Statements vs Feats

So i see alot of back and fourth on whether statements are just as credible as feats. 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?

For instance say a character is stated to be immune to telapathy but that character has no scans/feats of resisting telapathy from anyone or from anyone extremely powerful with telapathy. Do we take the statement into consideration or do we dismiss the statement because the character has never been shown being tested?

This comes down to a matter of personal opinion.

I am more accepting of both insofar as it's not made blatantly clear the said statement is mere a boast or a generic this you would expect a character , in the given situation, to say.

Being immune to telepathy doesn't appear to be that.

But that's just my opinion on the matter.

feats, since writers can be accessed on twitter and those statements can be crummy. It's harder to redo a feat than a statement, one takes a retcon while the other takes a click on the edit button. Calcs are there to help, also do remember of NLF and that not all 'universes' have the same rules (unbeatable in x might be peanuts in y)

A statement is completely completely circumstantial on the context.

Sometimes, a character states that another character is capable of something because they are exaggerating it. Sometimes this is based on experience. Some other times they say it as a joke or to use it deceptively.

For example, if William Shakespeare and Albert Einstein were to observe and write an essay on Superman. Shakespeare is likely to write "His unrivalled might could shatter a million worlds and extinguish a thousand stars", while Einstein may have written "Superman's full strength enables him to generate enough striking force to cause a shift within Earth's tectonic plates and trigger a massive earthquake". Of course, this is because Shakespeare is writing an artwork while Einstein is writing a research paper.

Another lesser factor would be the credibility of the person making the statement. Example: if Joker and Odin were to tell a story about Juggernaut. Both of them might say "He's unstoppable", but would you really trust the Joker? If Juggernaut really is unstoppable how would a powerless street fighter like Joker know? But Odin does know because he is immortal and has cosmic powers.

Been done or at the least same debate.

Feats vs Writer Statements vs Bios

Context > Feats > Writers > Comic Statements

This essentially sums it up.

Statements to me should only really be used if the context or feat backs up said statement. Statements in stories can be polar opposite of what is happening. An example would be like Wolverine and Elektra fighting the Gorgon in Enemy of the State. Gorgon one shotted Elektra and toyed with her completely in a previous fight. Wolverine said "What chance do I have" after Elektra got taken out. Despite this, Wolverine is on average a better fighter, is stronger, has comparable combat speed, and has his healing factor on top of plot devices claws. Logan ended up doing much better against Gorgon than Elektra and ended up defeating himn via plot claws and Gorgon being stupid. So should we take his statement to heart or the fact that he did that much better than her? Obviously the statement didn't match the feat.

But this doesn't mean all feats are usable. One still has to be aware of context surrounding feats and if they are consistent or not.

which is why handbooks can't be trusted

This is ridiculous. There's one word to describe this. It's called "exposition".

The writer is using the statement, the dialogue, narrative, etc to convey information about that said universe or setting. Meaning it's placed there deliberately in order to give this information to the reader/audience. Now no one can control how you decide to interpret this information, but by definition that is what this is.

The reality is, these are literary works. Artistic works. Feats are always changing. If they weren't, we wouldn't have "high end feats" vs. "low end feats", or "PIS" or all of these other things that we all created as "fans" in order to win arguments with each other over who's favorite character would beat another person's favorite character.

There are some things that we simply can't quantify. Especially in the DC universe where we have characters that haven't really been given set limits to their strength/speed (Superman, Wonder Woman, Shazam, Flash etc.) Writers can change whatever they want. They don't view this the same way we do.

I was having this discussion regarding the MCU the other day. We were talking about how Captain Marvel is being built up in MCU to be the most powerful hero they've had. Even moreso than Thor or Hulk, etc. Now I think this is cool but is this consistent with what we've seen in the comics?....No. Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) is great in the comics, but is she on Thor's level of strength? No of course not...but they're writing her that way in this universe. What are you gonna do.

Conversely, ever since seeing Squirrel Girl beat Thanos...I can't even take "But the FEATS" argument seriously anymore. Because that fight alone is a clear example about how they just don't factor realistically if the writer says otherwise. Sorry.

I think this question is more on personal opinion and how WELL YOU KNOW the character in question.

