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

Originally posted by spetznaz
Erm ...the same could be said about Superman.

He is basically immortal, and he has no known weaknesses that can be used in the battle (Hancock does NOT have Kryptonite, and he does not have magic, nor does he have the ability to exude red solar radiation).

Thus Superman, in this battle, also has no weaknesses.

On top of that, Superman has a list of other powers .....on top of strength and speed and flight (which is where Hancock stops).

Thus, even without including feats (Superman's movie feats are far greater than hancock's), Superman is already everything that Hancock is, AND MORE!

He also does not need to cool himself with icecream after a simple apartment fire, and has been shown tunneling into the Earth's core (using his strength and heat vision) while surrounded by red hot magma!

Even without feats, Superman has everything Hancock has, plus much much more.

Are you basically saying that superman can stand there and let someone throw a deasel at him with no effect or how about get rammed by a train and not budge a inch. The fire scene was for comedy relief (I actually busted out laughing at that part) and thats it, he has other showings with his invulnerability that throws that out of the window.

Where do you get this superman being immortal or better yet invulnerable. He didnt go through close to anything that hancock been through in his movie, he was basically saving life and to my knowledge he got hit backwards from a flying piece of the plane that he was trying to rescue, hancock wouldnt have even acknowledged that piece of metal.

Hancock flew out of orbit in a second when he saved that whale, that alone should give you a description of his speed. I agree both could beat movie hulk (even though hulk would go down fight hard and if the fight drag it could go in hulks favor IF hancock dont throw him out of orbit first) but there has yet to be a weakness shown to hancock for superman to get a majority or even a win.

By the way, even though they have shown great flight speed, there was nothing in both movies that indicated anything proving that they have any kind of combat speed, two different things. Heat vision or ice breath wont be nothing but a nuicance to hancock if superman ever get the chance to use it.

Lulz at Carver thinking Superman would do more poorly than Hancock with the truck or the train.

I mean, it's expected from such a low-brow troll, but still. Gotta enjoy the humor while it lasts.

Originally posted by Soljer
Lulz at Carver thinking Superman would do more poorly than Hancock with the truck or the train.

I mean, it's expected from such a low-brow troll, but still. Gotta enjoy the humor while it lasts.

Wow, how many times in comics have you seen superman hit back by cars, trucks, etc. You might be right though, Movie supes>>>>comic supes. When will you all stop saying that I have something against superman. Everything that I say about superman I say it about gladiator, hyperion, mimic, wonderwoman, silver surfer, rogue, vulcan, martian manhunter, black adam, captain marvel, etc...

We have yet to see superman hit by a diesel and just stand there like nothing happened but hey we have yet to see hancock lift a island, soooooooo, supes could be the strongest in this battle until proven otherwise. And Im not a troll for having different opinions then you.

Supes went straight through the plain wing when it broke off.

I can't believe carver of all people thinks Superman would lose

Originally posted by carver9
Are you basically saying that superman can stand there and let someone throw a deasel at him with no effect or how about get rammed by a train and not budge a inch. The fire scene was for comedy relief (I actually busted out laughing at that part) and thats it, he has other showings with his invulnerability that throws that out of the window.

Where do you get this superman being immortal or better yet invulnerable. He didnt go through close to anything that hancock been through in his movie, he was basically saving life and to my knowledge he got hit backwards from a flying piece of the plane that he was trying to rescue, hancock wouldnt have even acknowledged that piece of metal.

Hancock flew out of orbit in a second when he saved that whale, that alone should give you a description of his speed. I agree both could beat movie hulk (even though hulk would go down fight hard and if the fight drag it could go in hulks favor IF hancock dont throw him out of orbit first) but there has yet to be a weakness shown to hancock for superman to get a majority or even a win.

By the way, even though they have shown great flight speed, there was nothing in both movies that indicated anything proving that they have any kind of combat speed, two different things. Heat vision or ice breath wont be nothing but a nuicance to hancock if superman ever get the chance to use it.

