The Revenant Marvel Comics Discussion Thread

[Executor_N0]

I wanted to ask you something, if a realm exists in such a way that the rest of the verse is non existent in comparison to its size, does it qualify for 1-A? And even then a 3-D character can enter that with a tier 1 technological source. Does it count as an anti feat?

Depends on the work.

Honestly speaking, almost anything non-contradictory can be somewhat accepted, even if it seems to be nonsense. It all depends on what these things mean in that particular work and how they can be explained. I can come up with an explanation for almost anything that seems to make no sense, but that won't have any validity if nothing is stated in the work itself.

Like, what does it mean with "non existent"? That can mean a lot of things. Something that is so far away that it can't be seen in any meaningful way might be called non existent, the same way something that is so small that it can't be seen, or even something that is just unimportant or weak. Something that exists in a lower dimension can be called non existent to a higher dimension. In the same way it can describe what is required for Tier 1 or even Tier 0 here.

If something is called "It's so low that it's as if it's nothing", it's basically a non-statement because there are no definitions coming from the work itself. We can guess if there's context surrounding it, but on its own, it can have so many meanings that we can't do anything with it.

If the context around it is about higher dimensions, we can go with that route, if it's about levels of existence, reality/fiction/dreams, we can go with a different route. Maybe the context uses all of these statements, and we need to guess what is the most likely statement that represents the setting under our system, and consider the other statements as analogical language.

So, answering your question, it can be if there's enough evidence of that in the work itself.

Using the Beyonders as an example, it's currently accepted that their statements about linearity aren't talking about a physical temporal dimension itself, but some higher narrative that binds the Beyonders in the same way a temporal physical dimension binds a physical entity. This isn't necessarily stated in the work itself, it's just that the context surrounding the Beyonders (Mostly they coexist on the same level as beings that are beyond time or as even transcending entities that already are beyond linear time), makes we need to use this interpretation to make sense of it.

 

[Hellformer]

Depends on the work.

Honestly speaking, almost anything non-contradictory can be somewhat accepted, even if it seems to be nonsense. It all depends on what these things mean in that particular work and how they can be explained. I can come up with an explanation for almost anything that seems to make no sense, but that won't have any validity if nothing is stated in the work itself.

Like, what does it mean with "non existent"? That can mean a lot of things. Something that is so far away that it can't be seen in any meaningful way might be called non existent, the same way something that is so small that it can't be seen, or even something that is just unimportant or weak. Something that exists in a lower dimension can be called non existent to a higher dimension. In the same way it can describe what is required for Tier 1 or even Tier 0 here.

If something is called "It's so low that it's as if it's nothing", it's basically a non-statement because there are no definitions coming from the work itself. We can guess if there's context surrounding it, but on its own, it can have so many meanings that we can't do anything with it.

If the context around it is about higher dimensions, we can go with that route, if it's about levels of existence, reality/fiction/dreams, we can go with a different route. Maybe the context uses all of these statements, and we need to guess what is the most likely statement that represents the setting under our system, and consider the other statements as analogical language.

So, answering your question, it can be if there's enough evidence of that in the work itself.

Non existent in the sense that all of creation is merely an idea for the strongest beings who have Incorporeality and AE type 1. (Should've specified that)

Using the Beyonders as an example, it's currently accepted that their statements about linearity aren't talking about a physical temporal dimension itself, but some higher narrative that binds the Beyonders in the same way a temporal physical dimension binds a physical entity. This isn't necessarily stated in the work itself, it's just that the context surrounding the Beyonders (Mostly they coexist on the same level as beings that are beyond time or as even transcending entities that already are beyond linear time), makes we need to use this interpretation to make sense of it.

Thank you very much for the example!

 

[Hellformer]

I wanted to ask you something, if a realm exists in such a way that the rest of the verse is non existent in comparison to its size, does it qualify for 1-A? And even then a 3-D character can enter that with a tier 1 technological source. Does it count as an anti feat?

@Executor_N0
If you have time, can you answer this as well?

 

[Hypertornado099]

Made a CRT discussing magic in Marvel Comics

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Oh, I thought it was already the case from those Krakoa era dossiers.

Oh. I see. I wasn’t aware that was the case there as well. Do you remember what issue and stuff it happened in so I can check it out ?

But, still, what should we do about it ?

