@cosmicallyaware1: Will do :)
lvenger's forum posts
@ghostravage: Unfortunately I have to disagree on Hulk's planet busting feat being more impressive. Thor's one shattered another planetoid indirectly without even touching it. To harm another planet whilst you're fighting on another one is a major striking feat to say the least. It's definitely equal to Hulk's planet busting one and I honestly regard Thor shattering 2 planets/moons with Mjolnir, one indirectly, more impressive than Hulk's Dark Dimension one. Mjolnir has also performed better striking feats than Hulk technically.
But for the record, I also disagree with Frozen's point on Superman vibrating Hulk's organs out so you're not the only one I differ on.
If you guys say you'd have trouble compressing your pull list down to fewer comics, my comic reading is not only comprised of a small pull list but I'm also a month behind on the titles I read too due to an online subscription. There aren't any comic shops near where I live so I have no other way of reading physical comics outside of trade waiting.
@erik: I understand your position, take all the time you need Erik.
Nobody has the proficiency to use Leo like I...
...you can't mean...not him?
I'm also a big fan of the Percy Jackson series so technically I could use Leo if I wanted to. Or another Percy Jackson character. Who else are you thinking of that can use Percy Jackson related characters.
@winter_kills: And it's a perfectly valid point to make. But one thing I'm utterly bemused about is people wanting these changes to be permanent. I read an article on Comicosity where the writer said that he wanted Marvel's Trinity to be completed by having Tony Stark coming out as gay. WTF is this BS? Not only does that take away Tony's suave and womanising charm, it would be a change that came out of nowhere. Just like this female Thor announcement. People think this is progressive and forward thinking but all it involves is latching the new characters as being defined by their relation to the originals. Thus demeaning both the new and original characters.
Exactly right! It is BS. You can't take an established character & turn them into something they're not. Especially when they are iconic, as Marvel's Trinity are. People that thinks that any of these moronic changes will be permanent are going to be badly fooled. These are only temporary changes, done for pure controversy & PR hype. Gimmicks, & they never last. For example, Eric Masterson. I know media wasn't the way it is now, but I doubt anyone believed that it would be permanent & that the true Thor wouldn't come back. Another example is changes with DC's Trinity: for example, I remember when they did the whole Superman Blue thing & changed his iconic look & powers, it was very controversial; & then Knightfall, which had Azrael become Batman; and Wonder Woman, with Diana losing the title of WW to Artemis. It's the same pattern- it was controversial changes to legendary icons that gave PR exposure & temporary boost in sales, but at the end of the day, the changes weren't permanent. People- the true fans- wanted those iconic characters back- & they all returned. Now all these events are considered minor footnotes in their storied histories. And it'll be the same way with what Marvel's doing with their Big 3- they have that PR boost, & then things will revert to normal. Doesn't make it any less annoying or irritating to longtime fans, though. 10 years from now, people won't be remembering this female Thor analogue- people will be remembering the one, the true, the Mighty Thor. The same way with Cap & Tony Stark. These characters have endless potential for new stories- you don't have to radically change them or replace them to do new, fresh & interesting things with them. Especially with Thor, when there is plenty of material from hundreds of years of mythology & folklore to be explored through the Marvel lens.
Well said, couldn't agree more with your points entirely.
With regard to feats, yes.
Grievioux is a fan of Thor. It has always been his contention that Thor is at least as strong as Hulk (for example), and he cites Defenders 10. I can't speak intelligently on Grievioux' knowledge of Superman, or that he's even picked up an issue of Superman, but what I gather from his statement is that his intent was to create a character, Blue Marvel, that was stronger than Superman. That much is clear to me.
Him being a Thor fan does not equate to him being a canon Thor writer for Marvel. You simply cannot expect to use Grievioux's intention to create a Superman level character as any kind of credible or reliable source of what Blue Marvel is capable of. Furthermore, if you're going to cite the Defenders 10 tussle, I refer you to the Hulk Context Files thread managed by TheAcidSkull and GhostRavage. They discuss The Defenders Thor vs Hulk with a lot more detail and expertise than Grievioux could ever hope to know about.
I don't think he's written any Thor that is in continuity, no. He did write him in a "What-If?", where he breaks the Hulk's jaw.
What Ifs are non canon to the 616 Marvel universe thus that story cannot be considered reliable in any shape or form. Not to mention Hulk fans would strongly object to that event based on Hulk's own durability feats and canon fights with Thor.
