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

I did a quick search and was surprised this wasn't done yet. So here we go.

Round 1: Full powers and bloodlusted fight to the death. Both are in full armor and gear. Thor has mjolnir.

Round 2: Both combatants completely depowered (fighting at human strength with human physiology) and wearing only undergarments. No weapons. Bloodlusted fight to the death. Assuming Faora has no weakness to Earth's atmosphere in this round.

Both fights are done in open grasslands.

Round 1: Now this is a fight. She has superior speed. Thor has more raw power and versatility. If only Faora had learned how to fly =[

I think it depends on how they approach the fight.

Round 2: Stomp in Thor's favor. Her skill will only get her so far against Thor's superior physicality.

Thor takes both, methinks.. not sure if she can withstand being hit by Mjolnir or struck by lightning ..


she obviously isn't worthy so she won't pick it up

She will definitely be able to take mjolnir hits.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
She will definitely be able to take mjolnir hits.

Even the Jotunheim buster?

That ain't no normal mjolnir blow. I was thinking about thor vs hulk/ thor vs iron man/thor vs fodder hits.

Ah, thanks....haven't seen the movie yet so I was just wondering.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Her skill will only get her so far against Thor's superior physicality.
Thor is more skilled than she is.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
She will definitely be able to take mjolnir hits.

She can take blows from Mjolnir to the body, but I doubt her helmet can take many blows from Mjolnir. Probably only needs one to crack her helmet. Her best bet is to just use her superspeed to evade getting hit in the first place.

I think they are tied up. Her HTH bordered on Kung Fu style lol. Thor did take out the shield agents, so he is skilled himself.Originally posted by FrothByte
She can take blows from Mjolnir to the body, but I doubt her helmet can take many blows from Mjolnir. Probably only needs one to crack her helmet. Her best bet is to just use her superspeed to evade getting hit in the first place. I think the helmet can take a few of those hammer blows. Kryptonian gear is crazy durable. Zod's helmet took plenty of hits from Kal.

One hit wouldn't cut it. Unless we're talking joutenheim/lighting charged blows.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
I think they are tied up. Her HTH bordered on Kung Fu style lol. Thor did take out the shield agents, so he is skilled himself.
Her H2H was largely untested against actual skilled opponents. Thor is undoubtedly the more skilled of the 2.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
I think they are tied up. Her HTH bordered on Kung Fu style lol. Thor did take out the shield agents, so he is skilled himself.

I remember in the first Thor movie, they based Thor's fighting style on Mike Tyson. Low to the ground with simple but strong and fast hits and good evasive defense.

Anyway, I mention this because I consider prime Mike Tyson every bit as skilled as a kung-fu master.

Fair enough.

Prime Tyson was bullrush machine. Such a beast he was.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
I think they are tied up. Her HTH bordered on Kung Fu style lol. Thor did take out the shield agents, so he is skilled himself. I think the helmet can take a few of those hammer blows. Kryptonian gear is crazy durable. Zod's helmet took plenty of hits from Kal.

One hit wouldn't cut it. Unless we're talking joutenheim/lighting charged blows.

Ah yes, I forgot about Clark beating up on Zod's helmet. Agreed then, a couple of blows from Mjolnir before it cracks. Or a single lightning charged blow maybe.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Her H2H was largely untested against actual skilled opponents. Thor is undoubtedly the more skilled of the 2. Reasonable, yeah.

BTW I didn't mean to say Faora was more skilled or anything in the first post. Just that her skill wouldn't matter against Thor's physicality, and then he has the skill on top of that. So she is screwed.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I remember in the first Thor movie, they based Thor's fighting style on Mike Tyson. Low to the ground with simple but strong and fast hits and good evasive defense.

Anyway, I mention this because I consider prime Mike Tyson every bit as skilled as a kung-fu master.
A Shaolin priest has been beaten by a no-name MMA fighter before. Tyson would straight up kill most Kung Fu fighters in a fight.

Hulk took Mjolnir to the face and he didn't bleed. Iron Man got Mjolnir'd and his armour didn't even dent. Thor's headbutt did more damage. Unless you're going to argue Faora is less durable than those two guys?

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Round 1: Now this is a fight. She has superior speed. Thor has more raw power and versatility. If only Faora had learned how to fly = She pretty much did, she crossed whole towns in a single leap. Ok it's not sustained flight but it's close enough.

Or that Thor was holding back against them, as they weren't enemies.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Or that Thor was holding back against them, as they weren't enemies. Was he holding back when he attacked Captain America?

Originally posted by The Silent Hero
Was he holding back when he attacked Captain America?

The end of the fight is when he was starting to get annoyed, as shown by crushing Iron-man's suit and using the charged hammer shot. whereas before he was holding back enough not to damage the suit with Mjolnir strikes.

Because let's be honest, if Thor is strong enough to crush the armor with just his hands, just think what a full strength hit with Mjolnir would do.

1. Faora
2. Probably Thor

Not sure about the first round but Thor definitely wins the second round.

Faora should be physically stronger than Thor and faster but Mjolnir would post a major problem. I don't think she's tanking too many hits from the hammer and lightning would screw her up. However if she starts laying the smackdown like she did against Supes immediately then I could see her winning.

Seems to be IC for her to fight like she did against Kal. She never cut anyone some slack. Not even humans.

1. Faora
2. Thor

How close do you think Faora vs Thor is? How would it go down?

Originally posted by Zack Fair
How close do you think Faora vs Thor is? How would it go down?

I think Faora is somewhat stronger and vastly quicker.
I think she would get the majority of hits, Thor might get in a few though. Lightning attacks are too slow (since Thor must charge these).
After watching Thor fight Loki and Cap and Iron Man I get a sense he will be outmatched.

So, you're basing this on fights where Thor was holding back?

Faora is stronger and vastly faster... but Thor is more durable and has omnidirectional blasts. Like the one he used against Loki when Loki multiplied himself. Or he could just fly up and create a tornado to lift Faora like he did Destroyer, and from there bombard her with lightning or hammer strike her into oblivion. Of course, that's assuming he can catch her.

I do think this match is closer than most people realize. Thor has more raw power whereas Faora is faster. Strength is near equal, though slightly in Faora's favor whereas durability is near equal, slightly in Thor's favor.

Plus Thor was holding back against Loki, IM, and Hulk. If you really want to see Thor fighting properly, see how he dealt with the Frost giants and the destroyer.

I'd love to see this fight in a film >_<

Originally posted by Silent Master
So, you're basing this on fights where Thor was holding back?

Thor didn't hold back on Cap, Loki (when they were melee fighting and struggling pushing each other), or Iron Man. What's your evidence?

He was initially holding back on Loki. Once Loki stabbed him and Thor got pissed it was GG.

Iron Man? He was definitely holding back. We saw him crush the armor. He owned Tony with one mjolnir blow when he was sufficiently pissed right before he attempted to pulverize Cap.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Faora is stronger and vastly faster... but Thor is more durable and has omnidirectional blasts. Like the one he used against Loki when Loki multiplied himself. Or he could just fly up and create a tornado to lift Faora like he did Destroyer, and from there bombard her with lightning or hammer strike her into oblivion. Of course, that's assuming he can catch her.

I do think this match is closer than most people realize. Thor has more raw power whereas Faora is faster. Strength is near equal, though slightly in Faora's favor whereas durability is near equal, slightly in Thor's favor.

Plus Thor was holding back against Loki, IM, and Hulk. If you really want to see Thor fighting properly, see how he dealt with the Frost giants and the destroyer. I don't think Thor would think of such a strategy (lifting her with tornado and using lightning). Plus that's a very slow attack. Destroyer stood there like an idiot for a long time allowing Thor to do this. Also I'm uncertain that lightning can harm her. She can catch, parry, or block his hammer also.

Thor has multidirectional blasts, not omnidirectional. Which scene are you referring to about Thor using lightning against multiple Loki?

I don't think Thor is more durable. But if he is then it is close nevertheless.

The fact Thor used the tornado on Destroyer leads me to believe he might attempt it. Thing is Destroyer had no where near the mobility and speed of Faora.

