Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who wins

dr m cause he sees the future

Dr. M wins the first time via BFR. DD wins every time thereafter.

DM rewrites DD's DNA.

DD devolves every time he has a bad thought. DD ends the match as ... Aquaman!

Great thread IMO

DD wins easily

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Great thread IMO

DD wins easily

How?

Originally posted by Supra
How?

I'll tell you how:

(in Hunter/Prey) All energy blasts that DD encounted was new to him and he tanked them easily. GL blasts, Darkseid's OB, etc. At half power, the OB was shown to vaporize two giant missiles that Superman himself, using all of his might, couldn't put a scratch on.
Thus the OB at half power, in that arc, was shown to be astronomically more powerful than Superman.
I don't know of any feats of Dr. Manhattan that shows he is capable of vaporizing something that Superman, using all of his might, can't put a scratch on.

If he has some, then again, it just might damage him. But the problem is DD will heal up and evolve on the fly for greater resistance.

Also, you are underestimating DD's durability. DD has instant heal factor and on the fly adapting features. If DM doesn't take him out right away
(he won't) then he never will (he get's more resistant and powerful as the fight goes on).

Manhattan would probably try atomizing Doomsday first.

And then Doomsday would proceed to beat the shit out of him.

I dont see anyway DD can win this.

DM rather easily.

Doomsday combos to kos his ass

doomsday

Originally posted by Supra
How?

DD already adapted to and defeated two energy-based beings.

The first was the Radiant, who did manage to kill Doomsday prior to DoS. Second time around in H/P, DD one-shot killed the Radiant.

Second was Waverider. Doomsday adapted on the fly to Waveriders chronal energies and dispersed him.

Galan's right, Dr. M's best chance is BFR. If Doomsday manages to make contact with him, he's probably toast. Dr. M didn't ever display actual combat feats demonstrating the ability to defeat DD, so BFR is his only real shot.

DM teleports him into a black hole..DD loses

Black hole won't do shit. First, Herald level guys have many feats of basically disregarding black holes. Second, Mother Box determined that she required Waverider's bracelets to send DD to the end of time because that was the only way to defeat him. If a black hole would have worked, she would have just opened a boom tube.

But for forum purposes BFR anywhere, including the vicinity of a black hole, would constitute a forum win.

It's debatable he could even forcibly teleport Doomsday to begin with, tbh.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
It's debatable he could even forcibly teleport Doomsday to begin with, tbh.

Bro dont flip out now..don't do it

I'm being serious. Considering all the forms of energy based attacks DD's dealt with, I think it's incredibly generous to assume Manhattan could just easily teleport Doomsday away.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
I'm being serious. Considering all the forms of energy based attacks DD's dealt with, I think it's incredibly generous to assume Manhattan could just easily teleport Doomsday away.

So now everyone else can BFR but not DM...that makes no sense..

Originally posted by Supra
So now everyone else can BFR but not DM...that makes no sense..

"Everyone else" has actual feats of them forcibly teleporting powerful characters away against their will, some of those characters being able to resist energy manipulation. Manhattan teleported himself and a human with no energy resistance feats at all. Cool, but that's a far cry from doing that to Doomsday, who is likely to just thrash Manhattan for even trying.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
"Everyone else" has actual feats of them forcibly teleporting powerful characters away against their will, some of those characters being able to resist energy manipulation. Manhattan teleported himself and a human with no energy resistance feats at all. Cool, but that's a far cry from doing that to Doomsday, who is likely to just thrash Manhattan for even trying.

Ok but DM can control his powers in and out of phasing into intangibility..He can exist in the world without actually existing..How is DD gonna trash him..

If he cant actually touch him, no damage is being dealt.

Doomsday adapted to that. And tore the Radiant apart.

Manhattan's curious detachment as he attempts to make sense of this new life form gets him killed.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Doomsday adapted to that. And tore the Radiant apart.

Manhattan's curious detachment as he attempts to make sense of this new life form gets him killed.

Except Manhattan cannot die fro anything DD has available..He is unharmed by physical attacks..

BFR Wins by default

Yah, DM wins this solidly by porting him away.

