I don't know why the geuganshoop should be downgraded.
Murata's statement about geryuganshoop means that he did not simply say his thoughts, but actually painted them with those thoughts.
In other words, Murata’s unique description of sub-light is actually in the work.
先生、海外の方からの質問です。ゲリュガンシュプは本当に重力でブラックホールを作れるほどの能力があったのか。めっちゃ気になってるそうです。ん～どうなんですかね。ブラックホール作れたら最強な気がしますけど。そこらへんはONEさんに聞いてみないとわかんないですね。物体を飛ばす能力ならタツマキ以上だったのかな。ゲリュガンシュプが念動力で小石を飛ばしてたけど、タツマキがあれをやると出力が強すぎて一瞬で小石が蒸発しちゃうんだけど、空気との摩擦と圧縮熱で。ゲリュガンシュプは空気との摩擦を0にして飛ばすことができるから、亜光速で石が飛んでくるというね。っていうつもりで描いてました。タツマキはデッケーものは飛ばせれるけど、スピードには限界があるみたいで。やっぱり宇宙最高の超能力者でしたね。埼玉は普通に石投げて勝っちゃたもんねソイツに。埼玉からしたら亜光速で石が飛んできてもただ石を投げただけにしか見えない、悪い冗談ですよね。
老师，这是来自国外的提问。格留干修普真的可以凭借重力制造黑洞吗。似乎真的很在意。
村田：嗯～不清楚呢。能制造黑洞的话也太强了吧。这部分不问问ONE老师我也说不准。但他扔物体的能力应该在龙卷之上。因为他可以消除小石子和空气间的摩擦。如果龙卷也像他这么扔的话，会因为输出太强，因为摩擦和压力升温一瞬间就把石子蒸发掉了。格留干修普的念动力可以消除空气间的摩擦，石头会以接近光速飞过来。我是按照这个设定画的。龙卷虽然可以扔很大很大的东西，但是速度上还是有极限的。（格留干修普）不愧是宇宙最棒的超能力者呀。虽然埼玉很随便的一丢石头就赢了他。在埼玉眼里接近光速的石头飞过来也不过如此，真是像开玩笑一样呢。
关于一拳的新设定：章..先生、海外の方からの質問です。ゲリュガンシュプは本当に重力でブラックホールを作れるほどの能力があったのか。めっちゃ気になってるそうです。ん～どうなんですかね。ブラックホール作れたら最強な気がしますけど
tieba.baidu.com
This is the original text being translated into English
Here it is said that he did not stop by simply thinking, but drew with that thought.
And when a new enemy appears in the manga
Murata draws it as strongly as possible and says that it may have been inflated compared to the setting of one.
The remarks further support that he actually painted the sublights.
And why should we accept the 'statement' of the artist's portrayal
Let's suppose there's an apple picture.
If you want to know the exact identity of the painting because it doesn't say it's an apple,
you can guess that the person who drew the apple was trying to express a fruit apple or deliver the message of an apple,
and you find out what it is.
We don't call it flowers, ignoring the assumptions of the author.
the story is already famous for understanding the writing through the intentions of the speaker.
Yes,seeing the picture or story accurately is the process of accepting the intentions that the person who created it wants to convey.
Especially in the case of cartoons, it's all the more so because they accept and enjoy the message that the author wants to show.
So readers, unconsciously or consciously, can accept what the author has designated as the description.
So what if the author says it's a picture of a flower that looks like it's a picture of a flame?
Should readers accept the author's intentions and understand the painting and see the author's limited description as a flower with more accuracy than speculation?
Shouldn't we have to accept the intention only if it looks similar to something?
so we doesnt take that intention?
Let me give you an example.
The intentions of the artist are very important to see abstract works of art accurately.
In extreme cases like modern art, when you take a line and say "break-off sadness,"
you take it as an expression and understand it as the right way to interpret it.
We are treated with the same exact interpretation as the way we interpret the picture of an apple.
Because even if the middle course is omitted, it's the process of accepting what the writer intended, and what's important in terms of seeing what's described is that it's only a secondary process, and what's important in terms of seeing exactly is accepting intentions.
We're already dealing with feat as an understanding of the description, even though we're not sure if the story writer, the author, thinks so. For example, if flash attacks look hundreds of thousands of times the speed of sound, it looks like hundreds of thousands of times the speed of sound, Atomic Samurai is not sure if it's thousands of times the speed of sound or if it's set. In the case of Wind and flame, they're not saying anything, but they're just looking at the description and they're guessing they're trying to portray 100,000 times the speed of sound, and they're evaluating it without setting
so you can understand the paint according to the paint artist's intention.
And, it's different not to think that way and not think much. Just as the basic idea of the character is in your story author head and doesn't have a specific idea, so you don't have the idea of colliding with the paint artist's description (the throwing of the Geryu's stone is super fast)
like you can say that if you say if author say sam is human, Sam is the next thing you're an old man or child.. . Either way, it follows the writer's intentions, or it follows the writer's message, and the way he reads the cartoon correctly is to accept the writer's message, so the information in the artist's description can be a fit, and if he doesn't think so, he is directly involved in the description itself.
So I'm not sure if the story author thinks so, but if paint author description is a description that describes a speed that is not so speculated, wouldn't we have to accept it as a speed that is close to light?
