Originally posted by quanchi112
Lulz at your response.We argue based on what's in character and since Superman isn't in character to travel back in time in the middle of a fight to defeat an opponent it's not a viable tactic.
Thor breaks Superman easier than the guy at the diner. 😂
Originally posted by quanchi112
No, he wasn't trying to lift it going down at tremendous speeds he struggled to slow down it's momentum. It wasn't even going that fast to begin with.
Are you honestly arguing Movie Superman isnt strong enough to stop a flying bus?? If so then I personally wnt even bother taking up this argument with you.
Just remember Baby Superman lifted a car. Adult Superman lifted entire continents, and even moved the moon in one continuity.
In the Bus scene Supes was only struggling to stop any innocents getting injured.
This should be a stomp in favour of DC. Superman wasn't as watered down as the rest of the characters here.
Thor was good, but nothing that impressive happened in the movie. Hulk was basically Thing level, his best feat was surviving a nuclear explosion (Ang Lee's Hulk) but even that was pretty minor league. IronMan would drink them all under the table though AND he'd bed Supergirl!
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Are you honestly arguing Movie Superman isnt strong enough to stop a flying bus?? If so then I personally wnt even bother taking up this argument with you.Just remember Baby Superman lifted a car. Adult Superman lifted entire continents, and even moved the moon in one continuity.
In the Bus scene Supes was only struggling to stop any innocents getting injured.
Originally posted by abhilegendThat isn't answering the question you are being vague because you can't make a case.
So, on the old route again? Based upon logic and facts.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERI didn't say that but based upon his combat feats he obviously needed to exert himself in order to do so.
Are you honestly arguing Movie Superman isnt strong enough to stop a flying bus?? If so then I personally wnt even bother taking up this argument with you.Just remember Baby Superman lifted a car. Adult Superman lifted entire continents, and even moved the moon in one continuity.
In the Bus scene Supes was only struggling to stop any innocents getting injured.
I think Superman can definitely easily lift a car but a bus with lots of people it in carrying momentum isn't the same thing as a car either.
Wasn't Superman amped when he lifted the continent ?
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Gungnir disintegrated Laufey, who was portrayed as being Odin's peer. Thor took the same kind of blast and was still kicking. Based on that flimsly line of argument, I could argue that Thor could just take heat vision and be fine. There's a reason why I won't though:It'd be stupid.
The Destroyer wasn't "worked" by the Warrior's Three. It was impervious to physical harm displayed in the film. It could be moved and stabbed, but it did no damage to it. It was only beaten by Mjolnir forcing its own disintegration beam back into its visor. Not really the low feat people think it is to be destroyed by its own power.
The problem is that Superman doesn't have many combat feats in the movies, outside of dealing with Sentry...er, Nuclear Man and Zod and cohorts. You could definitely apply his non combat feats, infinitely more impressive than those inside of it, and propose a method for why Superman would win, if not solo. But based on how he fought in the films, I don't see him crushing his foes with anything resembling ease. *shrug*
By that same "flimsy argument", I could also ask what Laufey or movie odin have done for you to hold them in such high regard. They're Odin and Laufey, cool, but what have they actually done? It isn't enough to say "Well they're based off of the comic book versions, so..." Do you see my point? Also, when did thor take a full blast from gungrir without blocking with mjolnir?
What I think is stupid is implying that mjolnir can do things that it didn't do on film. Like chase someone around and fall on their chest....
If it was able to be given a fight by the warriors three, who couldn't be any more than high street level each at best, then I really see no reason as to why people think that it's as uber as the real one. Again, the movie versions are not the comic book versions. It isn't a low feat, it just simply is what it is.
Because fighting three kryptonians at once, and then some random guy made specifically by his arch nemesis to kill him aren't good enough combat feats? Let me ask you this Jake, do you think that movie thor, hulk, or ironman have good enough combat feats to take on Zod and co? How about the nuclear man? Movie supes' combat feats are well above anyone's here, as are his non-combat feats. To say otherwise would be ignoring the plots of most of the movies imo.
Originally posted by Sirius77
By that same "flimsy argument", I could also ask what Laufey or movie odin have done for you to hold them in such high regard. They're Odin and Laufey, cool, but what have they actually done? It isn't enough to say "Well they're based off of the comic book versions, so..." Do you see my point? Also, when did thor take a full blast from gungrir without blocking with mjolnir?What I think is stupid is implying that mjolnir can do things that it didn't do on film. Like chase someone around and fall on their chest....
