superman 1 million vs king thor

Originally posted by Warlord
When exactly made it clear he didn't consider the character at Galaxy destroying levels?

Originally posted by Dan Jurgens
RC: Most comic book godly character never live up to their hype?

DAN JURGENS: No, they don’t. And I will say that it has been something of a surprise that when I do con appearances, people say to me about the Odin-power, "Well, gee . . . you screwed it up." And I say, "Well, what was it before?" And when you get into that conversation you realize that-you know what? If I talk to ten different people, I get ten different opinions on what is the potential of the Odin-power.

So, let’s go back to the story where Thor put the Moon back together. We deliberately wrote it in such a way as we did not necessarily state exactly what happened there. It was definitely written with the idea in mind that . . . here is an Asgardian talking to a kid, almost telling [the story] in terms of a legend, or a fable. And what might have been the reality is that . . . yeah, maybe Thor took the atomized Moon and put it back together. Or, it could have been . . . a big freakin’ chunk blew off the Moon and Thor put it back, which is still pretty damn big.

RC: Which interpretation do you lean towards?

DAN JURGENS: I think it’s somewhere in the middle, myself. I think there was a cosmic event that involved the Moon that could have had calamitous impact on Earth. The Moon was not totally and utterly destroyed. But legend, and the way people talk about Thor and his use of the Odin-power, and the way they would deal with it with children is . . . "Thor put it back together."

You know, it’s like how we talk about Daniel Boone, or Davy Crocket, or George Washington and the cherry tree. So, did something happen there? Yeah. Is it as it’s portrayed in the comic? Not necessarily. That’s why we used splash pages [in the Moon issue] and different artists for each one-we wanted that inconsistent look so that people got the idea that, just as you had fifteen different artists imagining that story, so would you have kids imagining it in different ways.

RC: So you did not write Odin as a character capable of, say, killing galaxies?

DAN JURGENS: Odin? No.

RC: Then what were the limits of his power . . . planetary-level?

DAN JURGENS: They had to be . . . and I will say that consistently because we have seen Odin defeated so many times. The idea we were trying to get across is that the Odin-power made him among the most powerful of gods-certainly the most powerful Asgardian. But if we look at either Odin or Zeus, we see fallibility and we see a limit.

And you could actually, you know, read the story and realize that he wasn't written at "I can one-shot ze galaxy!11" levels.

Originally posted by Philosophía
And you could actually, you know, read the story and realize that he wasn't written at "I can one-shot ze galaxy!11" levels.

according to him Odin wasn't a galaxy buster either.

Originally posted by Philosophía
And you could actually, you know, read the story and realize that he wasn't written at "I can one-shot ze galaxy!11" levels.

that's a very intriguing article. it's always amazing to me how one writer can define a character, and a different one can define him so differently. we've seen odin destroy dead galaxies, we've seen surtur destroy a galaxy, and yet jurgens drops him to planetary levels. i wonder why the lack of consistency is actually accepted or considered acceptable?

His Odin, and subsequently his Thor, wasn't. Taking this into consideration, the fact that Jurgens wrote him for the entirety of his Odin powered story-arc and that he was never portrayed as being anywhere near galaxy destroying, what should we take into consideration, his intent/portrayal or transfer Odin's galaxy destroying feats to Thor ?

Common sense is rare though, so I don't have any expectations.

Originally posted by leonidas
that's a very intriguing article. it's always amazing to me how one writer can define a character, and a different one can define him so differently. we've seen odin destroy dead galaxies, we've seen surtur destroy a galaxy, and yet jurgens drops him to planetary levels. i wonder why the lack of consistency is actually accepted or considered acceptable?

It's not just this writer, or this character, it's everybody. Take Superman's portrayals for example (Morrison and Mcduffie or Kurt Busiek and James Robinson). It's the nature of comics, and the way we're approaching debates here, cherry picking highest feats instead of doing averages and taking into account every portrayal, has become rather annoying and counter-productive.

--

But that's another discussion entirely. And it's different here because, like I said, it was Dan Jurgens who wrote King Thor for the entirety of his run.

There is a LOT of power difference between being planet-buster and a galaxy-buster. It's stupid to limit his power to a planetary simply because he can't destroy an entire galaxy.