Just wanted to point out, the Radiant was unaffected by physical attacks until Doomy evolved that weird black energy aura. He can evolve a tachykn field attack and beat DM.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Yah, DM wins this solidly by porting him away.

Just wanted to point out, the Radiant was unaffected by physical attacks until Doomy evolved that weird black energy aura. He can evolve a tachykn field attack and beat DM. tachyon fields just blocked his visions of the future it doesn't actually hurt him. Also IMO Doomsday would eventually kill Manhattan if a fight were to drag out.

Originally posted by Supra
Except Manhattan cannot die fro anything DD has available..He is unharmed by physical attacks..

Ask the Radiant and Waverider how that went for them.

Originally posted by Uriel005
tachyon fields just blocked his visions of the future it doesn't actually hurt him. Also IMO Doomsday would eventually kill Manhattan if a fight were to drag out.

True. And agreed.

DM would simply bfr him if atomizing him don't work. Easy win for DM.

Originally posted by Cogito
Ask the Radiant and Waverider how that went for them.

Man they are not even on the same level ans DM

Quit trying to de power the good doctor..

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
It's debatable he could even forcibly teleport Doomsday to begin with, tbh. Even during the H/P arc, Waverider's energies worked on DD just fine the first time:
http://imgur.com/h2wWLty
http://imgur.com/MIG21kh
http://imgur.com/8dT1UN0

It was only when 'rider attempted to use his energies against DD a second time that we saw he'd adapted beyond them:
http://imgur.com/Nu18vxW
http://imgur.com/HhXcRQL

That being said, Manhattan's energies *should* work on DD initially. While I'm not convinced that he could atomize DD(we only saw him preform this trick on average humans, after all), I'd *think* BFR would still work.... Unless, of course, Manhattan's teleportation works by dematerializing/atomizating someone, and rematerializing them in a different location. In that case we'd have quite the paradoxical conundrum on our hands. mmm

Originally posted by Galan007
That being said, Manhattan's energies *should* work on DD initially. While I'm not convinced that he could atomize DD(we only saw him preform this trick on average humans, after all), I'd *think* BFR would still work.... Unless, of course, Manhattan's teleportation works by dematerializing/atomizating someone, and rematerializing them in a different location. In that case we'd have quite the paradoxical conundrum on our hands. mmm

It doesn't work like that, or at least, Dr M does it this way:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/qwirtle/BeforeWatchmen-DrManhattan004-006_zps97baaa62.jpg

In a fight, he might try the dematerialisation if its more destructive.

^ Cool.

So yeah, Manhattan could win the first battle for sure via BFR, imo.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It doesn't work like that, or at least, Dr M does it this way:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/qwirtle/BeforeWatchmen-DrManhattan004-006_zps97baaa62.jpg

In a fight, he might try the dematerialisation if its more destructive.

Great scan this proves that DD cannot resist the BFR..

Originally posted by Galan007
^ Cool.

So yeah, Manhattan could win the first battle for sure via BFR, imo.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It doesn't work like that, or at least, Dr M does it this way:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/qwirtle/BeforeWatchmen-DrManhattan004-006_zps97baaa62.jpg

In a fight, he might try the dematerialisation if its more destructive. Non canon source.

Originally posted by h1a8
Non canon source.

Proof?

Great here we go..

Before Watchmen is 100% canon. srsly

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Proof? Originally posted by Galan007
Before Watchmen is 100% canon. srsly

No it isn't. Both Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore said it isn't.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/27/dave-gibbons-dismisses-before-watchmen-as-really-not-canon/
Plus it's a prequel that contradicts the original storyline.

How do we determine whether a source is canon or not?
Answer:
If the source contradicts the canon source then it is not canon at all.

If two sources contradict then which one has precedent over the other? The one that occurs latest in the timeline? The original one from the original author?
Well Watchmen does both and BeforeWatchmen does neither.

Originally posted by h1a8
No it isn't. Both Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore said it isn't.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/27/dave-gibbons-dismisses-before-watchmen-as-really-not-canon/
Plus it's a prequel that contradicts the original storyline.

How do we determine whether a source is canon or not?
Answer:
If the source contradicts the canon source then it is not canon at all.

