Originally posted by abhilegend
Wut? You're saying the ice was harder than adamantium? Next you would say that random arrows from HAND ninjas are more durable than adamantium because they go through logan's body where adamantium is supposed to be.Yes rage.of.gamma, the ice attack from the ice constructs were more durable than the constructs themselves. And those are the same constructs like which were getting blown up by storm and Gambit. In fact you posted the same scan as I did. And Mystique was just gesturing, the snowmen created those shards. And Bobby made the ice constructs facing Thor extra durable, because why not?
There are so many things wrong with this post, it ain't even funny.
List all the high feats from Bobby while you're at it, why don't you? But I get it since it pierced Thor, it was harder than adamantium.
And Namor would beat DCnU diana then I guess?
No, I'm saying it gives you an indication of how durable it is when it doesn't shatter against his skull.
Yes, the ICE projectiles were more durable then the SNOW constructs. Ice IS generally more durable then snow. 😬 Not to mention we're referring to Mystique piercing Thor.
You can't think of a reason why Iceman would send a more powerful construct against THOR in comparison to GAMBIT and co.? Not to mention that was a gigantic ice monster that he personally created as opposed to snow constructs that Mystique summoned.
Hey look, Gambit's attack did nothing to Mystique's amped up form:
And in the same panel, they were easily destroying the snowmen as if they were made out of, well, snow, but were unable to break Logan out.
Surely this is PIS or some sort of magic. It's not at all possible for ice constructs to be more durable then snow, much less for certain ice constructs to be more durable then others. I mean, that would be crazy. It's not as if Iceman has historically been able to create more durable constructs but utilizing more energy........
Yes, I am. Because this particular Iceman shits on every other Iceman portrayal I've ever seen.
Also, if you think I have to post high end feats from Iceman to prove that his constructs are more durable then regular ice (SMH) then you've never picked up an X-men comic in your life.
He's more or less as strong as her as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean he beats her however.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusThat's not what happened? You think they fired specially short ice shards at his head while firing a foot long shards into his abdomen?
No, I'm saying it gives you an indication of how durable it is when it doesn't shatter against his skull.
Yes, the ICE projectiles were more durable then the SNOW constructs. Ice IS generally more durable then snow. 😬And those were not ice constructs? Way to fire ice shards from their snow bodies.
Not to mention we're referring to Mystique piercing Thor.That was a shard from those ice constructs IIRC.
You can't think of a reason why Iceman would send a more powerful construct against THOR in comparison to GAMBIT and co.?I can. It wasn't mentioned anywhere though.
Not to mention that was a gigantic ice monster that he personally created as opposed to snow constructs that Mystique summoned.So it was big and thus more powerful. Great logic.
Hey look, Gambit's attack did nothing to Mystique's amped up form:That was AFTER she impaled Thor with the shard.
And in the same panel, they were easily destroying the snowmen as if they were made out of, well, snow, but were unable to break Logan out.What do you mean? Deathbird is seen chipping away the ice. But I feel breaking a block of ice is harder than to break a shard.
Surely this is PIS or some sort of magic. It's not at all possible for ice constructs to be more durable then snow, much less for certain ice constructs to be more durable then others.It is. It wasn't shown that the ice shard was anything impressively sharp or durable. It was stated to be razor sharp and that's it.
I mean, that would be crazy. It's not as if Iceman has historically been able to create more durable constructs but utilizing more energy........Sure he has. But that's irrelevant here.
Yes, I am. Because this particular Iceman shits on every other Iceman portrayal I've ever seen.And? Iceman didn't show anything impressive in his construct durability. I mean you think this is going to happen to a top tier even with Thor sucker shotting him?
http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/16212551/Astonishing_X-Men_064-020.jpg.html
I don't.
Also, if you think I have to post high end feats from Iceman to prove that his constructs are more durable then regular ice (SMH) then you've never picked up an X-men comic in your life.Sure I haven't. Only you read comics I guess.
