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

Namor is at full power/has his spear

who wins

NO BFR

Namor was dicing Wakandan airships out of the sky, and he was pretty damn quick. I don't see Abom or even Hulk lasting long with lethal attacks from full power Namor like that.

Weakened Namor at the end of the movie would get smeared by both though.

Namor stomps tbh.

Havent seen the movie, but if Namor is being set against characters like Superman and Abominiation, he must have been pretty solid.

Thats a good thing

Said to be potentially as strong as Hulk with a vibranium weapon. Pretty nice.

Namor did nothing on the level of Hulk...

It a was just a statement by Mbaku....

Nah Director said it as well:

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1248752-black-panther-2-director-reveals-how-strong-namor-is-namor-powers

^ As strong as Thor. Potentially even Hulk.

Oh....in that case his portrayal was pretty bad since all he did was take out a few small wakandian fighter jets...

He was very weak in comparison to the likes of Thor, Hulk, etc.
Read the comments after someone tried to create a thread of Namor against Superman. That should tell you how silly that thread is.

I would guess a 50-75 tonner at best (he had no feat above that range).

Most of his feats involve slinging (not lifting) various aircrafts (weighing from 5-20 tons) using some significant effort. His punch (gave full effort) failed to seriously injure or kill M'Baku after punching his wooden (made of Oak) chest plate armor. Said chest plate did save M'Baku's life though and said punch did send him flying back around 20-30ft.

Namors advantage was his flight speed (swift enough to aim dodge energy shots) and his vibranium spear (cut through other vibranium).
I see Namor stabbing Abom, Abom grabbing Namor and wringing Namor's neck.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Nah Director said it as well:

https://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/1248752-black-panther-2-director-reveals-how-strong-namor-is-namor-powers

^ As strong as Thor. Potentially even Hulk.
So basically he's downgrading Thor and Hulk to the 50-75 ton range.
Because Namor's FEATS, when he was using significant effort, place him in the range OR LESS.

Namor stomps.

Abom is an IMPERIOUS REX, He gets his ass beat

I'll just say this. If Abom is as strong as current Hulk then he stomps Namor. Namor might get some cuts or a stab in but Abom will wreck him once he catches (grabs him). I just can see how Hulk level being loses to a class 50.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'll just say this. If Abom is as strong as current Hulk then he stomps Namor. Namor might get some cuts or a stab in but Abom will wreck him once he catches (grabs him). I just can see how Hulk level being loses to a class 50. Current Hulk is the weakest and lamest he's ever been though

You cant be talking about Professor Hulk, right?

Isn't Abomination usually supposed to be > base Hulk in strength?

With flight and the Vibranium spear Namor should still win due to maneuverability advantage though would loose in pure h2h I think.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Current Hulk is the weakest and lamest he's ever been though

You cant be talking about Professor Hulk, right? He's still far beyond 100 tons. Namor is barely 50 tons (I'm being generous)

Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
Isn't Abomination usually supposed to be > base Hulk in strength?

With flight and the Vibranium spear Namor should still win due to maneuverability advantage though would loose in pure h2h I think. Abom is pretty Damn quick in close quarters. He grab Namor sooner or later.

Originally posted by h1a8
Wrong if someone fails to lift 100 tons using all there might and Director (not writer) states they are as strong as Hulk.
Then either that means Hulk can't lift 100 tons or the director is wrong.

You can't not be able to lift 100 tons and be able to lift 100 tons at the same time. Think


Except youre making up that he cant lift 100tons.

Director also wrote the film.

Director is correct. You are wrong. Now quit trolling me.


Originally posted by h1a8
Abom is pretty Damn quick in close quarters. He grab Namor sooner or later.


Then Abom dies.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except youre making up that he cant lift 100tons.

Director also wrote the film.

Director is correct. You are wrong. Now quit trolling me.





Then Abom dies.

1. He never exerted more than 50 tons of force. Here in kmc he can't because he has no feats of doing so.

2. He used extreme effort in some of his feats and produced less than 100 tons of force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons of force while using all one's might.

Therefore, either Hulk and Thor are weak (less than 100 toners) or director is wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. He never exerted more than 50 tons of force. Here in kmc he can't because he has no feats of doing so.


That's not the same as he can't.

What you mean is he doesn't have the showings/feats to prove he can.

Originally posted by h1a8
2. He used extreme effort in some of his feats and produced less than 100 tons of force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons of force while using all one's might.


You're not referring me to a single instance. This is terrible debating.

