Is the Hulk too Powerful?

  • 76 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for kallarkz
#51 Posted by Kallarkz (3388 posts) - - Show Bio
@turoksonofstone said:
Is Hulk too powerful??/ Better Question: Is _______(DC hero of your choice) Too Powerful?
Depends on the story. Would we have to do away with Galactus and cosmic tales because Spider-Mans powers would not be sufficient? They must be judged based upon the situation that they are in. 
Avatar image for sc
#52 Edited by SC (18160 posts) - - Show Bio

Now, given how really angry Hulk can beat Thor, then surely Zeus must mop the floor with Thor, because the only other condition,  


Given the Fact that Thpor stalemated  Zeus for months and the battle was only ended when they both admitted they couldn't win. and in thir other fight Zeus was in a warriors rage and Thor was cursed and he still gave him a hell of a fight. There is no way Zeus mops the floor with Thor.


 
Two different opinions, both have validity both disagree with each other and I am sure both have good reasons to. Both seem to be fans of one or two more of the characters involved, and thats great, since so am I. I can't vouch for them, but for me, thats not where my personal argument is. I love being alive, I love talking to people, agreeing with them disagreeing with, observing the ways they and we do that, I am interested in the truth and our subjective and objective understandings and pursuit of it. From an attempted objective point of view, with truth and reality being what's striven towards, with above to both statements above? I'd say there was a potential error in logic with both, by drawing attention and focus to the words in the statements "must" and "no way" since we are dealing with fiction. These words to me, are poorly applied as far as how factual and truthful they are. As opinions? They are perfectly valid and I can't disagree with a opinion. I mean not really. Also as far as pointing our flaws? Well its not there sentiment isn't ultimately correct? XYZ, might must always mop the floor with ZYX (even though this has not happened the times the times, both those letters have interacted. All there might not be a way that XYZ can mop the floor with ZYX either? I would find it odd. really odd, if any argument was directed at me, for saying that actually? Both might happen and both can happen. It just depends? I am not even saying I disagree with the opinions. I am just saying they aren't exclusively correct. lol 
Moderator
Avatar image for cosmo111687
#53 Edited by cosmo111687 (1583 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: You're very welcome, of course. ^^ 
 
And after having re-read your guys' arguments a second time, I think I was mistaken in my characterization of both of your arguments. I now see that you both agree that continuity and a consistent, internal-logic are good things in stories, but you (SC) believe that it's Marvel's prerogative to establish who defeats who whenever they wish because fiction enables for anything to be plausible and there is no true certainty to who would win a fight against another. It's simply a matter of preference that dictates the out-come of fights and other story elements. And I'm sure that Feliciano doesn't disagree with you on that point, he would just prefer it if Hulk defeated Zeus because, based upon his own understanding of what their potential strengths are, that would be the out-come he would predict. But, hey, sometimes the Golden State Warriors defeat The Lakers. :)
  
Anyways, I just hope that I've helped calm things down so that everybody can discuss things at a more reasonable level (rather than presume that you're both purposefully trying to insult one another, which is absolutely not the case.)  
 
Cosmo away! *Flies off to try to bring peace to other war-torn threads across the internets!
Avatar image for feliciano2040
#54 Posted by Feliciano2040 (665 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:

You appear to be taking this somewhat personally? I am not sure if this is strictly true, you might think this of me, like this for example.

Just so you know, I don't take anything personally to the point of being bitter and irrational, but I did thought some comments of yours weren't necessarily making a constructive point.
 

You feel? Why feel anything? Why not point out the ridiculous nature of my questions, what dies your feelings or my feelings have to do with this?

Do you know what an expression is ?
 
When I say "I feel", it is akin' to saying "I think" or "I believe", it doesn't mean that I am actually hurt or feeling sore in my chest by those comments, I don't believe I should have clarified this.
 
As for pointing out the ridiculous nature of your questions, I did, and I explained, read my post again.

I did read your posts, I read all of them, so I did bother, and unfortunately no, you can only interpret my remarks as passive aggressive. My remarks as with my intent are not passive aggress, but, if you look at your quotes I have just quoted above, as well as many of your other comments in your last post, I wonder, honestly and genuinely whether you have the capacity to argue logic, and not take things personally. I am sorry, but I am not here to have a personal argument with you and you shouldn't feel personally by me, pointing out your logic is flawed, if I actually explain why and how your logic is flawed.

Don't worry about me being hurt, I am too lazy to get into a fight over the internet, but don't go around telling people that their logic is flawed by saying "Your logic is flawed, why ? Because I say so", don't be surprised if someone is not welcoming of what clearly seems as disguised attacks.
 

Now see if I was feeling passive aggressive I would say that you started an argument that you are vastly ill equipped for, and are now realizing that and you are are now resorting to ad hominem attacks, but then that might just be my natural snarkiness coming out and it might actually be true lol

I would vouch for the latter, only for the sake of politeness, and if anyone hasn't told you yet, your "natural snarkiness" is not exactly a quality to be appreciated, just saiyan' !
 

Depends, are you a professional writer being paid my Marvel?

Do I have to be ?
 

I liked Loeb's Hulk run, and I know he is a professional writer and i know professional writers don't write stories fueled by ignorance of the character they are writing, usually the reason they disregard continuity is because most fans don't care, and prefer entertainment since again, comics are not a science, comics are for entertainment.

At this precise moment I could say something like "Your logic is clearly flawed beyond any reasonable doubt because you're making an opinion, therefore I can't seriously discuss anymore with you as a civilized comic book reader might do."
 
Yet, I'm choosing not to do so, rather I'll say that, even if it was true that "fans don't care" (because some of us do) one should at least feel, as well as think, that as an author one has a responsibility and a commitment to making "good work", I think  we can agree that this is a basic premise of any action, if you're not going to do it right, why do it at all ? So it happens that writing comics right means that you have to be aware of how the story of different characters and different events has gone through different periods of continuity, because you might make a mess of it if you don't. 
 
