Raven vs Dark Phoenix

Originally posted by h1a8
You are not addressing my arguments at all you are only restating conclusions (without premises). Again, DP was bloodlusted but showed limit to her power in every showing. DP never went through the necessary steps to become WC Phoenix.
That's like arguing that a bloodlusted Saitama is equal to Saitama when he fought God Garou. Being bloodlusted doesn't make your conclusion follow.

Again,there was no mod ruling that DP CAN AND WILL operate in a forum fight as WC Phoenix would.

Trying and Failing to lift 10 tons in every showing while bloodlusted is somehow ignored when a future version that went through many steps to achieve greater power (through knowledge and other special circumstances) lifted a trillion tons. Lmao

And you still fail to recognise the significance of the ruling. its just not computing for you is it? 😬

Dark Phoenix is not a separate or distinct character. Its a state of mind Jean or any Phoenix can switch into when they don't rein in their emotions.

As it is not a distinct character, as "Dark Phoenix" is not exclusively that appearance in UXM 135 to 137 and is instead just a reference to an uninhibited, emotionally volatile Jean Phoenix, then all the development Jean has made over the years, all subsequent showings of Jean as Phoenix are admissible because it is the same character.

So referring to that 40 yr old debut and saying oh but look at her showings back then is an exercise in futility, because Dark Phoenix isnt limited to that showing and modern showings of Jean Phoenix have seen the character demonstrate new abilities, whilst there remains zero canonical statements or evidence confirming a difference in power and Marvel in fact stating conclusively that Dark Phoenix had access to the full power of the Phoenix Force.

I hope this is not too much to process. But process it you will as the ruling is what it is. Dark Phoenix is not a distinct character, it is a state of mind and one within which Jean is stated by Marvel to retain the full power of the Phoenix.

This is over 🙂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
And you still fail to recognise the significance of the ruling. its just not computing for you is it? 😬

Dark Phoenix is not a separate or distinct character. Its a state of mind Jean or any Phoenix can switch into when they don't rein in their emotions.

As it is not a distinct character, as "Dark Phoenix" is not exclusively that appearance in UXM 135 to 137 and is instead just a reference to an uninhibited, emotionally volatile Jean Phoenix, then all the development Jean has made over the years, all subsequent showings of Jean as Phoenix are admissible because it is the same character.

So referring to that 40 yr old debut and saying oh but look at her showings back then is an exercise in futility, because Dark Phoenix isnt limited to that showing and modern showings of Jean Phoenix have seen the character demonstrate new abilities, whilst there remains zero canonical statements or evidence confirming a difference in power and Marvel in fact stating conclusively that Dark Phoenix had access to the full power of the Phoenix Force.

I hope this is not too much to process. But process it you will as the ruling is what it is. Dark Phoenix is not a distinct character, it is a state of mind and one within which Jean is stated by Marvel to retain the full power of the Phoenix.

This is over 🙂

Saitama and the one who fought God Garou are not seperate either. They have vastly different power levels because of the special circumstances Saitama went through. Your argument was about being bloodlusted in itself. That was faulty as I've proven.

Again, you are stating conclusions without premises.
Jean went through many steps to become WC Phoenix. Plus she is a future version (not allowed).

This is my 3rd time statung this.
There was no mod ruling that DP CAN and WILL operate in a forum fight as WC Phoenix. You have to have both CAN and WILL and not one or the other (in this case you have neither).

Originally posted by GalacticStorm

In Endsong Jean cycled through green, red and white Phoenix colours across a few pages as she embraced different emotions.

Interesting. Show us.

Because in Endsong, Phoenix and Jean were in a battle for control.
Jean used changing suits as a message for who was in control when Wolverine found her, then Phoenix started changing suits to try to confuse the situation.

Had nothing to do with emotions. She wasn't actually changing between Dark Phoenix and other versions.

She also hilariously dies fighting Wolverine a half a dozen times.

Originally posted by Juntai
At the end of the story, she'd absorbed the omniverse. Are you trying to use her at the beginning of the story? 😕

You're still worried about the beginning of the process, and not who she was at the end.

She was the end of everything.

By the end of the story if she had absorbed most of DC creation, then on face value she would be too much for just about anything beyond multiversal powers and outerversal entities to withstand. We're talking Multi-Eternity, Living Tribunal, True Phoenix Force and Oblivion level entities at least. A host wouldnt cut it. Despite the lack of on panel feats, the intention is clear and i think its important to be sensible and logical in these circumstances. If someone has achieved that outcome, then we cant be pedantic and hold the lack of feats against the character.

I just wish they'd presented Unkindness in a way more fitting of such a status when she actually was on panel.

Originally posted by Juntai
And yes, she can become Unkindness any time, its just not in her character, her character is about keeping the darkness at bay. She was just amped from already having the Horsemen and then getting Shazams power, though Shazams death was mostly about getting her free from the Rock of Eternity where she was placed after collapsing when she absorbed the horsemen.

Not debatable that she can? lol.

Debate it with two different writers.

https://imgur.com/gallery/u7dYvIf

https://imgur.com/gallery/jE4FLgL

Here you're making a very different point to what you said previously.