Originally posted by h1a8
Therefore, either Hulk and Thor are weak (less than 100 toners) or director is wrong.

Completely illogical. And clearly trolling.

Edit: And as usual highlighting your double standards with "writer's intentions", when what you actually mean is "whatever h1a8 decides to believe".

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's not the same as he can't.

What you mean is he doesn't have the showings/feats to prove he can.

Not having the feats is equivalent to someone can't here on kmc.
If Namor doesn't have feats above 50 tons then he can't exert more than 50 tons in a forum fight. It's always been that way. Nothing new. We argue by feats.

His facial expressions when he punched M'Baku, slung some Wakanda ships, etc showed that he was using extreme effort (more than 90% of his might).




What double standards? There is no law of the excluded middle. Either something is true or it isn't. It can't be true and not true at the same time. There would be no point of debating if that rule can be broken. What happens onscreen >>>> writer's intent when they both contradict each other.
I accepted that Thor can withstand aircraft bullets provided his other feats despite writer's intent that he can't.
So there is no double standard. I favored feats over intent.

Namor exerted full might and yield less than 50 tons force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons.

Originally posted by h1a8
Not having the feats is equivalent to someone can't here on kmc.
If Namor doesn't have feats above 50 tons then he can't exert more than 50 tons in a forum fight. It's always been that way. Nothing new. We argue by feats.

Nope, it just means lacking evidence. There is such a thing as power scaling however.

It's brand new for you. As all your fantasy arguments depend on made up writer's intent. But as soon as you get ACTUAL Writer's intent clarified, which doesn't suit your bias, you IGNORE it.

Ridiculous double standards.



Originally posted by h1a8
His facial expressions when he punched M'Baku, slung some Wakanda ships, etc showed that he was using extreme effort (more than 90% of his might).





Lol completely unquantifiable argument.


Originally posted by h1a8
What double standards?

See above hypocrite.

Originally posted by h1a8
There is no law of the excluded middle. Either something is true or it isn't. It can't be true and not true at the same time. There would be no point of debating if that rule can be broken. What happens onscreen >>>> writer's intent when they both contradict each other.
I accepted that Thor can withstand aircraft bullets provided his other feats despite writer's intent that he can't.
So there is no double standard. I favored feats over intent.

Namor exerted full might and yield less than 50 tons force. That is equivalent to failing to exert 100 tons.


Logical fallacy.

Nothing new to address here.

Namor wins.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Nope, it just means lacking evidence. There is such a thing as power scaling however.

It's brand new for you. As all your fantasy arguments depend on made up writer's intent. But as soon as you get ACTUAL Writer's intent clarified, which doesn't suit your bias, you IGNORE it.

Ridiculous double standards.






Lol completely unquantifiable argument.




See above hypocrite.




Logical fallacy.

Nothing new to address here.

Namor wins.

1. Namor didn't fight anyone to power scale from. We go by onscreen feats. Now you can troll and break the rules if you want.

2. I stated that if writer's intent contradicts onscreen evidence then we go by onscreen evidence. I did this for Thor, I ruled in favor of onscreen evidence over writer's intent. Therefore, there is no double standard. If you disagree then clearly show where I currently favor writer's intent over onscreen evidence, if the two contradict each other.

3. Stating that Something is a logical fallacy Doesn't mean it is. You have to either give what type of fallacy or show directly why the statement is a fallacy. Otherwise your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal.

Namor gets stomped here if Abom is as strong as Hulk.
If Abom is significantly weaker than Hulk then Namor wins.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Namor didn't fight anyone to power scale from. We go by onscreen feats. Now you can troll and break the rules if you want.

2. I stated that if writer's intent contradicts onscreen evidence then we go by onscreen evidence. I did this for Thor, I ruled in favor of onscreen evidence over writer's intent. Therefore, there is no double standard. If you disagree then clearly show where I currently favor writer's intent over onscreen evidence, if the two contradict each other.

3. Stating that Something is a logical fallacy Doesn't mean it is. You have to either give what type of fallacy or show directly why the statement is a fallacy. Otherwise your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal.

Namor gets stomped here if Abom is as strong as Hulk.
If Abom is significantly weaker than Hulk then Namor wins.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
H1 with his interpretation of writer's intent can be hilariously flawed

Originally posted by h1a8
1. Namor didn't fight anyone to power scale from. We go by onscreen feats. Now you can troll and break the rules if you want.

It's not breaking any rules to quote the director. Jeez quit making idiotic assertions.