Also, quite frankly, I don't see how any of that is science.

You set up another false dichotomy.  Its not obviously a matter of choice to have consistency or not, its a matter of choices, plural. Creative choices which grants discretion. Marvel obviously can't choose or not choose. Its going to happen inherently with any action they take. Hence consistency is subjective. Hence for one guy, any inconsistencies from one panel to another panel, or one issue to another issue, or one story to another story, could constitute stupidity. For that individual at least. Except individuals opinions are not objective wide spread facts. Your statement that the stories would be stupid, is ONLY an opinion. 

So editors sit idly in their offices drinking Margaritas and throwing darts at a wall ? They can't help it when their writers choose to ignore continuity and make a mess ? At least be frank enough to admit that Marvel is choosing to do it simply because they want financial success more than artistic merit.
 
Consistency being subjective ? Why so ? Because the writers and editors responsible didn't sit down and decide on criteria and parameters suddenly got you to the arbitrary conclusion that consistency is subjective ?
 

Then no, that's not basically my point at all. That's what your understanding of my point is, which continues to demonstrate that you are not good at understanding critical reasoning or solid logic. Since your argument is now one of a straw man argument. How can you demonstrate my accusations are false? Use what I have written, to prove, that what you say i am basically saying, is what I am saying.  

Friend, you have brass balls, you criticize my comments and my arguments because they contain a fair amount of opinions, while you are doing the exact same thing, what the hell is a discussion if it's not an exchange of arguments containing a reasonable amount of opinionated argument ? I am usually one for objectivity, but there is always a degree of subjectivity we can't escape.
 
And quite frankly, as I said, you habe brass balls to call people on the exact same thing you're doing.
 

I am saying just to clarify, just for you, that acting can be subjective. Acting can be objective as well. but that requires objective reasoning, not personal opinion.

 And what does objective reasoning comprehend according to you ?
 
I would venture to say what I know, but I'm afraid I would be considered by you as an inferior, poor unevolved subject of the human species.
 

Now, if i personally hate comedy's? I see this movie and hate it? I can't say the actor is a bad actor because I hate stupid movies. I mean, I can say that? That would be a preference and an opinion though, but I am also making some very illogical arguments in demonstrating why an actor would be bad on the basis I didn't like their character. I said or say NOTHING, about complaining about bad acting in a movie, because there is the opinion, that the acting was bad? (I didn't believe the actor was playing a part, they didn't make sense, they kept looking at the camera, they broke the aesthetic distance for me etc) but then there is the objective argument that the acting was bad (similar to above but and whether they were suppose to)  so subjectivity and objectivity are at play here and so i am not defending an absurd point, you can't seem to grasp the point so you judgment if whether a point is absurd or not is extremely flawed. Ironically so. A straw man attack.   Now this is just one point i have made that you can't seem to understand, and so insert your own flawed understanding. 

Friend, don't deviate so much on the example, I don't want to sound mean, but it becomes complicated to return to the point of origin of this discussion if you dwell so intensely on one example I gave you, granted it was an example of my own creation, but we're not talking about The Hulk anymore.
 
Specially, when you're making a terrible job at assuming what I'm thinking, you said basically that consistency, as preferred by fans, is still a concept we shouldn't take for granted.
 
That's fine, because in some regard I can see where you're coming from, logically we shouldn't assume such aspects as absolutely necessary for coherent enjoyable stories, because they aren't, yet by my own personal opinion (oh please excuse my french!) I do believe so, and clearly we had a difference of thought in this matter.
 

How many of your other arguments are the same? I don't have the time, so I will dismiss all of them as flawed, illogical, until at least this point and argument above? I'll wait for you to explain and prove how my point is absurd better that I just deconstructed your argument as flawed, illogical and without logical basis and almost seemingly born out of emotion. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? Do you know what a straw man argument is?

If I had read this before all of the above, I wouldn't have bothered to answer this post, I won't blame you for this because it is clearly my fault that I tried to answer this piece by piece.
 
If I hadn't answered by this process, I would have discovered sooner that you put more priority into resorting to subtle ad hominem remarks, which you always explain as "You're wrong, because you're wrong, and I'm right".
Avatar image for sc
#55 Posted by SC (18160 posts) - - Show Bio
@Feliciano2040 said:
Just so you know, I don't take anything personally to the point of being bitter and irrational, but I did thought some comments of yours weren't necessarily making a constructive point.
 
Thats good to hear thanks. Please don't take this personally, but a person doesn't need to be personally offended to be irrational or make irrational statements. (I am definitely not saying your irrational, but you already know, i have addressed some of your statements as rational) Also to me, all my points are constructive, IE serve a purpose, they are my thought processes that allow me to arrive to my understanding and or opinion about the matter, because remember, that's what I am doing here. Defending my thought processes its not that I am attacking yours, so when I address something I see you say, its not because I am attacking your thought processes, I am explaining why mines aren't similar.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Do you know what an expression is ?
 
When I say "I feel", it is akin' to saying "I think" or "I believe", it doesn't mean that I am actually hurt or feeling sore in my chest by those comments, I don't believe I should have clarified this.
 
Sure.  
 
Well we are addressing things to do with logic, interpretation and so on and a huge part of my argument is subjectivity (expressions, emotions, feelings) VS objectivity (facts, reality) so I am not sure why you believe you don't have to clarify? Remember, and this is not me, making a point about what you said, rather than pointing out I am selecting my words with much more purpose and accuracy intended than you, but remember logic VS consistency? So if your trying to direct objective arguments (and also accusations at me) I will make a case point of addressing the words you use.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Don't worry about me being hurt, I am too lazy to get into a fight over the internet, but don't go around telling people that their logic is flawed by saying "Your logic is flawed, why ? Because I say so", don't be surprised if someone is not welcoming of what clearly seems as disguised attacks.
 