 

[SamanPatou]

Howdy folks, I'm nearing the conclusion of my revision of Kraven and I've got to mention he has used adamantium weapons in a couple of occasions.

Now, adamantium is oddly defined here on the wiki, because characters such as Wolverine and X-23 register it as tier 1, while Moon Knight has adamantium weapons that are counted as Durability Negation.

This is probably matter for a (long) CRT but right now, I'd like to know what consensus is more agreed upon.

 

[Tomfer]

Now, adamantium is oddly defined here on the wiki, because characters such as Wolverine and X-23 register it as tier 1, while Moon Knight has adamantium weapons that are counted as Durability Negation.

MK is a funny case because MK's adamantium weaponry are like, almost featless, which is weird since, technically, dude is still wearing carbonadium armor, which is better than adamantium.

I personally would prefer to be considered dura neg, with the exception of durability itself thanks to Wolverine's feats. So something like:

AP/SS: "far higher with adamantium"
Dura: "up to whatever tier with adamantium"

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Howdy folks, I'm nearing the conclusion of my revision of Kraven and I've got to mention he has used adamantium weapons in a couple of occasions.

Now, adamantium is oddly defined here on the wiki, because characters such as Wolverine and X-23 register it as tier 1, while Moon Knight has adamantium weapons that are counted as Durability Negation.

This is probably matter for a (long) CRT but right now, I'd like to know what consensus is more agreed upon.

Are you planning on revising every Spider villain?

 

[MrKerf]

Oh. I see. I wasn’t aware that was the case there as well. Do you remember what issue and stuff it happened in so I can check it out ?

Actually, it appears I have misremembered some stuff. Still, you can check it. It is in Issue 1 of House of X.

 

[Muteki616]

Are you planning on revising every Spider villain?

Would it require that?
I thought aside from Symbiotes.
Kraven stood above the rest of them.

 

[Antvasima]

So did anybody read the latest issue of Al Ewing's Thor? I think that it is by far the best comicbook that Marvel currently releases, although with the exception of Fantastic Four the other current Marvel Comics stories I have seen have been at best low-quality trash and at worst poisonous and malignant.

 

[SamanPatou]

Are you planning on revising every Spider villain?

Yes, I already started a few years ago with Sandman, Vulture and Lizard, before passing to other projects.

 

[Jimmy.robinson.5099]

So did anybody read the latest issue of Al Ewing's Thor? I think that it is by far the best comicbook that Marvel currently releases, although with the exception of Fantastic Four the other current Marvel Comics stories I have seen have been at best low-quality trash and at worst poisonous and malignant.

I don't have any way of reading any comics, so you can go ahead and spoil it for me.

 

[ObberGobb]

So did anybody read the latest issue of Al Ewing's Thor? I think that it is by far the best comicbook that Marvel currently releases, although with the exception of Fantastic Four the other current Marvel Comics stories I have seen have been at best low-quality trash and at worst poisonous and malignant.

I need to get caught up on that, i agree that it's the best ongoing. I'm not a huge fan of the current Avengers run, but I do think its a big step up from Aaron's run, which I didn't like at all. And despite my current lack of interest in its story, I greatly appreciate that it isn't doing the "everyone is morally gray and hates each other" thing that hurts a lot of superhero comics. I really liked the issue where the Avengers have a baseball game with the X-Men.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't have any way of reading any comics, so you can go ahead and spoil it for me.

Well, you can try to use a good online internet comicbook archive site with the "Brave" internet browser, Mullvad VPN active, and Bitdefender Security installed with all security protection settings active, in combination, until the collected edition of Ewing's entire Thor run is available for ordering.

Anyway, Thor fights the elder god Kemur, who is basically supposed to be the embodiment of tyranny, and puts up a good fight, but Loki eventually uses the piece of Eternity that they acquired in one of Ewing's previous stories (the Eternity Mask?) as an arrow to kill Kemur.

 

[Eseseso]

Anyone read One World Under Doom #4? Because holy hell, it did NOT disappoint!

 

[Jimmy.robinson.5099]

Anyone read One World Under Doom #4? Because holy hell, it did NOT disappoint!

I watched a video about it. Does that count?

 

[Suigetsuhyugs]

Anyone read One World Under Doom #4? Because holy hell, it did NOT disappoint!