And generally, I agree. feats in continuity consistent with the character's presentation is the rule of thumb I use when appraising a comic character's feats.
Presentation of the Blue Marvel, as you indicated above, is that he is a Superman level character. That was the creator'sintent. So based on that alone, is it a stretch to say that the narrative that he could tank a hydrogen bomb be dismissed as false? No, not really.
But he didn't do it ON PANEL. There is a vast difference between a statement of a character tanking a hydrogen bomb and a character actually tanking a hydrogen bomb. Comic books are a medium of show, don't tell and in regards to a character's feats and capabilities, the feats that are presented on panel are instantly more reliable than feats that did not take place on panel. You cannot claim with any confidence that Blue Marvel's hydrogen bomb feat is more reliable than Wonder Woman's nuke feat or any other nuke related feat of durability. Henceforth, Blue Marvel's hydrogen bomb feat must be treated with scepticism for the reader does not see it take place in the story which makes it right to question its legitimacy. You're in the wrong to defend it so ardently when it's obviously unreliable. Narrative and writer's intent do not supercede empiricism and verifiable feats of characters surviving nukes.
Now, to make an assertion about a character's powerset based purely on narrative that seems inconsistent with the character's presentation and/or the character's demonstrated history would be a problem for me.
If a dispute arises revolving around the character's power set, that is very specific (i.e., character A's durability = transmutation resistance), then feats SHOULD be the deciding factor, or perhaps related feats for similar characters that have a direct bearing could be introduced. But in that instance: No feats, no fly.
You blatantly contradict yourself here with your previous point by admitting that feats are more important yet defend against the assertion that Blue Marvel's hydrogen bomb showings when that lacks the feats to support that conclusion. Just because Blue Marvel is similar to Superman, it does NOT mean he has similar feats. It's a fallacious double standard to say otherwise. Outside of energy projection, Superman has Blue Marvel beat in every area.
But the question arises: at what point in time is narrative sufficient proof for a battle forums discussion? It depends on battle forum rules, or it may depend upon what is mutually agreed upon between two debaters in a battle forums discussion.
Rune King Thor, Superman Prime and Doctor Manhattan are common examples. Routinely, they are touted as supremely powerful individuals. Yet, feats to support such notions may be somewhat thin.
Your argument has even more inherent problems here. For one, Superman Prime does have the feats to support the conclusion of him being an insanely powerful being so that's one example of yours out the window. Secondly, Doctor Manhatten often gets overrated in his molecular manipulation abilities when other beings with similar power sets have shown much greater control and scale of feats than Manhatten ever did in Watchmen. And Rune King Thor's limited feats are of a sufficient quality to make him as powerful as people say he is.
Yet, is it a stretch to say that RKT, for example could beat Odin force Thor?
*shrugs* You tell me.
A strict appraisal of feats might indicate no. Yet, RKT clearly surpassed Odin by defeating the "Ones Who Sit Above in Shadow".
In an instance where it appears to me that presentation might make a contender out of an otherwise "featless" character, I usually will insert that statement some where in my dialogue ("pending feats....").
This is a very dubious example to use in the least. In that specific circumstance, RKT had sacrificed more to gain a greater access to the Odinforce and knowledge of the Runes. Therefore, he was able to cast more spells and perform more feats with the Odinforce. And him defeating the "Ones who Sit Above in Shadow" is a feat in of itself due to their ability to control Ragnarok and the path of the Asgardian Gods. This does not help your example that Grievoux can make baseless claims about Blue Marvel's power level nor that Blue Marvel actually has hydrogen bomb tanking durability.
If we are talking strictly feats, then yes, agreed.
However, for the record, I don't think credibility is an issue since I don't think the writer of the book was trying to lie or otherwise be deceptive. As you indicated above, Grievioux intended the character to be around Superman level in power. So the narrative indicating that Blue Marvel resisted a nuke going off in his face is not problematic for me as it harmonizes with the character's presentation.
I've demonstrated how credibility is an issue and nullified your points entirely. Just because it fits with your own personal interpretation of the character does not make it the factual standard we can hold Blue Marvel's durability to. Feats>statements and feats are the most important thing to determine a character's set ability or power level by. If Blue Marvel had tanked a hydrogen bomb on panel, this would be less of a problem. As it stands, just because it harmonises with the character's presentation does not make it a true or reliable feat in the slightest.