• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

General DC Comics Discussion Thread

Idk if we will count that since he was very quickly killed after a few more beams. More examples might be needed. You could probably find a comic where he takes attacks from comparable people
Changed my mind on adding the Trapper and Infinite Man fight, I think what I added should be ok. At least it looks a whole lot better than the current profile we have.
 
Animal Man could technically get Morrison to at least High 1-B. If we count things based on context rather than direct implication Vertigo may be 1-A as well. Matteis, I have been talking to a lot is in my opinion 1-A.

I really now don't see the need to split this writer's notion or else the same has to apply to every other verse including Marvel.
I agree with this
 
Animal Man could technically get Morrison to at least High 1-B. If we count things based on context rather than direct implication Vertigo may be 1-A as well. Matteis, I have been talking to a lot is in my opinion 1-A.

I really now don't see the need to split this writer's notion or else the same has to apply to every other verse including Marvel.
We have already thoroughly went through why it is necessary in our DC Comics Cosmology page.
 
We have already thoroughly went through why it is necessary in our DC Comics Cosmology page.
I think anyone who has read it understood “why.” This isn't to say many not almost all do not agree simply due to factoring in some things such as contradictions between authors. Plus I added the incentive it happened to DC for that reason it should inadvertently apply to every verse. It's become less and less useable a “split” Cosmology which I had for a long time just gone with but overall I never thought it was too great of an idea.
 
Almost all other verses are possible to make some coherent sense of if we make an effort, whereas the modern DC Comics editors and writers have extremely irresponsible made such an absolute mess of things that we unfortunately cannot do so without enormous illogical contradictions, even if many fans would likely find it convenient in order to maximise statistics.
 
Last edited:
even if many fans would likely find it convenient in order to maximise statistics.
This is, IMO, the very crucial point. There is very little continuity between Animal Man and the main-stream cosmology contributions that Grant made in the 2000s. He kept Limbo, which is well and good, but a great deal of the avant-garde experimental mythicism he introduced in his earlier works were completely abandoned outside of their individual comic runs.

I see it largely as being motivated by a desire to see beloved characters or series with higher tiers than is really ever demonstrated in these works themselves, and I consider it a big part of our job to be a bulwark against that kind of thing.
 
This is, IMO, the very crucial point. There is very little continuity between Animal Man and the main-stream cosmology contributions that Grant made in the 2000s. He kept Limbo, which is well and good, but a great deal of the avant-garde experimental mythicism he introduced in his earlier works were completely abandoned outside of their individual comic runs.

I see it largely as being motivated by a desire to see beloved characters or series with higher tiers than is really ever demonstrated in these works themselves, and I consider it a big part of our job to be a bulwark against that kind of thing.
skull.gif
 
Hey, I just wanted to give my 2 cents on something. So I was looking over the recent staff discussion, and one of the herald feats was characters potentially scaling to the phantom zone. This was even considered one of the more "straightforward" feats among both supporters and dissidents, with the phantom zone having statements for being infinite in size. But honestly, I'm starting to disagree that it warrants high 3-A.

So, this is the statement for the phantom zone being infinite, and let me quote it verbatim.

So here's my major gripe. The whole point of feats on this wiki that deal with "infinite" anything is that characaters can scale to notions that span infinitely far, vast, or high. However, the phantom zone is described as an "unregion of infinitely compressed space." This seems like the opposite of spanning infinitely wide, no? If the phantom zone is infinitely compressed, that means that rather than its substance spanning infinite outwards, its space actually folds in on itself infinitely. Even googling "compressed space relativity," all I can find are articles about the fabric of space-time curving in on itself. I honestly don't think a realm being stated to be compressed infinitely holds the same connotations as this wiki's notions of high 3-A, which describes spaces that are infinitely expansive.

One of the supporting evidences for high 3-A phantom zone is how it's described as an anti-universe, implying that it shares enough characteristics with a normal universe to warrant a distinction (likely universal size), but I think this statement suggests the opposite. When you combine that fact with how the phantom zone was stated to be "dimensionless," along with how it's called an "unregion," I think everything considered, the phantom zone is a spaceless, timeless void with no tierable value. These are just my thoughts, of course.

Can we get some discussion on this?
 
Who is speaking with Batman in that scan?
I have no idea, I can't find the full one, but I have seen people try to get the godsphere to outer because its a platonic archetypal realm. But this kind of debunks all of that, even though Platonism doesn't scale that high anyway.
 
I have no idea, I can't find the full one, but I have seen people try to get the godsphere to outer because its a platonic archetypal realm. But this kind of debunks all of that, even though Platonism doesn't scale that high anyway.
I’m pretty sure Wally even used time stop on Darkest Knight in the 6th dimension.

The arguments for 1-A god sphere just aren’t that good in general (hence why there’s a whole discussion rule against it).
 
It's also not a Platonic realm because it was created and has been destroyed. In Platonism concepts are eternal and unchanging.
I see, so what does the scan mean when it says the godsphere is a platonic archetypal realm? Is that just fancy wording for something else? Or is there another interpretation?
 
