Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Originally posted by Galan007
No one is arguing for the usage of interviews, though. abhi simply gave us the FULL context of the cropped Tweet that was posted yesterday... And it paints a MUCH different picture.

Regardless, Phil was spot-on: anyone with a brain should have been able to read the pertinent issues and easily grasp the fact that WF's multiverse was destroyed as a corollary of Superman's punch. Outside sources shouldn't even be needed here.

Well, looking at the time stamps, looks like it was just posted today?

In any case, considering the magnitude of the tweet (a complete 180 from the conclusions drawn from his previous tweet), I'd say it's fair game to be discussed.

What's worse, I guess is:

Originally posted by carver9
I'm standing in my living room right now dancing. I knew I was right. I just subbed to him. When ABHI posted an image from the artist (the image he posted wasnt even legit), people rode it. Now we receive confirmation...

I'm done. Thanks CAT for mentioning this.

Carver knew, thanks to his subscription. Am sure he's just upset Abhi broke the story before Carv had the chance to tell all of us 👆

We're gonna get into a real Eddie Brock situation here

I don't mind it being discussed, because it correlates with what was explicitly shown(and stated) on panel... It is additional subsidiary confirmation of the aforementioned showing.

Now if the interview would have contradicted the on panel info, then it would be inadmissible. Again: on panel information supersedes ALL, and Twitter interviews cannot retcon established/published canon.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Well, looking at the time stamps, looks like it was just posted today?

In any case, considering the magnitude of the tweet (a complete 180 from the conclusions drawn from his previous tweet), I'd say it's fair game to be discussed.

What's worse, I guess is:

Carver knew, thanks to his subscription. Am sure he's just upset Abhi broke the story before Carv had the chance to tell all of us 👆

We're gonna get into a real Eddie Brock situation here

why was carver twerking in his living room again? 😕

Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
im confused.

why was carver twerking in his living room again? 😕

I think because he was so excited about finally bring proven right for once. He was rubbing it in everyone's face..... EVERYONE!!!

Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Abhi, it wasn't a multiverse though.

The guy blatantly said it was a planet

here

Don't add context. it's clear as day

My man.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I think because he was so excited about finally bring proven right for once. He was rubbing it in everyone's face..... EVERYONE!!!

I see what you did there... 😂 😂

I'm not petty enough to scream "YOU LIAR, LIIIIAAAAARRRRRR'. 😂

Lick my feet and stare DS right in the eyes, honey.

Let's make him jealous.

Originally posted by carver9
I see what you did there... 😂 😂

I'm not petty enough to scream "YOU LIAR, LIIIIAAAAARRRRRR'. 😂

Haha that's good. Did you see the Twitter post on your subs this morn?

Originally posted by Galan007
I just saw this.

...What an absolute shithole of a forum. ermm

Probably the same guys run Vsforum.

Welcome to [neo-nazi racist meme, apparently. I won't let them take my clowns.]

Originally posted by Galan007
I don't mind it being discussed, because it correlates with what was explicitly shown(and stated) on panel... It is additional subsidiary confirmation of the aforementioned showing.

Now if the interview would have contradicted the on panel info, then it would be inadmissible. Again: on panel information supersedes ALL, and Twitter interviews cannot retcon established/published canon.

If it helps to understand the question I'll use an example that's more theoretical so there are less potential inconsistencies between what happened and the imaginary scenario. Lets say a character in Marvel starts a massive ruckus using the Infinity Gems yet again. In the end, to beat the villain Thor uses a Godblast to destroy the Soul Gem. Now people like carver pop up and starts saying that Thor's attack was multiversal because we now know that the Soul Gem contains and is powered by a full on Multiverse. Then a writer clarifies on Twitter that no, Thor's feat was crazy powerful but it wasn't intended to be portrayed that it would have killed universal abstracts or anything like that. Do we say that the writer is contradicting what's stated on panel since we specifically know the Soul Gem contains a multiverse, or does his statement count as clarification since it wasn't specifically stated in that story that the Godblast was intended to be multiversal?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He'll prob just hide behind Galans post about not discussing it.

Still unusable in forum battles, though. Again, Alan Moore's interviews do not contradict the comics (I.e. that Constantine exists).

But no one here is going to use that in a forum thread seriously, lol.

The tweet IS just usable because Carv and Alberto were dancing so hard about it, and it's funny.

The timing was perfect lmao, all this time the tweet was sitting there and once Carver uses it, eventhough it doesnt count, the guy corrects himself, which proves to everyone how agenda driven carver is.

Originally posted by Diesldude
The timing was perfect lmao, all this time the tweet was sitting there and once Carver uses it, eventhough it doesnt count, the guy corrects himself, which proves to everyone how agenda driven carver is.

It didnt backfire... sigh.

https://www.turboimagehost.com/p/41743571/SmartSelect_20190801-203412_Twitter.jpg.html

What does that disprove again?

Bahahahahahahahbabaha

So because WF failed to replace one multiverse with the other, it disproves that Superman didn’t destroy a multiverse

Originally posted by carver9
It didnt backfire... sigh.

https://www.turboimagehost.com/p/41743571/SmartSelect_20190801-203412_Twitter.jpg.html

Originally posted by carver9
It didnt backfire... sigh.

https://www.turboimagehost.com/p/41743571/SmartSelect_20190801-203412_Twitter.jpg.html

Not sure what this has to do with Superman destroying the Multiverse, but OK.

The funniest thing of all?

Carver/Alberto themselves probably indirectly caused that clarification tweet. After dancing around it so much, it probably incensed abhi or someone to ask the editor to explain what he meant.

In short, had carver/Alberto left it well alone, it would never have happened lmao.

So when he actually clarify what he actually meant it seems with Superman knocking out world forger and stopped him from finishing his multiverse it just crumbled from being unstable not that Superman destroyed it with his power

This his LATEST tweet... Superman did technically cause WF's Multiverse to crumble... By destroying the Future JL's Planet...
So his punch only destroyed a planet.

For some reason the World Forger need Superman and the JL to agree with his plan so he could anchor this new Multiverse and have it replace the current one. That’s why he need asked Batman to change their minds cause he knew Superman would never agree to it. That in itself shows that the new Multiverse was not stable

was never wrong. context is there clear as day, andrew's blatantly spelling it out for those that got common sense

He was basically stopped from achieving something. Nice ft but it's not what everyone made it out to be. At this point, its just a agree to disagree. Seems like this is a senative subject for a lot of people here. I think it's best to leave it alone. No matter what is said, no one is changing their minds on a character they adore.

And he destroyed that anvil used to create universes.

No real spinning the fact he put WF on his ass, or broke his multiversal tier stuff.

You guys are really salty about this lol. It's a fictional character, for pity's sake. I can feel the poor man's depression on being chased on this topic from the tweets lol.