Thanks for bringing us news. Unfortunately we already have a thread for this. Please use this thread below, cheers. ^_^
SC's forum posts
Some people say that evolution is a monkey giving birth to a human, some people say that Elvis is still alive and the true ruler of the moon, some people say that the Earth is flat and anyone else who says differently is fooled by the media. Some people say that George Bush was a robot operated by Tupac. There is a difference between a person being inaccurate and a person overrating something, and asking why a person may overrate something involves a similar mechanism to asking why anyone overrates anything and similar to why people have ideas about things that may not be entirely accurate. So in a sense its a bit odd to be curious about this one singular topic (Thor the fictional character) and this is because its not wise to put too much stock and thought into 'what' people may overrate or be inaccurate about as far as any one given thing rather than the mechanism that dictates why anything can be potentially overrated or how people can hold potentially inaccurate beliefs about things. More efficient that way because a lot of people will say inaccurate things.
Now to open up a can of worms, when people talk about fictional characters, you don't want to trust anyone who insists a fictional character can't do something. Fictional characters by core definition of fact can do pretty much anything as limited by ones ability to imagine, writer or viewer. Any fictional character can take on any other fictional character. That also being said just because something is possibly doesn't mean its probably or likely or that its going to have a good sense of rhyme or reason. Characters will have certain other limitations. It is possible that some people may project forth an idea of a character's abilities that is inaccurate compared to the intent of the author/creator of character or is inconsistent as far as the characters demonstrated abilities (thus more subjective projection rather than objective referencing) and so they may overrate or hold an inaccurate belief about something and that also depends on the parameters set and context and a lot of other boring things. Also its worth remembering that things can simultaneously exist as being overrated and underrated.
I'd say regular Thor has never been intended to demonstrate the sort of ability that could allow him to oppose a character like Lucifer if the two characters fictional abilities were forced to oppose each other within fixed neutral consistent variables. Character like Lucifer is meant to operate more consistency on a much deeper and abstract meta-level of power. Thor is a bit more localized and intended to be more accessible. Another way of looking at this is comparing both characters creators and their respective eras and attitudes towards fiction, scale and scope. Even the worlds understanding of the size of the Universe was bigger when Lucifer was created by Gaiman/Carey. Kirby and Lee were just creating a really powerful superhero mainly for kids. Though what's cool is both characters interaction with powerful father like figures. That and both being fictional have variable/changeable traits and abilities ultimately. That also being said ain't nothing too wrong with a person projecting about fictional characters, you just want to be careful when they insist they are right rather than having a subjective opinion about a fictional being.
Not always as much about power as circumstance and clout. Older Doctor Strange stories usually were intended to be a bit trippy and having a character find random artifacts or invoking random concepts and spells to defeat an opponent should put him up there. Likewise Thor was suppose to do anything a writer could want the easy excuse being because he was a god and so - literal deus ex machina. Reed can be this because with his super science he just needs some time to invent something (see him creating a gun capable of neutralizing Celestials) oh and Batman can a bit, because being a determined cerebral planner is like having a master key in a world of sluggish thinking individuals and most other antagonists and protagonists relatively are sluggish compared to Batman in those contexts.
Innocent enough characters like Finn the human likewise as a protagonist of many stories aimed at an audience that includes young children will often win in stories because… he is the protagonist. Oh and Hope could qualify, with a lot of her stories, granted she hasn't starred in as many as much as other characters mentioned… just the nature of her powers.
Who is Roz Solomon tho?
She is the SHIELD environmental scientist who had a date with Thor a few issues ago when he actually took her up on an invitation she sent him online via a random video.
Hey guys, can we stick to talking about the characters and comics and not each other thanks.
I'll just delete any comments that are posted past this point if they aren't on topic. gambit474, please refrain from telling posters to grow up, innervenom was imitating a posters sentiment merely reversing it, so whilst it may seem like he was making generalized fun of ghost rider fans unhappy with the change he really wasn't so hence telling him to grow up isn't really warranted aside from being too personalized. Cheers both of you.
@skelebones: Well I can send you a PM about the off topic stuff, but when it comes to interacting with other people? No one is a mind reader, so what you perceive as passive aggressive insinuative etc may just be an error on your part. Also its one thing to be cordial with another person, but you kind of lose that sense when you start calling another person an "asshat" whilst telling them to "screw themselves" heh heh unprovoked or not. There are alternatives to dealing with another person you feel is being passive aggressive but resorting to such insults is not one of them and will just result in more hostility. Does that make sense? Why not just question their phrasing instead of resorting to insults? What if they felt you were being passive aggressive the whole time as well even though you considered yourself cordial? Maybe thats how they justify their attitude as well, just like you justify yours? So instead of both people making assumptions about each other, much better to clarify with each other respectfully.
Oh and you should disagree with my outlook on the actual battle, I was joking of course, as I implied when I said I do not know anything about these characters heh heh. Sometimes when a person wishes to try put a topic back on topic they will make vague comments relating to the subject. Its a bit hard to do that when you don't know anything about the characters so I made a silly joke instead. :)