If it was able to be given a fight by the warriors three, who couldn't be any more than high street level each at best, then I really see no reason as to why people think that it's as uber as the real one. Again, the movie versions are not the comic book versions. It isn't a low feat, it just simply is what it is.
Because fighting three kryptonians at once, and then some random guy made specifically by his arch nemesis to kill him aren't good enough combat feats? Let me ask you this Jake, do you think that movie thor, hulk, or ironman have good enough combat feats to take on Zod and co? How about the nuclear man? Movie supes' combat feats are well above anyone's here, as are his non-combat feats. To say otherwise would be ignoring the plots of most of the movies imo.
Implied to be vastly more powerful than either Thor or Loki? Considering what Thor did to Jotunheim without apparent difficulty, it's safe to assume that Laufey and Odin alike are > Thor. When Loki was confronted by Thor, Loki shot Thor at point blank range. Same blast killed Laufey and reduced him to ashes. Whether that was due to Thor's armor, his durability, or a combination of the two, it's clear that he was able to take Gungnir blasts up close and personal without dying.
The Destroyer Armor wasn't "given" a fight from the Warrior's Three. Sif's sword had ZERO effect. She stabbed it, but due to the composition of the armor, it was able to merely shift its body around. It's apparently made of a flexible sort of metal and any physical damage done to it could stagger it or knock it down, but not deal any damage to it whatsoever. The only way it was damaged was by Thor causing it's disintegration beam to back up into its open visor, essentially imploding it with its own energies. So, yeah, it's a huge misconception to believe that the armor was weak or given a run for its money by the Warriors Three. It lost to Thor rather quickly, but only due to the backlash from its own power. It's not = to its comic book version, and no one is stating that, either.
I see nothing from Zod and cohorts to make me think they'd be so far beyond Thor or Hulk's means to fight based on what they did. If you apply sliding ABC scale logic to Zod and co by projecting what Superman has done out of combat and supposing that therefore Zod is in the range of Superman's class of moving islands and whatnot, okay, but really, Zod, Non, Ursa, they didn't wow me with their feats.
Which is what I'm getting at all this time.
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Implied to be vastly more powerful than either Thor or Loki? Considering what Thor did to Jotunheim without apparent difficulty, it's safe to assume that Laufey and Odin alike are > Thor. When Loki was confronted by Thor, Loki shot Thor at point blank range. Same blast killed Laufey and reduced him to ashes. Whether that was due to Thor's armor, his durability, or a combination of the two, it's clear that he was able to take Gungnir blasts up close and personal without dying.The Destroyer Armor wasn't "given" a fight from the Warrior's Three. Sif's sword had ZERO effect. She stabbed it, but due to the composition of the armor, it was able to merely shift its body around. It's apparently made of a flexible sort of metal and any physical damage done to it could stagger it or knock it down, but not deal any damage to it whatsoever. The only way it was damaged was by Thor causing it's disintegration beam to back up into its open visor, essentially imploding it with its own energies. So, yeah, it's a huge misconception to believe that the armor was weak or given a run for its money by the Warriors Three. It lost to Thor rather quickly, but only due to the backlash from its own power. It's not = to its comic book version, and no one is stating that, either.
I see nothing from Zod and cohorts to make me think they'd be so far beyond Thor or Hulk's means to fight based on what they did. If you apply sliding ABC scale logic to Zod and co by projecting what Superman has done out of combat and supposing that therefore Zod is in the range of Superman's class of moving islands and whatnot, okay, but really, Zod, Non, Ursa, they didn't wow me with their feats.
Which is what I'm getting at all this time.
I get that they [Odin and Laufey] were implied to be higher up than thor or his forces, but what truly struck me was that all of the movie asgardians were very neutered in comparison to their comic book versions, while movie superman appeared to be more pre-crisis eske, especially the reeves version. I saw literally nothing that would remotely put thor or anyone else on the list even close to movie superman's level.