The omnidirectional blast is when Thor and Loki are in the bifrost. Thor is on the floor facing up and Loki starts laughing at him with multiple illusions. Thor gets pissed and brings the hammer up, unleashing the blast that sent Loki flying and eventually lead to his defeat.

I don't see the omnidirectional blast doing much though. In fact it would probably just piss her off.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
He was initially holding back on Loki. Once Loki stabbed him and Thor got pissed it was GG.

Iron Man? He was definitely holding back. We saw him crush the armor. He owned Tony with one mjolnir blow when he was sufficiently pissed right before he attempted to pulverize Cap.

He was straining against Loki well before Loki stabbed him. Thor fell then got up and rushed Loki with a left punch. Loki caught his initial strike (proving to be in Thor's supposedly pissed strength range) but Thor countered with a right kick that made Loki fall to the ground. Thor then picked Loki up and slammed him. No signs of holding back strength there.

Against Iron Man he didn't hit him with any hammer swings until Cap intervened. He tried and failed though.
He threw the hammer at Iron Man (cheapshot), used lightning (didn't do much to Iron Man but charge him mostly), punched him and wrestled with him. No signs of holding back there.

One more thing. Thor had a serious knack for dropping his hammer after a vicious strike. This is another disadvantage for him.

The lightning was destroying the armor. To me seeing Thor crushing the armor like it was a cardboard box is reason and proof enough that he was in fact holding back on Iron Man.

Yes Thor did have a habit of losing the hammer every chance he got. It is problematic and could cost him the fight.

As for Loki...I'll give you that. Fight ended quite fast after he was pissed though.

Originally posted by h1a8
He was straining against Loki well before Loki stabbed him. Thor fell then got up and rushed Loki with a left punch. Loki caught his initial strike (proving to be in Thor's supposedly pissed strength range) but Thor countered with a right kick that made Loki fall to the ground. Thor then picked Loki up and slammed him. No signs of holding back strength there.

Against Iron Man he didn't hit him with any hammer swings until Cap intervened. He tried and failed though.
He threw the hammer at Iron Man (cheapshot), used lightning (didn't do much to Iron Man but charge him mostly), punched him and wrestled with him. No signs of holding back there.

One more thing. Thor had a serious knack for dropping his hammer after a vicious strike. This is another disadvantage for him.

Thor was holding back against IM because as he said, he had no quarrel with the mortal. IM was also charged to 400%. Thor was holding back against Loki because he was trying to reason with him. Thor was pissed when he went after Cap, but Cap has a vibranium shield which Faora doesn't.

I agree that Thor will have a hard time catching up to Faora, but all Thor needs to do is damage Faora's helmet and she's going to be in trouble. Whereas Thor can tank everything Faora did in the movie. Faora didn't show any feats strong enough to KO Thor. In fact, I don't recall Thor ever getting KO'd. A missile knocked out Faora though. Bifrost explosion didn't KO Thor.

As for omnidirectional attacks, there's also the Jotunheim blast he used. Plus Thor can fly. Huge advantage in him flying. His flight speed is faster than Faora's jump speed.

Faora can win the fight, as long as she makes sure she doesn't make mistakes. Thor can win the fight, as long as he plays smart and uses his powers wisely.

Not the missile shit again.

over

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor didn't hold back on Cap, Loki (when they were melee fighting and struggling pushing each other), or Iron Man. What's your evidence?

Try watching the movies and compare his fights against the Frost Giants, monster and the Destroyer to the ones you mentioned....if you can't see a massive difference then you're even more biased than quan.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor was holding back against IM because as he said, he had no quarrel with the mortal. IM was also charged to 400%. Thor was holding back against Loki because he was trying to reason with him. Thor was pissed when he went after Cap, but Cap has a vibranium shield which Faora doesn't.

I agree that Thor will have a hard time catching up to Faora, but all Thor needs to do is damage Faora's helmet and she's going to be in trouble. Whereas Thor can tank everything Faora did in the movie. Faora didn't show any feats strong enough to KO Thor. In fact, I don't recall Thor ever getting KO'd. A missile knocked out Faora though. Bifrost explosion didn't KO Thor.

As for omnidirectional attacks, there's also the Jotunheim blast he used. Plus Thor can fly. Huge advantage in him flying. His flight speed is faster than Faora's jump speed.

Faora can win the fight, as long as she makes sure she doesn't make mistakes. Thor can win the fight, as long as he plays smart and uses his powers wisely.

He had no quarrel before Iron Man wasn't complying. And certainly he had quarrel after Iron Man engaged him.

Faora doesn't need a shield. She can block, catch, parry, or dodge the hammer swing. It's highly possible that the sensory overload (which showed pain in her head) was also the helping cause of her being koed by the missile.

I'm not sure if Bifrost explosion is all that. I have to see it again. Also Thor from avengers is clearly weaker than Thor the movie.

Thor's flight speed is almost irrelevant since he needs time to accelerate to those speeds. They are not instant. Looking at the Iron Man fight he always started slow but sped up. But you are correct here. She can't fly and would be a disadvantage in the beginning (assuming she will eventually learn like Zod and Clark did).

TBH, all of your arguments make sense (I have no problem agreeing with) EXCEPT Thor was holding back on Iron Man. There is no solid proof of that IMO.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Try watching the movies and compare his fights against the Frost Giants, monster and the Destroyer to the ones you mentioned....if you can't see a massive difference then you're even more biased than quan.

Thor was more powerful in that movie than the Avengers movie. Also Thor didn't have the same character as he did in the Avengers. He was evil remember? Thor didn't do that shit he did to those Leviathans what he did to that Giant beast..

Would have been cool if Thor took out one of the leviathans like he did the ice monster, but alas iron man could not be left behind the big dogs and had to steal Thor's tactic.

Thor couldn't use his more powerful attacks because they were trying to keep the damage to the city to a minimum.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor couldn't use his more powerful attacks because they were trying to keep the damage to the city to a minimum. lol sure. So flying through one would increase the damage of the city? Wouldn't that be a clean kill?

Originally posted by Zack Fair
Not the missile shit again.

over

Sorry, I know that Faora was already having trouble with her helmet when she got hit with the missile. What I wanted to point out here is that we have at least seen that she can get KO'd. Thor hasn't been KO'd from what I remember.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry, I know that Faora was already having trouble with her helmet when she got hit with the missile. What I wanted to point out here is that we have at least seen that she can get KO'd. Thor hasn't been KO'd from what I remember.

which is a good point. Thor's upper limit in durability is not exactly known. But we can't use a no limits fallacy. But at least we know he can feel pain and be pierced. Ducking those bullets was funny too though. I would say that he is a little more durable than her to make it reasonable.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor couldn't use his more powerful attacks because they were trying to keep the damage to the city to a minimum.

Nah, if they allowed Thor to go berserk like he did in Jotunheim, most of the others wouldn't have had anything to do.

Thor is the same Thor in Avengers and in his movie. He isn't "weaker" in avengers, just that they had to give all glorious IM the spotlight so they made Thor a slugger like Hulk. Bleh.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sorry, I know that Faora was already having trouble with her helmet when she got hit with the missile. What I wanted to point out here is that we have at least seen that she can get KO'd. Thor hasn't been KO'd from what I remember. Yeah I got it the second time I read it. it was just me being hyper sensitive lol

Originally posted by h1a8
lol sure. So flying through one would increase the damage of the city? Wouldn't that be a clean kill?

Why would he need to fly through them when his lightning was able to destroy them?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nah, if they allowed Thor to go berserk like he did in Jotunheim, most of the others wouldn't have had anything to do.

Thor is the same Thor in Avengers and in his movie. He isn't "weaker" in avengers, just that they had to give all glorious IM the spotlight so they made Thor a slugger like Hulk. Bleh.

I think it's a combo of the two, I mean creating a tornado or using the Jotunheim strike in the middle of the city would have caused massive damage to the city...and would have left very few aliens for the Hulk or Ironman to take out.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Why would he need to fly through them when his lightning was able to destroy them? You mean by hitting them in the belly with the lightning for a prolong period of time?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I think it's a combo of the two, I mean creating a tornado or using the Jotunheim strike in the middle of the city would have caused massive damage to the city...and would have left very few aliens for the Hulk or Ironman to take out.