If two sources contradict then which one has precedent over the other? The one that occurs latest in the timeline? The original one from the original author?
Well Watchmen does both and BeforeWatchmen does neither.

Gibbons/Moore don't own the rights, neither were they the editors. Them being the authors means jack all.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Gibbons/Moore don't own the rights, neither were they the editors. Them being the authors means jack all. Exactly. Their comments pertaining to Before Watchmen mean about as much as me saying that H/P Doomsday isn't canon.

Gibbons/Moore had absolutely nothing to do with Before Watchmen

That's like Jack Kirby's corpse coming out today and stating that Final Crisis isn't canon

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Gibbons/Moore had absolutely nothing to do with Before Watchmen

That's like Jack Kirby's corpse coming out today and stating that Final Crisis isn't canon

From now on, I am only using Siegel/Shuster's feats for Superman.

No flying, no speed etc.

Abhi is crying right now.

Originally posted by h1a8
No it isn't. Both Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore said it isn't.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/27/dave-gibbons-dismisses-before-watchmen-as-really-not-canon/
Plus it's a prequel that contradicts the original storyline.

How do we determine whether a source is canon or not?
Answer:
If the source contradicts the canon source then it is not canon at all.

If two sources contradict then which one has precedent over the other? The one that occurs latest in the timeline? The original one from the original author?
Well Watchmen does both and BeforeWatchmen does neither.

You do realize that they had nothing to do with Before Watchmen and don't own any of the rights?

It doesn't matter what they say as Before Watchmen was confirmed to be canon to Watchmen by DC.

Stop being purposefully difficult.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
From now on, I am only using Siegel/Shuster's feats for Superman.

No flying, no speed etc.

Abhi is crying right now. It's okay, because he'll just start using Supes fan-fiction exclusively. Supes>Broly>maximum power.

Hehehehehe

Originally posted by Galan007
It's okay, because he'll just start using Supes fan-fiction exclusively. Supes>Broly>maximum power.
Originally posted by Galan007
Exactly. Their comments pertaining to Before Watchmen mean about as much as me saying that H/P Doomsday isn't canon. But stop looking at just their comments. It contradicts the original storyline. Maybe that's why they said it wasn't canon?

It's a prequel anyway, so the actual story has more say than it.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
You do realize that they had nothing to do with Before Watchmen and don't own any of the rights?

It doesn't matter what they say as Before Watchmen was confirmed to be canon to Watchmen by DC.

Stop being purposefully difficult.

I offered two reasons to support it not being canon. It contradicts the original storyline. Rebutting one doesn't destroy it until both are rebutted. Anyway, the way I look at it is that they have more say than we do. How do we know if a source is not canon anyways? Why aren't cereal box comics canon?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
From now on, I am only using Siegel/Shuster's feats for Superman.

No flying, no speed etc.

Abhi is crying right now.

That's not canon to post crisis Superman. Also your analogy doesn't fit here since this is a prequel and not a continuation.
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Gibbons/Moore had absolutely nothing to do with Before Watchmen

That's like Jack Kirby's corpse coming out today and stating that Final Crisis isn't canon Well I'll take their word over someone who never did anything with the series. They have more say than us.
It is a prequel and not a continuation. So your example doesn't work here.
But anyway. I already proved it wasn't canon outside of that reason. The prequel contradicts the original storyline. That's probably why Moore and Gibbons said it wasn't canon.

No it doesn't contradict the original.

Dr M. says that everything is preordained. Even his responses:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpg

This is reinforced by Before Watchmen, where the rationale for why everything is preordained is given:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/qwirtle/BeforeWatchmenDrManhattan003-Zone-016_zpse64ab65a.jpg

Besides, they DON'T have more say than DC editorial, who says what is canon and what isn't.

Your next question will be, so why did Ozy try and cloud his future vision? Because that is who he is - paranoid to the nth degree. It doesn't mean he would've actually changed it. Just like Batman when he has contingency plans upon contingency plans - it doesn't mean Superman is inherently going to go rogue.

As for pre/post, every time a thread is asking about pre-Crisis, are you only going to use Siegel/Shuster Superman, then?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
No it doesn't contradict the original.