I read From vs Dormammu was a great fight and Doom flexing his intelligence and the power of the mystical light from the eye of agamotto it's great

 

[Antvasima]

Anyone read One World Under Doom #4? Because holy hell, it did NOT disappoint!

Yes, and I thought that it was an okay story.

Dormammu should technically be considerably more powerful compared to a sorcerer supreme than what was displayed here, but the more evenhanded fight was explained by the Eye of Agamotto suddenly being a specific weakness, so I suppose that it might be acceptable.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Yes, and I thought that it was an okay story.

Dormammu should technically be considerably more powerful compared to a sorcerer supreme than what was displayed here, but the more evenhanded fight was explained by the Eye of Agamotto suddenly being a specific weakness, so I suppose that it might be acceptable.

Yup, there are very consistent statements/feats over the years for light-based attacks from the Eye of Agamotto being super effective against demons on the level of Dormammu and Nightmare.

 

[MrKerf]

So… y’all would recommend the One World Under Doom? I was kind off putting it away as something brief and unimportant. I am not even sure why Victor became the Sorcerer Supreme.

 

[Antvasima]

Yup, there are very consistent statements/feats over the years for light-based attacks from the Eye of Agamotto being super effective against demons on the level of Dormammu and Nightmare.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Antvasima]

So… y’all would recommend the One World Under Doom? I was kind off putting it away as something brief and unimportant. I am not even sure why Victor became the Sorcerer Supreme.

He set up a world crisis situation with vampires taking over the world, where Doctor Strange had to "temporarily lend" him his power in order to save it. Naturally, Doom broke the intended terms of the agreement to return the power and position right after he had saved the world, by interpreting "saving the world" as permanently setting himself up as a dictator for it. See his quote in our profile page for him for more information about that viewpoint.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, yes, Dormammu is even worse than Doom is. He is the absolutely worst type of "dystopia justifies the means" tyrant, and essentially wants to turn all life and afterlife into an eternal torture chamber for everybody except himself while they are forced to worship him for it, whereas Doom is an extremely narcissistic megalomaniac supremacist kind of tyrant, who thinks that only he alone can save the world by crushing it under his bootheel. Both of them are really evil though.

 

[Hypertornado099]

Anyway, yes, Dormammu is even worse than Doom is. He is the absolutely worst type of "dystopia justifies the means" tyrant, and essentially wants to turn all life and afterlife into an eternal torture chamber for everybody except himself while they are forced to worship him for it, whereas Doom is an extremely narcissistic megalomaniac supremacist kind of tyrant, who thinks that only he alone can save the world by crushing it under his bootheel. Both of them are really evil though.

Do you think that makes him a bad villain?

 

[Antvasima]

Dormammu or Doom? No some real world people actually are as evil as Dormammu, and many real world people definitely think like Doom.

No, I do not think that they are bad villains. My main problem is when narratives glorify and idealise evil in different ways, and I also have a problem with Marvel Comics' neverending recycling concept, which leads to the moral of the story ending up being that satanically evil villains are never ever permanently stopped from causing more harm to mostly innocent people, and much less receive proportionate karmic punishments for all of the absolute atrocities that they have committed over the years, whereas an easy road to hell/completely disproportionate retribution/eternal torture and degradation awaits most of the regular people in the setting.

So I do not at all approve of this type of incoherent neverending narrative storytelling without any beginning or end, and mainly set up to create unfulfilling addictions to it.

There have been excellent mostly self-contained storyarcs featuring sympathetic characters within this setting over the years, but it has mostly just been quantity over quality media content rather than actual art in my view. My apologies.

 

[MrKerf]

I also have a problem with Marvel Comics' neverending recycling concept, which leads to the moral of the story ending up being that satanically evil villains are never ever permanently stopped from causing more harm to mostly innocent people, and much less receive proportionate karmic punishments for all of the absolute atrocities that they have committed over the years

That's actually interesting: Would you prefer them to be shown as less irredeemably evil, or just straight putting them down? I usually lean towards and love redemption arcs, so I really loved Cyttorak being convinced to protect the Earth, despite being... well, himself.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not know what to do about the problem, as it is seemingly inescapably inbaked in this type of storytelling format, but under more normal circumstances some crimes are genuinely too extreme to ever be forgiven. They have to be paid off through absolutely enormous amounts of karmic redemption or retribution.