That completely goes against the suspension of belief of what the movie tried to show. Clearly Thor was trying to figure out how to destroy them as much as everyone. He even asked Loki to help him.

The long blast killed multiple aliens at the same time, it was more efficient use of his time.

Thor should have just casted that giant tornado in the wormhole's entrance and be done with it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The long blast killed multiple aliens at the same time, it was more efficient use of his time. You are correct. But it still was a longer blast though (somewhat thicker too at times) and was striking the same leviathans for a prolong period of time.

Trust me, if Thor could kill a leviathan with a normal lightning blast he would have.
Movies are simple, as Rage would say.

Seeing as the power of his lightning wasn't amped, he did, he also killed several other aliens at the same time.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Seeing as the power of his lightning wasn't amped, he did, he also killed several other aliens at the same time.

Yes he did. More damage done, like I said. Also he destroyed multiple aliens with normal lightning. He just had more juice to get those leviathans too.

Again, his lightning was always powerful enough to kill them, the longer blast time just allowed him to kill a greater number.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I agree that Thor will have a hard time catching up to Faora, but all Thor needs to do is damage Faora's helmet and she's going to be in trouble. Whereas Thor can tank everything Faora did in the movie. Faora didn't show any feats strong enough to KO Thor.

Sure she can. Hulk's punch left Thor bloodied and the Kryptonians in general seem to have strength comparable to the Hulk.

If Thor attempts to brawl he's ****ed. He has to use all his powers wisely to win.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Seeing as the power of his lightning wasn't amped, he did, he also killed several other aliens at the same time.

lol

That wasn't some normal blast he was storing the lightning in the goddamn Skyscraper.

I think the kryptonians can punch as hard if not harder than Hulk.

Originally posted by ares834
Sure she can. Hulk's punch left Thor bloodied and the Kryptonians in general seem to have strength comparable to the Hulk.

If Thor attempts to brawl he's ****ed. He has to use all his powers wisely to win.



lol

That wasn't some normal blast he was storing the lightning in the goddamn Skyscraper.

The building didn't amp the power of the lightning, it just let him fire it for longer.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The building didn't amp the power of the lightning, it just let him fire it for longer.

It let him store my electricity. In other words, more power.

Originally posted by ares834
It let him store my electricity. In other words, more power.

Please explain how a piece of steel can store electricity or amp it. Steel is not an amplifier. It is a conductor. It is also not a battery.

Originally posted by ares834
It let him store my electricity. In other words, more power.

Like I've already said, his lightning was already powerful enough to kill the aliens, the longer blast just let him kill more of them.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Please explain how a piece of steel can store electricity or amp it. Steel is not an amplifier. It is a conductor. It is also not a battery.

Please explain how a hammer can defy the laws of gravity or how a man can turn intro a green monster merely by becoming angry...

It's a superhero movie. We see the lightning coursing around the skyscraper.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I've already said, his lightning was already powerful enough to kill the aliens, the longer blast just let him kill more of them.

Kill aliens, sure. Leviathans, eh... Been awhile since I saw the movie but it looked like they were getting struck by several bolts not one.

Thor was only shown firing once.

Eh? Yeah, but it was a blast of several bolts.

Originally posted by ares834
Please explain how a hammer can defy the laws of gravity or how a man can turn intro a green monster merely by becoming angry...

It's a superhero movie. We see the lightning coursing around the skyscraper.



Kill aliens, sure. Leviathans, eh... Been awhile since I saw the movie but it looked like they were getting struck by several bolts not one.

Mjolnir is a magical weapon. The building is not. Bruce Banner is a scientific experiment gone wrong, allowing him to become the Hulk. That building hasn't had any gamma radiation experiments done on it, at least not that we know.

You're reaching here, and you don't want to admit it. You can't simply say "This is true because I said so and this is a comic book movie so anything is possible". That's basically how your reasoning sounds like.

The building had lightning coursing through it because it's a conductor. You still have zero proof that it amped or stored electricity.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Mjolnir is a magical weapon. The building is not. Bruce Banner is a scientific experiment gone wrong, allowing him to become the Hulk. That building hasn't had any gamma radiation experiments done on it, at least not that we know.

You're reaching here, and you don't want to admit it. You can't simply say "This is true because I said so and this is a comic book movie so anything is possible". That's basically how your reasoning sounds like.

Lol.

We see the lightning crackle around the building. If you want some explanation, go with Mjolnir "holding" the lightning there or something.

Originally posted by ares834
Lol.

We see the lightning crackle around the building. If you want some explanation, go with Mjolnir "holding" the lightning there or something.

Crackling around building = building is an electrical conductor. So... still no proof from your side I see. Steel (and I find myself repeating myself here) is not capable of holding an electric charge on it's own.

I don't even know why we're arguing about this. Thor's lightning is strong enough to hurt Faora with or without the building. Probably not strong enough to KO her but definitely enough to hurt her. Trick is if he can hit her.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Crackling around building = building is an electrical conductor. So... still no proof from your side I see. Steel (and I find myself repeating myself here) is not capable of holding an electric charge on it's own.

So the fact that Thor's lightning is noticeably different this time is just coincidence... Lol

Yes, in real life Skyscrapers can't hold a charge. However, the movie wasn't real and all signs point to it being used by Thor to "amplify" his lightning attack.

Thor also absorbed lightning for a longer period of time in this instance.

Why do people keep insisting the skyscrapper aided Thor with his attack? The only thing I took away from the scene was that Thor was simply channeling more energy for the attack and since he was in contact with the skyscrapper it got all lightning as well as a side effect. I do not think he needed the skyscrapper for any part of that feat.

That was my opinion, I've just stopped trying to convince other people as the last few times I've tried, they just went straight to flaming, so I just stick with pointing out that it didn't amp the power of the blast.

Originally posted by ares834
So the fact that Thor's lightning is noticeably different this time is just coincidence... Lol

Yes, in real life Skyscrapers can't hold a charge. However, the movie wasn't real and all signs point to it being used by Thor to "amplify" his lightning attack.

Throughout both Thor the movie and Avengers, Thor's lightning differed greatly depending on how he used it. The lightning he struck IM with was different from the one he struck Loki with. The Jotunheim blast was different from what he used against the Chitauri ground troupes. Asking him to make the same exact lightning everytime is like asking a boxer to deliver the exact same punch everytime.

He uses his lightning as he sees fit. In this instance since he's fighting stronger and multiple opponents then he adjusts his lightning to deal with it.

In real life skyscrapers don't hold a charge. In this movie, all sky scrapers look like they're normal and similar to real life counterparts. The only different skyscraper here is Stark's tower. Unless (again) you have proof that this skyscraper is different?

Originally posted by Newjak
Why do people keep insisting the skyscrapper aided Thor with his attack? The only thing I took away from the scene was that Thor was simply channeling more energy for the attack and since he was in contact with the skyscrapper it got all lightning as well as a side effect. I do not think he needed the skyscrapper for any part of that feat.

And yet, there is no evidence that he can as the only time his lightning was so powerful was when he was on the Skyscraper.

it is a fairly debatable point if you ask me.

It's not a debatable point at all. It's trolling the thread really.
It's common sense Thor channel more electric current through the entire structure in order to use it to create a stronger and more prolonged blast.

That scene contained more electricity than any other scene. A humongous ass amount.
WTF would be the purpose of even using the top of the skycraper if it did jack shit?
Thor already had the ability to use multidirectional blasts (target multiple enemies) without it.

Even Silent Master knows this. Yet he isn't going to correct you all since he's supporting Thor here.

Movies are simple. LMAO at people trying to twist the writer's intentions and make the shit far more complicated than the writer intended.

LoL, some people. Anyhow, if anyone actually thinks Thor didn't specifically pick that building cos it served as a lighting rod and that he used it to channel more lightning than normal, then you're purposely being a obtuse.

DXt-PSu94nA

There were several flat roof buildings nearby where he didn't have to hold on like a monkey and it would have been easier, if the tall narrow metallic build didn't matter to him.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, some people. Anyhow, if anyone actually thinks Thor didn't specifically pick that building cos it served as a lighting rod and that he used it to channel more lightning, then you're purposely being obtuse.