Originally posted by h1a8
2. I stated that if writer's intent contradicts onscreen evidence then we go by onscreen evidence. I did this for Thor, I ruled in favor of onscreen evidence over writer's intent. Therefore, there is no double standard. If you disagree then clearly show where I currently favor writer's intent over onscreen evidence, if the two contradict each other.

IOW you decided to ignore writers intent when it didn't suit your bias.



Originally posted by h1a8
3. Stating that Something is a logical fallacy Doesn't mean it is. You have to either give what type of fallacy or show directly why the statement is a fallacy. Otherwise your rebuttal isn't a rebuttal.


I don't need to repeat myself. Your logical fallacy stands.

Originally posted by h1a8
Namor gets stomped here if Abom is as strong as Hulk.
If Abom is significantly weaker than Hulk then Namor wins.


Yes Namor wins. His implied strength levels with a vibranium spear and flight and speed is too much for Abom.


Originally posted by DarkSaint85



Yep.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It's not breaking any rules to quote the director. Jeez quit making idiotic assertions.

IOW you decided to ignore writers intent when it didn't suit your bias.

I don't need to repeat myself. Your logical fallacy stands.

Yes Namor wins. His implied strength levels with a vibranium spear and flight and speed is too much for Abom.

Yep. I agree with you on Abom getting wrecked, but I don't think what the director said really stands here. You know how focused this forum is on shown feats only. Namor didn't show himself to be anywhere near a 100 tonner.

Originally posted by Arachnid1
I agree with you on Abom getting wrecked, but I don't think what the director said really stands here. You know how focused this forum is on shown feats only. Namor didn't show himself to be anywhere near a 100 tonner.


Just calling out h1a8 as he's always going on about "writer's intention" on this same forum, and he completely makes up what the writers intentions were.

Then when the director/writer actually makes a statement (one which also has dialogue in the movie suggesting the same) he ignores it because it doesn't suit his bias.

Oh he'll gloss over it, and try to ignore it....

But again, consider this as a feat as it were, of his interpretation abilities.

Like with Thanos lifting a finger being proof of writer's intent that he needs his chair to open portals.

Or when he misunderstood Stoic's post, and tried to argue writer's intent. Both times, glaringly wrong; showing his ability to interpret writer's intent os suspect, and is twisted for his own ends.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It's not breaking any rules to quote the director. Jeez quit making idiotic assertions.




IOW you decided to ignore writers intent when it didn't suit your bias.






I don't need to repeat myself. Your logical fallacy stands.




Yes Namor wins. His implied strength levels with a vibranium spear and flight and speed is too much for Abom.






Yep.

I don't use writer's intent when it suits me. If that was the case then Thor is not aircraft bulletproof due to writer's intent. That suits me well. But the fact was I had to accept that he is resistant against such bullets due to feats.
That's the ONLY situation where I talked about writers intent in my favor. But it didn't go in my favor, did it?

So what are you talking about? Give me one example where I ruled for writers intent over onscreen evidence. Then you would have a point.

You never pointed out the logical fallacy to begin with. So how would you be repeating yourself?

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't use writer's intent when it suits me. If that was the case then Thor is not aircraft bulletproof due to writer's intent. That suits me well. But the fact was I had to accept that he is resistant against such bullets due to feats.
That's the ONLY situation where I talked about writers intent in my favor. But it didn't go in my favor, did it?

So what are you talking about? Give me one example where I ruled for writers intent over onscreen evidence. Then you would have a point.

You never pointed out the logical fallacy to begin with. So how would you be repeating yourself?

How about with Stoic's post? When you asserted your position was inarguable, even after Stoic had clarified?

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't use writer's intent when it suits me. If that was the case then Thor is not aircraft bulletproof due to writer's intent. That suits me well. But the fact was I had to accept that he is resistant against such bullets due to feats.
That's the ONLY situation where I talked about writers intent in my favor. But it didn't go in my favor, did it?

So what are you talking about? Give me one example where I ruled for writers intent over onscreen evidence. Then you would have a point.

You never pointed out the logical fallacy to begin with. So how would you be repeating yourself?


Again you're making up it was writer's intent to say that Thor isn't bullet proof. Yet you OUTRIGHT DENY Actual Statements from the writers.

So "writer's intent" as you use it is 100% about your bias and nothing to do with objective debating. You literally just make it up.

As for feats, yes we go by Onscreen Feats here, as that is Objective. However just because someone hasn't done a feat doesn't mean they can't.

