Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Who wins?
No Prep..





Gen.Zod
Faora


Vs

Superman (MoS)
Thor




Fight takes place in MoS Metropolis..

Who is Faora

Originally posted by guy222
Who is Faora http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/9/99801/3010358-faora.jpg

---

I am assuming this is end-game Zod so he can better compete with Superman.

Superman and Zod is a stalemate.

Thor vs Faora is interesting.

Faora is faster and more brutal, she has better H2H IMO

Thor is more versatile with Mjolnir. and he will definitely be able to tank her blows. However I don't know how he would weather repeated blows at SS.

I'd give it to team 1 more often than not.

Superman is probably going to take on Zod and it will end up being a split.

Thor can definitely take a beating but to actually defeat someone like Faora he'd have to fight effectively with Mjolnir like he did in his first movie or the last half of the Avengers instead of trying to be a ****ing diplomat talking sense into everyone.

Something like a lightning charged Mjolnir shot would f*ck up a Kryptonian for example.

Jottheim Buster right am I right

Faora never learned to fly. Thor's best bet would be to try and get into the air and use Mjonir's abilities on her. Otherwise she will probably maul him with her speed.

This is still my favorite comic book fight scene ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbyknf4vJ4

Like a true Thorbag uhuh

The problem with Movie Thor is that, like the comics, he was shown to be on an entirely different level in his own works than in the Avengers.

Thor Movie Thor has a real shot to win against Faora (look at what he did to the Destroyer for instance)

Avengers Movie Thor probably loses.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Like a true Thorbag uhuh

Better than a shot for shot remake of Neo vs Agent Smith...

LOL

I liked Man of Steel a lot, but that was funny.

Yeah, I lol'ed too.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Like a true Thorbag uhuh

It was f*cking awesome and you know it. Bet it ate all the Superman fans up inside that Thor had awesome actions scenes before the Man of Steel did.

Originally posted by guy222
Who is Faora

Zod's second hand (wo)man.

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/7506/cd4.gif

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Better than a shot for shot remake of Neo vs Agent Smith... F U!

http://i.imgur.com/OrpgN10.gifOriginally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Yeah, I lol'ed too.



It was f*cking awesome and you know it. Bet it ate all the Superman fans up inside that Thor had awesome actions scenes before the Man of Steel did.

You too uhuh!!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EPXf1q-PhRg/UZ7TNcYmZuI/AAAAAAAABXg/HvESfj-Zzj8/s320/superman_punch.gif

Originally posted by Zack Fair
she has better H2H IMO

Skills? No way bro.

Originally posted by Blair Wind
Zod's second hand (wo)man.

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/7506/cd4.gif

The people of Smallville and frankly, the rest of the World, must absolutely despise and fear Clark lol.

Yes way.

BBL gonna go catch MoS

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
The people of Smallville and frankly, the rest of the World, must absolutely despise and fear Clark lol. That would make for a great Luthor story

Originally posted by Zack Fair
You too uhuh!!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EPXf1q-PhRg/UZ7TNcYmZuI/AAAAAAAABXg/HvESfj-Zzj8/s320/superman_punch.gif

You're just mad that Superman hits like a pussy.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Yes way.

BBL gonna go catch MoS

She beat up a few regular human beings and a farm boy. She was more elegant or whatever I guess with the super speed but not actually more skilled.

I love how tens of thousands of people would have died during Superman's fight with Zod, and he couldn't care less.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Yeah, I lol'ed too.



It was f*cking awesome and you know it. Bet it ate all the Superman fans up inside that Thor had awesome actions scenes before the Man of Steel did.

It was decent at best. Definitely the best fight scene in the movie, but not as cool as Superman vs Faora.

Originally posted by Golgo13
It was decent at best. Definitely the best fight scene in the movie, but not as cool as Superman vs Faora. I love how everyone is stating their opinions (in reference to what fight scenes are "cooler" as facts.....

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
I love how everyone is stating their opinions (in reference to what fight scenes are "cooler" as facts.....

It was just my opinion and looks like the general consensus as most people thought MOS raised the bar on action. Tweets, reviews, etc...

MOS did have More action than Thor, but that doesn't mean the individual action scenes were better.

You like Superman better than Thor, so of course you are going to enjoy watching him do his thing more than Thor.

I like Thor more than Superman, so watching Thor spinning Mjolnir in a circle and destroying Frost Giants with the greatest of ease (and his later owning of the Destroyer) was far more enjoyable to me.

I enjoyed both movies however and can understand both opinions. But that's what they are....opinions.

And let's not use general consensus...Thor did Better on RT than MOS did...does that prove it was a better movie???

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
MOS did have More action than Thor, but that doesn't mean the individual action scenes were better.

You like Superman better than Thor, so of course you are going to enjoy watching him do his thing more than Thor.

I like Thor more than Superman, so watching Thor spinning Mjolnir in a circle and destroying Frost Giants with the greatest of ease (and his later owning of the Destroyer) was far more enjoyable to me.

I enjoyed both movies however and can understand both opinions. But that's what they are....opinions.

And let's not use general consensus...Thor did Better on RT than MOS did...does that prove it was a better movie???

I'm not just speaking about critics, but GA. It's not close, really. And MOS will likely have a better IMDB score than Thor.

I really liked the Frost giant scene, but wasn't really blown away. It's definitely in my top 5 action scenes, but not #1.

Originally posted by Golgo13
I'm not just speaking about critics, but GA. It's not close, really. And MOS will likely have a better IMDB score than Thor.

I really liked the Frost giant scene, but wasn't really blown away. It's definitely in my top 5 action scenes, but not #1. Um, Thor has a 57 on Metacritic, MOS has a 55. Out of Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, AND Metacritic, the only 1 of those that MOS wins is IMDB.