Originally posted by Philosophía
His

--

But that's another discussion entirely. And it's different here because, like I said, it was Dan Jurgens who wrote King Thor for the entirety of his run.

True however He clearly states that he view's Odin not being a galaxy -buster.

Thus the reason thor was not doing so.

Kind of a mess up logic given Odin's past

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
There is a LOT of power difference between being planet-buster and a galaxy-buster. It's stupid to limit his power to a planetary simply because he can't destroy an entire galaxy.

I agree but admittedly, that answer was pretty much shoved down his throat.

But, like I said, different writers with different opinions. Some writers consider planet-busting a big deal, even for very powerfull characters (take JMS and his recent Thor/Bor fight). Some shove galaxy busting attacks without a second thought.

You mean read the ragnarok story...well yeah I have it...
Now you mention it it is "clearly" stated that he wasn't at galaxy destroying levels...

Originally posted by leonidas
that's a very intriguing article. it's always amazing to me how one writer can define a character, and a different one can define him so differently. we've seen odin destroy dead galaxies, we've seen surtur destroy a galaxy, and yet jurgens drops him to planetary levels. i wonder why the lack of consistency is actually accepted or considered acceptable?

That interview is pretty contradictory to what jurgens himself portrayed on panel. In the sequence in which Odin and thor are talking, Odin is seen casually creating multiple planets and stars. he then talks to thor about how vanquishing and recreating a celestial body , is very minimal compared to what the Odin power can truly accomplish. Right there and then it was portrayed and outright mentioned that the Odinpower was far above simply planetary level and that the problem at that point was not the odinpower but rather thors inability to use it properly. For him to then claim in an interview that the odinpower is a planetary level power even while clearly portraying it as far above that................is quite strange to say the least.

Originally posted by Philosophía
I agree but admittedly, that answer was pretty much shoved down his throat.

But, like I said, different writers with different opinions. Some writers consider planet-busting a big deal, even for very powerfull characters (take JMS and his recent Thor/Bor fight). Some shove galaxy busting attacks without a second thought.

Yeah.

That's why I'm satisfied with some kind of middle ground. He can destroy planets much easier than high heralds, but taking out a galaxy should be some kind of ultimate attack. It should require his life or like...the entire odinforce.

Can't it be considered a "retcon"?

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Can't it be considered a "retcon"?

Definitley not.

It's just a writer's opinion (which is decisive in this case, for reasons I pointed out) on a character's capabilities. It doesn't retcon anything the same way Superman being knocked out by something while in earlier stories he's not by something more powerfull doesn't retcon his capabilities.

Originally posted by Philosophía
Definitley not.

It's just a writer's opinion (which is decisive in this case, for reasons I pointed out) on a character's capabilities. It doesn't retcon anything the same way Superman being knocked out by something while in earlier stories he's not by something more powerfull doesn't retcon his capabilities.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Yeah.

That's why I'm satisfied with some kind of middle ground. He can destroy planets much easier than high heralds, but taking out a galaxy should be some kind of ultimate attack. It should require his life or like...the entire odinforce.

I'm going with that...👆

Originally posted by Philosophía

It's not just this writer, or this character, it's everybody. Take Superman's portrayals for example (Morrison and Mcduffie or Kurt Busiek and James Robinson). It's the nature of comics, and the way we're approaching debates here, cherry picking highest feats instead of doing averages and taking into account every portrayal, has become rather annoying and counter-productive.

i've said that for a LOONNNNGGGGGG time around here. though instead of 'average', i tend to look more at consistency. i don't think average showing is necessarily the best way to go. if a character has the bulk of his/her high-end feats under one writer or 2, but several others write him/her much lower, then taking the average of the way he/she was written really isn't logical because BOTH versions of the character are EQUALLY correct and should be allowed equal validity. in that sense, it IS fair to use both the highest and lowest feats in a debate. it is equally unproductive however. i think it is imperative that the whole history of a character be taken into account in any debate. it's why i will never say that logan defeating characters like abomination and hulk is PIS--because consistently, through his history, he has done just that.

sticking with the odin example, you could literally have an odin vs odin thread (or a superman vs superman thread) and one version, under one writer, would clearly stomp the other. hell, the way jurgens painted the odin power as used by KT, a well-written kirby-CLASSIC thor might be able to defeat him.

is the odin power (forgetting for a moment what naj said and staying with jurgens) planetary or galaxy level? the answer is very clearly BOTH, and if someone wanted to argue odin would get destroyed by a (fill in with someone who has written supes at a very high level) superman, and use jurgens' definition as proof, it would need to be conceded, as that is ONE interpretation of the character. BUT, by the same token, the other needs to accept that a kirby-written, galaxy-busting, universally powerful odin blinks superman out of existence.

there IS no solution to the problem, because the problem, literally, has many many correct answers. the best you can do is find as much connsistency in portrayal as possible. at least that's the best I'VE ever been able to do.