He's more or less as strong as her as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean he beats her however.Then you are saying that she is as strong as post crisis version. Because I don't think there is much difference between Namor and post crisis diana in strength.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusIt's an all father level attack. Don't try and twist out of it now when you already confirmed that it means exactly that attack. All Father = Odin level btw since he was the original All Father. Odin was the previous bearer of the Odinforce (now called the Thorforce since Thor held it longer).
Sure, the highest level of Skyfather. What ever you prefer. Just as long as it is clear there exists no evidence to support him being at full power.I didn't bring up his feats as evidence of him being diminished. If I wanted to do that, I'd note how he can't fly, create life etc. or do much more then blast stuff (Along with enhanced stats) in this weakened state.
The fact that the Odin Force was completely drained and he has not yet entered the Odin Sleep. Tapping into some hidden internal reserve does not rejuvenate the rest of his energies.
Now, let's go through this again so we have this clear:
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
No, the might of the All-Father implies that he finally started to fight at the level of a Skyfather. That however does not mean that he's fighting at his very best.
You state that that attack implies he was fighting at Skyfather level. However, the exact words were:
http://postimg.org/image/s0j86hcv5/
"Such was the awesome might of an All Father unleashed"
Which combined with your post, means that he was fighting at All Father level unleashed. Unless your post was wrong, and should be changed.
And unless we're allowed to extrapolate that All Father just means Skyfather level, and we're supposed to ignore what All Father actually means and just ignore the existence of "Unleashed".
Which has zero to do with his raw power. And you just completely ignored that his current feats match most if not all of his previous ones. But yes, King Thor can't fly. Naturally he must be the weakest. And he was apparently trying to grow things. Was he using his power to do this? We don't know.
But if you're going to put an inability to fly above his actual feats, then... well, actually, what the hell, I don't know what to say.
Though how quick you are to forget that King Thor back Thor back to life and purged the necrosword from Thor. And sent everyone back to their own universe. But he can't fly. **** him right. You know what happened the last time Thor died when a full powered Odin was around? He died, and Odin didn't bring him back...
It took Thor from 41 to 57 to enter the Odinsleep from when he first gained the Odinpower. In that time he fought Perrikus, Desak, Desak, made reactors, screwed with nukes, etc. It took remaking the whole moon to finally put him over the top. Don't act like the first charge must be minor just because it's coming back.
Hell, when Thor stopped subconsciously holding the power back he remade the moon "using his power to the fullest"
http://i62.tinypic.com/2l8hf9v.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/2hcjfdg.jpg
Oh and btw, when Thor expended himself too much that he needed to recharge the Odinpower, guess what happened? Take a guess.
Give up?
Why, he entered the Odinsleep automatically of course!
http://i58.tinypic.com/13z4vn9.jpg
Considering how Jurgens Aaron's King Thor is, it's a wonder that he has not entered the Odinsleep automatically when he needed it. In fact, it's kind of funny isn't it? How Old King Thor hasn't went into the Odinsleep or referenced it at all considering how weak he is? How he hasn't actually mentioned how weak he is for that matter...
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusThen don't respond to me. You know what's going to happen when you bring a lack of proof when responding to me. I'll be as boring, or as long as I want. Maybe I should just give 5 word answers like you're getting jacked up when abhi gives them and lowball everything. You seem quite fond of those debates.
This is why I wanted to drop it. I almost feel asleep reading this wall of text just to repeat myself for the fifth time.No, again you are speculating about completely unsupported stuff. All we know was that the Odin Force drained, he regained some portion of it and he has not yet entered the Odin Sleep.
I'm saying that he IS weak. Why is he not prioritizing entering the Odin Sleep? I'm not sure, maybe he's stubborn, perhaps we'll find out later on that he was doing all he could to put it off. Perhaps through the power of hope and belief, he regained all his power and then some. Who knows?
All I DO know is what has been printed on panel and so far, based on what we know of the Odin Force, King Thor being at full power is not possible.
All this word play and you still seem to gloss over the simple fact that the Odin Force was thought to be completely drained and he has yet to enter the Odin Sleep. Not highlighting that he does need to enter the Odin Sleep does not automatically mean he is no longer weakened or that the other evidence vanishes. Your reasoning for him regaining all of his power legitimately makes no sense based on what we know of the Odin Force. There is a big difference between will power reigniting some energy and restoring all his stores.