Like I said, GA means more, since the overall number is higher. Critics screwed up, anyway.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Like I said, GA means more, since the overall number is higher. Critics screwed up, anyway. On RT, Thor is 2% less in GA than MOS, with 40,000 more audience reviews...We'll see if when MOS reaches that number if it's still ahead...but saying "It's not even close" is about as lowballing as it gets.

Also saying the critics "Screwed up" is an opinion. It's one that I share with you (at least for RT), but it's still an opinion. One that we're all entitled to.

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
On RT, Thor is 2% less in GA than MOS, with 40,000 more audience reviews...We'll see if when MOS reaches that number if it's still ahead...but saying "It's not even close" is about as lowballing as it gets.

Also saying the critics "Screwed up" is an opinion. It's one that I share with you (at least for RT), but it's still an opinion. One that we're all entitled to.

When I said "not even close", I was referring to the reviews pointing out the action. Most people said it had better action and raised the bar comparing it to Avengers. Thor isn't close to either of them, IMO.

Honestly the action was the worst part of MoS. I was shocked with how deftly Synder was handling the somber character stuff at the beginning of the movie, and how much I was enjoying myself... then it devolved into everything I feared a Zack Synder Superman would be with an 8 hour remake of Neo vs Agent Smith (with less than impressive fx I might add).

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Honestly the action was the worst part of MoS. I was shocked with how deftly Synder was handling the somber character stuff at the beginning of the movie, and how much I was enjoying myself... then it devolved into everything I feared a Zack Synder Superman would be with an 8 hour remake of Neo vs Agent Smith (with less than impressive fx I might add).

Did you crack out your Hugh Jackman glasses too early?

Originally posted by Golgo13
When I said "not even close", I was referring to the reviews pointing out the action. Most people said it had better action and raised the bar comparing it to Avengers. Thor isn't close to either of them, IMO. No you weren't, because you immediately followed your retort with "MOS will likely have a better IMDB score too".Originally posted by Golgo13
I'm not just speaking about critics, but GA. It's not close, really. And MOS will likely have a better IMDB score than Thor.

I really liked the Frost giant scene, but wasn't really blown away. It's definitely in my top 5 action scenes, but not #1.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Did you crack out your Hugh Jackman glasses too early?

I don't even know what that means. I don't like X-3. I don't like Wolverine Origins. I think The Wolverine looks meh from the trailers. You saw the Man of Steel trailers and decided you were going to like it before you even saw the movie, I don't do that, I have credibility.

Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
No you weren't, because you immediately followed your retort with "MOS will likely have a better IMDB score too".

That's because you pointed out RT (I pointed out GA), but the initial argument was for the action, which is what we're talking about.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I don't even know what that means. I don't like X-3. I don't like Wolverine Origins. I think The Wolverine looks meh from the trailers. You saw the Man of Steel trailers and decided you were going to like it before you even saw the movie, I don't do that, I have credibility.

I was joking, you ****!

Anyway, OPINIONS (about what film has action-y stuff) aside....

This match is close. If Thor is from his own movie, it could go either way.

If he's Avengers Thor, Thor team probably loses.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I don't even know what that means. I don't like X-3. I don't like Wolverine Origins. I think The Wolverine looks meh from the trailers. You saw the Man of Steel trailers and decided you were going to like it before you even saw the movie, I don't do that, I have credibility.

BTW, I was worried the whole time, if you were to read my posts and even more so with the bad reviews, so my mind wasn't made up. Snyder's pacing worries me and it was one of the biggest flaws of the movie, but that could have been more Goyer's fault than anything.

Originally posted by Golgo13
I was joking, you ****!

I wasn't.

X-Men First Class is amazing. Don't hate!

Originally posted by Golgo13
X-Men First Class is amazing. Don't hate!



IMO at it's best First Class is the best super hero made... unfortunately it has some pretty cringe inducing low spots that work against it's overall rating. I'm sure we have some FOX executive whos job it is to undermine the director and crowbar shit into movies to thank for that.

You seen the new trailer for Elysium? It looks amazing.

Team 1 would win if it wasn't for Faora's lack of flight and heat visions. I can see this fight being either Zod or superman blitzing one another a great distance away and then Thor getting into it. Superman with thor breaks the stalemate between him and Zod and Zod goes down. Faora will be stuck playing catch up with her 'I leap long distances' hulk style travel while the rest zip by and up out of her range.
Then it's 2 VS Faora..

Ppl tend to forget that despite Faora having her one on one moments that the fight was really superman VS her and that non-ish guy who I think was named nam-ek and that despite it all superman didn't look like whatever beating he took had any lasting effect behind collateral damage.

Yeah, finally saw it on the big screen. Looks incredible.

Originally posted by Emi~Kiro


People tend to forget that despite Faora having her one on one moments that the fight was really superman VS her and that non-ish guy ...


"Forget"?

The movie's been out only three days -- most people haven't SEEN the fight you're talking about yet.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
Honestly the action was the worst part of MoS. I was shocked with how deftly Synder was handling the somber character stuff at the beginning of the movie, and how much I was enjoying myself... then it devolved into everything I feared a Zack Synder Superman would be with an 8 hour remake of Neo vs Agent Smith (with less than impressive fx I might add).

Trolling?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"Forget"?

The movie's been out only three days -- most people haven't SEEN the fight you're talking about yet.

First off people who haven't seen it shouldn't bring it up like they have So if they haven't seen it it's okay for them not to know but id hope they don't try to pretend cuz then they would be wrong.
I'm talking about people who have and are talking about the fight as if it was a one on one domination by Faora. Alot of people I know speak of it as such and some people on here seem to talk about it as such.

To make things easier this Thor is a compasit of Thor's own movie and Avengers movie of both feats of both movie count..

Thor/Faora would be a good match. Anyone have any takers?

