^ I don't necessarily agree that the burden of proof is on you to prove that Thor was amped in the past. In fact, if we engaged is this debate, I'd place the general burden of proof on myself to prove that his earlier feats are valid. So...
it's simply that if you pick a feat from say, 1975, a feat that has had no similar portrayal since that incident, why should it be taken as proof in a debate? thor has had his amps and downgrades since then, so how do we know he's capable of performing said feat again?
btw, i'm not singling out thor here. he just happened to be the one that came up. it can apply to anyone really...
^ And if I were to prove, based on a preponderance of the evidence, (i) that the old adventures/stories (even from the 60's and 70's) were not retconned, (ii) that they happened pretty much as they originally were presented, and (iii) that a great majority of the old feats were either matched, surpassed or specifically referenced in more present stories... would that satisfy your standards of applicability that the old feats are valid for evidentiary citation purposes?
^ I think anybody would take feats from 1989 forward that match or surpass feats from the 60's and 70's to be proof that they can currently do those feats.
So the main question is: If I were to prove, based on a preponderance of the evidence, (i) that the old adventures/stories (even from the 60's and 70's) were not retconned, (ii) that they happened pretty much as they originally were presented (i.e. verified on-panel), and (iii) that a great majority of the old feats were either matched, surpassed or specifically referenced in more present stories through the 80's, 90's and onward...
... would feats from the past be "applicable to the current incarnation" or not?
A feat that's only been performed only once? Waaaaaaaay back when? I wouldn't bother arguing for those very much either.
and therein lies the problem. YOU might not, but far too many people on this forum do. it's something we're hoping to get rid of with the new rules we're working on right now.
also, if you can prove relevance, then you'll get no argument from me.
^ Didn't really answer my specific question. I won't beign debating having assumed out of turn that you approved of the standards I proposed. I don't like people putting words into my mouth so you can be sure I do my best not to do it to others. Which is why I'm repeating my questions very deliberately. In either case, unless you say different, I won't push it further.
If anybody else cares to debate whether Thor's early feats are applicable, let me know.
^ If I were to prove, based on a preponderance of the evidence, (i) that the old adventures/stories (even from the 60's and 70's) were not retconned, (ii) that they happened pretty much as they originally were presented (i.e. verified on-panel), and (iii) that a great majority of the old feats were either matched, surpassed or specifically referenced in more present stories through the 80's, 90's and onward...
... would Thor's feats from the past be "applicable to the current incarnation" or not?
You said that if I "proved relevance," you would accept Thor's older feats. I don't know what that means. I'm not trying to be obtuse. I just want to know whether you'd accept my evidentiary standards. Frankly, I'm not going to assume anything considering our past debates over GLs. Especially since I'd argue that applying my standards would be greatly dispositive of pre-Crisis GL feats.
Does "proving relevance" entail a greater burden than my standards or a lesser burden?
the GL's aren't really connected to this, or are, depending on your POV. the same rule that would apply to Thor would apply to them if you wanted to use Pre Crisis feats.
as far as your question goes:
(i) No. there's no way a character written in the 70s would still be written in the same vein as they are now. if they're better or worse, or even remotely as powerful, and you have a more recent showing, then all power to you, but no. writing styles have changed so much since then that it just doesn't count imo.
(ii) On panel or not, the burden of proof that this is still the same Thor/Surfer/Superman/GL or whatever, lies with the person making the claim. And i'm not just talking about the same guy in the comic. i'm talking about similar feats or power levels and the like.
(iii) Is fine. No problems there.
Is that clear enough? Not being snippy. Genuinely asking.
hey. causing trouble in the thor v logan thread are we?
Those are your standards then. I'm very surprised that your burden of feat applicability limits itself to repetition/surpassing of the feat in the 80's forward. Especially when you have continually posited that pre-Crisis GL feats are applicable because you believe they were never retconned. But that's your prerogative.
Frankly speaking, I think you misunderstand #2. If I were to show you, that old stories/adventures are recognized in the present to have essentially happened as they were originally presented on-panel, would that prove it's relevance in the present?
After all, it's the "older/classic" style of writing or the apparent disconnectedness from present-day that you're essentially dismissing, correct? If so, if modern-day writers embrace those older presentations... then there should be no problem, right? For example, a present-day panel that flashbacks and shows something should be acceptable proof that it actually happened. Or a modern-day writer's re-presentation or re-telling of a classic story should be acceptable proof that it actually happened.
the gl thing is actually more applicable to this than you might think. people are so willing to talk about differences in writing styles and how the characters are portrayed post crisis (when it's really only johns that brought down the lanterns), but won't apply the same set of standards to other characters. seems unfair to me. why not hold someone like thor, or superman, or the surfer to those same standards?
with superman people tend to ignore the byrne showings because they've simply been surpassed. if byrne had shown superman punching a sun and making it go nova, would it be applicable? of course not, because it's not in keeping with how he's been portrayed since then.
funny that im actually only bringing this up now, when i've had several people talk to me about it in the past.
2. oh, ok. sure, i don't see why not, as long as it's not ridiculous as hell.
if the older style clashes with the newer style, then yes, the newer style takes precedence. if they are similar in whatever sense is required, then i have no problems with them.
I'd like to think that I've always held the same standards to Thor and Superman and Surfer and all characters. An example being my Revamped Doom Respect Thread where I didn't post some of his more silly inventions unless there were more similar, recent appearances of them. I don't know what that qualification means. Do you mean that if a modern-day writer writes a flashback that shows exactly what happened, and you think it's ridiculous, it's not relevant? If that isn't what you mean... and if you'd like me to prove that Thor's early adventures and feats actually happened and are recognized by modern-day writers as having happened, and thus his early adventures and feats are "relevant," I'd be happy to do so.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 5th, 2009 04:53 AM
