Originally posted by omgchos
Well the golden statues were first of all not in the movies. And also they arent alive.
But like I said, this would require that curses behave differently when objects are in direct contact with living things vs when they aren't.
I understand that this is from book excerpts, tho. But going by just the movies, it'd be all assumptions on either side unless some more evidence is inserted from a different source. Better than nothing, I suppose.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
But like I said, this would require that curses behave differently when objects are in direct contact with living things vs when they aren't.I understand that this is from book excerpts, tho. But going by just the movies, it'd be all assumptions on either side unless some more evidence is inserted from a different source. Better than nothing, I suppose.
Originally posted by ares834
Let's be honest here, if all it took to survive the AK curse was armor all the members of the Order of the Phoenix would be wearing it.
Let's be honest here, Wizards are morons, they have access to time turners and never thought to use them to save attack victims or arrest those responsible.
Originally posted by ares834
Let's be honest here, if all it took to survive the AK curse was armor all the members of the Order of the Phoenix would be wearing it.
Book shows objects of sufficient strength blocking curses. Movie shows curses plowing thru weak enough objects (glass) to hit the targets behind them or simply them blowing up. Might need some thick armor to be worth wearing vs curses.
Armor is clunky and may also be manipulated by certain spells. It also can slow you down/force you to miscast your spells. Spells can be dodged, why wear armor that'd make it impossible to do so?
Plus wizards like their shiny dresses (see: the youtube vid I posted 😛).
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Book shows objects of sufficient strength blocking curses. Movie shows curses plowing thru weak enough objects (glass) to hit the targets behind them or simply them blowing up. Might need some thick armor to be worth wearing vs curses.Armor is clunky and may also be manipulated by certain spells. It also can slow you down/force you to miscast your spells. Spells can be dodged, why wear armor that'd make it impossible to do so?
Plus wizards like their shiny dresses (see: the youtube vid I posted 😛).
The diner scene that was posted earlier also shows objects stopping spells.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Book specifically states that it bounces off metal object, tho. Not envelop them. Bounces.
Originally posted by omgchos
Again the book is irrelevant, and even if it werent i never said the curse enveloped the object. It envelops humans. Things that are alive and have something for the spell to attack. As the video shows it wrapped around him. As this is a movie vs. forum we cant use the books, as much as id like to. The point im making is that with a clear example in the movie and no damaged clothing, if the spell hits you it kills you. If it hits an object you might be standing behind or a shield you might be holding it may not. If shield spells cant block it though, this may not be the case.
But this is all assumption based on how the SFX looks, tho. Nowhere in the movie was it ever stated plainly (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that curses would simply disregard solid objects for as long as you are in contact with it. Nowhere is it ever shown or stated that curses function differently when an object is in or not in contact with a living object. In fact, the diner scene explicitly showed that this may noy be the case. SFX can be interpretted differently from person-to-person and it'd all be valid. Closest thing we have to a definitive answer of how the spell behaves vs inanimate objects is from the books. Without this, it'd all be speculation based on differing interpretations of the SFX.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
But this is all assumption based on how the SFX looks, tho. Nowhere in the movie was it ever stated plainly (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that curses would simply disregard solid objects for as long as you are in contact with it. Nowhere is it ever shown or stated that curses function differently when an object is in or not in contact with a living object. In fact, the diner scene explicitly showed that this may noy be the case. SFX can be interpretted differently from person-to-person and it'd all be valid. Closest thing we have to a definitive answer of how the spell behaves vs inanimate objects is from the books. Without this, it'd all be speculation based on differing interpretations of the SFX.
Originally posted by omgchos
Thats how movie vs. forums work tho. We have to use what was in the movies, however vague it might be, and yes that does become a matter of interpretation. If i could use the medium any movie may have been based off of here, whenever things became vague or werent addressed, it wouldn't be movie vs forums. Id love to use examples from the comics or books. In this case the best examles of the actual spell in question never actually hit solid objects. Not once in the movies did AK come in contact with anything except people, or those couple of times Voldy and Harry's wands arced.
But the only thing we have is how it worked on cloth and not armor. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that it bypasses armor (especially sealed envirnoment ones like Tony's) simply because it worked on cloth? Especially since it was actually written in the book how it behaved vs metal?
