- 12,448
- 5,643
No.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That’s because him being 6D isn’t referring to spatial dimensions.anti monitor is a 6 dimensional being but has High 1-C AP?
in a vs match, we don't treat him as an 11 dimensional or anything, just 11D attack potency right?
he would still be a higher dimensional being to regular humans right?That’s because him being 6D isn’t referring to spatial dimensions.
Yes.he would still be a higher dimensional being to regular humans right?
It turns out Alan Moore didn't write #75. Not saying that makes the info invalid at all, but that would likely explain the discrepancy.For the record, while #50 of Swamp Thing shows the light in heaven, ST refers to god in #75 as that something which is beyond thought, beyond dualities, showing "god" as completely above the conflict of light and dark.
The point here is that Watters run depicts the Great Darkness as the opposite of the "Light."As for Watters depiction clearly entails that Lucifer was “created” to be the shadow to God’s light to give him an identity. We see he doesn’t need Lucifer rather he just needed an opposition to define him as a “being.”
The Lucifer story is its own thing and for good reasons.And you haven't addressed the fact that the "Light" is in Heaven, which is the most direct evidence that the Light is meant to be understood as the Presence.
I never said it wasn’t the Presence in that manner. What I said is the Light is an aspect of the Presence and a part of it as is the Voice, the Word, and multitude of aspect it takes for his creation to comprehend its infinite nature.I don't follow. You're saying that the Light is not the Presence and is unrelated to the Presence. What is your explanation for the Light being in Heaven?
If your whole point this time was that the Light is an aspect of the Presence, then I don't think we have any significant disagreement.I never said it wasn’t the Presence in that manner. What I said is the Light is an aspect of the Presence and a part of it as is the Voice, the Word, and multitude of aspect it takes for his creation to comprehend its infinite nature.
Yes, and an aspect of God is still God but I think differentiating them not as separate beings but in terms of power is what I think is coherent. If we scale the Light to the Darkness then the Presence > Darkness = Light.If your whole point this time was that the Light is an aspect of the Presence, then I don't think we have any significant disagreement.
Rick Veitch worked closely with Moore throughout his entire run.It turns out Alan Moore didn't write #75. Not saying that makes the info invalid at all, but that would likely explain the discrepancy.
Am I the only one who doesn't think he should have a possibly higher rating? I thought we usually use higher to indicate AP's ridiculously above the tier baseline, often to the point of reaching higher tiers. If the scans and justifications both admit that John's god-killing spell didn't so much as lay a scratch on UDM, what's the basis for assuming that the spell could so much as possibly put John above the baseline with his magic? I don't see how that feat's quantifiable enough to extrapolate to higher tiers or ratings above the baseline, given the spell's only feat is a glaring anti-feat against its fundamental description.Building level (Cut off the head of one vampire then fought and killed some more, with vampires being strong enough to throw cars[1]. Those vampires had their strength increased by Cain, and were able to restrain and threaten Batgirl albeit in a group. Should be comparable to his durability), up to at least Solar System level (Hurt I, Vampire, who stomped Apollo[41]. Madame Xanadu does not have the power to contrast John's magic[1]. Was considered to be among the five magicians on Earth who could contribute to a powerful spell meant to save the Earth, implying him to be at least somewhat comparable to Dr. Fate and Zatanna, though he is certainly weaker than either of them[72]. Hurt Frankenstein and Black Orchid with a magic attack[50]), possibly higher (Knows a spell "powerful enough to kill a god", who he believed might stop The Upside-Down Man, though it ultimately failed to scratch him. Still, it should be much stronger than any other attack of his[73]) with magic
I guess that direct spell shouldn’t be indicative of him getting a “possibly higher” part unless we have concrete evidence. So yeah, it’s pretty pointless.Am I the only one who doesn't think he should have a possibly higher rating? I thought we usually use higher to indicate AP's ridiculously above the tier baseline, often to the point of reaching higher tiers. If the scans and justifications both admit that John's god-killing spell didn't so much as lay a scratch on UDM, what's the basis for assuming that the spell could so much as possibly put John above the baseline with his magic? I don't see how that feat's quantifiable enough to extrapolate to higher tiers or ratings above the baseline, given the spell's only feat is a glaring anti-feat against its fundamental description.
It could've been ignorance (Williamson not being familiar with the full run) but it also may have been intentional. He was combining several different cosmologies at once. The Great Darkness predating the Overvoid is also not really representative if Morrison's take on it, of course.Rick Veitch worked closely with Moore throughout his entire run.
Edit: In fact, I just checked #50. Veitch is among the credits for the issue. So there's really not a discrepancy there, Williamson simply did not understand the story/introduced stuff not truly alluded to.
I brought this logic long ago and why Morrison Cosmology should just be a separate thing.It could've been ignorance (Williamson not being familiar with the full run) but it also may have been intentional. He was combining several different cosmologies at once. The Great Darkness predating the Overvoid is also not really representative if Morrison's take on it, of course.
