Of course not. In the battle forums we keep much better track of the feats we like and dislike. Writers mostly just look at characters as they are on paper. Or have characters just do whatever suits the story.
I wouldn't say they don't care about feats, but I think it's safe to say they don't let them dictate their stories. I imagine most approach the story having a handle on the character's general capabilities and then go from there.
It's important to remember that a lot of these writers legitimately care about these characters just as much as we do. I say that as someone who's been fortunate enough to interact with a lot of creators, and not just for on the record interviews.
@jashro44: @k4tzm4n:Yeah I actually get what you guys are saying. One of my buds had personally asked a writer a while back (or was it an artist/some other creative talent, I don't recall)...he had asked them about Batman's strength level. The person apparently replied something like "around highest Olympic weightlifter level, probably a bit higher due to his conditioning."
Feats aren’t nearly as important as CV makes them out to be. Even for determining who wins a battle. CV has developed way too much of a tendency to only look at feats and ignore more credible information like portrayals and lore.
Feats aren’t nearly as important as CV makes them out to be. Even for determining who wins a battle. CV has developed way too much of a tendency to only look at feats and ignore more credible information like portrayals and lore.
Agreed. Take for example, MCU Black Widow. I don't think someone like Post-Crisis Batgirl would ever be written to beat her.
I feel that's it's a difference on viewpoint and perspective. Writers may not necessarily view "feats" the way us readers do, or even think of instances and actions performed as "feats". There is simply being a story told with characters performing in accordance with abilities and powers.
Pretty sure not all comic book readers don't care about feats either. I know I didn't until I came here. Now whenever I read a book, one of the first things that comes to mind is how the debaters are going to react to them. And I don't even debate lol
Also, I suppose it really depends on the writer. Some do more research and pay more attention to stuff like this, while others focus more on the story they want to write about.
Feats aren’t nearly as important as CV makes them out to be. Even for determining who wins a battle. CV has developed way too much of a tendency to only look at feats and ignore more credible information like portrayals and lore.
If someone's less durable than a Helicarrier, Iron Fist wins 10/10!!!
As a writer myself, let me summarize what it's like to think of feats for a character.
"Ok what would be the coolest and most thematic option... hm, this would be cool, but is kinda out of his league... f*** it, I'll do it anyway and give him some excuse as to why he can now"
Most writers don't value feats at all though certain characters lend themselves to being wanked by writers more than others. Certain writers also get off by having characters they write do things well beyond anyone would have thought they were capable which is what has led to things such as the Loeb force or Aaron force.
Nobody values feats as much as viners. I mean it is cool on here when people are so knowledgeable about various feats and can make compelling arguments for why x can beat y but i want to read a good story, not a bunch of feats that show Wonder Woman being fast enough to dodge Superman or whatever. I’ve seen people on here complaining that writers aren’t giving their favourite characters good enough feats but I really couldn’t care less if the story is good and I’m pretty sure writers feel the same way. The only thing I hate regarding feats is when writers will grossly over or under power characters to fit the story because that is just bad storytelling.
because (and I think the others would at least slightly agree with me on this one) a writers job isn't to fuel the illustrious debates that go on here on the CV battle forums by delivering us more feats. Their job is to give us proper stories that entertain us and show what their favourite characters would do is situations. It's the same reason why Superman has never punched a planet, it's not a question of whether he can or can't it's a question 'why would he in the first place?'.
That's why the majority of the hero vs hero fights, even in movies like Ragnerok, end in semi-stalemates, so that idiots like us would debate about it.
I don't mind usually, if the writers are consistent with the powerlevels at the very least, story should always come first.
Feats aren’t nearly as important as CV makes them out to be. Even for determining who wins a battle. CV has developed way too much of a tendency to only look at feats and ignore more credible information like portrayals and lore.
That's why the majority of the hero vs hero fights, even in movies like Ragnerok, end in semi-stalemates, so that idiots like us would debate about it.
I don't mind usually, if the writers are consistent with the powerlevels at the very least, story should always come first.
Keep telling yourself it was a stalemate until you believe it :P
@k4tzm4n: I think a writer emphaisis more a character's traits and personality. what they represent, and go from there. Decide on an angle and go from there. For example, Morrison and Snyder focus on batman as an adaptor, representing human potential, and he's a monster under them. Dini focuses on detective batman work, much more down to earth, and less of feat monster. both make absolutely fantastic stories though, cause they focus and emphasis different aspects of batman. Another example is wonder woman, she was basically featless throughout azarellos run, and rucka had her get hit by a bullet. but both of their runs are out of this world (imo) because they got down to what Diana represents and who she is.
Log in to comment