We KNOW that Odin Force can only fully rejuvenate through the Odin Sleep. We also however know that Odin Force wielders can put off the Odin Sleep for incredibly long periods of time but it is dangerous and their power continues to wane.
Do you not understand that for over 900 years, he was completely bereft of the power? Failure clouding his mind and suppressing some makes sense. It magically returning in full however is an entirely different leap.
Suck my dick homo queer. *Thor getting knocked out by laser beams*
I like to debate on the other hand. I like to be thorough with my points. And that's just how I am. I will include everything I can think of, and will continue doing so. Boring or not.
I'm speculating? No, I'm outright stating he hasn't entered the Odinsleep. I'm stating he hasn't stated anything about it. He hasn't mentioned he's weakened like at all. You want to talk speculation? You repeatedly keep stating he's so weak he needs the Odinsleep to replenish. Where is any of the statements of this level in Aaron's run? No ****ing where is where those are.
You know what happens when people need to enter the Odinsleep? They enter it. You know what happens when they need the Odinsleep but don't do it? They reference it. You know what happens when they don't need to enter the Odinsleep? They don't reference or take the Odinsleep. Aaron's Thor has neither taken the Odinsleep, nor referenced it.
Where does this lead to exactly? He doesn't need it. At all apparently right now.
It's like you want me to go on a rant with your posts. Well in that case, have a good nap there Rage. 👆
Every single time in comics Thor or Odin has been weakened and needed the Odinsleep, they've either taken it or they've referenced it, usually repeatedly. EVERY SINGLE TIME
Hell, there's been many times when they simply passed out and went into an Odinsleep when they needed it without prior warning. Has Aaron's Thor even been alluded to being that weak? Didn't think so.
In addition to a complete lack of any statements being weakened, anything to do with Odinsleep, and being stated to have the might of an All Father unleashed, bringing Thor back to life, sending the Thor's back to their own time, I have my doubts he could even be perceived as weakened.
Yes I understand how the Odinforce works. Yet it didn't work that way when Thor received the power. It didn't work that way a couple times when Odin gained the power back. Heimdall, etc. And the Odinforce also works on a basis that the wearer needs the Odinsleep if he's really weakened. In fact, the whole lack of needing the Odinsleep defeats your entire point anyway. And no, making up some bullshit that he actually needs to Odinsleep despite a complete lack in anything resembling proof of Aaron's Thor doesn't count as proof. Especially in the same post you tried to out me for speculation.
And using Galactus eating as a previous point is beyond nonsensical. Considering just like Odin/Thor, when Galactus needs to eat, he is shown to be eating, or he is stated to be hungry. And that is almost all the time in comics. If you want to relay his situation back to Thor, then that makes him needing Odinsleep even worse since Galactus is constantly announced to be weaker, while currently Thor is not or has not been stated to be. But if you want to pretend it's the same thing, then that only backhands you in the nutsack that Thor was not actually weaker in the Gorr example. Considering how "similar" the situations are, if Thor is weaker, then he needs at least a statement about the Odinsleep (or being weakened in general), which he does not have.
When he needs to Odinsleep, he'll Odinsleep. When he doesn't, he will continue not Odinsleeping.
That is if this is following 616, which, you've opened my eyes to it being based on that due to "Jurgens Thor" claims. So thanks for pointing me in that light there Rage.
If you want to make "Odinsleep" your main point, then you better have some proof that it's relevant in this case. You're leaving a major plothole open with your argument here, and you know it. Your entire argument can be countered with:
"Then why hasn't he Odinslept?"
But word play and all is my strong suit I guess.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusWell, the Odinforce was thought to be extinct before his fight with Gorr, so I fail to see your point. In fact, you're not referencing anything I stated there. But if responding to nothing works against Abhi, continue with that.
The comic made it very clear that the Odin Force was in fact drained preceding his fight with Gorr. This isn't rocket science.
In case you need reminding, I'm saying that Thor wasn't so drained that he needed the Odinsleep before the Gorr fight... at the very least.
