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

Let's give Worthy Cap a challenge he has a chance of winning.

Cap has shield and hammer. Aquaman his trident. Fight in an abandoned airport.

Cap wins.

Cap wins.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Let's give Worthy Cap a challenge he has a chance of winning.

Cap has shield and hammer. Aquaman his trident. Fight in an abandoned airport.

Cap definitely.

For sure Cap

Cap beats him down

I mean Cap doesnt even need to hit him. Just zap him a few times.

Cap stomps

I say aquaman. Cap is more skilled, but I think aquaman's better stats give him the edge here

Cap gets Momoa'd

Cap splatters the DC trash

Are people forgetting Worthy Cap gets some nice strength/ durability upgrades and has a magical flying hammer that he can control at will and shoot lightning from as well as an indestructible shield.

Originally posted by KingD19
Are people forgetting Worthy Cap gets some nice strength/ durability upgrades and has a magical flying hammer that he can control at will and shoot lightning from as well as an indestructible shield.

Dunno. Aquaman is pretty strong as well. Whats stopping him chucking a plane on Cap?

He also has his trident which according to Snyder can cut Superman.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Dunno. Aquaman is pretty strong as well. Whats stopping him chucking a plane on Cap?

He also has his trident which according to Snyder can cut Superman.

Cap can also fly with Mjolnir. Or just throw the hammer and bust the plane. Or electrocute it while Aquaman is holding the frame. What's Arthur's defense against lightning storms? None if recall.

And he's not a good enough fighter on land to use that huge trident to get inside Caps guard when he's got the shield AND Mjolnir.

Originally posted by KingD19
Cap can also fly with Mjolnir.


I dont remember Cap being capable of flying with Mjolnir. Kindly post the scene.

Originally posted by KingD19
Or just throw the hammer and bust the plane. Or electrocute it while Aquaman is holding the frame. What's Arthur's defense against lightning storms? None if recall.


Thats True.


Originally posted by KingD19

And he's not a good enough fighter on land to use that huge trident to get inside Caps guard when he's got the shield AND Mjolnir.

Not a good enough fighter on land? Does his combat skill alter when he gets out of the water?

Will be difficult for sure, but going by feats Arthur is vastly stronger. He might also be faster if im remembering the Black Manta fight correctly.

So I dont see it being an easy win for Cap.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I dont remember Cap being capable of flying with Mjolnir. Kindly post the scene.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
He also has his trident which according to Snyder can cut Superman.

I don't recall the Trident cutting Superman, kindly post the scene.

Originally posted by KingD19
Are people forgetting Worthy Cap gets some nice strength/ durability upgrades and has a magical flying hammer that he can control at will and shoot lightning from as well as an indestructible shield.

No one is forgetting, except those who love to lowball Cap.

^ Also confirm if you believe directors comments are completely inadmissible as evidence.

Where exactly did I say anything about Cap flying?

BTW, if you aren't saying it's factual. why bring it up in a debate?

Originally posted by KingD19
Are people forgetting Worthy Cap gets some nice strength/ durability upgrades and has a magical flying hammer that he can control at will and shoot lightning from as well as an indestructible shield.

Are you forgetting how durable aquaman is? The plasma gun black manta was given completely destroyed a small island and Arthur shrugged off being smacked around by it multiple times and still won his fight. I don't think thor's lightning is going to do much. He was also being smacked around by the not kraken who could tear apart gigantic atlantian warships like tissue paper as well as surfed a para demonthrough a hospital from a free fall and was completely fine. Thor was never strong enough to do that kinda damage even in lightning mode, so I seriously doubt cap is.

Also his shield isn't indestructible. We see it break.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Where exactly did I say anything about Cap flying?

BTW, if you aren't saying it's factual. why bring it up in a debate?

I never said he will do so and so because Snyder said this. I just pointed out the Trident May not be as weak in comparison as some are making out. Whereas KindD19 flat out claimed Cap would fly in combat.

Now Youve quoted me saying Cap has no on screen feats of flying. And then Youve quoted me as saying something the Director has stated as if theres some kind of contradiction in my statements.

So Kindly explain why you have quoted these 2 statements of mine together, and then confirm for me you believe Directors comments are inadmissible and unusable as evidence or as part of an argument.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Are you forgetting how durable aquaman is? The plasma gun black manta was given completely destroyed a small island and Arthur shrugged off being smacked around by it multiple times and still won his fight. I don't think thor's lightning is going to do much. He was also being smacked around by the not kraken who could tear apart gigantic atlantian warships like tissue paper as well as surfed a para demonthrough a hospital from a free fall and was completely fine. Thor was never strong enough to do that kinda damage even in lightning mode, so I seriously doubt cap is.

Also his shield isn't indestructible. We see it break.


