Ozymandias vs Captain America

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
....uh, the US government clearly stated that HYDRA's deep science cell had tech exponentially more advanced that what the Allied forces had.

The Super Soldier Serum was literally their ace in the hole to counter HYDRA.

I know. But my point was, you can't quite apply our real world historical 30s/40s tech to the comic book movie 30s and 40s. Sure, some things would be the same, but to attempt to blanket assumption everything was exactly the same, isn't quite right. I'm not trying to imply it was suddenly Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or anything...

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
....uh, the US government clearly stated that HYDRA's deep science cell had tech exponentially more advanced that what the Allied forces had.

The Super Soldier Serum was literally their ace in the hole to counter HYDRA. That was also stated several times in the movie.

That and I don't recall any Hydra soldiers in that battle using any normal rifles or handguns.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Cap was in the army, and was training with the army until he was given the serum.

And Cap showed against Loki, and in the various fights throughout his two movies, that he's a solid fighter imo.

I understand he received training. But we seen no combat training. We can assume he received it since he didn't get killed rescuing those soldiers. But we know not only his strength was enhanced but also his reflexes too. I'm referring to the first movie now.

As far as the second movie we have a different animal altogether. When Cap fought Loki (not grade A skilled either) he mostly threw normal punches as in boxing. But Loki was tagging him good. He did one jumping roundhouse kick that had to either be learned after arriving in the future or it was natural for him to do. American soldiers are not trained to do jumping roundhouse kicks in the 30s.

I'm not saying Cap had no skill. But he didn't show any technique that made him look anywhere close to Ozy in skill. Mostly punches and hits with the shield through both movies with a couple of roundhouse kicks. He mostly overpowered his foes and used little technique.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I know. But my point was, you can't quite apply our real world historical 30s/40s tech to the comic book movie 30s and 40s. Sure, some things would be the same, but to attempt to blanket assumption everything was exactly the same, isn't quite right. I'm not trying to imply it was suddenly Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or anything...

I agree with you.

I just think that if h1 wants to go down that route...it's not going to be pretty. Or sane.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That and I don't recall any Hydra soldiers in that battle using any normal rifles or handguns.

Then you would be blind and deaf as you see some used regular machine guns and some used guns with energy projection.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
....uh, the US government clearly stated that HYDRA's deep science cell had tech exponentially more advanced that what the Allied forces had.

The Super Soldier Serum was literally their ace in the hole to counter HYDRA. That was also stated several times in the movie.

Again that was tesseract energy. Everything else wasn't superior to today's tech.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I mean, its quite strange. On the one hand, you're saying 'show me proof of ABC'. And then on the other hand, you're attempting to apply real world logic to it, in the absence of proof which suits you.

Elucidate.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
You want to bring in the argument that the tech they used in the 30s-40s was inferior to present day tech? OK. When we have supersoldiers, mass produced HYDRA laser rail guns and supermassive flying wing airborne aircraft carriers, call me.

Only one man knew how to create supersoldiers, those rail guns came from tesseract energy (not of this world), the aircraft in the movie is still inferior to today's technology. This is all moot since we all know those bullets were of the regular kind (remember something doesn't exist if it isn't shown AND the writer is not trying to show it).

But who cares? Cap didn't tank anything you said. He was hurt by everything you named. Where's the feat actually?

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
I agree with you.

I just think that if h1 wants to go down that route...it's not going to be pretty. Or sane.

I agree too. But something doesn't exist if it wasn't shown to AND the writer wasn't trying to show it.

Originally posted by h1a8

Only one man knew how to create supersoldiers, those rail guns came from tesseract energy (not of this world), the aircraft in the movie is still inferior to today's technology. This is all moot since we all know those bullets were of the regular kind (remember something doesn't exist if it isn't shown AND the writer is not trying to show it).

But who cares? Cap didn't tank anything you said. He was hurt by everything you named. Where's the feat actually?

Ok. So the metal used in the rail guns is just 1930s/1940s era metallurgy. The metal used in the creation of those giant flying wings were...just a product of 1930s/1940s era metallurgical practices. The engines used to fly them were all 1930s era, and the metal used for those engines (to be capable of handling tesseract energy) is all 1930s era tech. The only thing different was the presence of tesseract energy, everything else, all the support tech, is good old fashioned 1930/1940 German engineering.

The reason for all this, and why do we care? It wasn't a normal bullet, therefore it could punch through the shield, therefore it could have been ordinary steel (which in itself is a misnomer as there are different kinds of steel) and therefore Cap tanked a punch from a guy capable of denting said steel.

