Originally posted by Silent Master
Buildings don't amp the power of lightning.
Not saying the building allowed him to up the overall power output of his lighting, but it's clear it served as a lightning rod which allowed him to somehow store more lighting and do a larger area attack. Power output increase was likely had too somehow, since he easily took out the leviathan ships.
The camera specifically pans out to show lightning building up and surging through the structure.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Buildings don't amp the power of lightning.
In that movie it did. Just like beings with human sized hands can push moons without any problems (Superman in IV). That part of the building was mostly metal anyway and thus could conduct and hold significant amount of charge. He channeled the electricity to only that part of the building. You see the lightning being stored into the structure.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not saying the building allowed him to up the overall power output of his lighting, but it's clear it served as a lightning rod which allowed him to somehow store more lighting and do a larger area attack. Power output increase was likely had too somehow, since he easily took out the leviathan ships.The camera specifically pans out to show lightning building up and surging through the structure.
I know, but it's exactly what people like h1a8 are claiming.
Originally posted by Silent Master
I know, but it's exactly what people like h1a8 are claiming.
The scene is made to appear that Thor did amp/charge his lightning using the lighting-rod aspects of the building. It doesn't have to make sense from a real world point of view, cos we're dealing with a guy who flies around and calls down lighting from a techno-magical hammer and talks like a douche.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
It merely appeared to be better focusing the entirety of his destructive thunderbolt upon the Leviathan ships tbh. /shrug
He didn't shoot the lighting from the building though, the blast still came out of his hammer as normal, it was just a far greater amount of lightning(arguably stronger).
That tells me along with the camera panning down showing us the buildup, that the building served in the manner of a battery if you will, as silly as that sounds, but really no sillier than Thor's powers overall.
Originally posted by RobtardAnd yet that attack isn't even his most powerful lightning blast on screen. That is his Jotteniem Buster. And he summoned that attack without any real charge up.
LoL, some people. Anyhow, if anyone actually thinks Thor didn't specifically pick that building cos it served as a lighting rod and that he used it to channel more lightning than normal, then you're purposely being a obtuse.There were several flat roof buildings nearby where he didn't have to hold on like a monkey and it would have been easier, if the tall narrow metallic build didn't matter to him.
Yet you're going to pretend that somehow he needs that building to power up a weaker attack of his?
And did you ever think that it just makes more sense that he chose the higher point to give the best line of sight or closest distance?
Nothing in that scene at all indicates to me he needed the building to store any energy at all for his attack. It was merely meant to be a cool looking scene.
Originally posted by Newjak
And yet that attack isn't even his most powerful lightning blast on screen. That is his Jotteniem Buster. And he summoned that attack without any real charge up.Yet you're going to pretend that somehow he needs that building to power up a weaker attack of his?
And did you ever think that it just makes more sense that he chose the higher point to give the best line of sight or closest distance?
Nothing in that scene at all indicates to me he needed the building to store any energy at all for his attack. It was merely meant to be a cool looking scene.
From movie to movie character power levels fluctuate. For example, Superman in movie I strained to move a huge bolder but Superman in IV easily moved the phucking moon. You can't judge a feat from a different movie to interpret one from another while ignoring that power levels change.
We go by writer's intentions first and everything else second. Clearly Thor summoned more lightning on that building than in any other scene. So you either agree that his lightning was weaker at that time and had to use the building to make it more powerful or last longer or you agree that his lightning was the same strength but he needed more of it to make it last longer.
Also why do you think the Jotteniem Buster had more power than the building lightning?
Also the lightning in Thor the movie was very different. He didn't discharge lightning from his hammer at all but made lightning from the sky continuously strike the hammer (which transferred energy to the ground). The ground gave way. By the chain reaction it seemed as if the ground was already weak and unstable (probably ancient).
That type of lightning can't target anything thus it is only useful when Thor is being rushed by many beings at once.