Pretty sure Thors lighting too it Leviathans and was blasting the Sokovian landscape.

Not that Worthy Cap has those feats. But Thor certainly does.

What screen feats point to the Trident not being as weak as some are making out?

Thor amped his blast off the building. And Leviathans are not durable on the underbelly.
Sokovia was loaded full of energy from IM and those engines. Thor just contributed to the mix.

I think lightning will bother AM but not put him down in one or two hits (Cap's lightning appeared far weaker than Thor's best lightning anyway).

Originally posted by h1a8
Thor amped his blast off the building. And Leviathans are not durable on the underbelly.
Sokovia was loaded full of energy from IM and those engines. Thor just contributed to the mix.

I think lightning will bother AM but not put him down in one or two hits (Cap's lightning appeared far weaker than Thor's best lightning anyway).

At no point in the movie did it state the Leviathans were less durable on the underbelly. in fact Tony had his AI specifically scan them for weak points and none were found.

You really need to stop lying.

Originally posted by Silent Master
At no point in the movie did it state the Leviathans were less durable on the underbelly. in fact Tony had his AI specifically scan them for weak points and none were found.

You really need to stop lying.
1st
IM was shown to scan only the armor.
What's the purpose of Armor?
IM easily destroyed one by entering the mouth and existing the underbelly.
So either IM was referring to the armor in his scan or he just contradicted himself.
If you think the underbelly is as durable as the armor then prove it.

2nd Thor amped his blasts off the building.
3rd Cap's blasts were shown to be weaker than Thor's.

Originally posted by h1a8
1st
IM was shown to scan only the armor.
What's the purpose of Armor?
If you think the underbelly is as durable as the armor then prove it.

2nd Thor amped his blasts off the building.
3rd Cap's blasts were shown to be weaker than Thor's. You made the claim the onus is on you.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Pretty sure Thors lighting too it Leviathans and was blasting the Sokovian landscape.

Not that Worthy Cap has those feats. But Thor certainly does.

If I'm remembering right, thor killed the leviathan by jamming some metal through its skull then using his lightning to fry its brain. Smart, but not as impressive

Originally posted by h1a8
1st
IM was shown to scan only the armor.
What's the purpose of Armor?
IM easily destroyed one by entering the mouth and existing the underbelly.
So either IM was referring to the armor in his scan or he just contradicted himself.
If you think the underbelly is as durable as the armor then prove it.

2nd Thor amped his blasts off the building.
3rd Cap's blasts were shown to be weaker than Thor's.

1. Prove that a leviathan's underbelly is softer than the other parts of its exterior.
2. You're assuming that Tony and Jarvis are so dumb that they specifically only scanned the strongest part of the leviathan's body.
3. He exited the underbelly AFTER he made it explode from the inside.
4. What exactly is in a building that it is able to amplify electric charges?

Arthur got knocked out by a headbutt fron Manta and some fodder Atlantis berserker


Cap was pounding Thanos, and breaking off chunks of his armor. Arthur is trash tier on land

Originally posted by carthage
Arthur got knocked out by a headbutt fron Manta and some fodder Atlantis berserker


Cap was pounding Thanos, and breaking off chunks of his armor. Arthur is trash tier on land

That's more a testament to how good atlantian armor and weapons are as opposed to Arthur being weak considering his other durability feats. Also, Arthur beat black manta where cap was beat by thanos so that argument seems disingenuous

Originally posted by h1a8
1st
IM was shown to scan only the armor.
What's the purpose of Armor?
IM easily destroyed one by entering the mouth and existing the underbelly.
So either IM was referring to the armor in his scan or he just contradicted himself.
If you think the underbelly is as durable as the armor then prove it.

2nd Thor amped his blasts off the building.
3rd Cap's blasts were shown to be weaker than Thor's.

1st, provide the quote or visual evidence from the movie that proves Tony didn't scan it's underside.

Originally posted by Silent Master
1st, provide the quote or visual evidence from the movie that proves Tony didn't scan it's underside.

The laser only touched the armor.
Doesn't matter as Tony went through the underbelly easily.

Originally posted by h1a8
The laser only touched the armor.
Doesn't matter as Tony went through the underbelly easily.

So now you're claiming Jarvis used the laser in order to scan the Leviathan?

Where in the movie was that stated, or you just lying again?

This would be a great fight IMO. Aquaman's stats are very high after his solo movie, especially durability and strength. The dude is a skilled tank. If he can get in close, it'll be a hard fight for Steve, and Momoa can end the fight if he gets a good trident shot in.

However, Steve's lightning is probably going to really mess up Aquaman's day, and he has arguably more skill, fighting prowess, and combat options with how effortlessly he combined his shield with Mjolnir against Thanos.

