|Marvel Universe >> View Post|
Subj: Re: My tenative picks
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 06:08:03 pm EDT (Viewed 253 times)
Reply Subj: My tenative picks
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 at 03:47:24 pm EDT (Viewed 28 times)
Quote:These are my picks but I have no real ranking for them since they're all geniuses in their own right.
Quote:1. Dr. Doom, Tony Starks, Reed Richards, and Bruce Banner. They formed a quartet of geniuses (called the Knights I think) during the Heroes Reborn saga. They all regarded each other as peers in terms of intellect. This was even acknowledged when they all returned from the HR universe and reunited briefly.
How does Banner make the list, what proof do you have for this? He seems to have a great understanding of Gamma energy (something we never really see but are constantly told), but what other fields has he mastered? Technology, genetics, chemistry, biology, other forms of energy, etc? Could Banner build a time machine or dimensional portal from scratch?
Group 1) Excellent Depth and Width: Richards, Doom, and Pym all make the top tier elite, probably in that order. Not only have we seen proof that of that intellect in various forms over the years, it's been consistently shown. Unlike others here, they have a the top tier understanding in multiple fields. For instance, Pym is in the top of technology, biology, energy, chemistry, genetics, etc.
Group 2) Great Depth and Width: The Beast would be next. Like the top tier group, he has the width and depth of intelligence. But unlike the top group, he doesn't have as much depth.
Group 3) Excellent Depth, No Width: Then you have the specialists. These are the guys that "major" in one field, but still have great knowledge of other areas. Stark (technology) and Banner (gamma radiation) would fit here.
Of course I'm not trying to be all exclusive. There are other characters that would fit into these groups that I didn't list. High Evolutionary and Sinister are probably in the third group. Some are going to be tricky to place, such as T'Challa, since he has excellent width, but not excellent depth. For instance, he probably isn't in the top 5 of any category, but would be in the top 10 of many categories.
I think the keys to focus on here are depth of knowledge (how much you know about a single subject), width of knowledge (how many subjects you know), consistency in portrayal (character has shown this knowledge for a long time) and proof of knowledge (we are shown that this character has the knowledge, and not simply told).
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|