Originally posted by h1a8So we ignore what Thor can do and instead choose to believe that a weaker attack from Thor required him to hold a charge in the building? Why especially when nothing in the films states that Thor was using that building to do so?
From movie to movie character power levels fluctuate. For example, Superman in movie I strained to move a huge bolder but Superman in IV easily moved the phucking moon. You can't judge a feat from a different movie to interpret one from another while ignoring that power levels change.We go by writer's intentions first and everything else second. Clearly Thor summoned more lightning on that building than in any other scene. So you either agree that his lightning was weaker at that time and had to use the building to make it more powerful or last longer or you agree that his lightning was the same strength but he needed more of it to make it last longer.
Also why do you think the Jotteniem Buster had more power than the building lightning?
You're assuming the building was needed at all and nothing explicitly or even really implicitly says Thor needed to use it for the effects you are attributing it.
All we see is Thor channel a very powerful lightning attack and that since he is standing on a building the lightning going into him is also being shown in the tower. Most likely because the special effects people thought it looked cool and was a good way to show that this was going to be a big blast not that Thor needed the tower or else he can't use an attack of that magnitude.
It's actually a stretch to say he did.
I mean one lightning bolt from him was enough to give IM a 400% charge.
He was able to summon multiple lightning bolts when he fried that group of Chitauri, and he was able to take down a Leviathan with a charged hammer strike.
Originally posted by h1a8When Thor zapped Loki at the end of the movie he summoned the lightning to his hammer and used it to disperse the energy and attack all the Loki's.
Also the lightning in Thor the movie was very different. He didn't discharge lightning from his hammer at all but made lightning from the sky continuously strike the hammer (which transferred energy to the ground). The ground gave way. By the chain reaction it seemed as if the ground was already weak and unstable (probably ancient).That type of lightning can't target anything thus it is only useful when Thor is being rushed by many beings at once.
Also that weak Tundra you're talking about was strong enough to support an entire race of Giant beings and their cities. If was so easy to break and fall apart than building anything their would have set it off.
Originally posted by Newjak
So we ignore what Thor can do and instead choose to believe that a weaker attack from Thor required him to hold a charge in the building? Why especially when nothing in the films states that Thor was using that building to do so?You're assuming the building was needed at all and nothing explicitly or even really implicitly says Thor needed to use it for the effects you are attributing it.
All we see is Thor channel a very powerful lightning attack and that since he is standing on a building the lightning going into him is also being shown in the tower. Most likely because the special effects people thought it looked cool and was a good way to show that this was going to be a big blast not that Thor needed the tower or else he can't use an attack of that magnitude.
It's actually a stretch to say he did.
I mean one lightning bolt from him was enough to give IM a 400% charge.
He was able to summon multiple lightning bolts when he fried that group of Chitauri, and he was able to take down a Leviathan with a charged hammer strike.
When Thor zapped Loki at the end of the movie he summoned the lightning to his hammer and used it to disperse the energy and attack all the Loki's.
Also that weak Tundra you're talking about was strong enough to support an entire race of Giant beings and their cities. If was so easy to break and fall apart than building anything their would have set it off.
No one is ignoring anything. I'm simply stating facts. Characters power level flucuates from movie to movie.
Also the attack Thor used in his movie wasn't the same as dispelling lightning from his hammer towards enemies. He summoned lightning from the sky to strike the ground through his hammer. The lightning hit a single point (pressure = force / area) and that created a chain reaction. A tank can support any creature or object seen there but it wouldn't have been destroyed by the same lightning. A tank>>>>>>>>>>ground (with same area)
Thor didn't take down a leviathan with a charged hammer strike. He electrocuted the leviathan through the metal that Hulk stabbed it with. This metal lead to it's innards. Also the hammer wasn't charged. You see the lightning coming from the sky striking the hammer and sending the electricity through the metal.
