Originally posted by Badabinggalan is incorrect and is lying to you. My main argument (the one he doesn't want to tell you) is BeforeWatchmen is supposed to be a prequel to watchmen but it contradicts the original watchmen storyline. That is why Moore and Gibbons said it wasn't canon. But the biggest problem is that I'm using evidence from the original watchmen series to support my argument and Darksaint is using evidence from BeforeWatchmen that contradicts this evidence.
That's it then. I see no reason to dispute Before Watchmen.
So my main argument is that the original watchmen series should take precedent over the contradictory BeforeWatchmen.
Why must some people turn even the simplest of concepts into rocket science? Say it with me, dood: "ret-cons". They happen all the time in comics.
Given that DC owns the rights to the Watchmen franchise, they can do whatever the phuck they want with the series and have it be canon. Gibbons and Moore have absolutely NO say in what is canon and what is not-- they gave up their stake in the franchise when they sold the rights to DC. DC could literally retcon the entire Watchmen universe into a state of non-existence/un-being if they were so inclined, and Moore/Gibbons couldn't do a damn thing to stop it from being canon.
In even simpler terms: the word of someone with the legal rights to a particular series and its characters infinitely supersedes(ie. ">g_infinity"😉 the word of someone who does not hold the legal rights to a particular series and its characters.
If you insist on keeping up with your purposeful imbecility you will be reported for trolling, as that is all you are doing at this point. I refuse to believe that even you are this stupid.
Originally posted by h1a8
So my main argument is that the original watchmen series should take precedent over the contradictory BeforeWatchmen.
I have no say in this debate, but I loved the original Watchmen saga.
Originally posted by Galan007Funny thing is: nothing bad came of these 'retcons' he's referring to. It's not like any characters were depowered or given entirely different origins-- heck, most of the characters came away from it looking better(stat-wise) than they did before.
That aside, if the BFM hasn't changed original Watchmen,
then H should be happy he can use original statements/showings.
Originally posted by Mr Master
I also didn't notice a scene which literal de-powered Dr M, via statements or an inability,
but I was disappointed in how cheesy his particular issues were.
I wanted to learn more about him, and see more of his capabilities,
instead I was entertained with in-story talk
and hardly anything involving what I was interested in.That aside, if the BFM hasn't changed original Watchmen,
then H should be happy he can use original statements/showings.
I will have explain why he's so butthurt.
In BW, Dr M explained how he no longer will use his time powers to alter the future.
He also explains how attempts to alter the future do not result in changing outcomes, merely the creation of a secondary reality with addifferent outcome. The original reality remains intact.
In a battle forum, this means that H1a8 was arguing Dr M was essentially the Midnighter. Throw a punch, he knows what you'll do and move his head etc.
I argued IF he tried (though in character he says he won't), it doesn't affect timeline one, where he gets nut shotted
Originally posted by Mr Master
I also didn't notice a scene which literal de-powered Dr M, via statements or an inability,
but I was disappointed in how cheesy his particular issues were.
I wanted to learn more about him, and see more of his capabilities,
instead I was entertained with in-story talk and hardly anything involving what I was interested in.That aside, if the BFM hasn't changed original Watchmen,
then H should be happy he can use original statements/showings.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85👆
Right, with that in mind.....Manhattan wins through BFR, although he cannot /does not use his future vision like a naked blue Midnighter.
Originally posted by Galan007
Why must some people turn even the simplest of concepts into rocket science? Say it with me, dood: "ret-cons". They happen all the time in comics.Given that DC owns the rights to the Watchmen franchise, they can do whatever the phuck they want with the series and have it be canon. Gibbons and Moore have absolutely NO say in what is canon and what is not-- they gave up their stake in the franchise when they sold the rights to DC. DC could literally retcon the entire Watchmen universe into a state of non-existence/un-being if they were so inclined, and Moore/Gibbons couldn't do a damn thing to stop it from being canon.
In even simpler terms: the word of someone with the legal rights to a particular series and its characters infinitely supersedes(ie. "[b]>g_infinity
"😉 the word of someone who does not hold the legal rights to a particular series and its characters.If you insist on keeping up with your purposeful imbecility you will be reported for trolling, as that is all you are doing at this point. I refuse to believe that even you are this stupid. [/B]
You don't know what a retcon is.
1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.
Retcons don't create contradictions. Thus it's not a retcon.
Your argument suggests that the original story isn't canon since both can not be at the same time. But that would be asinine.
But anyway I'll argue classic Manhattan as Mr Master suggested. He wins here.
Originally posted by h1a8Do you know what take it to a PM means? Do you understand what "I see no reason to dispute Before Watchmen" means?
You don't know what a retcon is.
1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same [b](thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.Retcons don't create contradictions. Thus it's not a retcon.
Your argument suggests that the original story isn't canon since both can not be at the same time. But that would be asinine.
But anyway I'll argue classic Manhattan as Mr Master suggested. He wins here. [/B]
This is the last time I'm addressing your little hissy fit. You'll have a day off to think about eveything.
So, BW aside, this still holds true.
Originally posted by Cogito
DD already adapted to and defeated two energy-based beings.The first was the Radiant, who did manage to kill Doomsday prior to DoS. Second time around in H/P, DD one-shot killed the Radiant.
Second was Waverider. Doomsday adapted on the fly to Waveriders chronal energies and dispersed him.
Galan's right, Dr. M's best chance is BFR. If Doomsday manages to make contact with him, he's probably toast. Dr. M didn't ever display actual combat feats demonstrating the ability to defeat DD, so BFR is his only real shot.
Though it's likely DD gets his hits in before the thought of BFR even occurs. And that wouldn't turn out well, especially since DD is so fast.
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
So, BW aside, this still holds true.Though it's likely DD gets his hits in before the thought of BFR even occurs. And that wouldn't turn out well, especially since DD is [b]so
fast. [/B]
True. A wiser man then me, who knows DD better than I do, said this with regards to Hulk/Juggy:
Originally posted by h1a8
dd is too fast. Both would be statues if dd decided to blitz.
And Hulk has much MUCH better speed feats.