For example, Shazam hasn't lifted anything huge yet, even though Black Adam has, that doesn't mean Shazam can't, just that further proof is needed. Although logic would state BA is unlikely to be 100x stronger than Shazam when the source of their powers is the same.

And honestly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up movie dialogue and/or director's commentary to back up an argument. What is total BS is when you yourself make up what writer's intention is.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Just calling out h1a8 as he's always going on about "writer's intention" on this same forum, and he completely makes up what the writers intentions were.

Then when the director/writer actually makes a statement (one which also has dialogue in the movie suggesting the same) he ignores it because it doesn't suit his bias. LMAO makes sense. I haven't been debating here as much recently so that went over my head

Continue

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
How about with Stoic's post? When you asserted your position was inarguable, even after Stoic had clarified? I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you direct me to it? Thread and exchange?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Again you're making up it was writer's intent to say that Thor isn't bullet proof. Yet you OUTRIGHT DENY Actual Statements from the writers.

So "writer's intent" as you use it is 100% about your bias and nothing to do with objective debating. You literally just make it up.

As for feats, yes we go by Onscreen Feats here, as that is Objective. However just because someone hasn't done a feat doesn't mean they can't.

For example, Shazam hasn't lifted anything huge yet, even though Black Adam has, that doesn't mean Shazam can't, just that further proof is needed. Although logic would state BA is unlikely to be 100x stronger than Shazam when the source of their powers is the same.

And honestly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up movie dialogue and/or director's commentary to back up an argument. What is total BS is when you yourself make up what writer's intention is.

How am I making up writer's intent?
Why would writer mislead the audience in getting us to think Thor will be significantly injured from such bullets when he wouldn't?
Onscreen showings >>>> what a writers states.
Simple logic.

Kmc rules are not about what writers think. They are about feats.
Where were you when DS was arguing that Tyrant has no form of FTL travel?

Shazam is not as strong as BA due to lack of feats. Power source are different from BA. Even if writer states they have the exact same strength then they don't on kmc due to feat determines strength.

Originally posted by h1a8
How am I making up writer's intent?

With your own very very subjective assertions as seen here:

Originally posted by h1a8
Why would writer mislead the audience in getting us to think Thor will be significantly injured from such bullets when he wouldn't?

It's not for you to answer this question with your own very biased assumption, and then expect everyone else to accept it as "writer's intention."

Writers intention isn't whatever you imagine it to be. We debate here with objective facts.




Originally posted by h1a8
Onscreen showings >>>> what a writers states.

Simple logic.


Yes, On screen showings. Not your very very subjective interpretation like going off face expressions.

Originally posted by h1a8
Kmc rules are not about what writers think.


You should have thought of that before you harped on about writer's intentions in almost every debate you've participated in for years. Then only chose to accept KMC rules when the writers made it clear they disagree with you.

Originally posted by h1a8
They are about feats.
Where were you when DS was arguing that Tyrant has no form of FTL travel?


Irrelevant.

Originally posted by h1a8
Shazam is not as strong as BA due to lack of feats. Power source are different from BA. Even if writer states they have the exact same strength then they don't on kmc due to feat determines strength.


Logical fallacy.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
With your own very very subjective assertions as seen here:



It's not for you to answer this question with your own very biased assumption, and then expect everyone else to accept it as "writer's intention."

We clearly see what the writer want us to think. What imagination? Everyone who saw the scene for the first time thought the same thing. Those bullets will phuck Thor up. Plain and simple. Correct. And that's why Thor can resist such bullets, because he has the feats to prove so. Onscreen >> writer's intent. Stop exaggerating. I mention writer's intent in less than 0.1% of all debates. Writer's intent goes when it doesn't contradict onscreen showings.


Forum rules aren't logical fallacies.
Feats determine strength, not writers intent.

Namor with his vibranium spear will poke Abom full of holes. But without it he's not beating Abom. Namor was strong but not at Abom or Hulk's level.

Remember that M'Baku was able to survive a full punch from Namor. I don't think he would have been able to survive a full punch from Hulk or Abom, even with his armor.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Namor with his vibranium spear will poke Abom full of holes. But without it he's not beating Abom. Namor was strong but not at Abom or Hulk's level.

Remember that M'Baku was able to survive a full punch from Namor. I don't think he would have been able to survive a full punch from Hulk or Abom, even with his armor. I agree with you except it is possible for Abom to grab Namor after a stab.
Namor didn't exactly stab and pull out at superspeed. He more or less stabbed and waited lol.

Originally posted by h1a8
I agree with you except it is possible for Abom to grab Namor after a stab.
Namor didn't exactly stab and pull out at superspeed. He more or less stabbed and waited lol.

