-
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.
Popeye feats
- Thread starter Da_Lunge_Fish
- Start date
-
- Tags
- popeye popeye (verse)
- 13,779
- 14,248
Back to topic
vsbattles.fandom.com
Is anyone believing that Popeye is dodging way before the lightning appears?
vsbattles.fandom.com
For this, I can see Popeye's arms moving in tandem with the lightning striking.
Can their relative movements be used as measurements of lightning reacting feats? Like instead of bullet slicing it is bullet slicing except the bullet is moving at lightning speed of 440000 m/s.
While it is more for the service of providing a verdict for Popeye vs Saitama, a blog will be out this coming Sunday morning. Likely itg will cover more feats, and with more feats with viewable links.
VS Battles Wiki
The VS Battles Wiki is the world's most comprehensive and popular index of statistics and powers for characters and items from all of popular fiction.
vsbattles.fandom.com
Is anyone believing that Popeye is dodging way before the lightning appears?
VS Battles Wiki
The VS Battles Wiki is the world's most comprehensive and popular index of statistics and powers for characters and items from all of popular fiction.
vsbattles.fandom.com
For this, I can see Popeye's arms moving in tandem with the lightning striking.
Can their relative movements be used as measurements of lightning reacting feats? Like instead of bullet slicing it is bullet slicing except the bullet is moving at lightning speed of 440000 m/s.
While it is more for the service of providing a verdict for Popeye vs Saitama, a blog will be out this coming Sunday morning. Likely itg will cover more feats, and with more feats with viewable links.
Last edited:
- 1,735
- 351
I’m talking about hoping DB can find the constellation feat that we’re DESPERATELY missing from his profile for us so that we can rest
- 15,431
- 5,020
If those 2 images were a comic, it would be aim dodging as we don't know if he ducked before the lightning came or after. What's on the frames in between?VS Battles Wiki
The VS Battles Wiki is the world's most comprehensive and popular index of statistics and powers for characters and items from all of popular fiction.
Is anyone believing that Popeye is dodging way before the lightning appears?
- 7,213
- 5,509
That's actually a scene where Popeye saves his father from thunder.
- 40,446
- 12,915
Are we really downgrading the sun feats because of toonforce? Legit that’s the polar opposite of the stuff the “toonforce OP” people do.
- 15,431
- 5,020
No, we're not. No one ever saw something OP he did and said it didn't apply to his physically because it was Toon Force. Instead, what 2 of the sun feats he has show is not what's being claimed it happened in them, and that's why they're not legit.
The first one is the most notable, he basically throws a cat-size projectile at the sky, while launched in the sky the projectile hits a chair-sized sun, still in the sky, and with both things next to each other in a way that we can clearly see their sizes, then the projectile bounces off the sun while in the sky. The projectile never went into space, it was at all times in the sky, and it hit a small sun there proven to be of around its size. Distance and size clearly show that this was a small sun, it wasn't shrunken by Popeye's Toon Force, it was already small here because of the Toon Force of his world, nor is the sun always small, only in this scene.
Similarly if a random character were to look at the sun from Earth, touch like 1/30 of it with a finger reaching it and get burned in the tip of its finger, he would have just touched 1/30 of a small sun, not 1/30 of the real-sized sun with the finger having gone FTL speed into space and grown to Jupiter-size.
The first one is the most notable, he basically throws a cat-size projectile at the sky, while launched in the sky the projectile hits a chair-sized sun, still in the sky, and with both things next to each other in a way that we can clearly see their sizes, then the projectile bounces off the sun while in the sky. The projectile never went into space, it was at all times in the sky, and it hit a small sun there proven to be of around its size. Distance and size clearly show that this was a small sun, it wasn't shrunken by Popeye's Toon Force, it was already small here because of the Toon Force of his world, nor is the sun always small, only in this scene.
Similarly if a random character were to look at the sun from Earth, touch like 1/30 of it with a finger reaching it and get burned in the tip of its finger, he would have just touched 1/30 of a small sun, not 1/30 of the real-sized sun with the finger having gone FTL speed into space and grown to Jupiter-size.
- 5,714
- 3,681
Sorry to barge in randomly, but perhaps to calculate the piercing the star feat, we can use the same method as in the calculation of the Eclipse Cannon piercing the star here but under the assumption that the star is far smaller. Seeing as even if the Sun is really small, it would still yield impressive results since it would require atomization to do so according to the Eclipse Cannon calc.
