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

Let's get Namor in the ring with the champ, Chadwick Boseman's T'Challa.

Battle is the same spot on the beach where Shuri fought Namor.
- T'Challa has his BP/IW/EG armor.
- Namor has his spear and has not been weakened by the Wakandan tanning salon tech.

If he hasn't been weakened then Namor should stomp.

The spear turns the table. So Namor most likely wins. Without the spear then T'Challa stomps.

Originally posted by h1a8
Without the spear then T'Challa stomps.


No. Namors too fast and strong for TChalla. And im not even including Writers intention here which you have proven yourself to be completely hypocritical on.

Namor wrecks him with or without the spear

Originally posted by Darth Thor
No. Namors too fast and strong for TChalla. And im not even including Writers intention here which you have proven yourself to be completely hypocritical on.

Namor can't damage T'Challa. But T'Challa can damage Namor.
Namor is not fast when fighting on the ground (he's human level speed). He's only fast flying through the air aim dodging shots at him.

Originally posted by h1a8
Namor can't damage T'Challa. But T'Challa can damage Namor.
Namor is not fast when fighting on the ground (he's human level speed). He's only fast flying through the air aim dodging shots at him.

Namor already proved he can hurt Shuri in her BP armor, and that was while he was weakened. What makes you think he can't hurt T'Challa?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Namor already proved he can hurt Shuri in her BP armor, and that was while he was weakened. What makes you think he can't hurt T'Challa?

Prove that Shuri was hurt by Namor outside the spear stab.

Do you watch the fight scenes in ****ing brail or something?

Originally posted by h1a8
Prove that Shuri was hurt by Namor outside the spear stab.

Maybe watch the movie first before debating yes?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Maybe watch the movie first before debating yes?

Name a single time h1 watched a movie he attempted discussing on this forum.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Name a single time h1 watched a movie he attempted discussing on this forum.

Fair point.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Do you watch the fight scenes in ****ing brail or something?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Maybe watch the movie first before debating yes?

I did watch the movie. So prove it.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Do you watch the fight scenes in ****ing brail or something?

Sometimes

Knocking someone around doesn't prove you hurt or damaged them.
The suit is designed to absorb kinetic energy. Shuri was absorbing the kinetic energy from Namor's attacks.
So I'm not talking out of my ass.
You have to prove that Namor was indeed hurting Shuri with his attacks. Then you have to prove by how much.
Otherwise T'Challa wins in a spearless fight.

You actually are talking out of your ass.

But All you need to know is Writers Intention.

Lol. So BP cant even be hurt now? The suit cant take unlimited kinetic energy. If the Hulk stood there and repeatedly beat on BP, BP is going to die. Same with Namor throwing punches.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You actually are talking out of your ass.

But All you need to know is Writers Intention.

So now you want to argue writer's intent while dismissing others.
I didn't see any evidence (verbal sounds of pain, laying on the ground for extended periods of time, etc) that Namor hurt Shuri. All I saw was him knock her around and her releasing kinetic energy that was stored.

Originally posted by tkitna
Lol. So BP cant even be hurt now? The suit cant take unlimited kinetic energy. If the Hulk stood there and repeatedly beat on BP, BP is going to die. Same with Namor throwing punches. That's not the argument. The claim is that Namor hurt Shuri. I see no proof of that.

He hurts Shuri with his bare hands while they're fighting in the evaporation chamber and his spear is stuck in the ship. It's also clear that she's getting hurt when he knocks her around after they crash land.

Originally posted by h1a8
So now you want to argue writer's intent while dismissing others.



Yes I want to argue it now that it's ACTUALLY BEEN STATED by Said Writer.

You prefer to make it up.

Originally posted by h1a8


That's not the argument. The claim is that Namor hurt Shuri. I see no proof of that.

If you're grunting and crying out in pain after you get hit, then you were obviously hurt... which is something Shuri was doing multiple times in her fight against a weakened Namor.

Now, do all of us a favor and actually watch the movie before commenting on this thread.

He watched the Lego version that he made himself. With just one Lego.