Possible but not likely. Namor was fast and agile enough to be dodging energy blasts from multiple ships.

Basically, Namor wins with his spear, loses in pure h2h.

Originally posted by h1a8
We clearly see what the writer want us to think.

No, you see what you want to see. And make your own ridiculously biased conclusions. Not objective facts.

Originally posted by h1a8
What imagination? Everyone who saw the scene for the first time thought the same thing. Those bullets will phuck Thor up. Plain and simple. Correct. And that's why Thor can resist such bullets, because he has the feats to prove so. Onscreen >> writer's intent. Stop exaggerating. I mention writer's intent in less than 0.1% of all debates. Writer's intent goes when it doesn't contradict onscreen showings.


Your very biased imagination.

No they didn't. And even if they did, that doesn't make one bit of difference. Because it's just what they Thought. Not any kind of Objective fact.

You really don't seem to grasp the difference between Objective and Subjective analysis.

Nope, you bring it every time there's no evidence to back up your claims.



Originally posted by h1a8
Forum rules aren't logical fallacies.
Feats determine strength, not writers intent.


Forum rules are logical. Your arguments are full of logical fallcies. You can't use negative feats (i.e. he didn't do lift something ergo he can't).

It just means he's not displayed that level of strength yet.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Possible but not likely. Namor was fast and agile enough to be dodging energy blasts from multiple ships.

Basically, Namor wins with his spear, loses in pure h2h. I'm referring to how he fights with the spear. Yes he would be fast and stab Abom. But he tends to not pull the spear out in time.
That would be a mistake.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
No, you see what you want to see. And make your own ridiculously biased conclusions. Not objective facts.




Your very biased imagination.

No they didn't. And even if they did, that doesn't make one bit of difference. Because it's just what they Thought. Not any kind of Objective fact.

You really don't seem to grasp the difference between Objective and Subjective analysis.

Nope, you bring it every time there's no evidence to back up your claims.






Forum rules are logical. Your arguments are full of logical fallcies. You can't use negative feats (i.e. he didn't do lift something ergo he can't).

It just means he's not displayed that level of strength yet.

Writers intent is pretty clear. Arguing against clear intent is trolling and a non starter.

You been on kmc long enough to know the rules.
Level of Strength, speed, durability, is established by onscreen feats.
If a character does not have any onscreen evidence then they do not get the special attribute.
Cap does not get magic in a forum fight just because we can't prove a negative. Namor doesn't get infinite strength just because we can't prove a negative. He gets the strength of his top feats. Nothing more. Those are the rules. Been that way since the very beginning of kmc.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm referring to how he fights with the spear. Yes he would be fast and stab Abom. But he tends to not pull the spear out in time.
That would be a mistake.

Only when his opponent is quite clearly incapacitated. He's recovered his spear quickly enough when it wasn't the final blow.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Only when his opponent is quite clearly incapacitated. He's recovered his spear quickly enough when it wasn't the final blow.

After a stab? I don't remember that.
I don't see him flying a lot against Abom. More grounded.
Also Abom is very quick with his hands (quick punches).

Iffy fight.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Namor with his vibranium spear will poke Abom full of holes. But without it he's not beating Abom. Namor was strong but not at Abom or Hulk's level.

Remember that M'Baku was able to survive a full punch from Namor. I don't think he would have been able to survive a full punch from Hulk or Abom, even with his armor.
Namor broke jabari wood armor which is comparable to vibranium itself. You know which Thor wasn't even able to dent?

Namor destroys abomination.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11140/111403694/8690491-6430178509-unkno.png

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11140/111403694/8690518-9832594208-unkno.png

Originally posted by abhilegend
Namor broke jabari wood armor which is comparable to vibranium itself. You know which Thor wasn't even able to dent?

Namor destroys abomination.

Nowhere in the movies is it ever mentioned that M'Baku's armor is as strong as vibranium.

^ Even Duke hasnt said that (whoever he is).

MBAku stated it was just Oak.

Originally posted by h1a8
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you direct me to it? Thread and exchange?
Sure.

When Stoic used the words 'a bit'

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=682303&pagenumber=3

Despite further clarification from him that he meant 5%, you ignored it and continued to assert that my position was wrong, based on writer's intent.

Yet we had a rare opportunity for the writer to clarify, which you ignored.

My guess is that you will excuse it by saying you didn't see it.

