammmer:  lol, no problem. Lance is a smart guy, its nice to talk comics with him. (plus I found your post pretty cool in the sense you offered reasoning behind your opinions, which is great, more people should have fun and explain the though process behind the conclusions they draw) 
Moderator
#55 Posted by Lance Uppercut (23245 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: 2. Why would he conclude that the trio is in the same ballpark as each other? Obviously, that would be a blatant lie on his part. Especially since we as fans know that it's not the truth based on conclusive showings from all the characters involved. If that's the case, would the Watcher be lying when he told Adam he could have split the moon in half with a punch? Was Red Hulk being untruthful when he said that Thor nearly defeated him before Hulk intervened? Grievoux had the same information Namor did. Perhaps more. So why would he write something for Namor and then retract it completely, discrediting the point of the statement entirely.  
 
4. Not sure what I'm being asked to define. He cited specific examples of his exploits with the Sentry. Norman even called in to question his truthfulness and Nate dismissed it. Once again, Nate isn't a habitual liar, nor did he have a need to considering his wealth of other options. His honesty hasn't altered from writer to writer. Why would he start now? 
#56 Posted by Lance Uppercut (23245 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:
@Thor's hammmer:  lol, no problem. Lance is a smart guy, its nice to talk comics with him. (plus I found your post pretty cool in the sense you offered reasoning behind your opinions, which is great, more people should have fun and explain the though process behind the conclusions they draw) 
And refreshing 
#57 Edited by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Lance Uppercut said:

@SC: 2. Why would he conclude that the trio is in the same ballpark as each other? Obviously, that would be a blatant lie on his part. Especially since we as fans know that it's not the truth based on conclusive showings from all the characters involved. If that's the case, would the Watcher be lying when he told Adam he could have split the moon in half with a punch? Was Red Hulk being untruthful when he said that Thor nearly defeated him before Hulk intervened? Grievoux had the same information Namor did. Perhaps more. So why would he write something for Namor and then retract it completely, discrediting the point of the statement entirely.   4. Not sure what I'm being asked to define. He cited specific examples of his exploits with the Sentry. Norman even called in to question his truthfulness and Nate dismissed it. Once again, Nate isn't a habitual liar, nor did he have a need to considering his wealth of other options. His honesty hasn't altered from writer to writer. Why would he start now? 

 
1. Not would, he could. It wouldn't be a blatant lie if he wasn't trying to be specific, people generalize all the time, Namor generalizes all the time, and he (as many) applies hyperbole all the time. I could probably go find a comic right now, where Namor would say something far from being accurate. Now us fans, we are trying to be less generic and more specific than the character, and so potentially and hopefully, our observations would be a lot more accurate than Namor's.. which again, goes to point out the fact that he is a character and as such is not as reliable that a source compared to other sources or even just observations. If that's the case, then it is possible the Watcher could be lying, but its a different context and situation, and so objectively, should be treated as such. Is Watcher a character prone to generalization, and hyperbole as compared to Namor? If we conclude no, and then just from that one variable alone, we set up grounds for different results. Just like if we were to compare Uatu, to the The One Above All, a character designed to be far less flawed than Watcher. So this point of comparison, this applies to the Red Hulk as well. No Grievoux has far superior to Namor potentially. Grievoux is a Thor fan, a Hulk fan, a FF4 fan and an X-Men fan, as well as self confessed comic geek. He has read more stories with all characters concerned than Namor has. You do as well probably, same as me. We all have more info than Namor in the context I advocate. Your also assuming that he retracted something instead of say, possibly writing a flawed character as opposed to a perfect, objectively knowledgeable character. Your assuming potentially, that Namor has read all of Thor's stories, and feats and has the same knowledge available on what Thor was doing in Asgard 3000 years ago, even though Namor had not yet been born somehow? So if he doesn't retract anything, he doesn't discredit anything.  
 
