lokiofmidgaard's forum posts

#1 Edited by lokiofmidgaard (359 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?

#2 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (359 posts) - - Show Bio

@PowerHerc said:


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.

#3 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (359 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.

#4 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (359 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.

#6 Edited by lokiofmidgaard (359 posts) - - Show Bio

Both Maria Jackson and Sky Smith need to be deleted. Unlike the other regular characters in the Sarah Jane Adventures TV series, neither of them have appeared in any comics.

Also, Lord Goldstar - he's never actually appeared in a comic. He was present, but off panel, in X-Men Die By the Sword. One of the other characters calls out for him to do something, but the character depicted on the page is not Lord Goldstar, but rather Flight Leader, a previously seen member of the Corps, who was shown more clearly in the next panel.

#8 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (359 posts) - - Show Bio

He's not owned by DC, but nor is he public domain yet. Dan Didio posted last month that DC had lost the license - if he was public domain, then there would be no license to lose.

#9 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (359 posts) - - Show Bio
#10 Posted by lokiofmidgaard (359 posts) - - Show Bio

2000AD Prog 1813 - the person who created the page used the wrong cover, failing to notice that the cover he used was already being used by Prog 2013, or the rather subtle clue that the wrong cover had "Prog 2013" emblazoned in massive letters across roughly a third of it.