In fact, Thor hasn't needed the Odinsleep yet apparently... considering he hasn't done so.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusYet you're discussing the "irrelevant" character in the thread with me as opposed to the actual character in the thread. My mind is made up on both of them. But sure, let's discuss King Thor instead. Because that makes sense.
I care, I just realize the futility of discussing something when your mind is already made up.My position has been that King Thor was weakened from the get go, his fight with Galactus is irrelevant to my stance. Although I'd wager it has a lot to do with yours.
You seem to think my stance will somehow change because Gorr won't look as good. It won't. And people lowballed Gorr because they didn't think that this Thor was particularly powerful due to his condition. Which is silly as weakened or not, an Odin Force wielder is crazy powerful. Further supported by his fight against Galactus.
You brought up Galactus repeatedly before I even mentioned his name. Deflect your intentions on me all you want, but we both know what your intentions are. But sure, it is irrelevant to your stance. Let's discuss more on the intricacies of King Thor while acknowledging that we're ignoring Young Thor.
And yes, my posts would be as in depth and full of sex even if you wanted to drop King Thor instead, so yeah. Look at my underhandedness wanting Young Thor to be perceived as higher. I'm a real sicko.
But if Galactus is my underlying goal here, then I might as well point out that since the Gorr fight, Thor had a long period off of doing anything while having a reinvigorated Asgard and apparently visited Earth many times. Which would have been the perfect time to replenish all his power in an Odinsleep. Oh wait, I forgot that he is putting that off for reasons that make zero sense at all.
I know your stance won't change. What I'm trying to figure out is why. It's cemented in assuming a fact, without there actually being facts. It bewilders me. And it's the exact same as Young Thor being weaker than Regular Thor because Regular Thor absorbed sunlight apparently as he got older (?). Both of my issues with these stem from the same thing.
I'm trying to get down to why these are accepted as facts exactly. So far, no reasons really.
And yes, Gorr being lowballed is due to that, and will continue to be due to that. That will never be resolved considering the Thor fans and the Thor haters believe the same "fact". The Galactus feat will change perception, but before then it's still the same. And I've been asking the same thing ever since that comic came out due to "rumblings". But alas, rumblings is doom. Rumblings is now synonymous with low level sparks, even though all it really means is that he feels it coming back...
But I can see it too I guess. As long as Thor the character stays at a perceived weakened level, then he is only more powerful than his comic appearances. The ultimate guard. You're basically lowballing your own character in an effort to make everything he does seem more impressive. Say no more, big Galactus fan here.
EDIT: We can completely drop King Thor here if you're compelled to do so. But only if we go back to Young Thor and have a discussion on his strength/durability level in somewhat of an answer to his answer of Wonder Woman in this thread. In fact, I'd like to get back to how much straight punishment Young Thor took.
Young Thor = Regular Thor in strength/durability or somewhere around it. Prove me wrong. 🙂
Originally posted by abhilegend
That's not what happened? You think they fired specially short ice shards at his head while firing a foot long shards into his abdomen?And those were not ice constructs? Way to fire ice shards from their snow bodies. That was a shard from those ice constructs IIRC.
Looked like it. Either way, this is irrelevant as that shit is apparently very durable to cut Thor. The spike she shot him wasn't even freaking chipped when she pulled it out.
No, they were made of snow. I know living in India, you've probably never seen snow, but their is a stark contrast between snow and ice. It is even represented in the coloring of the book.
Those SNOW constructs:
Were busy fighting the X-men and Mystique was the one behind Thor.
Originally posted by abhilegend
I can. It wasn't mentioned anywhere though. So it was big and thus more powerful. Great logic.That was AFTER she impaled Thor with the shard.
What do you mean? Deathbird is seen chipping away the ice. But I feel breaking a block of ice is harder than to break a shard.
So? You seem to be arguing that it is not possible for some constructs to be more durable then others. That clearly is not the case.
Well, if the constructs are as durable as their projectiles, why is she chipping away some minor shards instead of tearing it to pieces?
So you realize that a block of ice is tougher then a shard of ice but cannot comprehend ice being superior to snow?