2. O RLY? Like lifting a small continent layered with Kryptonite with a shard of Kryptonite in his side? Oh and here's something else...After that scene Superman's skin still broke needles, Hancock after being depowered by fighting his wife had needles go right in him in the hospital. 🙂 Superman went straight through said wing of plane.

3. O RLY? Other than Superman having better feats?

4. ....Superman had many instances of reflex speed whereas Hancock was pretty slow in the reflex department.

Superman due to his extra powers that Hancock doesn't have.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
This thread has so much bullshit written over it, it's not even funny.
Move this thread to the movie forums.

If you have that much of a problem with the thread, ignore it and move on. The repeated posts on your disapproval are unnecessary.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Cock wins

DON'T post anything like this again. This is your only warning from me.

Superman or Hancock FTW

Stalemate 4 supes and smith. By the way mary had better versatility but was not physically faster,stronger or durable. She was boasting 2 make a point.

Hancock may have other powers similarities to what Ray had when she created a tornado. Due to his amnesia, he may not know his full extent of his powers. As for speed, he flew to the moon and somehow painted or created a heart logo by some other power we do not know. Both have question marks over there experience abilities to fight Superbeings. Hancock may have fought others like him but cant remember it. Afterall there were many of them in the dawn of time.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Superman due to his extra powers that Hancock doesn't have.

Wow, the stupidity in this thread is over 9000..

First off, the debate about the "canonity" of the fire scene is utterly irrelevant. There was no physical sign of injury on Hancock, he was still moving around like he always does without any signs of being hurt. The only possible implication that he may have been injured was him saying that his ass was burning, and all logic points to that merely being a wise crack from him, considering he's overly sarcastic about everything ad that if he really was on fire to the point of being hurt he wouldn't get an ice cream cone for his burning ass. And let's also not forget that Hancock flew through the atmosphere on multiple occasions, and was unharned. If you can fly through the intense heat of the atmosphere you can survive a simple apartment fire with ease.

So that's out the window. Next is the simple straight up facts.

Fact: Neither of the two were shown in there respective movies to be harmed by anything unless they were already weakened.

Fact: Neither fighters were shown struggling to lift anything in their respective movies, unless they were weakened by an outside influence.

Fact: Both have super human strength and speed.

Fact: Superman has shown far greater strength, but because we have no frame of reference to scale their durability it's irrelevent as far as KO's are concerned.

Superman has shown far greater speed, flying fast enough to turn back time itself as well as escape a black hole's gravitational pull.

Logical conclusion: Neither fighters has the ability to put the other down for the count. No limit fallacy is valid in this situation. So the scenario is this: Hulk dies in seconds, either through KO or death or BFR. Hancock and Superman fight on and on and on and the fight is either a tie or Superman wins via BFR, using his retconning scaled speed to fly Hancock so incredibly far out somewhere that he can't get back to the fight or tossing him that far out.

More then likely a tie though.

But I see an inconsistency on Superman lifting the continent that is full of kyrptonite. He should of been really weak. And let's point out the weakness. Despite Hancok losing his powers he was able to fight the thugs in the hospital even when he was shot. Then look at Superman when he was expose to the green rock and became human strength level. He didn't look tough at all when Luthor and his goons beat hinm down. I'd say if it comes down to mortal to mortal strength, Hancok whoops Clark.

.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Wow, the stupidity in this thread is over 9000..

First off, the debate about the "canonity" of the fire scene is utterly irrelevant. There was no physical sign of injury on Hancock, he was still moving around like he always does without any signs of being hurt. The only [b]possible implication that he may have been injured was him saying that his ass was burning, and all logic points to that merely being a wise crack from him, considering he's overly sarcastic about everything ad that if he really was on fire to the point of being hurt he wouldn't get an ice cream cone for his burning ass. And let's also not forget that Hancock flew through the atmosphere on multiple occasions, and was unharned, If you can fly through the intense heat of the atmosphere you can survive a simple apartment fire with ease.