We were discussing Future State Unkindness and you asserted that she was just Raven having lost her humanity.

I corrected you and stated that she became Unkindness after having absorbed the Horsemen and Shazams power.

What youre now sharing here is Michael Cotton stating that it is "conceivable" for her to switch to a version of Unkindness at anytime without actually confirming it. He then makes a distinction between such an Unkindness and the one we saw in Future State.

You then have Jeremy Adams again making a distinction between such an Unkindness and the one in Future State saying that entity is something else entirely.

Both great insights into their intentions, but we can only go by what actually made it to print. Not their thoughts after the fact.

What we dont want to do is look at Future State Unkindness' achievements and then assert this is what Raven can do when she switches to Unkindness. Instead, Future State shows whats possible under the right circumstances.

Originally posted by h1a8
Saitama and the one who fought God Garou are not seperate either. They have vastly different power levels because of the special circumstances Saitama went through. Your argument was about being bloodlusted in itself. That was faulty as I've proven.

Again, you are stating conclusions without premises.
Jean went through many steps to become WC Phoenix. Plus she is a future version (not allowed).

This is my 3rd time statung this.
There was no mod ruling that DP CAN and WILL operate in a forum fight as WC Phoenix. You have to have both CAN and WILL and not one or the other (in this case you have neither).

1) Which special steps did Jean go through to become White Phoenix and why would they make a difference here when its the same character? 😕

2) Endsong Jean Grey claimed the Here Comes Tomorrow future as one she experienced and went through thus confirming she was the same Jean.

3) We have the can as Marvel states that the Dark Phoenix state has access to the full power of the Phoenix Force. The will/propensity is something i always said would differ which is why ive stated time and time again that we would take the established abilities of Jean as Phoenix and discuss them through the DP propensity 🙂

Originally posted by Juntai
Interesting. Show us.

Because in Endsong, Phoenix and Jean were in a battle for control.
Jean used changing suits as a message for who was in control when Wolverine found her, then Phoenix started changing suits to try to confuse the situation.

Had nothing to do with emotions. She wasn't actually changing between Dark Phoenix and other versions.

She also hilariously dies fighting Wolverine a half a dozen times.

Again another demonstration of poor recollection.

When the PF 1st possessed Jean in Endsong, she gave Wolverine a signal that something was wrong by switching from her green costume to her red costume:

https://imgur.com/P4pHC7g

https://imgur.com/xwG2Q7G

That doesnt take away from the established canonical fact that the colours represent the hosts mindset. In fact the scene demonstrated that it does as Jean banked on that commonplace knowledge to give Wolverine a message.

Later in the story arc she inadvertently became Dark Phoenix when the insane Phoenix shard possessed her and corrupted her with its insanity:

https://imgur.com/QBmBAzC

https://imgur.com/Xo30eOR

https://imgur.com/MzH5aum

Or would you like to argue that in the middle of being driven mad by a deranged entity she felt like playing dress up? 😕

The X-men then combatted this affliction by giving her a telepathic outpouring of love and support to enable her to rein in her emotional state and once she found balance she became White Phoenix:

https://imgur.com/vJK1OwY

https://imgur.com/j0NlHW1

So yes, as stated, the Phoenix colours are used to reflect a hosts mindset. Jean choosing to provide a signal to Wolverine as previously mentioned does not change that canonical fact. Any host choosing to wear a colour or costume for other purposes does not change what the colours have traditionally reflected in canon:

https://imgur.com/dKWgWrt

https://imgur.com/0z0zpAp

https://imgur.com/jQ1i3Yn

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Popping up like a vulture when you perceive me to be in a weak position, hoping to achieve in a group what you never could alone.

Unless you have something of value to contribute to this discourse then give it a rest you bitter individual. 😬

Or shall we go back to the Comic Book questions thread so i can continue to shit on your wacky Franklin Richards multiversal messiah theories and make you disappear for another month? 😱 😆

Are you begging me to deconstruct your Jean removes a universe Sublime into her hands theory for the fifth time?

Your desire to divert the course of conversation is quaint. But Franklin Richards was pretty much confirmed to be the multiversal messiah. Both by Hickman and Ewing. Also, should we be projecting onto your years-long absence during AvX, srsly?

The bluster is quaint. If you had more than bluster, I'd be interested given that a lot has happened since Here Comes Tomorrow. But if you cannot let go of your distorted schmuckery over that storyline, everything afterwards will be building on the fallacious base.

Wait your turn ODG, H1 is making one of his classic arguments and he needs his full concentration to deal with him (As do we all).

^ There's a queue line over this parody of a discussion??? 😘

Originally posted by ODG
Your projection is unseemingly desperate. Do you feel bullied?

Are you begging me to deconstruct your Jean removes a universe Sublime into her hands theory for the fifth time?

Your desire to divert the course of conversation is quaint. But Franklin Richards was pretty much confirmed to be the multiversal messiah. Both by Hickman and Ewing. Also, should we be projecting onto your years-long absence during AvX, srsly?

The bluster is quaint. If you had more than bluster, I'd be interested given that a lot has happened since Here Comes Tomorrow. But if you cannot let go of your distorted schmuckery over that storyline, everything afterwards will be building on the fallacious base.

