Statements vs Feats

Are scans the end all be all of whether or not we believe a character can do something or are documented statements that the writer has written or worth just as much?

If the statements are narrative captions not speech bubbles
They are just as good as feats

Social media comments are usually a cluster fuk of fans trying to get writers to say what they want to hear, so it gets complicated

Originally posted by MrMind
If the statements are narrative captions not speech bubbles
They are just as good as feats

Social media comments are usually a cluster fuk of fans trying to get writers to say what they want to hear, so it gets complicated

Depends on which makes hulk look more impressive and others less impressive, eh carver?

Feats all day long

As a general rule of thumb, I'd say feats > statements. Talking about lifting a weight isn't as impressive as actually lifting the same weight, etc.

That said, statements *can*(and often *do*) hold just as much validity as feats, depending on who made the statement and what the context behind it is.

Assuming it's all in the actual comic:

Feats > statements, usually.

Though as a general rule, feats with statements > feats or statements alone. The combined art and words give multiple ways to assess the feat. The better we can understand the feat, the more weight we can place in relying on it.

Statements alone are difficult, because it implies that something is theoretical or happened off panel. Either way, lots of ambiguity and little reliability.

... unless OP is asking about statements the writer makes outside of the comic, which do not in any way trump what happens in the comic.

Well as I mentioned, it depends who made the statement and what the context is behind it. Because some statements are irrefutable from the onset, and do not require any supporting 'feats' to validate them.

For example: if Rip Hunter or Waverider state the timestream is collapsing, I don't need to see a page depicting its literal collapse to know they are 100% correct. If Reed, Valeria, and Franklin are having a discussion about the inner-workings of Marvel's current cosmology, I don't need to see any of those inner-workings depicted on panel to believe them. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Beat me to it. I was just making this thread up in my head as well...

I would class them as:

1 Feats not depending on art - taken as gospel. Nobody here questions that Superman can fly, for example.

2. Feats depending on art - Drax's anti-Thanos aura, some depictions of speed fighting, and bullet-timing.

3. In-character narration. By this I mean, if Reed or Pym says that he's tested Cyclops' eye blasts, and they contain the equivalent of 1 million Newtons, we believe him. I won't believe Johnny Storm if he said this.

4. Comic Narration. This one is a bit iffy, particularly when we start looking at the Silver Age or pre-crisis comics.

5. Character narration. Spiderman telling the story of the Sentry stalemating Galactus.

Originally posted by carver9
Perfect way of putting it. You are a pretty good poster.

With this posts this thread can be closed.

Statements, whether it's narrative or not, can be riddled with analogues and hyperbole and because of that it's a less reliable form of evidence. But the idea that statements are completely useless is a stretch to say the least.

Although I can sympathize with battleboard communities that deal with cross-fiction battles and have stricter criteria with evidence because a comic character is going to have a more extensive history than a movie character.

Originally posted by MrMind

Social media comments are usually a cluster fuk of fans trying to get writers to say what they want to hear, so it gets complicated

It depends on the character being talked about.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85

LOL

You and carv were such a great couple in 2011.

Originally posted by Galan007
Well as I mentioned, it depends who made the statement and what the context is behind it. Because some statements are irrefutable from the onset, and do not require any supporting 'feats' to validate them.

For example: if Rip Hunter or Waverider state the timestream is collapsing, I don't need to see a page depicting its literal collapse to know they are 100% correct. If Reed, Valeria, and Franklin are having a discussion about the inner-workings of Marvel's current cosmology, I don't need to see any of those inner-workings depicted on panel to believe them. Etc. Etc. Etc.

If Rip Hunter states the timestream is collapsing, I don't see why anyone would have reason to doubt him. If Rip then says that "Character X is the only one who can fix it", now we're in the territory of something that can be measured as a feat.

The question is, can we rely on statements without feats to believe that a character can do something?

Originally posted by deft
Are scans the end all be all of whether or not we believe a character can do something or are documented statements that the writer has written or worth just as much?

Originally posted by Smurph
The question is, can we rely on statements without feats to believe that a character can do something?

[feats and statements that don't contradict each other] > [feats] > [statements by credible sources on specific events] [i.e. see Galan's post about the Linear Men] > [objective statements by the author's narration box] > [...] > [empty statements -i.e. hyperbole, statements made in the midst of the battle "I've never been punched that hard!" etc.] > [...infinity...] > [other sources [handbooks]] > [....] > [harassing the writers to give you PMs]

^ 👆

I like this thread. Lots of good replies, surprisingly.

Good job, deft.

Originally posted by CatL18
About twitter, people make writers tell what they want to hear.

But I do agree that it's generally the least reliable source of information.

Originally posted by Astner
But you won't be able to get them to say whatever you want.

Oh, you're wrong about that.

Plenty of stubborn fanboys made them say exactly what they wanted.