Faora's burst speed would probably be problematic for Thor. But I think a lightning blast from Thor would be way more troublesome for her.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Faora's burst speed would probably be problematic for Thor. But I think a lightning blast from Thor would be way more troublesome for her.

Did Thor show he can hit all places at once like the comics? I don't see lightning as a factor, TBH. Not if Thor can't react fast enough. Same with the telepaths like Xavier.

Originally posted by Golgo13
Did Thor show he can hit all places at once like the comics? I don't see lightning as a factor, TBH. Not if Thor can't react fast enough. Same with the telepaths like Xavier.

He was able to strike multiple targets at once with lightning which arced off in various directions. Faora didn't show she was faster than lightning at all.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
He was able to strike multiple targets at once with lightning which arced off in various directions. Faora didn't show she was faster than lightning at all.

I didn't say she was faster than lightning, but faster than Thor's reactions. Did Thor ever fight someone as fast as Faora? Faora was ruthless and I wouldn't be surprised if she can take multiple lightning attacks.

Originally posted by Golgo13
I didn't say she was faster than lightning, but faster than Thor's reactions. Did Thor ever fight someone as fast as Faora? Faora was ruthless and I wouldn't be surprised if she can take multiple lightning attacks.

Faora never fought anyone with the level of energy projection as Thor. The Kryptonians were staggered by machine gun fire and mild explosions. Thor's lightning one shot Leviathans and at its highest levels, devastated the entire Jotunheim landscape. If Faora gets hit, she's going to be messed up beyond belief.

I never said she did, I'm just saying Thor probably won't get his attacks off. This isn't the comics and Thor is not as powerful as the comics. If he's fought someone as fast as Faora, then I'll concede, but I don't see him getting off attacks of high magnitude.

It's not the comics, but Faora was still hit by attacks that weren't as fast as bullets. And Thor's probably got the edge in terms of overall durability considering he took the Bifrost Bridge exploding in his face.

She did dodge a crap load of army gun fire and men, IIRC. Mainly because she was faster than them. Thor 2 better show off his speed if he has any.

.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Faora's burst speed would probably be problematic for Thor. But I think a lightning blast from Thor would be way more troublesome for her.

More then problematic, imo. He isn't winning a quick draw match against her.

Faora isn't one shotting Thor, but she can certainly keep pounding away until he stays down.

Quick poll of people...

When I saw Superman use his heat vision am I the only that thought it looked like it caused him pain to use it?

Originally posted by Golgo13
She did dodge a crap load of army gun fire and men, IIRC. Mainly because she was faster than them. Thor 2 better show off his speed if he has any.
Well I think in the beginning Thor would take her lightly not knowing what he's up against and she'd gain the upper hand early with her super speed. Thor is durable enough to take the punishment and I think eventually whether by a lightning attack or blows from the hammer he would put her down.

Originally posted by JayDaDon
Trolling? He is right.

Thor was slow
Avenger's Thor was weaker than Movie Thor IMO

What are the feats of Thor's lightning as far as what it has damaged?

Durability is a wash IMO. Faora wasn't ever damaged and I value being resistance against aircraft bullets and missiles more than what Thor tanked. My reasoning for this is because I view a tank could have taken what Thor received but the tank couldn't have taken those missiles or bullets without holes or serious damage.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor was slow
Avenger's Thor was weaker than Movie Thor IMO

What are the feats of Thor's lightning as far as what it has damaged?

Durability is a wash IMO. Faora wasn't ever damaged and I value being resistance against aircraft bullets and missiles more than what Thor tanked. My reasoning for this is because I view a tank could have taken what Thor received but the tank couldn't have taken those missiles or bullets without holes or serious damage.

Thor also ducked and covered when the plane was shooting Hulk

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor was slow
Avenger's Thor was weaker than Movie Thor IMO

What are the feats of Thor's lightning as far as what it has damaged?

Durability is a wash IMO. Faora wasn't ever damaged and I value being resistance against aircraft bullets and missiles more than what Thor tanked. My reasoning for this is because I view a tank could have taken what Thor received but the tank couldn't have taken those missiles or bullets without holes or serious damage. Thor was not weaker. Thor's powers took out multiple leviathan ships. Superman rides his coattails to victory.

Originally posted by juggerman
Thor also ducked and covered when the plane was shooting Hulk

While absolutely true, there's really no reason to believe F-22 cannon fire would **** him up, considering his overall durability.

Er i meant "I'd give it to team 2 more often than not" in my first post. *Shrug*

Must be the Faora boner messing with my mind.

Originally posted by Robtard
While absolutely true, there's really no reason to believe F-22 cannon fire would **** him up, considering his overall durability.

I don't think it would do crazy damage to him but i do think it would hurt him or else why move away?

Man...I will forever hate whedon for having Thor take cover like a little *****.

Villains win again. Faora takes Superman, Zod takes Thor while he's distracted. Then they both gang up on Superman.

Seriously Thor is out of his league. He wouldn't last a minute against Zod.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Thor was not weaker. Thor's powers took out multiple leviathan ships. Superman rides his coattails to victory.

That's because Thor amped by being on that building. That was plot device lightning.

Originally posted by The Silent Hero
Villains win again. Faora takes Superman, Zod takes Thor while he's distracted. Then they both gang up on Superman.

Seriously Thor is out of his league. He wouldn't last a minute against Zod. That is possible.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor was slow
Avenger's Thor was weaker than Movie Thor IMO

What are the feats of Thor's lightning as far as what it has damaged?

Durability is a wash IMO. Faora wasn't ever damaged and I value being resistance against aircraft bullets and missiles more than what Thor tanked. My reasoning for this is because I view a tank could have taken what Thor received but the tank couldn't have taken those missiles or bullets without holes or serious damage.