Toss-up, I'm leaning Steve if he can utilize his lightning plentifully then mix it up with melee when needed till he puts Mamoa down. If it turns into straight melee or fisticuffs, I see Aquaman getting the upper hand on Steve and then knocking him out or skewering him.

Also keep in mind with Mjolnir Steve hits hard enough to hurt Thanos. Or at least rock him silly now and then. So Arthur won't be shrugging off hammer strikes to the face.

I made the comment about him fighting o land because we see that in water Atlanteans take full advantage of how they can move and fight completely differently.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So now you're claiming Jarvis used the laser in order to scan the Leviathan?

Where in the movie was that stated, or you just lying again?

Actually there was no scan. Tony used the laser to try to cut through the leviathan's armor and Jarvis calculated (from the damage Tony did) that he will lose power before penetrating it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
1. Prove that a leviathan's underbelly is softer than the other parts of its exterior.
2. You're assuming that Tony and Jarvis are so dumb that they specifically only scanned the strongest part of the leviathan's body.
3. He exited the underbelly AFTER he made it explode from the inside.
4. What exactly is in a building that it is able to amplify electric charges?

1. I did. I gave the IM example of him scanning ONLY the armor and Jarvis stating that there is no way to penetrate it. But in a later scene IM easily busts through the underbelly. But the real proof is that Armor >>>>areas not protected by common sense. If you believe that the armor served no purpose (didn't make the leviathan more durable) then you have to prove that since that goes against the status quo.

2. Well visually see the laser hit only the armor. How do you explain IM busting through the underbelly then? Jarvis was referring to the laser penetrating the armor.

3. Doesn't matter as IM shouldn't be able to go through the underbelly if the scan was correct and referred to also the underbelly.

4. Hold more charge as a temporary battery. This is moot since Cap's lightning didn't appear to be as strong as Thor's lightning.

Wait wait wait, if you guys are claiming the Leviathan is just as durable on the inside as out, then how do you explain Iron Man being able to blow one up from the inside when he clearly couldnt from the outside?

Originally posted by KingD19
Also keep in mind with Mjolnir Steve hits hard enough to hurt Thanos. Or at least rock him silly now and then. So Arthur won't be shrugging off hammer strikes to the face.

I made the comment about him fighting o land because we see that in water Atlanteans take full advantage of how they can move and fight completely differently. There was no indication that Steve was doing significant damage to Thanos or even hurting him significantly. There was no visible damage and no indication of being stunned.

Originally posted by h1a8

1. I did. I gave the IM example of him scanning ONLY the armor and Jarvis stating that there is no way to penetrate it. But in a later scene IM easily busts through the underbelly. But the real proof is that Armor >>>>areas not protected by common sense. If you believe that the armor served no purpose (didn't make the leviathan more durable) then you have to prove that since that goes against the status quo.

2. Well visually see the laser hit only the armor. How do you explain IM busting through the underbelly then? Jarvis was referring to the laser penetrating the armor.

3. Doesn't matter as IM shouldn't be able to go through the underbelly if the scan was correct and referred to also the underbelly.

4. Hold more charge as a temporary battery. This is moot since Cap's lightning didn't appear to be as strong as Thor's lightning.

1. Prove that a. The underbelly is not part of the armor and 2. a clip of jarvis scanning only the armor.

2. Busting up the leviathan from the inside does not prove that the exterior of the underbelly is unarmored. Fail.

3. IM never went through the underbelly's armor. Stop making stuff up.

4. Thor has continuous access to lightning. Why would he need something to "hold more charge". Besides, a building is not a battery. You can run electricity around it but there's nothing there to amplify it.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Wait wait wait, if you guys are claiming the Leviathan is just as durable on the inside as out, then how do you explain Iron Man being able to blow one up from the inside when he clearly couldnt from the outside?

That's not what we are saying, we are talking about it's underbelly. not it's insides.


Tony asked Jarvis to find him a soft spot, when Jarvis couldn't. Tony had to attack from the inside. As usual h1 is lying

….

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's not what we are saying, we are talking about it's underbelly. not it's insides.


Ah right.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's not what we are saying, we are talking about it's underbelly. not it's insides.


Tony asked Jarvis to find him a soft spot, when Jarvis couldn't. Tony had to attack from the inside. As usual h1 is lying

This is incorrect. Tony tried a laser on the armor part. Jarvis replied, "sir you will loose power before you penetrate that shell."
Later Tony went inside the Leviathan and came out through the underbelly.

There was no scan done.

Originally posted by h1a8
This is incorrect. Tony tried a laser on the armor part. Jarvis replied, "sir you will loose power before you penetrate that shell."
Later Tony went inside the Leviathan and came out through the underbelly.

There was no scan done.

You're a liar. Tony asked Jarvis to find him a soft spot. Tony flew inside the Leviathan because he couldn't damage the outside.

