Not really sure where to put this but I've been wondering about this for a while and want to know what others think.
On panel feats are what we go by as to gauge what a character is capable of doing. But there are also on panel statements such as narrations that state the level of such feat. There are also character statements being made regarding such feat.
For on panel feats, there is no question as to its credibility as it is easily seen on panel. The question falls on the narrations and character statements.
When can we take narrations as proof? Same goes for character statements, when can it be used as proof? also does the character saying the statement have bearing to the said statement.
For example
Narration - Hercules and Thor's arm wrestling thing where the feat is accompanied by narration that says that they are shaking the planet and shit like that
How credible is the narrator? can narration be taken as is? or is it just bs?
character statement - ben grim saying that sentry is releasing the power of a million exploding suns.
How credible is the statement? is ben grim a good judge to make such a comment? lets say the character who said it was mr fantastic? would his comment bear more weight as compared to bens?
Narration is more useful BUT character statements are just as good depending on who the character is that is saying it. Example...Ben Grim stated that Sentry was using the power of a million exploding suns. I wouldn't take Bens word at face value but Reed comment that took place right after Bens statement aided in making Ben statement just as legit as a Narrator since I would consider Reed a safe source for material.
Beat me to it. I was just making this thread up in my head as well...
I would class them as:
1 Feats not depending on art - taken as gospel. Nobody here questions that Superman can fly, for example.
2. Feats depending on art - Drax's anti-Thanos aura, some depictions of speed fighting, and bullet-timing.
3. In-character narration. By this I mean, if Reed or Pym says that he's tested Cyclops' eye blasts, and they contain the equivalent of 1 million Newtons, we believe him. I won't believe Johnny Storm if he said this.
4. Comic Narration. This one is a bit iffy, particularly when we start looking at the Silver Age or pre-crisis comics.
5. Character narration. Spiderman telling the story of the Sentry stalemating Galactus.
Than Banner(4th smartest guy and hulks host) really think Hercules would have stop WWH if he wanted too,Than Sentry can unleash the power of a million Expolding suns since Sentry himself who knows his own power but never shown it when he went all out and Doctor Strange was right when he said Ghost Rider could beat WWH
1. but the art cant be interpreted in different ways. For example Thor's uber hammer charged attack on worthy hulk. was the bfr the actual intention or a byproduct of a very powerful attack. its open to reader interpretation.
2. again, also open to reader interpretation. like say thor destroying a planetoid. kinda self explanatory, but since the art sucks balls, it turns to look like a small rock.
3. this and 5 are almost the same. again, as in the example. ben's comment about the sentry's powerout put. if he didnt make that comment and read made that instead. is read more credible than bens? plus also like spiderman narrating that the sentry stalemated galactus, we kinow that spiderman is a funny guy. can we take his word for it?
4. as for narrations, arent the narrations what the writer want to convey? wouldnt narratons be as good as on panel feats? say the narration that x character busted a planet once or has the strength to bust a planet. wouldnt the narration be as good as on panel feat since who are we to question what a writer wants to convey?
also i forgot to mention, if the on panel feats and the conversations within the same comic are contradictory, which should be believe. good example is colossus vs worth jugs. colossus was saying stuff like he was getting his ass kicked and yet goes ahead and wins. which is which?
This category is meant for pure, no doubt about it type feats. For example, the Invisible Woman really is invisible, and cannot be seen by the naked human eye, unlike say the Predator, (from the Predator films), where motion would show them up.
I agree, my list was a sliding scale, as it were. If there are two feats, one that is dependant on art (as in your example) and another (Thor flat out destroys Jupiter, or ripping Galactus completely apart - just an example), I would take the Jupiter destroying feat over yours, barring CIS/PIS. And therefore, in a forum battle, I would use my example to support my argument that Thor can destroy a planet.
I would take Reed's word over Ben's. If Ben, however, made a comment about how tough Air Force training is, and Reed said it was easy....you get my point.
Not if the narration is contradicted by on panel feats (again, barring PIS/CIS like Panther arm-locking Surfer). Comics are a visual medium words take a back seat to the actual art. The main story is told in pictures, not in the writers' words, which only serve as a backup. This is especially true of older comics,.
Both are correct lol. Depends what you are using it for.
If the statement I am saying is 'Piotr with Cytorrak upgrades can beat Kuurth', then the artwork is used, and is more correct. If you were to try and argue that Kuurth beats Piotr 10/10 based on the narration...then I can't help you lol.
If, however you were to say Kuurth gave Piotr a hard time, and therefore has some degree of super-strength...then despite the artwork showing Piotr won, the fact that at one point Piotr was losing (as evidenced by the narration) means that it can be used.
Feats on panel first. Provided of course that the art etc clearly depicts the sequencing accurately.
Narration and character statements go hand in hand imo. Both are highly dependant on context and as such they can both be equally useful or equally useless. For example, Reed says something like "In my estimation, Thor lifted 1,000,000 tons". That's cool. It's helpful. However if he said "According to my instruments Thor just lifted 1,000,000 tons", then that's damn near gospel imo.
Narration conversely, is all over the place imo. Particularly silver age/classic narration. My mind seems to reject stuff like a couple of guys arm wrestling the planet off if its axis for some reason.
Last edited by dmills on Nov 1st, 2011 at 03:25 PM
Narrator statements are word of god, i.e. the writer. While in the past, writers tended to embelish a little, nowadays they're generally spot on. That, and they're the ones writing the comic. If they say through narration something happened in a comic, it happened, no ifs, ands or buts. They can only be argued when what they say is wildly inconsistent with previous portrayals.
Character statements come last. They're the word of one character, not the writer. Like how Superman has said that half his rogues gallery (and Thor) hit him harder than anyone else ever has. if the character is a genius like Batman and is always right, then you can put a bit more faith in them, but generally they're a secondary form of information.
That's how I've always seen it, and it's how I've used it while modding.
Yeah, recently they've become much better, but to be a devil's advocate...I offer the panel of the Flash evacuating that Korean city when it was attacked by Fernus' launched nukes.
That's bad math, tbh, and McDuffie did the same thing with his moon feat. If a writer incorrectly does the math or uses a real world reference that he gets wrong, I generally take it that they made a mistake, and that the right math is what really happened.
I think this really only applies, though, when it's something heavily related to the real world.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 1st, 2011 11:03 AM
