Okay even if you want to say he smashed him 5 times, again..that took Loki out. Not just for like a second either. Or even a few minutes.
One person is easily beaten by Hulk in a matter of seconds, not being able to get up after Hulk slams him repeatedly into the ground(not even smashing him through the floor).
Why does this show Loki is nearly as durable as Thor? Or in his ballpark? Because Hulk slammed him through a window and into a wall?
It was 5 times. I double checked. And it wasn't super long either. He was moving under his own power and sitting up, and making wisecracks about "that drink" Tony offered, by the end of the battle. And later walked off in cuffs with Thor without troubles, at the end of the film. So other than some superficial cuts and scrapes, it didn't do any lasting damage either.
Sure, one person who did not even try to fight back got beaten by being slammed repeatedly, in rapid succession, after already taking a hit and an exploding arrow to the face. And you didn't answer my question. How many hits of a similar level did Hulk land on Thor?
Loki got laid out by a series of heavier hits in much quicker succession. So there is a difference. What do you think is easier to soak up? A series of hard hits, spread over a couple of minutes, or a series of hard blows dealt out in a couple of seconds?
@ Surtur. Basically, I just don't feel that there is enough evidence to suggest a massive durability gap, given the differences in the scenarios. If you feel differently, that's cool. In the end, barring spells that took hours to prep (and some weird hip shaking... don't know wtf that was about), it's not like Enchantress ever showed Hulk-level damage output in the middle of a direct fight in anyways.
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay even if you want to say he smashed him 5 times, again..that took Loki out. Not just for like a second either. Or even a few minutes.One person is easily beaten by Hulk in a matter of seconds, not being able to get up after Hulk slams him repeatedly into the ground(not even smashing him through the floor).
Why does this show Loki is nearly as durable as Thor? Or in his ballpark? Because Hulk slammed him through a window and into a wall?
Oh please, stop this nonsense. Loki never fought Hulk. Hulk beat up a non-combatant Loki. Whoopidoo. Heck, Hulk won via cheapshot.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Oh please, stop this nonsense. Loki never fought Hulk. Hulk beat up a non-combatant Loki. Whoopidoo. Heck, Hulk won via cheapshot.
Okay so Hulk won via cheapshot. That doesn't mean Loki is near Thor's durability though, since we still have the whole "Thor flat out said he was holding back" thing.
If you want to brush it off as a cheap shot fine, but then we brush off the Thor feat too because he said he was holding back. To which then we are still left with..Loki not really having any durability feats on Thors level.
The exploding arrow feat is decent, but not Thor level.
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so Hulk won via cheapshot. That doesn't mean Loki is near Thor's durability though, since we still have the whole "Thor flat out said he was holding back" thing.If you want to brush it off as a cheap shot fine, but then we brush off the Thor feat too because he said he was holding back. To which then we are still left with..Loki not really having any durability feats on Thors level.
Thor holding back implies he's stronger and more skilled than Loki. That doesn't imply Thor is more durable. Now I'm not saying that Loki for sure is more durable. All I'm saying is Loki has better durability feats than Thor.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Thor holding back implies he's stronger and more skilled than Loki. That doesn't imply Thor is more durable. Now I'm not saying that Loki for sure is more durable. All I'm saying is Loki has better durability feats than Thor.
Except he doesn't have better durability feats than Thor. The exploding arrow isn't. Fighting a holding back Thor isn't. You have dismissed the Hulk feat. So what is left to say he has better durability feats?
Obviously Thor can't "hold back" his durability. But people were trying to use fighting Thor as a big durability feat for Loki, which nope not if he was holding back.
Originally posted by Surtur
Except he doesn't have better durability feats than Thor. The exploding arrow isn't. Fighting a holding back Thor isn't. You have dismissed the Hulk feat. So what is left to say he has better durability feats?Obviously Thor can't "hold back" his durability. But people were trying to use fighting Thor as a big durability feat for Loki, which nope not if he was holding back.
No, people were trying to use Loki fighting Thor as proof of his strength and skill. Because even if Thor was holding back, to even be able to provide enough of a challenge to Thor for Thor to take him seriously implies that Loki is within Thor's strength/skill range.
Loki got shot in the face by guns, got an exploding arrow, was punched/shoulder blocked by Hulk and got right back up, got shot by Coulson's anti-asgardian gun, survived falling through space, survived getting smashed multiple times by Hulk during a time Loki wasn't fighting back...
