They are definitely caught up.
Eh. The problem with trying to use this as some sort of low end bench mark is that we don't actually see much indicating this is as a max for either of them. I mean, yeah, they stopped the thing together, and they grunt a bit... but that's all pretty standard for comic books. The JLA and the Avengers alike have a ton of instances where some big heavy thing gets dropped, which theoretically one of them should be able to handle, and it instead becomes a thing that the lot of them do. That artificial island that Thor, Iron Man, and Wonderman caught springs to mind. And grunting is done all the time for dramatic effect even when it's utterly beneath established high end limits.
You can try to logic it by saying "well, maybe it is easier to balance something that big with two people" or "maybe having more than one point of contact keeps the thing from getting torn apart under its own integral stress" but really, it is just comics.
The issue is just thr writers - Scott Lobdell writes Superman and Red Hood and the Outlaws, and has a huge power scale in each. He uses All Star Superman as his guide, I think - especially corroborated by the title of his first issue.
Geoff Johns writes Justice League, and essentially ignores that and the power scale of Wonder Woman in her own title - where she hasn't even explicitly flown under her own power yet.
I'd expect more of the same from each writer, and more confusion. The Andy Diggle Action Comics could be the "swing vote"
I choose to believe the aircraft was made of some top secret super special dense metal that weighed more then a planet.
A woman can move a lot faster with her skirt up than a man can with his pants down.
To reiterate, the point was never about the discrepancy in Hyperion's showings. To boil it down to its essentials, the argument was about the discrepancy in Hyperion's showings as compared to the discrepancy in Superman's showings vs the conclusions that were reached and the conviction with which they were held. If you were to just conclude that Hyperion might not look like a guy who survived two universes exploding in one panel that would be one thing but the entre chain of logic you have set up to reach your conclusions seems quite lacking in self consistency. More in the other reply.
Hope we can move on now...
Had to split this into two parts
Its more like Superman is noted as increasing in power. He increases in power sharply in a few early issues over the course of a few months. Then shows up 5 years later not hugely increased in power and chugs along like this for a while. He then massively increases in power and shortly after massively decreases in power again, spending the past few issues getting slapped around by Aquaman and pals.If Superman is noted as increasing in power, then does something to show an increase in power, some things that then happen for at this point at most a couple months afterwards don't suddenly make that go away.
No. You take a minor part of continuity which cant possibly be used to explain the massive and almost random variations in power that we see and try to pass it off as a really great fit. Of course its all much better explained by the fact that Lobdell writes Superman nothing like Geoff Johns or anyone else at DC at present.If Hyperion starts off with no anything attached to him for noting why his state of power might vary, and in his first demonstration of capacity noticeably operates to a minute fraction of something like, say, enduring the destruction of a universe, those are two different things. They are not the same, they are not remotely alike. You draw equivalency where there is none. That's not even having a weak point, that is, in the face of such things, not having one at all.
You ignore.. chronology, conceptual presentation, and even something like how long it's been just in publication time since a thing.
If thats what you are gettin from my posts you havent been paying attention. Its not the feats I'm comparing. Its the way that they are being treated. I get the impression you are trying to make it into a comparison of feats to distract attention from the discrepancy.
Moreover, you keep trying to say you can compare the issue of benching a planet to /enduring the destruction of the universe/. As though the difference in scale is not so extreme you don't for a moment have to address it.
OK this sentence is almost impossible to parse/understand....but from what I think you are trying to say...No, the "Supermans power is gradually increasing over time" exlplanation just doesnt fit the course of events. Certainly not enough to meet the standards of consistency that you otherwise seem to demand.You talk about issues of fair comparison, while yourself making no such things.
People will demonstrate a level of capacity that afterwards they are written to forget they can be as powerful as for sake of a plot being able to happen that needs them to be weaker for it. Hyperion did the reverse of this, having first demonstrated a level of capacity that would then have to be spectacularly forgotten for sake of a plot being able to happen that needs him to be insanely more powerful for it. These are different things.
And again, the guy you keep trying to compare him to and gripe on the unfairness of, has, at least by comparison, a given reason why he would be shown as doing something of increased potency, just to see if that pre empts a "no, that was the same for Superman, he was also weaker first". It probably won't, but hey.