Thor was slow? Thor was ducking and dodging around IM and Hulk's blows. His flight speed is also pretty fast as seen in his first movie. Thor may not have superspeed like Faora, but it looks like he has one of the fastest reflexes among the Avengers.

As for the tank... the tank wouldn't have survived the bi-frost blast nor a punch by Hulk and may not have even survived multiple repulsor blasts from IM.

Feats of Thor's lightning damage: taking out 2 leviathans and a couple other of their small ships in 1 blast. Leveling a whole landscape in Jotunheim.


Faora will give Thor lots of trouble no doubt. Her speed is not something to easily fight off. But I don't see why Thor can't just fly up in the air, raise her in the air with a tornado like he did Destroyer, then bombard her with lightning or hammer strike her into oblivion.

Originally posted by juggerman
I don't think it would do crazy damage to him but i do think it would hurt him or else why move away?

Sure it would hurt him, don't think it would injure him though. Even those shots were hurting Hulk (tiny bit).

Originally posted by h1a8
That's because Thor amped by being on that building. That was plot device lightning.

How can a piece of steel amp lightning? It can redirect lightning or maybe give him wider coverage, but I don't see how that steel post can amp any electrical charge.

People were throwing around that garbage last year to try and diminish Thor's performance and hype Hulk during the Avengers.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor was slow? Thor was ducking and dodging around IM and Hulk's blows. His flight speed is also pretty fast as seen in his first movie. Thor may not have superspeed like Faora, but it looks like he has one of the fastest reflexes among the Avengers.

As for the tank... the tank wouldn't have survived the bi-frost blast nor a punch by Hulk and may not have even survived multiple repulsor blasts from IM.

Feats of Thor's lightning damage: taking out 2 leviathans and a couple other of their small ships in 1 blast. Leveling a whole landscape in Jotunheim.


Faora will give Thor lots of trouble no doubt. Her speed is not something to easily fight off. But I don't see why Thor can't just fly up in the air, raise her in the air with a tornado like he did Destroyer, then bombard her with lightning or hammer strike her into oblivion.

Slow as in relatively slow.
The tank would have some damage but will be fine. A Hulk punch will damage a top tank but it will still be in tact very much. IMO Abram tanks are more durable than leviathans.
Thor amped on a building to take out the Leviathans.

Because Zod isn't going to let him. Or her speed would prevent this.

Originally posted by FrothByte
How can a piece of steel amp lightning? It can redirect lightning or maybe give him wider coverage, but I don't see how that steel post can amp any electrical charge. Doesn't matter as Thor couldn't do it without doing that. Otherwise Thor could have been one shotting Leviathans right and left but he wasn't.

Originally posted by h1a8
Slow as in relatively slow.
The tank would have some damage but will be fine. A Hulk punch will damage a top tank but it will still be in tact very much. IMO Abram tanks are more durable than leviathans.
Thor amped on a building to take out the Leviathans.

Because Zod isn't going to let him. Or her speed would prevent this. What leads you to believe Abraham tanks are more durable than leviathans?

At best all the building did was store lightning, thus allowing Thor to fire a longer blast....There is zero indication that it amped the power.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
What leads you to believe Abraham tanks are more durable than leviathans?

Not a lot of things on Earth can damage them (or to the degree of destroying them).

Leviathans were soft on one side (their belly) and thus reduced their overall durability. Plus Hulk was easily stabbing them with weak as metal. Hulk couldn't have penetrated Abrams Tank that way.

Originally posted by Silent Master
At best all the building did was store lightning, thus allowing Thor to fire a longer blast....There is zero indication that it amped the power. Longer blast= more damage output.

Originally posted by h1a8
Slow as in relatively slow.
The tank would have some damage but will be fine. A Hulk punch will damage a top tank but it will still be in tact very much. IMO Abram tanks are more durable than leviathans.
Thor amped on a building to take out the Leviathans.

Because Zod isn't going to let him. Or her speed would prevent this.

Which is why Iron-man was able to blow up a tank with a single mini-rocket, but needed to fly inside a Leviathan to destroy one.

Originally posted by h1a8
Longer blast= more damage output.

Thor's lightning was strong enough to destroy them, the blast lasting longer just let him take out a larger number. There is zero proof that the bulding made the lightning stronger.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Which is why Iron-man was able to blow up a tank with a single mini-rocket, but needed to fly inside a Leviathan to destroy one.

That wasn't an Abrams tank.
Although I need to rewatch the scene to assess the damage. The tank still could have still been in one piece.

Also the leviathan was easily getting pierced by the Hulk stabs of metal.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor's lightning was strong enough to destroy them, the blast lasting longer just let him take out a larger number. There is zero proof that the bulding made the lightning stronger.

The proof is that Thor didn't take out any outside of that. He and Hulk was battling all day and he didn't do shit to those leviathans.

Originally posted by h1a8
Not a lot of things on Earth can damage them (or to the degree of destroying them).

Leviathans were soft on one side (their belly) and thus reduced their overall durability. Plus Hulk was easily stabbing them with weak as metal. Hulk couldn't have penetrated Abrams Tank that way. I don't follow your logic, but I won't proceed to insult you like everybody else.

Originally posted by h1a8
That wasn't an Abrams tank.
Although I need to rewatch the scene to assess the damage. The tank still could have still been in one piece.

Also the leviathan was easily getting pierced by the Hulk stabs of metal.

IIRC, the metal Hulk used was part of the Leviathan's armor...IOW, metal that Iron-man couldn't damage with his missiles or laser, even if he drained his arc-reactor dry.

