I see people say there’s “too many inconsistencies” a lot however I’ve never seen a lot of evidence for these many inconsistencies. The only example I’ve ever seen was about how Dematteis treats every character as piece of God, dreaming the universe into existence. Which doesn’t doesn’t prove Dematteis has created his own personal cosmology at all. The only thing this creates is scaling issues which can easily be justified as amps. Since it’s characters accessing power they regularly cannot via their connection to God.
Just out of curiosity since I know your knowledgeable on DC. What is your stance on this?
I won't lie, DC comics have some inconsistencies but very few and hardly contradicts anything when we think things through. But this wiki has some kind of beef with comic book franchises especially DC and marvel so I don't think I'm gonna say much.
Then you really just aren't following DC. Gaiman's concept of "Father Time" and "Mother Night" is completely absent in Morrison or Snyder's take on the cosmology. Overvoid is only portrayed as a sentient living being in Morrison's books. Pralaya is completely absent in all non DeMatteis books. Hypertime in any non-Morrison book is essentially just time, but in Morrison books it's far more convoluted an idea. The 5th Dimension varies vastly amongst different authors, etc. etc.
No one said DC created separate cosmologies.
No one said that.
No one is expecting them to.
You're just repeating what I said. Morrison's Hypertime is vastly different from any other portrayal.
Never said it did.
I never claimed it wasn't.
Notice how, once again, no one said that.
You certainly are, the entire post is purposefully incendiary bait followed by a bunch of pointless bumps. If you're pretending you don't understand why the cosmologies are being separate, you're arguing from an intellectually dishonest position. You can continue to play coy, but that's a game you'll play by yourself.
but teir 0 is too much,maybe varies
Actually I'm not because I don't think Morrison including our perspective when describing Hypertime fundamentally changes what it is.
Nope. This post is simply me looking to have a calm discussion on a topic in pertains to DC and it's cosmology. No one's pretending to do anything. If you want to fling around accusations you can do that somewhere else.
Stop trying to backseat moderate. I'll offer my opinion on something whenever I want.
The question was already answered by Confluctor. I was addressing the notion that "you don't understand" why it's being separated, when you do.
It doesn't, sure, but describing it as multi-dimensional time does, when it's elsewise never presented that way.
More dishonesty. It starts with downplaying the inconsistencies in DC which is known to be one of the most inconsistent verses, accuses the people advocating for it as using "headcanon" and etc. It was in bad faith from the start, because you're just looking to have an argument.
I'm not moderating in any way. The content of the revision simply isn't available to you, so any of your potential criticisms are conjecture.
You're offering your opinion on something you haven't seen and self-admittedly don't understand, and then bumped it over and over again even after you'd received a response.
Just because other writers didn't re-mention a certain characteristic about (insert thing) doesn't mean we assume (insert thing) has been changed or is fundamentally different.
Once again, if you want to fling accusations around you can do it elsewhere. I already said that I'm just trying to have a calm discussion while being able to understand the points people are making.
I'm not trying to criticize the revision though. I don't even know what the revision says so it's basically impossible for me to do that. I'm simply trying to understand why people want to separate DC's cosmology.
Are you ever going to stop with the strawman?
What was that about backseat moderation?
Actions speak louder than words.
The revision is separating the cosmologies by author, which is indeed what you're criticizing.
Refer to Confluctor's answer that you received days ago.
This isn't a strawman.
I don’t owe you any actions.
Ok. That still doesn't mean I'm literally criticizing the content of the revision or anything like that.
His answer didn't satisfy me.
It is, no one said we should assume something has been changed or is fundamentally different under those circumstances.
You completely missed the point.
I never said you were criticizing the content.
Yet that is indeed the answer. Confluctor is right, merging the cosmologies creates unrealistic and confusing scaling. You end up with WCP-esque levels of nonsense in terms of scaling across decades of unrelated continuity without regard for context. Just because it's theoretically possible to mash the cosmologies together, doesn't mean that's the best or most accurate answer.
Yes you did. You literally tried to say that describing it as a "multi-dimensional time does, when it's elsewise never presented that way." And I said that just because other writers didn't re-mention that characteristic about it being a multi-dimensional time, doesn't mean it's been fundamentally changed.
No I didn't. I understand the point completely. It's just I don't care if you think actions would speak louder than words.
You implied it when you said this.
DC hasn't created separate cosmologies between each writer. DC treats itself as one cosmology that has just gone through multiple reboots.
Because that is the truth, the way Morrison uses it is not reflected by any other author. I never drew the conclusion you imagined I did.
