quote: (post)

Originally posted by UniOmni
Where does the line between the two begin and where does it end?

This thread is partly because of what Astro said in another thread.

Damien put up a scan from Stormbreaker, where Beta Ray Bill and Stardust blew up a planet and survived and asked if Superman would survive something like that.

Astro made the response of " Not normally, but then again, neither would Bill or Thor". Or something along those lines.

I'm not calling you out Astro, but i am asking the question of what makes a showing merely good, and what puts it into overdrive and clearly becomes a writers wet dream.

If Darkseid was seeded but not possessed by Eclipso in a weak moment, and mauled the JLA and the JSA, permanently maiming the bricks and just walking through the energy guys, and then vaporized the galaxy, and it was written by Morrison, would that be a good showing, or cockstroke writing?

Or if Claremount had Magneto spout something about being the manifested unified field theory, and then had him somehow shoot reversed singularity beams from his eyes that hit with the force of a quintillion tons per mm and vaped a Shiar Empire planet.

Would it be treated the way Stormbreaker is treated, or taken like Owaw?

I wanna know

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Space M ummy
Like anything it depends on the context. the BRB planet busting feat isn't really that big of a deal, since Thor (and thus, bill) has been shown to take those levels of punishment before.

If a character does something TOTALLY out of character with his previous showings without a DAMN GOOD explanation as to why this is so, then that's bad writing.