Feats vs Writer Statements vs Bios

Feats, Writers statements, then Bios.

Guess I'll give my two cents on the matter

Feats

I think how we should rank feats depends on the feats themselves. So for example. If Batman uses his martial arts skill to beat up some thugs, then in later issues, does the same to beat Bane, those are consistent feats, and should both be considered even if they are written by different writers. If Batman then got beaten up by a random guy with a baseball bat in a bar, we could deem that feat PIS, since it isn't consistent with the character. If however Batman got beat up by this random, and it was because he was distracted, or drunk, or forgot his martial art skill, then we could say "It's not PIS, there were just circumstances behind it". So really, that's kind of how I look at feats. If they're consistent, then go with them. There will be the odd writer or instance where a character does something vastly above or below their usual capabilities, but if we can rule those rare occurences out as PIS, then we're good to go. So really for me feats are a matter of consistency.

It's also sort of a matter of time. For instance, Thor had that one microsecond reaction speed feat decades ago, yet hasn't replicated that feat in decades. So we can't really consider it since it's so inconsistent.

Bios

I don't think we should take bios with the exact same credibility as feats. Bios should be used to determine what a character can do on a very basic level. A lot of bios have Peter Parker at about 10 ton strength. We all know that his consistent feats show he is well beyond this. So I think we can use bios to determine what characters can do at a basic level, but not to determine their upper limits. Bios don't take into consideration the depths of a characters showings and abilities like us comic fans do, so while they're useful to give you a good idea of a character, they aren't 100% accurate or show a characters fullest potential. So by all means pull out a bio and say "here is Spider-Mans very baseline power limits". But don't respond to Spider-Man holding up a train by saying "Well his bio says he can only life 10 tons so that's PIS!1!"

Statements

Jashro explained this well above. If the writer is stating an indisputable fact like "Black Panther with his new upgrades is superhuman", then that is how it is.

If a writer says "Batman and Snake Eyes are equal martial artists", that is basically his opinion. And while that opinion could be very credible, it is still an opinion. If he was the only guy to have ever written either character, and created them both, sure, it's pretty much fact. But both those guys have had lots of writers. Those writers could have different opinions. Meaning none of it is fact.

So really we can only take a writers statement as fact when it is a pure and indisputable fact.

In-Conjuction with eachother

I think statements, bios and feats can work together if the consistency holds. For instance. Statements can retcon PIS feats. Feats can show that bios hold true. Bios can give a good idea of a character without having to buy all of their comics.

However. When people start using bios as proof of a characters full potential. Or start using opinionated writer statements as fact. Or start using inconsistent feats as proof of character ability, we run into problems. So really the best we can do is just go with what is factual, consistent and recent.

In terms of ranking them? I think a feat is as good as a statement. "Batman is a master of 127 martial arts" is a factual statement. Batman using these martial arts in a fight is a good way to support this. A bio stating Batman is a "Master martial artist", isn't quite as good as either Statement or feat I've listed, but it gives you a good idea.

So.. Statements = Feats (although sometimes statements>feats when it comes to retconning and just pure facts vs our interpretations of feats.)

Statements =/> Feats > Bios

i can't take the writer's statements when it comes to comic book characters since they have different writers that have their own interpretation so i take what i see in text for them.

Some intriguing and spot on analyses have already been posted on this interesting topic. I'll add some of my perspectives on the matter.

1. Feats

Feats definitely come first in my prioritisation of battle forum evidence. Without these, you have no standard to compare against other characters if you pit them together in a fight. Feats give characters the outline of how they can perform in each of their abilities whether it be speed, strength, skill or gear. However, feats themselves are not flawless and battle forum debaters need to learn which feats to use in the proper context. For example, people using a feat of Superman getting cut by titanium in For Tomorrow can be discounted since Superman's other durability feats paint a consistent picture of him being able to endure far worse things than mere titanium. Likewise, solely relying on high end feats doesn't do anyone any good other. Wally West's Human Race feat, whilst impressive, was an amped high end feat and needs to be balanced out with what else the character in question has done. Along with distinguishing between PIS and jobbing feats and this enables feats to be used as the all important currency of evidence on the battle forums and the measure of what each character can do.

