Originally posted by zopzop
You'd have a point if the narrator wasn't also stating things like "or so the story goes" or "legends say".No one is saying it never happened. I'm just saying hyperbole and flowery language were used throughout the comic.
I copied the whole narration of that panel as it is and there was no "legend" or "story goes" on that specific panel.
"World" isn't really all that flowery.
I mean, why even accept ONE (of 2) interpretation of Thor's vague comment vs the clear text of the narration w/c can only have a single interpretation? Especially when you take the clear narration and the other interpretation of Thor's vague comment together, it makes sense but if you use the other interpretation, it doesn't (and we'd have to fall back to the "crappy writing" excuse)?
If anyone would look at the evidence with unbiased eyes, it's actually clear what the correct interpretation is.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I copied the whole narration of that panel as it is and there was no "legend" or "story goes" on that specific panel."World" isn't really all that flowery.
I mean, why even accept ONE (of 2) interpretation of Thor's vague comment vs the clear text of the narration w/c can only have a single interpretation? Especially when you take the clear narration and the other interpretation of Thor's vague comment together, it makes sense but if you use the other interpretation, it doesn't (and we'd have to fall back to the "crappy writing" excuse)?
If anyone would look at the evidence with unbiased eyes, it's actually clear what the correct interpretation is.
So it wasn't Thor that did that. It was Gorr and Thor. How much of it was Gorr? How much of it was Thor?
Originally posted by NibedicusI'm sure someone will post scans of Superman punching H'el so hard, the sounds of their battle were reaching into the outer atmosphere, and argue that's more impressive than Thor hitting Gorr so hard that it was causing a nearby moon to come apart.
Hmmmm. So far, no Superman fans have posted yet. Are you Thorbags quivering in yer boots about how they'll interpret the scans? ;-)They're plotting your destruction. Oh yes, just you wait...
Originally posted by JakeTheBankIt was
Christ.The feat/fight is abundantly clear to anyone who can read and comprehend both text and art. And somehow, it's still being picked apart and dismissed for the dumbest reasons.
Anyway, I find these notions of doubt to be dubious. I mean... Thor and Gorr's battle was so ferocious, it would have destroyed a nearby moon. And somehow, people are doubting that the actual planet they were fighting on was breaking apart... when a panel shows it breaking and the narration says it was "shattering." I mean, how powerful would the planetside battle have to be to actually destroy its orbital moon?
Clearly not worldbreaking... somehow.
Originally posted by zopzop
Neither is the word "moon". For all the flowery language, on panel you have the crust of a planet crumbling and a moon starting to shatter. You also seem to be forgetting that this is a share feat.
But that's the problem, Thor saying:
"That's no empty moon"
Can be interpreted 2 ways:
1) "empty (false)", "moon (true)". Meaning it's an inhabited moon.
Or
2) "empty moon" (false). Meaning: inhabited planet. Or that Thor thought at first it was a moon then realized it wasn't.
This is further corroborated by:
"Thus did the norse god of thunder come to be worshiped on a scarred world in a distant corner of space"
Now you can take interpretation 1 and claim "bad writing" or "flowery writing" in order to justify why it doesn't seem to make sense when taken with the narration that followed.
Or you can take interpretation 2 where both makes sense.
And with FORUM consensus being narration > character comments. It's actually pretty easy w/c of the 2 interpretations is correct.
I'm not arguing on the "feat's" impressiveness here. Just what I feel like is the incorrect interpretation of the forum.
Originally posted by zopzop
So it wasn't Thor that did that. It was Gorr and Thor. How much of it was Gorr? How much of it was Thor?
Irrelevant as I really don't care either way. I just care about getting the correct interpretation out.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
But that's the problem, Thor saying:"That's no empty moon"
Can be interpreted 2 ways:
1) "empty (false)", "moon (true)". Meaning it's an inhabited moon.
Or
2) "empty moon" (false). Meaning: inhabited planet. Or that Thor thought at first it was a moon then realized it wasn't.