4. Your taking his word for granted, presumably under the pretense that the character is not one to lie? I'm saying that's not good enough evidence because lying is contextual and circumstantial. You can't prove that Nate will always tell the truth, and more than that, its pretty unlikely. So if he has the potential to lie, its up to someone to demonstrate why and how he would lie, when he lies. So dealing with subjective stuff. His honesty has (not, Edit, meant to agree lol) changed from writer to writer potentially, but his circumstance does, and often. Would you suggest that Nate would demonstrate similar honesty to Dr Doom, or Red Skull, as he would to Jean, as he would to Cyclops, as he would to Threnody? etc? (that's just one variable, we can change multiple variables) 
Moderator
#58 Posted by Lance Uppercut (23245 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: I'll have to get to most of the Namor stuff later as I'm pressed for time (trying to find a showing of First Class). I can however, handle Nate. 
 
4. I don't really have to prove he'll always tell the truth though. Continuity, as well as consistency throughout character history has defined her personality well enough. Even in the context with Sentry, there was no reason for deception because Nate was all about revealing the truth. The entire arc involved him trying to reveal what Norman Osborn really was and that he was still being influenced by the Goblin. Sentry believed him, and Nate was one of the few people who still remembered that the Sentry even existed. Everyone has the potential to lie, but saying he lied in this circumstance based on no need to do so would seem contradictory to the entire character. While it's not in his character to be overtly trusting, it's also not in his character to feel threatened by honesty. He may withhold some things, but he doesn't lie about them. 
#59 Edited by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Lance Uppercut said:

@SC: I'll have to get to most of the Namor stuff later as I'm pressed for time (trying to find a showing of First Class). I can however, handle Nate.  4. I don't really have to prove he'll always tell the truth though. Continuity, as well as consistency throughout character history has defined her personality well enough. Even in the context with Sentry, there was no reason for deception because Nate was all about revealing the truth. The entire arc involved him trying to reveal what Norman Osborn really was and that he was still being influenced by the Goblin. Sentry believed him, and Nate was one of the few people who still remembered that the Sentry even existed. Everyone has the potential to lie, but saying he lied in this circumstance based on no need to do so would seem contradictory to the entire character. While it's not in his character to be overtly trusting, it's also not in his character to feel threatened by honesty. He may withhold some things, but he doesn't lie about them. 

 
4. I know you don't have to prove he'll always tell the truth, its just that you have no argument (by not wanting to prove then we look at your first statement and compare it to your last, even though the two are of course, aren't the same, and by leaving room for Nate to not be always truthful, we lead to the possibility he may intentionally be false when to his discretion). Continuity and consistency is subjective, and so (her?) his personality is subjective. Then you set up a false dilemma and argument of ignorance again. What do you mean there was no reason for deception? There is an infinite variation of reasons why their could be deception, before we even add the element of subjectivity. Then its not that I am saying he lied in this circumstance, I am applying that your arguments in demonstrating that he did not, are fallacious. Especially the part about the needing to do so, which to you, is presented as a false dichotomy (there was no need to, therefore he did) and argument from ignorance (I could not envision a need for him to, based on my subjective interpretation of the character, therefore there must not be one)  Maybe he doesn't but he could. You can't envision and it doesn't have to be above situation, but you can't envision a scenario where he would lie?  
 
Oh have fun at the movie man! Oh and no probs, I need to head off as well and probably won't be able to reply for a few days. Take care! 
Moderator
#60 Posted by Lance Uppercut (23245 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: How do I have no argument? The characters entire existence and personality traits throughout back and substantiate my argument. If there's a reason for him to be untruthful to Sentry, you haven't really provided it. It's hard not to take his word when you can't really cite examples as to why he'd want to fool Robert through trickery. And I never said there was room for him to not always be truthful. Withholding information and intentionally lying are two different scenarios entirely. As it stands, my argument does indeed have more ground. It's not ignorance, it's taking what's on the page and utilizing the facts presented. I can provide scans if you'd like, but it's unlikely to help. I can't envision a scenario where he'd lie because there would be no facts of basis to support such a scenario. It's just completely unlikely. 
#61 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Lance Uppercut said:
@SC: How do I have no argument? The characters entire existence and personality traits throughout back and substantiate my argument. If there's a reason for him to be untruthful to Sentry, you haven't really provided it. It's hard not to take his word when you can't really cite examples as to why he'd want to fool Robert through trickery. And I never said there was room for him to not always be truthful. Withholding information and intentionally lying are two different scenarios entirely. As it stands, my argument does indeed have more ground. It's not ignorance, it's taking what's on the page and utilizing the facts presented. I can provide scans if you'd like, but it's unlikely to help. I can't envision a scenario where he'd lie because there would be no facts of basis to support such a scenario. It's just completely unlikely. 
 