Again a really minor point. Yes everyones seen the scans of Pre-Crisis Superboy and the chain of planets but as often as not Pre-Crisis Superman moved planets with great difficulty and Post-Crisis Superman never moved one by himself unamped. I dont really consider Superman 1 Million to be an incarnation of Superman since he is clearly a different character from Kal-El in the same continuity.
"plenty of people" are doing about as well with claims like the Hulk only turning Hyperion's head then. Pre Crisis Superman once towed a chain of planets. He threw a compressed neutron star into another galaxy. edit; eh, I can't source that one on post crisis Supes, taking it out. Superman one million managed to hold back a galaxy for a bit with his eyebeams. Bench pressing a planet for 5 days straight is straight up nothing to any of that. So.. no, but good try on the "pretty much higher than what any incarnation of Superman has ever done".
But this really has nothing to do with the main point of discussion.
...You might want to read that sentence back again and see if it makes sense - I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Enduring universal destruction? /That/ would be completely wildly beyond such things.
We can note that in his first demonstration of capacity, Hyperion showed nothing like it, and we can see what his subsequent ones are like if any others in line with it happen to have to re-evaluate that little problem you seem to keep ignoring, while saying things that just.. have no basis in anything.
Its funny that you keep saying I'm ignoring this - I spent a great deal of my post discussing why I thought your justification for treating them differently just wasnt very good.We can note that there's nothing been provided for why Hyperion should be initially so beneath that level of performance, and then bam, enduring a universe being destroyed. If he racks up a couple more showings on that scale, hey, it would at least allow for trying to go "well, generally the intent is that he really is that powerful", but right now, as you keep ignoring the chronology goes like this: Hyperion is a guy who can trade shots with the Hulk while being hurt/bloodied by him. Hyperion can endure universal destruction. No justification for sharp discrepancy.
As an aside I came across some other posts by you on Superboy Prime that were quite interesting. In Primes case his first feat was to move planets across the universe like chess pieces (at the speed of light no less). This would seem to be an unbelievably high end first feat that establishes his power level in the same way that the fight with Hyperion apparently established his. And yet in the case of Prime it was his later, lower showings that invalidated his first uber showing...which seems to fly in the face of what happened here where the earlier showing was given primacy. And seems contrary to the "consistent high end feat" thing (though the idea of consistent high end feats seems like something of an oxymoron).
Likewise I'm 100% certain that Superman wont be portrayed in the future as someone who can bench the planet without breaking a sweat. In fact its only been a couple of months and hes been held helpless by some giant lizard, strained to catch half an aircraft carrier, got beaten up by a bunch of Atlanteans and then blasted into unconsciousness by the same lightning bolt that took down Batman, Wonder Woman and the rest of the league (much to the amusement of many Thor fans).If it makes you feel better, take anything beyond that as simple speculation that I severely doubt Hyperion will in the future be portrayed as Captain laughs off universal scale effects. If I'm wrong, hey, I'm wrong.
Thats damn close to an unreadable, unparsable sentence-paragraph-thing. I take it you disagree with me.Comics have certainly surprised me before about things they're going to do. It doesn't change in the meantime the interesting nature of trying to go "we should ignore how powerful he first was in favour of how ridiculously unsupportably by that showing powerful he then was /one month later sans any reason for it/" and acting like there's a sense to be made there. Then trying to compare that to things not involving, say, universal destruction, involving a guy with an increasing power concept, making deeply interesting claims of "that's beyond all Supermen ever" and otherwise stating things about in comic events that did not happen that way.
If earlier showings are indeed supposed to trump later showings all else being equal in terms of establishing a characters power level then as mentioned i do find it odd that Superman's Prime's original uber showing was ignored in favour of later, less impressive showings. Sure he was quite inconstent as you complained (kind of like nu-Superman) but its not like he didnt have plenty of other high end feats after that initial planet moving introduction. Yet for some reason it was the low end feats that were continually brought up as the measuring stick.None of which is helping your arguements especially.
When they happen and establish a level of power completely beneath something that then happens a month later, and no remote justification exists for the sudden insane leap in power? You bet.