Originally posted by FrothByte
1. Prove that a. The underbelly is not part of the armor and 2. a clip of jarvis scanning only the armor.

2. Busting up the leviathan from the inside does not prove that the exterior of the underbelly is unarmored. Fail.

3. IM never went through the underbelly's armor. Stop making stuff up.

4. Thor has continuous access to lightning. Why would he need something to "hold more charge". Besides, a building is not a battery. You can run electricity around it but there's nothing there to amplify it.

We clearly see that the leviathan is heavily armored on the top. There is no armor on the bottom. Even if you claim that the underbelly is as durable as the top portion then Tony was still able to penetrate through it. Hell, in the Hulk scene Tony blew up a leviathan after Hulk flipped it over.

So what is shown >>>>> what is said if they both contradict each other.

You have to prove that Thor has indefinite access to lightning without charging Mjolnir. Because we see him charging up Mjolnir multiple times.
This means that the scenes Thor wasn't shown to charge up was because Mjolnir already had charge stored.

If Tony could damage it's underbelly, why didn't he attack the underbelly instead of flying inside?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're a liar. Tony asked Jarvis to find him a soft spot. Tony flew inside the Leviathan because he couldn't damage the outside.

Jarvis didn't reply back.
Doesn't matter as Tony penetrated from inside = penetrating from the outside if we are using the same material.

Tony couldn't damage the armor. But when Hulk exposed the flesh of the Leviathan (the armor peeled away) Tony easily blew it up.

So the flesh = armor in durability is false.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If Tony could damage it's underbelly, why didn't he attack the underbelly instead of flying inside?

Because it's a movie. A lot of stupid shit happens.
You didn't know this?

I think we've given you enough rope. Their underbelly was armored as anyone that's watched the movie can tell you.

Also, More proof that h1 is a liar

Originally posted by h1a8
1. I did. I gave the IM example of him scanning ONLY the armor

Originally posted by h1a8
There was no scan done.

Originally posted by h1a8
We clearly see that the leviathan is heavily armored on the top. There is no armor on the bottom. Even if you claim that the underbelly is as durable as the top portion then Tony was still able to penetrate through it. Hell, in the Hulk scene Tony blew up a leviathan after Hulk flipped it over.

So what is shown >>>>> what is said if they both contradict each other.

You have to prove that Thor has indefinite access to lightning without charging Mjolnir. Because we see him charging up Mjolnir multiple times.
This means that the scenes Thor wasn't shown to charge up was because Mjolnir already had charge stored.

Nope, we don't clearly see it. In fact everyone here agrees that it's fully armored exteriorly, you're the only one claiming the underbelly is not armored.

As for IM blowing it up, guess you missed the part where he shot his missile through a gap in the leviathan's armor huh?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nope, we don't clearly see it. In fact everyone here agrees that it's fully armored exteriorly, you're the only one claiming the underbelly is not armored.

As for IM blowing it up, guess you missed the part where he shot his missile through a gap in the leviathan's armor huh?

Oh now I understand you. You are saying that the underbelly is armored. I thought you were arguing that it's flesh was as durable as its armor.

Well that's easily disproven.
I posted a screen shot a while ago showing no armor on the bottom.

But for now let's assume that you are correct. Leviathans are armored underneath too.

How would you explain Tony still penetrating the armor from underneath when he went inside the Leviathan?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I think we've given you enough rope. Their underbelly was armored as anyone that's watched the movie can tell you.

Also, More proof that h1 is a liar

When you said scan I thought you were referring to the scene were IM used his lasers. I already corrected my mistake in an earlier thread. I clearly stated that there no was no scan.

You said that there were. So you lied.

Originally posted by h1a8
Oh now I understand you. You are saying that the underbelly is armored. I thought you were arguing that it's flesh was as durable as its armor.

Well that's easily disproven.
I posted a screen shot a while ago showing no armor on the bottom.

But for now let's assume that you are correct. Leviathans are armored underneath too.

How would you explain Tony still penetrating the armor from underneath when he went inside the Leviathan?

The clip you posted proved that the leviathan's underbelly was a different kind of armor, not that it was unarmored. After all, the leviathans were smashing through buildings with their underbellies and they weren't getting hurt.

As for IM, he blew apart the flesh that was holding the armored plates. No flesh, nothing for armored plates to hold on to. Therefore, a big gaping hole.

Originally posted by FrothByte
The clip you posted proved that the leviathan's underbelly was a different kind of armor, not that it was unarmored. After all, the leviathans were smashing through buildings with their underbellies and they weren't getting hurt.

As for IM, he blew apart the flesh that was holding the armored plates. No flesh, nothing for armored plates to hold on to. Therefore, a big gaping hole.

You basically ignored what I said.
Read the part where I stated let's assume that the bottom is armored.