DXt-PSu94nA

There were several flat roof buildings nearby where he didn't have to hold on like a monkey and it would have been easier, if the tall narrow metallic build didn't matter to him.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not a debatable point at all. It's trolling the thread really.
It's common sense Thor channel more electric current through the entire structure in order to use it to create a stronger and more prolonged blast.

That scene contained more electricity than any other scene. A humongous ass amount.
WTF would be the purpose of even using the top of the skycraper if it did jack shit?
Thor already had the ability to use multidirectional blasts (target multiple enemies) without it.

Even Silent Master knows this. Yet he isn't going to correct you all since he's supporting Thor here.

Movies are simple. LMAO at people trying to twist the writer's intentions and make the shit far more complicated than the writer intended. Trolling the thread, really? Disagreement =/= trolling

Buildings don't amp the power of lightning.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Buildings don't amp the power of lightning.

Not saying the building allowed him to up the overall power output of his lighting, but it's clear it served as a lightning rod which allowed him to somehow store more lighting and do a larger area attack. Power output increase was likely had too somehow, since he easily took out the leviathan ships.

The camera specifically pans out to show lightning building up and surging through the structure.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Buildings don't amp the power of lightning.

In that movie it did. Just like beings with human sized hands can push moons without any problems (Superman in IV). That part of the building was mostly metal anyway and thus could conduct and hold significant amount of charge. He channeled the electricity to only that part of the building. You see the lightning being stored into the structure.

The building did not amp the power of the lightning.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not saying the building allowed him to up the overall power output of his lighting, but it's clear it served as a lightning rod which allowed him to somehow store more lighting and do a larger area attack. Power output increase was likely had too somehow, since he easily took out the leviathan ships.

The camera specifically pans out to show lightning building up and surging through the structure.

I know, but it's exactly what people like h1a8 are claiming.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I know, but it's exactly what people like h1a8 are claiming.

The scene is made to appear that Thor did amp/charge his lightning using the lighting-rod aspects of the building. It doesn't have to make sense from a real world point of view, cos we're dealing with a guy who flies around and calls down lighting from a techno-magical hammer and talks like a douche.

Originally posted by Robtard
The scene is made to appear that Thor did amp/charge his lightning using the lighting-rod aspects of the building.
It merely appeared to be better focusing the entirety of his destructive thunderbolt upon the Leviathan ships tbh. /shrug

At best the building was used so that he could fire the blast for a longer period of time, this claim that it boosted the power is nothing but speculation and is honestly the type of tactic quan would use to lowball a feat.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
It merely appeared to be better focusing the entirety of his destructive thunderbolt upon the Leviathan ships tbh. /shrug

He didn't shoot the lighting from the building though, the blast still came out of his hammer as normal, it was just a far greater amount of lightning(arguably stronger).

That tells me along with the camera panning down showing us the buildup, that the building served in the manner of a battery if you will, as silly as that sounds, but really no sillier than Thor's powers overall.

Since we're talking about movie versions, Faora 8/10 at least. Her speed was ridiculous and nothing that i've seen in Thor or Avengers could help him deal with that.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, some people. Anyhow, if anyone actually thinks Thor didn't specifically pick that building cos it served as a lighting rod and that he used it to channel more lightning than normal, then you're purposely being a obtuse.

DXt-PSu94nA

There were several flat roof buildings nearby where he didn't have to hold on like a monkey and it would have been easier, if the tall narrow metallic build didn't matter to him. And yet that attack isn't even his most powerful lightning blast on screen. That is his Jotteniem Buster. And he summoned that attack without any real charge up.

Yet you're going to pretend that somehow he needs that building to power up a weaker attack of his?

And did you ever think that it just makes more sense that he chose the higher point to give the best line of sight or closest distance?

Nothing in that scene at all indicates to me he needed the building to store any energy at all for his attack. It was merely meant to be a cool looking scene.

Originally posted by Newjak
And yet that attack isn't even his most powerful lightning blast on screen. That is his Jotteniem Buster. And he summoned that attack without any real charge up.

Yet you're going to pretend that somehow he needs that building to power up a weaker attack of his?

And did you ever think that it just makes more sense that he chose the higher point to give the best line of sight or closest distance?

Nothing in that scene at all indicates to me he needed the building to store any energy at all for his attack. It was merely meant to be a cool looking scene.

From movie to movie character power levels fluctuate. For example, Superman in movie I strained to move a huge bolder but Superman in IV easily moved the phucking moon. You can't judge a feat from a different movie to interpret one from another while ignoring that power levels change.

We go by writer's intentions first and everything else second. Clearly Thor summoned more lightning on that building than in any other scene. So you either agree that his lightning was weaker at that time and had to use the building to make it more powerful or last longer or you agree that his lightning was the same strength but he needed more of it to make it last longer.


Also why do you think the Jotteniem Buster had more power than the building lightning?

Also the lightning in Thor the movie was very different. He didn't discharge lightning from his hammer at all but made lightning from the sky continuously strike the hammer (which transferred energy to the ground). The ground gave way. By the chain reaction it seemed as if the ground was already weak and unstable (probably ancient).

That type of lightning can't target anything thus it is only useful when Thor is being rushed by many beings at once.

Originally posted by h1a8
From movie to movie character power levels fluctuate. For example, Superman in movie I strained to move a huge bolder but Superman in IV easily moved the phucking moon. You can't judge a feat from a different movie to interpret one from another while ignoring that power levels change.

We go by writer's intentions first and everything else second. Clearly Thor summoned more lightning on that building than in any other scene. So you either agree that his lightning was weaker at that time and had to use the building to make it more powerful or last longer or you agree that his lightning was the same strength but he needed more of it to make it last longer.


Also why do you think the Jotteniem Buster had more power than the building lightning? So we ignore what Thor can do and instead choose to believe that a weaker attack from Thor required him to hold a charge in the building? Why especially when nothing in the films states that Thor was using that building to do so?

You're assuming the building was needed at all and nothing explicitly or even really implicitly says Thor needed to use it for the effects you are attributing it.

All we see is Thor channel a very powerful lightning attack and that since he is standing on a building the lightning going into him is also being shown in the tower. Most likely because the special effects people thought it looked cool and was a good way to show that this was going to be a big blast not that Thor needed the tower or else he can't use an attack of that magnitude.

It's actually a stretch to say he did.

I mean one lightning bolt from him was enough to give IM a 400% charge.

He was able to summon multiple lightning bolts when he fried that group of Chitauri, and he was able to take down a Leviathan with a charged hammer strike.

Originally posted by h1a8
Also the lightning in Thor the movie was very different. He didn't discharge lightning from his hammer at all but made lightning from the sky continuously strike the hammer (which transferred energy to the ground). The ground gave way. By the chain reaction it seemed as if the ground was already weak and unstable (probably ancient).

That type of lightning can't target anything thus it is only useful when Thor is being rushed by many beings at once. When Thor zapped Loki at the end of the movie he summoned the lightning to his hammer and used it to disperse the energy and attack all the Loki's.


Also that weak Tundra you're talking about was strong enough to support an entire race of Giant beings and their cities. If was so easy to break and fall apart than building anything their would have set it off.

Originally posted by Newjak
So we ignore what Thor can do and instead choose to believe that a weaker attack from Thor required him to hold a charge in the building? Why especially when nothing in the films states that Thor was using that building to do so?

You're assuming the building was needed at all and nothing explicitly or even really implicitly says Thor needed to use it for the effects you are attributing it.

All we see is Thor channel a very powerful lightning attack and that since he is standing on a building the lightning going into him is also being shown in the tower. Most likely because the special effects people thought it looked cool and was a good way to show that this was going to be a big blast not that Thor needed the tower or else he can't use an attack of that magnitude.

It's actually a stretch to say he did.

I mean one lightning bolt from him was enough to give IM a 400% charge.

He was able to summon multiple lightning bolts when he fried that group of Chitauri, and he was able to take down a Leviathan with a charged hammer strike.

When Thor zapped Loki at the end of the movie he summoned the lightning to his hammer and used it to disperse the energy and attack all the Loki's.


Also that weak Tundra you're talking about was strong enough to support an entire race of Giant beings and their cities. If was so easy to break and fall apart than building anything their would have set it off.

No one is ignoring anything. I'm simply stating facts. Characters power level flucuates from movie to movie.

