Robert wrote:
Lifting mountains and moving planets, beyond being silly
on face value, CAN'T be achieved in a world that operates
on the same physical laws ours (irregardless of the fact
that magic exists in the Marvel and DC U's, this is the
case)unless you employ the ever handy "magic card" which
is rarely done.

**

I've got to say that anyone claiming it's "silly on face value" seems dismissive of the medium.  When I read adventures involving Superman pushing Earth out of its orbit when I was a kid I never found it silly.  I never found it silly when Flash could run faster than light.  I never found it silly that Namor could fly by flapping tiny ankle wings. 

I never found comics silly.

You buy into the conventions of the genre or you don't.  If you don't, then at least leave the past alone and don't give the reader an explanation of why the comics of the past were wrong.  That's dismissive, and it's disrespectful.  I have no idea what scientific training Peter David has, but I'm guessing it's no better than mine.  I don't need him to explain to me why Superman can't "really" do something.  Superman couldn't "really" fly, or shoot heat beams out of his eyes, or inhale a cubic mile of deadly gas, or freeze people by blowing hard on them, or see and hear things in perfect synchronization from thousands of miles away.  Superman couldn't be SUPER if he were on our world.  If Peter David doesn't want to tell stories about a character with the attributes found in superhero comics, then he's in the wrong line of work.

Helen of Troy, according to myth, was hatched from an egg laid by her mother Leda, who had been impregnated by Zeus while he was in the form of a swan.  In a story told in a world with the same physical laws our has.  Zeus may have been magical, but I don't think Leda's womb was.  But somehow Homer managed to tell a long-lasting epic concerning her without "proving" that this couldn't have happened on our world.  Homer built on myths that were old when the Illiad and Odyssey were written.  He never tried to encourage his audience to dismiss the old legends. 

Sucking the grandeur out of past creative endeavors isn't a creative act. 

All I'm saying is that I'm firmly on the side of Stan
Lee, Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko with their "less
ridiculous" feats of strength that they laid out as the
way things were going to be in the Marvel Universe.

The root of my problem with Superman moving planets is
that he's a science-fiction based superhero, not a
mythological god that can do things because "he's magic."
I've always had this problem with Silver Age Superman.
This is hardly something that sprang forth like Athena
from Zeus' head...

Why can't I compare a mythical Greece that never was to a mythical Metropolis that never was either?  Homer's Greece of the gods and heroes is really not different from DC and Marvel's Earth of the gods and heroes.  It's all mythological. 

Obviously we disagree on aspects of the Silver Age.  And as fans, there's no problem with our disagreeing.  If you or I don't buy into a particular concept or revelation in a comic we can put it back on the rack.  But we're not writing the stories.  If JB had decided that Skrulls couldn't have been fooled by pages taken from Johnny Storm's comic book collection in FF#2 and had written a story that shows the Skrulls played along with the deception, he makes Reed into a fool for having tried it.  Let's say for argument's sake that JB thought it was a horrible way to end the story.  He didn't have to "fix" it by ridiculing the characters - he could just not write a scene that references it. 

I know that DC has made a lot of hay by using Superboy-Prime in current continuity, because he has Silver Age Kryptonian power levels and is a deadly villain that nobody seems able to handle.  So perhaps Silver Age power levels are only unbelievable if displayed by heroic characters.  Do current readers find him and his power levels "ridiculous", or is he acceptable because he's homicidal?

I never saw the comic with the two Supergirls until the page was posted upthread.  Peter David had HIS version make the traditional version look foolish.  Was this done for any reason other than to make somone else's creation look foolish?  How is this serving any character, even his own?  It reminds me of Schwarzenegger's The Last Action Hero, in which standard movie conventions get shown as being unrealistic.  How does that enhance the genre?  Why are we supposed to buy into the next action-adventure character Schwarzenegger plays?

"Our world" is fictionalized in any number of ways by writers trying to strike an emotional chord in the stories they tell.  Romantic comedies often hinge on misunderstandings that could end the movie in five minutes if any character asked a question that anyone in the audience would have asked if the situation happened to them.  Three's Company ran for years with that basic plot device.  As I said, you buy into the conceits or you don't.  But I don't want to watch a tv show that features performers of another show from years ago brought back as guest stars just for the purpose of making them look foolish. 

It's disrespectful.  Making fun of the Silver Age Supergirl is making fun of those who enjoyed the stories she appeared in because they believed in the unbelievable.  Why should any comic book fan appreciate being ridiculed by proxy?

Without question Iron Man's armor isn't possible with out
modern technology, but it is technically possible given
future advancements. I would even go so far as to say
that a human being "enhanced" or being able to manipulate
gravity to fly is technically possible...eventually.

Moving a planet with pure physical strength isn't
possible and never will be. This is kinda why JB went
into some detail about how Superman can lift certain
awkwardly large objects with a form of telekinesis.

The basic problem I have with stuff like this is that it
borders on Loony Tunes physics and not the quasi-realism
that prefer. This goes being conceits for me and always
has.

Robert, I'm not questioning your choices as a fan.  I'm not saying you've got to like what you don't like.  I'm questioning Peter David's choices as a paid professional.  He's saying that I'm wrong as a fan.  Big difference.

Loony Tunes physics worked in the Loony Tunes world.  But I don't want to see Wiley Coyote on Justice League Unlimited running off a cliff if it's going to have Green Lantern explaining to Wiley why he fell immediately upon stepping off into space.  The Silver Age stories were what they were.  There's no reason to reference them in today's comics just to say they were wrong.  Because frankly, ALL superhero physics is wrong, all the way down to the Batman swinging across Gotham on a rope. 

Kip wrote:
It was humor, not mocking.

**

I know I've got my drawers in a knot over a story I haven't read, but this is how Phil described the scene he posted upthread:

I loved the joke that Peter David did with the Silver age Kara meeting up with his Supergirl Linda, with Silver age Kara trying to move the earth (and just doing a handstand).  Linda then calmly explained all the reasons why this wouldn't work.

That sounds like the "humor" is at Kara's expense.  Or did she have a good laugh at herself after getting up from her handstand?  Did she enjoy listening to Linda "explain" why this stuff doesn't work?  Was the explanation hilarious?  Where was the humor?

It still sounds to me like one comic book character telling another comic book character that she's too comicbooky.  I don't find that funny.

I guess it's just me.

The art WAS nice, though.

Kip, are you familiar with the Justice League animated series?  Specifically the episode "Legends"?  What you're describing sounds similar.  Was it?

I have to say that was an episode I enjoyed, because the writers treated the Golden Age Justice Society analogs with real respect and obvious admiration.  Perhaps I'm being too hard on this Supergirl story. 

I can go along with that, Robert!