Far too early to tell.

diiiiiiiiiiscard

We keep it.

It's such a blatant outlier

I think it is valid so far. I havent seen anything to contradict it, and we've seen evidence that supports it. Ultraman moving the moon effortlessly while weakened. Superman's punches rattling the Earth. That sort of thing.

Just dumb. No idea how it got past the editor.

good points

@deaditegonzo: superman was struggling to pick up an aircraft WITH the help of Wonderwoman

If anything, id say all of the Throne of Atlas can be thrown out as PIS, but thats just me.

@deaditegonzo:

Also that's an extremely low end showing based on nearly everything else they've done in the new 52

Deaditgonzo made good points but I think it should be thrown out. Him benching the earth is outrageous and slightly PIS but I can live with it. But doing it for five days and just starting to sweat makes it seen like that weight was nothing. I probably can't even bench a 45 pound bar for five days straight. And he benched the earth for that amount of time. Ridiculous.

Yup.

I don’t have any problems with Superman moving planet-sized objects/benching planetary weight. Doing that for 5 days without recharging from Sun – that’s a bit of overkill.

Nevertheless, this is still a part of continuity and coupled with Earth-shaking punches and Batman’s “Why you simply don’t fly there and tear Warworld apart” I think this is still standing feat.

It's very inconsistent with everything else we've seen him do. If he really had that amount of strenght, he shouldn't have struggled with that weird kryptonian dragon thingy. Once you can easily move the Earth, the aftershock of a punch with any intentino behind it would cause incalulable damage.

But still, it is comic book logic, so I'm not sweating it.

Toss it because fack Lobdell and his fan-fic superwank. Gives real feats a bad name.

Keep it, it was an extremely controlled environment. however the fact that Dr.V didn't say 5 days straight keeps it open that he wasn't continuously doing it,or at least that what i like to think, otherwise that's just too much. I remember in the next few pages him saying something about testing his limits,So he could've been doing other stuff too.

Yup.Yup.

that's the key word: Kryptonian. "Kryptonian" dragon vs "Kryptonian" man. The winner is pretty clear in my opinion.

Keep it.

Maybe it is ridiculous that ammount of time but not the feat in se. Superman lifting the earth isn't more ridiculous than SS opening a black hole or Thor smashing a whole planet with his hammer or Martian Manhunter being...well.. Martian manhunter. These character are meant to be larger than life and there is nothing wrong with that.To the other hand it's not like that Superman can move a planet and hence is invincible ,'cause out there there are still some guys who can back hand him into the moon.

agreed 100%......wel 98%. I don't ind that he did it for 5 days. He's powered by the sun. the sun. He should be crazy powerful imho.

Yes, but I guess it didn't weight more than the planet. Even if I was stronger than superman and I pushed down on him, I would still weight 80 kg and he could swat me into outer space. The dragon couldn't have been more than... let's be generous, let's say 50 tons. Why didn't superman flick his finger and send him shooting out.

Sending away something isn't the same thing as wrestling it or strong arming it. If he can lift the planet with ease, he can lift anything with 6 sextillions times that ease and throw them in space.

It's like little kids write this stuff. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but this is so stupid it's not even interesting.

@matteopg: you are using the dragon exaple in the wrong way. In the same comic we have Superman lifting the earth's weight, then some pages later he is fighting against a (here we are with the key word again) KRYPTONIAN dragon,who was obviously stronger than him.You are using this fight in order to say that the previous feat doesn't make sense: if Superman could not overpower it, he isn't really that strong. But the right way to look at that fight is this: the dragon was stronger than superman DESPITE all his strength. A human krytonian can lift the planet? fine. The dragon that comes from the same planet can do more.

You say why Superman hasn't punched that beast into space? Because it wasn't just standing there in order to be punched out of the planet, those "50 tons" (maybe much more since it was bigger than a skyscraper) had super-strength,durability and speed and it was fighting back with more than enough power to kill Superman.

Discarded. It reads like fan fiction

@deaditegonzo: @l3g3ndarypheonix: The hell... They didn't struggle to lift the aircraft carrier,they push it against the force of the tidal waves in order to diminish the damages,next tiem re-read and analyze carefully and you will be surprised with amount of info you thrwo out because focused in the feat itself.

Tbh, this is pretty much ignored outside of Lobdell's titles.

Agreed. I'd even say that because of the magnitude of this feat**, that it STILL hasn't been consistent. That he'd have to "hold back" so much with his punches (to not obliterate the earth in 1 punch) that he wouldn't be able to focus on fighting. If we go back & examine every punch delivered or taken (since enemies receiving these punches likely can dish out ones of similar strength) --at least by Lobdell, it's not going to be consistent at all.

Like it was said, it's an outlier. That's the issue with max-feats (in battles & such), people look for the biggest one without considering if it's been remotely consistent.

