Movie Hulk(Avengers) vs Movie Thor

Originally posted by Silent Master
That sounds like what the Hulk fanboys are doing.

Come on, nobody needed to slant what happened on-screen, to see Hulk was clearly the more powerful one. It's the creative "interpretations" that are the basis of any 'argument' that Thor has of being as powerful as Hulk.

It's stated in the film that the rest of the Avengers see Hulk as being their biggest weapon (IM's answer to Loki, Loki's attempt at manipulating Hulk into killing the them all on the helicarrier...).

Originally posted by janus77
yeah.... so they were pointing to a nosebleed as proof that Hulk was somehow injured/debilitated and that therefore Thor WINZ!!!?

Come on, nobody needed to slant what happened on-screen, to see Hulk was clearly the more powerful one. It's the creative "interpretations" that are the basis of any 'argument' that Thor has of being as powerful as Hulk.

It's stated in the film that the rest of the Avengers see Hulk as being their biggest weapon (IM's answer to Loki, Loki's attempt at manipulating Hulk into killing the them all on the helicarrier...).

How does the movie show Hulk as more powerful when the best power feats are Thor's?

I love the back and forth bias claims can this thread be closed now

Originally posted by Silent Master
How does the movie show Hulk as more powerful when the best power feats are Thor's?

hint. Thor's amped lightning << Hulk's casual punch.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How does the movie show Hulk as more powerful when the best power feats are Thor's?

Originally posted by janus77
there's a slight, but critical, error in the formulation of the sentence above. once you sort that out, you will think clearly again 🙂

hint. Thor's amped lightning << Hulk's casual punch.

The lightning wasn't amped and it did far more damage.

Hulk and Thor only experienced nose bleeds in the movie so they are on the same level.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The lightning wasn't amped and it did far more damage.

Originally posted by janus77
I think it's you guys who are upset (and not a little deluded).

I'm mostly bemused by the wanking you guys have been doing and the way you are trying to convince people that what they saw in the film wasn't what happened/what the writer intended/what the characters were doing ...

Lol the only wanking has been Hulk wanking. Yes he was awsome in the movie and the film wouldn't have been close to what it was in terms of quality without him.

Doesn't mean you have to keep wanking over him hitting a Thor who didn't want to fight him.

And it doesn't matter what we saw just in this one film, because unlike Hulk, Thor has his own movie series where his feats in just his first film shit all over Hulk's Avenger ones!

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Lol the only wanking has been Hulk wanking. Yes he was awsome in the movie and the film wouldn't have been close to what it was in terms of quality without him.

Doesn't mean you have to keep wanking over him hitting a Thor who didn't want to fight him.

And it doesn't matter what we saw just in this one film, because unlike Hulk, Thor has his own movie series where his feats in just his first film shit all over Hulk's Avenger ones!

It is rather telling that they have to ignore all of Thor's feats in order to claim that the Hulk is more powerful.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Lol the only wanking has been Hulk wanking. Yes he was awsome in the movie and the film wouldn't have been close to what it was in terms of quality without him.

Doesn't mean you have to keep wanking over him hitting a Thor who didn't want to fight him.

And it doesn't matter what we saw just in this one film, because unlike Hulk, Thor has his own movie series where his feats in just his first film shit all over Hulk's Avenger ones!

I'd say it's the opposite, actually.

His highest durability and power feats were in Avengers.

Originally posted by Mindset
I don't see how Thor's feats in his movie were better than in Avengers.

I'd say it's the opposite, actually.

His highest durability and power feats were in Avengers.

He survived the explosion of the Rainbow Bridge at point blank range without a scar to show for it.

Then there was the Lightning which destroyed an entire Landscape and the Destroyer eating Tornado.

I really don't see how Thor or Hulk's feats in Avengers are on par with those feats.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
He survived the explosion of the Rainbow Bridge at point blank range without a scar to show for it.

Then there was the Lightning which destroyed an entire Landscape and the Destroyer eating Tornado.

I really don't see how Thor or Hulk's feats in Avengers are on par with those feats.

Those fts are lame.

Originally posted by carver9
Those fts are lame.

Translation: they show that Thor is more powerful.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
He survived the explosion of the Rainbow Bridge at point blank range without a scar to show for it.

Then there was the Lightning which destroyed an entire Landscape and the Destroyer eating Tornado.

I really don't see how Thor or Hulk's feats in Avengers are on par with those feats.

Rainbow Bridge didn't even do anything iirc.

He's talking about the charged hammer strike that destroyed a good portion of Jotunheim .

His lightning feat in Avengers was better than that imo.

Originally posted by Mindset
His lightning feat in Avengers was better than that imo.

Fair enough.

Though seeing as the Jotunheim strike didn't require any real build-up, it's still fairly impressive.

Originally posted by carver9
Those fts are lame.

b_hulk

Originally posted by iceman24567
I love the back and forth bias claims can this thread be closed now

It's getting to the point of outright trolling now.