Also the attack Thor used in his movie wasn't the same as dispelling lightning from his hammer towards enemies. He summoned lightning from the sky to strike the ground through his hammer. The lightning hit a single point (pressure = force / area) and that created a chain reaction. A tank can support any creature or object seen there but it wouldn't have been destroyed by the same lightning. A tank>>>>>>>>>>ground (with same area)

Thor didn't take down a leviathan with a charged hammer strike. He electrocuted the leviathan through the metal that Hulk stabbed it with. This metal lead to it's innards. Also the hammer wasn't charged. You see the lightning coming from the sky striking the hammer and sending the electricity through the metal.

You are losing sight of what's been argued. We are arguing whether Thor's normal lightning is powerful enough to damage the armor of the leviathan. The answer is no. This fact is shown by

1. Thor having to electocute through stabbed metal (Thor didn't damage the metal itself).
2. Thor having to amp on the building just to destroy leviathan by hitting them in the belly (he did no damage to their armor).

So the feat against the leviathans is not a good one to prove the lightning can harm Faora. Other feats are needed.

Originally posted by h1a8
No one is ignoring anything. I'm simply stating facts. Characters power level flucuates from movie to movie.

Also the attack Thor used in his movie wasn't the same as dispelling lightning from his hammer towards enemies. He summoned lightning from the sky to strike the ground through his hammer. The lightning hit a single point (pressure = force / area) and that created a chain reaction. A tank can support any creature or object seen there but it wouldn't have been destroyed by the same lightning. A tank>>>>>>>>>>ground (with same area)

Thor didn't take down a leviathan with a charged hammer strike. He electrocuted the leviathan through the metal that Hulk stabbed it with. This metal lead to it's innards. Also the hammer wasn't charged. You see the lightning coming from the sky striking the hammer and sending the electricity through the metal.

You are losing sight of what's been argued. We are arguing whether Thor's normal lightning is powerful enough to damage the armor of the leviathan. The answer is no. This fact is shown by

1. Thor having to electocute through stabbed metal (Thor didn't damage the metal itself).
2. Thor having to amp on the building just to destroy leviathan by hitting them in the belly (he did no damage to their armor).

So the feat against the leviathans is not a good one to prove the lightning can harm Faora. Other feats are needed. You're not stating facts all though, most of them are jsut opinions or aren't backed by anything.

One being that the Thor in Thor the movie was significantly weaker than he was in Avengers.

Another being that he amped himself for his Leviathan busting attack by using the building. Nothing on screen or any statements in in either his solo movie or the Avengers shows him needing to store energy to release a powerful blast. At that point it's just conjecture on your part with no actual proof other than you believe the tower had to be storing energy despite Thor never doing anything like that before or since.

Thor's lightning did damage part's of the Leviathan's armor.

You're missing the point. If the ground was so brittle and Thor's attack was so weak the ground should have collapsed under itself considering it had an entire race of begins living on it's surface. You think building a giant city on top of it would have caused the chain reaction long before Thor showed up of that's all it took.

I dunno. He does have a point of the surface being somewhat shallow. Still Joutenheim blast was quite powerful.

Superman flying down and bullrushing it would do the same though IMO.

Originally posted by Newjak
And yet that attack isn't even his most powerful lightning blast on screen. That is his Jotteniem Buster. And he summoned that attack without any real charge up.

Yet you're going to pretend that somehow he needs that building to power up a weaker attack of his?

And did you ever think that it just makes more sense that he chose the higher point to give the best line of sight or closest distance?

Nothing in that scene at all indicates to me he needed the building to store any energy at all for his attack. It was merely meant to be a cool looking scene.

The blast on the first film was more akin to a massive shock-wave. It's not really comparable his lighting attacks. He's the god of thunder as well as lightning.

Are you going to ignore the scene and what's it's conveying to us with the lighting building up?

There were buildings close by with flat roofs, where he wouldn't have to be holding on like a monkey and would have been far easier to blast from.

I disagree, imo, the scene and specifically the camera panning down showing us was to illustrate that he was using the building and its properties as a lightning rod to enhance his attack.

Edit: What's the argument, Thor killing Faora with lightning? IMO, that seems unlikely considering the Kryptonians implied power.

Originally posted by Zack Fair
I dunno. He does have a point of the surface being somewhat shallow. Still Joutenheim blast was quite powerful. I'm not saying that Joutenheim was solid but if it was so easy to destroy than you think the weight of a giant city would have fallen through or it would have collapsed in on itself especially if he is trying to say that attack couldn't even destroy a tank but still caused that chain reaction.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not saying that Joutenheim was solid but if it was so easy to destroy than you think the weight of a giant city would have fallen through or it would have collapsed in on itself especially if he is trying to say that attack couldn't even destroy a tank but still caused that chain reaction.

h1a8 thinks that tanks would survive anything short of a nuke, he doesn't have a very good grasp on reality.

Originally posted by Robtard
The blast on the first film was more akin to a massive shock-wave. It's not really comparable his lighting attacks. He's the god of thunder as well as lightning.

Are you going to ignore the scene and what's it's conveying to us with the lighting building up?

There were buildings close by with flat roofs, where he wouldn't have to be holding on like a monkey and would have been far easier to blast from.

I disagree, imo, the scene and specifically the camera panning down showing us was to illustrate that he was using the building and its properties as a lightning rod to enhance his attack. It was a single lightning bolt he summoned down through his hammer.

I'm not ignoring the scene I'm just not trying to assign it properties it doesn't have.

Everything about that scene was designed to show us Thor was about to unleash a powerful attack. No where does it say he needed that tower to perform said feat.

The flat top building argument is absurd. If he really was using that building as a lightning rod he could have still done it atop of any flat building as well or do you believe they are somehow immune to lightning.

Do you honestly believe Thor could not have replicated that feat without an energy storage device? Show me where the movie states as much? Show me where Thor said he can only hold so much charge. Show me where Thor can randomly use anything he wants as an energy device.

For that matter show me why Thor needed that when his basic level attack against IM gave him a 400% increase. You really think destroying a Leviathan is beyond him without some outside assistance?

You have no real hard evidence, you just have a scene loosely interrupted to fit your desire. No where in the scene is it apparent he needed that tower for any of the feat. No where in that scene do I see where Thor actually needs the building to perform said feat.

Originally posted by Newjak
It was a single lightning bolt he summoned down through his hammer.

I'm not ignoring the scene I'm just not trying to assign it properties it doesn't have.

Everything about that scene was designed to show us Thor was about to unleash a powerful attack. No where does it say he needed that tower to perform said feat.

The flat top building argument is absurd. If he really was using that building as a lightning rod he could have still done it atop of any flat building as well or do you believe they are somehow immune to lightning.

Do you honestly believe Thor could not have replicated that feat without an energy storage device? Show me where the movie states as much? Show me where Thor said he can only hold so much charge. Show me where Thor can randomly use anything he wants as an energy device.

For that matter show me why Thor needed that when his basic level attack against IM gave him a 400% increase. You really think destroying a Leviathan is beyond him without some outside assistance?

You have no real hard evidence, you just have a scene loosely interrupted to fit your desire. No where in the scene is it apparent he needed that tower for any of the feat. No where in that scene do I see where Thor actually needs the building to perform said feat.

That then caused a massive shockwave that crumbled rock and ice for many, many, many meters. IIRC, lightning doesn't do that and I'm pretty sure he slammed the butt of his hammer into the ground as well.

If you want to say the building scene 'was just for looks and nothing was being conveyed to the audience', sure. I don't.

No, it's not absurd. Having a tall narrow metal building would work far greater as a lightning rod than a flat-roofed building composed mostly of concrete.

I have already shown you, it's the scene. You simply think it was just for show. I disagree. Show me Thor doing a lighting attack of that magnitude elsewhere? Two can play the silly dance game, but I really prefer we don't.

Do you think Thor was trying to obliterate Iron Man or just put him in his place with the lightning bolt? That massive blast wasn't against a single leviathan, he was trying to slow the flow of the incoming invasion army, why he needed it to be massive.