I see, so what does the scan mean when it says the godsphere is a platonic archetypal realm? Is that just fancy wording for something else? Or is there another interpretation?
Grant Morrison incorporated dozens of different mythologies, theories, and concepts into his work. But they were rarely/never perfect reflections of the real world description of those ideas.

So, what did he mean by it? Hard to say. It could just he flowery language, he may have intended for it to be full blown Platonism (but not have recognized why that wasn't possible) or something else.
 
So, what did he mean by it? Hard to say. It could just he flowery language, he may have intended for it to be full blown Platonism (but not have recognized why that wasn't possible) or something else.
It depends entirely on the interpretation of the work. It would really be hard to say something is X, if no one read X in the original language and knew the context as they were being developed as with Plato's works. Most of what people understand as platonic interpretation is in fact interpretation from Neo-Platonic authors who over literally centuries, were understood as just being retelling Plato's works, but recently (As in the last two centuries) have started to be understood as being its own branch that didn't notice that their works basically told something that went completely beyond the scope of what was described in Plato's works. And yet most of the modern interpretation still comes from those (If you are talking about emanations, for example, you are talking about Neoplatonic understandings of Plato's works).

Especially talking about change, that is something hard to tell. Because you have tons of philosophical works discussing that and all the different terms and concepts that were used back then that paint a completely different thing than "If they change, they are temporal". There are interpretations that definitely allow for a certain kind of change for spiritual beings that is different from that of physical time. Plato himself would say that souls would come from the world of the Forms that are beyond time and get into the physical world that is within time, if you go from no-time to time, it's a certain kind of change, isn't? That is where all these discussions about what it means to be "beyond time" lie. Some would just say it gets too contradictory and there is no such thing as literally being beyond time even in Plato's works, and that he either didn't know how to explain or just noticed he was wrong, and that was why he stopped using some terms in later works.

And that is where you get into the whole Neo-Platonic thing because the understanding we have is mostly from their interpretation, and they really went deep into making sense of transcendence and the infinite, some people just accept it has a solution because there are dozens of 1000+ page books all trying to make sense of that. While some would go with that, some would just say "There's no such thing as being beyond time and we all just misunderstood Plato's works over the centuries because Neo-platonic scholars).

If anything, if there's a problem with the way it's depicted in DC (And I'm sure it has a lot of problems), these problems are in a way also seen in Plato's own works and have been a point of discussion by different scholars with totally different interpretations.
 
If anything, if there's a problem with the way it's depicted in DC (And I'm sure it has a lot of problems), these problems are in a way also seen in Plato's own works and have been a point of discussion by different scholars with totally different interpretations.
Agreed. This is something that even highly educated scholars see differently so it's hard to generalize in terms of it's relationship to DC. It would be better to focus less on what words Batman used to describe the Sphere and try to determine what qualities it can definitively been shown to have, regardless of whether they fit one specific possible framework of "Platonic."

In the above case, it's certainly true that many portrayals of the Sphere very explicitly and directly demonstrate or state that it is a physical space. There are others where it does not. Whether or not a physical realm could be called "platonic" is less important than weighing the preponderance of evidence for or against certain qualities.
 
What's the Transduality justifications for Dream of the Endless, Father Time, and Perpetua?
 
I've always found it pretty damn weird (from a respectful viewpoint) that this site, till this day is completely convinced that the sphere cannot be platonic. The argument brought up that because the sphere is portrayed as being created, or influenced, or destroyed supposedly is just a cut throat argument that the Sphere isn't platonic, while makes sense at first while only accounting for Platos beliefs on what platonic concepts are, ignores how Plato's works themselves invite contemplation and debate, and understanding these concepts is far from stagnant. As well as ignoring how there already has been interpretations of platonism where concepts have been created, like Plotinus' interpretation of Plato's ideas and Carl Jungs interpretation of Plato's ideas being influenced by the collective unconscious (p.s. which is what DC uses)

This becomes even more confusing when you factor in that this wiki already accepts that with the Superflow from Marvel and the Noosphere from SCP are worlds of forms, with both of them being created, as well as destroyed before, but when it comes to DC, its just a big no no because... inconsistencies? What inconsistencies? The sphere is consistently viewed as an abstract plane of existence, and as near as 10 months ago God's are further established as fundamental functions that change the Universe.
 
As Executor pointed out, there isn't even widespread agreement as to what platonism specifically entails, which makes it difficult to apply to anything with that level of certainty.

Regarding the Sphere, it's not consistently viewed as an abstract plane of existence (assuming you mean what I think you mean by that). There are numerous instances where it is very directly treated as a physical or spatial realm.

The realms of the Sphere are mainstays for DC stories, there's literally hundreds of scans for them. Most authors don't know or care that it is sometimes considered abstract and they write and draw these stories in a manner that treats it as nothing other than a simple physical realm or, at best, a physical realm that is larger in scale than a normal universe.
 
Back
Top