The verbose rantings of a very troubled individual. ❌

But when it comes down to it youre all bark and no bite. 😱

If you have something to bring to the table regarding that Sublime incident then youre more than welcome to step into the arena and get handled once again. 🙂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
The verbose rantings of a very troubled individual. ❌

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
But when it comes down to it youre all bark and no bite. 😱

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
If you have something to bring to the table regarding that Sublime incident then youre more than welcome to step into the arena and get handled once again. 🙂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
By the end of the story if she had absorbed most of DC creation, then on face value she would be too much for just about anything beyond multiversal powers and outerversal entities to withstand. We're talking Multi-Eternity, Living Tribunal, True Phoenix Force and Oblivion level entities at least. A host wouldnt cut it. Despite the lack of on panel feats, the intention is clear and i think its important to be sensible and logical in these circumstances. If someone has achieved that outcome, then we cant be pedantic and hold the lack of feats against the character.

I just wish they'd presented Unkindness in a way more fitting of such a status when she actually was on panel.

Here you're making a very different point to what you said previously.

We were discussing Future State Unkindness and you asserted that she was just Raven having lost her humanity.

I corrected you and stated that she became Unkindness after having absorbed the Horsemen and Shazams power.

What youre now sharing here is Michael Cotton stating that it is "conceivable" for her to switch to [b]a version of Unkindness at anytime without actually confirming it. He then makes a distinction between such an Unkindness and the one we saw in Future State.

You then have Jeremy Adams again making a distinction between such an Unkindness and the one in Future State saying that entity is something else entirely.

Both great insights into their intentions, but we can only go by what actually made it to print. Not their thoughts after the fact.

What we dont want to do is look at Future State Unkindness' achievements and then assert this is what Raven can do when she switches to Unkindness. Instead, Future State shows whats possible under the right circumstances. [/B]

This has always been about Future State Raven.

Originally posted by Juntai
Also, Unkindness is just Raven when she lets go of her humanity completely. She starts destroying and devouring any and all power. She can do it at any time she chooses. In Future State, she just got a head start because she had already absorbed the biblical Four Horsemen.

Originally posted by Juntai

And yes, she can become Unkindness any time, its just not in her character, her character is about keeping the darkness at bay. She was just got a jumpstart from already having the Horsemen and then getting Shazams power, though Shazams death was mostly about getting her free from the Rock of Eternity where she was placed after collapsing when she absorbed the horsemen.

Not debatable that she can? lol.

Debate it with two different writers.

https://imgur.com/gallery/u7dYvIf

https://imgur.com/gallery/jE4FLgL

Originally posted by ODG
Coming from the poster who posted like... 100 times in the last few weeks? My diction has nothing to do with the point I'm making. If there were a smiley for irony, I'd use it. Your entire conception of Phoenix's power level rests on what you think happened during Here Comes Tomorrow. Sorry, chum. You can't really move on from that.

And you cant move on from a 15yr old forum spanking. 🙂

When youre ready to present some conclusive evidence regarding your Here Comes Tomorrow interpretation, i'll be waiting. 😉

Until then, please get help for your neurosis. You're not well mate ❌

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
And you cant move on from a 15yr old forum spanking. 🙂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
When youre ready to present some conclusive evidence regarding your Here Comes Tomorrow interpretation, i'll be waiting. 😉

Until then, please get help for your neurosis. You're not well mate ❌

There you go, happy re-reading.

Originally posted by ODG
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=13653463&highlight=here+comes+tomorrow+userid%3A77143#post13653463

There you go, happy re-reading.

The 11yr old debate youve never recovered from. ❌

Probably got it in your Google Chrome bookmarks 😆

^ Welp, begging a revisitation of your own deconstruction and then dismissing it was predictable. 👆

Do you... do you bookmark your old KMC thread debates??? lol

Originally posted by ODG
^ Welp, begging a revisitation of your own deconstruction and then dismissing it was predictable. 👆

Do you... do you bookmark your old KMC thread debates??? lol

Deconstruction where? 😱

Your interpretation could not reconcile the points i raised or the handbook accounts regarding what happened. Thats clear to anyone reading that 🙂

^ Your repeated reliance on handbooks, which (i) contradict each other, and (ii) is banned per KMC rules, is revealing.

If you had a better argument relying on on-panel evidence, you'd posit it. As it stands, you don't.

Originally posted by ODG
^ Your repeated reliance on handbooks, which [b](i) contradict each other, and (ii) is banned per KMC rules, is revealing.

If you had a better argument relying on on-panel evidence, you'd posit it. As it stands, you don't. [/B]

Nope. As i highlighted the handbooks corroborated my interpretation of the scene.

Your interpretation not only didnt reconcile the account given by the hendbooks but also statements and events within New X-men itself.

But as always you pressed on and kept talking out of pride. Thats our ODG 😆

Furthermore handbooks are completely fine as supporting evidence. Theyre not permissible when their accounts conflict with explicit comic statements/events. But where a scene has ambiguity, they are completely valid and admissible in directing how we should interpret.

Good try 🙂