|
Daredevil Message Board The Board Without Fear!
|
The Message Board is currently in read-only mode, as the software is now out of date. Several features and pages have been removed. If/When I get time I intend to re-launch the board with updated software.
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
rgj Hardcore
Joined: 29 Jul 2004 Posts: 1580 Location: The Rio Grande Valley of Texas
|
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: DD Omni and rgj & the radar sense! |
|
|
I just got the DD omnibus and it's cool. Could have been better if they had included the letter's page, like they did with the X-Men omni. The spine is a little stronger/tight than the X-men omni making the pages stand up a little when the book is opened, but it's not a major problem. The pages seem secure enough when you push the pages down.
Enjoyed the Marvel Handbook entries. I loved reading DD's powers and how it spells out how Matt's radar has NOTHING to do with his sense. I'm not going to go into it word for word, but yeah (just like in the comic book stories, themselves) it details how Matt's radar eminates from regions in his brain that sense the elecromagentic spectrum which his brain generates (sending out waves that bounce back).
I can remember arguing with someone who no longer posts on this board who, while defending the DD film's version of the "radar", kept insisting that his radar was "never defined." She argued this cause I made remarks about how MSJ's "radar" was totally made up (and illogical even as defined by MSJ). I kept citing proof that it was defined in the comics and that it had nothing to do with Matt's hearing.
Still, even Marvel (and the Editor in Chimp) continue to write (in the "recently on DD page") in each issue how the radar is the sum of the senses. Sure, Marvel can change it, but this was a change influenced by a very bad movie. And, my argument, with that long ago poster, which was that Marvel (DD writers) had never defined/explianed the radar like MSJ is still correct.
Anyway, the Ominbus was worth the price.
rgj |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Stanley Tree of Knowledge
Joined: 29 Jul 2004 Posts: 293 Location: Houston, TX.
|
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't know we could start threads to remind people about arguments we've already won.
I think I'd have enough threads for two pages in the off-topic index.
Radar + "chimp" + MSJ bashing = rgj |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Francesco Underboss
Joined: 08 Jun 2006 Posts: 1307
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it can be tolerated.
Anyway, about DD's senses, I too support the "Radar sense is separate from the heightened senses" vision. But with some notes:
1) The senses and the radar are not totally independent, in the sense (excuse the pun) that they effectively compensate each other.
2) A sensory overload can normally have repercussions on the radar sense, with even the chance of making it useless. See, for example, the formidable pages in Miller's "Devils", when DD fights Bullseye in the subway. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rgj Hardcore
Joined: 29 Jul 2004 Posts: 1580 Location: The Rio Grande Valley of Texas
|
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't disagree with that Francesco. That old debate I spoke of was about the radar being DUE to his sense of hearing as in the crappy movie.
DD has been shown to lose his radar yet keep his heightened senses. Both Lee and Miller did this. Now, I'm not saying DD's sense of hearing can't help him to a certian extent with understanding his surroundings (many blind people acutally use this "facial vision" [look it up] to navigate), but the "radar" sense is totally different from that.
Oh, and I totally agree that in order for Matt to concentrate on his radar, he must try to keep from other sensory overload. The pain could be a distraction from concentrating on the radar. That's been show many times, like the Miller subway scene you speak of. Chichester commented on it whan a member of the Hand sliced his chest with a sword and it temporarily "blinded" Matt because of the loss of concentration.
Anyway, your 1 and 2 aren't related to what I was speaking of.
rgj |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|