That way it can still be calc'd but take the size of the different sized sun into consideration.
That way it can still be calc'd but take the size of the different sized sun into consideration.
- 8,931
- 10,122
This has already been discussed and rejected because they're actually two very different feats.
- 5,714
- 3,681
Oh. Can you link me to where it was discussed? If not I'll just look through the 2 pages of the thread.
- 8,931
- 10,122
- 40,446
- 12,915
There’s no such thing as a “small sun”. They have nothing in their cosmology to imply that the sun is small. It’s pure headcanon. Realistic or not (it’s not), Popeye was able to injure the sun and that’s all there is to it.
- 5,714
- 3,681
Wouldn't 'scar' imply it just scarred or marked the sun? From what I saw, it pierced the entire sun. By definition pierce means for an object to go through something. The fact that it's a tree shouldn't change that if that's the argument. It is fiction after all.
Edit: I rewatched the feat, and while I CAN see it coming off as scarring, it looked more like piercing to me. The strange marks left behind are the shapes of the branches off to the side. Think of the mark left behind when an arrow pierces paper if it has a unique patterned tip. That's what the feat looks like to me.
- 15,431
- 5,020
The sun in that scene is small, as proven by the scene itself. You're talking nonsense by pointing out cosmology, the scene in a vacuum shows a different sun than normal, the rest of Popeye doesn't matter much to that one scene, that's like saying that if a character goes through a normal door like it's a dog door then it doesn't matter because the verse always portrays it like a nomal door. The headcanon would be to say that a sun proven to be small is the size of the real sun. Popeye was able to injure the sun, and that is all there is to it, but the sun wasn't portrayed realistically in a way that conflicts with taking it realistically and the distance at which it was wasn't portrayed realistically in a way that conflicts with taking it realistically.
- 40,446
- 12,915
Then show me any sort of instance where there’s two suns in a Popeye cartoon. One real one and one small one. It’s impossible to because there isn’t, which means the sun that Popeye injured is the star that our planet revolves around and not some firmament that only exists for a single scene.
- 15,431
- 5,020
You're going off your own fantasy. By your logic of the sun always having to be a real-sized sun at interstellar distances then in a cartoon verse where the sun is always shown like normal if a character once grabs the sun around his hands and lift his legs to be above the ground for as long as he grabs the sun, and we can clearly see the sun only being around the size of his hands then it wouldn't matter because of the stuff you bring up, meaning that if it's the sun it's the sun and so the character had to grab a real-sized sun at interstellar distances, or there needs to be proof that there are 2 suns and this is a small one because of the deranged presumption of the sun being portrayed surrealistically having to mean that this is another sun rather than the same sun as always being this once portrayed surrealistically, as any other normal human on Earth would intuit.
If I were to show you proof that there were 2 suns in the Popeye cartoon then you and me may as well be living there. Better questions would be 1. At what point did the projectile leave the Earth, and at which points did it travel in space? (It never did) 2. What was the size of the projectile when it hit the sun at around its size? (Same as always) 3. What was the distance between the projectile when it hit the sun at that large size and Earth? (It's in the sky) 4. When it bounces off, at which frames does it travel in space and at which frame does it reach Earth? (It's always in the sky) 5. At what point the projectile comes back to its regular size when reaching Earth? (It's always at that size) 6. Why the trajectory is that of the projectile hitting a ball in the sky and bouncing off? (Because it is)
The feat is being warped to be what some people want it to be and not what is it. There is no magic, dogmatic "the sun wasn't realistic in the feat, but it has to be realistic in the math becauseee......... ", any claim that may follow that is wrong for self-explanatory reasons.
If I were to show you proof that there were 2 suns in the Popeye cartoon then you and me may as well be living there. Better questions would be 1. At what point did the projectile leave the Earth, and at which points did it travel in space? (It never did) 2. What was the size of the projectile when it hit the sun at around its size? (Same as always) 3. What was the distance between the projectile when it hit the sun at that large size and Earth? (It's in the sky) 4. When it bounces off, at which frames does it travel in space and at which frame does it reach Earth? (It's always in the sky) 5. At what point the projectile comes back to its regular size when reaching Earth? (It's always at that size) 6. Why the trajectory is that of the projectile hitting a ball in the sky and bouncing off? (Because it is)
The feat is being warped to be what some people want it to be and not what is it. There is no magic, dogmatic "the sun wasn't realistic in the feat, but it has to be realistic in the math becauseee......... ", any claim that may follow that is wrong for self-explanatory reasons.