Originally posted by h1a8
You basically ignored what I said.
Read the part where I stated let's assume that the bottom is armored.

I did, you just didn't get it. Here, let me repeat for you slowly.

IM blew apart the flesh underneath the armor. He blew this up from inside the leviathan. That armor is attached to the flesh. If you blow up the flesh (from inside) the armor has nothing to attach to and thus will go flying away. IM never pentrated the belly armor, he penetrated the inside flesh.

Is it clear now or do I have to spell it out even more?

The movie clearly shows that the entire Leviathan was armored, it also shows Iron Man's missile during the bridge scene only worked because the Hulk's punch created a gap in the armor.

H1 has no idea what he's talking about.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I did, you just didn't get it. Here, let me repeat for you slowly.

IM blew apart the flesh underneath the armor. He blew this up from inside the leviathan. That armor is attached to the flesh. If you blow up the flesh (from inside) the armor has nothing to attach to and thus will go flying away. IM never pentrated the belly armor, he penetrated the inside flesh.

Is it clear now or do I have to spell it out even more?

I disagree with that. It appeared that the armor was busted up as well.

I posted a scene where no armor was shown (scene right before Hulk punched it). I just watched another scene where there were rings of armor on the bottom but half the flesh was exposed. Exposed parts of flesh on the bottom lowers the feat.

Also Cap's lightning wasn't as powerful as Thor's lightning in that scene. So all of this is moot.

So all future posts will only discuss the fact that the blast by Thor isn't practical to Cap in a real fight. Thor absorbed a shitload of lightning for multiple seconds using a building. That isn't afforded to Cap here. So the feat is irrelevant to Cap.

Originally posted by h1a8
I disagree with that. It appeared that the armor was busted up as well.

I posted a scene where no armor was shown (scene right before Hulk punched it). I just watched another scene where there were rings of armor on the bottom but half the flesh was exposed. Exposed parts of flesh on the bottom lowers the feat.

Also Cap's lightning wasn't as powerful as Thor's lightning in that scene. So all of this is moot.

So all future posts will only discuss the fact that the blast by Thor isn't practical to Cap in a real fight. Thor absorbed a shitload of lightning for multiple seconds using a building. That isn't afforded to Cap here. So the feat is irrelevant to Cap.

In other words, you concede that the underbelly of the leviathans are armored. Glad we cleared that up.

Also, unless you can come up with proof that buildings can actually amplify the amperes or voltage of an electric charge, I suggest you stop making stuff up about Thor charging his lightning through the building.

Originally posted by FrothByte
In other words, you concede that the underbelly of the leviathans are armored. Glad we cleared that up.

Also, unless you can come up with proof that buildings can actually amplify the amperes or voltage of an electric charge, I suggest you stop making stuff up about Thor charging his lightning through the building.
I concede that parts were armored (in rings) and equal parts were exposed.

Longer lightning = stronger lightning
Longer lightning = more charge

Therefore
More charge = stronger lightning.

Worst case scenario, Thor still charged his hammer for a long time before shooting the blast back out. This gave more damage potential.

If you disagree then explain why
1. Thor had to charge the hammer first
2. Thor didn't continue to shoot indefinitely and destroy every coming out of the portal

Originally posted by h1a8
I concede that parts were armored (in rings) and equal parts were exposed.

Longer lightning = stronger lightning
Longer lightning = more charge

Therefore
More charge = stronger lightning.

Worst case scenario, Thor still charged his hammer for a long time before shooting the blast back out. This gave more damage potential.

If you disagree then explain why
1. Thor had to charge the hammer first
2. Thor didn't continue to shoot indefinitely and destroy every coming out of the portal

Longer lightning = Thor just calls down as much lightning as he needs. Again, it's not the building that generates lighting. Running lightning up and down the building so he can blast the chitauri for 3 seconds doesn't give him a longer blast than if he simply blasted the chitauri for 3 seconds straight from his hammer.

You claim the building amplified it, so prove it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Longer lightning = Thor just calls down as much lightning as he needs. Again, it's not the building that generates lighting. Running lightning up and down the building so he can blast the chitauri for 3 seconds doesn't give him a longer blast than if he simply blasted the chitauri for 3 seconds straight from his hammer.

You claim the building amplified it, so prove it.

Why are you still talking about the building? My argument is about the HAMMER being charged. Thor charged the HAMMER (not the building) for many seconds before shooting the blast out for many seconds.

Again, you have to prove that Thor can indefinitely shoot lightning from the hammer without having to recharge. But evidence shows that Thor had to charge the hammer to perform the feat.

Plus you are not addressing that at least half of the bottom of a leviathanvs flesh was exposed.

