Originally posted by Starscream M
if you actually think that Cap took twice the beating that Thor and Iron Man took, then it wouldn't be too hard to point out the time references where it happened
no I actually agree with you. But I just think that smiley is hilarious. However, I do think it is very convenient how CA is like the last one standing and avoids any serious hits. I mean at the end the hulk could have just squashed him, instead he just pulls him in with a bear hug. Which probably should have hurt him more, if hulk was trying.
Originally posted by Silent Guardianoh I agree it is convenient..but that;s actually how comics are and is not unique to it being a movie
no I actually agree with you. But I just think that smiley is hilarious. However, I do think it is very convenient how CA is like the last one standing and avoids any serious hits. I mean at the end the hulk could have just squashed him, instead he just pulls him in with a bear hug. Which probably should have hurt him more, if hulk was trying.
batman survives fights because of the same thing...he doesn't get hit like Superman or someone else more durable would
---
btw, what the hell is that smilie supposed to be anyways?
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Except that "disregarding" certain issues based on its "incorrect portrayal of a character" becomes a subjective act unless it is officially endorsed by the creators of the comics themselves.The REAL canon is how the creators and writers at Marvel themselves believe the potential outcome would be. Especially Stan Lee's opinions. His opinion FAR outweighs the COMBINED opinions of everyone all over the world.
Though I do agree that movies tend to create "shortcuts" on character origins/histories/interactions just to make telling the story easier, I don't see ANY reasons why they would drift too far from actual canon when it comes to a 1v1 fight. Popularity is about seeing a character in action, not making him win in a fight. Win or lose people will buy the video.
Actually no, the opinions of writers in marvel are not as important as on panel evidence. Stan lee has claimed that galactus is the most powerful character in marvel before. This is obviously not true as on panel evidence clearly shows. Indeed determining the correct portrayal of a character may be subjective but a what constitutes a characters regular portrayal is usually fairly easily agreed upon.
There have hardly been any movies that have stayed true to the characters comic portrayal. when a charcater fails to use a majority of the powers he uses and has shown to be capable of using in the comics then its obvious that he is not being portrayed accurately.
Originally posted by Naija boy
Actually no, the opinions of writers in marvel are not as important as on panel evidence. Stan lee has claimed that galactus is the most powerful character in marvel before. This is obviously not true as on panel evidence clearly shows. Indeed determining the correct portrayal of a character may be subjective but a what constitutes a characters regular portrayal is usually fairly easily agreed upon.There have hardly been any movies that have stayed true to the characters comic portrayal. when a charcater fails to use a majority of the powers he uses and has shown to be capable of using in the comics then its obvious that he is not being portrayed accurately.
So, basically, what you're saying is that if they change how Thor's powers worked tommorrow then you would call it invalid?
PS. Also, stories can change. Just because Stan Lee once said Galactus is the strongest character ever, doesn't prevent him from MAKING new characters that are stronger, does it? Bad example, man.
Originally posted by Naija boywhen has a movie failed to show a character using the majority of their powers?
Actually no, the opinions of writers in marvel are not as important as on panel evidence. Stan lee has claimed that galactus is the most powerful character in marvel before. This is obviously not true as on panel evidence clearly shows. Indeed determining the correct portrayal of a character may be subjective but a what constitutes a characters regular portrayal is usually fairly easily agreed upon.There have hardly been any movies that have stayed true to the characters comic portrayal. when a charcater fails to use a majority of the powers he uses and has shown to be capable of using in the comics then its obvious that he is not being portrayed accurately.
cuz in the last comic against red hulk, Thor did not use godblast, teleportation, energy suck, anti-force blast, etc...none of it and he usually doesn't either. So does that make comics an inaccurate portrayal of characters too?
---
also you said, "the opinions of writers in marvel are not as important as on panel evidence"
I hope you realize that on panel evidence IS the opinions of Marvel writers.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
So, basically, what you're saying is that if they change how Thor's powers worked tommorrow then you would call it invalid?
If they officially change how thors powers worked then it would be a RECTON. not just one writer coming out and saying what he thinks without applying it to comics.
Originally posted by Naija boy
If they officially change how thors powers worked then it would be a RECTON. not just one writer coming out and saying what he thinks without applying it to comics.
Retcon you mean?
Sigh, it's apparent that you've convinced yourself that your interpretation of a Thor vs Hulk fight is the only one that is valid and therefore any other presentation (even by the writers and creators at Marvel themselves) don't count because it doesn't fit into your version of how it would go.
Unfortunately for you, the most recent presentation of a Hulk vs Thor fight puts Hulk as the clear winner. Whether or not you chose to disregard this by calling it "a conspiracy to get money by making the more popular guy win in a movie" is up to you.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
So, basically, what you're saying is that if they change how Thor's powers worked tommorrow then you would call it invalid?PS. Also, stories can change. Just because Stan Lee once said Galactus is the strongest character ever, doesn't prevent him from MAKING new characters that are stronger, does it? Bad example, man.
It might be a bad example for a troll who doesn't read comics.