That's all fine, and it doesn't compare to Thor being able to take hits from the guy and smile and keep going. Nor does it mean Loki was a real challenge for him since once again he says he held back and there really isn't any way to know just how much, so it's a weak argument to use that feat and all the other feats are decent, but not enough.
In other words, Loki doesn't have better durability feats. Loki is not more durable than Thor.
Originally posted by Surtur
That's all fine, and it doesn't compare to Thor being able to take hits from the guy and smile and keep going. Nor does it mean Loki was a real challenge for him since once again he says he held back and there really isn't any way to know just how much, so it's a weak argument to use that feat and all the other feats are decent, but not enough.In other words, Loki doesn't have better durability feats. Loki is not more durable than Thor.
Give me a feat of Thor that equals Loki falling through space. Or taking a full hit from Hulk and getting right back up without any issue.
Also, I'm pretty sure someone who's able to throw you around is someone you need to take seriously. Watch Thor's and Loki's fights, Loki hits Thor strong enough to launch him in the air. Strong enough to smash his face along the side of the Stark building. Thor IS stronger, but Loki is still strong enough to manhandle Thor if Thor doesn't take him seriously.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Give me a feat of Thor that equals Loki falling through space. Or taking a full hit from Hulk and getting right back up without any issue.
Being hit by Hulk and not being immediately taken out of the fight in seconds.
So you see some were saying Thor is more durable, but that they were close. You have now gone into the territory of Loki is actually MORE durable than Thor. Fascinating.
Originally posted by Surtur
Being hit by Hulk and not being immediately taken out of the fight in seconds.So you see some were saying Thor is more durable, but that they were close. You have now gone into the territory of Loki is actually MORE durable than Thor. Fascinating.
Difference being when Hulk hit Loki, Loki got right back up. When Hulk hit Thor, Thor was somewhat groggy initially.
Again, not saying Loki is more durable. It's completely possible that the hits from Hulk were different intensities. But basing from just the feat itself, Loki getting right back up is more impressive than Thor getting a slightly bloody nose and taking a bit more time to get up.
I have NEVER said that Loki is more durable than Thor. Please don't spew lies. All I said was that Loki had better durability feats.
Also, please name me a Thor durability feat that equals Loki surviving falling off the rainbow bridge.
But saying he has better durability feats is a roundabout way of saying he is more durable. Why play games when before you said to stop?
Did we see Lokis fall off the rainbow bridge? The impact? What shape he was left in? Show me the scene. Link me to the scene where Loki falls and we see how he survives.
All we know is "something something magic something something trickster god" when it comes to how he survived. Unless there was an after credits scene that shows this.
Originally posted by Surtur
But saying he has better durability feats is a roundabout way of saying he is more durable. Why play games when before you said to stop?Did we see Lokis fall off the rainbow bridge? The impact? What shape he was left in? Show me the scene. Link me to the scene where Loki falls and we see how he survives.
All we know is "something something magic something something trickster god" when it comes to how he survived. Unless there was an after credits scene that shows this.
No, saying he has better durability feats it saying he has better durability feats. Not better durability. Don't twist my words around, I'm not playing games.
Can Thor have better durability? Probably. But right now the best you can do is either say they have equal durability or Loki has better durability. You can't say that Thor has better durability when he doesn't have the feats to back it up.
Loki fell off the rainbow bridge and in the after credits scene he's shown alive and well. We don't know what happened in between, but Thor still doesn't have any comparable feat.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Loki has the power of plot armour though. He seemingly gets killed in both Thor films, only to be revealed alive, well, and up to something at the end. And without any real, proper explanation in either instance.
Well yes, I agree, I'm merely pointing out that you can't claim Thor has better durability when he doesn't have better durability feats. I'm perfectly fine saying they're of similar durability.
Again, the creator of the topic never specified on the battle. I agree Loki is no match for any being as enchantress. But, let's remember that in every battle Loki has been depicted, he's in the possession of a weapon able of destroying mightier fighters than enchantress. Should Loki possess one of this weapons, like the Frost, or the Scepter....Loki's cunning, and migic should be enough. Also, in the end of Thor the dark world, Loki was seated on odins chair, with his scepter. Odins scepter is strong enough to kill enchantress. Lastly, enchantress is too proud, and tends to understimate opponents. And Loki isn't an opponent you want to underestimate.
Loki survived Hulk thrashing him into the floor again and again and again. You going to tell me that someone who lives through that is a cakewalk to kill for Enchantress? Utterly ridiculous.
I'm not by any means arguing that Loki has the durability of Thor, but he certainly has more than enough to survive Enchantress and take her head in the end.