MCU Hela vs DCEU Trinity

[Anarchist]

Thor was no-selling the Hulk, and was literally slapping the **** out of him.

Actually, it could have gone either way during the Arena fight, even after he lightened-up, the clash between them knocked both of them down.

[abmccray]

I guess my thing, if I had a thing, would be; why are we saying that- let's just go with a standard-yield tactical nuke- is detonating with more force than an explosion specifically designed to prevent a two-kilometer* area from effectively destroying the planet (impact was going to cause an extinction event)?

Beyond that. If you watch the clip, the explosion happens near the top-end of Sokovia- otherwise known as "where Thor is currently standing- and while the entire landmass goes up in beautiful blue annihilation, Iron Man is knocked away, and is not at all caught up in the explosion itself. Thor... Is definitely caught up in it. Unless y'all intend to argue that he flew out of it, or that something blowing up in your face like that is somehow a really low showing for ... I mean come on guys, really? So, again, if I had a thing, which I may or may not have; why are we debating about the size of the nuke- nothing is stated, at BEST we assume it's a standard-yield- when one explosion is still ludicrously more powerful than the other?

*it's two-kilometers around, but we know it's more than just the city

Firstly, because it's not a more powerful explosion. If the floating city was vaporized or something, it would be, but it wasn't.

From the movie itself, the floating city had a vibranium core. Directing energy at that core would cause the floating city to break apart into smaller pieces, probably along "fault lines" and not destroy the planet. So Thor shot energy at it, Iron Man contained it in a specific spot, it caused a book at the correct spot, and caused the floating island to break into smaller, more manageable chunks.

That's why there's no way to quantify it. We don't know the level of "boom" it took to do that, we don't know the force of the explosion after, we don't really know anything.

Basically what they did was what was done to the asteroid in Armageddon (in that case, they put a nuke near the center of it to break it) or what Freeza did to Namek, only on something with an unstable core and an unknown structure, laced with a non real substance. Therefore, it becomes "something, but who knows." And, also similar to Freeza, since he was ON the planet when it blew up, we don't grant him as surviving *that* planet buster, as he wasn't in the focal point - we just say "survived being on the surface of a planet exploding."

[The Arbiter]

Ok... how about the plethora of other times Iron Mans armor has been damaged in an Avengers movie or MCU title period? Cmon, do you really see IM as being portrayed as someone who can shrug off megatons of force? His armor has been crushed, split and cracked many times in many movies not named civil war by much less force than you are arguing Sokovia for.

There are so many question marks with Sokovia, it's essentially a non feat anyways. If you slow the video down, there are rooftops of buildings still intact around Thors position when it blows at that, further indicating the explosion was mostly contained within the landmass itself. A fact that IM confirms with his own words at that.

[Username taken]

I'm not understanding the Sokovia argument.

Thor was directly on top of the explosion and even Iron Man mentioned that Thor might not be able to make it through.

I think its pretty clear that the film makers intended it to be a pretty massive explosion. The force to blow away chunks of rock like that must be pretty huge; certainly more than most nukes.

[Dalak]

There are so many question marks with Sokovia, it's essentially a non feat anyways. If you slow the video down, there are rooftops of buildings still intact around Thors position when it blows at that, further indicating the explosion was mostly contained within the landmass itself. A fact that IM confirms with his own words at that.

If the visuals contradict what is said, what is said isn't considered valid. And I've pointed out that chunks of Namek have mostly-intact buildings and trees on it after the explosion Frieza survived to no effect so I sympathize with you here, but the obviously huge explosion kinda puts the lie to Iron Man's talk.

[The Arbiter]

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.

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.

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

[The Arbiter]

If the visuals contradict what is said, what is said isn't considered valid. And I've pointed out that chunks of Namek have mostly-intact buildings and trees on it after the explosion Frieza survived to no effect so I sympathize with you here, but the obviously huge explosion kinda puts the lie to Iron Man's talk.

Sorry, I posted before seeing your comment. At this point, I've stated my position several times. Maybe a mod can settle it... I dunno. It just seems so obvious to me
#Confused&Tired :P

[Dalak]

Sorry, I posted before seeing your comment. At this point, I've stated my position several times. Maybe a mod can settle it... I dunno. It just seems so obvious to me
#Confused&Tired :P

I've used many of the arguments you are using right now before to no avail, so I sympathize as I said. This does probably need something to nail it down one way or the other.

[daBronzeBomma]

Related tangent (since I don't want to make a new thread for this), but which DCEU version got nerfed more because of the removal of a single attribute:

DCEU Supes for losing all or most of his super reflexes (travel speed still fast)

or

DCEU WW for losing all or most of her flying abilities (still super-jumps and glides)

?

And did MCU Thor similarly lose a notable attribute from the comics or no?

[nj06]

Can Hela endure a speedblitz from both WW and Superman? Even with her blades, I don't remember her being faster than either of them. Even if she manages to wound one of them, I don't think even she is fast enough to stop them both.

[Captain Morgan]

Iron Man wasn't in the center of the explosion, Thor was. You can actually see him get blown off the periphery of the explosion at 0:59 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnfmmp_Kjek



Not all "nukes" are the same. Or are you saying "nuke" is a defined term that all have the same force?

Again, *show* how much damage the nuke that hit Superman did. Come on.



So, can a piece of paper cut a human in half?

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.

[Twickster]

Wait, what? We know it was an ICBM launched from the U.S. They probably would have used the strongest (450ish) but we can use the weakest (100). That's like asking "what, exactly, type of grenade is that?" It's a goofy distinction that just sounds like attempting to lowball someone with an overfocus on specifics.