Wouldn't surprise me. Not many people read beyond Moore's time, most jump to Morrison/Miller's take (that actively contradict in many respects all past writers, incidentally). A shame, because Veitch is just as good if not better than Moore (at least expanding and contextualizing his ideas; #75 is a special highlight in that sense).It could've been ignorance (Williamson not being familiar with the full run)
Because Williamson's Infinite Frontier and Dark Crisis are a direct continuity not only with Morrison's Multiversity and Snyder's Death Metal stories, but also with Marv Wolfman's Crisis on Infinite Earths. The differences, while present, were considered small enough to be included, what we learned in Dark Crisis: The Deadly Green is what undid some notable contradictions between Snyder's stories and Williamson's a year later with The Great Darkness. It is true that Morrison's Overvoid was retconned as "Light", but most of the elements of the original depiction of the Overvoid came from Morrison's interviews... From the comics, the Overvoid has been a non-dual sentient void from which the multiverse was born. The fact that the Overvoid was considered God was mainly Morrison's own words from his interviews as such an idea was not mentioned in the comics, apart from the Monitors.why don't we just split williamson again please
This is pretty untrue. The Overvoid being this ultimate supreme oneness wasn’t mentioned in the comics. However, its idea that it is God as well as being the non-dual Void, however was in the comics.Because Williamson's Infinite Frontier and Dark Crisis are a direct continuity not only with Morrison's Multiversity and Snyder's Death Metal stories, but also with Marv Wolfman's Crisis on Infinite Earths. The differences, while present, were considered small enough to be included, what we learned in Dark Crisis: The Deadly Green is what undid some notable contradictions between Snyder's stories and Williamson's a year later with The Great Darkness. It is true that Morrison's Overvoid was retconned as "Light", but most of the elements of the original depiction of the Overvoid came from Morrison's interviews... From the comics, the Overvoid has been a non-dual sentient void from which the multiverse was born. The fact that the Overvoid was considered God was mainly Morrison's own words from his interviews as such an idea was not mentioned in the comics, apart from the Monitors.
This shouldn’t be some sort of arbitrary rule about “building upon previous work.” All that entails is that more like be added based on the author in charge that will contradicts information that was introduced by the previous author.Elizio is right. Williamson isn't a situation like DeMatteis where he's just doing his own thing independent of other authors. He's directly building upon what came before and referencing it frequently. Some things may have changed, but, it's undeniably a continuation.
These beings have something in common, certainly, but having elements in common doesn't mean they're the same character. Superman and Sentry have a lot in common, but it would be silly to regard them as "different names for beings with the same inherent nature."You might as well as common sense and analogs to that as well. We can consider Night as “darkness” but the idea of “darkness” would still be present across different cosmologies, just with different names while the inherent nature of said beings are almost the same.
It's not, it's based on continuity. There's clear continuity from Morrison to Snyder to Williamson. There is not continuity between Carey and Morrison.If splitting cosmology was based on “almost the same but still different” then we’re basically nitpicking semantics behind what makes one author not compatible with another.
That wasn’t the point. I was making an example of arguing for what “specifics” is being entailed to propose that one can’t work with the other. This was a response to your notion of why Perpetua, Pralaya, and Night can’t work because each one was created in a different story that does not connect the three together. My point was where is the line being drawn with the three?These beings have something in common, certainly, but having elements in common doesn't mean they're the same character. Superman and Sentry have a lot in common, but it would be silly to regard them as "different names for beings with the same inherent nature."
It needn’t be accurate since every story changes an element. This honestly is just superstitious since no other work of fiction seems to be receiving the treatment DC is having and that’s not mentioning VSBW is special for the only one doing it.These cosmological characters were written by different people, used in different storylines that didn't overlap with each other, and have different characterizations and features. Pralaya is not the mother of the Endless. Trying to force her into a cosmology that involves them just to say it's all the same thing isn't productive or accurate.
What? A continuity does mean it’s works with something. Obviously, Morrison and Carey can’t work. However, Morrison works seems to heavily focus on what he believe and think and that point would be made useless when Snyder starts introducing things that would have never been during Morrison time. Where’s the line being drawn here? A continuation shouldn’t be the basis, if not at all.It's not, it's based on continuity. There's clear continuity from Morrison to Snyder to Williamson. There is not continuity between Carey and Morrison.
They are being separated because they have no overlap, and operate within three completely different frameworks for how the cosmology works.My point was where is the line being drawn with the three?
The very definition of "continuity" is continuation, saying that continuation shouldn't be the basis for continuity doesn't make sense.What? A continuity does mean it’s works with something. Obviously, Morrison and Carey can’t work. However, Morrison works seems to heavily focus on what he believe and think and that point would be made useless when Snyder starts introducing things that would have never been during Morrison time. Where’s the line being drawn here? A continuation shouldn’t be the basis, if not at all.
Well we certainly disagree. Everything has its flaws, but the split is a huge improvement and is based on very sensible distinctions between the cosmologies. Most of the sour grapes are about how it affects scaling, I don't believe the criticisms of its foundation carry much weight.I won’t discredit the hard work put into the split but it’s flawed and not any better.
Night, Time, Archangels, and Endless will most likely be High 1-A. What Ultima thinks of Yahweh is important. Accordingly, it may be 0. Divine Presence will be 0.Does dc/vertigo have 1-A / High1-A or 0? divine presence= High1-A?
Why are their high 1-A and 0 scans above Qaulitive superiority from the comics?Night, Time, Archangels, and Endless will most likely be High 1-A. What Ultima thinks of Yahweh is important. Accordingly, it may be 0. Divine Presence will be 0.
sorry, what?Why are their high 1-A and 0 scans above Qaulitive superiority from the comics?
Controversial.should superman get infinite lifting strength for holding the book of infinite pages