Characters who appeal to feat fetishists should be eradicated, not given representation.
Characters who appeal to feat fetishists should be eradicated, not given representation.
I don't blind date I make the direct market vibrate
My priority is enjoying and supporting stories of timeless heroism and conflict.
Everything else is irrelevant.
I don't blind date I make the direct market vibrate
.... I still want the origin story to be adapted into an animated movie. You could tell it without whatever restrictions go on with the live action MCU continuity. Even get Dennis Haysbert to do the voice.
Every heroic character has feats beyond ordinary human capabilities, whether you're talking about the Sumerian myth of Gilgamesh, or the far flung distant future exploits of Buck Rogers. It's part and parcel to the lure of all comic book characters. That said, you misapprehend my position if you think this is merely about feats.
I'm sort of in the middle as far as feats go. I do enjoy them... I think they're fun when they're believable enough.
HOWEVER I have noticed at least on boards like this some fans (not necessarily on this thread in particular) are perhaps a bit too dependent on high end feats for the enjoyment of a story. And that to a degree misses the point. I think a certain rumbles board mentality can sometimes lead to a bit too much overemphasis on feats.
That said, I still think when done well they are a lot of fun to see. And I would be happy to see more from Adam. If you're going to be a Superman-ish character, that should sort of come with the territory.
I never finished that doctor doom book he was in recently. Anyone wanna spoil me what ever became of his character in it? Did he ever get some respect or did he continue to job in it?
I closed my wallet after they had Adam rather easily and uncharacteristically defeated by Silver Sable and Victorious. I understand that ultimately Doom and Adam did work together to solve the crisis on the moon with some chaperoning by Reed. Whether Adam's contribution occurred on panel or not I can't say.
Two points.
First, I think the term "feat" is overused. Often we label an action or phenomena that is well within a character's powerset as a feat. A fully submerged Namor lifting a submarine over his head should not be considered a feat. Sasquatch playing catch with a DC10 aircraft should not be considered a feat. Wolverine slicing through a platoon of conventional soldiers should not ever be considered a feat.
If a result is within a character's specifications, then we should call it something other than a feat. How about "normally expected outcome" or "NEO" for short? And maybe instead of talking about Blue Marvel in terms of feats, we can discuss what represents NEO for him and how recent writers fall short of the mark when it comes to that aspect alone?
Secondly, I realize some readers hate all feats by their definition, which is why they usually avoid top tier powerhouses as much as possible. But I don't think they're being completely honest with themselves about the characters that they do follow. The simple fact is there are plenty of lesser powered characters, even nonpowered characters, who have far more true feats than Hulk, Superman, Thor and others of that elite class combined. After all, the less powerful you are, the more likely that you are operating outside of ordinary specifications and violating NEO.
If done right, I think true feats can benefit the so-called big guns as much as it does the other heroes. Perhaps even more so, since the scale works more in the favor of those whose powersets are routinely characterized as limitless, incalculable, immeasurable, etc., etc.
Haven't drawn Adam in a minute. Getting back on the horse. This time with a dark blue quasi-military jacket. Sorry, guys, I'm not a fan of the vest. Dr. Brashear, Man of Marvels and elegant powerhouse.
I still prefer Blue Marvel with the cape. I've never liked his "jacket" uniform that he started wearing in The Ultimates.
Black Panther - Champion of Bast
Vixen - Champion of Anansi