I encourage, and beg you, and I would be delighted. If you could point out just ONE instance, where I say your logic is flawed because I say it is? I spend a considerable amount of time, actually, explaining, the flaws in your statements. I would for example, say that would you say here, is a straw man argument, which, to spend time, I consider valuable right now, so for me, its a sign of good faith and sincerity that I would have to explain this, is that you have misinterpreted much of what I have said, if you genuinely believe I have been telling you your logic is flawed, because... I said so? Then, with your misinterpretation, you accuse me, or you create an argument, based on your misinterpretation of my words?  
 
Here is an example away from the topic at hand? I say, I prefer apples more than banana's? A possible straw man argument here, is to take would I said, and understand it as me saying I hate banana's? Then making an argument against me, of why hating Banana's isn't cool? Except I never said I hated banana's and so your argument is flawed, your logic is flawed, and its not because you didn't make a compelling argument on behalf of banana's? Its because you misinterpreted a persons stance and attacked it before even clarifying with them, or just not understanding what their stance or argument was.  
 
An example in our conversation? Would be your line here  
 
"What you're saying, basically, is that one shouldn't complain about bad acting in a movie because"  
 
That's a straw man argument? I can demonstrate this pretty easy, because that's not my complaint, I clarified my complaint, and no where in any of my posts do I make the argument you suggest I did. So this is one example, where I can point to your logic and statements as flawed, not because I say so, but because I demonstrate with reasoning and evidence that it was. Coolio?  
 
Here is a strawman argument for you if you wish? That you can address as such and as such point out a flaw in my logic? It'll be fun. You can call my logic and statement flawed too.  
 
Well friend, you are basically saying that Hulk is the strongest there is and he should NEVER NEVER, NEVER lose to anyone, and if he does all of Marvel should be fired and shot into space 
 
There, that line, I am going to attribute that to you, and pretend that's your argument either... sincerely or insincerely. (well I know that's not your actual argument so you know)  
 
I also refute that therefore its clearly an attack. Disguised or otherwise. Not only that, Straw Man arguments can actually be a form of attack. Except in this case I genuinely believe you were being sincere. So it wasn't an attack.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
 I would vouch for the latter, only for the sake of politeness, and if anyone hasn't told you yet, your "natural snarkiness" is not exactly a quality to be appreciated, just saiyan' !
 
Thank you for that, I genuinely appreciate it. (politeness)  
 
Actually the opposite. For every instance someone has been annoyed or aggravated by my snarkiness, I have like 100 instances of someone admiring or appreciating that quality about me. Its actually embarrassing, and sort of makes me shy. More than that, I am just being me? I am naturally snarky. I don't like giving long replies, I prefer short replies because its well established, that its easier to tear down, criticize and destroy and argument, rather than construct and build an argument without flaws. (you may notice that as well because I avoid making any strong or absolute statements, which means the burden of proof is on you a lot of the time, not an easy place to be in)  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Do I have to be ?
 

I liked Loeb's Hulk run, and I know he is a professional writer and i know professional writers don't write stories fueled by ignorance of the character they are writing, usually the reason they disregard continuity is because most fans don't care, and prefer entertainment since again, comics are not a science, comics are for entertainment.

At this precise moment I could say something like "Your logic is clearly flawed beyond any reasonable doubt because you're making an opinion, therefore I can't seriously discuss anymore with you as a civilized comic book reader might do."
 
No you don't have to a professional writer paid by Marvel, the reason I ask, is I am not sure that Marvel would hire you as a writer based on many of your statements even if you were very creatively and technically gifted. Do you think there have been Marvel writers who are stupid, or write stupid stories, or have anything about them, that has the quality of stupid?  
 
Then, yes you could say something like what you just did, and the best way for me to reply, would be, to point out my logic is not flawed, because making an opinion known, or having an opinion, or stating an opinion, is not illogical. Opinions, by definition? Aren't intended to be right, or wrong, and I am well aware of this fact. Here is one definition of opinion.  
 
o·pin·ion/əˈpinyən/Noun
1. A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
2. The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing. 
 
So going off the basis that one would claim I have flawed logic for having an opinion? Would itself be illogical.  
 
I think what be a better example? Or at least more accurate is to say, your logic is flawed, because I am trying to hold firm, that my opinion is fact or knowledge and that I assert it as a fact? The only problem with that example, is that I haven't?  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Yet, I'm choosing not to do so, rather I'll say that, even if it was true that "fans don't care" (because some of us do) one should at least feel, as well as think, that as an author one has a responsibility and a commitment to making "good work", I think  we can agree that this is a basic premise of any action, if you're not going to do it right, why do it at all ? So it happens that writing comics right means that you have to be aware of how the story of different characters and different events has gone through different periods of continuity, because you might make a mess of it if you don't.  
  
You should, i'll tell you what I did above. 
 
