MCU Hela vs DCEU Trinity

[Twickster]

At this point I'm just going to assume you have not really read the thread. The force required to to obliterate the island is absolutely more powerful than a nuke, sure. No one is arguing otherwise.

So we have established that the destruction of 2km of landmass (again, not the effect radius to buildings, people, etc., but outright destroying landmass) is higher than a nuke. This is progress.

What we are saying is that Thor didn't tank that level of force, or anywhere near it. I strongly disagree with you; to me it seemed obvious that the film writers were downplaying the explosions force upon Thor and Iron Man (they were both caught up in the main blast of light just fine). The reason I believe this is because it was a specific plot point that Tony created a "heat shield" to "cap the explosion and keep the atomic reaction contained within the landmass". These are not my words, they are the movies.

On-screen feats top on-screen statements. This is still better than a completely unverifiable, unquantifiable... guesstimate of what could just maybe, possibly be the yield of an explosion that destroys absolutely nothing to show us how much force it had.

You slow the video down, and buildings rooftops less than 200 feet from Thor are essentially intact. Iron Man tank a the blast as well. The dialogue suggests its heavily contained etc etc

Even if it WASNT contained (it is) it would still be a tiny fraction of the total power Thor tanked because it exploded 360 degrees over a huge area, not right upon him totally concentrated. It's basically a nebulous hard to quantify therefore sort of useless feat for rumbles

And again, still better than a totally unquantifiable, unverifiable guesstimate of an explosion where we can extrapolate absolutely nothing of the force from.

[Twickster]

That's VERY clearly Ironman getting hit with the shockwave at the 59 second mark.

And the shockwave was traveling downward, away from Thor, towards Iron Man.

Y'all are basically trying to turn "being on top of something as it explodes from the inside out" into "tanking the full brunt of the explosion."

It's the difference between Kilowag happening to be on a planet when it explodes vs Silver Surfer being at the epicenter of an energy clash that destroys the planet he's on.


It's absolutely absurd.

What does this mean? Explosions explode... outwards. That's what explosions are. The same thing would have happened when being hit by a nuke. Thor is smack dab in the center of the explosion, this is seen plainly on screen.

[Slade1]

So we have established that the destruction of 2km of landmass (again, not the effect radius to buildings, people, etc., but outright destroying landmass) is higher than a nuke. This is progress.



On-screen feats top on-screen statements. This is still better than a completely unverifiable, unquantifiable... guesstimate of what could just maybe, possibly be the yield of an explosion that destroys absolutely nothing to show us how much force it had.



And again, still better than a totally unquantifiable, unverifiable guesstimate of an explosion where we can extrapolate absolutely nothing of the force from.

And you still haven't answered how Iron Man survives.

Are you really saying that since there was no destruction, despite it clearly being a nuke, it has no bearing? So if a person fired a bullet, and that bullet missed its mark, does that mean that the gun is unquantifiable and there is no way of knowing what type of impact it would have made? Seriously, because that's what you are saying.

[Slade1]

What does this mean? Explosions explode... outwards. That's what explosions are. The same thing would have happened when being hit by a nuke. Thor is smack dab in the center of the explosion, this is seen plainly on screen.

How is this hard to understand? When you are at the epicenter, the force is more concentrated which means more power. If you are standing on the planet/country, the explosion is more spread out and would have lost some of the power due to resistance from the rock, soil, bedrock etc.

[Twickster]

And you still haven't answered how Iron Man survives.

I have. Stronger armor, as common in Avengers films.

Are you really saying that since there was no destruction, despite it clearly being a nuke, it has no bearing? So if a person fired a bullet, and that bullet missed its mark, does that mean that the gun is unquantifiable and there is no way of knowing what type of impact it would have made? Seriously, because that's what you are saying.

I'm saying that an unknowable, unquantifiable explosion (especially something as nebulous and variable as a "nuke") in no way is a better feat than an explosion that demonstrably destroys 2 km of landmass. Especially as there are people claiming that this unknowable, unquantifiable explosion is somehow "more powerful" than the demonstrable explosion.

[The Arbiter]

What does this mean? Explosions explode... outwards. That's what explosions are. The same thing would have happened when being hit by a nuke. Thor is smack dab in the center of the explosion, this is seen plainly on screen.

The fact that you can't understand what Captain Morgan is saying is baffling to me.

An explosion spreads in 360 degrees, unlike say, heat vision where all the force is on one spot. Being at the epicenter of an explosion is more impressive than being on the periphery of something exploding. In one scenario, you are taking the brunt of it, the other, only a fraction.

Think if superman is near a star when it supernovas. The explosion spreads outwards over a huge distance until it envelops him. He survives, very impressive. Much more impressive is when say a green lantern (kyle) creates a bubble around a star going nova. The bubble contains ALL the force, including the bits of explosion spreading away from kyle. Its astronomically more impressive. Being at the epicenter of an explosion is more akin to the second thing, than the first.

