Originally posted by Silent MasterIt says he has a 400 percent increase. Lol.
YouTube video475%
Look at the display at around 1:18
Originally posted by quanchi112
My recollections are usually always right. This from mr. Horcrux himself. Hoot.
Don't worry about it. Jarvis clearly states that the power of the suit was increased to 400%. It's just that at the bottom of the screen you actually see the power meter show that it's 475%.
Regardless, 400% or 475% it still matter little. Point is that IM needed a huge power amp just to hang in with Thor whereas Loki does it from the get go.
Originally posted by FrothByteI agree he needed an amp but that his amp wasn't a 475 increase just 400. Sm just put up a video proving me right. He's really amusing.
Don't worry about it. Jarvis clearly states that the power of the suit was increased to 400%. It's just that at the bottom of the screen you actually see the power meter show that it's 475%.Regardless, 400% or 475% it still matter little. Point is that IM needed a huge power amp just to hang in with Thor whereas Loki does it from the get go.
Originally posted by NewjakEhhh, it might be able to pierce his armor but I doubt the staff is that much of a threat as an energy projectile attack. It didn't do much damage to the helicopter Fury was in at the beginning of the film. Iron Man has withstood alot worse.
Loki has a a weapon in the staff that should be able to hurt Iron Man and knock him out of the sky, his daggers should be able to pierce the IM armor as well.
Originally posted by Darth MartinThe Chitauri weapons were able to hurt and knock down IM, I'm assuming of course that Loki's staff is a more powerful version of one of those weapons.
Ehhh, it might be able to pierce his armor but I doubt the staff is that much of a threat as an energy projectile attack. It didn't do much damage to the helicopter Fury was in at the beginning of the film. Iron Man has withstood alot worse.
I have no doubt Loki's daggers can go through IM's armor as they have already been shown to go through Thor's Asgardian Armor and flesh. Which is more durable than IM's armor.
Originally posted by Darth MartinOne Chitauri rifle was powerful enough to knock IM on his back side and damage him. Even if we assume Loki doesn't have a more powerful version of that rifle with his staff that would still mean it is strong enough to hurt and damage IM.
Oh, I agree with you on the daggers. Not sold on the staff.
Originally posted by Newjak
One Chitauri rifle was powerful enough to knock IM on his back side and damage him. Even if we assume Loki doesn't have a more powerful version of that rifle with his staff that would still mean it is strong enough to hurt and damage IM.
You know its inconsistent right. I could probably find instances of the rifles not being that impressive, and IM having tanked much more.
Originally posted by PlacidityDoubtful, considering we are talking about Alien tech.
You know its inconsistent right. I could probably find instances of the rifles not being that impressive, and IM having tanked much more.
Probably the lowest showing for them is that moment when they shoot Captain America and he doesn't die outright, but then again he is super tough dude, was also wearing armor, got shot in a non vital area, still got knocked down and was still bleeding so it's pretty obvious a well placed shot would have killed Cap in one hit.
Originally posted by PlacidityIt means quite a bit actually.
That means nothing at all 😕
It means they have no direct comparisons to anything on Earth.
For instance you might think the Tank Shell tony tanked in the first IM movie should be more powerful than an Alien rifle or you might consider it a more impressive feat.
But considering we are talking about Alien Tech and the only basis for comparison is Stark himself it doesn't matter what you think is more impressive the Tank Shell or the Alien weapon. All we know is one was able to damage Tony one wasn't.
And nothing contradicted the Alien Rifle not being able to hurt IM.
Them being Alien Tech means everything in that conversation.
Originally posted by Newjak
It means quite a bit actually.It means they have no direct comparisons to anything on Earth.
For instance you might think the Tank Shell tony tanked in the first IM movie should be more powerful than an Alien rifle or you might consider it a more impressive feat.
But considering we are talking about Alien Tech and the only basis for comparison is Stark himself it doesn't matter what you think is more impressive the Tank Shell or the Alien weapon. All we know is one was able to damage Tony one wasn't.
And nothing contradicted the Alien Rifle not being able to hurt IM.
Them being Alien Tech means everything in that conversation.
It doesn't. Alien tech as a label means as much as the "god" title does. And there are comparisons to the effect or damage the weapon causes.
Also, because you are choosing one specific feat, amongst several conflicting others, and using it as the definitive reference, as it suits your position.
Basically Movie Vs Forum as usual.
What people don't get that what happens throughout the movie is inconsistent/illogical. The writers did not intend for "feats" to be scrutinized so closely. Due to inconsistency, it basically leaves room for whatever position you choose to argue. Some movies suffer this more so than others. I would say The Avengers gets a pretty bad dose, since 1) it wants to pay respect to everyone. 2) There are so many characters, faulty A>B>C logic is bound to set in.
Originally posted by PlacidityI wasn't using it as a label saying they are omgs the most powerful things ever. Re-read my last statement.
It doesn't. Alien tech as a label means as much as the "god" title does. And there are comparisons to the effect or damage the weapon causes.Also, because you are choosing one specific feat, amongst several conflicting others, and using it as the definitive reference, as it suits your position.
Basically Movie Vs Forum as usual.
What people don't get that what happens throughout the movie is inconsistent/illogical. The writers did not intend for "feats" to be scrutinized so closely. Due to inconsistency, it basically leaves room for whatever position you choose to argue. Some movies suffer this more so than others. I would say The Avengers gets a pretty bad dose, since 1) it wants to pay respect to everyone. 2) There are so many characters, faulty A>B>C logic is bound to set in.
Them being Alien tech means whatever you think is more impressive is moot what is shown is what they can do.
What inconsistencies are you talking about?
I already described the weakest moment for the alien rifles with Captain America and how it really isn't that bad and doesn't really contradict the IM showing for them.