Fans generally don't care. Fans plural. That doesn't mean when I pluralize the term fans, I mean every single individual fan. That would be quite the flawed argument because I am a fan who cares about continuity. lol Except, what I can say, is that in the highest selling writers works? There are more examples of continuity errors, than any of the lower selling writers, works. Even in examples, that can be compared more evenly. (Like Bendis New Avengers, Dark Avengers selling more than Dan Slott Mighty Avengers, Bendis making more continuity errors than Slott, who is actually rather fond of continuity, you read She Hulk before it was cancelled? The arc/story he did about it? So here fans are demonstrating 'care' with their money. Some things are preferred more)  
 
Yes, i agree with the idea a writers idea at least by Marvel, be good. Sure. Its how you define good though? Tom Brevoort defends Hulk losing to Zeus. To him its a good story. To Marvel its probably a good story, for many it was a good story. Then what you address next? We would disagree, because I know. That Marvel writers, objectively? Don't have to be that familiar with a character to write them. How do I know this? Writers have talked about this, and so have editors. I would say you place more importance on it, than they do. Lots of writers do make a mess of continuity but most fans, aren't aware so they don't care. Magneto is one of my favorite characters, could you for example, list some of the continuity errors aka creative changes that have occurred to him in the last 5 years? The writer for Taskmaster explained in an interview, how he had never read any of the appearances of the character, but formulated his idea for a mini? Based off what he read of wikipedia? You can probably google that interview. Brian Michael Bendis in podcasts, explains how he ignores continuity and or characterization, all the time, if he things it suits the overall plot of the story more. So even though, in an ideal world, for me, my personal preference in comics, and stories, would mean that I agree with what you just 100%? I know, that in reality, that's not how Marvel is structured creatively. Writers don't have to be that aware of different characters and events or continuity and they do make a mess of continuity but what writer has had the top selling comic in the last three months?   
 
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
So editors sit idly in their offices drinking Margaritas and throwing darts at a wall ? They can't help it when their writers choose to ignore continuity and make a mess ? At least be frank enough to admit that Marvel is choosing to do it simply because they want financial success more than artistic merit.
 
Why don't you ask Tom Brevoort? How what I know what they do, I just know their attitudes towards comics and making money and sales charts and writers opinions, and by reading a lot of comics and by knowing how most products are sold. Of course they can help it, but why? Will they be rewarded financially? When have I not been frank about why Marvel and DC does what it does? Of course financial success is more important lol Where do I say otherwise? Is this not an obvious and known truth?  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Consistency being subjective ? Why so ? Because the writers and editors responsible didn't sit down and decide on criteria and parameters suddenly got you to the arbitrary conclusion that consistency is subjective ?
 
Its because interpretation is subjective. Do you know what a false dilemma is? Or do you agree that two people can read the same comic and walk away with two different conclusions neither of those two people being wrong? There is nothing random about me bringing this up, its like one of the most important factors of my argument and ways to demonstrate how and why your statements are flawed. If I would hazard a guess as to why so many of your statements are flawed, I'd guess its because of how you view this point.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Friend, you have brass balls, you criticize my comments and my arguments because they contain a fair amount of opinions, while you are doing the exact same thing, what the hell is a discussion if it's not an exchange of arguments containing a reasonable amount of opinionated argument ? I am usually one for objectivity, but there is always a degree of subjectivity we can't escape.
 
And quite frankly, as I said, you habe brass balls to call people on the exact same thing you're doing.

Normal type thanks though. I am NOT criticizing your comments and arguments for containing a fair amounts of opinions, I demonstrating? That when I say something? Then you say something that contradicts what I say? The reasoning behind what you say? Is flawed, and that is why I do not hold the same point of view.  So I am not doing the same thing, I am not making the same assertions as you. Do you need me to demonstrate this?  
 
Discussion? You quoted me and said some stuff, I quoted you and point out what you say doesn't apply to me. I am not arguing my opinion here, I am arguing statements and arguments.  
 
I am not sure what to call your balls for not understanding what I am doing is different to what your doing? Can you tell me?  
 
Oh here is one small example. You state that Zeus will mope the floor with Thor right? I am say you can't prove it. I am saying your argument or statement is flawed, I would say these things because my opinion, is that Zeus might wipe the floor with Thor. My statement is a lot more accurate. For reasons that have nothing to do with Zeus and Thor, but to do with logic. So you point out an instance of me making assertions I have not backed up? Or can't? If you want to get really specific. Just one? One will do.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
And what does objective reasoning comprehend according to you ?
 
I would venture to say what I know, but I'm afraid I would be considered by you as an inferior, poor unevolved subject of the human species.
 
Well, you shouldn't victimize yourself now, I would never consider you inferior or poor or etc  I would assume the opposite either, and consider you shallow or judgmental on top.  
 
That being said, your question does not make any sense? I'll assume you mean what does objective reasoning mean to me? It means the same thing it means to everyone, forming conclusions based on objective, non preference based facts and understanding. Remember my examples about Bendis and Slott? I prefer Slotts writing, but that doesn't mean Slott is a better writer than Bendis. A lot of my reasons for liking Slott are due to subjective reasons. There is some aspects of objective reasoning I could employ to demonstrate why I think Slott is better. (cleared demonstrations of continuity) Also to demonstrate Bendis is more valuable and popular. (like citing sales figures) but flat out saying who is the better writer? Well it depends on what one subjectively values. What could say Morrison is a better writer than Bendis. Based on his technical and literary skill, the depth of his work, the layers he puts in his work, plots are superior, more original, etc another person could assert they are about the same, because they sell about the same. It depends.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Friend, don't deviate so much on the example, I don't want to sound mean, but it becomes complicated to return to the point of origin of this discussion if you dwell so intensely on one example I gave you, granted it was an example of my own creation, but we're not talking about The Hulk anymore.
 
 You don't sound mean its okay, you sound rosy. *smile* I dwell on something because you don't seem to quite get it. Not as much as I think you need to, to get what the rest of my arguments are. I mean, likewise, I could say, it was complicated for you to quote me originally and perhaps again, you shouldn't have. I sure as hell know when I quote someone I go in with an open mind and expect that they will defend their opinions and statements however they see fit.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
Specially, when you're making a terrible job at assuming what I'm thinking, you said basically that consistency, as preferred by fans, is still a concept we shouldn't take for granted.
 
That's fine, because in some regard I can see where you're coming from, logically we shouldn't assume such aspects as absolutely necessary for coherent enjoyable stories, because they aren't, yet by my own personal opinion (oh please excuse my french!) I do believe so, and clearly we had a difference of thought in this matter.
 