Originally posted by FrothByte
If you're grunting and crying out in pain after you get hit, then you were obviously hurt... which is something Shuri was doing multiple times in her fight against a weakened Namor.

Now, do all of us a favor and actually watch the movie before commenting on this thread. I disagree. I remember no such things. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yes I want to argue it now that it's ACTUALLY BEEN STATED by Said Writer.

You prefer to make it up.

Show me that the writer stated Namor hurt Shuri.

Originally posted by Smurph
He hurts Shuri with his bare hands while they're fighting in the evaporation chamber and his spear is stuck in the ship. It's also clear that she's getting hurt when he knocks her around after they crash land.

What's the proof?


Originally posted by FrothByte
If you're grunting and crying out in pain after you get hit, then you were obviously hurt... which is something Shuri was doing multiple times in her fight against a weakened Namor.

Now, do all of us a favor and actually watch the movie before commenting on this thread. I stated the following before your last post.

Originally posted by h1a8

I didn't see any evidence (verbal sounds of pain, laying on the ground for extended periods of time, etc) that Namor hurt Shuri. All I saw was him knock her around and her releasing kinetic energy that was stored.


Now prove it

Originally posted by h1a8
I disagree. I remember no such things. Prove me wrong.

Just so we're clear, you're claiming that Shuri never grunted nor cried out in pain when she was fighting Namor?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Just so we're clear, you're claiming that Shuri never grunted nor cried out in pain when she was fighting Namor?

Yup that's my claim. Now prove me wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yup that's my claim. Now prove me wrong.

Easy, you need to watch the movie and listen. Hard to prove something to someone who doesn't even want to go and look at the proof.

Now after you've watched the movie, prove to me that Shuri wasn't hurt.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Easy, you need to watch the movie and listen. Hard to prove something to someone who doesn't even want to go and look at the proof.

Now after you've watched the movie, prove to me that Shuri wasn't hurt. I watched the scene yesterday (or was it 2 days ago?). That's why I posted what I said (no verbal clues, no lying for extended periods of time, etc)

Hint:I wouldn't say " prove me wrong" if I didn't see it myself.

Originally posted by h1a8
I watched the scene yesterday. That's why I posted what I said (no verbal clues, no lying for extended periods of time, etc)

And you obviously weren't paying attention, as everyone here will agree that both Namor and Shuri were indeed grunting in pain multiple times in their fight.

So again, please make sure you watch the movie and pay attention, otherwise it's useless providing proof to someone who hasn't watched the movie.

Now if you want to claim Shuri wasn't hurt, then you'll need to prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8

What's the proof?
The footage in those scenes. I can't hold your hand any further than that.

Originally posted by Smurph
The footage in those scenes. I can't hold your hand any further than that.

Exactly. If he is unable to comprehend was is happening during those scenes, then everybody is just wasting their time with him.

I find that to be the case most times with H1.

Originally posted by h1a8
Show me that the writer stated Namor hurt Shuri.


The writer said Namor is as strong as Thor/Hulk, who we already know can easily batter even TChalla BP, let alone Shuri BP.

Now concede, either that you are wrong here or that you have been wrong all these years (decades now) claiming Writers Intent is what matters.

Either way I want a concession.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The writer said Namor is as strong as Thor/Hulk, who we already know can easily batter even TChalla BP, let alone Shuri BP.

Now concede, either that you are wrong here or that you have been wrong all these years (decades now) claiming Writers Intent is what matters.

Either way I want a concession. Writer's opinion is invalid if it contradicts onscreen evidence

Originally posted by h1a8
Writer's opinion is invalid if it contradicts onscreen evidence


And who decides that? Oh let me guess, you do.

Just GTFO man. Youre an imbecile.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And who decides that? Oh let me guess, you do.

Just GTFO man. Youre an imbecile.
That's kmc rules. Been that way since the beginning.
Stop acting all new

Originally posted by h1a8
That's kmc rules. Been that way since the beginning.
Stop acting all new


There is no KMC rule that says you, H1, gets to decide what writer's intent is.

The only consistent aspect of h1's interpretations of the rules or "writer intent" is that they conveniently always require proof from everybody but him. Everything else shifts but that's the constant.