2. Writer's Statements

I don't have too much to say on this that hasn't already been covered but basically, certain clarification on feats/events/power ups in the comics should be accepted. Like Hickman stating that Thor KOed the Phoenix Force with a hammer throw, that can't be disputed against. But when Mateus Santoloucho says Splinter is equal to Batman in skill, that's an opinionated statement that's subjective in nature. That cannot be taken seriously because Batman's feats put him above Splinter in martial arts skill.

3. Bios

I consider these to be the least important factors in a battle. True they do give a general picture of what a character is capable of and recent handbooks are somewhat reliable in painting the right picture of certain powers and abilities. But bios can be very vague and unclear in certain aspects. Plus some handbooks are outdated, unreliable and written by a biased source who hasn't read the source material which contradicts what he's saying e.g Thor's speed being a 7 when he's nowhere near that level of speed without Mjolnir.

So for me it goes Feats>Writer's Statements>Bios.

So this topic deserves a bump. @jashro44I think this is more important plat form to argue what we were.

So you feel source book, or official bio, is > feats > writer statements?

Feats

• Feats!!!...Even though some may contradict the other, their still the best way of figuring out what a character can do... Becuase when you use feats your citing an amalgamation of feats from over 20-70 years worth of canon or however long the current Canon is...And that should form your opinion....Not just one statement from some random writer who probably has no idea what the character has even done in the current run....Thats why i cant stand George Lucas being cited for Star Wars characters, he dosent pay attention to what anybody else writes in regards to Star Wars.
• I hate when people cite Writer Statements as definitive proof of what a character can do...Because so many different writers work on just one character..And each of those writers has such a different interpretation and unique perspective on that one chrachter that its virtually pointless to use their statements as law under most circumstances... Your opinion should be formed based on amalgamation of all their statements not just one writers statement per say.
• Unless that one witter was the only witter working on A specific version of the chrachter...
• Or if only one witter had access to the universe like AKira Toriyama=DBZ, J.R.R Tolkien=Lord of the Rings, George R.R.Marin=Game of thrones and J.K Rowling=Harry Potter.

@sirfizzwhizz said:

So this topic deserves a bump. @jashro44I think this is more important plat form to argue what we were.

So you feel source book, or official bio, is > feats > writer statements?

What you don't seem to understand with what I am arguing is the feats don't actually contradict cells statement. And cells statement is backed by the source book which confirms his statement was an objective fact. So:

• We don't have enough information based on the feats. Yes DBZ characters haven't destroyed a solar system but they also never attempted to and failed (other than cell but the reason he failed was because Gohan stopped him).
• We have a statement where cell says he can destroy a solar system.
• And we have a source book which backs the statement up.

Therefore there is more evidence supporting the statement being fact than there is against it.

I stand by what I said years ago. You can pretend the guidebook statement isn't an objective source (it is) if that is what you want. I don't actually care if you believe me.

@jashro44: well not to beat a dead horse, but the source was merely repeating what Cell claim. Regardless if a character never done something but stated he can, do you accept this? If yes then you hold statements or bios in higher esteem.

Its not that simple. It depends on the context of the statement and if anything can back that statement up.

Feat>>Statements>>>Bios.

At least that's how I see it. I will consider a writer's statement to be true unless something has happened on panel/screen that directly contradicts it. Ex- Writer says their character is universal level. I'll consider this to be a fact. But if the said character, say, dies in a planetary explosion, I'll disregard the statement. What happens on panel/screen is always more important than what writers have to say.

Feats>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statemens > Bios

2 great examples of statements not meaning so much are stan lee and akira toryiama, they hardly remember the strenght of the characters they created and many times contradict what happened in their own stories.

I wholeheartedly agree with Lvenger's post (#54). Scans>writer>bios.