Not loosely at all. Watch it again closely, to me it's clearly evident. I don't need Thor speaking on screen saying "okay Rogers, I'm going to fly up to that one building that is most similar in properties to a lightning rod and use it to assist me in channeling a really massive amount of lightning so I can slow the flow of the invasion for a bit." The scene with a few choice camera shots , lightning surging all around it and the fact we don't see Thor doing those levels of lightning in the film at any other time are enough for me.

Originally posted by Robtard
That then caused a massive shockwave that crumbled rock and ice for many, many, many meters. IIRC, lightning doesn't do that and I'm pretty sure he slammed the butt of his hammer into the ground as well.

If you want to say the building scene 'was just for looks and nothing was being conveyed to the audience', sure. I don't.

No, it's not absurd. Having a tall narrow metal building would work far greater as a lightning rod than a flat-roofed building composed mostly of concrete.

I have already shown you, it's the scene. You simply think it was just for show. I disagree. Show me Thor doing a lighting attack of that magnitude elsewhere? Two can play the silly dance game, but I really prefer we don't.

Do you think Thor was trying to obliterate Iron Man or just put him in his place with the lightning bolt? That massive blast wasn't against a single leviathan, he was trying to slow the flow of the incoming invasion army, why he needed it to be massive.

Not loosely at all. Watch it again closely, to me it's clearly evident. I don't need Thor speaking on screen saying "okay Rogers, I'm going to fly up to that one building that is most similar in properties to a lightning rod and use it to assist me in channeling a really massive amount of lightning so I can slow the flow of the invasion for a bit." The scene with a few choice camera shots , lightning surging all around it and the fact we don't see Thor doing those levels of lightning in the film at any other time are enough for me. He did it the butt of his hammer into the ground but he still summoned the lightning bolt on top of it so unless you're think he just did it for show he obviously used the bolt to contribute to the attack.


One of Thor's holding back lightning bolts was enough to give IM a 400% increase. What we know of IM that is pretty powerful.

Thor also fried an entire group Chitari after he fought Loki.

It is absurd because other than you looking at it and going oh the lightning bolt is being stored in the tower Thor's using it as a battery because he can't shoot that powerful of lightning without doing so nothing Thor did before or since shows him having to do that anything like that.

Never did Thor have to hold a charge outside of his hammer.

Also that tower is also concrete and glass same as the flat rooftops around it. Those building also have lightning rods on them.

Draws lightning into his hammer and strikes it into the tundra. Difference from the tower scene is he's not concentrate his blast at one target, so of course his tower shot lasted longer as it's only focus at a sole target.

Z63d_byNZU4

Originally posted by Newjak
He did it the butt of his hammer into the ground but he still summoned the lightning bolt on top of it so unless you're think he just did it for show he obviously used the bolt to contribute to the attack.

One of Thor's holding back lightning bolts was enough to give IM a 400% increase. What we know of IM that is pretty powerful.

Thor also fried an entire group Chitari after he fought Loki.

It is absurd because other than you looking at it and going oh the lightning bolt is being stored in the tower Thor's using it as a battery because he can't shoot that powerful of lightning without doing so nothing Thor did before or since shows him having to do that anything like that.

Never did Thor have to hold a charge outside of his hammer.

Also that tower is also concrete and glass same as the flat rooftops around it. Those building also have lightning rods on them.

Point is, the Juthenheim blast wasn't a lightning attack like in Avengers. It was more similar to a shock wave.

I've not argued that Thor isn't powerful.

That blast he used to take out the foot troops was nothing compared to the blast from the tower.

Well, I disagree, to me it's evident what was being conveyed to the audience.

That building is the Chrysler Building and its top is covered in steel sheet, that along with its shape make it a great massive lighting rod.

In any case, I believe the point we were trying to debate here is whether Thor's lightning can hurt Faora or not. Faora is also just a single target, so Thor wouldn't need to divide his lightning into multiple forks.

So, do you guys believe Thor's lightning powerful enough to hurt Faora?

Originally posted by Newjak
You're not stating facts all though, most of them are jsut opinions or aren't backed by anything.

One being that the Thor in Thor the movie was significantly weaker than he was in Avengers.

Another being that he amped himself for his Leviathan busting attack by using the building. Nothing on screen or any statements in in either his solo movie or the Avengers shows him needing to store energy to release a powerful blast. At that point it's just conjecture on your part with no actual proof other than you believe the tower had to be storing energy despite Thor never doing anything like that before or since.

Thor's lightning did damage part's of the Leviathan's armor.

You're missing the point. If the ground was so brittle and Thor's attack was so weak the ground should have collapsed under itself considering it had an entire race of begins living on it's surface. You think building a giant city on top of it would have caused the chain reaction long before Thor showed up of that's all it took. Thor in avengers was weaker than in Thor the movie. You have it backwards.

I'm not going to discuss whether Thor amped the lightning (whether to provide stronger blasts or longer blasts) while on the building since it's not debatable. Any attempt to debate against it is pure trolling. There was no other reason why Thor used the building. He didn't use it to target multiple enemies since he could do that without the building.

The lightning struck in a small spot with concentration of kinetic energy and burning energy. It wasn't all concussive. Those Giants were no more than half a ton. Plus pressure = force / area. Normal concrete can hold any amount of weight if the area is large enough. But apply the weight of a 50 ton tank in the size of a lightning bolt and it would penetrate like water.

That is moot anyway since it was a different lightning attack. Thor's stamp lightning is using much more powerful than his directed lightning (from his hammer).

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor in avengers was weaker than in Thor the movie. You have it backwards.

I'm not going to discuss whether Thor amped the lightning (whether to provide stronger blasts or longer blasts) while on the building since it's not debatable. Any attempt to debate against it is pure trolling. There was no other reason why Thor used the building. He didn't use it to target multiple enemies since he could do that without the building.

The lightning struck in a small spot with concentration of kinetic energy and burning energy. It wasn't all concussive. Those Giants were no more than half a ton. Plus pressure = force / area. Normal concrete can hold any amount of weight if the area is large enough. But apply the weight of a 50 ton tank in the size of a lightning bolt and it would penetrate like water.

That is moot anyway since it was a different lightning attack. Thor's stamp lightning is using much more powerful than his directed lightning (from his hammer).

How exactly is Thor weaker in the Avengers?

You're right, debating that building is useless. We all know that steel does not amp lightning. Debating against that is not only trolling but stupid. The reason he used the building was for a vantage point.

Originally posted by FrothByte
In any case, I believe the point we were trying to debate here is whether Thor's lightning can hurt Faora or not. Faora is also just a single target, so Thor wouldn't need to divide his lightning into multiple forks.

So, do you guys believe Thor's lightning powerful enough to hurt Faora?


Nope. It barely damaged Iron Man's armor and his electronics proved to be too heavily insulated to overload them, like now the Leviathon's were shocked dead/turned off.

I can't see it being more than a nuisance to a Kryptonian. He's better off smashing in her face.

edit: Unless you meant 'could the lighting destroy her face shielding'. Possible.

You don't think that Iron-man being able to absorb a good bit of the energy might have something to do with his suit only being slightly damaged?

Originally posted by FrothByte
How exactly is Thor weaker in the Avengers?

You're right, debating that building is useless. We all know that steel does not amp lightning. Debating against that is not only trolling but stupid. The reason he used the building was for a vantage point. If he used the building for a vantage point then why was the lightning shown to be absorbed or channeled through the building?

We are not talking about amped but storing more current. The building was used to store more current.

Thor appeared weaker. Look at his fight in jotenheim vs. anything else. He even twirled the hammer faster. This is irrelevant anyway since it doesn't add to the debate.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You don't think that Iron-man being able to absorb a good bit of the energy might have something to do with his suit only being slightly damaged? Perhaps, but metal in general usually conducts electricity. That's why it's hard for Thor to damage metal with his lightning.

Can Thor hurt Faora with lightning? Perhaps.
But practically it would difficult for him to hit her with lightning since it's a slow attack.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nope. It barely damaged Iron Man's armor and his electronics proved to be too heavily insulated to overload them, like now the Leviathon's were shocked dead/turned off.

I can't see it being more than a nuisance to a Kryptonian. He's better off smashing in her face.

edit: Unless you meant 'could the lighting destroy her face shielding'. Possible.