Again - nobody said there wasnt a discrepancy between holding apart worlds and enduring a force that destroyed two universes. Its the apparent inconsistency in how these things are treated that i'm questioning.Holding apart worlds? That's not /so/ bad on a scale of getting into a punch up with a decently high end class 100 brick and evenly trading shots more or less. Hell, it wouldn't even be too bad with the read some people want to give of that comic of Hyperion having punched the Hulk back to Banner (though really that seems given the timing to have at least been affected by the end of the mind control on the Hulk, at minimum). Enduring Universal destruction? If you can't see the sheer discrepancy there, well, that's interesting.
Which brings back the questions from my last post that you failed to address. Wheres the cutoff between a feat being acceptably absurd and unacceptably absurd? How much weight do we give to a feat that seems too hight? A bit less? None? Do we round Hyperion's universal survival feat down to galactic level? Solar system? Or did it just literally never happen?
If Superman strains to catch another aircraft carrier with Wonder Womans help will he instantly be demoted from Earth mover to "guy who can hang with Wonder Woman"? Will the increasing power defense thing be thrown out the window if Aquaman keeps slapping him around?
Not much. I've posted here about 5 times in 5 years. I think i just checked in here because comicboards was down for 24 hours and i felt like chatting about the issue. Would you prefer I leave?Ironic.
If we are such biased creatures though, and this board is grounded in deep unfairness as you have apparently proved to yourself, what then compels you to keep posting here?
Again, you are basically comparing benching a planet to enduring universal destruction as the same level of "wild fluctuation" and somehow not actually addressing that. Again, you are basically saying that a detail like "one guy has an actual in character concept of increasing in power" to the other guy's not as a "minor detail". That you think you can basically handwave these things away while declaring "they are not so different" makes your arguement incredibly bizarre. There's barely even thereby a way to address it. You start your entire arguement by going "just because they are completely different doesn't mean they aren't basically exactly the same". And then you go from there.Thats not true. I specifically addressed this point. In short, though it is an explanation of why you treat them differntly I didnt think it was a very good one. Superman is supposed to be gradually increasing in power. Not wildly fluctuating in power from one issue to the next. The degree to which the "power growth" explanation matches the trajectory of Superman's portrayed powerlevel (not very well) does not jibe with the certainty with which you accept the Earth-pressing feat as being 100% valid while declaring Hyperion's to be completely bogus.
That you think it is a minor thing to try and claim that the Hulk didn't do much more than turn Hyperion's head is indeed extremely telling vis a vis stuff like, say, the above.
I think the fact that you initally chose to devote so much time to such a minor point is somewhat telling.
And your method of questioning it is to say "I'm now going to completely ignore that they are presented in completely different contex and on completely different scale" You talk about inconsistency, while basically ignoring the glaring inconsistencies in your own simple statements.Again - nobody said there wasnt a discrepancy between holding apart worlds and enduring a force that destroyed two universes. Its the apparent inconsistency in how these things are treated that i'm questioning.
I totally get that you are trying to compare things that are different, and thus treated differently, while ignoring that first part, to complain about that second part being inconsistent.If thats what you are gettin from my posts you havent been paying attention. Its not the feats I'm comparing. Its the way that they are being treated. I get the impression you are trying to make it into a comparison of feats to distract attention from the discrepancy.
So, you make parts of your arguement as far as refuting or otherwise downplaying things that "and really, the Hulk only turned Hyperion's head" and "and really, this would be completely beyond anything any Superman has ever done, and lots of people think this", they're both wrong, but really, they were just minor details.Again a really minor point.
Superman's powers increasing over time is itself such a major detail that its used to justify him starting off being written as weaker than he has been shown to be in decades, but again that's "a minor point". This is starting to be a pattern.
Dude, we're several pages in at this point as far as "oh I'm just bored", it's not so much caring as always wondering why people who express disdain for a place keep on posting in that place. I've always found it curious.Not much. I've posted here about 5 times in 5 years. I think i just checked in here because comicboards was down for 24 hours and i felt like chatting about the issue. Would you prefer I leave?
And it's not really a discussion so much as a guy going "universe destroying and hefting a planet should be considered the same degree of wild fluctuation" "a guy having increasing powers as a concept and another guy not should be considered a minor detail easily ignored when saying their showings should be treated the exact same way".
Last edited by Pendaran; 02-02-2013 at 01:46 PM.
Closed pending review.
Suffering is a fact of life. You survive if you find a reason to endure it.