Statements can be just as credible as feats that is if the character in question can prove it. If we have nothing to fall back on to prove that statement it’s nothing, but hot air coming out their mouths, your mouth and the writer. And then there are some feats that have major context PIS that follows it.

Example: (I made this up by the way) Reed Richards says that Johnny Storms Flames is just as hot as Hell Fire or more. Now, is that true? Do we have proof of this statement to back up? No. So how can we trust that statement. (Again I made that up)

Depends on who's actually stating it. If it's a villain boasting (Chance saying his beams go at the speed of light despite tons of dudes dodging it who aren't near that speed) or hype over a hero (Sentry being as strong as a thousand exploding suns, for example) then the statement is pretty much useless.

If it comes from a person who is knowledgeable (like Reed Richards, or Tony Stark, for instance) then the statement has more weight behind it, and thus more creditable. Just remember, this doesn't matter if that showing doesn't match up with the grand majority of feats.

In the end, they are secondary to actual stuff the person did, that is always more important.

Man, this comment of yours is the most WOKE and most intelligent response I've ever seen in my fucking life in regards to Feats vs Statements.

I'm not even exaggerating. I wanted to say what you were saying all this time but couldn't find the right words.

The MUH FEATISM culture needs to stop. Actually it's stupid, because people come up with MUH WIS, MUH PIS, MUH CIS or these other bullshit made up hypocritical stipulations.

Statements and feats should support, corroborate and compliment each other consistently and reasonably. For example, if a statement stated "a full force of a car" but the movie actually showed "full force of a micro machine toy car", then there's gonna be a lot of disagreements here.

Statements alone are more about the perspective and motive of the character or the writer, while feats are more about the actual context. It's almost like the comparison between an eye witness statement vs an actual video footage. Of course, in the grand scheme of things both of them are based on perspective and context, I just think feats are much more compelling overall.

@sungsam:

Aww thank you! I was prepared to get flamed. To which I say, bring it, but I appreciate the response.

@zepta_pon:
Saying "perspective of the character" when it's something that's regarding a character's abilities, is just a way for fans to disregard it as exposition. Because that's what it is. And I understand what you are saying, but that's hyperbole. Obviously looking at a statement of a character, we can (at least I hope) deduce hyperbole from an actual statement. For example, several fans get into the whole "Wonder Woman is nowhere near strong as Superman because FEATS", which is ridiculous because they are written completely different in terms of the spectacle they display, and because the narration has always stated that she is near his level of strength and speed. It's stated by characters, narration, and throughout multiple eras. But people say things like "Well we haven't seen her do this but we've seen him do this" or the always logical "He's always holding back" argument. It's nonsense.

Both characters are rarely given limits so that the plot can call for them to do whatever they need to do. When analyzing literature, you say "What is the writer trying to communicate with certain statements". Feats for a character change constantly. Depending on the era...hell even the issue. In one era Superman could sneeze a universe away.....sneeze a universe away...if someone wants to quantify that for me...I would be oh so amused. Feats are spectacle. They're meant to be a "wow" effect. It's hard to use them as a benchmark because of how inconsistent they are...and if they weren't inconsistent....well then we wouldn't have invented terms like "PIS" now would we?

Feats stomp

As writers vary from one to another, statements also vary from one to another, sometimes context, that's why feats are the best logical and reliable sources.

Feats, always.

It's not as simple as feats > statements or vice versa. Ideally they should compliment each other. Push comes to shove I often find myself trusting feats more often then statements but it's more of a case by case basis. I make it a point to never disregard statements unless it completely disregards what was previously established and/or future events (feats or otherwise). Statements/writers opinions can change just like feats do. It's even more varied in comics since there are multiple writers with different opinions on how a character should be portrayed.

Will post my full thoughts when I get to a laptop but I think this needed to be said at least.

Oh, the old "eye witness statement vs actual video footage" argument.

That so called "footage" argument is flawed, because it's not footage, it's a paper drawing with meshed colors and ink in it that is designed to depict an image that which your brain was designed to pick up. Then you call it actual video footage of what imaginary fictional characters can do? You call it a "feat" I call it a 2 dimensional paper drawing no better than an in-fictional statement because these are merely representations, they're not actual video footage of anything, they're depictions of imagination within the medium of graphic art. These thing's aren't real. Otherwise, you can bump into any court with any paper drawing and call it more reliable than an eye witness statement.