I'm not assuming what your thinking. I have been addressing your statements. You make a lot of them.  I don't pretend to know what your thinking, because I have seen you presume what I have been thinking and been wrong. Why would I want to be wrong? lol  
 
I say what I say, with the length of what I say, for a good reason, because if I could say it simpler there would be more room for misunderstanding, but you actually sort of get what I mean there thanks. Consistency should not be taken for granted and thus we need to express appreciation to writers like Peter David and Kieron Gillen and Dan Slott over writers like eh, Fraction and Bendis. This shows Marvel that fans do care about continuity and we hate stuff like Hulk being knocked out by a snake, Panther's arm bar on Surfer etc  
 
Your own personal opinion is the same exact as mine. Here with your statement. I just know the reality of the situation is different. Lots of writers and editors have Formspring, have places you can ask them questions, do podcasts or blogs about continuity. Its easy to get objective evidence pooling their attitudes and answers and thoughts about the matter.  
 
@Feliciano2040 said:
If I had read this before all of the above, I wouldn't have bothered to answer this post, I won't blame you for this because it is clearly my fault that I tried to answer this piece by piece.  If I hadn't answered by this process, I would have discovered sooner that you put more priority into resorting to subtle ad hominem remarks, which you always explain as "You're wrong, because you're wrong, and I'm right".
 
I don't think this is anyone's fault. I think, at least from your behavior, that your just really, really sensitive or easily offended, despite what you said. You victimize yourself as well potentially. Or maybe I am too blunt? Maybe my bluntness leads you to make statements like above where I will underline.  Point them out please? Just one?  
 
You can refer to the top of my post i make here, where I go into how I explain why your statement is inaccurate not, because, I say it is. Rather how i demonstrate it is. Do you understand what an ad hominem remark is? How to prove one? Its completely possible that me even asking you if you know, could be seen as one, that is, if i was being insincere. Except I am not. Which is a theme though, because remember our discussion about the word obviously?  
 
Plus, your assuming here I view this as a right or wrong situation? Have you ever considered just asking me the point of my continued replies? I'm just clarifying my stance. Not correcting yours. I mean, if I applied your statements and attributed them to myself? I would criticize them the same way. I don't see things the way you do, and I am okay with that and do you know what I don't see things the same way you do? Its because of everything I have said to you. That does not mean I am trying to change your mind either or convince you you are wrong, because *drumroll* You, addressed me first, you questioned me, tried to correct me, and all those things first. (perhaps not directly, but still, I would go and explain to you, how and why I don't see things the way you do.  
 
I am okay with agreeing to disagree. I just wonder if you are the type to want to get the last word in, lol in which case i will just continue to defend my stance and statements. With nothing remotely personal in mind (I have actually rather enjoyed this discussion, so thank you actually)  Oh, and this is for you as well.  
  
 
@SC said:

Now, given how really angry Hulk can beat Thor, then surely Zeus must mop the floor with Thor, because the only other condition,  


Given the Fact that Thpor stalemated  Zeus for months and the battle was only ended when they both admitted they couldn't win. and in thir other fight Zeus was in a warriors rage and Thor was cursed and he still gave him a hell of a fight. There is no way Zeus mops the floor with Thor.

 Two different opinions, both have validity both disagree with each other and I am sure both have good reasons to. Both seem to be fans of one or two more of the characters involved, and thats great, since so am I. I can't vouch for them, but for me, thats not where my personal argument is. I love being alive, I love talking to people, agreeing with them disagreeing with, observing the ways they and we do that, I am interested in the truth and our subjective and objective understandings and pursuit of it. From an attempted objective point of view, with truth and reality being what's striven towards, with above to both statements above? I'd say there was a potential error in logic with both, by drawing attention and focus to the words in the statements "must" and "no way" since we are dealing with fiction. These words to me, are poorly applied as far as how factual and truthful they are. As opinions? They are perfectly valid and I can't disagree with a opinion. I mean not really. Also as far as pointing our flaws? Well its not there sentiment isn't ultimately correct? XYZ, might must always mop the floor with ZYX (even though this has not happened the times the times, both those letters have interacted. All there might not be a way that XYZ can mop the floor with ZYX either? I would find it odd. really odd, if any argument was directed at me, for saying that actually? Both might happen and both can happen. It just depends? I am not even saying I disagree with the opinions. I am just saying they aren't exclusively correct. lol 

I'm talking about you here, I didn't quote your name though. 
Moderator
Avatar image for higher_evolutionary
#56 Posted by higher_evolutionary (2127 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: all this for hulk
i love him but this debate is too much, of course he is not overpowered for a character that has strength attached to his persona their are many guys stronger especially gladiator and superman who have other insaner strength and no one says they are overpowered i just dont know why the war on hulk that happened ever since WWH and WWHS people have been bashing the hulk in his forums the battles reviews everywhere seriously  hulk wants to be left alone, if anyone distaste him just read other stories. he is fine with me
and ranking him with top league dudes like thor,hyperion,gladiator and superman in strength is not PIS considering he is officially  created to be strong and the STRONGEST ONE THEIR IS sure not the strong but top league i would say also for the zues thing it was perfectly normal and understandable since it is supposed  zues>>>>>>>hulk in strength
wouldnt you agree?
Avatar image for sesquipedalophobe
#57 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (5417 posts) - - Show Bio

All I know is that Hulk smash and Hulk strongest one there is.