You have no proof or evidence that's objective, and you seem to agree, because if you had something substantially objective I would have hoped you would have produced it by now, and you state that you don't need to prove he was telling the truth ~ before turning your reasoning to subjective interpretation, and so we are left with your subjective interpretation, which is fine, but not an argument, but more of an opinion, which is why objective proof or evidence would be ideal, because then it would elevate and distinguish your opinion, from any other opinion, any other people could have on the matter.  
 
I don't need proof or evidence since you are the one making a claim so the burden of evidence or proof is not on me, what I am doing is dismissing your claim as anything substantial. As an example of oversimplification, and you keep mixing up or misunderstanding the argument as well, which makes things that extra bit complicated, Nate and 'Robert' aren't nor weren't in a vacuum, and so why would you presume that Nate would want to fool Sentry, when he may have just wanted to confuse or passively persuade Sentry to leave, or it might have just been what he considered the best way to deal with him at the time, but again, it basically comes down to an argument from ignorance. Let me put it this way? If I was to repeat your own argument back at you, I could say, because my subjective understanding of the character, its hard to agree with you, because you can't cite any reasons as to why he wouldn't want to fool Robert though tricky. Then no matter what evidence you provide, I can fall back on the fact that your interpreting the subjective elements of the character "wrong" because its cheap and easy to have an opinion. Except then my argument would be an argument of ignorance since its fostered by my understanding that because I think of a reason why he couldn't or wouldn't, he must not have.  
 
Both deal with deception, and both aren't different scenarios both are different definitions, with different applications, some of which can cross over but not necessarily. Of course if your addressing my part about maybe he doesn't, but he could, I am not addressing the withholding of information, I am addressing the reason, and opportunity to lie, which goes back to one of my earlier points, about lying being circumstantial, and contextual rather than absolute, as you almost seem to indicate. So (as it stands?!?!) your opinion has grounds, because you can present them, but your argument doesn't have any exclusive grounds, because its the same argument that can be applied countless times, with other opinions that vary from your own. Its ignorance because your under the assumption that your interpretation is fact. Especially as relating to the more subjective material. Hell, I don't want to look for it, but some guy asked Tom Brevoort about this on Formspring and he replied that Nate may have not been accurate or truthful. I mean, I doubt he probably read that mini, but as far as being the guy that was editor of all of Sentry's other issues/stories, its not something he holds in concrete either. No facts have been presented by you. Providing scans will not help, because my argument is centered on your critical thinking ability and not your source material, which I already have access to myself. 
 
Then... lol what? You do not need facts or basis to support a theory lol what? For real? Its a hypothetical situation. Here, I'll make it easier for you. Dormammu walks up to Nate and tells him he is hungry and that he is feeling extra trusting today, and he tells Nate, that he is thinking about eating the entire planet, because it sounds tasty. All the other heroes are dead and Nate is almost convinced the he couldn't hurt Big D no matter what. Dormammu tells Nate though, that he only wants to eat the planet, if its tasty though, but he won't if its not, because you know? Summer coming up. He wants to look good for the ladies! Now for some reason in another reality, Galactus told Nate after eating the Earth, that it was tasty. Really tasty. So Nate knows, and believes that the Earth is tasty. Dormammu asks him the question, and then waits for the reply. Thats a scenario. It doesn't have to be a true or likely scenario, since we are just examining your stance on how absolute this idea of Nate not lying is. Dormammu tells him that no answer with count as a yes, the Earth is tasty, so does Nate just shrug and say its not? Feel free to envision your own scenario, there are unlimited amounts of them. Logically you can come up with as many where he should lie as he shouldn't, now the feasibility will always differ to some extent naturally and the beauty within is figuring out which is the most likely situation, where he would lie, presenting it, and then discussing whether others agree or disagree (but that would still ultimately be something that people including writers would disagree on, over, and about.)
 