 

[Eseseso]

Anyway, yes, Dormammu is even worse than Doom is. He is the absolutely worst type of "dystopia justifies the means" tyrant, and essentially wants to turn all life and afterlife into an eternal torture chamber for everybody except himself while they are forced to worship him for it, whereas Doom is an extremely narcissistic megalomaniac supremacist kind of tyrant, who thinks that only he alone can save the world by crushing it under his bootheel. Both of them are really evil though.

Agreed. Doom is at least capable of being kind (especially to Valeria) and has some morals (like despising bigotry due to his own past as a Romani) and has a tragic past even if it doesn't excuse his heinous deeds, while Dormammu relishes in his cruelty and pettiness, wants to kill and torture Strange even though Strange saved his life in their first meeting, and nearly destroyed his own realm via a temper tantrum.

 

[Antvasima]

Doom blew up an entire universe full of people just because he couldn't stand that his counterpart there was well-adjusted, mentally healthy, and much happier than himself though. He is only marginally less evil than Dormammu. The difference between them in terms of personality may be that Dormammu is more honest about his true intentions, and is even more arrogant and sadistic.

 

[Jimmy.robinson.5099]

I do not know what to do about the problem, as it is seemingly inescapably inbaked in this type of storytelling format, but under more normal circumstances some crimes are genuinely too extreme to ever be forgiven. They have to be paid off through absolutely enormous amounts of karmic redemption or retribution.

So don't read any X-Men books ever, got it.

 

[Abu2411]

I used to love the Hulk, and I still think Immortal Hulk is one of the all time great comics, but I finished reading Planet Hulk which I liked, and then World War Hulk, which made me hate the character.

The reason for that is it made me feel like only the Hulk's rage was justified and no one else had any point. Literally, the gamma corps during the event were pretty interesting until it turns out that their reasons for hating the Hulk were founded on complete misunderstandings. Also, the whole Hulk uses super-mathematics to make sure he kills no one during his rampages felt like a cheap cop out. This is sort of touched on in Immortal Hulk iirc, where even though he might not kill any people, he still ruins lives by destroying homes and neighbourhoods.

Another reason, is that I felt pretty uncomfortable watching all the heroes get enslaved and tortured by Hulk and his army. I don't like seeing my faves getting bullied .

 

[Jimmy.robinson.5099]

I used to love the Hulk, and I still think Immortal Hulk is one of the all time great comics, but I finished reading Planet Hulk which I liked, and then World War Hulk, which made me hate the character.

The reason for that is it made me feel like only the Hulk's rage was justified and no one else had any point. Literally, the gamma corps during the event were pretty interesting until it turns out that their reasons for hating the Hulk were founded on complete misunderstandings. Also, the whole Hulk uses super-mathematics to make sure he kills no one during his rampages felt like a cheap cop out. This is sort of touched on in Immortal Hulk iirc, where even though he might not kill any people, he still ruins lives by destroying homes and neighbourhoods.

Another reason, is that I felt pretty uncomfortable watching all the heroes get enslaved and tortured by Hulk and his army. I don't like seeing my faves getting bullied .

In that case, would you consider this good news or bad news in regards to the Hulk? They make mention of a "New Sakaar" here:

'Imperial War' One-Shots See Black Panther, She-Hulk, and More on the Frontlines of an Intergalactic War

'Imperial War: Black Panther' by Jonathan Hickman, Victor Lavalle and Cafu and 'Imperial War: Planet She-Hulk' by Hickman, Stephanie Phillips and Emilio Laiso, the first of five 'Imperial War' one-shots spinning out of 'Imperial,' arrive this August.

www.marvel.com

 

[Antvasima]

I don't know. Jonathan Hickman has a track record of severely defiling many of the characters, settings, and cosmological concepts that he touches, including destroying any remaining moral legitimacy of the X-Men, and turning the Avengers into a morally and existentially nihilistic cosmic horror show, and now he is going to cut lose on my previously favourite Marvel Comics character, She-Hulk, who has earned that spot due to being genuinely virtuous, kind, positive, and likeable, unlike most of the rest of them, partially due to the influences of Hickman, Gillen, Starlin, Ennis, Warren, Miller, Willingham, and Quesada. But I suspect that she will be illogically turned into a merciless self-righteous power-mad thrill-killing-machine after he is done with her, which I am not looking forward to.