You are losing sight of what's been argued. We are arguing whether Thor's normal lightning is powerful enough to damage the armor of the leviathan. The answer is no. This fact is shown by
1. Thor having to electocute through stabbed metal (Thor didn't damage the metal itself).
2. Thor having to amp on the building just to destroy leviathan by hitting them in the belly (he did no damage to their armor).
So the feat against the leviathans is not a good one to prove the lightning can harm Faora. Other feats are needed.
Originally posted by h1a8You're not stating facts all though, most of them are jsut opinions or aren't backed by anything.
No one is ignoring anything. I'm simply stating facts. Characters power level flucuates from movie to movie.Also the attack Thor used in his movie wasn't the same as dispelling lightning from his hammer towards enemies. He summoned lightning from the sky to strike the ground through his hammer. The lightning hit a single point (pressure = force / area) and that created a chain reaction. A tank can support any creature or object seen there but it wouldn't have been destroyed by the same lightning. A tank>>>>>>>>>>ground (with same area)
Thor didn't take down a leviathan with a charged hammer strike. He electrocuted the leviathan through the metal that Hulk stabbed it with. This metal lead to it's innards. Also the hammer wasn't charged. You see the lightning coming from the sky striking the hammer and sending the electricity through the metal.
You are losing sight of what's been argued. We are arguing whether Thor's normal lightning is powerful enough to damage the armor of the leviathan. The answer is no. This fact is shown by
1. Thor having to electocute through stabbed metal (Thor didn't damage the metal itself).
2. Thor having to amp on the building just to destroy leviathan by hitting them in the belly (he did no damage to their armor).So the feat against the leviathans is not a good one to prove the lightning can harm Faora. Other feats are needed.
One being that the Thor in Thor the movie was significantly weaker than he was in Avengers.
Another being that he amped himself for his Leviathan busting attack by using the building. Nothing on screen or any statements in in either his solo movie or the Avengers shows him needing to store energy to release a powerful blast. At that point it's just conjecture on your part with no actual proof other than you believe the tower had to be storing energy despite Thor never doing anything like that before or since.
Thor's lightning did damage part's of the Leviathan's armor.
You're missing the point. If the ground was so brittle and Thor's attack was so weak the ground should have collapsed under itself considering it had an entire race of begins living on it's surface. You think building a giant city on top of it would have caused the chain reaction long before Thor showed up of that's all it took.
Originally posted by Newjak
And yet that attack isn't even his most powerful lightning blast on screen. That is his Jotteniem Buster. And he summoned that attack without any real charge up.Yet you're going to pretend that somehow he needs that building to power up a weaker attack of his?
And did you ever think that it just makes more sense that he chose the higher point to give the best line of sight or closest distance?
Nothing in that scene at all indicates to me he needed the building to store any energy at all for his attack. It was merely meant to be a cool looking scene.
The blast on the first film was more akin to a massive shock-wave. It's not really comparable his lighting attacks. He's the god of thunder as well as lightning.
Are you going to ignore the scene and what's it's conveying to us with the lighting building up?
There were buildings close by with flat roofs, where he wouldn't have to be holding on like a monkey and would have been far easier to blast from.
I disagree, imo, the scene and specifically the camera panning down showing us was to illustrate that he was using the building and its properties as a lightning rod to enhance his attack.
Edit: What's the argument, Thor killing Faora with lightning? IMO, that seems unlikely considering the Kryptonians implied power.
Originally posted by Zack FairI'm not saying that Joutenheim was solid but if it was so easy to destroy than you think the weight of a giant city would have fallen through or it would have collapsed in on itself especially if he is trying to say that attack couldn't even destroy a tank but still caused that chain reaction.
I dunno. He does have a point of the surface being somewhat shallow. Still Joutenheim blast was quite powerful.
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not saying that Joutenheim was solid but if it was so easy to destroy than you think the weight of a giant city would have fallen through or it would have collapsed in on itself especially if he is trying to say that attack couldn't even destroy a tank but still caused that chain reaction.
h1a8 thinks that tanks would survive anything short of a nuke, he doesn't have a very good grasp on reality.