low feats vs PIS

Originally posted by cdtm
In the case of Superman, the depowering was done to a ridiculous extent in the comics themselves.

Not by Byrne, either. The worst offender was Marv Wolfman, who wrote the most pathetic Superman ever.

I mean, just look at him struggle with Teen Titans villains.

It's said Byrne could be kind of a jerk, so wouldn't surprise me if Wolfman went overboard on purpose. "Ok jerk, you want weaker, I'll do weaker."

Yes, but, and here's the point that this thread is about, what Wolfman did was low showings, not the status quo. Byrne had set the standard for it by bringing him down to herald level (not Thing and Colossus level like some might believe).

Originally posted by leonidas
well, i wouldn't say mollywhopped (though i love that word) but carol would probably have won that fight though she was having trouble keeping gamora down. gamora did get in some really good shots though. the gamora talk was starting to get irritating however so i may have oversold it. 👆 gotg 13 for anyone who wants to check it out.

and again, that's not what the thread is about. if a character can definitively be shown to be less than they were then of course distinct 'eras' of a character can be introduced or referenced in threads--as they always have been. problem is no one has proven she HAS been 'downgraded' beyond showing a couple random lower feats. this is more about the use of low feats, and their use in vs threads in general...

So do we go by percentages?

Thor has 1000 showings, with 10 low showings, that weighs less than the 10 low showings Grail has?

That DOES rely on having knowledge of Thor's 990 higher showings, though.

i don't know. i'm not trying to answer for anyone. i guess that would be the ideal situation but we can't expect everyone to know all of that. in thor's case though we certainly know his high feats FAR outweigh his lower ones and that's easy to prove in regards to where he is most consistently portrayed.

i guess the way I'D like to see low feats used, is when someone is trying to prove the low feats are closer or as close to the norm as the high feats, if that makes sense.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Yes, but, and here's the point that this thread is about, what Wolfman did was low showings, not the status quo. Byrne had set the standard for it by bringing him down to herald level (not Thing and Colossus level like some might believe).

Agreed. My main point, was the myth of sub herald Superman probably came from these low end showings. I was frankly surprised as just how low Wolfman wrote him, it was kind of ridiculous.

Originally posted by cdtm
Agreed. My main point, was the myth of sub herald Superman probably came from these low end showings. I was frankly surprised as just how low Wolfman wrote him, it was kind of ridiculous.

Oh right, yeah, true. That or people just want to make the guy look bad.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So do we go by percentages?

Thor has 1000 showings, with 10 low showings, that weighs less than the 10 low showings Grail has?

That DOES rely on having knowledge of Thor's 990 higher showings, though.

I think we also need to look at the character motivation and how and why highest end showings occur. Using Thor as the example. With the use of Mjilnors full power he can take any herald and hold his own above herald class at least for a bit. But the Honourable Warrior nature of thor means that he doesn't use the hammer and it's full power as often as he should. He wants to fight in an honourable battle and usually only draws upon the power of the Uru mallet as a last resort. The question then becomes either
1. can he last out until he gets to do this. The answer obviously is usually yes due to his durability.
2. Is the nature of the battle such that he will get to the point of calling on its full power. Here it comes down to how the oppoment he fights is fighting and the level of threat they are. Against a brick not posing a danger to others likely not.

So for example in a battle with an in character Superman who would be of no threat to innocent lives he's probably not going to use the esoteric powers of the hammer. When fighting however a blood lusted Superman, or Ultraman who is a major threat to innocent life he's going to go for those Powers earlier due to the duty he has to protect them (falling within his honor- i.e duty to protect greater than personal glory and honor would demand the duty upheld.

The example you gave for Odin a page or so ago being the same.

Originally posted by cdtm
In the case of Superman, the depowering was done to a ridiculous extent in the comics themselves.

Not by Byrne, either. The worst offender was Marv Wolfman, who wrote the most pathetic Superman ever.

I mean, just look at him struggle with Teen Titans villains.

It's said Byrne could be kind of a jerk, so wouldn't surprise me if Wolfman went overboard on purpose. "Ok jerk, you want weaker, I'll do weaker."

Never noticed that Mammoth that couldn't even come close to lifting the 65 ton weight after, jesus christ.

Superman's weak as ****.

He's not a bad writer though, that stuff is still a -****ton- better than the tripe we're seeing nowadays.

Wolfman seems pretty level headed if you ask me.

Originally posted by beatboks
I think we also need to look at the character motivation and how and why highest end showings occur. Using Thor as the example. With the use of Mjilnors full power he can take any herald and hold his own above herald class at least for a bit. But the Honourable Warrior nature of thor means that he doesn't use the hammer and it's full power as often as he should. He wants to fight in an honourable battle and usually only draws upon the power of the Uru mallet as a last resort. The question then becomes either
1. can he last out until he gets to do this. The answer obviously is usually yes due to his durability.
2. Is the nature of the battle such that he will get to the point of calling on its full power. Here it comes down to how the oppoment he fights is fighting and the level of threat they are. Against a brick not posing a danger to others likely not.

So for example in a battle with an in character Superman who would be of no threat to innocent lives he's probably not going to use the esoteric powers of the hammer. When fighting however a blood lusted Superman, or Ultraman who is a major threat to innocent life he's going to go for those Powers earlier due to the duty he has to protect them (falling within his honor- i.e duty to protect greater than personal glory and honor would demand the duty upheld.

The example you gave for Odin a page or so ago being the same.

Something I left out in this post. If in the battle with an in character Superman Kal used heatvision than Thor would likely respomd with lightning, freeze breath-storms or wind. He'd fight the battle how he sees it as fair. Its like tje Noble knight in a joust who unhorses and makes gis opponent drop a lance. IF the opponent then drew a sword and shaped up the honorable response would be to drop the lance dismount and fight by sword. Not many have that level of honor, Thor is one.

Originally posted by krisblaze
Never noticed that Mammoth that couldn't even come close to lifting the 65 ton weight after, jesus christ.

Superman's weak as ****.

He's not a bad writer though, that stuff is still a -****ton- better than the tripe we're seeing nowadays.

Wolfman is one of the best comic writers of all time. He took a nothing concept like the Teen Titans and madenit matter. He wrote titles that had real characters with completely identifiable and understandable motivations and drive. His work on COIE taking the complete and utter patchwork mess of DCU continuity and cleaning it up was amazing.

He amd Roy Thomas are a couple of writers who can take the inconsistent and unreconciled contradictory mess created by other writers and make it somehow make sense.

I'll admit that story was far from what he normally does, but to be fair all the FF did was knock the wind out of him because he blindly rushed in and underestimated them. When he didnt they were no issue.

Guys. The question of Wolfman's pedigree isn't the issue here. I don't think anyone's calling him a bad writer. The point is simply, that if he wrote Superman as being less impressive than Byrne did, it wouldn't be the status quo but instead low showings, simply because Byrne was still the flagship writer at the time, and he had basically created Post Crisis Superman. He had priority.

^ this guy gets it. 👆

Originally posted by leonidas
^ this guy gets it. 👆

👆

And before anyone argues, no, Byrne was first. Byrne's six issue mini called "The Man of Steel" predates his own run on Action Comics, and Wolfman's run on Adventures of Superman by a few months. It's part of the reason we say "Byrne Superman" and not "Wolfman Superman".