ABC logic is only invalid when there is no valid evidence to to back the feats being attributed. However, this is not the case. Could Zod, Ursa, and Non push a moon, turn back time, etc? Probably.... they exhibited abilities that superman did not in the beginning, and seemingly mastered their powers with a couple of extra abilities (telekinesis, ambiguous combustion abilities, etc...), most of which even superman didn't have until later. So yeah, there is more evidence for than against the implication that they could do everything that movie superman could do and more. However, that argument isn't necessarily... because they were able to defeat a being that did all of those things on panel, and quite frankly that's all that the story line calls for us to know. Movie Supe's abilities were tested against quantifiable physical laws, and the movie kryptonians' abilities were tested upon Clark. This is ironically one of the few times in which abc logic (or at least something similar) has any validity whatsoever.
However, we cannot say this about Loki, Odin, Laufey, or thor, because all of their power levels were implied. There were few times that they were tested against a physial part of the world that was testable, or remotely common knowledge to the viewers, it was as if the writers were saying "We're writing the avengers, we don't have time for this. Read a comic, they're powerful okay..."Thor trashed the landscape of a frozen wasteland. This much is quantifiable, it takes a lot of power to do that... and superman lifted an island while in the process of dying, and it takes considerably more power to do that. We know that thor was at his best, while superman was arguably at his worst. Superman pushed a moon, and thor broke the bifrost. We know that the moon is a large celestial body held in place by the Earth's gravitational forces, which weighs around a couple quintillion metric tons (I think...), and we know that the bifrost bridge is a .... well we really don't know anything but the fact that thor carved up a landscape with mjolnir and struggled with that [the bifrost], but thats really it. So with all of this said, movie thor is not even comparable to movie superman when you actually look at the things of which they are both capable. Also, no version of movie hulk has shown anything that would lead me to believe that he would last in a fight with movie superman.
I guess we can just agree to disagree though man.
Wow, this thread is quite enlightening.
It really shows the Marvel fanboys for who they really are. In Comic Book Versions, fair enough, its not unreasonable to take either side for something like Superman vs Thor, but the movie versions? Really? And its also important to note that the feats for Superman have been brought to their attention, but somehow they still maintain Thor would win?
I also read somewhere that Hulk should not be dismissed against Superman - really?
If you want to know who NOT to take seriously - this thread will give you a few hints.
I mean for crying out loud, even Carver9 is saying Superman wins without difficulty!
Originally posted by PlacidityWow, this thread is quite enlightening.
It really shows the Marvel fanboys for who they really are. In Comic Book Versions, fair enough, its not unreasonable to take either side for something like Superman vs Thor, but the movie versions? Really? And its also important to note that the feats for Superman have been brought to their attention, but somehow they still maintain Thor would win?
I also read somewhere that Hulk should not be dismissed against Superman - really?
If you want to know who NOT to take seriously - this thread will give you a few hints.
I mean for crying out loud, even Carver9 is saying Superman wins without difficulty!
Originally posted by quanchi112I think Superman can definitely easily lift a car but a bus with lots of people it in carrying momentum isn't the same thing as a car either.
Wasn't Superman amped when he lifted the continent ?
No BABY Kal-El could lift a car.
In Superman 4 Superman not only carries the Statue of Liberty but also moves the moon.
In Superman 3 he straightens the leaning tower of pisa.
In Superman 1 he's lifting up a huge amount of Earth from underground to stop an earthquake.
So yeah I can see where you might think he would struggle to lift a bus with lots of people and momentum. 😕
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Implied to be vastly more powerful than either Thor or Loki? Considering what Thor did to Jotunheim without apparent difficulty, it's safe to assume that Laufey and Odin alike are > Thor. When Loki was confronted by Thor, Loki shot Thor at point blank range. Same blast killed Laufey and reduced him to ashes. Whether that was due to Thor's armor, his durability, or a combination of the two, it's clear that he was able to take Gungnir blasts up close and personal without dying.
I personally didn't see any evidence in that movie of Laufey being particularly powerful. And its not like Thor just shrugged off that attack. Though Im betting movie Superman would of.
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
I see nothing from Zod and cohorts to make me think they'd be so far beyond Thor or Hulk's means to fight based on what they did.
Yes but tbh we saw nothing from Hulk or Thor to beleive they could contend with Superman in strength or speed. Hulk looks like he has an upgrade in the Avengers movie, but for now im afraid he has little (especially going by the Letterier movie)