Dr M. says that everything is preordained. Even his responses:
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpg

This is reinforced by Before Watchmen, where the rationale for why everything is preordained is given:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b52/qwirtle/BeforeWatchmenDrManhattan003-Zone-016_zpse64ab65a.jpg

Besides, they DON'T have more say than DC editorial, who says what is canon and what isn't.

I said they have more say than us. We don't know what D.C. thinks. So it's inconclusive at best. Again, how do we know if a source isn't canon when the editorial never confirmed it? Why are cereal comics non canon? D.C. owns the rights to them too.

Anyway, it contradicts the story in many places. DM is clearly shown using his prediction powers to make actions. What DM is that he can see the future and will make a decision. He can't change that decision.

So my scan, which also contradicts, is....not canon?

I refer to this:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpg

Dave*melikeybuttsex*Gibbons and Alan*suckadick*Moore do not own the rights to Watchmen, DC does. The former may not like and/or agree with changes the latter made to their works, but their opinions on the matter are inconsequential.

BW is 100% canon

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So my scan, which also contradicts, is....not canon?

I refer to this:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2927965-1600412_5_super.jpg

I already clarified this. You didn't read all of my post. I said DM can see into the future and make a decision. He can't change that decision. Also Ozy was phucking with his prediction powers at the time anyway.

Originally posted by Galan007
Dave*melikeybuttsex*Gibbons and Alan*suckadick*Moore do not own the rights to Watchmen, DC does. The former may not like and/or agree with changes the latter made to their works, but their opinions on the matter are inconsequential.

BW is 100% canon But we don't own the rights to D.C. either. We have no power to say it is canon without proof.

But how can you change something when it comes before the story and not after. I can understand if it came after. Canon sources references past events. But there is nothing to reference as it came before and contradicts the original. If two things contradict each other then which one do we choose as the representative?

In other words, h1a8 doesn't want it to be canon, because it proves him wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8
I already clarified this. You didn't read all of my post. I said DM can see into the future and make a decision. He can't change that decision. Also Ozy was phucking with his prediction powers at the time anyway.

But we don't own the rights to D.C. either. We have no power to say it is canon without proof.

But how can you change something when it comes before the story and not after. I can understand if it came after. Canon sources references past events. But there is nothing to reference as it came before and contradicts the original. If two things contradict each other then which one do we choose as the representative?

The most recently published one.

Further context from JMS, who wrote Before Watchmen: Dr. M:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/17/wondercon-jms-talks-before-watchmen

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Further context from JMS, who wrote Before Watchmen: Dr. M:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/17/wondercon-jms-talks-before-watchmen

That doesn't prove it's canon. There are still contradictions in it from the original.Originally posted by DarkSaint85
The most recently published one.

No we don't if it is a prequel. It's not about the most recently published one but the one that occurs later in the timeline.

For example, Star Wars episode 2 can not be canon to episode 6 if in 1 Anakin got killed and never made Luke at all.

We use current characters anyway. So Alan Moore's version is more current in the timeline than the prequel is.

And for the 6th time. How do we know if a source isn't canon if D.C. hasn't confirmed it? How do we know that cereal comics aren't canon?

They haven't denied it. Do you need DCs stamp on every comic? Seriously?

Things are canon until explicitly said so by DC. No one replied to your previous five attempts at asking because nobody beleiwved you were seriously in such a need for spoon feeding.

In any case, once more, I have had my say. We shall wait again for a mod to come in, but due to the holiday season we may be a while (shocking, yes, some people don't argue comic related matters 24/7).

Until then, you stick to your position, and I will stick to mine, and we shall see who is correct.

Just report h1 and move on. These arguments are ridiculous.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
They haven't denied it. Do you need DCs stamp on every comic? Seriously?

Things are canon until explicitly said so by DC. No one replied to your previous five attempts at asking because nobody beleiwved you were seriously in such a need for spoon feeding.

How do we know if a source isn't canon if D.C. hasn't confirmed it? How do we know that cereal comics aren't canon?

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Just report h1 and move on. These arguments are ridiculous.