Avatar image for sc
#58 Posted by SC (18160 posts) - - Show Bio
@higher_evolutionary said:
@SC: all this for hulk i love him but this debate is too much, of course he is not overpowered for a character that has strength attached to his persona their are many guys stronger especially gladiator and superman who have other insaner strength and no one says they are overpowered i just dont know why the war on hulk that happened ever since WWH and WWHS people have been bashing the hulk in his forums the battles reviews everywhere seriously  hulk wants to be left alone, if anyone distaste him just read other stories. he is fine with me and ranking him with top league dudes like thor,hyperion,gladiator and superman in strength is not PIS considering he is officially  created to be strong and the STRONGEST ONE THEIR IS sure not the strong but top league i would say also for the zues thing it was perfectly normal and understandable since it is supposed  zues>>>>>>>hulk in strengthwouldnt you agree?
 
Well, for me its more about logic and logic can be applied to everything important, life, love, religion, ethics, morals, race, etc, so if two people can't even agree about something simple like Hulk...  lol
 
People have been bashing Hulk from before World War Hulk, just like all characters get attacked. Hulk is a fictional character, he doesn't want anything technically, though yes, narratively sure. I agree if they dislike him that they should avoid him, but I know Hulk fans who say the same about Sentry its, a little bit more complicated than that.  I often spend time arguing how Hulk is as strong potentially as Superman, I agree he is up there. Hulk was not created to be the strongest, but its a common misconception. I agree about the Zeus thing. Yes. *smile*  
 
Take care! 
Moderator
Avatar image for the_stegman
#59 Posted by the_stegman (40368 posts) - - Show Bio
@Timandm: well the flash still has human durability, if he is punched he bleeds, the only thing enhanced is his speed and motor functions, the speed force reduces friction allowing him some durability, as for collosus he has a metal outside, but his normal flesh is just as vulnerable as human, storm has resistance to the weather but that's it, as for wonder woman, she has been blessed by the gods to near demi god level status, she is far from human
Moderator
Avatar image for timandm
#60 Posted by Timandm (3393 posts) - - Show Bio
@turoksonofstone said:
Is Hulk too powerful??/ Better Question: Is _______(DC hero of your choice) Too Powerful?
Actually, I can't think of a single DC character that is anywhere near too powerful.......  Not one....
 
Superman doesn't count because he's... you know... SUPER man... He was the first.... He's "ICONIC" so he's allowed to be powerful beyond powerful....  But just him.  No one else is too powerful in the DC universe...
 
Okay, MAYBE Doomsday, but they had to make him insanely powerful to give Superman a challenge, and what with Superman being so powerful and all.....  But JUST Superman and Doomsday and no one else in the DC universe....
 
OKAY, Okay, YES Superman has family... and a dog... Who can blame him.  So, it's just Superman, his family, his dog, and Doomsday that are too powerful... But that's only a FEW characters in a huge universe, right?
 
um..and the flash, but THAT'S it!  Superman, his family, his dog, The Flash and Doomsday... But NO ONE else....
 
Alright, I KNOW, The Flash has family too, but family is a GOOD thing... soooo...Superman, his family, his dog, The Flash, AND HIS FAMILY,  and Doomsday. and no one else......No ONE!!!! NOT ONE SINGLE OTHER CHARACTER...
 
except maybe for Darkseid...and the new gods...but they're not even human...so, it's okay....but there aren't anymore characters that are too powerful......um...cept for maybe... You know what, I'm not really making my point here, am I?
Avatar image for timandm
#61 Posted by Timandm (3393 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Stegman said:
@Timandm: well the flash still has human durability, if he is punched he bleeds, the only thing enhanced is his speed and motor functions, the speed force reduces friction allowing him some durability, as for collosus he has a metal outside, but his normal flesh is just as vulnerable as human, storm has resistance to the weather but that's it, as for wonder woman, she has been blessed by the gods to near demi god level status, she is far from human
Like the Flash, the Hulk bleeds if punched hard enough or if cut.    The Flash can fun faster than light, yes?  But neural impulses travel slower than light.  Electrical impulses travel along neurons slower than they do in electrical wiring, which is still slower than the speed of light.  In fact, electricity itself, is slower than light...  So, the fact that The Flash can think about what he's doing when he's running faster than the speed of light, is pushing well beyond just being human....  It's pushing him beyond the laws of physics (which, as we all know, are never enforced in the comic universe)
 
Colossus is actually metal all the way through.  I know, in the story arc where Wolverine when to hell, we see Wolverine making the comment that Colossus is gooey inside, but all of his parts turn into organic metal, it's not just a covering...  Nonetheless, isn't turning a human being into metal and them being able to stand inside a nuclear reactor still pushing the character well beyond being human?
 
Wonder Woman is blessed by the gods... True... It's magic...
 
With each of these we see the boundaries of reality being pushed, but for each there is an explanation.   
The Flash - The speed force
Colossus - Mutation
Wonder Woman - Magic
 
For the Hulk, it's gamma radiation.  However, while I can accept, with comic book physics, that he's pushed beyond the realities of physics, I DO think he's too powerful.... But to be fair I think that of many characters.... For me, a character becomes uninteresting when he's so powerful he can beat anyone, overcome any problem, or do anything...
 
I know this is asking a lot but consider Chuck Norris.  (bear with me for a moment.)  and also (for the moment) you have pretend that Chuck Norris is a good actor... (Just try, okay.)   After The Octagon, anything he starred in just became uninteresting and flat... Why?  Because there was NO ONE he could not beat.  Whoever he plays is always the best of the best of the best  OF THE BEST.... So, what happens when he gets into a fight... He wins... Yawnnnn....  What a surprise...   Steven Segal went to the same school of movie making as did Chuck Norris...
 
