Originally posted by DizzleYou don't have to move at the speed of something to dodge it. Spiderman is NOT dodging at the speed of light, fanboy.
Aren't you the one who gets all pissy when people bash you? I say he has "lightspeed reflexes" because he can consciously dodge lasers. Not guess where the guy's gonna fire and move, he dodges them. Lasers being things that move at the speed of light.
Originally posted by DizzleThat's what dodging at the speed of light would be.
Now you turned around and said that I meant that he was dodging by touching them, then reacting.[/]b
Originally posted by DizzleThen don't deserve it. And I never said you used that definition, I said that was my definition.
[B]Which is completely untrue, I said he dodges lasers. You put words into my mouth, and then basically told soleran to shut up, with more misleading quotes. I said he has lightspeed reactions, then later explained myself. You give one definition of "lightspeed reactions", which is completely different than mine, and used it against me. Don't appreciate that in the least.
If dodging lasers gives you lightspeed reactions then Wolveirne has lightspeed reactions thanks to danger room trianing, amoung other things..
Originally posted by DizzleInvoluntary manslaughter though. 😄
Friggin hypocrite. Whether you have logic or not... That's low.And should you choose to say this is an attack on you... Self defense isn't murder, now is it?
And I'm not going to say anything other than I didn't say you said those things. But you opened yourself up to attack by saying spiderman had lkightspeed reactions, when they are nowhere near lightspeed.
Originally posted by leonidasWhy would thinking that the art isn't more important than the story be assinine. I don't get comic books for the art, I get them for the stories that are told.
more assinine than:<<I don't think that the art is important to the story,>> 😕
How is that assinine in the least?
Originally posted by leonidasNot at all. Because novels can still be read with the little nuances in there.
it could be fairly said that if all the words were taken away from a comic (and there have been several examples of this very thing in many books) the reader could still follow along with the story quite easily.[]/b[]quote] But that would still be leaving some of the story in there. If you completely remove the story it'ds just be a pin-up catalouge.[QUOTE=5455310]Originally posted by leonidas
[B] many nuances would clearly be missed. many nuances would also be missed if the ILLUSTRATIONS were left out.[]/b]
Originally posted by leonidasThey're not important to the story.
[B] i just don't get how you can say the illustrations are not important in a comicbook.
Originally posted by leonidas1) Whos ability specifically are we talking about? Because people are interpriting the events based on the art rather than the story of what was happening. Because I think going by the story neither characters ability was misrepresented. Whcih is why the decision to call it PIS/CIS is based on the art. and blaming it being PIS/CIS because of the art?
imagine telling THAT to stan lee or anyone in the industry . . .anyway, answer 2 final questions if you feel inclined and i'll have done:
(1.) based on the illo (i know you don't think it holds weight, humor me) was the character's ability misrepresented? and (1a.) is misrepresentation of a character not the definition of PIS/CIS?
Again, assinine.
2) It could be if you look at it like that.
Originally posted by Creshosk
You don't have to move at the speed of something to dodge it. Spiderman is NOT dodging at the speed of light, fanboy.That's what dodging at the speed of light would be.
Then don't deserve it. And I never said you used that definition, I said that was my definition.
If dodging lasers gives you lightspeed reactions then Wolveirne has lightspeed reactions thanks to danger room trianing, amoung other things..
Involuntary manslaughter though. 😄
And I'm not going to say anything other than I didn't say you said those things. But you opened yourself up to attack by saying spiderman had lkightspeed reactions, when they are nowhere near lightspeed.
Did I say he dodged by moving at the speed of light? No, you said I did. Which makes you a hypocrite, for whining when someone brings up you going on for 5 pages saying Wolverine can survive indefinitely without oxygen. Fanboy.
I never said dodging at the speed of light. I said lightspeed reactions. Does someone saying a guy has fast reactions now mean that they move at lightspeed? That's what you implied, not me. Fanboy.
You quoted my post and basically said, "He said Spiderman can do this!!!!1", when I clearly said nothing of the sort. Fanboy.
The problem is, Wolverine doesn't know where the lasers are going before he moves to dodge them. He picks a direction and dives. For him, it's guesswork. For Spiderman, it's not. Big difference, when you're talking about reflexes. Fanboy.
But you did, whether you say you didn't now or not. Spiderman can react to and dodge projectiles that move at lightspeed, thanks to precog. That's what I meant by lightspeed reactions. I never said he can dodge lasers after they're fired or any crap like that.
On to post #2... It's assinine because at that segment of the story, the pictures WERE the story. There was no dialogue in those panels. It never says "Wolverine quickly slices his way out of the webs." It just shows him pulling himself off of the wall. So, since YOU specifically are not the writer, and do not know what was really supposed to happen, the art IS what happened. Wolverine rips himself free, which is PIS.
