@PowerHerc said:
Islands don't float, that true, but this isn't the first law of physics to be shattered in a comic book. The editor taking a poke a Gerry Conway doesn't disprove the feat. Sorry.
If Manhattan was never moved, then why is the Mayor of New York City complaining of broken bridges and tunnels in need of repair?
The editorial comment is a straight out questioning of the veracity of the story, and makes it clear that events depicted were not necessarily what actually happened. On its own it wouldn't overrule what was shown, but in conjunction with the other evidence it becomes valid evidence. As for the Mayor's complaints, if other parts of the story are cast in doubt then his exact words might also be, but even without that, the City-Stealers causing earthquakes would still have done that kind of damage anyway. So what the Mayor says doesn't support your stance.
Hercules did pull Manhattan on panel in the context of the story, not it the retelling of it. In fact he has never been shown talking about or retelling this adventure. Hercules tall tale from "Thor" #356 (published about 11 years later) was revealed to be something that didn't actually happen immediately during the story, but that has nothing to do with Herc pulling Manhattan. The two stories are unrelated.
They are related in as much as it proves that Hercules does have a propensity for embellishing his feats, and that what a comic shows on panel might not be an accurate account of "real" events. And like I said, it isn't the only other time we've been shown one thing only to be subsequently told that the comic depicted false events. It goes towards proving that just because it is seen on panel does not mean it can be taken as gospel; later evidence can retcon things.
You're trying to demonstrate that Hercules will, at times, embellish a story. I concede that he will. But nowhere has Hercules ever been shown admitting this feat wasn't real. Show me where Hercules is making a grandiose boast about pulling Manhattan. If Herc was telling a tall tale about pulling Manhattan it should have been shown that way. It wasn't shown then and it hasn't been shown that way since.
Hercules doesn't tend to admit his boasts being fake. Even in the Thor issue, he didn't admit as much, he just gave way and modified his story when challenged over accuracy. Just as Jarvis and then Hercules' young audience challenged it in the Thor story, we have Prince Rey refuting it in Hulk. Villain he might be, but he has no reason to lie and downgrade Hercules' feat.
I get the point of your examples but providing these examples doesn't prove that any actual retcon of the event in question ever occurred, thus your examples are irrelevant.
I agree that the other examples don't prove a retcon for the Manhattan pulling incident - what they do however show is a propensity for embellishing things which supports the other, more explicit, evidence of lies being told in this instance.
This villain (he is not Tyrannus, btw, it's Prince Rey) is saying "would" instead of "did" is because he didn't consider the entirety of New York City to have been split asunder. This panel doesn't show or explain that the City-Stealers failed to break Manhattan free from it's foundation in any way. You're drawing conclusions not supported in or by the story. Why would this villain bring up something less impressive than the pulling of Manhattan? He did it because that was the part of the occurrence that was important to him. He and his cronies were feeding their flame through "violent geographical activity transmitted through the Earth's crust." They got that energy from the earthquake but they didn't get any energy for their flame when Hercules pulled Manhattan. That's why he mentioned the one less impressive feat but not the other more impressive one. That makes sense because he's a villain in the story not a comic fan reading it.
Yes, I got Rey and Tyrannus mixed up for a moment there. Doesn't change what was said. And you miss the whole point of the scene - the writer of the Hulk tale had no reason to specifically mention the details of the MTU story, as the chess board visual alone shows which past tales were being alluded to. Rey bringing up that one story and specifically saying that Hercules boasted events up is the Hulk story writer taking time out his own story to retcon the past story, just the same way John Byrne took time out in an issue of FF to retcon Dr. Doom's (then) recent interactions with Arcade and the X-Men. We're being explicitly told that Hercules has boasted about the events we saw to make himself look more impressive - but if the events we saw were 100% accurate, what need did Hercules have of embellishing any of it? It's hard to get much more impressive than pulling Manhattan single-handedly.
You're telling me that Marvel retconned this in an obscure index with one sentence, huh? That could be, but why then hasn't Hercules been depicted back-tracking on this feat? Why hasn't it been shown on panel in an actual story?