So contradicting the original story is ridiculous?
Why isn't a cereal box comic canon?
If you can't answer that then I should report you for trolling me.

g007-psyduck

Originally posted by Galan007
g007-psyduck to kill all bias

Here is my evidence
1. Alan moore and dave gibbons saying its not canon
2. It is a prequel that contradicts the original


Now we can be bias and call something canon because we want it to be. But that isnt evidence of why it is canon. Why isnt a cereal box comic canon? It is owned by Marvel and they didnt say it isnt canon.
So by you guys reasoning everything owned by the company is canon.


I gave reasons to support it not being canon. Gives reasons supporting it being canon while resolving the contradictions.

Even if it is canon then we must take the original story over the prequel since the prequel is based off of it as the primary source.

Originally posted by h1a8
to kill all bias

Here is my evidence
1. Alan moore and dave gibbons saying its not canon
2. It is a prequel that contradicts the original

As has been stated many, many times:

1. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons don't own the rights, and therefore don't get to determine what's canon and what's not.
2. It's called a "retcon". Happens all the time.


Originally posted by h1a8
Now we can be bias and call something canon because we want it to be. But that isnt evidence of why it is canon. Why isnt a cereal box comic canon? It is owned by Marvel and they didnt say it isnt canon.
So by you guys reasoning everything owned by the company is canon.
Only everything that takes place in the same universe.

Originally posted by h1a8
Even if it is canon then we must take the original story over the prequel since the prequel is based off of it as the primary source. The most recently published work takes precedence. The prequel being based on the original is something you just made up.

BRF, DM Wins

Originally posted by Cogito
As has been stated many, many times:

1. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons don't own the rights, and therefore don't get to determine what's canon and what's not.
2. It's called a "retcon". Happens all the time.



Only everything that takes place in the same universe.

The most recently published work takes precedence. The prequel being based on the original is something you just made up.

We don't own the rights either. Why is our say any greater?

Retcon's don't create contradictions, they resolve them. We know something is canon if it references the original universe. If it contradicts the original universe then how could it be canon?

Cereal box comics don't exactly go out of their way to say it is from another universe. Yet somehow we know they aren't canon.

Originally posted by h1a8
So contradicting the original story is ridiculous?
Why isn't a cereal box comic canon?
If you can't answer that then I should report you for trolling me.

I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

If you can't use common sense to understand why a cereal box comic or an action figure comic is non canon in contrast to Before Watchmen, then I think it's time you took a step back from your PC, took a bit of a break from discussing comic books and maybe read a good book.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

If you can't use common sense to understand why a cereal box comic or an action figure comic is non canon in contrast to Before Watchmen, then I think it's time you took a step back from your PC, took a bit of a break from discussing comic books and maybe read a good book.

I know why cereal box comics aren't canon. But I was using an example of how we must use some type of rules to decide these things. My point is, everything D.C. or Marvel makes isn't canon. So the logic of them owning the rights doesn't prove canon. We look at how a story references what we already know to be canon. If we get contradictions then that is evidence supporting it not being canon (being from a different universe).

I'm being reasonable here and as objective as I can. No one can give me a straight answer. All I hear is BeforeWatchmen is canon because I said so, or it's canon because D.C. owns the rights. But D.C. owns the rights to games, cereal box comics, etc. and that doesn't make them canon. Now do you understand where I'm coming from?

There are rules about what's canon on KMC:
Originally posted by Digi
Debating Format
No Non-canon Sources
Non-canon sources are invalid for evidence. With rare exceptions, comics not in continuity such as Elseworlds, What Ifs, or alternate universes are not used for evidence in debates of a particular mainstream character.

A canon source is one that is regarded as being 'in continuity'. In the example of Star Trek; instances from the series and movies can be used, but books are definitely out. Comic book crossovers are usually unusable as they ignore common sense most of the time (DC vs. Marvel is certainly unusable in some cases in our debates!).

This includes JLA/Avengers. Canon or not, people just aren't going to agree on it in most cases. Besides, there should be plenty of other comics with which to make your point.

Comics released strictly online or on web sites will not be considered proof in the Comic Book Versus Forum.