And would you read comics if there were no pictures? Yeesh, that's half the fun.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Spidferman has lightspeed reflexes appearently. . .that means that he could dodge from feleling the heat of the laser touch him. . . Who's the only one that has pulled the dodgeing something when you feel it touch you?
Yes, not putting words into my mouth at all... Note the sarcastic italics.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Why would thinking that the art isn't more important than the story be assinine. I don't get comic books for the art, I get them for the stories that are told.How is that assinine in the least?
Not at all. Because novels can still be read with the little nuances in there.
They're not important to the story.
1) Whos ability specifically are we talking about? Because people are interpriting the events based on the art rather than the story of what was happening. Because I think going by the story neither characters ability was misrepresented. Whcih is why the decision to call it PIS/CIS is based on the art. and blaming it being PIS/CIS because of the art?
Again, assinine.
2) It could be if you look at it like that.
we've a seriously fundamental disagreement regarding what goes into making a comicbook -- more specifically, what a comicbook itself IS. as long as you hold onto that . . . strange view . . . of a story being divorced from the art and the art 'not being important' to a comicbook this difference of opinion is certainly irreconcilable. again, i think you'd most certainly be in the minority with that belief. at times the illos reveal much MORE than nuances, btw, and there are a LARGE number of differences between a comicbook and a novel (not the least of which is the COLLABORATIVE effrot between writer/artist on a comic). comics CAN be followed with just the illustrations and info can be gleaned from the illos that many times cannot be gathered from the text.
meh. you're opinion. it just happens to be one of the most baffling ones i've ever heard . . .
Originally posted by leonidasYou're mixing words, "text" and "story".
we've a seriously fundamental disagreement regarding what goes into making a comicbook -- more specifically, what a comicbook itself IS. as long as you hold onto that . . . strange view . . . of a story being divorced from the art and the art 'not being important' to a comicbook this difference of opinion is certainly irreconcilable. again, i think you'd most certainly be in the minority with that belief. at times the illos reveal much MORE than nuances, btw, and there are a LARGE number of differences between a comicbook and a novel (not the least of which is the COLLABORATIVE effrot between writer/artist on a comic). comics CAN be followed with just the illustrations and info can be gleaned from the illos that many times cannot be gathered from the text.meh. you're opinion. it just happens to be one of the most baffling ones i've ever heard . . .
Without the story, a comic book is just a pin-up gallery.
Without the art, a comic book is just a novel.
Which one is more important? The story.
Which one has the plot? The story.
Which one would PLOT induced stupidity be based on? The story.
Which one would show character intelligence? The story, since otherwise ***'d just be pictures of the characters, with no semblence of order that could twell a. . story.
PIS and CIS are based on the plot, and what happens. So which one determines what is PIS and CIS? The story.
Calling a scene in the story PIS/CIS based on the art, is assinine, because its based on the story, not the art.
and "story" in a comicbook is a collaboration bewteen ART and TEXT. the creators bring about the 'story' through both text and art. BOTH are necessary to the story.
text+art=story in a comicbook
plot is simply a tool an author uses to achieve an end and the plot can be determined WITHOUT text. ie - the STORY CAN be told through illustrations. the COMPLETE story cannot be told in just pictures (though technically i suppose that is not entirely true -- the thor v jormungand issue was completely devoid of text and told 100% through art. what would it be called in that issue if say thor was shown to be moving at 100x lightspeed?) like (generally) a complete story cannot be told without pictures.
and a comic without pictures is not a novel. it's a comic without pictures and in incomplete story.
you've defined PIS -- CIS has no such stipulation that would make it based on the medium - ie text or art. can't a character be SHOWN doing something out of charatcer as easily as a character can be written to have done something out of character?
Originally posted by leonidasHeh. . no.
and "story" in a comicbook is a collaboration bewteen ART and TEXT. the creators bring about the 'story' through both text and art. BOTH are necessary to the story.text+art=story in a comicbook
plot is simply a tool an author uses to achieve an end and the plot can be determined WITHOUT text. ie - the STORY CAN be told through illustrations. the COMPLETE story cannot be told in just pictures (though technically i suppose that is not entirely true -- the thor v jormungand issue was completely devoid of text and told 100% through art. what would it be called in that issue if say thor was shown to be moving at 100x lightspeed?) like (generally) a complete story cannot be told without pictures.
and a comic without pictures is not a novel. it's a comic without pictures and in incomplete story.
you've defined PIS -- CIS has no such stipulation that would make it based on the medium - ie text or art. can't a character be SHOWN doing something out of charatcer as easily as a character can be written to have done something out of character?
Part of the story is interpreted as text, part as art, however if the art is drawn poorly that shouldn't negate the story.
Sorry. But calling it PIS because of the way it's drawn is still assinine.