Cinematic Thor vs Cinematic Superman

[rhyvurg]

Just going to repost something I literally have already stated just 2 or 3 posts up:

-----

"WW's sword didn't shatter on Ares. He turned it to ash/dust with some sort of magic. It dissolved on contact.

She hit DD with it 3 times. One cut his ankle and brought him to the ground screaming. The second was her blocking his fist. Blocking, not attacking. Third hit cut his arm clean off. The few hits she landed on Steppenwolf were mostly on his armor, and they glowed on impact the same way her bracers and shield do when struck. Seems to be a theme with DC God armor. When she did hit flesh it cut."

-----

The outlier here is DD's hand NOT getting cut from her blocking. 3 hits, 2 cut. She cut and bled Steppenwolf as well.

No. Simply, no. See for yourself. Sword's circled in blue, fist in red. You can clearly see that she's swinging into his punch, and his fingers are not only not severed, they're not really all that cut. She hit his leg, also barely cut. Severing his hand is the outlier, because out of the three times she hit him with her sword, that's the only one that amounted to anything but an annoyance.

[The Arbiter]

No. Simply, no. See for yourself. Sword's circled in blue, fist in red. You can clearly see that she's swinging into his punch, and his fingers are not only not severed, they're not really all that cut. She hit his leg, also barely cut. Severing his hand is the outlier, because out of the three times she hit him with her sword, that's the only one that amounted to anything but an annoyance.

Cool. So her blocking the fist and it not getting cut is still the outlier if 2 of 3 cut. Just because the leg was shallow doesn't mean much. Still brought him to his knees screaming in pain. It may have only been shallow because it was a glancing blow instead of a huge overhand swing.

[The Arbiter]

What is actually your intent by arguing this sword feat is an outlier? Are you seriously trying to suggest we throw it out and say it didn't happen? Despite her cutting him twice in the space of the same fight?

Also did we even get a good look at the front of DD's hand after this? It flashed like it was taking damage.

[The Arbiter]

Unless you want to say his finger bones are harder to cut.

I missed this earlier. While its not necessarily true with DD in this movie, generally speaking the dude actually DOES have significanty more bone/armor in the form of spikes on his knuckles. :P

Also if you play at 1/4 speed his fist has a glowing hot straight line sliced into it directly after punching the sword. Should it have done more damage given his strength? Probably. But still.

Trying to get a feat tossed out as SMvFL on a character that has only fought (and cut on both occasions) a high end brick twice in her career is... interesting to say the least. Especially when she clearly cuts him at least one other time in the same fight, and less clearly but still possibly with the third hit.

[rhyvurg]

Cool. So her blocking the fist and it not getting cut is still the outlier if 2 of 3 cut. Just because the leg was shallow doesn't mean much. Still brought him to his knees screaming in pain. It may have only been shallow because it was a glancing blow instead of a huge overhand swing.

That doesn't mean much, all he ever did was yell and roar. Also he looked pissed, not pained. The wrist cut is the outlier.

[The Arbiter]

That doesn't mean much, all he ever did was yell and roar. Also he looked pissed, not pained. The wrist cut is the outlier.

What is your intent with this argument? Are you suggesting that the sword can in fact not cut DD?

[Guy1]

So the question of the day: Is Elevator still worthy?

[StupidMoniker]

No. Simply, no. See for yourself. Sword's circled in blue, fist in red. You can clearly see that she's swinging into his punch, and his fingers are not only not severed, they're not really all that cut. She hit his leg, also barely cut. Severing his hand is the outlier, because out of the three times she hit him with her sword, that's the only one that amounted to anything but an annoyance.

That could also just be that her edge alignment was slightly off, because this is a block. It could be that the sword is not sharpened that close to the hilt. Not every cut with a sword results in maximum damage. You wouldn't say a sword in real life is incapable of cutting off a person's arm if it was used in a sword fight and the fencer made two strikes and a block with it resulting in an injury to the leg, minimal damage if any to the opponent's hand during the block, and a severed arm.

[rhyvurg]

What is your intent with this argument? Are you suggesting that the sword can in fact not cut DD?

Of course it can cut him, I'm saying that her sword cutting bone is what's inconsistent, because she didn't cut off his fingers after a more powerful impact, ie them striking simultaneously as opposed to her striking on her own. We got on this subject because someone brought up the other thread. Thor survived being close to a star, not out in the corona that can reach millions of degrees, but next to the surface which is not nearly as heated. A planet, our planet, has at it's core greater temperatures than the surface of a star, and so far Earth has resisted that temperature for a hundred billion years. The power stone can demolish the surface of a planet, which is accomplishing more than solar surface+ temperatures have done since Earth has even existed. Meaning Thanos using the gem to defeat Thor, even after his full ragnarok upgrade, does not affect the legitimacy of the star feat. We even see Thor being hit by the stone directly for several seconds, it was painful but didn't actually leave a mark on him. And it's entirely consistent that he can take one infinity stone's level of power, he was tanking attacks from Malekith pre-ragnarok. Yes Malekith wasn't using the reality stone to it's fullest, but Thor was tanking the stone and he wasn't at full power either. That being said, DCEU Superman is insanely faster than Thor, fast enough to hit him with no chance of being hit back. Thor is far tougher, but Superman is stronger, and with enough time can, I believe, wear Thor down.