This is further corroborated by:
"Thus did the norse god of thunder come to be worshiped on a scarred world in a distant corner of space"
Now you can take interpretation 1 and claim "bad writing" or "flowery writing" in order to justify why it doesn't seem to make sense when taken with the narration that followed.
Or you can take interpretation 2 where both makes sense.
And with FORUM consensus being narration > character comments. It's actually pretty easy w/c of the 2 interpretations is correct.
I'm not arguing on the "feat's" impressiveness here. Just what I feel like is the incorrect interpretation of the forum.
Irrelevant as I really don't care either way. I just care about getting the correct interpretation out.
One object was called "no life less moon" and it appeared to be in orbit around the object that Gorr and Thor were fighting on. Make of that what you will.
Originally posted by zopzop
Which itself is vague as hell. On panel we saw two objects. One crumbling and another about to shatter.
Art is oftentimes vague. You see ppl stating that they're punches is causes a jillion tons of force and all you see are earthquakes on TV screens and that seems acceptable.
Artist don't need to draw a freakin flowchart for readers especially when there is narration that specifically states what is going on.
Originally posted by zopzop
One object was called "no life less moon" and it appeared to be in orbit around the object that Gorr and Thor were fighting on. Make of that what you will.
You cannot prove vice versa here. For all you know, the moon they were fighting on was in orbit around the planet that was cracking.
Again, far more evidence of planet than moon.
Seriously, why are you so resistant here? My interpretation makes sense. Narration corroborates art corroborates character statements. What is the problem?
At the VERY LEAST, this throws your "moon" interpretation into MAJOR doubt.
^ Moon, world, planet, whatever. Thor mistook it for a moon at first in the haze of battle. So it was probably a moon-sized planet.
Unless you subscribe to IDLI, IDH logic and argue that it was a small inhabited spherical asteroid made of cotton candy. Which is basically where the trends of this thread are leading.
Ahh, KMC. Never change.
Originally posted by ODG
^ Moon, world, planet, whatever. Thor mistook it for a moon at first in the haze of battle. So it was probably a moon-sized planet.Unless you subscribe to IDLI, IDH logic and argue that it was a small inhabited spherical asteroid made of cotton candy. Which is basically where the trends of this thread are leading.
Ahh, KMC. Never change.
A lot of times, especially in the heat/haze of battle, one doesn't really have time to measure interstellar distances and determine sizes of interstellar bodies, heck ppl still think the other planets are stars when staring at the night sky even today, Ppl can make mistakes.
Now, I can accept that it COULD be a moon sized planet. But there is little in the narration that specifies its size and maybe we can try to use art to determine that later. My purpose is simply correcting the current interpretation of texts as it seems to have been accepted that when Thor said:
"That's no empty moon"
Ppl automatically assumed:
1) "empty (false)", "moon (true)". Meaning it's an inhabited moon.
Instead of:
2) "empty moon" (false). Meaning: inhabited planet. Or that Thor thought at first it was a moon then realized it wasn't.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Art is oftentimes vague. You see ppl stating that they're punches is causes a jillion tons of force and all you see are earthquakes on TV screens and that seems acceptable.Artist don't need to draw a freakin flowchart for readers especially when there is narration that specifically states what is going on.
No, what he did show was two objects slowly being destroyed by the force of Thor and Gorr fighting it out.
Keep in mind no one else present mentioned this multi world destruction. Unlike, for example, the Odin/Seth universal throwdown. The narration was backed up by THREE "witnesses" : Jean Grey, Dr. Strange, and the Silver Surfer. Even original doubters of it have no choice but to accept it because there's no getting around the on panel evidence.
You cannot prove vice versa here. For all you know, the moon they were fighting on was in orbit around the planet that was cracking.Again, far more evidence of planet than moon.
Seriously, why are you so resistant here. My interpretation makes sense. Narration corroborates art corroborates character statements. What is the problem?
Originally posted by zopzopWhat kind of crap artist can't even get the point of the narration across in the space of an entire page. He just needed to show a panel or two of this multi world destruction if it was really happening and not hyperbole.