So that's out the window. Next is the simple straight up facts.

Fact: Neither of the two were shown in there respective movies to be harmed by anything unless they were already weakened.

Fact: Neither fighters were shown struggling to lift anything in their respective movies, unless they were weakened by an outside influence.

Fact: Both have super human strength and speed.

Fact: Superman has shown far greater strength, but because we have no frame of reference to scale their durability it's irrelevent as far as KO's are concerned.

Superman has shown far greater speed, flying fast enough to turn back time itself as well as escape a black hole's gravitational pull.

Logical conclusion: Neither fighters has the ability to put the other down for the count. So the scenario is this: Hulk dies in seconds, either through KO or death or BFR. Hancock and Superman fight on and on and on and the fight is either a tie or Superman wins via BFR, using his retconning scaled speed to fly Hancock so incredibly far out somewhere that he can't get back to the fight or tossing him that far out.

More then likely a tie though. [/B]

Superman has the same powers in Hancock, only he has shown to have them on a much higher level, plus extra powers. Superman is superior unless Hancock does something to prove us wrong.

Superman has shown far greater force than ANYTHING Hancock was hit with. So yeah, Superman must be assumed to be superior.

That's actually a good point I had forgotten about...

Superman upon being weakened with kryptonite was getting his ass kicked by like three guys using there bare hands. Superman wasn't even able to stand up until Lois pulled the kryptonite out of him. He had to get sun dipped before he could lift the continent.

Hancock while weakened was able to beat down thugs armed with guns, and this was while he was being stabbed, shot at, and blown up by oxegyn tanks and his weakness, Mary, was right next to him when he did it.

That doesn't have any bearing on the match though.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Superman has the same powers in Hancock, only he has shown to have them on a much higher level, plus extra powers. Superman is superior unless Hancock does something to prove us wrong.

Superman has shown far greater force than ANYTHING Hancock was hit with. So yeah, Superman must be assumed to be superior.

Superman is shown to be superior in everything BUT durability, and that's the only thing that really matters as far as a fight goes. Superman can wail on Hancock with his superior strength all he wants, but if he's impervious to it (With there being no proof pointing to either the contrary or agreement), it's pointless.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Superman is shown to be superior in everything BUT durability, and that's the only thing that really matters as far as a fight goes. Superman can wail on Hancock with his superior strength all he wants, but if he's impervious to it (With there being no proof pointing to either the contrary or agreement), it's pointless.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Superman is shown to be superior in everything BUT durability, and that's the only thing that really matters as far as a fight goes. Superman can wail on Hancock with his superior strength all he wants, but if he's impervious to it (With there being no proof pointing to either the contrary or agreement), it's pointless.

How is Superman less durable than Hancock?

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Alright. So we must assume Hancock's durability is infinite is what you are saying. Therefore no matter who is attacking Hancock, absolutely nothing will harm him.

Exactly. Ridiculous logic.

Originally posted by batdude123
How is Superman less durable than Hancock?

Where did I say he was less durable?

Alright. So we must assume Hancock's durability is infinite is what you are saying. Therefore no matter who is attacking Hancock, absolutely nothing will harm him.

No no... just Superman's. 🙂 Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
No no... just Superman's. 🙂 Unless you can prove otherwise, of course.

Hancock's best durability feat is flying through the atmosphere.

Superman is powerful enough to turn back time by flying around the planet, and enough to lift a continent of Kryptonite...Imagine that much power in the form of a flying punch?

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
[B]Let's see, oh yeah, Superman can provide much more force than anything Hancock has taken.

So? Hancock's also taken everything thrown at him without even a scratch or a skipped beat, which means he can take more then what we've seen him take in the movie. You're trying to create a limit on Hancock that simply doesn't exist or hasn't been shown to us yet.