Gladiator & WWH vs THANOS

Originally posted by quanchi112
Again, most writers don't even know what the artists drawings realistically weigh and people like you trying to assign real numbers to it is hilarious.

You won't ever get how most of these feats are actually thought up and will contiue to feat it up with video games and comics despite common sense screaming in your face.

We argue how these characters are commonly portrayed and here's a writer explaining how the real world works.

Kurt Busiek--hey don't even make sense half the time -- if a stat in the Handbook says that Character A can lift 120 tons, most artists don't know what 120 tons looks like, and they don't go and check whether a particular airplane or tank or whatever is within the character's stated limits; they just figure that means "wicked strong" and draw what looks to them appropriately "wicked."

I think that system works better than assigning numbers -- all that happens when you do that is that someone says Spider-Man can lift 40 tons (or whatever) because of that humongous machine he lifted once with incredible effort, and then bang, all of a sudden it's his standard strength, and fans who use to see Spider-Man go up against three guys with lead pipes and think it was an okay fight are going, "No way! He can lift 40 tons! That means he can juggle Buicks!"

All of this is common sense. But for what reason are you going to such great lengths to defend writer ignorance? Do you not find it fun to poke fun at them for it? I certainly do. 🙂

And don't speak of common sense Quan, you demonstrate lack of it all the time. Even in this post of yours.

Unless we somehow get notice that common materials in comics are supposed to somehow weigh less than they do in the real world, I'll be taking logical calculations over objects being lifted than obviously flawed and unreliable handbook descriptions. THAT is common sense.

In order to fix it their classifications, they simply have to get rid of the 'tonnage' qualifier next to the class names.

Class 100 should not mean guys who can lift/press/bench 100 tons. It should simply stand as a number by itself that, 'hey, these are the strongest mofos you will find in this verse'.

Quam couild start a argument with himself about nothing in a empty room

Originally posted by CosmicComet
All of this is common sense. But for what reason are you going to such great lengths to defend writer ignorance? Do you not find it fun to poke fun at them for it? I certainly do. 🙂

And don't speak of common sense Quan, you demonstrate lack of it all the time. Even in this post of yours.

Unless we somehow get notice that common materials in comics are supposed to somehow weigh less than they do in the real world, I'll be taking logical calculations over objects being lifted than obviously flawed and unreliable handbook descriptions. THAT is common sense.

In order to fix it their classifications, they simply have to get rid of the 'tonnage' qualifier next to the class names.

Class 100 should not mean guys who can lift/press/bench 100 tons. It should simply stand as a number by itself that, 'hey, these are the strongest mofos you will find in this verse'.

The point is one or two feats which you can't determine don't change the way these characters are portrayed. That's the point which you'll never get.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You don't get that most don't base this stuff on reality or search the internet for the weight of objects in their drawings.

The point is one or two feats which you can't determine don't change the way these characters are portrayed. That's the point which you'll never get.

The point that you will never get is I'm doing nothing but criticizing the stupid wording of a classification system. It's flawed. It's laughable.

Spiderman lifts a 100 tons. It's in his potential. He's done it regularly enough to say so. That doesn't mean he's even a single percent of Thor's strength of course. Who is an actual '100 tonner'.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
The point that you will never get is I'm doing nothing but criticizing the stupid wording of a classification system. It's flawed. It's laughable.

Spiderman lifts a 100 tons. It's in his potential. He's done it regularly enough to say so. That doesn't mean he's even a single percent of Thor's strength of course. Who is an actual '100 tonner'.

Don't be obtuse. They've already been mentioned. He's done it several times throughout his career.

100 tons is not an astronomical number.

for example a writer doesnt know the make up of an asteroid whether it is hollow or not.. all he knows is he wants to drawn something that is big twice the size of earth and wants his guy to break it.. this to show how strong his guy is he is implying it is twice as big twice as heavy..etc etc..

then the nerds come in well the asteroid could have bn mostly, water hollow with gas pockets and that would be less heavy or dense as earth.. so not impressive against my guys feat. which the same argument lowballing can be applied but it is ignored for convenience for winning the argument.

the point is the nerds and idiots with lil science and access to internet try to apply real world phsyics and dismiss the writer and artist actual intent..

its like a guy drawing a dog and some @$$hole walks in and says its a cat the artist doesnt know what he was trying to draw i'll correct him..

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Don't be obtuse. They've already been mentioned. He's done it several times throughout his career.

100 tons is not an astronomical number.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
for example a writer doesnt know the make up of an asteroid whether it is hollow or not.. all he knows is he wants to drawn something that is big twice the size of earth and whats his guy to break it.. this to show how strong his guy is he is implying it is twice as big twice as heavy..etc etc..

then the nerds come in well the asteroid could have bn mostly, water hollow with gas pockets and that would be less heavy or dense as earth.. so not impressive against my guys feat. which the same argument lowballing can be applied but it is ignored for convenience for winning the argument.

the point is the nerds and idiots with lil science and access to internet try to apply real world phsyics and dismiss the writer and artist actual intent..

its like a guy drawing a dog and some @$$hole walks in and says its a cat the artist doesnt know what he was trying i'll correct him..

