Does arguing about comic book fights make you a better reader?

[theoneandonly]

will you be more happy if the critter then tries to knock him out with its tail only for him to become kazar on the level of wild man in borneo apeshit crazy and whirl him about till it collapses from dizziness?

[Not BAMF]

To misquote someone: The Golden Age of Comic Books is Twelve

Keeping a bit of that wonderfully pure childish excitement and thrill you had at that age alive through continuing to ask 'who'd win?' is no bad thing.

I like that [mis]quote. Interesting sentiment.

[Arsenal]

I think it can as long as you don’t allow a characters “feats” to become all you see when you look at these characters. I think it can be a fun exercise to pit 2 characters against one another and consider how they would approach the fight (along with who would possibly win). If you really get into it I think it could help you better understand these characters by forcing you to think why Character X did Y in situation Z than applying that examination to your proposed scenario. Sometimes your interpretation may be vastly different than somebody else’s (and possibly even correct) so engaging these type of discussions could expand your perspective on certain things if you allow yourself to seriously consider what somebody else is saying.

It’s no different than most “Who is better? X or Y” discussions seen in sports, music, books, etc.

[Sharpandpointies]

It does allow me to be more critical when it comes to poor writing when it comes to specific things. These days, I consider consistency a little more when I think of the characters. As an example from a recent TV show that for some reason my wife and I are continuing to watch....

1. Race of beings is supposed to be a bunch of supernatural ass-kickers.
2. Central characters come from that race.
3. Central characters are frightened of a group WITHIN that race who are supposed to be 'so much better' than them.
4. That group of 'so much better' people gets their asses handed to them by the bad guys, casually (like, 6 of them kill 26 of the 'so much better' people, and aren't injured or even breathing hard).
5. One central character -- in the same episode -- then disposes of four of the bad guys (the same ones who killed the horde of 'so much better' people!) with laughable ease (weaponless and exhausted, he utterly humiliates all four at the same time).

[Me] This has no consistency, and is dumb. <-- searing indictment of the show itself, really.

Now, I'm not saying one needs to sit in Rumbles for a long time to realize how painfully some shows heavily lean on 'rule of what they think is cool'. I'm saying it makes me a little more sensitive to it. ^_^ It's the same when I read -- I'm more sensitive to it.

More importantly, it's the same when I WRITE. It's perfectly possible to find ways for underdogs to win; one just needs to put a little effort into figuring out a good way, rather than just have them kick the bad guy's rear 'because they got angry' or 'because dramatically appropriate moment'* or whatever.

* for my money, it's not terribly dramatic if it makes no sense whatsoever, but maybe that's just me.

[Shellhead]

Yeah, a normal person punching out Godzilla is stupid... an Agent of SHIELD however...



AWESOME.

Stupid? Well, his nickname is Dum-Dum.