@SC said:
For example, now you are saying perhaps consistency is a better word, well yes, consistency is a better word, but even then, there does not need to be consistency as far as these characters and comics go. Its preferred? Yes, its present to a degree yes? Its rewarded financially by the customers? Yes, but your initial statement even substituting in the word consistency for logic is still false. So again, I don't think we should take anything for granted here as far as what is obvious.
Friend, do you like stupid stories ? Do you like stories where writers disregard continuity and previously established events or actions in favor of a story fueled by the writer's ignorance of the character they are writing ?
I feel ridiculous (sp) answering your questions, OBVIOUSLY it is a matter of choice wether or not to have consistency, OBVIOUSLY Marvel can choose or not choose to do such things, but not following with certain conditions, in this case, consistency, then the stories would be simply stupid.
What you're saying, basically, is that one shouldn't complain about bad acting in a movie because actors hold the prerogative (sp) to either act bad or not act bad, you're defending an absurd point.
Then again no, there is no rule proven here by Marvel, that's a gross oversimplification and your arguments still lack logic. Any fictional character as proven by real life logic, can at any time, with any amount of circumstance overcome anything, that inhabit the fictional Universe.
What ?! Of course not.
Naturally there is nothing set in stone, there is no Marvel Handbook for how to write comic book characters ! But it is implied that there's limits for every character, it would be idiotic that a powerless Gwen Stacy would slap Venom around without any sort of powers, same as Steve Rogers knocking out Galactus with a roundhouse kick, as plenty of other examples.
I already answered your two questions. Zeus is not special, and Hulk is not special. What trait does Zeus or Hulk have that no other character has? There is always a condition. Hulk is defined by the tories he is in. Marvel doesn't need to explain jack, you can disagree with the narrative, but your argument must be specific, not general, because your basis for arguments are the same general sources. If your arguing from logic as opposed to preference? You should know this.
........................................
First, you didn't answer my questions, attacking my arguments with words I chose to drop long ago, specifically "logic" in this case, is not "answering those questions".
Second, you're defending the same absurd point again.
Third, don't push where there is no need, I already recused myself from talking in terms of logic because you pointed out that we really can't speak in those terms, I chose to use the word consistency, so don't base your argument over something we got over, from my side at least.
Fourth, how specific do you want me to get ? Do you want me to asses the exact quantity of newtons that Zeus punches carried in comparison to The Hulk's ? You're gonna grow wings by the time that happens.
Actually Hulk's creator supposes that Thor is stronger than Hulk, but if Hulk can get angry enough, its a draw in strength. So that's Hulk's and Thor's origin comparison with strength "Roy: And now I have what Evans and Novak would call on their show, "The Big Question," which the editor requested me to ask you: Which is stronger, Thor or the Hulk? Stan: I would have to guess that Thor is stronger... he'd probably beat the Hulk. But what's interesting with the Hulk is, the more he fights and the more he's beaten, the stronger he gets, so maybe it would be a draw"
If you seriously want to discuss this, then we should perhaps agree on what version of The Hulk we want to talk about, because wether we like it or not, Golden Age Hulk is nowhere near the amount of strenght that Modern Age Hulk is at, therefore, whatever Stan Lee said about the character is flimsy foundation for any argument we both may have about this, depending of course on the version of The Hulk we choose to discuss.
Now you can say, you personally, disagree with that creatively, OR that after that, some writers decided to write that Hulk is stronger, well that's inconsistency right there.
Friend, of course it's inconsistency, but we don't disregard it simply because someone chose to ignore it at one point, we deal with it, new generations come and handle it adequately in their own way, for example, NO ONE in their right mind would say Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" sucks because it's inconsistent with the Golden Age representation of Batman.
Forgetting that, you make a very illogical argument but assuming that strength is the most important factor in a fight, and a really angry Aunt May can beat hulk in a fight, because any character can beat any character in a fight, its not if they can, its whether they will, or whether they do, or what a thousand other qualities. So your logic is lacking therefore if you think the only conclusion with a Thor and Zeus fight is that Zeus mops the floor with Thor.
................................................................
Are you trolling me ?
Obviously if Aunt May had a "Hulk-killer-pistol" she could win, but when we're having a civilized discussion, with rules, with clarified points and consciously being aware of the conditions of the hypothetical fight, in this case "Zeus Vs. Hulk", then we can come to a reasonable conclusion as to who would win ! I shouldn't have to explain this.
So I don't need to address anything else you say from here on, because your arguing from a flawed perspective.
I have to give it to you, you have absolutely no shame in blatantly using different words to say: "You're wrong, I'm right, so shaddap !".
My friend, there are arguments and discussions based around objective reasoning and logic, and then there are discussions of preference and opinion. Your arguing preference and opinion here and your examples to support anything more than that, are cherry picked, argued from ignorance filled with false dichotomies and generally other flawed arguments, illogical arguments. I just don't understand why you just stand behind your opinion, instead of trying to present an objective based argument? That's my most important question for you, if you wish to, or choose to answer it.
If you would've bothered to read my post instead of making very odd passive-aggressive remarks, you would've noticed that I was trying to initiate such a discussion.
Granted, I hadn't clarified important points, but I don't think that merited (sp) you to disregard my argument in that manner.
Log in to comment