As for not being shown AND the writer is no trying to show it....Ozy has padded gloves. Specifically written into the film, a noted divergence from the comic. Ergo, the writer's intent was to show, come on guys, he's only human - he's not going to catch it barehanded like in the comic.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Ok. So the metal used in the rail guns is just 1930s/1940s era metallurgy. The metal used in the creation of those giant flying wings were...just a product of 1930s/1940s era metallurgical practices. The engines used to fly them were all 1930s era, and the metal used for those engines (to be capable of handling tesseract energy) is all 1930s era tech. The only thing different was the presence of tesseract energy, everything else, all the support tech, is good old fashioned 1930/1940 German engineering.

The reason for all this, and why do we care? It wasn't a normal bullet, therefore it could punch through the shield, therefore it could have been ordinary steel (which in itself is a misnomer as there are different kinds of steel) and therefore Cap tanked a punch from a guy capable of denting said steel.

As for not being shown AND the writer is no trying to show it....Ozy has padded gloves. Specifically written into the film, a noted divergence from the comic. Ergo, the writer's intent was to show, come on guys, he's only human - he's not going to catch it barehanded like in the comic.

Something doesn't exist if it isn't shown AND the writer isn't trying to show it.
Simply really.

Padded gloves or not, it doesn't take away the speed, skill, and reflexes proved.

And lastly Cap didn't tank anything. He was hurt by everything that hit him. If that is the case Rorshach tanked being kicked in the head and sent flying 20ft away. He was barely damaged as seen when he took him mask off.

Also I can use the same dumb argument that some here are using about Ozy getting past Cap's durability.

My argument is how is Cap going to get past Ozy's speed and reflexes to catch bullets?

Cap wins.

/thread

Originally posted by h1a8
Then you would be blind and deaf as you see some used regular machine guns and some used guns with energy projection.

Like I said, if you want to claim that the shield was made of some weak metal, post some actual proof.

As is, post the scene that shows the bullet passing through the shield. that way we can see what type of gun did it and what range it was done from.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like I said, if you want to claim that the shield was made of some weak metal, post some actual proof.

As is, post the scene that shows the bullet passing through the shield. that way we can see what type of gun did it and what range it was done from.

So I guess a being penetrated by a bullet isn't proof?
So I guess being used for an actual costume isn't proof?

It's funny how you don't like my proof yet never proved it was steel, while you made the initial claim. So since you can't prove it was steel then we can't accept that as fact and hence the feat is void. Right?

1) Show the scene where the bullet goes through the shield, because both the bullet's caliber and the range it was fired from can effect it's penetrating power

2) Prove that a steel shield would have stopped it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
1) Show the scene where the bullet goes through the shield, because both the bullet's caliber and the range it was fired from can effect it's penetrating power

2) Prove that a steel shield would have stopped it.

I don't have to prove anything as I didn't claim it was steel. You did. The proof is on you buddy.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't have to prove anything as I didn't claim it was steel. You did. The proof is on you buddy.

Steel was the most commonly used metal during that time, however just to move the argument forward, we'll just say the shield is made of an unknown metal.

Now, what proof do you have that the uknown metal was weak?

Technically wasn't the shield rubber (as in that's how the movie studio made it)? If we wanted to go by real world physics it would be even harder to dent rubber than it would be to dent steel 😛

Both men have 1 hour prep.

Originally posted by h1a8
So I guess a being penetrated by a bullet isn't proof?
So I guess being used for an actual costume isn't proof?

Yes, sorry man, but neither one of those is proof. Cause for speculation, maybe. But not proof.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, sorry man, but neither one of those is proof. Cause for speculation, maybe. But not proof.

In fiction, many things can not be proved. That's why we use evidence when proof doesn't exist. Silent Master has not proved anything but provided evidence yet you attack me and not him. Funny.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Steel was the most commonly used metal during that time, however just to move the argument forward, we'll just say the shield is made of an unknown metal.

Now, what proof do you have that the uknown metal was weak?

a bullet went through it and it was used as a costume prop, that's my proof.

What's your definition of proof?
Mine is proof=evidence to support

Because your statement of "steel being commonly used as metal during that time" is certainly evidence but not proof (if you define proof as something different). You are providing evidence in your argument yet when I give evidence you demand proof. See the problem with that?

Cap wins this fight superior than Ozy, close thread