Originally posted by abhilegend
It is. It wasn't shown that the ice shard was anything impressively sharp or durable. It was stated to be razor sharp and that's it. Sure he has. But that's irrelevant here.And? Iceman didn't show anything impressive in his construct durability. I mean you think this is going to happen to a top tier even with Thor sucker shotting him?
http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/16212551/Astonishing_X-Men_064-020.jpg.html
I don't.
So Mystique amped to an unknown degree by Iceman being powered by a Death Seed pierced Thor with razor sharp ice. Cool, shit happens.
He did when he monster was tanking hits from Mjolnir and Thor's lightning.
Also, one more time: Iceman can't manipulate the durability of his constructs and their power.
Also, by that logic, Diana's sword broke against Katana's blade. Piercing damage and durability do not always go hand in hand.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Sure I haven't. Only you read comics I guess.Then you are saying that she is as strong as post crisis version. Because I don't think there is much difference between Namor and post crisis diana in strength.
If you have, then what is this discussion about? Who cares if weaker snow constructs were being destroyed when Mystique and Iceman could have easily made them more powerful?
My bad, I was overrating her strength.
I never even bothered to ask, but why is Mystique piercing Thor relevant? I don't think anyone believes Thor cannot be cut by Diana's sword (She isn't cutting through Asgardian bone however), the problem is his endurance to cutting is pretty crazy lately. And yes, even in this issue, despite being stabbed through the chest from behind, he was up moments later unharmed.
Anyways, this conversation has officially become too silly for my taste because I'm discussing the difference of durability between different shapes of ice/snow.
Iceman's constructs can be a lot more powerful then regular ice, for example:
And Mystique clearly hit Thor with something different then the snowmen constructs. You may choose to disagree with one or both of these points but at this point, I've stopped caring tbh. 😬
Also, can someone tell where these scans are from:
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusSo basically, it cut Thor so it must've been super-duper durable. Great Logic.
Looked like it. Either way, this is irrelevant as that shit is apparently very durable to cut Thor. The spike she shot him wasn't even freaking chipped when she pulled it out.
No, they were made of snow. I know living in India, you've probably never seen snow, but their is a stark contrast between snow and ice. It is even represented in the coloring of the book.Again with nationality insults? Grow up.
Those SNOW constructs:I know. They were still able to produce ice shards from their bodies.Were busy fighting the X-men and Mystique was the one behind Thor.
So? You seem to be arguing that it is not possible for some constructs to be more durable then others. That clearly is not the case.Without any explanation? Seems more like an excuse.
Well, if the constructs are as durable as their projectiles, why is she chipping away some minor shards instead of tearing it to pieces?Because Deatthbird is about class 10 or some such. If you're saying the ice was super-duper durable then she wouldn't have done that.
So you realize that a block of ice is tougher then a shard of ice but cannot comprehend ice being superior to snow?WTF are you talking about?
So Mystique amped to an unknown degree by Iceman being powered by a Death Seed pierced Thor with razor sharp ice. Cool, shit happens.Now that's the spirit. Stop trying to rationalize it.
He did when he monster was tanking hits from Mjolnir and Thor's lightning.And Iceman got shattered by a single mjolnir strike.
Also, one more time: Iceman can't manipulate the durability of his constructs and their power.What?
Also, by that logic, Diana's sword broke against Katana's blade.Soulsword is haxxx.
Piercing damage and durability do not always go hand in hand.But you were the one saying Thor is nearly as durable as superman inc cutting durability.
If you have, then what is this discussion about? Who cares if weaker snow constructs were being destroyed when Mystique and Iceman could have easily made them more powerful?Then why didn't he made his own body super-duper durable?
My bad, I was overrating her strength.Suuuuuuuure.
And yeah, Thor: Man of War and the other two shots are definitely non canon.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/03/16/thor-legends-of-asgard-interview
IGN Comics: What we're hearing so far is that the series deals with the past, present, and future of Thor. Can you clarify what that means?Fraction: Yeah. It's really out-of-continuity, all about the cyclical, "the more things change the more they stay the same" nature of the Norse myths. Ragnarok happened, a few people survived and repopulated the world, and the whole cycle began again. We're looking at these same stories through different eras, with different looks and different experiences and different ways of looking at it that we've never seen before.