Writer's intent is one thing, but unless said writer gives specifications, it does not rule out application of logic.

Grey Hulk breaking a hollow asteroid does not deny writers intent at all: i.e. its a strong feat. Hulk is strong for having done that. How strong? Maybe not as strong as the writer may have intended, but unless he closes the gaps on specifications (we'll never know the extent of his intent unless he does) the rest will be filled in by application of knowledge and logic by fans.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Writer's intent is one thing, but unless said writer gives specifications, it does not rule out application of logic.

Grey Hulk breaking a hollow asteroid does not deny writers intent at all: i.e. its a strong feat. Hulk is strong for having done that. How strong? Maybe not as strong as the writer may have [b]intended, but unless he closes the gaps on specifications (we'll never know the extent of his intent unless he does) the rest will be filled in by application of knowledge and logic by fans. [/B]

Originally posted by quanchi112
The point is you have no idea and like usual are talking out of your ass. Concession accepted.

The only concession is you admitting to not knowing the weight of real life things and then falling back on writer ignorance to support your own.

100 tons is not a big deal. It is lifted routinely in comics by any number of lame mid-tiers.

Again, spiderman has tossed around tanks with ease among other things.

an asteroid can also be solid with small pockets .. i would think that earth is more hollow then certain asteroids due to the magam molten core especially if they are the size of one another which means we can also and just as likely assume the asteroid was completely solid as oppose to hollow.

also it is ignorant to argue against writers intend for what one believes to be logical in a fantasy art medium.

Originally posted by quanchi112
When did it state it was a hollow asteroid?

Looks like the post went entirely over your head.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
The only concession is you admitting to not knowing the weight of real life things and then falling back on writer ignorance to support your own.

100 tons is not a big deal. It is lifted routinely in comics by any number of lame mid-tiers.

Again, spiderman has tossed around tanks with ease among other things.

Which tanks weigh 100 tons?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
an asteroid can also be solid with small pockets .. i would think that earth is more hollow then certain asteroids due to the magam molten core especially if they are the size of one another which means we can also and just as likely assume the asteroid was completely solid as oppose to hollow.

also it is ignorant to argue against writers intend for what one believes to be logical in a fantasy art medium.

You missed the point. I was not saying the asteroid was hollow. My point was that if fans conjectured that it was hollow (I use the term loosely), it would not tamper with writers intent at all. It's a massive strength feat regardless. Unless the writer specifies how massive a feat its supposed to be (i.e. how heavy the asteroid is), then it leaves room for us to measure.

Writer ignorance or lack of detail is not room for abandonment of knowledge of logic.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Based on which Thanos loss?

my problem which is why i brought up the hulk feat is that some fans are bias with how they argue and conjecture.

they do it to dismiss a feat but not another.. example:

some argue the asteroid is hollow so not as heavy as earth or dense.. but ignore the fact that earth itself is not solid either and has magma crack fissures and mostly water.. but the asteroid whether hollo or not is still twice the size..

now this is where it gets worse ppl arguing for superman will use a moon feat and say that feat is more impressive then hulk's feat but it is a matter of opinion and massive one sided bias..why? b/c the same argument that applied against the asteroid being hollow is not used for supe's feat nor does anyone mention the size of a moon compare to our earth or any other planet object that we know of..

Originally posted by CosmicComet
You missed the point. I was not saying the asteroid was hollow. My point was that if fans conjectured that it was hollow (I use the term loosely), it would not tamper with writers intent at all. It's a massive strength feat regardless. Unless the writer specifies how massive a feat its supposed to be (i.e. how heavy the asteroid is), then it leaves room for us to measure.

Writer ignorance or lack of detail is not room for abandonment of knowledge of logic.

Originally posted by BattleMage
so so sad

Originally posted by quanchi112
Name the mid tiers and the circumstances. I cited a writer stating the obvious so the burden is on you to cite a writer using real world numbers to back up the drawings. Go ahead.

Which tanks weigh 100 tons?

Your Busiek quote means what? We already know that handbook stats are completely unreliable. That just reaffirmation.

Again, you miss the point. It is not important for a writer to cite the weight of an object and have it be cross referenced with actual weights in order for us to know what it weighs. If they lack any figure, then logically we go by a real world figure. Once more,

And no, I'm too lazy to give an exhaustive list. All you have to know is that I'm right . 100 tons objects are not particularly big at all we've seen tons of characters lift things that weigh 100 tons in actuality. Savage Dragon is another mid-tier that's lifted over 100 tons.

Lots of tanks weigh 100 tons. I'm not going to give you lists of things that should be common knowledge.

arrogance of ppl has always bn the bane of the art world.. critics thinking they know what the artist was thinking, feeling or tryin to express.. pompous ignorant @$$holes.