[Dalak]

If this has been mentioned before and proved inconsequential please forgive me, but since Supes was holding Doomsday between himself and the explosion he had a similarly durable figure shielding him from at least some of the blast. Does that put an asterisk on the feat?

[The Arbiter]

If this has been mentioned before and proved inconsequential please forgive me, but since Supes was holding Doomsday between himself and the explosion he had a similarly durable figure shielding him from at least some of the blast. Does that put an asterisk on the feat?

personally no. His arm and face were perfectly exposed for example. And its still exploding in essentially the same area as him

[Twickster]

The fact that you can't understand what Captain Morgan is saying is baffling to me.

An explosion spreads in 360 degrees, unlike say, heat vision where all the force is on one spot. Being at the epicenter of an explosion is more impressive than being on the periphery of something exploding. In one scenario, you are taking the brunt of it, the other, only a fraction.

Think if superman is near a star when it supernovas. The explosion spreads outwards over a huge distance until it envelops him. He survives, very impressive. Much more impressive is when say a green lantern (kyle) creates a bubble around a star going nova. The bubble contains ALL the force, including the bits of explosion spreading away from kyle. Its astronomically more impressive. Being at the epicenter of an explosion is more akin to the second thing, than the first.

You misunderstand. I maintain that Thor *is* at the epicenter of the explosion, because it explodes... outwards from him. Likewise, Superman and Doomsday were at the epicenter of their explosion, because it explodes outwards from them. The question is the power of the said explosions, one of which is nebulous, unquantifiable and unverifiable guesstimation and conjecture, and the other demonstratively destroys 2 km of landmass.

[The Arbiter]

In response to other comments... I never once argued that the energy required to destroy Sokovia was less than a nuke. In other threads, I have in fact stated exactly what you are saying. Its ridiculously past even modern nukes. Even the big ones. So much so that for the feat to work the way you want it to, it instantly strays in SMvFL territory. Being LEAGUES more impressive than anything else he has done in his 5 movie appearances.

The more logical thing to do would be to accept the iron man commentary as fact... As in sure the writers intended.

Please stop with the IM suit argument. It is passably more impressive perhaps, but still gets crushed by Thor, damaged by Ultron and scuffed up by helicarrier blades etc etc etc. Suddenly tanking many megatons of force us again SMvFL based on his many movies (including avengers) where it couldn't do that.

[Twickster]

personally no. His arm and face were perfectly exposed for example. And its still exploding in essentially the same area as him

Oh for christ's sake, *of course* the feat is nebulous. Put aside that Doomsday was between him and the nuke for the moment. He was also outside the atmosphere, directly in the path of the sun, which heals and recharges him at the same time. And then we mention the completely unknown, unquantifiable and unverifiable payload of the said nuke.

[The Arbiter]

You misunderstand. I maintain that Thor *is* at the epicenter of the explosion, because it explodes... outwards from him. Likewise, Superman and Doomsday were at the epicenter of their explosion, because it explodes outwards from them. The question is the power of the said explosions, one of which is nebulous, unquantifiable and unverifiable guesstimation and conjecture, and the other demonstratively destroys 2 km of landmass.

....ok. Let's give it the real world equivalent huh? Even the smallest possible ICBM nuke then. Fair?

The explosion is specifically an atomic reaction channeled down through the vibranium core. Down and away from him. The final pop with the blue energy wave clearly explodes from the center of the landmass outwards nearly simultaneously.

[The Arbiter]

Oh for christ's sake, *of course* the feat is nebulous. Put aside that Doomsday was between him and the nuke for the moment. He was also outside the atmosphere, directly in the path of the sun, which heals and recharges him at the same time. And then we mention the completely unknown, unquantifiable and unverifiable payload of the said nuke.

Its not unverified just cause you say so. Lets use the real world equivalent like we would with tnt or a grenade. Even the smallest possible. See how generous I am?

He wasn't in the sun until way later. It was a plot point. Did you watch the movie?

[Twickster]

In response to other comments... I never once argued that the energy required to destroy Sokovia was less than a nuke. In other threads, I have in fact stated exactly what you are saying. Its ridiculously past even modern nukes. Even the big ones. So much so that for the feat to work the way you want it to, it instantly strays in SMvFL territory. Being LEAGUES more impressive than anything else he has done in his 5 movie appearances.

So now you are changing history with what you said in Post 84?

Untitled-2.jpg

Because at this point, I'm thinking we need a mod.

[The Arbiter]

So now you are changing history with what you said in Post 84?

Untitled-2.jpg

Because at this point, I'm thinking we need a mod.

I said the nuke is a better feat. Still true. I don't see any contradiction.