Hey SM which do you find more impressive, Hulk's punching the leviathan's face(posssibly destroying its brain or core/whatever) or Thor's lightning hammer slam(possibly destroying its spinal cord or whatever)

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Hey SM which do you find more impressive, Hulk's punching the leviathan's face(posssibly destroying its brain or core/whatever) or Thor's lightning hammer slam(possibly destroying its spinal cord or whatever)

The Hulk's feat was more of a punch(which did the damage) + continuous push(which stopped it's momentum) Both are impressive strength feats given the Leviathan's durability and the momentum something that size had to have had.

I'd rate that above the charged hammer strike Thor used on the piece of metal...though I'd rate Thor's massive lightning blast and his Jotunheim buster as having more overall power.

BTW: Did you notice that they borrowed rather heavily from the movie Ultimate’s 2?

Originally posted by Silent Master
IIRC, the metal Hulk used was part of the Leviathan's armor...IOW, metal that Iron-man couldn't damage with his missiles or laser, even if he drained his arc-reactor dry. I just rewatched the scene. Iron Man didn't use the same missile he used on the tank in Iron Man as he did against the Leviathan initially. He eventually used the missile he used in Iron Man on the leviathan after Hulk punches it and causes it to flip forward exposing it's belly. The missile blows the thing up, including some of the metal.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The Hulk's feat was more of a punch(which did the damage) + continuous push(which stopped it's momentum) Both are impressive strength feats given the Leviathan's durability and the momentum something that size had to have had.

I'd rate that above the charged hammer strike Thor used on the piece of metal...though I'd rate Thor's massive lightning blast and his Jotunheim buster as having more overall power.

BTW: Did you notice that they borrowed rather heavily from the movie Ultimate’s 2?

Hulk didn't stop the thing's momentum at all. Hulk got pushed back and the thing flipped forward and continue to go forward.

IMO Thor's lightning was more impressive, although Thor was hitting them in the belly.

Thor used the building to store more charge in order to shoot a more powerful blast. He shot multiple blasts earlier so that wasn't the reason.

There is zero proof that the blast was more powerful.

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor used the building to store more charge in order to shoot a more powerful blast. He shot multiple blasts earlier so that wasn't the reason.

Oh please. Metal does not amplify lighting or electricity. Stop with it. There is no proof that Thor's lightning was amplified by that tower. The most it did was give him wider coverage. As to why he wasn't spamming lightning left and right to kill chitauri? Simple, because then the other avengers would have nothing else to do. Point is, that tower still didn't amplify his lightning, unless you can provide proof otherwise. Saying that "because Thor didn't use it to kill all the chitauri" is not proof. That's a conjecture.

Hulk used a metal plating from the back of the leviathan to puncture the leviathan. That wasn't ordinary metal.

There is not single proof that shows that the under belly of the leviathans are weaker. Show me one instance where it shows their bellies are weaker.

IM had nothing in his entire arsenal to get through the leviathan's armor. But he had plenty of firepower to destroy tanks. Hulk rips through tanks as well.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Oh please. Metal does not amplify lighting or electricity. Stop with it. There is no proof that Thor's lightning was amplified by that tower. The most it did was give him wider coverage. As to why he wasn't spamming lightning left and right to kill chitauri? Simple, because then the other avengers would have nothing else to do. Point is, that tower still didn't amplify his lightning, unless you can provide proof otherwise. Saying that "because Thor didn't use it to kill all the chitauri" is not proof. That's a conjecture.

Hulk used a metal plating from the back of the leviathan to puncture the leviathan. That wasn't ordinary metal.

There is not single proof that shows that the under belly of the leviathans are weaker. Show me one instance where it shows their bellies are weaker.

IM had nothing in his entire arsenal to get through the leviathan's armor. But he had plenty of firepower to destroy tanks. Hulk rips through tanks as well.
Why can't you read? The building STORED MORE ELECTRICITY THAN THE HAMMER EVER COULD. More current = stronger blast. This lead to more power output. Common sense really. As Rage would say, "Movies are simple."

The metal of the leviathan was weak against blunt force or piercing force. Iron Man's missile blew it up (including some of the metal) after Hulk turned it over.

The blast wasn't stronger, it just lasted longer.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The blast wasn't stronger, it just lasted longer.
Well the lightning looked more thicker to me (much wider).
Let's say it lasted longer. That means it is able to do more damage.
Last longer = more damage done.

Originally posted by h1a8
Why can't you read? The building STORED MORE ELECTRICITY THAN THE HAMMER EVER COULD. More current = stronger blast. This lead to more power output. Common sense really. As Rage would say, "Movies are simple."

The metal of the leviathan was weak against blunt force or piercing force. Iron Man's missile blew it up (including some of the metal) after Hulk turned it over.

I'm asking you to provide proof on where you came up with THE BUILDING STORED MORE ELECTRICITY THAN THE HAMMER COULD? Unless you can provide any decent proof of this then it's all in your head. And by the way, the hammer doesn't store electricity. It's not some battery that discharges lightning. The hammer allows Thor to call down lightning. He used the tower like a lightning rod. What does a lightning rod do? I redirects lightning. It doesn't amplify lightning, it doesn't store lightning. Fact.

As for the leviathan, IM's missile didn't penetrate the armor. Hulk punched the leviathan so hard that chunks of it's armor fell off, IM then shot his missile into a gap in the armor. IM blew out the leviathan's flesh, not it's armor.

Originally posted by h1a8
Well the lightning looked more thicker to me (much wider).
Let's say it lasted longer. That means it is able to do more damage.
Last longer = more damage done.

In the sense that a hose left on for 2.5 minutes releases more water than one on for 2 minutes, however the water pressure(power) is the same.

Originally posted by Silent Master
In the sense that a hose left on for 2.5 minutes releases more water than one on for 2 minutes, however the water pressure(power) is the same.

I'm biting your theory here. I said let's assume this.
Clearly longer blast = more damage done.
So it's a moot point.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm biting your theory here. I said let's assume this.
Clearly longer blast = more damage done.
So it's a moot point.