So, Superman, Doomsday, Thanos, The freaking Sentry, The Beyonder....  I find them boring...  There's no REAL challenge....
I do agree that The Hulk is often portrayed as being way too powerful....  I hate that...  World War Hulk never happened... I'm trying to deny it out of existence...
Avatar image for tensor
#62 Edited by tensor (8616 posts) - - Show Bio

The ? is WWH too powerful no he is not ,he is at a high level.The draw back for hulk is that what he showed in wwh he should have done long ago

Avatar image for the_stegman
#63 Edited by the_stegman (40368 posts) - - Show Bio
@Timandm:  
 
huh i never knew collosus was metal all the way through, and the difference between him and hulk is collosus has a limited strength, he has human fatigue, durability (that is he has limits before his body fails him) and can still be brought down, my problem with hulk is that he's human, enhanced yes, but still human and can withstand god blasts from thor, can somehow hold his breath in space and survive in the coldness of space, can resist magic from the strongest sorcerer in the world (strange) and can somehow resist Professor X's mental attacks although professor x is supposed to be the world's greatest telepath, he's a Deus Ex Machina, it's like no matter what he's up against, as long as he gets "mad enough" he'll end up winning in all reality he shouldn't be able to beat 
 
professor x 
Dr. strange  
 Thanos 
Sentry 
Gladiator 
Silver Surfer (or any cosmic being)   
thor
 
 
as for superman..i know this sounds bad, but i think he's been UNDER powered for the last few years, i'm getting tired of opening up a superman comic and seeing him get knocked around by a normal guy with a gimmick like toys or a ray gun when in reality he should end the fight in half a second
Moderator
Avatar image for kallarkz
#64 Edited by Kallarkz (3388 posts) - - Show Bio

I know this might sound strange..but I really don't think writers have written characters to be interpreted how we attempt to do here. Writers depict characters in different ways with the passing of years. For example X>V and V>C sometimes does not mean X>C. We attempt to break down things into a science and predict the outcome of events based on example and given data but it does not always turn out this way. Many of this circumstances are written off here as PIS and we continue to value our own conclusions more than those that we read. Truth is when it comes down to X vs X sometimes...nobody knows. I do not think that a fight between Iceman and Oblivion would go the same way it did years ago or Zeus vs Thor would turn out the same way either. But fans for some reason feel the need to uphold fights because of outcomes that have occurred decades ago. 
 
Hulk is a very powerful being whom we have seen with the ability to adapt to a number of situations and defeat powerful beings..but what would be the point of bringing his power down? They have made the Hulk who he is and continued to write his character based upon where his story line has gone and I believe that they have done a fairly good job, Characters are powered and depowered everyday so we really never know how a character will be in their next issue.  
 
All I can say is just enjoy the story. Don't focus so much on if they can pick up a building or a rock or if they are immortal or mortal ( and just too let everybody in on a little secret..almost every comic character is immortal).

Avatar image for timandm
#65 Edited by Timandm (3393 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Stegman: he's a Deus Ex Machina, it's like no matter what he's up against, as long as he gets "mad enough" he'll end up winning in all reality he shouldn't be able to beat 
 
Yes.... That's exactly right...  I'm not saying I like it... But that's exactly right...
 
as for superman..i know this sounds bad, but i think he's been UNDER powered for the last few years, i'm getting tired of opening up a superman comic and seeing him get knocked around by a normal guy with a gimmick like toys or a ray gun when in reality he should end the fight in half a second 
That's probably just the pendulum swinging...  I saw an interview with the writers of the animated series 'Justice League' and they knew that one of their problems was dealing with the fact that Superman could basically solve everything...
He's the strongest man there is...
He's the most invulnerable...
He's as fast as The Flash
He's a genius
He can recognize a person by their genome
Heat vision 
X-ray vision
Super hearing
freeze breath 
 
I'm actually surprised they can come up with scenarios in which he's actually challenged.  and I"m sure there are many more powers....  I'm assuming when you see pitiful characters slapping Superman around, it's just the writers not knowing what else to do.
Avatar image for timandm
#66 Posted by Timandm (3393 posts) - - Show Bio
@tensor said:
The ? is WWH too powerful no he is not ,he is at a high level.The draw back for hulk is that what he showed in wwh he should have done long ago
You mean he should have taken over Manhattan long ago?
Avatar image for dbz4life
#67 Posted by DBZ4LIFE (3 posts) - - Show Bio

i wish they made him on par with juggernaut but hes not :( and i want juggernaut to be debuff he so strong it makes me jealous XD
Avatar image for atracruor
#68 Posted by AtraCruor (241 posts) - - Show Bio

My problem isn't necessarily with the Hulk, it's the fact that writers sometimes right things personally in his favor.  Like in fights with Thor or the Sentry.  These two characters are more than strong enough to beat him and they have something the Hulk does not: True Superhuman speed and reflexes.  Hulk's speed, while superhuman by how fast he can move, is only because of his muscles.  The likes of Sentry, Thor, and others with similar reflexes, speed, and strength should be able to take him down before he can get made enough to do anything to them.  But the writers never have them fight with it.  They always go blow for blow, slugging it out.  And having Hulk, and Red Hulk, lift Mjolnir is completely stupid and directly refutes the entire purpose of the echantment Odin placed on it.   
 
Going back to a couple of other things, whenever Odin and Thor fight, Odin has the Odin Force which is like the Power Cosmic and an excuse to do whatever one wants.  Also, I saw back where someone brought up Thor's fight against Bor: Thor spent much of the fight trying to reason with his grandfather because he saw him as a fellow Asgardian but when he saw that it wasn't going to work, he attacked full on.  Now, whether he needed the Odin Force or he simply cut loose on him is debatable because we do not know how he'd fair without it.
Avatar image for iknoweverything
#69 Posted by IKnowEverything (361 posts) - - Show Bio

His power level is fine. But he should not be able to survive in space. Makes no sense. The problem with me isn't how powerful he is. Its that writers nerf his opponents so he can win. Superman in particular can beat the Hulk in a couple of seconds. No problem. They have powers that allow them to beat the Hulk without even touching him. And if they do want to fight him in hand to hand combat they are both many times faster than him. Thor can swing his hammer twice the speed of light. Superman can punch him ten times before the Hulk could even swing once. But the writing doesn't allow this to happen. Superman should put Hulk in a headlock first thing and fly him into space. Thor could hit him once with Mjolnir and liquefy him. Or he can liquefy him with the Godblast. OR he can use Mjolnir to send Hulk to another planet, galaxy, or even another dimension (as he has in the Avengers). 
 
