Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Started by DarkSaint851,926 pages

😂 @Astner

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Because there are no rules saying I need to refer which book, so I choose not to?

If someone sees this post a year from now, and the backwards image search yields zero results, then no one will be able to examine the context of the scene.

I can barely pinpoint the scenes of the stories I've read a few months ago. Which I use the search function to find images I (or others) have posted.

Let's say I want to find the scene where Maelstrom fights Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet, from the Quasar run.

It takes far less effort to source a scene than it does to look it up.

So?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So?

Do it.

Originally posted by Astner
Do it.

No.

Robot vs tree.

Originally posted by Astner
If someone sees this post a year from now, and the backwards image search yields zero results, then no one will be able to examine the context of the scene.

I can barely pinpoint the scenes of the stories I've read a few months ago. Which I use the search function to find images I (or others) have posted.

Let's say I want to find the scene where Maelstrom fights Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet, from the Quasar run.

It takes far less effort to source a scene than it does to look it up.


Yeah...so there are no rules saying that I have to do that, right? So whether I choose to cite the source really just depends on my mood.

You cite your sources? Cool!
But I see no reasons for criticizing others who not doing it

Batman's new hand!

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Yeah...so there are no rules saying that I have to do that, right? So whether I choose to cite the source really just depends on my mood.

You cite your sources? Cool!
But I see no reasons for criticizing others who not doing it

His entire reasoning for it is....because he wants you to. No other justification, lol.

Get over yourself, Astner.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
His entire reasoning for it is....because he wants you to. No other justification, lol.

Get over yourself, Astner.


Just mention an out of context Superman feat and wait for a walls of text and images reply. Works everytime.

Originally posted by Astner

Nothing happened, it was a description which would apply to anyone who doesn't hesitate.

So Superman didn't fly in the vortex?

If I don't hesitate to order sashimi for lunch today that also means that I didn't hesitate for a millisecond, microsecond, nanosecond, picosecond, femtosecond, attosecond, etc. to order sashimi. Does that imply that I have attosecond reactions? No, of course not.

I'm not sure why you're hyperfixating on this to be honest. It's highly interpretative at best.

Nonsense, you simply can't hesitate within a single picosecond because you can't experience it. Superman can because he can experience individual picosecond.

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Or put it like this.
Character A doesn't hesitate for a second to take the hit to save people, despite the threat he is facing posed a threat to him, due to his courage
Then what would have happened if he were a less courage person? He would have hesitate for a second(I.E, he would have reacted for a second)

I.E, that sentence implies something the character A could have done

I hear the argument, and I get it, but my point is that you have an argument, not a feat. You couldn't rely on this scan to actually prove that Superman has picosecond reflexes, so calling it a "picosecond feat" is wrong. Treating it like a feat requires some reliance on an interpretation about an implication of what could have happened in the scene but didn't... that's some h1-flavoured garbage.

Scan says that not even at that tiny measurement was there any trace of hesitation. Does that mean Superman could have hesitated within the span of a single picosecond? Sure, maybe. Or maybe it means Superman would have taken most of a nanosecond or some other arbitrary amount of time and so it provides greater certainty of his bravery by emphasizing "a single picosecond".

If a scene emphasizes that Black Bolt exercised great restraint and didn't allow his voice to affect a single atom on the battlefield, does that mean that he has atomic level control over his voice? Sure... maybe. Who knows.

That's not what Pico second ft

Originally posted by carver9
That's not what Pico second ft

/end thread.

Originally posted by Smurph
I hear the argument, and I get it, but my point is that you have an argument, not a feat. You couldn't rely on this scan to actually prove that Superman has picosecond reflexes, so calling it a "picosecond feat" is wrong. Treating it like a feat requires some reliance on an interpretation about an implication of what could have happened in the scene but didn't... that's some h1-flavoured garbage.

Scan says that not even at that tiny measurement was there any trace of hesitation. Does that mean Superman could have hesitated within the span of a single picosecond? Sure, maybe. Or maybe it means Superman would have taken most of a nanosecond or some other arbitrary amount of time and so it provides greater certainty of his bravery by emphasizing "a single picosecond".

If a scene emphasizes that Black Bolt exercised great restraint and didn't allow his voice to affect a single atom on the battlefield, does that mean that he has atomic level control over his voice? Sure... maybe. Who knows.


Yeah, this seems more like a statement rather than a feat.
Although I think the Black Bolt analogy is a bit off(as I would think the similar interpretation would be BB's voice can destroy things at atomic level), but it's a moot point I guess

Originally posted by Smurph
I hear the argument, and I get it, but my point is that you have an argument, not a feat. You couldn't rely on this scan to actually prove that Superman has picosecond reflexes, so calling it a "picosecond feat" is wrong. Treating it like a feat requires some reliance on an interpretation about an implication of what could have happened in the scene but didn't... that's some h1-flavoured garbage.

Scan says that not even at that tiny measurement was there any trace of hesitation. Does that mean Superman could have hesitated within the span of a single picosecond? Sure, maybe. Or maybe it means Superman would have taken most of a nanosecond or some other arbitrary amount of time and so it provides greater certainty of his bravery by emphasizing "a single picosecond".

If a scene emphasizes that Black Bolt exercised great restraint and didn't allow his voice to affect a single atom on the battlefield, does that mean that he has atomic level control over his voice? Sure... maybe. Who knows.


What a bunch of garbage. It's a feat because the comic notes it's a feat, not because I argue that.

I didn't put the picosecond in the comic, the writer did.

The comic notes Superman struggles ahead despite suffering great damage due to magic and despite all that never hesitates EVEN FOR A SINGLE PICOSECOND.

Its a simple narrative tool to indicate that he was moving at such a speed that he was experiencing time on individual picosecond level. What's the need for nitpicking here?

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Yeah...so there are no rules saying that I have to do that, right? So whether I choose to cite the source really just depends on my mood.

You cite your sources? Cool!
But I see no reasons for criticizing others who not doing it

kmc posts are like research papers for astner

not only does image needs to be posted for every statement, references and citations are needed as well

serious business

Originally posted by carver9
That's not what Pico second ft

bro why talk like bizarro, grammar no like carver

This is the same type of scene here published the same week ironically, Jon is actually powerless to stop his momentum but still thinking at superspeed to the point he can turn microseconds into minutes.

Does that mean Jon didn't use his superspeed at all despite the narration saying otherwise? Of course he did, just like Superman did here.