Originally posted by Soljer
And those other showings don't change the fact that, currently, in both his on-goings, Superman is written with absolutely no resistance to red sun radiation. And, if I recall correctly, we do typically take 'current versions unless otherwise specified.' .
This argument would actually hold weight if they were different versions of the same character. They aren't, so it doesn't.
I brought up 7 instances just off the top of my head to your 2. I'll even throw in another one:
Ruin blasts Superman with red sun radiation only to have it filtered out of his body in mere moments. Kal then proceeds to own him.
Using averages counts for more than approaching it from a narrow-minded perspective.
Originally posted by batdude123
This argument would actually hold weight if they were different versions of the same character. They aren't, so it doesn't.I brought up 7 instances just off the top of my head to your 2. I'll even throw in another one:
Ruin blasts Superman with red sun radiation only to have it filtered out of his body in mere moments. Kal then proceeds to own him.
Using averages counts for more than approaching it from a narrow-minded perspective.
Pretending that more recent showings do not retroactively override older ones isn't using 'averages,' it's using wishful thinking.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotJust as deep as Mag, if not deeper. (we don't even know his real name, and all we know is that he was a holocaust survivor.)
Than whom?Magneto, Joker, Luthor, Doom? Nah...
Joker? Crazy-gas, correct e if I'm wrong? What else?
Luthor? Rich, hates Superman.
Doom? Roomies with Reed. BOOM! "Augh! Look at my formerly perfect face! I hate you, Reed!"
How do any of these have a deeper storyline than Apoc? All of them except perhaps Magneto have very shallow reasons for their villainy.
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube"Reasons for villainy" in itself doesn't make a character good or interesting - Apocalypse applies Darwin to human evolution ergo he's a good character? "Reasons for villainy" in itself doesn't make a character compelling. Writing, character development, character interactions and dynamics... yeah those aren't important.
Just as deep as Mag, if not deeper. (we don't even know his real name, and all we know is that he was a holocaust survivor.)Joker? Crazy-gas, correct e if I'm wrong? What else?
Luthor? Rich, hates Superman.
Doom? Roomies with Reed. BOOM! "Augh! Look at my formerly perfect face! I hate you, Reed!"
How do any of these have a deeper storyline than Apoc? All of them except perhaps Magneto have very shallow reasons for their villainy.
You honestly think Apocalypse is a better character than Dr Doom, Magneto, Joker and Lex Luthor? 😑
Originally posted by Soljer
Pretending that more recent showings do not retroactively override older ones isn't using 'averages,' it's using wishful thinking.
Not at all. The fact that I don't disregard a character's feats based upon arbitrary reasoning isn't wishful thinking. The majority of his feats favor him being resistant. Ergo, on average, Superman is highly resistant to red sun radiation.
Originally posted by Doctor-Alvis
Did Superman read about an absolute sense of direction?
He always finds his way back. ermmhappy
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Reasons for villainy" in itself doesn't make a character good or interesting - Apocalypse applies Darwin to human evolution ergo he's a good character? "Reasons for villainy" in itself doesn't make a character compelling. Writing, character development, character interactions and dynamics... yeah those aren't important.You honestly think Apocalypse is a better character than Dr Doom, Magneto, Joker and Lex Luthor? 😑
I was reffering to the depth of his backstory, and how he could potentially be used, not how he's regularly portrayed in comics.
His backstory is deeper and more interesting than those of any of the characters you've named.
I just said a couple of posts ago that he was a loser. How do you get "he's a better character" from that? 😑
Iunno I must have assumed from the "deeper storyline" thing.
Even then I've read Rise of Apocalypse it's frankly not the best or interesting origins, nor is a Darwinian approach to humanity that original or "deep" really. Relatively "human" reasons behind a character's decisions don't make them not "deep."
Originally posted by xmarksthespotNever said it was the deepest, or best. It is, however, deep.
Iunno I must have assumed from the "deeper storyline" thing.Even then I've read Rise of Apocalypse it's frankly not the best or interesting origins, nor is a Darwinian approach to humanity that original or "deep" really. Relatively "human" reasons behind a character's decisions don't make them not "deep."
Originally posted by Cosmic Cube
His backstory is deeper and more interesting than those of any of the characters you've named.