Originally posted by h1a8
Why are you still talking about the building? My argument is about the HAMMER being charged. Thor charged the HAMMER (not the building) for many seconds before shooting the blast out for many seconds.

Again, you have to prove that Thor can indefinitely shoot lightning from the hammer without having to recharge. But evidence shows that Thor had to charge the hammer to perform the feat.

Plus you are not addressing that at least half of the bottom of a leviathanvs flesh was exposed.

Actually, if you're claiming that the hammer needs to be charged, then that's up to you to prove. Prove that it can get drained. After all, Mjolnir is not a battery. If you want to claim it acts like one then feel free to prove it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Actually, if you're claiming that the hammer needs to be charged, then that's up to you to prove. Prove that it can get drained. After all, Mjolnir is not a battery. If you want to claim it acts like one then feel free to prove it.

I did prove it.
The leviathan scene shows Thor charging the hammer and then expelling that energy back out to the portal.

If you disagree then kindly explain why Thor charged his hammer before shooting it back out. And explain why Thor didn't continue to blast at the portal if he had unlimited energy from his hammer.

Originally posted by h1a8
I did prove it.
The leviathan scene shows Thor charging the hammer and then expelling that energy back out to the portal.

If you disagree then kindly explain why Thor charged his hammer before shooting it back out. And explain why Thor didn't continue to blast at the portal if he had unlimited energy from his hammer.

Except there's no proof that he was actually charging it. You can't make stuff up then use it as proof.

I always saw the hammer as a conduit. A way for Thor to channel/control the lightning. That was what Odin seemed to imply in Ragnarok too.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I always saw the hammer as a conduit. A way for Thor to channel/control the lightning. That was what Odin seemed to imply in Ragnarok too.

So you think Steve wasn't actually amped (his physicals, strength and durability the most) by it in EG?

Heh, a VERY unpopular opinion to have on this particular forum.

Can't blame you, though - I also got such impression at first.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
So you think Steve wasn't actually amped (his physicals, strength and durability the most) by it in EG?

Heh, a VERY unpopular opinion to have on this particular forum.

Can't blame you, though - I also got such impression at first.

I didn't know the hammer was supposed to amp people. It didn't amp Vision, and I don't see why it would amp Cap.

I'm guessing that Jane will have to transform somehow, but neither Cap nor Vision did, so no, I don't think Cap was especially amped other than the fact that he was wielding one of the most powerful weapons in the universe.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I didn't know the hammer was supposed to amp people. It didn't amp Vision, and I don't see why it would amp Cap.

I'm guessing that Jane will have to transform somehow, but neither Cap nor Vision did, so no, I don't think Cap was especially amped other than the fact that he was wielding one of the most powerful weapons in the universe.

"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor."

Vision is not human. Robots could always lift it, that's how Zarrko trolled Thor in comics.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor."

Vision is not human. Robots could always lift it, that's how Zarrko trolled Thor in comics.

I saw nothing in Endgame to make me think that Cap was amped, and from Ragnarok, I honestly got the impression that Thor's strength and durability are just because of his parentage. The first Thor movie kind of messes with that, but Ragnarok came later, and by then Marvel was in full MCU mode.

"The Power Of Thor" to me came across as being able to channel and imbue yourself with lightning.

You might be right, and I might be wrong. I just think Cap's stats are enhanced enough that he wouldn't need the buff, imo.

I didn't know that about the robots. Good to know, even if that's a terrible oversight by Odin.

Originally posted by -Pr-
and from Ragnarok, I honestly got the impression that Thor's strength and durability are just because of his parentage.

Comics also describe Mjolnir as "just a tool" and such. MCU Ragnarok is nothing new, not some exception or a new rule. Waititi and his writers have done their homework.

Unless depowered completely (humanized) or stuck to a human (Olson) or a human-ish construct (Blake), then Thor will retain most of his superhuman attributes.

In MCU, there is no Blake, no Olson, nobody. But as you noticed, we also don't get to see Cap properly transform, so we just assume based on his performance that he got a massive power boost.

I'm on neither side, I'm actually happy you brought this up. And quite disappointed it didn't happen earlier; it's something that should be thoroughly discussed, much like that scene with Thanos beating the Hulk is still a heated subject.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor."

Vision is not human. Robots could always lift it, that's how Zarrko trolled Thor in comics.


Except Thor let Vision keep the Mindstone simply because he was worthy to lift Mjolnir.

Vision is a living being. Dont be prejudice against the artificial kind!


Originally posted by StiltmanFTW

Heh, a VERY unpopular opinion to have on this particular forum.



Actually weve been debating it a fair bit recently, and not only is Cap never shown to have any kind of physical amp, but theres also a scene where hes fighting side by side with Thor against Thanos minions, and the strength difference between the two is quite apparent.