Ironman had a suit that was able to absorb the charge from the lightning and convert it to energy. Faora doesn't have a suit like that. She's going to take the full brunt of the lightning attack.

Originally posted by h1a8
Can Thor hurt Faora with lightning? Perhaps.
But practically it would difficult for him to hit her with lightning since it's a slow attack.

This one I can agree with. I think it would be near impossible for Thor to do a lightning attack on the ground before Faora zips up to him and pummels him (unless Faora just stands there looking pretty like she did with the soldiers and allowed them to blast her with guns). If he really wants to use lightning, he'll need to fly up in the air and hit her from there. Not sure how fast Faora is but lightning is pretty fast on it's own, faster than sound anyway.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ironman had a suit that was able to absorb the charge from the lightning and convert it to energy. Faora doesn't have a suit like that. She's going to take the full brunt of the lightning attack.

I don't see lightning as being something that's going to put down a Kryptonian.

They have little problem with heat and explosions. I find it hard to believe with their durability that the shock-factor is going to down her, as normal humans can survive lightning strikes. The only think I see the lightning doing is possibly shutting down her face shield. But they're pretty durable.

Faora 10/10.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't see lightning as being something that's going to put down a Kryptonian.

They have little problem with heat and explosions. I find it hard to believe with their durability that the shock-factor is going to down her, as normal humans can survive lightning strikes. The only think I see the lightning doing is possibly shutting down her face shield. But they're pretty durable.

Humans getting hit by lightning usually differs greatly from instance to instance. Some survive with nothing more than getting thrown off their feet and some are burned to a crisp. Intensity of the lightning and area of impact come into play. Most lightning injuries suffered by humans are seldom direct hits but electrocution from some other medium (lightning hitting ground or post, etc).

As for the kryptonians, I don't think a single lightning blast can knock them out, but it sure can hurt them. It stunned Loki quite well. And it can probably damage their helmets. Repeated blasts may have a chance at knocking them out.

Besides, I think Thor has demonstrated that his lightning isn't just standard lightning. You don't see lightning level an entire landscape.

Thor's lightning isn't exactly normal, as normal lightning can have anywhere between .5 to 5 gigajoules of power, yet one blast managed to charge Iron-man up to 475%.

Now consider, Iron-man's original arc-reactor was stated to generate around 3 gigajoules of power per second and Tony used up most of it's power just flying across a city...his new power source allows him to make international flights.

Originally posted by Silent Master
475%
IIRC, it was 400%. I agree with most of your other points though.

Also, Iron Man's updated armor generated 12 gigawatts of power after he came and built a new arc reactor for his chest in the 1st movie. So that thunderbolt which amped Tony must have been somewhere around 50 GW of power, based on how it amped up his systems by 4x.

Jarvis stated 400%, but the DSP was still climbing and stopped at 475%

I thought it was at 75 originally, but Thor raised it by 400 to make it an aggregate 475

Originally posted by carver9
Faora 10/10. http://25.media.tumblr.com/10aa3ae6576d89a3680a65e2a5b3a64a/tumblr_movi1xFuDW1swwkj5o1_1280.jpg

This would be great to see but this fight is Thor's to lose imho. Faora's biggest advantage is her speed but as we saw in the first movie if needed Thor can use AOE lightning. That shit was incredibly powerful, took most of the fight out of Loki who's on Faora's level in durability. Throw in his ability to fly, the helmet vulnerability etc. and I think he has her number.

Thor wins the second fight, it's not really fair. At least as skilled with that much of a size/weight advantage? She'd get f*cking murdered.

Loki was Faora's level in durability? That's ****ing bullshit. Faora would work Thor up. I like how thorbags pretend that speed doesn't works like they think it does. Thor never showed enough reflexes to contend with Faora.s

Originally posted by abhilegend
Loki was Faora's level in durability?



Loki survived a point blank explosion of the rainbow bridge and then a fall across space and different dimensions. What exactly did Faora show in durability that surpasses all that?




Originally posted by abhilegend
That's ****ing bullshit. Faora would work Thor up. I like how thorbags pretend that speed doesn't works like they think it does. Thor never showed enough reflexes to contend with Faora.s

It's not like she ever hit a hundred times per second, which is how you trying to portray super speed will work against Thor. He doesn't need super duper reflexes when he's just going multi shot lightning around her, or shove a hurricane her way.

Apart from his exotic attacks Movie Thor displayed sufficient flight combat speed, and speed close combat speed spinning Mjolnir.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Loki survived a point blank explosion of the rainbow bridge and then a fall across space and different dimensions. What exactly did Faora show in durability that surpasses all that?






It's not like she ever hit a hundred times per second, which is how you trying to portray super speed will work against Thor. He doesn't need super duper reflexes when he's just going multi shot lightning around her, or shove a hurricane her way.

Apart from his exotic attacks Movie Thor displayed sufficient flight combat speed, and speed close combat speed spinning Mjolnir.
What was so impressive about the rainbow bridge explosion? Off panel and he likely teleported to Earth.

Faora doesn't need to punch a hundred times to blitz Thor who doesn't have a single reflex feat to show.

She could just as easily knock mjolnir away from Thor like so many times Thor lost it and beat the crap out of him.

Originally posted by abhilegend
What was so impressive about the rainbow bridge explosion? Off panel and he likely teleported to Earth.

Faora doesn't need to punch a hundred times to blitz Thor who doesn't have a single reflex feat to show.

She could just as easily knock mjolnir away from Thor like so many times Thor lost it and beat the crap out of him.

Loki throughout 2 movies has never once been knocked out. Faora has. Loki tanked a lightning from Thor, the bifrost explosion, getting thrown into space (without any suit mind you), multiple gunfire, taking a beating from Thor, multiple repulsor blasts from IM, and a grand smacking from Hulk... all without getting KO'd. What has Faora done that makes you think she's more durable than Loki? She's faster and stronger yes, but durability-wise Loki has tanked more.

As for Thor never having a single reflex feat show, all you need to do is watch his fight scenes. He was ducking and dodging around SHIELD agents. He was ducking and dodging around IM's punches (even catching one in his hand - do you know how hard it is to do that?), and ducking and dodging around Hulk's attacks. He may not have Faora's superspeed running/jumping abilities, but his fighting reflexes are clearly high-end.

She can knock mjolnir out of Thor's hands. Thor can call it back and blindside Faora with it. Plus Thor isn't exactly helpless without Mjolnir as shown in his multiple fights against IM, Loki, and Hulk.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Loki was Faora's level in durability? That's ****ing bullshit. Faora would work Thor up. I like how thorbags pretend that speed doesn't works like they think it does. Thor never showed enough reflexes to contend with Faora.s

It's true. Not really sure why you have a problem with that? Loki's not as tough as Thor but on their level of durability, dude was extremely durable.

What are you talking about? I said Faora was faster, simply that Thor can counter it with aoe. It's not like they had true super speed but bursts of it.

If Thor tries to brawl he loses. Badly.

If he uses his powers smartly he wins.

Originally posted by ares834
If Thor tries to brawl he loses. Badly.

If he uses his powers smartly he wins.

Agreed.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Loki throughout 2 movies has never once been knocked out. Faora has. Loki tanked a lightning from Thor, the bifrost explosion, getting thrown into space (without any suit mind you), multiple gunfire, taking a beating from Thor, multiple repulsor blasts from IM, and a grand smacking from Hulk... all without getting KO'd. What has Faora done that makes you think she's more durable than Loki? She's faster and stronger yes, but durability-wise Loki has tanked more.

As for Thor never having a single reflex feat show, all you need to do is watch his fight scenes. He was ducking and dodging around SHIELD agents. He was ducking and dodging around IM's punches (even catching one in his hand - do you know how hard it is to do that?), and ducking and dodging around Hulk's attacks. He may not have Faora's superspeed running/jumping abilities, but his fighting reflexes are clearly high-end.

She can knock mjolnir out of Thor's hands. Thor can call it back and blindside Faora with it. Plus Thor isn't exactly helpless without Mjolnir as shown in his multiple fights against IM, Loki, and Hulk.
Except when hulk pushed his shit in and he was knocked out. So you are wrong. Faora was knocked out by sensory overload. None of that is as impressive as you are making it out to be. The only thing even worth mentioning was bifrost explosion and we don't know how impressive it was.