We know for a fact that Superman hits far harder than she does as well. Her sword did literally nothing to Steppenwolf, Superman on the other hand was casually smacking him around with his bare hands.

That could also just be that her edge alignment was slightly off, because this is a block. It could be that the sword is not sharpened that close to the hilt. Not every cut with a sword results in maximum damage. You wouldn't say a sword in real life is incapable of cutting off a person's arm if it was used in a sword fight and the fencer made two strikes and a block with it resulting in an injury to the leg, minimal damage if any to the opponent's hand during the block, and a severed arm.

Yeah, sure that's possible, but that's a lot of maybes and could haves.

[Nik Hasta]

Some musings on MCU Thor, if you'll indulge me.

1) A thing to remember, while he did take the neutron star beam it pretty much killed him. After the event, Thor was on the floor unable to move, apparently dying and was only revived by the power in Stormbreaker when it was placed in his hands by the other folks who were there. He was in no condition to fight.

Even if we were to accept "star level" (however you want to codify that in real terms) as Thor's durability class, it should be borne in mind that this is the level that taking that damage was all but fatal to him. It's not the bare minimum required to hurt him, it's a clear example of what kills him.

2) My reading of the scene with Thanos threatening and hurting Thor with the Power Stone is that he was not invoking the full power of the stone. He was threatening Thor to get Loki to crack and give him the Space Stone. I have little doubt that, if Thanos had used the full power of the stone, he could have blasted Thor's head off if he wanted to.

Heck, the visual effect that was happening on Thor's body was distinctly similar to the effect that happened to the Guardians of the Galaxy when they were trying to control the stone as it threatened to go out of control and none of them have even remotely the durability that Thor has. Again, I don't think the Power Stone's highest feats are indicators of how much Thanos was dishing out to him.

3) With regards to the Ragnarok upgrade. Do we have anything that indicates that Thor was any physically tougher? He was a hell of a lot stronger (one shotting Hulk etc) and could use his lightning much more effectively but I don't recall any feats that indicated that he was any more durable. Just wondered if there was anything that confirmed that?

Just some thoughts I have had.

[Username taken]

Some musings on MCU Thor, if you'll indulge me.

1) A thing to remember, while he did take the neutron star beam it pretty much killed him. After the event, Thor was on the floor unable to move, apparently dying and was only revived by the power in Stormbreaker when it was placed in his hands by the other folks who were there. He was in no condition to fight.

Even if we were to accept "star level" (however you want to codify that in real terms) as Thor's durability class, it should be borne in mind that this is the level that taking that damage was all but fatal to him. It's not the bare minimum required to hurt him, it's a clear example of what kills him.

2) My reading of the scene with Thanos threatening and hurting Thor with the Power Stone is that he was not invoking the full power of the stone. He was threatening Thor to get Loki to crack and give him the Space Stone. I have little doubt that, if Thanos had used the full power of the stone, he could have blasted Thor's head off if he wanted to.

Heck, the visual effect that was happening on Thor's body was distinctly similar to the effect that happened to the Guardians of the Galaxy when they were trying to control the stone as it threatened to go out of control and none of them have even remotely the durability that Thor has. Again, I don't think the Power Stone's highest feats are indicators of how much Thanos was dishing out to him.

3) With regards to the Ragnarok upgrade. Do we have anything that indicates that Thor was any physically tougher? He was a hell of a lot stronger (one shotting Hulk etc) and could use his lightning much more effectively but I don't recall any feats that indicated that he was any more durable. Just wondered if there was anything that confirmed that?

Just some thoughts I have had.

Exactly on the bolded part. Even if we want to accept the neutron star feat, we can't say that anything below star level can't harm Thor.

That's like saying an adult man that can barely survive a gas explosion (because Thor barely survived the star and would have died without Stormbreaker) can't still be stabbed or beaten to death by another ordinary person.

That just doesn't make sense (unless there's another here that i'm missing)

[Twickster]

3) With regards to the Ragnarok upgrade. Do we have anything that indicates that Thor was any physically tougher? He was a hell of a lot stronger (one shotting Hulk etc) and could use his lightning much more effectively but I don't recall any feats that indicated that he was any more durable. Just wondered if there was anything that confirmed that?

Thor has always been ridiculously durable. In all his films, nothing save Asgardian blades actually penetrates him (Loki's daggers, Hela), and no blunt force actually beats him close enough to near death (not Ice Giants, not the Hulk, not Kurse, not Ultron). In fact, I was arguing as such as early as Age of Ultron, where he survives being in the epicenter of an explosion that destroys Sokovia, which, offhand, was a force much more than any nuclear bomb. This was, at the time, considered as SMvsFL. And this was before Ragnarok.

