Originally posted by abhilegend
The feat is vague and Captain America falling from a building is superior./Astner
Reserved interpretations have always been the most reliable. When people are allowed to assume more than what's necessary then we end up with character interpretations that aren't compatible with the source material.
And this isn't just for hyperbole. Even with Gladiator's feat: crossing galaxies in the blink of an eye, we're not going to assume anything more than that two galaxies were traversed because that's the bare minimum we have to assume for the description to make sense. We could assume it was a hundred billion galaxies, the only reason we don't, is because we don't have to.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
And we assume this for Beyonders being without limit, amirite?
If you want to contest this is hyperbole you're at liberty to do so. But to pretend that the recent explanation we got concerning the Beyonders' power which is unambigious is comparable to something like "i flew across the universe to get here," with no further cues as to what it actually entails is disingenuous.
Sorry, I misremembered.
You said the CELESTIALS were infinite in power, based on the Beyonders being limitless.
Despite the very same comic clearly stating they (the Beyonders, not the Celestials) having limits.
You're right, it's not ambiguous at all - they had limits, and the prose was hyperbolic poetic licence, contradicted by clear statements saying they had limits.
Originally posted by Astner
I've never challenged the legitimacy of feats, I've only challenged your tendency to take poetic licence describing feats literally. Especially when these interpretations of yours can are contradicted by other explicit showings.Reserved interpretations have always been the most reliable. When people are allowed to assume more than what's necessary then we end up with character interpretations that aren't compatible with the source material.
And this isn't just for hyperbole. Even with Gladiator's feat: crossing galaxies in the blink of an eye, we're not going to assume anything more than that two galaxies were traversed because that's the bare minimum we have to assume for the description to make sense. We could assume it was a hundred billion galaxies, the only reason we don't, is because we don't have to.
How's it that all the Marvel characters feat are concrete facts while DC characters feats are poetic license? How's galaxies in a blink any more legitimate than crossing the universe in sixty days?
Originally posted by Astner
With the Beyonders we have an elaborative account of them being limitless, they were created as the fail-safe for the infinite multiverse able to overpower even their creators if need be, and in Time Runs Out they even did it.If you want to contest this is hyperbole you're at liberty to do so. But to pretend that the recent explanation we got concerning the Beyonders' power which is unambigious is comparable to something like "i flew across the universe to get here," with no further cues as to what it actually entails is disingenuous.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Sorry, I misremembered.You said the CELESTIALS were infinite in power, based on the Beyonders being limitless.
Despite the very same comic clearly stating they (the Beyonders, not the Celestials) having limits.
You're right, it's not ambiguous at all - they had limits, and the prose was hyperbolic poetic licence, contradicted by clear statements saying they had limits.
Originally posted by abhilegend
How's it that all the Marvel characters feat are concrete facts while DC characters feats are poetic license? How's galaxies in a blink any more legitimate than crossing the universe in sixty days?
Whereas "traveling across the universe" is nonspecific, just as "traveling across the galaxy" would be, because even if we assume it's literal there's no way of determining how much of the galaxy was actually traversed. If you move from the Solar System to Alpha Centauri (the closest star system) you can technically say that you've "traveled across the galaxy," without being grammatically incorrect.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Flew from the universe's edge you mean?
You can't even interpret it literally because the universe doesn't have an edge according to any contemporary model of physics. And if you want to argue that it was the Source Wall (of which there was no implication), that was retconned from being the enclosure of the universe to being the enclosure of the multiverse before the New 52 took off.
In other words you're injecting a very specific literal interpretation to a clearly figurative statement that breaks down even at surface-level scrutiny.
Originally posted by Astner
I conceded this point back in the thread.
Furthermore, you didn't lead with this in THIS current exchange; maybe you should have done so instead of trying to gloss over your mistake.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
That does not take away from the fact that you still did precisely what you're accusing Abhi of doing; I e. focussing on prose and statements when it was clearly contradicted - in the very same comic issue, no less.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Furthermore, you didn't lead with this in THIS current exchange; maybe you should have done so instead of trying to gloss over your mistake.
And if I tried to "cover it," like some of you like to do, I wouldn't so readily have pointed out that I had conceded to it.
Originally posted by Astner
I conceded this point back in the thread.It's not. But traversing galaxies is specific, it means moving past different galaxies, and it can mean nothing else given the context of the feat.
Why not? It can mean he was traversing. galaxies for some time before Heimdall blinked
Whereas "traveling across the universe" is nonspecific, just as "traveling across the galaxy" would be, because even if we assume it's literal there's no way of determining how much of the galaxy was actually traversed. If you move from the Solar System to Alpha Centauri (the closest star system) you can technically say that you've "traveled across the galaxy," without being grammatically incorrect.
That's just nonsense with flowery description.
That's even more nondescript because it's literally a play on the phrase "the Edge of the World" which likewise is used figuratively to describe some far-away place.
But there's an edge in DC universe called source wall.
You can't even interpret it literally because the universe doesn't have an edge according to any contemporary model of physics. And if you want to argue that it was the Source Wall (of which there was no implication), that was retconned from being the enclosure of the universe to being the enclosure of the multiverse before the New 52 took off.
Splendid, Superman travelled from the edge of the multiverse. Good to know you're aware of that.
In other words you're injecting a very specific literal interpretation to a clearly figurative statement that breaks down even at surface-level scrutiny.
Or you're just a marvel fanboy butthurt at the feats of DC characters. How about that?
Originally posted by Thanos_THOTU
0MG!!!!11 what comic?But we also have the power of a million exploding suns on our side.
Originally posted by Validus
Who is we? You know you're not actually a Marvel character, right?
Originally posted by Thanos_THOTU
We (symbios schitzoprenia) do have the power of a million exploding suns.But then again, only a DC fanboy would be able to point out a Marvel one, no?
Astner in 2007: I'm a marvel fanboy
Astner in 2022: Well akshually......
Anyway I searched for both DC fanboy (where you're calling everyone a DC fanboy and not vice-versa as you claimed).
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=dc+fanboy+userid%3A96799
But eh, flowery description.