You have fundamentally misunderstood my point. I wasn't referring to hypothetical future actions.
"Potential"
No one said this.
Yes, obviously. However, even between reboots different authors have had wildly inconsistent takes on the high cosmic aspects of DC.
Me: Actually I'm not because I don't think Morrison including our perspective when describing Hypertime fundamentally changes what it is.
I don't care.
Ok. So you implied I was potentially criticizing the contents of a post. Which I wasn't.
You said "merging the cosmologies." Which implies separate cosmologies.
Can you describe some of these wild inconsistent takes?
Could you stop telling him about strawmans and all that thing? Is bothering me reading that kind of arguments, say the thing about DC and call it a day
A strawman is when someone intentionally attacks a misrepresentation of an opponents proposition rather than attacking the real argument.
I see thank you.
Once again, a strawman. That is not the argument that I'm making.
Good for you? You completely misunderstood what I was saying in your response regardless.
Potential refers to something in the future. I never said you were criticizing anything.
Yes, that doesn't mean DC created separate cosmologies. It's referring to different takes on the cosmology by different authors, not anything DC actually created or intended to create, just the massive inconsistencies between different authors. No one is saying DC made separate cosmologies.
I described them above, as did Confluctor.
I'll stop bringing up his strawman arguments when he stops making them, it's that simple.
Countering a fake argument you made for your opponent. Most of Xear's responses in this thread are responding to statements no one made.
Except they don’t. The only example you gave for this was Morrison being more abstract when describing Hypertime which does not conflict with other descriptions of Hypertime.
Once again. An inconsistency requires something to be incompatible. Like I said before, Pralaya appearing in a story written by Dematteis but not appearing in a story written by Snyder or Morrison doesn’t mean Pralaya is incompatible with Snyder or Morrison’s work. She still exist in the same universe. She’s just not partaking in (insert story).
Other portrayals of Hypertime either portray it as or explicitly describe it as simple alternate timelines.
The definition of inconsistent simply means "not the same throughout." But either way, incompatibilities have already been described to you.
Pralaya is incompatible with Gaiman's take on the void before creation, as well as Snyder and Morrison's. Pralaya is also equated to the Source during DeMatteis' run which is incompatible with anyone else's portrayal of the Source. This pattern repeats itself regularly throughout DC.
Can I see the scans of the portrayals that contradict each other?
How so?
That kind of depends on how you interpret the statement as it has a double meaning.
This doesn’t even make sense. You basically just said that it’s an inconsistency because we don’t get an explanation for the absence of characters who you think deserve to be in certain story.
Nearly every portrayal of Time and Hypertime is different than the last in some way or another.
In Gaiman's cosmology, Mother Night is the personification of the void before creation, not Pralaya. In Snyder and Morrison's cosmology, there is no personification, because the multiverse is simply one of many in the "Overvoid" which doesn't have a bunch of other voids in it, and it has no personification (certainly not one that would be local to the DC Multiverse).
Sure, it's a double entendre, but it explicitly distinguished the word "Source" with a capital S, which only has one meaning in DC.
Close, it's an inconsistency because we don't get an explanation for the absence of characters who should be involved considering the concepts at play. It has nothing to do with deserve.
Link doesn’t work.
Ok... This is consistent.
Why are you assuming by different multiverses that it’s referring to the Omniverse.
Ok. This doesn’t conflict with anything.
Ok. This is consistent.
Ok. This is consistent.
Ok. This doesn’t conflict with anything.
Ok. This doesn’t conflict with anything.
The link doesn’t work here.
The link doesn’t work here.
Link doesn’t work.
Ok. What does this have to do with Hypertime?
Ok. What is this supposed to prove?
Link doesn’t work.
Link doesn’t work.
Link doesn’t work.
It saids Hypertime is “dying.” Meaning it doesn’t just outright die but it begins the process of dying. Which makes sense. The entirety of creation begins dying
Literally none of your evidence proves this. Matter of fact, some of scans literally present a consistency rather than an inconsistency.
Ok. So there’s multiple voids that exist predating creation.
Ok. And who’s to say the Overvoid can’t contain other voids?
And? The sentence “It is the Source from which all things emerge and all things must return” still doesn’t imply that Pralaya is the Source.
For the characters who “should be involved”??? Who are you to decide whether (insert character) should have been involved in an authors work? That’s not up for you to decide. It’s up to the writer to decide what characters should be involved in their stories. And a writer deciding that (insert character) will not appear in their story doesn’t mean (insert character) conflicts with the story.