 

[Abu2411]

In that case, would you consider this good news or bad news in regards to the Hulk? They make mention of a "New Sakaar" here:

'Imperial War' One-Shots See Black Panther, She-Hulk, and More on the Frontlines of an Intergalactic War

'Imperial War: Black Panther' by Jonathan Hickman, Victor Lavalle and Cafu and 'Imperial War: Planet She-Hulk' by Hickman, Stephanie Phillips and Emilio Laiso, the first of five 'Imperial War' one-shots spinning out of 'Imperial,' arrive this August.

www.marvel.com

This looks pretty interesting. I was already going to read it since space stories interest me a lot. In fact, I always thought it'd be cool to see DC's Green Lantern Corps crossover with Marvel Cosmic/Space.

I don't know. Jonathan Hickman has a track record of severely defiling many of the characters, settings, and cosmological concepts that he touches, including destroying any moral legitimacy of the X-Men, and turning the Avengers into a morally and existentially nihilistic cosmic horror show, and now he is going to cut lose of my previously favourite Marvel Comics character, She-Hulk, who has earned that spot due to being genuinely virtuous, kind, positive, and likeable, unlike most of the rest of them, partially due to the influences of Hickman, Gillen, and Quesada. But I suspect that she will be illogically turned into a merciless self-righteous thrill-killing-machine after he is done with her, which I am not looking forward to.

What are your thoughts on Peter David's She-Hulk run?

 

[Antvasima]

Peter David's run was not very interesting in terms of what was actually happening in it. Meaning that I found the writing to be neither good nor bad. But Peter David also seemed to genuinely respect what She-Hulk stands for as a character.

 

[Abu2411]

Peter David's run was not very interesting in terms of what was actually happening in it. Meaning that I found the writing to be neither good nor bad. But Peter David also seemed to genuinely respect what She-Hulk stands for as a character.

Nice. What about Jason Aaron's run?

 

[MrKerf]

Jonathan Hickman has a track record of severely defiling many of the characters, settings, and cosmological concepts that he touches, including destroying any remaining moral legitimacy of the X-Men, and turning the Avengers into a morally and existentially nihilistic cosmic horror show, and now he is going to cut lose of my previously favourite Marvel Comics character, She-Hulk, who has earned that spot due to being genuinely virtuous, kind, positive, and likeable, unlike most of the rest of them, partially due to the influences of Hickman, Gillen, and Quesada.

I think Hickman is a very "logical" writer, compared to, idk DeMatteis for example, who feels very "empathetic". Which I don't think is bad in itself.

 

[Antvasima]

Nice. What about Jason Aaron's run?

Jason Aaron only featured She-Hulk in Avengers, technically stayed true to her being an at the core extremely nice person with enormous amounts of righteous willpower, powered her up a lot, and introduced a romance with Thor, all of which I greatly appreciated. However, Aaron also had to inherit an awful distortion of She-Hulk's character from another writer, and did not rectify this until the very end of his Avengers run, so my ideal solution would have been if he had initially restored Jennifer's healthy and stable personality, but without any genuinely demeaning oversexualisation, powered her up a lot, and paired her up with Thor for the long run, but those trains seem to have already left the station.

 

[Antvasima]

I think Hickman is a very "logical" writer, compared to, idk DeMatteis for example, who feels very "empathetic". Which I don't think is bad in itself.

He seems logical in a callously and morally nihilistic mechanically calculated manner, so I do not appreciate it at all. He feels far less humane than chatting with ChatGPT, and I have had that impression of him ever since he depicted his extremely cruel and anti-idealistic then far right worldview in his initial Fantastic Four issues directly following Mark Millar, and if even Mark Millar comes across as constructive and idealistic in comparison, there is likely something seriously wrong with somebody's mentality.

And then he set up an omnicidal cosmic horror story in which the Avengers were forced to either commit serial-genocide or die, and then he turned the X-Men into completely amoral thrill-killing tribalist separatist supremacist bloodsports for fun and entertainment villains partially led by people with casually genocidal supremacist mentalities, and so onwards, so at this point I consider his entire mindscape to be a highly infectious malignant destructive cancer on the consciousness and overall viewpoints of humanity as a whole. Judging by his story output alone he seems like the type of gleefully nearly completely unsympathetic and ideologically malevolently cruel and amoral human being that the world would have been a much better place if they had not been born.