I'm still going to say aquaman wins, even if cap gets the full God of thunder chassis

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except Thor let Vision keep the Mindstone simply because he was worthy to lift Mjolnir.

Vision is a living being. Dont be prejudice against the artificial kind!

Who said Thor was smart?

Vision is sentient, but he doesn't have a soul and is a construct... and as such, he can bypass Odin's enchantment, as that's exactly how it's been done in comics.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Comics also describe Mjolnir as "just a tool" and such. MCU Ragnarok is nothing new, not some exception or a new rule. Waititi and his writers have done their homework.

Unless depowered completely (humanized) or stuck to a human (Olson) or a human-ish construct (Blake), then Thor will retain most of his superhuman attributes.

In MCU, there is no Blake, no Olson, nobody. But as you noticed, we also don't get to see Cap properly transform, so we just assume based on his performance that he got a massive power boost.

I'm on neither side, I'm actually happy you brought this up. And quite disappointed it didn't happen earlier; it's something that should be thoroughly discussed, much like that scene with Thanos beating the Hulk is still a heated subject.

I wssn't claiming that the MCU did anything revolutionary, just that they tend to cherry pick what they like and what they don't from the comics to suit themselves.

What about Cap's performance made you think he was amped? Hurting Thanos? I honestly think that he could do that with Mjolnir whether it amped him or not.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Who said Thor was smart?

Vision is sentient, but he doesn't have a soul and is a construct... and as such, he can bypass Odin's enchantment, as that's exactly how it's been done in comics.

How dare you.

JJXzAqqC7wY

Originally posted by -Pr-
What about Cap's performance made you think he was amped? Hurting Thanos? I honestly think that he could do that with Mjolnir whether it amped him or not.

He manhandled him pretty bad, yes.

But as you said, it COULD be attributed to Mjolnir's striking power and lightning ---- much like... let's say... Hawkman's stupid mace amped by Alan's ring doing harm to Black Adam.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
He manhandled him pretty bad, yes.

But as you said, it COULD be attributed to Mjolnir's striking power and lightning ---- much like... let's say... Hawkman's stupid mace amped by Alan's ring doing harm to Black Adam.

Yeah. I mean, if the Russos turned around and said he was amped, I wouldn't be surprised. I just think that with how Cap has been portrayed before that it's not out of his range of abilities to do what he did to Thanos.

I mean, if you handed me Mjolnir and I was somehow worthy of lifting it, I would expect it to be able to hurt heralds if I smacked them with it. But then you add Cap's abilities on top of that, and so on.

I wonder if Russo's dvd/blu-ray commentary will provide us with any details on the subject.

And I hope Marvel comics won't choose to contradict it while retelling the story in the comic format... again.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
I wonder if Russo's dvd/blu-ray commentary will provide us with any details on the subject.

And I hope Marvel comics won't choose to contradict it while retelling the story in the comic format... again.



Me too. I will say this, though. I do think the argument can be made in the sense that Tony and Thor during the fight are five years out of practice, and yet Cap was fighting like he was in prime condition. That could be attributed to an amp, and there's obviously some sort of "now you know how to call down lightning" part to wielding the hammer too.

Tony might've been a family man, sure, but I doubt he's quit superheroing altogether.

Nothing indicates that. He built Pepper a suit, the world missed him after his funeral and he felt about his superhero duty as of his responsibility.

He chose to detach from the Avengers, sure. But I doubt he was just eating burgers with Morgan.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Tony might've been a family man, sure, but I doubt he's quit superheroing altogether.

Nothing indicates that. He built Pepper a suit, the world missed him after his funeral and he felt about his superhero duty as of his responsibility.

He chose to detach from the Avengers, sure. But I doubt he was just eating burgers with Morgan.

I wasn't saying he didn't keep in shape or look after himself, but half the population means half the criminals. Half the supervillains. Half the work. Like when an athlete gets injured or takes a break. A bit of rust sets in.

I would rather use that as a reason for him not performing as well in Endgame as he did in Infinity War against a less-powerful Thanos than just straight up PIS.

It was random, as Thanos said. We don't know the actual numbers.

Ronin had his hands full with Yakuza gangsters, for example, hating them for surviving while his family got evaporated.

Thanos w/o gems had to rely on his skill and Thanoscopter blade mastery, as we've seen in the movie.

With the gems, he was casually dismantling heroes left and right, always in control and activating whichever gem he needed or simply wanted to test.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Except there's no proof that he was actually charging it. You can't make stuff up then use it as proof. You see Thor call lightning from the sky into his hammer and expell it back out. I'm not understanding you.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
"Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor."

Vision is not human. Robots could always lift it, that's how Zarrko trolled Thor in comics. In Thor the first movie, machines couldn't lift Mjolnir.

Correction, machines being controlled by humans couldn't lift Mjolnir.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
It was random, as Thanos said. We don't know the actual numbers.