- 13,779
- 14,248
So... Popeye is high MHS pre-spinach and low MHS+ post-spinach?
- 13,779
- 14,248
One more problem actually: In cartoons like this, a small sun can exist aside from a real star-sized sun. The small "sun" can be played and abused by many characters without affecting the real star-sized sun operating.
Now: how would this affect the moon-to-earth travel feats or earth circumference travelling feats?
- 7,839
- 3,808
what then you say there are two suns, or the suns change whenever is convinient for your team in the argument
- 15,640
- 11,961
you really should not expect this level of consistency from a cartoon lol
- 2,146
- 3,423
Mostly this, because it's a cartoon. Worse, it's Popeye, which has about as strict of a canon as Mario.
- 5,714
- 3,681
There was no refutation to my contention. If there is one, I would like to hear it. If not, would the method I suggest work? We could get the size of the small sun by pixel-scaling its size in comparison to Popeye during the scene where he sent the bell thing flying into the sun, giving it a black eye.
- 15,640
- 11,961
yeah but you can literally tell that it is not much smaller than the sun as it goes through it
- 15,640
- 11,961
i could probably tell you what kinda fallacy that is if i had the energy to look for that but nah lol, for what i'm concerned in a cartoon like this if it looks small then it's small.
- 7,839
- 3,808
I alredy explained the problems of the sun being small also what fallacy i am commiting??? and no just dont say "Nah i dont want to respond but you are still commiting a fallacy"
- 15,640
- 11,961
literally the epitome of looking too much into shit, it's an old-timey cartoon, they run on shit not making sense, do you wanna know the scientific issues behind the sun having eyes and a face?
ignore that bit it was a joke, kinda
either way saying "we shouldn't expect realism from a cartoon, and as such we should ignore all things that debunk the feat, but we should also still calculate the feat as if it was a realistic event" makes absolutely no sense
- 15,640
- 11,961
... mate you do realize that distance is what was used to get attack speed? and similar stats are what will need to be used for any AP calculation regarding the feat?
- 15,431
- 5,020
This people seem to be part of a cult or something, idk why Cal's first comment got that many likes when he imagined we were doing something we're not. I don't honestly think any of them care at all about the time wasted by having to deal with comments with awful logic even they would disagree with.
No, because Toon Force. You don't have to care about gravity over the world when a cartoon portrays the sun as small, likewise you don't have to care of where the sound comes from if a character gets his head blown up and still talks, or how a character may still walk without legs, etc. I could go on and on with examples, the point is that some degree of logic was ignored while another remains there like normal even when that doesn't make sense. If the sun jumps from where it is to a street to fight evenly with a character then "does it create problems with gravity" or whatever? No, a kid would maybe ask that, it's too underwhelming in terms of intelligence, it is all too clear that gravity over the world just works on its own regardless of how it realistically should by a normal, real-sized sun.
It is explicitly not an oversigth, by having the sun in the sky then a projectile going in the sky is able to reach it, by having the projectile by the size of the sun's eye it was able to harm it as it did, what was what they did. You would need to re-write the whole joke by not having things this way.
Go and write your own rules for cartoons then. Nothing in common sense says that "If it's a cartoon, things don't have to have a realistic heigth, they can have whatever heigth and you are free to make calcs based on the realistic heigths they have.", common sense just says "No, that's clearly wrong."
- 7,839
- 3,808
That is what people do when they heavilly disagree on something???
1. You are expecting a realistic represention of a small object going to space in a cartoon when obviously is a caricaturistic representation of the object going to the sun you are overthinking to much by your logic.
2. That is headcanon saying the sun is small by taking a Caricaturistic representation and aplying logic
Its obvious that the animators intention was not to make the sun smaller, expecting realism to a cartoon is really stupid
No?