No, I'm telling you they hinted at it being not as depicted within the very same issue, made it explicit that Hercules bigged himself up in Hulk #241, and then reiterated things very, very clearly in the Index. It doesn't matter if you consider the Index obscure - it is a Marvel title, and it states categorically that Hercules never pulled Manhattan. There's no need for another story to show it on-panel - the vast majority of older stories rarely get referenced later, and retcons, once made, don't usually get revisited. The Hulk story retconned the MTU one; the Index just reconfirmed it.
Your wording has been something quite less than neutral when describing this event. You've changed it a bit once or twice but judging by your choice of words you seemed to be motivated by more than accuracy.
You've kept stating the feat as fact, and my amendments have been of the variety "however, this did not happen, and later stories have confirmed what was depicted to have been a boastful exaggeration by Hercules". That's factual, and neutral - it is part of Hercules character, arguably part of his charm, that he boasts about himself, and this was one of those instances, per Hulk #241 and the Index.
The way you constantly check in on to edit and re-edit Hercules' page, it seems you have some sort of compulsion regarding the character.
Again with the aspersions. I'd point out that I could easily say the exact same about you.
I did notice that you deemed those feats to be worthy. Considering Godzilla is no longer a character licensed by Marvel, I guess we Hercules fans should be glad you did. Thank you for not taking it upon yourself to draw the conclusion that since Godzilla is no longer in the MU, he probably never was and therefore Hercules tossing him on his back didn't happen. In the interests of accuracy; thanks for that.
It has nothing to do with whether I consider those events to be worthy or this one not worthy - it simply has to do with accuracy. There's nothing to suggest that those events were boasts on Hercules' part (bar, perhaps, that he does like to boast). And Godzilla is still part of the Marvel Universe; the fact that licensing issues prevents him being shown or namechecked again doesn't change that, any more than it wipes out all the other licensed characters who once regularly showed up.
Herc pulling Manhattan wasn't a falsehood when it happened and it hasn't been determined to be a falsehood in any story since. The only leg you have to stand on is a sentence from an editor in an obscure index. Assuming that is the case, the feat needs to be retconned out of cannon in a better manner than that. Preferably on panel.
Overlooking the fact that there is more than just the Index as evidence that this was a falsehood, including an on panel comment you choose to discount, the Index alone would be enough. It was written by people working for Marvel, edited by people working for Marvel and published by Marvel; you tag it as "obscure" because if you can't find a way to discount it then your case is utterly blown out the water, but it is no less or more obscure than most comics published by Marvel, and still remains a valid and official source.
Oh, by the way, I notice you don't long stick to you previously claimed "no desire to put a negative twist on Hercules" when you choose the word "lie" over embellishment or tall tale which is how the writers and editors have described Hercules story in "Thor" 356. Lie. That's not negative, is it? Maybe you lied about not wanting to be negative where Hercules is concerned.
And now an accusation that I am a liar. Pardon me for not wanting to repeatedly use the same words for describing Hercules bigging up himself. The panel in question depicted Hercules literally ripping the island of Manhattan up at one end and lifting the entire island by that point; a subsequent panel confirmed that no such event happened. So, yes, Hercules lied. When you claim to have done something something you never actually did, then you are lying. It wasn't intended by Hercules to be a malicious lie, but yes, it was a lie. Accurate statement, not a negative one.
Aspersions, huh? If the shoe fits . . .
I debate this issue based only on the actual information found in the comics, not on biased conclusions drawn from a single panel in "Hulk" #241 or a totally unrelated story from "Thor" 356.
I guess our edit, re-edit, edit, re-edit thing will continue.
I debate this based only on the actual information found in the comics - I haven't taken a poke at you based on your username, called you a liar, questioned your character (as in personality, not comic character) or suggested you have acted out of some sort of favouritism towards one character or dislike of another, all of which you have done to me. I'd argue that your claim of drawing biased conclusions from that panel in Hulk #241 could as easily be applied to your reading of it.
Log in to comment