An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. Neither is a random post by a supposed writer on a message board, blogs, tweets, etc. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel. Most writers are clear with the intentions of the plot and story arc.

This principle extends to characters with multiple versions, alternate timelines, etc. Unless specified by the thread starter, only current-version canon feats are allowed.
I'm not adding cereal boxes, action figure boxes, etc to the list.

Edit: And there is no discussion about this either. If people need to use feats from cereal or action figure boxes and their defense is that it doesn't contradict what's shown in comics then this will end badly. Find the feat in a canon comic, or don't bring it up.

Bada, the issue is whether Before Watchmen is canon or not.

Manhattan takes this. Saying his powers are "energy-based" is a misrepresentation of his power. He is one with the universe. He is a sentient fundamental force, like gravity or electromagnetism. He has awareness and control over all the particles of the universe (including Doomsday') and can do with them what he pleases. The only way to pose any kind of threat to him was to generate tachyons, and even if Doomsday can do that, even then that didn't harm DM physically, only block his precog, there's no proof that Doomsday can generate a particle which can actually physically harm a sentient fundamental force, because he'd have to be a reality warper at that point.


As far as forcibly teleporting people, I'm sure the angry crowd who were teleported into their own homes did not go willingly. Not saying these people were Doomsday level, but still an impressive show of power.

As far as "Doomsday beating the shit out of him", how's he going to do that. Assuming he can even harm Manhattan (who can alter his physical features anyway he pleases), Manhattan will only reform, considering his physical body is merely a manifestation of his universe-tied disembodied consciousness.

How does Doomsday win here?

HP DD adapts and wins.

facepalm at the last few pages of this thread.

Originally posted by Supra
Man they are not even on the same level ans DM

Quit trying to de power the good doctor..
Their feats say otherwise.

HP Doomsday

DD does not have a chance here. Doc would just make himself intangible.
DDs punches would just go right threw him.

A brick cannot beat someone like Doc.

Just don't see it happening.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Bada, the issue is whether Before Watchmen is canon or not. IU have the issues but didn't read them yet. Any reason it wouldn't be canon? It's not like there's much else to use aside from the original comics.

Originally posted by Badabing
IU have the issues but didn't read them yet. Any reason it wouldn't be canon? It's not like there's much else to use aside from the original comics.

H1a8 has two arguments against it:

Originally posted by h1a8
No it isn't. Both Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore said it isn't.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/27/dave-gibbons-dismisses-before-watchmen-as-really-not-canon/
Plus it's a prequel that contradicts the original storyline.

How do we determine whether a source is canon or not?
Answer:
If the source contradicts the canon source then it is not canon at all.

If two sources contradict then which one has precedent over the other? The one that occurs latest in the timeline? The original one from the original author?
Well Watchmen does both and BeforeWatchmen does neither.

Originally posted by Badabing
IU have the issues but didn't read them yet. Any reason it wouldn't be canon? It's not like there's much else to use aside from the original comics. The only person who has an issue with the canonicity of Before Watchmen is h1(imagine that.)

He believes that Gibbons' and Moore's comments in a weberview(in which they said BW is non-canon), is law. What h1 fails/refuses to understand is that neither Moore nor Gibbons own the rights to the Watchmen franchise these days, thus any statements they make pertaining to the aforementioned series are no more credible than carver trying to make an official statement to the masses regarding Hulk. ie. people who don't own the rights to a series and/or characters do not get to choose what is canon and what isn't. That said, DC owns the rights to Watchmen, and they made it quite clear that BW is 100% canon-- it simply expands upon the original series.


You see, this 'debate' doesn't require a mod ruling, imo. It simply requires a little(just a smidge/tad/dab/pinch) of common sense.

Originally posted by Galan007
The only person who has an issue with the canonicity of Before Watchmen is h1(imagine that.)

He believes that Gibbons' and Moore's comments in a weberview(in which they said BW is non-canon), is law. What h1 fails/refuses to understand is that neither Moore nor Gibbons own the rights to the Watchmen franchise these days, thus any statements they make pertaining to the aforementioned series are no more credible than carver trying to make an official statement to the masses regarding Hulk. ie. people who don't own the rights to a series and/or characters do not get to choose what is canon and what isn't. That said, DC owns the rights to Watchmen, and they made it quite clear that BW is 100% canon-- it simply expands upon the original series.