You missed out on the movie? 
Moderator
#62 Posted by Lance Uppercut (23245 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: I mean, if it turns out that I've made the mistake of assuming you've read comics involving Nate enough to know his general personality, then please, forgive me. You seem to contradict yourself when asking for subjective proof, but subjective proof in the only form that can be provided (scans of events) are apparently meaningless because they're open to different contextual interpretations... or something like that. Sorry, I really just skimmed this. But in short, you're calling my ability to interpret the material correctly in to question in a rather verbose manner. Once again, you can come up with as many scenarios as you'd like to envision a possibility in which he may lie, but it doesn't really matter, because in the reality of comics, in that situation, there's no reason for him to do so. It's not really a form of ignorance, it just seems like a way to continue an argument on your part. If you want to call in to question Nate's trustworthiness as a grounds for why the entire scenario should be dismissed rather then taking it for what it is, then it isn't my responsibility to make that argument. I presented evidence as to Nate being there, you called in in to question, but more on the grounds of semantics and context without providing any real grounds as to why it should be thrown out. Doesn't make much sense to go on if we're just going to make up one equally unlikely scenario as the next when it's far more plausible that the character is in fact telling the truth. Using the editor as an example is also a poor route, considering these days, editors rarely edit much of anything or actually end up doing their jobs and correcting story line inaccuracies in general.  
 
Decided not to go, actually. The only theater it's still playing in is one I despise. May as well ask me to sign over my firstborn for a ticket. The bastards. 
#63 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Lance Uppercut said:
@SC: I mean, if it turns out that I've made the mistake of assuming you've read comics involving Nate enough to know his general personality, then please, forgive me. You seem to contradict yourself when asking for subjective proof, but subjective proof in the only form that can be provided (scans of events) are apparently meaningless because they're open to different contextual interpretations... or something like that. Sorry, I really just skimmed this. But in short, you're calling my ability to interpret the material correctly in to question in a rather verbose manner. Once again, you can come up with as many scenarios as you'd like to envision a possibility in which he may lie, but it doesn't really matter, because in the reality of comics, in that situation, there's no reason for him to do so. It's not really a form of ignorance, it just seems like a way to continue an argument on your part. If you want to call in to question Nate's trustworthiness as a grounds for why the entire scenario should be dismissed rather then taking it for what it is, then it isn't my responsibility to make that argument. I presented evidence as to Nate being there, you called in in to question, but more on the grounds of semantics and context without providing any real grounds as to why it should be thrown out. Doesn't make much sense to go on if we're just going to make up one equally unlikely scenario as the next when it's far more plausible that the character is in fact telling the truth. Using the editor as an example is also a poor route, considering these days, editors rarely edit much of anything or actually end up doing their jobs and correcting story line inaccuracies in general.   Decided not to go, actually. The only theater it's still playing in is one I despise. May as well ask me to sign over my firstborn for a ticket. The bastards. 
 
I have read everything Nate has been in its okay. Personalities of characters are rarely objective, for pretty obvious reasons.  
 
I don't contradict myself, you just might not understand, or you may misunderstand. I am not asking for subjective proof, I am asking for objective proof. Scans can be subjective or objective, it depends on how they are used, and the point being made. So your wording suggests you just don't understand what I am saying. Hence why I have to essentially be so longwinded in explanation, out of courtesy and good will. Pick an example of somewhere you though i could have been more concise and I'll be more than happy to run down exactly why I said, what I said. 
 
Actually I am not calling in your ability to interpret the material correctly, no, not at all, I am calling into your ability to realize that your interpretation, is only a fact to you, but not an absolute truth that is applied and projected onto others. I call into question your logic. Your ability for critical thought and reasoning. Do you see me, claiming that my interpretation of the material is correct? I feel it is of course, yet, I am fully aware of the idea that I am probably applying subjectivity in the parts of the story that aren't black and white. I can presume sure, just like everyone else inevitably will, (and this is usually where peoples preferences are born) but as soon as things stop being black and white, the room for varying interpretation opens right up. 
 
Its not me coming up with scenarios, its me pointing out that your interpretation is a scenario. For you to dismiss any alternative scenarios without actually proving them false, you actually dismiss your own interpretation objectively. The only reason you aren't actually dismissing it with your own words, and why I seem to have to point it out, is because to you, you think its the truth and reality. Which again, is an argument from ignorance. If you think your right... then you are? Somehow... magically? 
 
