Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
I don't believe everything is retconned. I believe that a narrator will give us guidance. If they are not there, ITS a strong indicator that what we see.
is what we see.
If we see superman going all out, Then he's going all out. If it says superman is holding back, then he's holding back. If it says he didn't hold back or a character says he didn' t hold back with no objection then he was not holding back. If we seen a stronger punch( not some feat that people l try to intertwine with his striking power) than there is a chance he held back. Unless there is reason to consider the retcon or the inconsistency. Both feats at that time need to be evaluated more.( was he weaker, tired, something was different, incorrect context)
Okay, that's fine. So here's my question: Why does the narrator in Man of Tomorrow get given more weight then people like Johns, Loeb, or Morrison, to name three? People that have written either several arcs of Superman stories, singular long runs, or both? Those guys were all quite clear with their view of Superman's powers.
In Man of Tomorrow, we have a writer who is quite possibly a good writer. I don't know. I haven't read their other stuff. What I can see, though, is that they're either ignorant of continuity, or just plain ignoring it. So why should I, or anyone else, put my trust in that guy to set the standard for Superman?
That's the dilemma I have. Being more recent isn't enough of a reason for me. Not when other writers aren't following suit.
Originally posted by darthgoober
That's cool, I can totally understand what you're saying about all that. I got sidetracked for a minute getting into how I see it as being compatible, but I'm not actually trying to push WW as being faster than Supes here. My point was simply that we do as a matter of general course substitute our own versions of the characters for those the comics presents to some degree or another. Hell the comic versions are ALWAYS bound by the plot of the story so "No PIS" guarantees there's going to be some differences even before we start bringing up inconsistent writing. I disagree with Carver about Supes total lack of dynamic strength, I'm just saying that while Supes has repeatedly demonstrated what I consider to be dynamic strength, he hasn't consistently demonstrated it issue to issue the way that Hulk has so I can understand why some people might disagree.
Oh right, I see what you're saying. Forgive any misunderstanding on my part, please.
It honestly reminds me of when people used to debate the issue of Superman's speed on the forum. Because he didn't use it enough for people, the argument was that he didn't have it in any reliable way.
And yet, this completely disregarded the fact that against 90% of enemies, Superman just... didn't need to use his speed. Sure, you could make the argument that Superman doesn't use his speed as well as he could, but arguing that he doesn't have it? When not just comics but cartoons, movies, tv shows et al all have him use it as a stock power?
By that same token, multiple "big name" writers have said/implied that Superman, when under sufficient emotional stress, can use new levels of strength he wouldn't otherwise. You can call it super solar absorption. You can call it the Kryptonian equivalent of adrenaline on crack because, as much as some might hate to admit it, Superman, when he has to be, is to people like Zod and Supergirl as Captain America is to like, Hawkeye. And it wasn't just John Byrne that said so either.
Most of Superman's "I finally knocked the big bad out" feats come from a lack of holding back as much as before. Yes. This is true. Not Holding Back and Dynamic Strength just aren't mutually exclusive.
I'll leave it there anyway. Not gonna ramble any more than I have already. I just hope it made sense.
Originally posted by HulkIsHulk
A hangover? 😛
Man, I wish.