It didn't amp the level of the power being fired, it just made the blast last longer.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It didn't amp the level of the power being fired, it just made the blast last longer. Why are you repeating yourself? I already bit that. Let's assume same level of power but longer blast. Still more damage done though.

His lightning was always powerful enough to kill the aliens, the longer blast just let him kill more of them...again, there was no increase in power.

I'm not sure regular lightning would put the leviathans down. I think Thor put more power into the lightning he used to destroy the leviathans. I think the power came from him though.

By regular lightning I just mean, no building involved.

Originally posted by Silent Master
His lightning was always powerful enough to kill the aliens, the longer blast just let him kill more of them...again, there was no increase in power.

He sure struck those leviathans for a prolong period of time. Sure Thor killed the initial aliens with ease but afterwards the lightning was continuously striking the same leviathans for a prolong period. The bolt was shown to be thicker than normal too.

The bolts were split between multiple aliens, which is why he needed to fire for a longer period of time.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The bolts were split between multiple aliens, which is why he needed to fire for a longer period of time. So you claiming the individual bolts were weaker than normal? Yet the bolts were shown thicker than normal.

Let's drop it since it was shown Thor had to strike the underbelly of those leviathans anyway. Also when Hulk stabbed a leviathan Thor sent lightning through it to it's inside to kill it. The lightning itself did no damage to the metal but rather electrocuted the thing from the metal that was stabbed into it.

Leviathans have armor in their underbellies too. There's no proof that they're weaker in their underbellies.

Thor used the building like a lightning rod, to redirect his lightning, to give him bigger coverage. It did not amplify the power of his lightning nor did it prolong it. He has shown that he can prolong his lightning if he wants to (like how he used it against IM). If anything, his lightning should have been weaker there since he had to divide it into multiple forks.

Thor has shown that he can control the intensity of his lightning. Sometimes it's only strong enough to zap someone (like he did to Loki) and other times it's strong enough to level landscape.

Who knows, maybe after pouring out his lightning against those leviathans he couldn't do another lightning strike that strong.

Thor hit their underside because he was below them, stop trying to find reasons to lowball the feat.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor hit their underside because he was below them, stop trying to find reasons to lowball the feat. I'm not lowballing the feat. You are claiming Thor's lightning is powerful enough to destroy something Iron Man couldn't. That was the initial point. You were claiming how durable the leviathan was yet Thor's lightning destroyed it.

Considering that Thor's lightning amped Iron-man to 475%, it should be fairly obvious that Thor's lightning is far more powerful than Iron-man

Originally posted by FrothByte
Leviathans have armor in their underbellies too. There's no proof that they're weaker in their underbellies.

Thor used the building like a lightning rod, to redirect his lightning, to give him bigger coverage. It did not amplify the power of his lightning nor did it prolong it. He has shown that he can prolong his lightning if he wants to (like how he used it against IM). If anything, his lightning should have been weaker there since he had to divide it into multiple forks.

Thor has shown that he can control the intensity of his lightning. Sometimes it's only strong enough to zap someone (like he did to Loki) and other times it's strong enough to level landscape.

Who knows, maybe after pouring out his lightning against those leviathans he couldn't do another lightning strike that strong. Come on now. Give me a break with this nonsense. It is clear as day the leviathans were more vulnerable on their exposed underbelly. Iron Man's missile destroyed one when it hit that part.

The lightning lasted much longer than it did when it hit Iron Man. The bolts were thicker as well. Thor doesn't need help to direct his lightning. He was destroying multiple aliens simultaneously without that building. You are clearly going against the common sense of the movie. This reaching is borderline trolling now.

We see massive amounts of lightning going into the building, far more than ever has been shown in all movies. All of that stored charged was shot back out towards the wormhole to kill multiple aliens and leviathans.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Considering that Thor's lightning amped Iron-man to 475%, it should be fairly obvious that Thor's lightning is far more powerful than Iron-man

Thor's lightning contains more energy than Iron Man holds at a particular moment in time. But energy is not power. Iron Man dispels his repulsor energy in very short bursts instead of a long continuous blast (like lightning).

But that has nothing to do with Iron Man's weapons that aren't powered by his power source (like his missiles).

Lastly, more energy doesn't always mean more damage. Iron Man was charged and not damaged by Thor's lightning.

Actually, Tony's armor was damaged by Thor's lightning...you really need to watch the movies before trying to debate them.

BTW, Thor is far more powerful than Iron-man, this was made clear by their feats and direct comparison during their fight.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Actually, Tony's armor was damaged by Thor's lightning...you really need to watch the movies before trying to debate them.

BTW, Thor is far more powerful than Iron-man, this was made clear by their feats and direct comparison during their fight.

Prehaps it did a little. But Thor damaged him with the initial hammer throw.
Thor wasn't far more powerful than Iron Man. Sure Thor would have won the fight by attrition but that doesn't mean far more powerful. Iron Man was giving it to Thor as well.

Far more powerful IMO is like one shot or no more than 3 shotting someone on a regular. It would have taken Thor many hits to win.

Can movie Thor fly without mjolnir? I hate the fact he held on to the building during his lightning strike, it takes away from the feat Imo. Why did he have to hold on to it, why couldn't he just fire it while flying like in the comics?

Originally posted by h1a8
Prehaps it did a little. But Thor damaged him with the initial hammer throw.
Thor wasn't far more powerful than Iron Man. Sure Thor would have won the fight by attrition but that doesn't mean far more powerful. Iron Man was giving it to Thor as well.

Far more powerful IMO is like one shot or no more than 3 shotting someone on a regular. It would have taken Thor many hits to win. Thor wasn't trying to kill Iron-Man though. We saw how non holding back Thor would do against IM when Thor effortlessly crushed Tony's arms with his bare hand and easily ripped the mask off him when Tony was dying.