**The issue with things like this is that the writer & most of the readers don't have the scientific background to wrap their heads around the magnitude of this feat. We can "imagine" the leap it'd take to life a semi-truck or an airplane or something a part of our lives, but there are many more "levels" between that & a planet. They can't comprehend the physics & the level of energy involved here (& thus, how to apply it consistently). Not that I expect them to, but it definitely creates some issues.

@zandalf: Yeah wraith was beating his butt in superman unchained 6. But all the things you listed are justified. SS has cosmic power or something like that, and Thor's hammer has its own power, but I must agree martian manhunter is too ridiculous. I like him but he's one of the most overpowered characters.

Where are all of you who are vocally "putting down" this feat when it comes up in other threads!? :p (It always feels like the majority support it).

Theres always the possibility of a sun dipped superman, remember that in that base thing, they do have a miniature sun thing - in addition the whole thing about how he holds back..

Even according to this poll, the majority support it. The reality of the internet is that the disgruntled few will always group up and be as vocal as possible.

In my comment I was actually implying that the supporters were 'disgruntled' and vocal in other topics (ganging up on people who didn't like it, even). And being fair - according to the poll. ... this poll is hardly 100% reflective of everyone's opinion**. (If I'm splitting hairs, a ~60/40 split isn't a strong majority (it only seems as such because of the low-stakes. If it was a 60/40 split on "this guy deserves the death penalty", that shouldn't be enough to give him it, haha). Just as not everyone puts the effort into make a comment (in addition to voting), not everyone puts the effort into voting. (All polls are inherently bias in that they're only reflective of people who actually participate (and choosing to is usually reflective of having a more "vocal/loud" opinion)).

**And I would say that this isn't purely an opinion. Something like "what's your favorite color?" would be a pure opinion poll - it's entirely subjective (personal taste, etc). With something like this, you can bring in examples & logic to create arguments - after enough of this you can often reach a conclusion (ie: an answer that has some objectivity). Just like with movies, on the surface it may seem like it's "only your opinion", but there are steps/mechanics involved in story-telling in the medium of video & you can analyse a picture & judge whether it was a quality film (-- opposed to the entertainment you get from the film, which is entirely subjective). (And just to mention, just because "the majority" supports something, doesn't mean that's correct).

@lightsout: I would argue that in the entertainment medium, pleasing the highest number of consumers is absolutely the best way to go, and the ultimate goal of production companies.

Other than that, I dont have much of an opinion on anything you said. In my experience, it seems like a very small minority that hates this feat. The reading i've done, and mentioned on this thread, support the feat. So, meh, I feel like the anti crowd is just going to have to get used to what the current status quo is.

I would say that's apples to oranges. That means the film was a commercial success. A film can be a commercial success without being a "quality" (great piece of art, etc etc) film.

The thing is, that didn't become the status-quo, and that's part of what the "issue" is (that there wasn't consistency). Not that that's unexpected, because like I mentioned in my original reply to the OP, because guys (& sometimes girls) with no science background are writing about things with a high-science-overlap to an audience that generally does't have a science background. (I'd venture to guess that a higher portion of the detractors of this feat have one, like myself). (And I don't mean to say the physical possibility of the feat (when referring to what those with scientific backgrounds have issue with), but rather a background in science fostering critical thinking & logic-application).

@matchesmalone21: Regardless he shouldn't even notice it the weight of the aircraft even if tidal waves are pushing against it

I don't think you understand the Insane feat by Superman he lifted the planet's weight for 5 days straight and only 1 drop of sweat came from him

Anything that's not more than the weight of the planet heck if it's the damn earth itself he should have no problem with it since he was bench pressing it for 5 days with the upmost of ease

But when you look at his physical strength you have to wonder how much is he really holding back?

Whenever he grapples or punches people with his strength even if he's holding back using a less than 1% of his stregth he's still planet level stregth wise and I know Superman uses more than 1% in most of his fights like action comics #22 and #23 also his fight with Orion in those fights he is using more than 1% of his power to fight these guys

It's just when you think about it.things just don't add up with how villians are able to survive this guys punches even if he is holding back since he's rediculuosly strong even while holding back.

The thing is I doubt the writers are trying to tell us that Superman is fighting guys with 1/1000000000 of his power

@lightsout: Im going to have to disagree, because as a whole, comic books completely fall apart when science is applied. Even something as simple as: How does Superman fly? Has no logical answer. Scientists suggested gravitons, but writers havent adopted that (strangely Snyder and Co seemed to play with the idea). Why does Yellow Sunlight affect him differently than Red Sunlight? They are nearly identical. When flying at lightspeed, why dont the characters acquire infinite mass and create a singularity? Etc.

Basically, playing the science game will only ever lead to disappointment in comic books. But this feat puts Supes easily in the category of planet mover, which other feats (like shaking the Earth to its core and Ultraman moving the moon effortlessly while weakened or directing Warworld) all confirm. I see no issue personally. It may be a moment where one needs to sit back and accept the illogical comic book logic.