Then you continue to misunderstand, I am not calling into question Nate's trustworthiness. So if you can't understand that part and construct the idea that I am, your setting up a strawman argument. Sure, it can make sense to go one, with looking at unlikely scenarios, because according to the statements you have made, Nate would never lie, even if it mean innocent people got ripped to shred by killer monkeys. Supposedly he could never lie. Yes, but the editors actually get to decide what is law, as opposed to what is ambiguous. You constantly appeal to a false authority with many of your claims. Apparently I am the one "dismissing" a scenario, when I am the one, who is not actually making a declaration of dismissing ALL scenarios aside from the one I believe is fact (that's you by the way) so you know, its interesting to note that the actual authority behind many issues, isn't one for false dilemma scenarios and as to be predicted rather a fan, of readers having varied interpretations. 
Moderator
#64 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio

Too bad about the movie. Still hope you get a chance to see it, I think you'll like Magneto and Xavier's performance. 

Moderator
#65 Posted by Lance Uppercut (23245 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: -shrugs- I'm not magically right because I want to be. I'm right because the source material supports my argument. But whatever. 
 
Maybe I'll see it on DVD. 
#66 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio
@Lance Uppercut said:
@SC: -shrugs- I'm not magically right because I want to be. I'm right because the source material supports my argument. But whatever.  Maybe I'll see it on DVD. 
 
It supports multiple arguments, so you right potentially, but so are dozens of other people potentially too. I mean, hypothetically if Paul Cornell descended from the rafters (lol Sting reference) and he said that actually, you interpreted his writing wrong? Then what? Of corse he could descend and say that you were right? In which case I would say, you have your objective evidence now. Except its also possible that Paul Cornell, would neither deny, nor confirm whether your right or not (or whether a dozen people with entirely different takes are right or not... and if there is anything I am actually asserting as an affirmative here? Its that? This was the answer to a poster asking a question in regards to his Dark X-Men mini (it was non related to what we are discussing) Paul Cornell - "it may or may not be there anymore. Draw your own conclusions" so that is what I would offer as objective proof of my assertion.  
 
 
DVD is good too. I mean, its not a movie that relies too much on action of SPFX. Strong character work, it won't lose out too much waiting for DVD. 

Moderator
#67 Posted by Lance Uppercut (23245 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: A friend of mine has a rather large plasma, so he'll likely end up picking it up on blu-ray and I'll watch it there. I can't watch films anymore unless I can see every pore on Kevin Bacon's face. 
#68 Edited by azza04 (1503 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC: @Lance Uppercut: I objectively applaud that your discussion didn't turn into a s**t slinging match, but I subjectively wish it had done. =P

PS: X-Men First Class is awesome!!

#69 Edited by Postacrat (496 posts) - - Show Bio

Sentry,I don't know why people have been over exaggerating Thor as of late it's getting a bit old. Thor has done some powerful things but at the same time has gotten his butt handed to him by people who have no business beating or even giving him a hard time. People Compare him to superman when he has done nothing consistently that put's him on Superman's level. The Sentry was Wrecking Thor in Siege period it was not even an evenly matched battle. Thor Holding back or the use of his all mighty hammer are just ways to over exaggerate him further, Stop it Thor is not that great, ask Hulk someone who constantly smacks him around...

#70 Posted by jeanroygrant (20191 posts) - - Show Bio

Thor

#71 Posted by TDK_1997 (14900 posts) - - Show Bio

Sentry is stronger but writers write in such way that Thor killed Sentry and looked way more stronger

Online
#72 Posted by BurningDoom1 (187 posts) - - Show Bio

Batman...joking.

I'd say Sentry has more raw power at his disposal. But as we all know, he's not working with a full set up there. So even though I feel he has more raw power, I also think that Thor would win in an actual battle due to his experience and the fact that he's not nuts.

#73 Posted by jeanroygrant (20191 posts) - - Show Bio

@Thor's hammmer said:

Thor seems Physically more powerful and has feats far more impressive than Those the Sentry has but this is mainly cause of how long he's had his own series. Thor also has the potential to become more powerful since he has npot mastered his own mystical powers unlik eother Gods like Odin or Loki. from what i've seen of both Characters it would go Thor at full potential>>>>>>>>>>>>>VoidSentry>>>regular Thor>>>>>>Regular Sentry.
#74 Edited by Epicbeast3000 (956 posts) - - Show Bio

Normal Sentry is weaker than Thor. Void Sentry is stronger. Berserker Thor is still weaker than Void Setry. Odin Force Thor stomps any kind of Sentry. King Thor mega-stomps any kind of Sentry. Rune King Thor blinks Void out of existence.

