Are scans the end all be all of whether or not we believe a character can do something or are documented statements that the writer has written or worth just as much?
As a general rule of thumb, I'd say feats > statements. Talking about lifting a weight isn't as impressive as actually lifting the same weight, etc.
That said, statements *can*(and often *do*) hold just as much validity as feats, depending on who made the statement and what the context behind it is.
__________________
"I am tired of Earth. These people.
I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives."
Though as a general rule, feats with statements > feats or statements alone. The combined art and words give multiple ways to assess the feat. The better we can understand the feat, the more weight we can place in relying on it.
Statements alone are difficult, because it implies that something is theoretical or happened off panel. Either way, lots of ambiguity and little reliability.
... unless OP is asking about statements the writer makes outside of the comic, which do not in any way trump what happens in the comic.
Well as I mentioned, it depends who made the statement and what the context is behind it. Because some statements are irrefutable from the onset, and do not require any supporting 'feats' to validate them.
For example: if Rip Hunter or Waverider state the timestream is collapsing, I don't need to see a page depicting its literal collapse to know they are 100% correct. If Reed, Valeria, and Franklin are having a discussion about the inner-workings of Marvel's current cosmology, I don't need to see any of those inner-workings depicted on panel to believe them. Etc. Etc. Etc.
__________________
"I am tired of Earth. These people.
I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives."
Statements, whether it's narrative or not, can be riddled with analogues and hyperbole and because of that it's a less reliable form of evidence. But the idea that statements are completely useless is a stretch to say the least.
Although I can sympathize with battleboard communities that deal with cross-fiction battles and have stricter criteria with evidence because a comic character is going to have a more extensive history than a movie character.
Sure... but those statements aren't really 'feats', and seem irrelevant to this topic?
If Rip Hunter states the timestream is collapsing, I don't see why anyone would have reason to doubt him. If Rip then says that "Character X is the only one who can fix it", now we're in the territory of something that can be measured as a feat.
The question is, can we rely on statements without feats to believe that a character can do something?
[feats and statements that don't contradict each other] > [feats] > [statements by credible sources on specific events] [i.e. see Galan's post about the Linear Men] > [objective statements by the author's narration box] > [...] > [empty statements -i.e. hyperbole, statements made in the midst of the battle "I've never been punched that hard!" etc.] > [...infinity...] > [other sources [handbooks]] > [....] > [harassing the writers to give you PMs]
__________________
“Perhaps this is the ultimate freedom. The freedom to leave.”
Last edited by Philosophía on Oct 25th, 2019 at 03:23 PM
Naturally they're going to be malleable to different interpretations to promote their own work. But you won't be able to get them to say whatever you want.
But I do agree that it's generally the least reliable source of information.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 23rd, 2019 02:54 AM