And I have a very unique perspective on art, most creative types really hate discussing it with me. But to put it simply, a movie exists solely to entertain, an arthouse film that wins every academy award but fails financially and does not attract an audience is a "bad" film in my opinion.

why everyone should know that in comics inconsistency in power levels will always happen. So why throw it out?

Keep it, its valid.

@l3g3ndarypheonix: I'm not talking about that feat mentioned inOP and I don't even care about it. Stay in the subject.

@zandalf: ok, we're just using two different sets of logic and I'm using the wrong one for talking about comic books: since it's a comic book, you are right to use comic book logic.

If you notice, in my first post, I said that such a feat would invalidate a lot in common sense, but it actually doesn't because it's after all a comic book, and I'm perfectly fine with it.

I was just getting sidetracked by how it would actually work if something with the strenght superior to the planet's weight would fight and thrash on it, but that's futile.

This. It has been confirmed and until he fails to lift something it stands.

It is a high end, nonsensical and one time feat. But it still happened and it hasn't been contradicted yet by more reliable or consistent writers so I would keep it. Only as a high end/highballing feat though.

There's No such thing as an object acquiring infinite mass. That statement is based on the belief that nothing moves faster than light. In the relativity theory, since nothing moves faster than light, the only way to maximize energy is to increase your mass.

Obviously, that's not true since the strongest forms of electromagnetic radiation have wave oscillation so fast, its measured as a great many times faster than an electron volt.

Not mention that blackholes have faster than light gravity, spining stars can send out radio six times faster than light for a moment, and the expansion of the universe is faster than light.

@deaditegonzo: We'll have to disagree because I think it's fun (to analyze), that for me it even makes it more enjoyable. (There obviously aren't "actual" explanations, but just to theorize to provide more in depth answers than the extremely vague ones the books provide). And not to imply you are one of these people, but I think the people who "aggressively" fight against talking (in depth) about the potential science, do so because they're afraid if people do so it'll "take their fun away" (Which is silly, it's like how homophobic people talk as if gay people will "turn them gay"....it says more about themselves than the other people).

I think it's because of some of what you listed (like red vs yellow sun - the writers brought in "science", not us), it should be okay to discuss** the scientific possibilities. (Like, I could theorize "Well, UV radiation makes up a much larger % of the output of a red star than a 'yellow' star, so perhaps it's UV vs lack of UV that's doing something").

**And you may say "why wouldn't it be okay to just talk about it?", but numerous times I've encountered people here (regular posters, not trolls) who are straight-up belligerent regarding talking-science (ie: "It's just a comic! You can't talk about that! It's pointless!" type stuff). Not only is that stupid because they're wasting their time - they should just not bother with a thread they don't agree with (it'd be like going to a thread for fans of ____ just to make arguments why that character isn't cool) - but as I said before, I'd argue the writers themselves created the jumping off point. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it really seems to be a witch-burning situation around here when you want to talk about all of that.

@lightsout:

I see where you're coming from but, though I disagree with a lot of his comments, I defer to Grant Morrison when it comes to comics and logic and logistics.

"People say kids can't understand the difference between fact and fiction, but that's bullshit," he says. "Kids understand that real crabs don't sing like the ones in The Little Mermaid. But you give an adult fiction, and the adult starts asking really fucking dumb questions like 'How does Superman fly? How do those eyebeams work? Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?' It's a fucking made-up story, you idiot! Nobody pumps the tires!"

@sog7dc: I would argue that's looking at it way too simplistically & that I'm against anyone being 'against' curiosity/asking questions, that GM is being an example of what I said earlier about people feeling that their own enjoyment will be threatened (they're not forcing YOU to think about those things - if they enjoy it, what's your issue?) but I won't go any further into that.

I don't have an issue with people not caring to think that way themselves, but I definitely have one when people "get persecuted" for doing so. Not that anyone got to that level in this thread (the discussion just got me on that subject), but it definitely happens here on CV. (I mean, people come into topics about the science & throw down that GM quote or the other quotes I mentioned before. I think, why bother coming into that thread if you know that topic's not your cup of tea?? You're only wasting your own time (but, I get that people who do that are "just those kind of people", who have to make their presence & opinion known, whether or not it was asked for - and they don't change, especially because of the ease of posting an internet comment (that is, they wouldn't physically go to a club that discusses the science of comics just to troll)).

@dum529001: I think you missed the point of my entire post. Totally serious question, based on the conversations you and I have had, is English your second language? Im only asking because you deploy an archaic speech pattern and miss a lot of subtext, no harm intended.

@lightsout: I dont have an issue with discussing the pseudo-science involved, but I would take issue with selectively picking and choosing what is criticized and what isnt. Essentially, my point is, if you have an issue with this because of the lack of scientific logic involved, then you should consider the many other, often times more illogical, holes in the science as well. Use the same measuring stick across the board if you will.