No, what he did show was two objects slowly being destroyed by the force of Thor and Gorr fighting it out.[/B]
He didn't show multi-world destruction. He showed planet-moon by the art. I think ppl just got it reversed that it was the planet breaking and the moon being affected by the force of the blows from afar instead of the moon breaking and the planet being affected by the force of the blows from afar.
Originally posted by zopzop
Keep in mind no one else present mentioned this multi world destruction. Unlike, for example, the Odin/Seth universal throwdown. The narration was backed up by THREE "witnesses" : Jean Grey, Dr. Strange, and the Silver Surfer. Even original doubters of it have no choice but to accept it because there's no getting around the on panel evidence.[/B]
I'm not mentioning that either, heck, previously I already stated a planet and a moon.
Originally posted by zopzop
We can prove anything, just present our case. More often than not the artist isn't an astronomer. Unless you got on panel proof that he meant to depict a double planet system, most people would assume he was presenting a planet and it's satellite ("that's no lifeless moon). [/B]
It's not a double planet system (where the heck is this coming from?), it WAS (most probably) a planet and a moon just in reverse order to what the current perception is.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
He didn't show multi-world destruction. He showed planet-moon by the art. I think ppl just got it reversed that it was the planet breaking and the moon being affected by the force of the blows from afar instead of the moon breaking and the planet being affected by the force of the blows from afar.I'm not mentioning that either, heck, previously I already stated a planet and a moon.
It's not a double planet system (where the heck is this coming from?), it WAS (most probably) a planet and a moon just in reverse order to what the current perception is.
I stated that I thought a planet and it's moon were being slowly wrecked as a result of Thor and Gorr going at it.
Originally posted by zopzop
Then what are we even arguing about?I stated that I thought a planet and it's moon were being slowly wrecked as a result of Thor and Gorr going at it.
/shrug
I wasn't arguing with you to begin with, I was making a forum-wide comment.
You're the one who started arguing with me. 😛
Originally posted by zopzopThe comic showed it and narrated it. Not in an idiot-proofed double-page spread mind you. But then again, even that level of detail didn't prevent naysayers from arguing against Hulk/Betty obliterating a planet or Hyperion holding apart two universes. It's also blatantly implied considering their battle reached across space and was going to destroy the orbital moon.
What kind of crap artist can't even get the point of the narration across in the space of an entire page. He just needed to show a panel or two of this multi world destruction if it was really happening and not hyperbole.
Originally posted by zopzopIrony.
No, what he did show was two objects slowly being destroyed by the force of Thor and Gorr fighting it out.Keep in mind no one else present mentioned this multi world destruction. Unlike, for example, the Odin/Seth universal throwdown. The narration was backed up by THREE "witnesses" : Jean Grey, Dr. Strange, and the Silver Surfer. Even original doubters of it have no choice but to accept it because there's no getting around the on panel evidence.
Originally posted by zopzopMost people would also assume that their fight shattered the world they were fighting on and nearly shattered the nearby inhabited moon orbiting it had Thor not saved it.
We can't prove anything, just present our case (especially in comics like this). More often than not the artist isn't an astronomer. Unless you got on panel proof that he meant to depict a double planet system, most people would assume he was presenting a planet and it's satellite ("that's no lifeless moon).
Originally posted by ODG
The comic showed it and narrated it. Not in an idiot-proofed double-page spread mind you. But then again, even that level of detail didn't prevent naysayers from arguing against Hulk/Betty obliterating a planet or Hyperion holding apart two universes. It's also blatantly implied considering their battle reached across space and was going to destroy the orbital moon. [b]Irony. Most people would also assume that their fight shattered the world they were fighting on and nearly shattered the nearby inhabited moon orbiting it had Thor not saved it. [/B]
But we actually SEE the planet get destroyed in WBH arc. Even not, the feat against the beings trumps the planet any day of the weak.
I could care less about the Hyperion feat.
The narration said worlds shattered when the one next to them wasn't shattered at all. So it's asinine to believe worlds were shattered when the one next to them wasn't.