Out of the box possibility: One argument that may be considered is that Thor actually didn't get so much a durability upgrade in Ragnarok so much as we actually get to see the limits of his durability in Infinity War. Which is basically he gets to tank ridiculous energies (be it a star or whatever) for several minutes before dying.

Just laying it out there.

[Captain Morgan]

Thor has always been ridiculously durable. In all his films, nothing save Asgardian blades actually penetrates him (Loki's daggers, Hela), and no blunt force actually beats him close enough to near death (not Ice Giants, not the Hulk, not Kurse, not Ultron). In fact, I was arguing as such as early as Age of Ultron, where he survives being in the epicenter of an explosion that destroys Sokovia, which, offhand, was a force much more than any nuclear bomb. This was, at the time, considered as SMvsFL. And this was before Ragnarok.

Out of the box possibility: One argument that may be considered is that Thor actually didn't get so much a durability upgrade in Ragnarok so much as we actually get to see the limits of his durability in Infinity War. Which is basically he gets to tank ridiculous energies (be it a star or whatever) for several minutes before dying.

Just laying it out there.

Sokovia wasn't SMvsFL. It was ruled inadmissible because it doesn't demonstrate what you are claiming here. Too many asterisks.

[The Arbiter]

Of course it can cut him, I'm saying that her sword cutting bone is what's inconsistent, because she didn't cut off his fingers after a more powerful impact, ie them striking simultaneously as opposed to her striking on her own. We got on this subject because someone brought up the other thread. Thor survived being close to a star, not out in the corona that can reach millions of degrees, but next to the surface which is not nearly as heated. A planet, our planet, has at it's core greater temperatures than the surface of a star, and so far Earth has resisted that temperature for a hundred billion years. The power stone can demolish the surface of a planet, which is accomplishing more than solar surface+ temperatures have done since Earth has even existed. Meaning Thanos using the gem to defeat Thor, even after his full ragnarok upgrade, does not affect the legitimacy of the star feat. We even see Thor being hit by the stone directly for several seconds, it was painful but didn't actually leave a mark on him. And it's entirely consistent that he can take one infinity stone's level of power, he was tanking attacks from Malekith pre-ragnarok. Yes Malekith wasn't using the reality stone to it's fullest, but Thor was tanking the stone and he wasn't at full power either. That being said, DCEU Superman is insanely faster than Thor, fast enough to hit him with no chance of being hit back. Thor is far tougher, but Superman is stronger, and with enough time can, I believe, wear Thor down.

We know for a fact that Superman hits far harder than she does as well. Her sword did literally nothing to Steppenwolf, Superman on the other hand was casually smacking him around with his bare hands.



Yeah, sure that's possible, but that's a lot of maybes and could haves.

Speaking of the other thread, this is literally the same unsupportable theory crafting that got you thread kicked by the Watcher for it not being up to snuff on forum standards. Are you sure you want to go down that road? Even your wording is nearly identical.

The Collector's slave girl held the stone for twice as long as Thor was being pressed against it. Is she more durable than him? What scene specifically in Ragnarok gives you the impression Thor can suddenly tank hundreds of atomic explosions (thousands? the level to mess up an planets surface is probably more) post upgrade? Especially when a Morningstar knocks him on his butt exclaiming in pain.

In fact, where specifically did it say in Ragnarok that his upgrade was supposed to give him more durability in general? Everything about the dialogue seemed to suggest it was lightning in nature. "The hammer was just a tool to focus, but it was never the source of your power" and blah blah.

The hypocrisy is a little bizarre when the same crew of people are going "Wonder Woman's sword can't cut bone even though its cut literally every brick it hit, including the guy who's hand was cut off, because in the middle of all those instances it had one bad showing so HAH!" are also the same people going "despite no explicit dialogue, narration or otherwise, we are going to stretch the limits of our imagination to now accurately determine exactly how much damage the neutron star was doing based on eyeballing it, despite all the super science unknowable, unsupportable and straight up SMvFL natures of the scene in general, all the way to the point of saying Thanos was then torturing Thor with continent killing energies instead of just pressing the thing to him which yknow a slave girl technically held at least as long, but who cares!"

Obviously Thor is more durable than the slave girl btw lol. My point is the hypocrisy. Will argue to the death that stuff that happened in the movie that needs no great amount of explaining is an outlier because of one small bad performance, but when an enormous amount of logic, science and dialogue are missing to accept a drastic SMvFL outlier, where the only real dialogue was "yup that's a star, a real star, you are bathing in a star" you rush to imagine up all that missing science, dialogue and logic to make the feat somehow work, despite the creators of the movie certainly never intending for it to work the way you are suggesting. They in fact probably gave it no thought at all outside of "heh stars are cool this will be cool".

Again, it's literally the same argument that got you thread kicked for failing to abide by forum standards of debate. Same wording, everything.

Edit: and now you are saying her sword didn't do anything to Steppenwolf apparently. Despite it cutting and bleeding him.

[kane]

I posted this video in the another (JLA) thread. Thor did not endure the whole power of the star but the energy he had to endure was still very impressive.