BUT that would be too easy. Its not that he is too powerful... its that the writing is too silly.  
 
But its comics, and thats how it goes. lol

Avatar image for sc
#70 Posted by SC (18160 posts) - - Show Bio
@Kallarkz said:
I know this might sound strange..but I really don't think writers have written characters to be interpreted how we attempt to do here. Writers depict characters in different ways with the passing of years. For example X>V and V>C sometimes does not mean X>C. We attempt to break down things into a science and predict the outcome of events based on example and given data but it does not always turn out this way. Many of this circumstances are written off here as PIS and we continue to value our own conclusions more than those that we read. Truth is when it comes down to X vs X sometimes...nobody knows. I do not think that a fight between Iceman and Oblivion would go the same way it did years ago or Zeus vs Thor would turn out the same way either. But fans for some reason feel the need to uphold fights because of outcomes that have occurred decades ago.  Hulk is a very powerful being whom we have seen with the ability to adapt to a number of situations and defeat powerful beings..but what would be the point of bringing his power down? They have made the Hulk who he is and continued to write his character based upon where his story line has gone and I believe that they have done a fairly good job, Characters are powered and depowered everyday so we really never know how a character will be in their next issue.   All I can say is just enjoy the story. Don't focus so much on if they can pick up a building or a rock or if they are immortal or mortal ( and just too let everybody in on a little secret..almost every comic character is immortal).
 
 
That's not that strange at all. Very true. Plus even writers get it wrong and disagree with each other, or out of ignorance mess something up (Rogue was created by Chris Claremont, as a teenager, but the writers who used her after him, didn't check in with him, they interpreted the white in her hair as a sign of old age and so the artist drew Rogue as if she was in her forties/fifties and it took a while to be corrected, now that's not something that affects rogues ability to fight and win and so not many people care... otherwise we might have ended up with pre retconned Rogue and post retconned Rogue and classic Rogue... LOL). I mean, ideally not today anymore (with handbooks, aids, editors, email, etc). Oh, and then some things writers leave up to creative discretion of others as well. There are editors that can control this.  
 
I do think that many posters try to break things down into a science, the problem is, like a lot of writers, they don't apply the scientific method or even just simple critical reasoning. They forget that science scorns "common sense" and you can't take things for granted or use what's obvious as evidence or proof. That's how people concluded the Earth was flat, and in the middle of the Universe. They also forget the human element in the stories, characters motivations, writers intelligence, the difference between proof, evidence, consistency, the flaws of absence of evidence, being evidence of absence (which is basically why most people who use scans don't really know how to use them right, or make a good point)  
 
Anyway, I agree with your post strongly, very well said. I do think people can focus on what they want, just don't expect other people not to, or don't be surprised if other people focus on it much more than you do, when it comes time to make objective observations. (those things applying to life as well really)  
 
lol at your secret, but yeah, great post! 
Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#71 Posted by SC (18160 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Stegman said:
@Timandm:   huh i never knew collosus was metal all the way through, and the difference between him and hulk is collosus has a limited strength, he has human fatigue, durability (that is he has limits before his body fails him) and can still be brought down, 
 
Colossus has enhanced stamina. Sorry, just you know. Have to rep for Russkie. lol Hulk mind you as well, is limited strength wise, by time, and emotion. Colossus is much much, much, much more limited sure, (so I understand your point and agree) and especially in the sense, that Colossus can't just start increasing his strength by natural means, where as Hulk can. Hulk also can be brought down, and has. By Black Bolt, Thor, Namor, Dazzler, Samson, Zeus, Captain America one time, a snake, Abomination, Red Hulk. So its rare and Hulk still by the numbers his ratio, of taking down others to those who have been taken down is favorable to Hulk, (like Superman, Thor, Wolverine, etc stats/ratios) but he can still be brought down. As much as he should/shouldn't? I don't disagree with you there either. 
 
That's not me disagreeing with you mind you, more just expanding, because i agree with the other stuff you said. Another thing that's worth remembering is that Hulk's writer for the last 5 plus years, is like a huge Hulk fanboy. Admitted Hulk fanboy. He likes, thinks, wants Hulk to be the strongest like other writers don't so much as care about for other characters to as much of an extent. (Jason Aaron does like showing that Wolverine is really, really resilient ~ oh and Fraction really, really liked trying to make Cyclops a badass super leader (of a race and with Magneto bowing to him etc) 
Moderator
Avatar image for blob
#72 Posted by Blob (656 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm good with Hulk being the way he has been. Always have always will.

Avatar image for winters
#73 Posted by winters (95 posts) - - Show Bio

John byrnes hulk (1986)killed kids when he leveled an entire city. Gray hulk beat women up for fun...nice guy.

Avatar image for atheistknowledge
#74 Edited by AtheistKnowledge (9595 posts) - - Show Bio

@winters: Yea and Kluh wanted to kill everyone and watch them suffer as he levels the entire planet and Devil Hulk also wanted to do nothing but evil, Maestro raped women and killed countless innocent people, good job on missing the whole point of Hulks character and different personalities inside him.

Avatar image for winters
#75 Posted by winters (95 posts) - - Show Bio

@atheistknowledge: actually my favorite hulk was gray hulk. Peter David's gray hulk stories were excellent. They were filled with humor, and quite insightful too. I loved this intelligent version of hulk. I don't hate hulk at all, I wish hulk writers would bring the gray guy back.

Avatar image for champion99
#76 Posted by Champion99 (1730 posts) - - Show Bio

Not at all.

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.