You see, this 'debate' doesn't require a mod ruling, imo. It simply requires a little(just a smidge/tad/dab/pinch) of common sense. That's it then. I see no reason to dispute Before Watchmen.

http://img.pandawhale.com/92127-Top-Gun-high-five-gif-Danger-Z-91Wd.gif

Originally posted by Galan007
http://img.pandawhale.com/92127-Top-Gun-high-five-gif-Danger-Z-91Wd.gif

Originally posted by Badabing
That's it then. I see no reason to dispute Before Watchmen. galan is incorrect and is lying to you. My main argument (the one he doesn't want to tell you) is BeforeWatchmen is supposed to be a prequel to watchmen but it contradicts the original watchmen storyline. That is why Moore and Gibbons said it wasn't canon. But the biggest problem is that I'm using evidence from the original watchmen series to support my argument and Darksaint is using evidence from BeforeWatchmen that contradicts this evidence.

So my main argument is that the original watchmen series should take precedent over the contradictory BeforeWatchmen.

Why must some people turn even the simplest of concepts into rocket science? Say it with me, dood: "ret-cons". They happen all the time in comics.

Given that DC owns the rights to the Watchmen franchise, they can do whatever the phuck they want with the series and have it be canon. Gibbons and Moore have absolutely NO say in what is canon and what is not-- they gave up their stake in the franchise when they sold the rights to DC. DC could literally retcon the entire Watchmen universe into a state of non-existence/un-being if they were so inclined, and Moore/Gibbons couldn't do a damn thing to stop it from being canon.

In even simpler terms: the word of someone with the legal rights to a particular series and its characters infinitely supersedes(ie. ">g_infinity" the word of someone who does not hold the legal rights to a particular series and its characters.


If you insist on keeping up with your purposeful imbecility you will be reported for trolling, as that is all you are doing at this point. I refuse to believe that even you are this stupid.

Originally posted by h1a8

So my main argument is that the original watchmen series should take precedent over the contradictory BeforeWatchmen.
If I were you I'd just refer to him as "Classic" Dr Manhattan (pre-retcon)
then you can enjoy the guy you're rooting for, and ignore the retcon afterwards.

I have no say in this debate, but I loved the original Watchmen saga.

Funny thing is: nothing bad came of these 'retcons' he's referring to. It's not like any characters were depowered or given entirely different origins-- heck, most of the characters came away from it looking better(stat-wise) than they did before.

Not sure what his butt-hurtery is about. /shrug

Guys, take it to a PM if needed. These characters have very few appearances. It's obvious that the intended purpose of Before Watchmen is supposed to be a prequel to the original Watchmen run, despite what the original writer and artist say in an interview. DC owns the rights, end of story.

Originally posted by Galan007

Funny thing is: nothing bad came of these 'retcons' he's referring to. It's not like any characters were depowered or given entirely different origins-- heck, most of the characters came away from it looking better(stat-wise) than they did before.

I also didn't notice a scene which literal de-powered Dr M, via statements or an inability,
but I was disappointed in how cheesy his particular issues were.
I wanted to learn more about him, and see more of his capabilities,
instead I was entertained with in-story talk and hardly anything involving what I was interested in.

That aside, if the BFM hasn't changed original Watchmen,
then H should be happy he can use original statements/showings.

Right, with that in mind.....

Manhattan wins through BFR, although he cannot /does not use his future vision like a naked blue Midnighter.

Originally posted by Mr Master
I also didn't notice a scene which literal de-powered Dr M, via statements or an inability,
but I was disappointed in how cheesy his particular issues were.
I wanted to learn more about him, and see more of his capabilities,
instead I was entertained with in-story talk
and hardly anything involving what I was interested in.

That aside, if the BFM hasn't changed original Watchmen,
then H should be happy he can use original statements/showings.

I will have explain why he's so butthurt.

In BW, Dr M explained how he no longer will use his time powers to alter the future.

