No, he said it doesn't affect current continuity and you don't have to know about Thor's long history etc. to enjoy these stories. That doesn't make them non-canon. BIG difference.
So what if he didn't have it when he met Apocalypse? The Fraction Trilogy came out years earlier and at that point in canon, Thor had Mjolnir since he was a teenager.
No he didn't.
No it isn't.
Thor taking a beating from a Cosmic level being isn't exactly rare or unheard of so it's not really that crucial. I'd say you are far more desperate in trying to negate feats for Thor. And I'm sure pretty much everyone, including the NSA, would agree.
__________________
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on Apr 27th, 2014 at 05:40 PM
Perhaps, yes. Or maybe Thor just struck him harder. It doesn't really matter which was tougher.
But you arguing that the ice monster that Thor was taking on or the spear he was stabbed with was as durable as the snow men Mystique created is retarded.
Snyder said LTBB was semi-canon and did not affect continuity and yet you had no problem with that. I'd give your opinion a lot more consideration if it wasn't so clearly driven by such nonsense reasons.
So? Are you some kind of retard? Scratch that: Are you really that much of a retard? Current young Thor contradicts Fraction's trilogy because the trilogy was basing Thor having Mjolnir on decades of established canon.
Yes, because you so often convince people to side with you.
Then gtfo of my thread which has like many others gone to shit because you can't help your hate boner.
What? I don't know for certain. No one does. This is your problem, you form an opinion and assume it is fact while ignoring anything contradictory.
Maybe the Ice dragon wasn't more durable then Iceman and Thor simply struck Bobby harder. It doesn't really matter now as you clearly acknowledge (Through your silence) that Iceman can make some constructs far more durable then others.
So now she stabbed with a shard she picked up? How does that make sense unless you think she can turn invisible?
Now did he? I've never seen it. Can you provide the link? As it is, I don't believe anything you say now.
Heh, resorting to namecalling now that when you've been exposed of your lies? What, you're not going to report me now? Such a pitiful trick. Fraction's trilogy is non canon. You can cry all you want, its not going to change.
Who the **** cares about siding people?
Who died and made you a mod?
That's your problem, not mine.
Your point would be? The ice which penetrated Thor from behind (heh) wasn't particularly durable as Thor shattered it into one blow.
She attacked him from behind genius. Such simple things are so beyond you, its laughable.
I haven't lied about anything. You've yet to prove anything. But I'm glad you admit how retarded it is to use current Young Thor as evidence because he doesn't have Mjolnir.
So you're basically admitting you don't give a f*ck if a comic is ambiguous and push a point as fact anyways? Well, I guess it isn't a shock.
What are you talking about? The ice that cut Thor wasn't even chipped when we see him holding it so I'm not sure why you'd say it's not particularly durable?
Or are you referring to Thor breaking Iceman's body? We already established as canon that Iceman can make some constructs more durable.
Also, are you saying that something isn't particularly durable because it was shattered by a charged Mjolnir blow from a pissed off Thor?
Your reasoning was that your argument had more weight because someone else agreed with it.
You didn't.
The only reason you don't do it more often is because almost no one ever agrees with you.
That sentence didn't make any sense. What body parts were more durable? I'm saying that Iceman might instinctively be more durable then his other constructs and Thor struck harder. Or he may not. No one knows for sure. Either way, that does not change my point.
This discussion has run it's course.
Mjolnir cannot shatter top tier level durability? Only a few months ago we had a discussion of Thor shattering secondary Adamantium Ultrons. Does your memory reset every few weeks?
Untrue on all accounts. I don't do this for anyone to agree with me. I say my opinion and let other people decide it for themselves. Whether they agree or disagree has no concerns for me.
It totally does. You're suggesting that the shard that pierced Thor was somehow super duper durable JUST BECAUSE IT PIERCED THOR.
Oh yeah, it has.
That would be like comparing OWAW Superman to every time Superman gets pissed. And this was under a different writer.
Okay, I finally ended up reading all of this, and we're going to have to agree to disagree. Mostly because I don't want to reply and the discussion is not going to reach a resolution.
Hopefully they'll clarify King Thor's state in the next issue. In regards to Young Thor, this is probably the closest straight up comparison he's had to adult Thor by someone else aside from their fight with Gorr: (please log in to view the image)
You may disagree, but to me at least, it clearly implies a difference between the two.
Also, I don't give a shit about walls of texts. With you alone, I've spent like dozens of pages discussing the most trivial of shit. I just get really bored easily nowadays.
__________________
Last edited by Rage.Of.Olympus on May 4th, 2014 at 03:44 AM
If you say so. Personally, their respective encounters with Gorr makes it clear to me how the two compare. For example, Young Thor being too spent to even move after the final fight with Gorr while Avenger Thor climbs up from the center of a planet (Although he got pissed and took his eye at the end there).
KMC Community Forums
Apr 27th, 2014 05:00 PM
