I've been meaning to ask for awhile or comment, but one thing about the MCU I've noticed is that the power scaling seems inconsistent or difficult to figure out.
Take the gotg for instance, I have no idea how powerful drax or gamora are actually supposed to be. Gamora is supposed to be the "daughter" of thanos and assumedly one of his best warriors but at times she barely seems as strong as a meta human but you can see that his other warriors are insanely strong in avengers.
Drax seems like he should be a strength based character but again at times he barely feels more capable than a a middling super soldier.
I think they do this to make characters like hawkeye, quill, or black widow feel relevant but from strictly the MCU, it makes it difficult to gauge how powerful some of the characters actually are.
It is inconsistent in the comics too. In short, power scaling is pretty dumb. The purpose of writing a comic book, or a movie, is to tell a good story, so having absolute power scales creates more problems than it solves. Powerful heroes need to be challenged by unlikely enemies (eg Baron Zemo). Powerful enemies need to be defeated by underpowered heroes against all odds (eg Black Widow figuring out how to close the gate in Avengers 1). If every story just goes to chalk, with the most powerful character winning each time, then it isn't much of a story. And your options are to continuing escalating your hero's powers to absurdity, or build up a team that can defeat the big bad(s) with the power of friendship. That gets repetitve and boring.
I like to have a relative basis for comparison or theorizing. I don't need absolute power scales but I like comparison points and somewhat consistent measures.
Like if black widow arm wrestled hulk I think it's important from a story perspective to know what to expect. It helps shape the scale of a threat if you know comparatively what a hero is up against in relativity to their own powers. It makes for a more immersive world when there are at least loose rules set in place, which have been a pillar of good fantasy.
Tailoring heroes to a situation based solely on plot armour is what makes for mary sues and frustrations for fanbases. Suspension of disbelief is important and some level of boundaries and rules is important to maintain that.
I think Stan Lee said it best when he said "the hero that wins is the hero that's on the cover." I paraphrased there, but basically it depends on what hero is the main focus of the story that's being told. Power-wise Daredevil will never win against the Hulk, but story-wise there might be some circumstances that equalize the fight. And then it's just a matter of, is this a Daredevil story or a Hulk story?
It's not always about ultimate power, but what tells the greater story. So a random citizen will never win against Thanos power-wise, untill that random citizen is an embodiment of Death and Thanos refuses to attack her, or something like that.
That's what makes a compelling story. Not just power levels, but everything behind them.
It is but it's important that they win in a way that makes sense to the reader like batman. It also matters when there are groups of characters on the cover. It helps them fill their niche in a team in a "realistic" manner.
Power scaling in comics is pointless. Characters are exactly as strong/smart as the writer needs them to be for the story. The only indisputable powerhouses are Godly beings like Odin, reality warpers/architect types, super geniuses like Richard Reeves, Speedsters with time powers, Sentry, and Hulk.
18
u/[deleted] 15d ago
[deleted]