Originally posted by FrothByte
There is no KMC rule that says you, H1, gets to decide what writer's intent is.
Its writer's intent do not contradict onscreen showings then we can accept writer's intent (if we all in agreement).
But if they do then onscreen evidence trumps writer's intent. That's the rules.

Originally posted by Smurph
The only consistent aspect of h1's interpretations of the rules or "writer intent" is that they conveniently always require proof from everybody but him. Everything else shifts but that's the constant.

Writer's intent is valid and acceptable, provided it doesn't contradict onscreen showings.

Originally posted by h1a8
Its writer's intent do not contradict onscreen showings then we can accept writer's intent (if we all in agreement).
But if they do then onscreen evidence trumps writer's intent. That's the rules.


Show me these rules.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Show me these rules.

^ Nothing about Writers Intent there.

Ergo, youre making up your own rules, As Per Usual.

You also need to look up the meaning of CONTRADICT. Because youre the only one who claims Cooglers statement Outright Contradicts the on screen feats of Namor. What others are suggesting is we cant go by directors comments alone.

Either way, Namor has sufficient on screen feats to smash BPs face in.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Nothing about Writers Intent there.

Ergo, youre making up your own rules, As Per Usual.

You also need to look up the meaning of CONTRADICT. Because youre the only one who claims Cooglers statement Outright Contradicts the on screen feats of Namor. What others are suggesting is we cant go by directors comments alone.

Either way, Namor has sufficient on screen feats to smash BPs face in. It says movie feats only. That means interviews don't count.

Well Namor showed 50-100 ton strength.
If you accept that Thor and Hulk is around that level then it doesn't contradict.

Originally posted by h1a8
It says movie feats only. That means interviews don't count.


Exactly so you concede youve been nothing but a Big TROLL all these years with Writers Intent.

Writers Intent which youve consistently made up yourself. But when a legit statement comes from the Writer, you IGNORE it, and whine about the Rules.

Ive simply called out your BS.

Originally posted by h1a8
Well Namor showed 50-100 ton strength.
If you accept that Thor and Hulk is around that level then it doesn't contradict.


Except Thor and Hulk have their own On Screen Feats DUMMY.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Exactly so you concede youve been nothing but a Big TROLL all these years with Writers Intent.

Writers Intent which youve consistently made up yourself. But when a legit statement comes from the Writer, you IGNORE it, and whine about the Rules.

Ive simply called out your BS.




Except Thor and Hulk have their own On Screen Feats DUMMY.

Writer's intent using what is shown onscreen, not interviews. Big difference.

Contradictions can't exist in a debate. There is no law of the excluded middle.

P1: Namor showed 50-100 ton strength maximum
P2: Namor is as strong as Thor and Hulk
C: Thor and Hulk have 50-100 ton strength

This is a deductive argument. Therefore, the conclusion is only false if one of the premises is false.

P1 is not false
Therefore if the conclusion is false then P2 is false.

Again youre making up your own rules on writers intent. Nothing about writers intent is mentioned in the rules. So why not just concede youve been talking shit all these years?

No real limits are shown to Namors strength in Wakanda Forever, so your conclusion sucks ass.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Again youre making up your own rules on writers intent. Nothing about writers intent is mentioned in the rules. So why not just concede youve been talking shit all these years?

No real limits are shown to Namors strength in Wakanda Forever, so your conclusion sucks ass.
Writer's intent through MOVIE FEATS ONLY.
What's so hard to understand?

Namor did show limits. He used all of his might several times and produced effects that were less than 100 tons of force.

Also a character does not get limits higher than on screen evidence shows.
So if a character, with near full effort, lifted 50 tons in a movie then we can't give them a higher limit in a forum fight.

Originally posted by h1a8
1)Writer's intent through MOVIE FEATS ONLY.
What's so hard to understand?

2)Namor did show limits. He used all of his might several times and produced effects that were less than 100 tons of force.

3)Also a character does not get limits higher than on screen evidence shows.
4)So if a character, with near full effort, lifted 50 tons in a movie then we can't give them a higher limit in a forum fight.

