HANCOCK(will smith) vs SUPERMAN(routh) vs HULK(eric bana)

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Strike force has nothing to do with turning back time. All I was referring to was that moving fast enough turn back time was not a product of his strength so much as his speed. And you'd have to prove that it would **** hancock up. There's no proof saying that Hancock will get even a single scratch, actually. You're trying to put a limit on him that does not exist. He's taken everything that's been thrown at him without even a scratch. Just because he hasn't taken a hit with Supes strength behind it doesn't mean he can't, since we don't know his limits.

Can you prove that he had to use effort to go through the atmosphere? Considering he managed to do it even though he was on death's door and had just recovered from being dead, I'd guess that it really doesn't take all that much effort. *shrug*

Irrelevant. And he had just been sun dipped, though that's also irrelevant.

2. No, but you can't prove he went through effortlessly either, and you made the claim, you provide the proof. Hancock has an advanced healing factor when away from his wife, by the time he flew there, he was away from his wife, and this poses another question...How in the HELL do you know if he flew outta the atmosphere at that specific point?

3. Not really. Oh and he was not "sundipped", that implys he literally flew in the sun.

you are committing the No Limits fallacy every post, should we assume Galactus cannot harm Hancock? Or how about Spectre? So no limit on Hancock exists?

Yes. Yes, and yes. Until Hancock's powers are better explained and tested out, yes.

No Limit fallacy.

The No Limit Fallacy also makes more sense then assuming that he can't defend against something simply because he hasn't done it yet, despite the fact that everything he has gone up against he is not hurt at all.

Superman can provide more force than ANYTHING that has hit Hancock. There is no evidence Hancock has the durability to take force on the level Superman can provide.

And there's no proof that Superman has enough force to bypass Hancock's durability either, since everything essentially just boucnes off of him.

We don't know his limits, no, but we don't know Superman's either, and Superman has shown much higher showings. So one character with no defined limits has better feats than one character with no defined limits, which one is superior?

Neither. If their powers are so ambiguous that you have no way to tell how strong or durable they really are, then it's a tie. Once it's established that neither character have a limit to there powers then that means they can just go at it forever, or one of them wins via BFR, which as I've already stated, but no one listens to me, hence the constant bitching from various people about the no limit fallacy, BFR is Supes only viable way to win.

2. No, but you can't prove he went through effortlessly either, and you made the claim, you provide the proof.Hancock has an advanced healing factor when away from his wife, by the time he flew there, he was away from his wife,

and this poses another question...How in the HELL do you know if he flew outta the atmosphere at that specific point?

Why? Do you think that he maybe flew elsewhere?

3. Not really. Oh and he was not "sundipped", that implys he literally flew in the sun. [/B]

Pointless semantics.

If you're going to say Hancock has unknown limits that just sets you back to neutral as you can't claim he can or can't do things because his capacity to do so is unknown.

Also, I thought Hancock just flew away in the end.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Yes. Yes, and yes. Until Hancock's powers are better explained and tested out, yes.

The No Limit Fallacy also makes more sense then assuming that he can't defend against something simply because he hasn't done it yet, despite the fact that everything he has gone up against he is not hurt at all.

And there's no proof that Superman has enough force to bypass Hancock's durability either, since everything essentially just boucnes off of him.

Neither. If their powers are so ambiguous that you have no way to tell how strong or durable they really are, then it's a tie. Once it's established that neither character have a limit to there powers then that means they can just go at it forever, or one of them wins via BFR, which as I've already stated, but no one listens to me, hence the constant bitching from various people about the no limit fallacy, BFR is Supes only viable way to win.

I don't have to. The movie clearly shows him flying straight toward it without any screams or even burns. When he's weakened by Mary's influence and he gets injured the scars stay on him, they don't heal. If Hancock had flown through the atmosphere while he was still weakened and he actually got injured from it then he'd have scars pretty much everywhere. Even if he healed he'd still have them. The fact that he looks completely fine later indicates that he didn't get injured. As for the healing factor, maybe he used it maybe he didn't. But, you're making that claim not me. So you can prove that he did that.

Why? Do you think that he maybe flew elsewhere?

Pointless semantics.

2. The Saint of Killer has not only never been hurt, but he has never even been even mildly discomforted by anything. At all. Should we assume the universe exploding would not harm him? No we shouldn't. Superman can hit with far greater force than Hancock has been shown to take, but since nothing in the movie hurt him, we assume that nothing can? Hancock's best "feat" in durability is going through the atmosphere, and we didn't even see him do it. His best on-screen feats are taking rockets and high caliber bullets. Wow. Hulk has better durability feats than that.

3. Since bullets and rockets do. So Superman=rockets? Hancock hasn't shown to be able to take Superman level force, not even close to it, so yes, we must assume that Superman can in fact hurt him.

4. Actually, we have seen strength feats from both. Hancock stopped a train without budging, a pretty good feat. Superman just lifts a continent of Kryptonite and throws it in space. So actually, Superman just did Hancock's best "feat"(which we never saw Hancock do) in the presence of Kryptonite while lifting something that was, well it was bigger than anything Hancock has lifted. No one is listening because you are assuming neither character has a limit, but what you aren't paying attention to is that Hancock's feats are vastly inferior to Superman's, neither have shown limits, but Superman has the better feats by far. Superman has shown to be much stronger and faster, but since Hancock hasn't shown a limit in his strength despite his inferior feats, we assume they are equals? That's bullshit logic.

5. Doesn't really matter anymore since nothing indicates he flew out of the atmosphere at that point.

6. Yeah, away so Mary wouldn't die. There is no evidence at all that says he flew out of the atmoshpere at that point. Prove he went through tha atmosphere at that point.

7. Not really. If he sundipped, he would be at a level of power far beyond base power. Beams of sunlight just hit him, which puts him at standard powerlevel. So no it is not "pointless semantics".

i just got done weightlifting today. i didn't hit my max today, so i guess everyone should assume that i have no max and am in fact the strongest person on the planet.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Irrelevant. And he had just been sun dipped, though that's also irrelevant.

😆

He wasn't even close to being sun dipped.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
3. Not really. Oh and he was not "sundipped", that implys he literally flew in the sun.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Pointless semantics.

the Trailer for Hancock alone >>>>>>>>>>>> Practically everything done by Routh Superman in the entire Superman Returns movie. (Minus maybe lifing the Kryptonite land mass.) which was more PIS than anything considering the effect that 1 shard did to him.

😆

Originally posted by horrorwolf
the Trailer for Hancock alone >>>>>>>>>>>> Practically everything done by Routh Superman in the entire Superman Returns movie. (Minus maybe lifing the Kryptonite land mass.) which was more PIS than anything considering the effect that 1 shard did to him.

Routh sups ftw

Hancock, because it was a way better movie.

hancock

Hancock!!!!! easily he has MUCH more powers than supes he just forgot them but his WIFE (opposite) showed us a few for him.

Originally posted by d3str0ya10
Hancock!!!!! easily he has MUCH more powers than supes he just forgot them but his WIFE (opposite) showed us a few for him.

yeh but he was FULLY revived from the son and then he shot all the way down before it wore off. thats all he had a huge amount of enchantment from the sun.

So is the sun not shining during this fight?

Look, Hancock can't beat ANY Superman, let alone one that lifts a continent of kryptonite. You know, the green stuff that makes him weak and drains his powers? It even killed him to lift it, and yet he did, and TOSSED it into space.

Eh, I guess Hulk's in this fight? For about two seconds. Superman eats Hancock and Bana Hulk in exactly two seconds. He inhales them with super-breath and then super-digests them.

Although to be fair, Hancock would beat Hulk's ass.