If Thor were to bring the pain with one of his attacks he could kill tony with one hit.

Thor/Supes in a stomp. Wider range of powers with that duo. Durability between Asgardians and Kryptonians can be debated endlessly but i'd have to just place them at the same level.

Originally posted by Newjak
Thor wasn't trying to kill Iron-Man though. We saw how non holding back Thor would do against IM when Thor effortlessly crushed Tony's arms with his bare hand and easily ripped the mask off him when Tony was dying.

If Thor were to bring the pain with one of his attacks he could kill tony with one hit. This is a movie not real life. Movies are simple. There is no indication that Thor was holding back so thus he wasn't. He was pissed for crying out loud, he even tried to kill CA.

Crushing Tony's arm wasn't an option at first. Thus we can't compare other scenes.
Tony probably was damaged enough to allow the mask rip. He didn't try at first anyway. Or movies are just inconsistent. Superman in IV moved the moon but in II could barely stop a bus. We go by writer's intentions and not made up shit that's pretending this shit really happened.

Edit: I just rewatched the scene. Thor didn't forceable rip the mask off. It just easily came off.

I'd definitely say the speed of team 1 may be the deciding factor. If they can disable Superman for a short period Faora and Zod on Thor at super speed would beat the living hell out of him. Not to mention if they took him airborne and just ping pong him in the sky...

There is plenty of evidence that Thor was holding back in those fights, stop trying to lowball characters that you don't like.

he is starting to lowball, yeah.

Originally posted by Silent Master
There is plenty of evidence that Thor was holding back in those fights, stop trying to lowball characters that you don't like.

What? Saying that Thor was holding back is lying and thus trolling. There is NO indication that he was holding back. His face was grimacing for almost all his attacks. He even strained momentarily against IM when they matched strength.

When Thor missed the hammer strike (IM dodged) he fell and lost his balance. That means he was using most if not all of his strength to hit IM.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
he is starting to lowball, yeah.

It's all he can do, seeing as it is rather obvious that Thor was holding back in those fights...with the possible exception of his charged hammer attack on Cap.

Originally posted by h1a8
Come on now. Give me a break with this nonsense. It is clear as day the leviathans were more vulnerable on their exposed underbelly. Iron Man's missile destroyed one when it hit that part.

The lightning lasted much longer than it did when it hit Iron Man. The bolts were thicker as well. Thor doesn't need help to direct his lightning. He was destroying multiple aliens simultaneously without that building. You are clearly going against the common sense of the movie. This reaching is borderline trolling now.

We see massive amounts of lightning going into the building, far more than ever has been shown in all movies. All of that stored charged was shot back out towards the wormhole to kill multiple aliens and leviathans.

Did you even watch this movie? The leviathans had armor in their underbellies. Hulk punched the leviathan which caused some of it's scale armor to fall off, and into one of those gaps did IM shoot his missile. Please watch the scene again before you make any more nonsense posts.

Here's a link. Watch it and see for yourself

msRaooooyds

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's all he can do, seeing as it is rather obvious that Thor was holding back in those fights...with the possible exception of his charged hammer attack on Cap.

Pretty sure he's the only person I've seen who claims Thor wasn't holding back against IM, or that Thor isn't more powerful than IM. And if you disagree with him, you're trolling.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The blast wasn't stronger, it just lasted longer.

Except that it fired Leviathans and looked far more powerful than any other lightning blasts he used...

Originally posted by ares834
Except that it fired Leviathans and looked far more powerful than any other lightning blasts he used...

Buildings do not amp power, how many times does this need to be explained to you?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Buildings do not amp power, how many times does this need to be explained to you?

At least 12 more times

Originally posted by Silent Master
Buildings do not amp power, how many times does this need to be explained to you?

Hammers don't shoot lightning.

Rob eloquently explained it to you in the other thread. That was no normal blast.

Originally posted by ares834
Hammers don't shoot lightning.

Rob eloquently explained it to you in the other thread. That was no normal blast.

Magic hammers do, are you claiming that buildings in the Marvel universe are magical?

Straw man.

Originally posted by ares834
Straw man.

There have been multiple movies made in the Avengersverse, find me one statement about buildings amping energy.

I will if you provide me a statement saying that Thor can use lightning as powerful as he displayed on the building at any time.

lol. I share sm's opinion, but thee opposition is convincing me

Originally posted by ares834
I will if you provide me a statement saying that Thor can use lightning as powerful as he displayed on the building at any time.

You're claiming that the building amped the lightning's power level, that means the burden is on you.

Originally posted by ares834
Hammers don't shoot lightning.

Rob eloquently explained it to you in the other thread. That was no normal blast.

No it wasn't a normal blast. Thor took his time to charge up that blast, making it stronger than his normal one. That doesn't mean that he needed the building though. Just that he took longer to build up the lightning but the power still came from him and mjolnir. You're the one claiming that the tower helped charge the lightning, which is contradictory to any known fact about steel and lightning, so burden of proof is on you. Our proof is science: Steel and buildings don't amp lightning or electricity. What's your proof? If all you can say is that "Thor has never done lightning that big" then the most immediate explanation there is "Thor had never needed to make lightning like that before, but he did now so he made one".

Hammers don't shoot lightning, but Mjolnir the magical hammer does. Are you saying that buildings in the Marvelverse are magical as well?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're claiming that the building amped the lightning's power level, that means the burden is on you.