All of this actually predates Thor in a way. One of the stories is about an angry and petulant teenager, sort of a brutal Thor who is so disconnected from his humanity that Odin cursed him with a human life.
IGN Comics: You said the story is more or less out of continuity, but will the future portion play at all into what J. Michael Straczynski is doing in his Thor book?Fraction: No, no. These are evergreen stories that aren't reliant on any kind of continuity. They don't step on anyone's toes or anyone's plans or anything like that. Just Thor stories.
IGN Comics: Would you say this is a good starting point for someone that isn't too familiar with the Marvel Thor but might want to get into the comics?
Fraction: Yeah, I think so. I think it's a good taste of epic, mythological power in all its scope and scale. It's continuity-free and all that. These are the types of stories that have been told for thousands of years, you know?
And in case you want on panel proof.
It took place in a different Ragnarok cycle.
But of course rage knows better than the editor and the writer of the comic. Not to mention this comic contradicts the actual canon where Thor didn't have mjolnir in viking times.
http://i.imgur.com/3qtlWx4.jpg
That would contradict Young Thor meeting Apocalypse in viking times and having Jarnjborn as a weapon.
Nor was he ever turned into a human named Arkin Torsen around viking times.
http://i.imgur.com/MQPGbIO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KW7mV5D.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vBNnZVk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ll5dgH2.jpg
And that's how we know that this whole story is non-canon. It has been stated by writer/editor and it contradicts too many canon facts to be canon.
Come at me rage. These shoulders are here for you.
Originally posted by abhilegend
And yeah, Thor: Man of War and the other two shots are definitely non canon.http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/03/16/thor-legends-of-asgard-interview
And in case you want on panel proof.
It took place in a different Ragnarok cycle.
But of course rage knows better than the editor and the writer of the comic. Not to mention this comic contradicts the actual canon where Thor didn't have mjolnir in viking times.
http://i.imgur.com/3qtlWx4.jpg
That would contradict Young Thor meeting Apocalypse in viking times and having Jarnjborn as a weapon.
Nor was he ever turned into a human named Arkin Torsen around viking times.
http://i.imgur.com/MQPGbIO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KW7mV5D.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vBNnZVk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ll5dgH2.jpgAnd that's how we know that this whole story is non-canon. It has been stated by writer/editor and it contradicts too many canon facts to be canon.
Come at me rage. These shoulders are here for you.
None of this is news.
I realize that the book takes place out of continuity and it doesn't really affect the current canon. Matt Fraction outright said that you don't have to worry about knowing all of the Thor continuity but this story still leads up to Thor's banishment as explained in Thor #151. None of this makes it non-canon. There is a big difference between the two. One-shots and specials are very often out of continuity, even contradicting established stuff sometimes, that does not however make them non-canon.
Yes, I know the story took place among different Ragnarok cycles. In fact, the trilogy is a narrative running across like 20 different Ragnarok cycles. It's all connected. A Ragnarok cycle isn't something that takes place with completely different characters (Although that wouldn't mean they are non-canon) like in the Roy Thomas era of the 70's, but refers to the cyclical nature of the characters. For example: Odin and the Serpent's first battle took place in a previous Ragnarok cycle but they are still the same beings.
What are you talking about? Thor has had Mjolnir in Viking times for DECADES and was first referenced as far back as the Stan Lee days IIRC:
Current Young Thor's depiction actually CONTRADICTS many canon stories. Using a contradiction from a mainstream title to prove that contradictions are non-canon? facepalm
You seem to be under the impression that a comic contradicting other comics makes it non-canon automatically. This is retarded, at best it would be a retcon.
Second, as I've already TOLD you MANY times, Matt Fraction has established that the Gods do not have histories, but stories, that are ever flowing and changing, many are contradictory, but nonetheless are true. That is how he explains the various interpretations and contradictions of Thor's history. INCLUDING his own work in the main title. 😬
This has been a running them for a while now and is the very reason Loki is an Agent of Asgard.
Also, for someone so adamant against interviews being used as evidence, you sure do post them a lot. 😬
Originally posted by abhilegend
So basically, it cut Thor so it must've been super-duper durable. Great Logic.Again with nationality insults? Grow up.