1) Again you dont get to make up your own rules Troll. Thats what youre having major difficulties understanding.

2) Nope. Youre making things up again. He was only shown to use all his might when de-powered.

3) So concede youve been trolling all these years with Writers Intent.

4) There was no near full effort except after depowerment.

H1, on writer's intent:

Originally posted by h1a8
In Superman 4, A human woman was breathing and talking in space.
Does that mean that it was air in space?
Basically, writers get shit wrong in movies all the time. Therefore we should go by intent.
Clearly the intent was that the outcome would have been the same on the surface or in orbit.

Note: Trying to use exact physics to lowball (not highball) feats can result in nearly all feats being rendered non feats (or lowballed). So let's stick to writer's intent shall we.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
1) Again you dont get to make up your own rules Troll. Thats what youre having major difficulties understanding.

2) Nope. Youre making things up again. He was only shown to use all his might when de-powered.

3) So concede youve been trolling all these years with Writers Intent.

4) There was no near full effort except after depowerment.

1. I quoted the rules MOVIE FEATS ONLY. What's si hard to understand?

2. Writer's intent can be used if it doesn't contradict MOVIE FEATS.

3. He used full (or near full) effort multiple times BEFORE the end of the movie.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
H1, on writer's intent:

Yup, as long as it doesn't contradict onscreen evidence it's all good.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. I quoted the rules MOVIE FEATS ONLY. What's si hard to understand?

2. Writer's intent can be used if it doesn't contradict MOVIE FEATS.

3. He used full (or near full) effort multiple times BEFORE the end of the movie.


1. There was no mention of Writer's intent there DUMMY

2. You don't get make up your own rules. IF there was a ruling, it would clearly only relate to Director's Statements, and not Writer's Intent, which is subjective as hell so dumb AF to use.

3. Says you, and you only. PROVE IT OR QUIT TROLLING.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yup, as long as it doesn't contradict onscreen evidence it's all good.

Which it apparently does in Superman 4.

Yet you wanted to rely then on Intent only, no?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which it apparently does in Superman 4.

Yet you wanted to rely then on Intent only, no?

Writer's intent didn't contradict onscreen evidence in Superman 4.
Writer's intent was that a human can survive in space (breath and everything). We see this happening.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
1. There was no mention of Writer's intent there DUMMY

2. You don't get make up your own rules. IF there was a ruling, it would clearly only relate to Director's Statements, and not Writer's Intent, which is subjective as hell so dumb AF to use.

3. Says you, and you only. PROVE IT OR QUIT TROLLING.

The statement MOVIE FEATS ONLY implies that nothing else can be used. You know the English language of the word, "ONLY" right? Why are you acting slow?

3. He shown great effort in slinging the Wakanda ship. He had to spin the helicopter multiple times to generate enough speed to throw it with enough force. This shows less than 100 ton strength. He once or twice yelled in might when he punched (and said punch appeared to be less than 50 tons in force).

Originally posted by h1a8
The statement MOVIE FEATS ONLY implies that nothing else can be used. You know the English language of the word, "ONLY" right? Why are you acting slow?


Exactly. So concede now that you've been talking s*** all these year's regarding "writers intention".

I am waiting.

Originally posted by h1a8
3. He shown great effort in slinging the Wakanda ship. He had to spin the helicopter multiple times to generate enough speed to throw it with enough force. This shows less than 100 ton strength. He once or twice yelled in might when he punched (and said punch appeared to be less than 50 tons in force).


This is your own very subjective analysis and doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Exactly. So concede now that you've been talking s*** all these year's regarding "writers intention".

I am waiting.




This is your own very subjective analysis and doesn't prove anything.

Writer's intent can be portrayed IN THE MOVIE FEAT. That is what I use, not interviews. In other words, argue intent from the actual scene, not from outside interviews.

There is no mention of Namor not using his full (or almost full) might in those instances where he is blood lusted.

Originally posted by h1a8
A character who is blood lusted is not holding back his punches unless there is evidence that he/she is.

Namor was slinging ships with his full might, punching with his full might, etc.


Says who? Oh because thats Writers intention right ?