Feats and statements are the same, since it comes from the same author, and both are jeopardized if someone equal or stronger says otherwise.

This whole "feats please" thing is silly, disregarding everything despite it literally come from the author himself.

Feats and statements should be equalized. Both feats and statements vary equally depending on the writer.

In your example with the writer claiming character is universal level while the character dies in a planetary explosion-hopefully this would be a different writer that would have the character die in a planetary explosion- hence two writers having different interpretations of the same character.

A writer statement is basically a feat. If a writer claims X character is universal level- it means they would write and consider that character to be universal level. So in the end it comes down to consistency. How many writers consider the character universal level, how many consider it planetary level and etc.

this doesn't make sense. feats and writers statements come from the exact same place.

@expertanalytics:

Feats and statements should be equalized. Both feats and statements vary equally depending on the writer.

In your example with the writer claiming character is universal level while the character dies in a planetary explosion-hopefully this would be a different writer that would have the character die in a planetary explosion- hence two writers having different interpretations of the same character.

A writer statement is basically a feat. If a writer claims X character is universal level- it means they would write and consider that character to be universal level. So in the end it comes down to consistency. How many writers consider the character universal level, how many consider it planetary level and etc.

While I agree with this, some writers don't care much about science behind the feats they have their characters achieving. CW Flash is a prime examples. He has feats of outrunning nukes and explosions and yet by statements he is below Mach 2. That's when it becomes tricky. Should we go by what we see or what the writers say?

@expertanalytics: Statements can be contradicted, feats are already written in the story, not even the author can change a feat unless he retcon it but this would only cause the creation of 2 alternate versions of the character. Feats and canon are above statements, statements lose even more power in the case of stories that don't belong to the original author anymore and/or have mutiple writers (Ex:DC,Marvel,Star wars etc)

@bluehope: every feat is created/written by an author

so a feat is no more valid than an author statement.

feats and canon are all created by individual writers just like statements

feats can also be contradicted. not really sure what you're trying to prove

@expertanalytics:Feats cannot be completelly refuted, we base the lvl of the characters in all their feats and reach the conclusion what is their avarege abilities.

Also another problem is that authors many times can say anything they want but it could not be accepted in the canon by the owners of the show/comics/movies, Stan lee could say that hulk has enough strenght to shake the universe with his punches but is marvel team who decide what will be approved, so they could decide at any moment that hulk is not that strong.

Author statement would be relevant in cases where one single person owns and write the story but even so is not in the work.

Again, feats are created by authors just like author statements are.

Basing the level of characters on feats is no different than author statements.

Feats are authors statements/authors views. They are just drawn out and displayed in a drawing, instead of being stated in words alone.

Authors can say anything they want and they can likewise create any feats they want as well. This is why some feats are pis/wis/cis and such things.

And if you're saying the owners of the show/comics/movies have that much power, then stan lee has the ultimate power. He created the entire marvel company. You can't be telling us that the owners of the show/comics/movies can decide what is canon but the creator/founder of Marvel itself doesn't decide what is canon?

Stan lee created the marvel team. Why would marvel team's view override his view?

Everything you're saying is incorrect and false.

Everything you've said about author statements applies just as much to feats.

If author statements are "only relevant in cases where one single person owns the story", then FEATS are also only relevant in cases where one person writes the story.

AUTHORS create feats. Just like AUTHORS create statements.

And if the owners of the show/comics/movies have the highest power, then your stan lee example is invalidated because stan lee is the biggest owner out there.

feats are not any more valid than author statements

Fan calculations >>>>>>>>>>> all.

That's the rules on CV.

Simply put.

I use what consistently coincides with the character's depiction and what he does.

Key word. Consistent. Whatever evidence is generally consistent.