As it is, it would all be speculation at this point, in the spirit of moving forward and avoiding a circular debate, I propose that it would be best to create multipath if-if not answers for scenarious not covered by definitve proof in the moviesl. Such as:
If armor deflects curses: then Avenger wins via Thor/IM beating down the Death Eaters even if the stealth approach fails. Aren't there only about less than 50 KNOWN DEs up to the battle of Hogwarts?
If armor does NOT deflect curses: harder fight for the Avengers, stealth and sniping will be their best bet. As well as using the terrain/structures/cover to their advantage. Still a decent chance for our heroes but chances for them dying from the AK curse greatly increases unless they fight smart.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
But the only thing we have is how it worked on cloth and not armor. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to assume that ot bypasses armor (especially sealed envirnoment ones like Tony's) simply because it worked on cloth? Especially since it wad actually written in the book how it behaved vs metal?As it is, it would all be speculation at this point, in the spirit of moving forward and avoiding a circular debate, I propose that it would be best to create multipath if-if not answers for scenarious not covered by definitve proof in the moviesl. Such as:
If armor deflects curses: then Avenger wins via Thor/IM beating down the Death Eaters even if the stealth approach fails. Aren't there only about less than 50 KNOWN DEs up to the battle of Hogwarts?
If armor does NOT deflect curses: harder fight for the Avengers, stealth and sniping will be their best bet. As well as using the terrain/structures/cover to their advantage. Still a decent chance for our heroes but chances for them dying from the AK curse greatly increases unless they fight smart.
We do have proof tho that avada Kedavra kills instantly and whatever it hits. In the absence of examples in the movies we have to assume that armor doesnt matter but shields might.
I found this just for edification, lol at the hungarian voice over.
YouTube video
In scenario 1 the only avenger left is thor... Maybe. Tony's suit might block AK(it wouldn't) but that just means the Death Eaters have to be more creative. Shrinking the armor till his head pops like a zit comes to mind. Thor could probably be imobilized if 7 of the more talented ones gain up on him, giving them a clear shot to his head.
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
In scenario 1 the only avenger left is thor... Maybe. Tony's suit might block AK(it wouldn't) but that just means the Death Eaters have to be more creative. Shrinking the armor till his head pops like a zit comes to mind. Thor could probably be imobilized if 7 of the more talented ones gain up on him, giving them a clear shot to his head.
Honestly imo judging by what an injured Thor did to the multiple leviathan he could potentially one shot the group of them unless they hide.
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
In scenario 1 the only avenger left is thor... Maybe. Tony's suit might block AK(it wouldn't) but that just means the Death Eaters have to be more creative. Shrinking the armor till his head pops like a zit comes to mind. Thor could probably be imobilized if 7 of the more talented ones gain up on him, giving them a clear shot to his head.
Might want to remove your (it didn't) comment as scenario 1 explicitly mentions that it does. 😛
The Avengers are not shy about killing in the movies. Their Combat techniques are more effective/precise/efficient than waving a wand and uttering a spell. Surprise, stealth and speed is on their side. As well as explosive and destructive aoe attacks via Hulk, Thor and IM (and to an extent, Hawkeye's explosive arrows). Many DEs will die long before they can start ganging up on anyone. Plus cover and intitiatve is on their side (as they are tasked to clear Hogwarts then it comes down to them WHEN they decide to make their move).
Originally posted by omgchos
We do have proof tho that avada Kedavra kills instantly and whatever it hits. In the absence of examples in the movies we have to assume that armor doesnt matter but shields might.I found this just for edification, lol at the hungarian voice over.
YouTube video
That's just it, we can't assume. As either side can simply assume that the interpretation best suited to prove their points is the correct interpretation.
All it hit was cloth, all it killed were humans and a spider, thus the only thing conclusive/provable is that it penetrates cloth and kills humans/spiders instantly.
Also, at: 0:53 did the AK spell just get blocked by a book?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Since there are zero examples of the AK working through armor, why exactly would we assume that it does?
Because there is also zero examples of the AK not working past any clothing that is worn on the body. All you have are examples of inanimate objects.
Also note that Thor's armor is not a full breast plate but is instead a combination of stiffened leather and metal bracings from the looks of it. I'm not saying that it will definitely work, but for you to assume that his armor will definitely protect him... well that is just plain nonsense.
Now on Ironman, I would agree that spells might have difficulty getting through his admittedly thicker armor.
Thor on the other hand has various parts of him unarmored. What happens if he gets hit in the legs?