#75 Edited by GoldenGuardian (18 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that sentry is no match for an odinforce powered Thor, but regular sentry is definitely stronger than regular Thor, otherwise we should assume that Thor let sentry/void destroy asgard, kill ares and loki without showing his full potential, that would be pretty nasty :)

By the way, i think that the enraged void shown in siege is not stronger than regular sentry, they are just different aspects of bob's personality. A stable sentry stalemated the collective, who had the combined power of millions of mutants.

Thor riding an helicarrier curbstomps :P

#76 Posted by Noone301994 (5064 posts) - - Show Bio

Sentry has more destructive power IMO

Online
#77 Posted by Dayvid3 (807 posts) - - Show Bio

Sentry

#78 Posted by Thurdazz1313 (49 posts) - - Show Bio

. Thor is overall more powerful Beyond The physical aspects ,Thor is a better fighter, Hercules, Wonder man ,Namor, & the Hulk have out fought him Sentry, Sentry had to exert all of his powers reverting himself the hulk to normal form, Thor has never hit the Hulk w/any of his major attacks Dimensional rifts, God Blasts, Unfettered might, or divine lightning because He has stated he has never wished to kill the hulk( Thor is the protector of Midgard), Now siege was a joke the Asgardians should have massacred the villain & Hammer forces, even assisted by Loki & amped by Norn stones. Thor has Defeated Ares in Olympus & Hades in his home realm Ares is stronger than on earth,(from class 50 to class 75)then Hades tripled that strength(far greater than The Thing or colossus) The real closest feat to Thor was Sentry dispersed Absorbing Man (he reformed later)still very impressive! Thor has one shot Namor (read the complaints),But he also did it to Abomination, pimp slapped Titania, Wonder man, & a Near Hulk level Mr.Hyde & Thor Killed Blockbuster (Thing Level) w/ a single reactionary strike ( while at half strength), Thor Killed an amped up Thing(fear itself) w/one shot & Knocked the amped up Hulk/Null into orbit

Now! The Thor Sentry fight should have been an entire book w/ Thor taking it to Mars or another Dimension so they both could really cut loose, & How come every time I see that DC marvel cross over Pic Sups vs Hulk They never show the next shot where the Hulk Buckles Superman he starts blocking & Talks the Hulk down(not cannon anyway) Sentry's greatest advantage is his supposedly unlimited psionic powers , But he lacks experience w/them. Thor w/ Mjolnir can access, emit & control any & all form of Storms, energy,& magic, He has also drained powerhouses of their powers/abilities like vs. Kang, Thanos, Magnito , Hyperion multiplied it 10 even 100 fold channeled it back. Sentry of course is a Superman style character & has the weakness vs.magic , Sentry in my opinion was brought in to fill the gap after THOR & Avengers Disassembled, Once Thor returned two blond powerhouse was redundant . In the Uncanny Avengers the rematch is on & it seems Sentry's getting some respect (no Void BS) this should be Titanic showdown. I hope

#79 Edited by TheAcidSkull (18032 posts) - - Show Bio

wow... the amount of people dissing on Pak and saying that he only wanted to update hulks feats is disturbing.

then again, the posts are like 2 years old so you know.

but still..kinda agitates me. oh well, opinions.

Online
#80 Posted by Dabee (2394 posts) - - Show Bio

League of Juice Flushers.

#81 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull said:

wow... the amount of people dissing on Pak and saying that he only wanted to update hulks feats is disturbing.

then again, the posts are like 2 years old so you know.

but still..kinda agitates me. oh well, opinions.

Eh if you mean me? I said thats what it 'seemed' like. Its not a bad thing either. It is what it is, Pak is a proud and sincere fanboy of Hulk. Its the same side of the coin of passion. It has no bearing on quality unless someone misunderstands context. This is fiction, writers are allowed to be biased with favorites, its writers that and fans that aren't simply honest with their intent thats more problematic.