The first i am saying that you are nitpicking a caricaturistic representation, then creating a headcanon around that nitpick, then taking it as true even if it doesnt make sense
The second i was refering that you didnt present any argument to debunk in the first half of the argument
Sorry if i worded (i think that is how is writted) but my point still stand up expecting a cartoon to create a realistic representation, of a object going to space and expecting the object to be accurate to reality, to be accuretly protayed is nitpicking
Basically you are headcanoing around a feat that doesnt follow logic because is a carton, i am not saying that carton doesnt have logic (they have), i am saying that you are wanting something accurate to reality
- 15,431
- 5,020
Well, you're giving me the reason there. It just so happen that you missed how I'm not against how they heavilly disagree, but how they express support blindly, Cal's comment said something we're not doing (that is to ignore Popeye's sun feats because they're Toon Force, as if "being Toon Force" was something that made them invalid), I could tell he didn't read the thread and told him that this was not what was happening at all. And yet even after that people liked...what exactly? Not liking something that will be done is one thing, it follows to inform oneself to be able to disagree. What they did was something else.
Does this mean I was correct? No as it was exaggerated for the lack of a better word, but I don't see any of them improve to avoid doing this in the future, even the staff among them as I saw him doing this before.
I don't expect much of a realistic represention, if the sun only had a face and moved around then that would be a real-sized sun for math, it is because it's proven to be a small sun in the sky that the feat can't be used. You're lacking the self-reflection to know that you're being hypocrite by claiming that I'm overthinking this, you want to apply math to get the precise numbers off this feat by taking the sun as if it was realistic in size and distance, I say that because it lacks the real sun's size and distance, then those can't be used, which is both simpler and more accurate.
It's proven by the scene, the headcanon would be to use it as a real-sized sun with a real distance from Earth when this isn't shown to be the case. It's also blandly ignorant to say I'm doing something wrong because I'm "aplying logic", it is you that have this whim to not use logic because of some reason so dogmatic, you cannot describe with words.
It was, in fact, to make the sun smaller, hence the projectile was the size of the wound the sun had and then it bounced back to the sky. I wouldn't call things "really stupid" if I was appealing to things like the animators' intention rather than things as they are, to give one example of the dogmatism you use.
Not going back and forward for the second sentence. In the first there is no nitpick in taking things as they are, there is no headcanon in taking things as they are, and your reason for that "headcanon" not making sense is nonsense I already told you was inapplicable. You claimed it doesn't make sense because of the gravity of the Earth in relation to the sun when none of that or other things matter at all, as I already told you.
If you had better vision you would have prevented me having to say this by saying "Well, I still believe the repercussions of the sun being small rather than real-sized still matter a lot and count against the sun being small in that scene", I wouldn't need to decipher what dogmatism you buy into by knowing that, now I know it, and I now ask you to not go over again you having to express it as you just won't change your belief.
By your bad logic then from the examples I gave before the character I said did grabbed the sun with their hands from Earth and fought the sun on a street, except not even you would agree with that regardless of how it uses your same logic. A lot of intelligence isn't needed to know the why of it; the logic is flawed, has its clear limits, and you're being bias to determine those in this case.
Call things nitpick just means one is looking too much into it, not necessary that they're wrong, that you use it as synonymous to me being wrong doesn't do anything. Am I looking too much into it? Yeah, and so are you, that want a calc out of it. Since you insist on that the matter gets deconstructed more and more, if I nitpick to argue some points then you too nitpick to argue back. It's meaningless to call things nitpicking. Please don't show another lack of self-reflection by replying the equivant of "I'm not nitpicking because I'm correct, you're nitpicking because you're wrong!" I'm gonna be generous and call that redundant, just don't use the word again.
If you know it "doesnt follow logic" then you know the same "headcanon" I do. If you're not saying that carton doesn't have logic then you know they have to follow logic, but you also say that this scene doesn't follow logic. You go against yourself here, this is explicitly a reply to me saying that you go and write your own rules for cartoon while pointing out the nonsense of doing things like in real life then what's shown is whatever, and you don't claim that cartoons don't have logic for math, but you know that this scene doesn't follow logic and want math out of it anyway.
You do know that a certain degree of logic needs to be followed to do math in a cartoon, but it just so happen that this one gets a free pass due to no applicable reason, and that is bias.
At least the other sun feat was more legit, if still blandly wrong. The feat where a trunk is shot to the sun is as wrong as saying that 2 + 2 is 5, but the feat where the sun gets a black eye is as wrong as saying that 2 + 2 is some DBZ power level. I don't disagree with the former feat being taken as possibly, but I fear it is just because I'm tired.
Similar threads