Ronin had his hands full with Yakuza gangsters, for example, hating them for surviving while his family got evaporated.

Thanos w/o gems had to rely on his skill and Thanoscopter blade mastery, as we've seen in the movie.

With the gems, he was casually dismantling heroes left and right, always in control and activating whichever gem he needed or simply wanted to test.

Trust you to make me literally when i was obviously speaking generally.

I didn't say there wasn't crime, but law of averages says there has to be at least a lesser amount, and I got the distinct impression that Tony was mostly retired by this point too. I wonder if any of the writers commented on it, so I'll have to google it.

Still, even with Thanos relying more on his skill, I think the difference needs at least some explaining. Out of practice or at least semi-retired is the best explanation imo.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Trust you to make me literally when i was obviously speaking generally.



Originally posted by -Pr-
I didn't say there wasn't crime, but law of averages says there has to be at least a lesser amount, and I got the distinct impression that Tony was mostly retired by this point too. I wonder if any of the writers commented on it, so I'll have to google it.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Still, even with Thanos relying more on his skill, I think the difference needs at least some explaining. Out of practice or at least semi-retired is the best explanation imo.

Again, I don't think Thanos was even trying in EG. It was like playing a video game with godmode on for him.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW




Fair enough.



Again, I don't think Thanos was even trying in EG. It was like playing a video game with godmode on for him.

I went back and flicked through IW and I see what you're saying. I think you could make that argument, sure, though I would still say it's a contributing factor more than a sole explanation.

If we choose to believe Russos, then Base Thanos was already strong and skilled enough to destroy Savage Hulk in hth.

Then you have Korath describing him as the most powerful being in the universe.

Thor, while out of shape, was armed with both Stormbreaker and Mjolnir and still had his Ragnarok upgrade.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
If we choose to believe Russos, then Base Thanos was already strong and skilled enough to destroy Savage Hulk in hth.

Then you have Korath describing him as the most powerful being in the universe.

Thor, while out of shape, was armed with both Stormbreaker and Mjolnir and still had his Ragnarok upgrade.

Oh, I have no problem with Thanos smacking them around. Far from it. He's very much the "we'll only beat him with a hail mary" kind of villain. Even if he fought all of them in tip-top shape, I'd still expect him to win. It's just the how he won, is all.

Like how I can accept WWH beating the X-Men, even if I think that how it was done wasn't super.

Kitty should've just phased Wolverine inside WWH vin

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Kitty should've just phased Wolverine inside WWH vin

Familiar territory for ol' Logan too, I'll bet.

Too familiar.

They had plenty of other options, too. Why Multiple Man didn't even try to stop Banner? Can't he get nasty with his power?

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Too familiar.

They had plenty of other options, too. Why Multiple Man didn't even try to stop Banner? Can't he get nasty with his power?

Yeah, he has some ridiculous feats. It's always nice to see an imaginative writer take his power and just run with it.

Even if you had him duplicate himself inside Hulk, and have them all watch in horror as Hulk just heals back from it immediately or something. That would have been sick.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Correction, machines being controlled by humans couldn't lift Mjolnir. That makes no difference. They could have had programmed a machine to lift Mjolnir and failed. We all know that Vision lifted Mjolnir because he was worthy.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Except there's no proof that he was actually charging it. You can't make stuff up then use it as proof.

So you are trolling now. Debate is over. Get back to me when you want to stop trolling.

Originally posted by h1a8
That makes no difference. They could have had programmed a machine to lift Mjolnir and failed. We all know that Vision lifted Mjolnir because he was worthy.

That's pure speculation.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW

Vision is sentient, but he doesn't have a soul and is a construct... and as such, he can bypass Odin's enchantment, as that's exactly how it's been done in comics.


Pretty sure he does have a soul.

Movies and comics end up pretty different though.

Take Thanos power set for example. The movies have basically made him a skilled brute.



Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
I wonder if Russo's dvd/blu-ray commentary will provide us with any details on the subject.



I hope they do. Would be nice to get that cleared up, even if im wrong.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That's pure speculation.

It's not speculation why Vision lifted Mjolnir.
Its speculation that machines couldn't move Mjolnir because they were controlled by humans.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not speculation why Vision lifted Mjolnir.
Its speculation that machines couldn't move Mjolnir because they were controlled by humans.

Sure it is, they even speculate in the movie.

Originally posted by h1a8
It's not speculation why Vision lifted Mjolnir.
Its speculation that machines couldn't move Mjolnir because they were controlled by humans.
To quote captain America
"Elevator's not worthy"

Visoion had a soul, as evidenced by SW being able to read his mind/feelings, whilst she could't read Ultron.

He was worthy, hence why Thor let him keep the Mind Gem.