I know. They were still able to produce ice shards from their bodies.
Without any explanation? Seems more like an excuse.
Because Deatthbird is about class 10 or some such. If you're saying the ice was super-duper durable then she wouldn't have done that.
WTF are you talking about?
Now that's the spirit. Stop trying to rationalize it.
And Iceman got shattered by a single mjolnir strike.
What?
Soulsword is haxxx. But you were the one saying Thor is nearly as durable as superman inc cutting durability.
Then why didn't he made his own body super-duper durable?
Suuuuuuuure.
Iceman was shattered but Thor was trapped by his Ice Dragon specifically because he is able to make his ice more durable to different degrees. facepalm
I get that you posted Mystique stabbing Thor to make him look bad but my question is this, do you acknowledge that Iceman can make his constructs a lot more durable and powerful depending on the power used, yes or no?
Originally posted by Rage.Of.OlympusHahaha. GTFO.
None of this is news.I realize that the book takes place out of continuity and it doesn't really affect the current canon.
Matt Fraction outright said that you don't have to worry about knowing all of the Thor continuity but this story still leads up to Thor's banishment as explained in Thor #151. None of this makes it non-canon. There is a big difference between the two. One-shots and specials are very often out of continuity, even contradicting established stuff sometimes, that does not however make them non-canon.Out of continuity doesn't makes it non canon? You are getting weirder with your Thor obsession.
Yes, I know the story took place among different Ragnarok cycles. In fact, the trilogy is a narrative running across like 20 different Ragnarok cycles. It's all connected. A Ragnarok cycle isn't something that takes place with completely different characters (Although that wouldn't mean they are non-canon) like in the Roy Thomas era of the 70's, but refers to the cyclical nature of the characters. For example: Odin and the Serpent's first battle took place in a previous Ragnarok cycle but they are still the same beings.When Fraction explicitly says this is not Thor of today?
All of this actually predates Thor in a way.
What are you talking about? Thor has had Mjolnir in Viking times for DECADES and was first referenced as far back as the Stan Lee days IIRC:Yet Young Thor didn't have it when he met Apocalypse.
Current Young Thor's depiction actually CONTRADICTS many canon stories. Using a contradiction from a mainstream title to prove that contradictions are non-canon?Why not? Its non canon by writer/editor and now it contradicts actual canon stories.
You seem to be under the impression that a comic contradicting other comics makes it non-canon automatically. This is retarded, at best it would be a retcon.When the writer actually calls it non canon? Yes, I am.
Second, as I've already TOLD you MANY times, Matt Fraction has established that the Gods do not have histories, but stories, that are ever flowing and changing, many are contradictory, but nonetheless are true. That is how he explains the various interpretations and contradictions of Thor's history. INCLUDING his own work in the main title. 😬Who the **** cares? He said his trilogy is non canon. End of story.
This has been a running them for a while now and is the very reason Loki is an Agent of Asgard.And I've never seen somebody so desperate for feats. Its actually sad.Also, for someone so adamant against interviews being used as evidence, you sure do post them a lot. 😬
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Iceman was shattered but Thor was trapped by his Ice Dragon specifically because he is able to make his ice more durable to different degrees. facepalmI get that you posted Mystique stabbing Thor to make him look bad but my question is this, do you acknowledge that Iceman can make his constructs a lot more durable and powerful depending on the power used, yes or no?
😂
He can. But he wasn't actually using his power to do that when mystique stabbed Thor.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Current Young Thor's depiction actually CONTRADICTS many canon stories. Using a contradiction from a mainstream title to prove that contradictions are non-canon? facepalm
Originally posted by Epicurus
Going by that logic, Thor's encounter with Apocalypse can be dismissed as being AU/out-of-continuity since it contradicts certain details around the original Celestial storyline not to mention that Thor is portrayed as being unworthy of Mjolnir when that was not the case in the original storyline 30 years ago.
He's also going back on his word that interviews are inadmissible by citing that IGN interview, lol :
Originally posted by abhilegend
Interviews are non-admissible. Period.