Actually, you made a claim first here saying it "wasn't stronger". I simply provided evidence to the contrary. As such, the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by FrothByte
No it wasn't a normal blast. Thor took his time to charge up that blast, making it stronger than his normal one. That doesn't mean that he needed the building though. Just that he took longer to build up the lightning but the power still came from him and mjolnir. You're the one claiming that the tower helped charge the lightning, which is contradictory to any known fact about steel and lightning, so burden of proof is on you. Our proof is science: Steel and buildings don't amp lightning or electricity. What's your proof? If all you can say is that "Thor has never done lightning that big" then the most immediate explanation there is "Thor had never needed to make lightning like that before, but he did now so he made one".

It wasn't merely a longer charge. The lightning Thor summoned down was significantly thicker than any bolt he has been shown summoning before.

Perhaps it didn't serve as a battery but as a lightning rod to help him summon more. I don't really know. The fact is, Thor has never displayed such power and intensity before and the fact that he is awkwardly situated on top of a metallic tower which he makes surge with electricity doesn't seem to be a coincidence.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Hammers don't shoot lightning, but Mjolnir the magical hammer does. Are you saying that buildings in the Marvelverse are magical as well?

Straw man.

Originally posted by ares834
Actually, you made a claim first here saying it "wasn't stronger". I simply provided evidence to the contrary. As such, the burden of proof is on you.

Actually, h1a8 claimed the building amped the blast back on page 4, that puts the burden on those claiming the building amped the lightning's power level and right now that's you.

We have provided evidence such as the lightning being significantly thicker then we have ever seen Thor produce before.

Originally posted by ares834
We have provided evidence such as the lightning being significantly thicker then we have ever seen Thor produce before.

You've provided speculation, I want proof.

Unfortunately for you that's all you're going to get. I'd also like proof that it wasn't amped as well, but I'm not going to get that either. Heck, now that I think of it, I haven't even seen any evidence that he could normally use that.

Originally posted by ares834
It wasn't merely a longer charge. The lightning Thor summoned down was significantly thicker than any bolt he has been shown summoning before.

Perhaps it didn't serve as a battery but as a lightning rod to help him summon more. I don't really know. The fact is, Thor has never displayed such power and intensity before and the fact that he is awkwardly situated on top of a metallic tower which he makes surge with electricity doesn't seem to be a coincidence.



Straw man.

Actually the bolt of lightning was about as thick as the one he used in Jotunheim. Looking at it closer, the one in Jotunheim actually looks even thicker. The only difference is that he used the Jotunheim lightning in a concentrated burst whereas he dispersed the one in Avengers into multiple targets.

As him being awkwardly situated at the top of a metallic tower, that's probably because he wanted a good vantage point to launch an attack. The building was the highest one right below the portal, and it gave him firm footing to launch an attack. I also believe that the steel tower allowed him to get a wider range in his attack allowing the lightning to branch off the steel and strike more targets.

But the tower didn't have anything to do with the power of lighting itself. It just helped redirect it (as is what a lightning rod is supposed to do).

Originally posted by FrothByte
Actually the bolt of lightning was about as thick as the one he used in Jotunheim. Actually the one in Jotunheim looks even thicker. The only difference is he used the Jotunheim lightning in an omnidirectional assault whereas he dispersed the one in Avengers into multiple targets.

Got a clip?

Originally posted by FrothByte
But the tower didn't have anything to do with the power of lighting itself. It just helped redirect it (as is what a lightning rod is supposed to do).

What do you mean by this?

Edit: Watched it on Netflix. We don't get a clear view of the lightning that strikes Thor's hammer.

Originally posted by ares834
Unfortunately for you that's all you're going to get. I'd also like proof that it wasn't amped as well, but I'm not going to get that either. Heck, now that I think of it, I haven't even seen any evidence that he could normally use that.

Your side claimed it was amped, that means the burden is on you. I get that you can't prove it, but that is hardly my fault, nor does it shift the burden to me.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Your side claimed it was amped, that means the burden is on you. I get that you can't prove it, but that is hardly my fault, nor does it shift the burden to me.

We've already provided evidence and an argument that it was amped.

lol

That's proof. Perhaps not fact, but proof.

Originally posted by ares834
We've already provided evidence and an argument that it was amped.

lol

No, you've provided speculation. The difference in "thickness" is easily explained by the fact that Thor called down lightning for a longer period of time in that scene. So your argument is literally, the building amped his lightning because I say so.

Originally posted by ares834
Got a clip?



What do you mean by this?

Here's a clip from him in the Avengers:
NOONxweXhDo

And here's the jotunheim smash:
Z63d_byNZU4

When Thor first calls down his lightning in Jotunheim it's about as thick/thin as his normal lightning, but just as he detonates it it thickens significantly.


As for what I mean about the lightning rod, a lightning rod can redirect electricity. The longer the lightning rod the longer you can make electricity travel through it. So I'm inclined to believe that the steel tower allowed him to increase the range of his lightning. You'll also see as the smaller ships approach Thor that the electricity running on the building strikes them. But the power/voltage of the electricity still comes from Thor. The tower just helps disperse it.

In short, I believe that the tower "amplified" his lightning in a sense that it allowed him to hit more targets, but it did not amplify the power/charge of the lightning itself. Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, you've provided speculation. The difference in "thickness" is easily explained by the fact that Thor called down lightning for a longer period of time in that scene. So your argument is literally, the building amped his lightning because I say so.

It's based on common sense. Why else would he awkwardly position himself on top of a metallic skyscraper other than it somehow helped his lightning. Heck, once again we see the electricity course though it. In fact the camera zooms out so we see this happening suggesting that it is of some importance. Also, that he channeled for a longer period of time doesn't equate to it being thicker when he summoned it.

Originally posted by Newjak
Quick poll of people...

When I saw Superman use his heat vision am I the only that thought it looked like it caused him pain to use it?

Agreed, he acted as if he had an explosive headache, i'm pretty sure he'll get used to it, kinda like Wolvie having to tear his skin EVERY time he needs to use his claws. You know it hurts but its pain you can adapt to.