Is important the collateral damage in the comicbook feats?

Started by deft2 pages

Is important the collateral damage in the comicbook feats?

Is important the collateral damage to scale the feats?

I kinda look at collateral damage as something like bonus points. It can add to the impressiveness of a feat, but a lack of it almost never takes away from the impressiveness of a feat. Hulk pants and all that jazz...

Yes and no

Most of the time if it’s not due to the stor, collateral damage isn’t taken into account

How many times have two heroes punched each other that windows across the globe shatter but people watching the fight are fine.

For that reason alone, I don’t take it into account other than for “cool points”

A good example is Superman recently punching WF. He hit him so hard that other enemies like White Lantern John died from
The collateral damage.. cool but why did the aliens survive.

Re: Is important the collateral damage in the comicbook feats?

Originally posted by deft
Is important the collateral damage to scale the feats?

Not really no. DIRECT damage is, however.

What is direct damage, and how does it differ from collateral? By definition, collateral is a side effect of the action.

Example. Hulk punches a forcefield that can withstand the force of 1000 atomic bombs.

Direct damage: he shatters it.
Collateral: Jarvis was standing next to it, and wasn't even ruffled.

If you have direct but no collateral, then the lack of collateral takes nothing away from it.

But if you can't even get direct damage (the forcefield was intact), then it's a non feat.

Collateral damage serves to prove that Lois is skyfather+

Originally posted by deft
Is important the collateral damage to scale the feats?
It depends who the feat is being argued for and who it’s against.

Originally posted by Galan007
Case in point: Owen hits Beyonder with a blast that could have destroyed "SEVERAL BILLION ENTIRE DIMENSIONS":

...Yet a blast of that magnitude didn't even knock over the lap in Owen's studio apartment, or singe his couch. So does that mean the blast was really intended to be sub-apartment level? Of course not, lmao. It just confirms what anyone who isn't trying to be selectively ignorant already knows: that a lack of large-scale collateral damage doesn't mean a goddamn thing in many cases.

Depends if Superman did it or not

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Depends if Superman did it or not
yeah when Superman does it, people question the size, weight and even humidity level of a planet or crater size.

Superhuman's are often created out of collateral damage.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not really no. DIRECT damage is, however.

What is direct damage, and how does it differ from collateral? By definition, collateral is a side effect of the action.

Example. Hulk punches a forcefield that can withstand the force of 1000 atomic bombs.

Direct damage: he shatters it.
Collateral: Jarvis was standing next to it, and wasn't even ruffled.

If you have direct but no collateral, then the lack of collateral takes nothing away from it.

But if you can't even get direct damage (the forcefield was intact), then it's a non feat.

I get what you're saying, even though direct damage and collateral damage are typically the same thing. You've just found a way of invalidating the one that writers aren't paying attention to. The only problem with that notion, or train of thought is that it doesn't invalidate the need to judge each specific damage feat. Crushing a car shows great strength, crushing a building shows even greater strength, crushing a mountain range... Etc.

Re: Is important the collateral damage in the comicbook feats?

Originally posted by deft
Is important the collateral damage to scale the feats?

This sentence structure is doing collateral damage to my brain.

Re: Re: Is important the collateral damage in the comicbook feats?

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
This sentence structure is doing collateral damage to my brain.

C'mon, im learning english.

Re: Re: Re: Is important the collateral damage in the comicbook feats?

Originally posted by deft
C'mon, im learning english.

Are you? Well then my apologies.

Originally posted by Stoic
I get what you're saying, even though direct damage and collateral damage are typically the same thing. You've just found a way of invalidating the one that writers aren't paying attention to. The only problem with that notion, or train of thought is that it doesn't invalidate the need to judge each specific damage feat. Crushing a car shows great strength, crushing a building shows even greater strength, crushing a mountain range... Etc.

Well no....but that's where we can start to debate.

Depends. I kinda look at esoteric attacks with more scrutiny.

Originally posted by Galan007

Reality warpers bypassing collateral damage is one thing, but when it comes to characters who rely on the laws of physics—like the impact of a punch—there's no real reason for why the surrounding air shouldn't turn into plasma.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I kinda look at collateral damage as something like bonus points. It can add to the impressiveness of a feat, but a lack of it almost never takes away from the impressiveness of a feat. Hulk pants and all that jazz...

You need to tell Silent this. He thinks that the lack of collateral damage disproves the feat when there is other evidence to support the feat being impressive.

Originally posted by h1a8
You need to tell Silent this. He thinks that the lack of collateral damage disproves the feat when there is other evidence to support the feat being impressive.

"Thor's punch shattered the windows of the nearby skyscrapers, the punch that knocked out Supes didn't, those are the facts, deal with it."

As xJLxKing said, yes and no.

When Wolverine punches craters in the ground, it's clearly a nice strength feat, even though having him one-shotting someone like Crossbones is obviously better, being an actual combat feat.

It depends. Molecule Man packs a helluva power, yet he barely did any damage to Owen's apartment, as seen in Galan's scan. Same with DBZ characters, who at the end of the series should easily nuke entire planets if not more, yet they keep fighting on Earth.