Originally posted by Starscream M
when has a movie failed to show a character using the majority of their powers?cuz in the last comic against red hulk, Thor did not use godblast, teleportation, energy suck, anti-force blast, etc...none of it and he usually doesn't either. So does that make comics an inaccurate portrayal of characters too?
---
also you said, "the opinions of writers in marvel are not as important as on panel evidence"
I hope you realize that on panel evidence IS the opinions of Marvel writers.
Dr strange movie and Hulk vs Thor movie are clear examples. For some reason thors durability was reduced.
Also what did i tell u earlier? That if a comic goes against a particular characters history then THAT particular comic is not credible NOT the comics themselves.. Jeez. Also i never mentioned thor not using the godblast as a reason for the movie being innacurate. what made it innaccurate was thors reduced durability, reduced strength, reduced power output etc.
And actually no a writers individual opinion on something can greatly differ from what is presented on panel. As seen when stan lee claimed that galactus was the most powerful character in marvel. anyone who reads comics at all knows that isnt true. If what a writer states is entirely different from what he shows on panel then we take what on panel. end of story
Originally posted by Naija boyyou realize that that is completely subjective right? What one person may think is bad writing may be completely acceptable to another.
That if a comic goes against a particular characters history then THAT particular comic is not credible NOT the comics themselves..
Let me ask you then, do you disregard the Red Hulk vs Thor fight as noncanon or do you accept it? (basically, thor used none of his fancy powers in that fight)
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Retcon you mean?Sigh, it's apparent that you've convinced yourself that your interpretation of a Thor vs Hulk fight is the only one that is valid and therefore any other presentation (even by the writers and creators at Marvel themselves) don't count because it doesn't fit into your version of how it would go.
Unfortunately for you, the most recent presentation of a Hulk vs Thor fight puts Hulk as the clear winner. Whether or not you chose to disregard this by calling it "a conspiracy to get money by making the more popular guy win in a movie" is up to you.
lulz what r u talking about? Hulk is one of my favorite characters and im very sure i have more of his comics than u do. The writers and creators at marvel have written many thor and hulk fights and practically all of them thor has had the edge. Even when bannerless hulk went on a rampage and had destroyed the avengers, thor had the upper hand in their battle. Im not using any "vision" of how i would go because ive read all the comics theyve fought in and know how the fights went.
And for the most recent portrayal are u referring to the Red hulk fight? because if u had continued reading loebs horrible work u wud see that thor actually came back and defeated red hulk rather easily. Regardless red hulk is even irrelevant here cuz he isnt the hulk in question. If u feel like disregarding what happens in comics and believing what u see in movies THAT is up to you.
Originally posted by D_Dude1210
So, basically, what you're saying is that if they change how Thor's powers worked tommorrow then you would call it invalid?PS. Also, stories can change. Just because Stan Lee once said Galactus is the strongest character ever, doesn't prevent him from MAKING new characters that are stronger, does it? Bad example, man.
When stan lee claimed that galactus was the most powerful character in marvel(90s) there were already numerous characters superior to him. Also if u actually read what i said properly u wud see that i said if they offically change how thors powers work it would be called a RECTON and therefore would accept it since it would be displayed ON PANEL.
Originally posted by Naija boystan lee was talking to the general public who have no idea of guys like living tribunal, eternity, etc
When stan lee claimed that galactus was the most powerful character in marvel(90s) there were already numerous characters superior to him. Also if u actually read what i said properly u wud see that i said if they offically change how thors powers work it would be called a RECTON and therefore would accept it since it would be displayed ON PANEL.
in terms of characters who make regular appearances and that are known to general public, Galactus is the most powerful being in Marvel
---
unless you happen to think that Stan Lee is an idiot and actually believes that Galactus is more powerful than the living tribunal... 😕
Originally posted by Starscream M
you realize that that is completely subjective right? What one person may think is bad writing may be completely acceptable to another.Let me ask you then, do you disregard the Red Hulk vs Thor fight as noncanon or do you accept it? (basically, thor used none of his fancy powers in that fight)
Subjective? Yes that may be true, but glaring contradictions to a characters history are normally easily identified by the general population of informed readers.
And no i dont disregard the Red hulk vs thor fight as NON CANON. cuz it isnt. However on KMC going by the NO PIS rule and full capacity rule then it wouldnt be very credible evidence to use in a fight.
Originally posted by Starscream M
stan lee was talking to the general public who have no idea of guys like living tribunal, eternity, etcin terms of characters who make regular appearances and that are known to general public, Galactus is the most powerful being in Marvel
---
unless you happen to think that Stan Lee is an idiot and actually believes that Galactus is more powerful than the living tribunal... 😕
Exactly my point. Numerous circumstances play a part when writers state their opinion of characters. The only way for this opinion to become fact is when they represent it ON PANEL.
Originally posted by Starscream M
oh I agree it is convenient..but that;s actually how comics are and is not unique to it being a moviebatman survives fights because of the same thing...he doesn't get hit like Superman or someone else more durable would
---
btw, what the hell is that smilie supposed to be anyways?
yea and that annoys me with Batman too.
Also the smiley face is someone snorting coke or some other drug