I know about all his fights. He never showed anything above human level reflexes. Lulz @ dodging shield agents and hulk being a reflex feat.

She can certainly knock mjolnir out of his hand and it takes time to call it back. He was helpless against Hulk who was ragdolling him at the end. He wasn't helpless against Loki and IM since both were weaker than him.Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
It's true. Not really sure why you have a problem with that? Loki's not as tough as Thor but on their level of durability, dude was extremely durable.

What are you talking about? I said Faora was faster, simply that Thor can counter it with aoe. It's not like they had true super speed but bursts of it.
No he isn't. Hulk showed how tough he was, didn't he?

He can't if she knocks mjolnir away from him and beats the shit out of him at superspeed which would certainly happen.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Except when hulk pushed his shit in and he was knocked out. So you are wrong. Faora was knocked out by sensory overload. None of that is as impressive as you are making it out to be. The only thing even worth mentioning was bifrost explosion and we don't know how impressive it was.

I know about all his fights. He never showed anything above human level reflexes. Lulz @ dodging shield agents and hulk being a reflex feat.

She can certainly knock mjolnir out of his hand and it takes time to call it back. He was helpless against Hulk who was ragdolling him at the end. He wasn't helpless against Loki and IM since both were weaker than him.
No he isn't. Hulk showed how tough he was, didn't he?

He can't if she knocks mjolnir away from him and beats the shit out of him at superspeed which would certainly happen.

Loki wasn't knocked out by Hulk. He was hurt bad but he was still conscious. Faora was completely out. She wasn't knocked out by sensory overload. She was knocked out by a missile while she was getting sensory overload. So could you imagine what would happen if Thor damaged her helmet and then started pounding on her?

Captain America has enhanced reflexes. Loki could keep up with Cap in h2h combat. Loki has fast enough reflexes to catch an arrow without him looking at it. Thor beats Loki in h2h combat and has no trouble keeping pace and outpacing Loki. I'll leave you to connect the dots.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Loki wasn't knocked out by Hulk. He was hurt bad but he was still conscious. Faora was completely out. She wasn't knocked out by sensory overload. She was knocked out by a missile while she was getting sensory overload. So could you imagine what would happen if Thor damaged her helmet and then started pounding on her?

Captain America has enhanced reflexes. Loki could keep up with Cap in h2h combat. Loki has fast enough reflexes to catch an arrow without him looking at it. Thor beats Loki in h2h combat and has no trouble keeping pace and outpacing Loki. I'll leave you to connect the dots.
Loki was knocked out. We see him getting back to consciousness when the avengers were pointing at him. Watch avengers again.

So she was getting sensory overloaded by ambient light and sound but a missile exploding in her face wouldn't have caused sound and light, right? They even spelled it out when they said "Humans found a temporary weakness" not that missiles can knock them out.

Cap has enhanced reflexes for a human. That arrow was what? Sonic speed? Kryptonians were sonicspeed+. That's all you have, dots and a reaching mind to desperately connect them. Thor never showed above human reflexes.

He wasn't knocked out. He was conscious, but seriously screwed and couldn't even move.

I think that abhi is the one that needs to watch Avengers again, either that or he needs to stop lying.

Sorry, I watched it again and he wasn't knocked out. It wasn't any better than a knock out though.

Originally posted by ares834
If Thor tries to brawl he loses. Badly.

If he uses his powers smartly he wins.


This.

Thor did indeed show above human level reflexes as he blocked several Chitauri beams as well as the Destroyer Armor's beam with his hammer.

Originally posted by KingD19
Thor did indeed show above human level reflexes as he blocked several Chitauri beams as well as the Destroyer Armor's beam with his hammer.

And this.

Originally posted by KingD19
Thor did indeed show above human level reflexes as he blocked several Chitauri beams as well as the Destroyer Armor's beam with his hammer.
Which people like hawkeye and black widow were doing too.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Which people like hawkeye and black widow were doing too.

When exactly were BW and Hawkeye blocking laser beams?

Jumping out of the way is not the same thing.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Which people like hawkeye and black widow were doing too.

Post the clips where Hawkeye and BW blocked the beams.

Originally posted by abhilegend
No he isn't. Hulk showed how tough he was, didn't he?

He can't if she knocks mjolnir away from him and beats the shit out of him at superspeed which would certainly happen.

Yeah, Hulk rocked the shit out of him. How is this suppose to negatively reflect on Loki compared to Faora when Hulk is noticeably stronger then her?

He fought with Thor previously, took an exploding arrow/ship and Hulk double punched him through a wall which he shrugged right off in quick concession. Not to mention he took Bifrost exploding which shits on any durability feat from Faora. Also survived falling into the World Tree.

What super speed? You're acting like they can fight Smallville Clark style, they can't. I don't remember one instance where they traded blows at super speed. It's the same kind of super speed Iron Man can simulate but to a greater degree.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Yeah, Hulk rocked the shit out of him. How is this suppose to negatively reflect on Loki compared to Faora when Hulk is noticeably stronger then her?

He fought with Thor previously, took an exploding arrow/ship and Hulk double punched him through a wall which he shrugged right off in quick concession. Not to mention he took Bifrost exploding which shits on any durability feat from Faora. Also survived falling into the World Tree.

What super speed? You're acting like they can fight Smallville Clark style, they can't. I don't remember one instance where they traded blows at super speed. It's the same kind of super speed Iron Man can simulate but to a greater degree.
Yeah, hulk beat the shit out of him. Just compare that to Superman/ Faora fight and you would see who is more durable. Superman was stronger than Hulk. Its not herochat, so proceed cautiously about this conversation.

He didn't shrug the beating Thor's beatings who beat the shit out of him while holding back. That arrow and hulk's punch came after he gathered himself and after a big time-interval.

What super-speed? Are you blind or something? Again she doesn't need to fight like Flash to blitz Thor of all people. Iron man did the same thing when he made Thor fall on his face and then punch him before he could react.Originally posted by DARTH POWER
When exactly were BW and Hawkeye blocking laser beams?

Jumping out of the way is not the same thing.
They were dodging them just fine. Cap was blocking them just fine.Originally posted by Silent Master
Post the clips where Hawkeye and BW blocked the beams.
Just watch the damn fight.

Again, post the clips where Hawkeye and Black Widow block the energy beams.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, post the clips where Hawkeye and Black Widow block the energy beams.
Watch the fight.

Hawkeye and Widow didn't block anything. They dodged, but they didn't block anything. And Cap blocking blasts isn't a big surprise; he's clearly at least low level superhuman and blocking with the shield is rather easy. It's huge, he just has to put it up in the general area the blast is heading toward.

Mjolnir on the other hand is pretty small, and lengthwise it's a couple inches, maybe a foot long on the sides, and only a few inches vertically. Thor has to do a lot more work bringing it into position to block a beam than Cap does. Also you can tell his speed and skill from the way he moves it as he blocks.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Yeah, hulk beat the shit out of him. Just compare that to Superman/ Faora fight and you would see who is more durable. Superman was stronger than Hulk. Its not herochat, so proceed cautiously about this conversation.

He didn't shrug the beating Thor's beatings who beat the shit out of him while holding back. That arrow and hulk's punch came after he gathered himself and after a big time-interval.

What super-speed? Are you blind or something? Again she doesn't need to fight like Flash to blitz Thor of all people. Iron man did the same thing when he made Thor fall on his face and then punch him before he could react.

I did, Faora did nothing there that Loki would be unable to replicate durability wise. Her best showing in that fight was surviving a missile. Loki survived falling through the World Tree which according to Odin should have scattered him across the entire Universe and the Bifrost exploding which was channeling enough destructive energy to destroy a planet. Loki has better durability feats then Faora with those two.

What does Herochat, a completely different board have to do with this thread? Also, Superman wasn't stronger then Hulk.

Thor never took the advantage until the very end where he got mad and Loki still tanked it. That's not true at all, watch the scene again, Loki takes the arrow and Hulk back to back. A big time interval is a few minutes not a few seconds.

Yes, apparently I am. Reference any super fast punching that Faora demonstrated. She was teleporting around with super speed like Nightcrawler, true, but never did she demonstrate super fast punching.