He also explains how attempts to alter the future do not result in changing outcomes, merely the creation of a secondary reality with addifferent outcome. The original reality remains intact.


In a battle forum, this means that H1a8 was arguing Dr M was essentially the Midnighter. Throw a punch, he knows what you'll do and move his head etc.

I argued IF he tried (though in character he says he won't), it doesn't affect timeline one, where he gets nut shotted

Originally posted by Mr Master
I also didn't notice a scene which literal de-powered Dr M, via statements or an inability,
but I was disappointed in how cheesy his particular issues were.
I wanted to learn more about him, and see more of his capabilities,
instead I was entertained with in-story talk and hardly anything involving what I was interested in.

That aside, if the BFM hasn't changed original Watchmen,
then H should be happy he can use original statements/showings.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Right, with that in mind.....

Manhattan wins through BFR, although he cannot /does not use his future vision like a naked blue Midnighter.

Originally posted by Galan007
Why must some people turn even the simplest of concepts into rocket science? Say it with me, dood: "ret-cons". They happen all the time in comics.

Given that DC owns the rights to the Watchmen franchise, they can do whatever the phuck they want with the series and have it be canon. Gibbons and Moore have absolutely NO say in what is canon and what is not-- they gave up their stake in the franchise when they sold the rights to DC. DC could literally retcon the entire Watchmen universe into a state of non-existence/un-being if they were so inclined, and Moore/Gibbons couldn't do a damn thing to stop it from being canon.

In even simpler terms: the word of someone with the legal rights to a particular series and its characters infinitely supersedes(ie. ">g_infinity" the word of someone who does not hold the legal rights to a particular series and its characters.


If you insist on keeping up with your purposeful imbecility you will be reported for trolling, as that is all you are doing at this point. I refuse to believe that even you are this stupid.


You don't know what a retcon is.

1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.

Retcons don't create contradictions. Thus it's not a retcon.

Your argument suggests that the original story isn't canon since both can not be at the same time. But that would be asinine.


But anyway I'll argue classic Manhattan as Mr Master suggested. He wins here.

Originally posted by h1a8
You don't know what a retcon is.

1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon.

Retcons don't create contradictions. Thus it's not a retcon.

Your argument suggests that the original story isn't canon since both can not be at the same time. But that would be asinine.


But anyway I'll argue classic Manhattan as Mr Master suggested. He wins here. Do you know what take it to a PM means? Do you understand what "I see no reason to dispute Before Watchmen" means?

This is the last time I'm addressing your little hissy fit. You'll have a day off to think about eveything.

So, BW aside, this still holds true.
Originally posted by Cogito
DD already adapted to and defeated two energy-based beings.

The first was the Radiant, who did manage to kill Doomsday prior to DoS. Second time around in H/P, DD one-shot killed the Radiant.

Second was Waverider. Doomsday adapted on the fly to Waveriders chronal energies and dispersed him.

Galan's right, Dr. M's best chance is BFR. If Doomsday manages to make contact with him, he's probably toast. Dr. M didn't ever display actual combat feats demonstrating the ability to defeat DD, so BFR is his only real shot.

Though it's likely DD gets his hits in before the thought of BFR even occurs. And that wouldn't turn out well, especially since DD is so fast.

Originally posted by Branlor Swift
So, BW aside, this still holds true.


Though it's likely DD gets his hits in before the thought of BFR even occurs. And that wouldn't turn out well, especially since DD is so fast.

True. A wiser man then me, who knows DD better than I do, said this with regards to Hulk/Juggy:

Originally posted by h1a8
dd is too fast. Both would be statues if dd decided to blitz.

And Hulk has much MUCH better speed feats.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
True. A wiser man then me, who knows DD better than I do, said this with regards to Hulk/Juggy:



And Hulk has much MUCH better speed feats. Likely. DM has no speed feats

DM doesn't need any speed feats since he can simply reform at will. DM reforms somewhere else, becomes intangible, and bfrs DD.

Also there is evidence to DM's reaction speeds. He seen events so fast they hardly can be said to have occurred at all.

You will have to post scans proving this, of his Planck reaction time.

I see events so quickly they were hardly said to have happened.