Again, you are saying just because something is a "nuke" means anything measurable at all. Not all nukes are the same, and we have established that the smallest yield nuke from an ICBM, per your specification (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-si...monuclear-bomb) only outright destroys the ground around... 300 meters radius around itself... which is a far cry from the 2 km necessary to destroy Sokovia. We have, therefore, established, that the destruction of Sokovia takes much more than a modern tactical nuke.

Now if Thor and Superman both tanked nukes, then knowing while one would matter, but when we know (since its the lowest yield in current usage) that Superman took at least a square mile of a city leveling force in the face and survived it without his body breaking apart at all, that's the base for his durability

On the flip side, Thor broke the vibranium core of a floating city which ruined the stability of a floating island and broke it apart. There was a blowback of explosion when he broke the core, and the island broke apart and fell. That's not "an island destroying explosion" - it's a completely non quantifiable feat.

No, Superman took anything from between an explosion that destroys 300 meters circumference of the ground to... (insert whatever unquantifiable, unverifiable guesstimate here). While we know that Thor survives being smack in the center of an explosion that destroys a landmass 2 km in size.

[Twickster]

Again: when you see a grenade in movies, do you question it? Or equate it to a real work equivalent? Why is the nuke different? Many people now have told you how big it should be. You ignoring it further is just bizarre. Please answer the grenade question.

What? Of course it matters. We have seen hand grenades in movies create explosions anywhere from taking out a room from taking out a house... which is precisely why we need actual, quantifiable, verifiable, on-screen evidence of its strength. Which that nuke simply doesn't have. It certainly does not have anything that compares to blowing up, not just the blast radius of a city, but 2 km of solid landmass.

Iron Man had armor on in the avengers movies that was just plain better huh? Do you hear how crazy this sounds? Why would he ever wear anything different? Why need the hukbuster as a specific plot point? Thor crushing his armor is what, pis? Winter Soldier tearing pieces off, pis? Unless you are saying his metal arm can hit with megatons of force.

So you are saying there are no differences in armor between Iron Man movies? That Iron Man does not have way better feats in the first Avengers movie (wherein his armor is much more impressive) than say, Iron Man 3 (where his armor gets dismantled by being run over by a truck)? Is this what you're saying?

Even if sokovia did detonate like you say (it didnt, see above arguments) and did generate that much force (again it didn't) then its still not as impressive as you say. It blew up over a huge distance in 360 degrees. Not focused all up on Thors face. Only a tiny fraction hit him. And again, even that was "capped, shielded, contained, doubled back in itself" and was survivable by iron man.

Err... explosions happen in 360 degrees. That's what explosions are. And it definitely happens in Thor's face, because he was... smack in the middle of a 2 km destroying explosion. You do know that on-screen statements (i.e. when people say to Buffy "you're Spider-Man strong") are trumped by on-screen evidence (like say, when we see an explosion outright blow up 2km of landmass)?

[Twickster]

Firstly, because it's not a more powerful explosion. If the floating city was vaporized or something, it would be, but it wasn't.

From the movie itself, the floating city had a vibranium core. Directing energy at that core would cause the floating city to break apart into smaller pieces, probably along "fault lines" and not destroy the planet. So Thor shot energy at it, Iron Man contained it in a specific spot, it caused a book at the correct spot, and caused the floating island to break into smaller, more manageable chunks.

Sure, which still powerful enough to blow up 2 km of landmass. Again, what exactly, is the quantifiable force of the nuke that Superman took?

That's why there's no way to quantify it. We don't know the level of "boom" it took to do that, we don't know the force of the explosion after, we don't really know anything.

As opposed to a completely unquantifiable, unverifiable... guesstimate of what the explosion that hit Superman entailed? That one?

Basically what they did was what was done to the asteroid in Armageddon (in that case, they put a nuke near the center of it to break it) or what Freeza did to Namek, only on something with an unstable core and an unknown structure, laced with a non real substance. Therefore, it becomes "something, but who knows." And, also similar to Freeza, since he was ON the planet when it blew up, we don't grant him as surviving *that* planet buster, as he wasn't in the focal point - we just say "survived being on the surface of a planet exploding."

And why are we using other media as evidence? None of those are being discussed here.

Look, its simple: Thor survived being smack in the middle of a 2 km-destroying explosion. We know this. We see it. Superman simply... does not. He could have survived anywhere between an explosion that destroys a 300 meter circumference of the ground to... the Tsar Bomba. But we don't know how much, because it never hit anything and exploded harmlessly in the air. Now, how anyone can extrapolate from this unverifiable, unquantifiable conjecture that this is somehow a greater durability feat than destroying a 2km landmass is beyond me.

[Twickster]

Ok... how about the plethora of other times Iron Mans armor has been damaged in an Avengers movie or MCU title period? Cmon, do you really see IM as being portrayed as someone who can shrug off megatons of force? His armor has been crushed, split and cracked many times in many movies not named civil war by much less force than you are arguing Sokovia for.

Look, I get that you're trying to downplay Iron Man's armor and all, but are you really arguing that there is no difference in Iron Man's durability feats between films, especially when the film has "Avengers" on it?

There are so many question marks with Sokovia, it's essentially a non feat anyways. If you slow the video down, there are rooftops of buildings still intact around Thors position when it blows at that, further indicating the explosion was mostly contained within the landmass itself. A fact that IM confirms with his own words at that.

As opposed to... an explosion that destroys... nothing? Wherein we can neither extrapolate the type, payload or damage output, only that its a... "nuke" like that somehow means anything? This is a curious argument to make.