Like do you like Peter David right? Marvel wanted him to do something like World War Hulk but he didn't like the idea so it led to him leaving the title. PAD was a great Hulk writer, but he didn't want to write stuff like World War Hulk, PAK on the other hand loves stuff like that. So are you saying PAD is a bad writer? Different styles of writing, works for some fans more than others.

Moderator
#82 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18032 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

@theacidskull said:

wow... the amount of people dissing on Pak and saying that he only wanted to update hulks feats is disturbing.

then again, the posts are like 2 years old so you know.

but still..kinda agitates me. oh well, opinions.

Eh if you mean me? I said thats what it 'seemed' like. Its not a bad thing either. It is what it is, Pak is a proud and sincere fanboy of Hulk. Its the same side of the coin of passion. It has no bearing on quality unless someone misunderstands context. This is fiction, writers are allowed to be biased with favorites, its writers that and fans that aren't simply honest with their intent thats more problematic.

Like do you like Peter David right? Marvel wanted him to do something like World War Hulk but he didn't like the idea so it led to him leaving the title. PAD was a great Hulk writer, but he didn't want to write stuff like World War Hulk, PAK on the other hand loves stuff like that. So are you saying PAD is a bad writer? Different styles of writing, works for some fans more than others.

i didn't mean you. I've seen comments like these on other sites too :P, somehow came out here tho.

Both Pak and PAD are awesome IMO :), but their writing of hulk differs a lot. David was really interested in the Dichotomy of the two sides of the coin whereas pak was focused on making Banner hulks equal along with satisfying Hulk fans with awesome feats. not to mention that during his RUN hulk was shown to be a noble hero who even let himself be beat to the brink of death for the sake of his family.

I was just pointing out that There was more to Paks writing that Just the cool feats ^_^. might have given the wrong impression, i do that sometimes.

Online
#83 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull said:

Both Pak and PAD are awesome IMO :), but their writing of hulk differs a lot. David was really interested in the Dichotomy of the two sides of the coin whereas pak was focused on making Banner hulks equal along with satisfying Hulk fans with awesome feats. not to mention that during his RUN hulk was shown to be a noble hero who even let himself be beat to the brink of death for the sake of his family.

I was just pointing out that There was more to Paks writing that Just the cool feats ^_^. might have given the wrong impression, i do that sometimes.

Oh okay... it was just I think I was the only poster in this thread to mention that Pak's Hulk run seemed like an opportunity to increase his feats. =p

When I use the word seem's though I really mean in a first impressions superficial way and I don't think its a bad thing either. This is super hero comics and the Hulk is a huge green rage monster in purple shorts and Stan Lee created him when comics was still primarily for children, and young teens and Greg Pak was a huge fan of Hulk as a kid. If he wants to write stories about Hulk doing ridiculously cool and fun awesome things then thats not a bad thing at all in my opinion. The only place it could be construed as a negative is a place like Battles or posters criticizing Pak. Mike Carey's Legacy Rogue arcs was similar. Michael Avon Oeming is a huge mythology fan, his Ares mini series was much the same way. The writers have depth and they get to show a favorable side to the characters.

The thing about Pak's writing (and many other writers) is that there is opportunity for too much bias. Like there was one point where Hulk was a new character yes? A writer decided to have Hulk beat Namor or Captain America or show some sort of superiority (strength for example)? Would it be fair if a writer fan of the older characters had them destroy Hulk at the next opportunity? Thats what Pak wanted Hulk to do to Sentry. Beating Sentry, sure? Breaking every bone in his body because Void did that to Hulk? Meh. Oh and actually PAD actually did that too, but with Dr Ock after Erik Larson had Dr Ock beat Hulk up. He had Hulk beat up Dr Ock pretty easy in his story. Like you and me are lucky? Since we are Hulk fans and Hulk is a popular character, but there are a lot of fans out there that need good heroes, and not all of them will be Hulk, and some times fans and writers can get a bit weird about power feats and trying to make their favorites special. There is a balance to be had.

I definitely agree Pak's writing is more than feats. He has a nice grasp of character and he knows his Marvel history pretty good. Uses a lot of characters bygone and from the past which is always nice to see them reused and updated ^_^

Moderator
#84 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18032 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

@theacidskull said:

Both Pak and PAD are awesome IMO :), but their writing of hulk differs a lot. David was really interested in the Dichotomy of the two sides of the coin whereas pak was focused on making Banner hulks equal along with satisfying Hulk fans with awesome feats. not to mention that during his RUN hulk was shown to be a noble hero who even let himself be beat to the brink of death for the sake of his family.