Originally posted by Philosophía
Feat-transferrence, Batdude, FEAT TRANSFERRENCE.

Eventough the writer made it quite clear that he didn't consider/write his version of Odin/Odin power as anywhere near galaxy-killing, we have to ignore this and the way he portrayed the character/what he had him do because ODIN destroyed galaxies!!!

My bad.

Originally posted by leonidas
that's a very intriguing article. it's always amazing to me how one writer can define a character, and a different one can define him so differently. we've seen odin destroy dead galaxies, we've seen surtur destroy a galaxy, and yet jurgens drops him to planetary levels. i wonder why the lack of consistency is actually accepted or considered acceptable?

now, if we assume Odin has the power to destroy galaxies (just for one second, think about what a galaxy is and absorb the greatness of what it is) then it would make Odin so far above any and most marvel beings.

yet Odin struggled to dispatch Thanos. Thanos may be 10x more powerful than a herald, but he is nowhere close to being able to effect the galaxy in any way. Even assuming Odin is 10x or even 100x more powerful than a being like thanos, it would be hardpressed to see him being able to destroy a galaxy. I mean, literally, a being with the power to destroy the galaxy would be able to destroy planets or even stars with a fingernail.

I mean, Im ok with categorizing Odin as a galaxy destroyer, but if so...then his battle with thanos should be considered PIS to the highest order becausse he should've be able to flick thanos like a insect.

personally, I think the galaxy destroying business was just the result of a writer who was engaging in extreme hyperbole and has no concept of what it really means to possess the power to destroy a galaxy.

Originally posted by leonidas

is the odin power (forgetting for a moment what naj said and staying with jurgens) planetary or galaxy level?

A galaxy buster would be thousands if not millions of times more powerful than a planetary threat.

Originally posted by Starscream M
A galaxy buster would be thousands if not millions of times more powerful than a planetary threat.

Trillions, at least.

Originally posted by Starscream M
when you have inconsistencies, then we should look to logic to see our answer

now, if we assume Odin has the power to destroy galaxies (just for one second, think about what a galaxy is and absorb the greatness of what it is) then it would make Odin so far above any and most marvel beings.

yet Odin struggled to dispatch Thanos. Thanos may be 10x more powerful than a herald, but he is nowhere close to being able to effect the galaxy in any way. Even assuming Odin is 10x or even 100x more powerful than a being like thanos, it would be hardpressed to see him being able to destroy a galaxy. I mean, literally, a being with the power to destroy the galaxy would be able to destroy planets or even stars with a fingernail.

I mean, Im ok with categorizing Odin as a galaxy destroyer, but if so...then his battle with thanos should be considered PIS to the highest order becausse he should've be able to flick thanos like a insect.

personally, I think the galaxy destroying business was just the result of a writer who was engaging in extreme hyperbole and has no concept of what it really means to possess the power to destroy a galaxy.

in the early books, odin was EASILY a galaxy buster. and this is PRECISELY the reason i so rarely declare PIS. one writer's interpretation should count (in the vast majority of cases) as much as another's. by that reasoning, his battle wasn't PIS at all. especially in light of some of thanos's OWN crazy feats. rather it was just the way THAT writer portrayed odin. you may not agree, but it doesn't make it less valid. it's not the CHARACTER'S fault that the WRITER hasn't written him to his past heights. i think the only time pis comes into play is if it is something GROSSLY outside the norm for the character.

logic--in a world that lacks inherent consistency--will always fall short. or perhaps more accurately, it is possible to logically come up with differing and equally accurate assessments. what is the most consistent version of a character? what do MOST writers seem to agree upon. imo, i think THAT formula is the best one to use when comparing 2 characters.

failing that, call each other names.