Abomination will beat the living being out of Namor.
I love comic book Namor. MCU Namor was a disappointment powerset wise after Coogler hyped him.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nowhere in the movies is it ever mentioned that M'Baku's armor is as strong as vibranium.
Of course it is. Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Even Duke hasnt said that (whoever he is).
Winston Duke plays M'baku, moron.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Of course it is.
Winston Duke plays M'baku, moron.

No, it wasn't mentioned at all. If you believe it is then please provide the exact quote.

Originally posted by abhilegend
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11135/111351020/8691571-84c038db-b3b3-41d6-b2bc-8888cc6a18e3.jpeg


Ok and? I'm still waiting for you to post the quote where it says the plants were as tough as vibranium.

You do know that "affecting" something doesn't mean it replicates its properties exactly right?

Originally posted by abhilegend

You mean like the actor who's playing M'baku isn't quoting proper on the weapons his character has?

You were always such a moron.


Yeah next I should go ask Harrison Ford about how good a sword fighter Han Solo is. I'm sure that answer would be totally canon.

Dummy.

Abomination. Again, maneuverability is Namor's friend, but if he had a toe-to-toe fight with Shuri Black Panther, Emil is going to pulverize him with.

Originally posted by John Murdoch
but if he had a toe-to-toe fight with Shuri Black Panther, Emil is going to pulverize him with.


Namor was massively depowered in that toe-to-toe.

And TChalla BP was able to one punch floor Cull without any depowerment.

So no, there will be no pulverising here.

Without even watching BP2, I can confidently sayMCU Abomination is above all this petty fighting, and will concede the floor to Namor to salvage his pride. What Namor really needs, Abom realises, is just to actualise his feelings, to express himself using more languages than the physical.

Also, that he needs to have a good long session in the Yurt Hut. He just needs to find his inner namaste.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Namor was massively depowered in that toe-to-toe.

And TChalla BP was able to one punch floor Cull without any depowerment.

So no, there will be no pulverising here.

tbh, he didn't appear to be significantly depowered. His punches and attacks appeared to have the same force as they always did.

Originally posted by h1a8
I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you direct me to it? Thread and exchange? Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Sure.

When Stoic used the words 'a bit'

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=682303&pagenumber=3

Despite further clarification from him that he meant 5%, you ignored it and continued to assert that my position was wrong, based on writer's intent.

Yet we had a rare opportunity for the writer to clarify, which you ignored.

My guess is that you will excuse it by saying you didn't see it.

Strange, h1, you seem to have forgotten this thread after I proved you wrong (again).

Originally posted by h1a8
tbh, he didn't appear to be significantly depowered. His punches and attacks appeared to have the same force as they always did.


Appeared? We literally saw how badly he was struggling.

He was dying of thirst (for water which empowers him).

Seriously, just watch the damn movie.

H1 is the kind of guy to literally interpret writer's intent that 'a bit' = 'a lot':

Originally posted by h1a8
I take "a bit" means a lot to Stoic. I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Appeared? We literally saw how badly he was struggling.

He was dying of thirst (for water which empowers him).

Seriously, just watch the damn movie.

What does that have to do with his strength?
His strength wasn't reduced at all.

Originally posted by h1a8
What does that have to do with his strength?
His strength wasn't reduced at all.


So if im dying of thirst, weakened as hell, im still gonna lift the sane weight ?

You cant be this stupid.

And the whole end plot was to depower him because they knew they were no match for him otherwise.

Just watch the damn film ffs.

What was the point of the dehydration chamber, if not to weaken him?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So if im dying of thirst, weakened as hell, im still gonna lift the sane weight ?

You cant be this stupid.

And the whole end plot was to depower him because they knew they were no match for him otherwise.

Just watch the damn film ffs. He didn't show a reduction in strength. Facts

Originally posted by h1a8
He didn't show a reduction in strength. Facts


Watch the damn movie then maybe you'll quit being moronic.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Watch the damn movie then maybe you'll quit being moronic. I saw the movie. And you know this so well that you would bet 1000 to 100 that I did.

Why do you guys keep entertaining him?

Stop feeding the troll

Originally posted by h1a8
I saw the movie. And you know this so well that you would bet 1000 to 100 that I did.


I don't gamble. And I wouldn't start just to entertain an internet troll.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I don't gamble. And I wouldn't start just to entertain an internet troll. The thing about debating is that it's easy. If someone says a false statement then it is easy to prove wrong by showing a counter example. If you not able to then that doesn't make me a troll but rather you one.

Just prove me wrong show me where he was punching with less force while dehydrated than while hydrated.