I was just pointing out that There was more to Paks writing that Just the cool feats ^_^. might have given the wrong impression, i do that sometimes.

Oh okay... it was just I think I was the only poster in this thread to mention that Pak's Hulk run seemed like an opportunity to increase his feats. =p

When I use the word seem's though I really mean in a first impressions superficial way and I don't think its a bad thing either. This is super hero comics and the Hulk is a huge green rage monster in purple shorts and Stan Lee created him when comics was still primarily for children, and young teens and Greg Pak was a huge fan of Hulk as a kid. If he wants to write stories about Hulk doing ridiculously cool and fun awesome things then thats not a bad thing at all in my opinion. The only place it could be construed as a negative is a place like Battles or posters criticizing Pak. Mike Carey's Legacy Rogue arcs was similar. Michael Avon Oeming is a huge mythology fan, his Ares mini series was much the same way. The writers have depth and they get to show a favorable side to the characters.

The thing about Pak's writing (and many other writers) is that there is opportunity for too much bias. Like there was one point where Hulk was a new character yes? A writer decided to have Hulk beat Namor or Captain America or show some sort of superiority (strength for example)? Would it be fair if a writer fan of the older characters had them destroy Hulk at the next opportunity? Thats what Pak wanted Hulk to do to Sentry. Beating Sentry, sure? Breaking every bone in his body because Void did that to Hulk? Meh. Oh and actually PAD actually did that too, but with Dr Ock after Erik Larson had Dr Ock beat Hulk up. He had Hulk beat up Dr Ock pretty easy in his story. Like you and me are lucky? Since we are Hulk fans and Hulk is a popular character, but there are a lot of fans out there that need good heroes, and not all of them will be Hulk, and some times fans and writers can get a bit weird about power feats and trying to make their favorites special. There is a balance to be had.

I definitely agree Pak's writing is more than feats. He has a nice grasp of character and he knows his Marvel history pretty good. Uses a lot of characters bygone and from the past which is always nice to see them reused and updated ^_^

:) exactly. different writers had different interpretations right?

i think pak in the end ditched the hulk breaking every bone in sentry's body idea because as he has stated himself, every character has a fanbase, and as much as writer want to ignore that, it's still there. ")

Online
#85 Posted by SC (13148 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull said:

:) exactly. different writers had different interpretations right?

i think pak in the end ditched the hulk breaking every bone in sentry's body idea because as he has stated himself, every character has a fanbase, and as much as writer want to ignore that, it's still there. ")

Agreed! ^_^

It was editorially enforced but I agree with your point - heh heh (they were protecting Sentry for his role in Siege aka basically Bendis blocked his use) - i think comics would be better off if we had more writers like Pak. Writers who are fans of the character. Too many writers don't quite get why a character is likable and so you run the risk of alienating the core fanbase. Pak's enthusiasm for the Hulk shined through in all his stories and I can't really think of any established Hulk fan I knew disliking it. It was also good enough to draw in new fans.

Moderator
#86 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18032 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

@theacidskull said:

:) exactly. different writers had different interpretations right?

i think pak in the end ditched the hulk breaking every bone in sentry's body idea because as he has stated himself, every character has a fanbase, and as much as writer want to ignore that, it's still there. ")

Agreed! ^_^

It was editorially enforced but I agree with your point - heh heh (they were protecting Sentry for his role in Siege aka basically Bendis blocked his use) - i think comics would be better off if we had more writers like Pak. Writers who are fans of the character. Too many writers don't quite get why a character is likable and so you run the risk of alienating the core fanbase. Pak's enthusiasm for the Hulk shined through in all his stories and I can't really think of any established Hulk fan I knew disliking it. It was also good enough to draw in new fans.

i know right?

i can say the same for his hercules! man i loved that series!:D

Online
#87 Posted by themadsurfer (343 posts) - - Show Bio

Void Sentry>>>>regular Thor>regular Sentry

#88 Posted by Dayvid3 (807 posts) - - Show Bio

Sentry

#89 Posted by tigerkaya (1262 posts) - - Show Bio

THor