In the end, they're virtually no better than the so called "eye witness statement".

What about novels in which the story is entirely constructed in words and statements of an author to construct the narrative of the story? What then?

@sungsam:

What about novels in which the story is entirely constructed in words and statements of an author to construct the narrative of the story? What then?

I'm almost certain that the op is talking about comics at least. Even movies and television also apply to this thread because they graphically and visually represent the source material. Sure, you can compare comics to text books but that requires so much mental gymnastics that it needs to ignore the visual art element of the medium. It's almost like comparing radio to television, the comparison doesn't really makes any sense overall because the other one doesn't really show anything visually.

Text book novels are also more open to personal interpretation because the writer can only describe events in words so accurately that they really don't compare to comics, specially movies and tv.

In the end, they're virtually no better than the so called "eye witness statement".

Of course, all source materials have been written by someone, and like I said - in the grand scheme of things both of them are based on perspective and context. But I still lean in favor of feats more overall.

I reminded myself MCU Thor vs DCEU WW or Faora or Zod in strenght/h2h combat.

By statements and outliers Thor should be stronger

But by very consistent feats guys from DCEU beats thor with ease.

Same as Hercules vs Maui or some DEATH BATTLE matches like Peach vs Zelda or Ganon vs Bowser where by very consistent feats Zelda characters curbstomps marioverse but by best feats and statements it is stalemate or mario guys wins.

What if by feats Character A seems all around far more powerful than Character B, but everyone always remarks how A wouldn't stand a chance against B?

Well, the author has the last words, if it's stated that a character is capable to do this or that feat, but it never happened, it's because it's not the right moment, possibly because it doesn't suit the plot.

As long it doesn't happen, it's something uncertain, but you can't negate it. It's a pretty neutral perspective, while feats are the ultimate proof, but such a proof still can't win or lose, if the author's statement is pointing to an unhappen superior feat.

PS: Omnipotent characters are an example, they could destroy the entire universe, but it will never happen due the plot armor, therefore their feats are based on statements.

This.

The writer needs to write it down if I'm going to consider it valid. Writers can give context or clear up ambiguity of feats but if the character never resisted telepathy like in your example I wouldn't acknowledge an author statement that they can from outside of the story.

It depends on the source of the statement, but usually feats>>>, but in rare cases statements can take precedence.

Basically both of these.

The reliability of the statement is synonymous with the reliability of an author. Having multiple authors vouch for the statement can help in this regard of reliability by keeping up with canon.

Feats are sort of in the same vein, but only if the author in question has already been deemed untrustworthy. Then we can decide for ourselves whether a character can keep the feat or not. Otherwise, the intent on the author is basically law, especially if it’s their creation and no one is gonna screw with it.

Unless it's a repeated statement and it is shown to be true then yes. IF not than feats>>>>>> Statements

As long as the statement is from a credible source, then statement > feat.

If A states that B can lift 10,000 tons but we've only seen him lift 5,000 thus far, there's still no reason we shouldn't believe he can lift 10,000.

Unless said statement has been directly contradicted by a feat/showing, for example if we see B fail to lift 2,000 tons with no good reason, then that statement is nullified.

It's not that straightforward, there's always a lot of things to be considered.

Inb4Raj

This is the best answer.

An example would be the author stated that Ikaros is Mach 22 despite the feat itself on panel contradicts that and it way faster.

Most of the good statements were made in the Silver Age and early Bronze Age, where writers were very over-the-top in description.

It's about personal opinion and arguments

@sirkaboom13:

Most of the over the top statements from those eras are probably just figure of speech. I mean look at this:

Alien ships travel at "incalculable speed", yet human bystanders can perceive those same ships in the same exact panel.

So, obviously this is an exaggeration. I imagine many other statements are similiar.

The plot of the arc/show/movie>Feats>Statements from reliable sources>Statements from neutral sources>Databooks>Villains hyping themselves up

To me at least, explicit author statements > feats > databook statements/statements from third parties and the like