@bluehope: not going to say it again.

feats are CREATED by authors

authors do NOT need approval to create feats

this is the entire reason some feats are pis/wis/cis

feats, just like statements, are CREATED by authors

we go by CONSISTENCY whether its feats, author statements, and anything else

authors do NOT need approval to create feats. they themselves WRITE and CREATE the feats

even if Martin Goodman comes out and says spiderman is a god, that is not going to undo decades of feats, author statements, and canon.

there is NOTHING making feats more special than a statement. feats are a statement that is DRAWN and VISUALIZED

Consistency matters more. What is considered consistent is what we debate about here.

Don't forget that an artist can impact a showing as well. Some artist may be more realistic, some exaggerate with a bit of toon force.

Statements should be taken with a grain of salt. Writers always change things and contradict themselves. If anything, people put too much weight to them.

Also, author statements are ideas they have that haven't been run through with their editor yet.

So it depends on how the statement is stated. Ed Brubaker on Captain America being enhanced. He references feats he wrote and got approved through his editor and team as well as past feats and statements from previous writers and artist. He compares DD, Batman and Captain America, all characters he has written for in the past. His statements and reasoning is backed up heavily with facts, resources and his own resume of credibility.

A Manga writer is responsible for his own world, he doesn't need to worry about an approval process. So his statements about his original work hold true also.

Now if you a comic booking writer that is incompetent or flip flops in consistent showings, I would take their statements, feats and even showings with a grain of salt.

To me, the guidebooks are always a good start to questioning what is consistent with a character. Then I investigate showings to see what is consistent. Through my investigations, I see which artist and writer is responsible for the material and depending on their level of competence and credibility I will either accept their statements or not.

TL;DR: Facts and consistency from a creditable source is what is important.

@expertanalytics: Your own argument is so flawed for several reasons.

1) Writer Statements of one writer does not coincide with the writer statements of a current or past authors.

2) Some authors contradict themselves. Saying Character A can blow up a planet, and then years later Character A cannot and never could. Then month later say he can again.

3) Writers are not solely responsible. They just set up the script and plots of the story. The artist is also important as he shows us what is done and how it is done. The Editor is also important as he is in charge what the writer can get away with or not in the story or character. So saying the Writer alone matters is faulty there.

Yup.

if a writer contradicts himself and changes things then said writers feats should be taken with a grain of salt just like his statements are.

it makes no sense accepting feats but not accepting statements from the same author. that's called bias.

what makes a feat MORE valid than a statement? Because the writer drew a picture instead of stating words? get outta here!!! ridiculous!!!

@expertanalytics: Wow, I love how you ignore what most people are saying, to repeat an already debunk claim. Good luck with that.

Feats <=> Writer statements > Bios.

@expertanalytics: WhoisTheBest back trying to pedel your snake oil on the Vine, no wonder your ass was banned again.

lol

Feats aren't everything. Just throwing that out there.

Consistency and competency of authors is EVERYTHING.

What is consistent and who is competent is the reason for our existence on these boards.

They all matter to an extent, but none of them are the be-all end-all. Generally, in vast universes such as DC, Marvel and SW I take writer opinions with a grain of salt since it's just their own perspective on characters they may have written for or read about, without in-depth knowledge on sources existing before or after their work was published.

But with manga that seems different since not every issue has a different writers, it's all just a single writer or a single small group of writers completely aware of the universe's entire continuity. So there I'd say writer statements carry a good deal of weight.

Another problem is that you can have many writers working on a character over the years. Each with their own vision and ideas. This causes fluctuations and inconsistencies in the characters power level. You see it a lot in comicbooks

The most important is feats. What they actually do is more important than what the writers or the bios says they can do.

Then come author's statements. An author merely saying something may or may not be true, depending on what's theirs and what's not. For example, if Stan Lee said "Spider-Man could beat Iron Man.", that would be fine, as both characters were created by him, and he knows the extent of their powers, being the author. But if he said "Spider-Man could beat Batman.", that's not okay, because he's not Batman's creator.

And lastly, come bios. Although, if you think about it, bios are just an extension of author's statements anyway.

Writer statements come from the people who define the character's feats, who define the characters abilities, who define the story, etc. They are valid. Just as much as feats.