How many thors equal one superman

Originally posted by h1a8
The writers intentions >>>> what you want.
The writer has FULL artistic license. Who has the power to say he is wrong?

It was in the movie thus it happened in canon. If the writer wanted Superman to have done differently than Reeve Superman then

1. He wouldn't have included the feat in the movie but another feat which doesn't reference this well know feat.
Or
2. He would have given details of how it was different.

The writer WANTS US TO THINK about the Reeve feat. He's not trying to mislead the viewers by causing us to believe he did differently than Reeve did. His intentions are crystal clear.

Let's not pretend this happened in real life.

Writers are clear with their intentions. The clipping was a tribute to the Christopher Reeve feat in Superman the movie. The intention was that he did it exactly how Reeve did it.

1. Mjolnir amps striking which takes away from the strength feat.
2. The engines were overloaded with energy and unstable. This contributed to the city breaking apart.

Where was it said of him?
Being the most powerful doesn't mean you will automatically win. Think outside the box man.

Stop pretending like you know what the writer's intentions are based from a tiny newspaper headline. You don't.

Originally posted by h1a8
Where was it said of him?

This just goes to show you have never seen the movies about the characters you try to argue against vs your favorite characters you always want to give the auto win.

👇

Originally posted by FrothByte
The city falling wasn't Thor, but the intitial shockwave that flattened the surface was pretty much all Thor.

It was Thor and Stark working together. The strike rebounded on itself causing that level of destruction.

Originally posted by juggerman
It was Thor and Stark working together. The strike rebounded on itself causing that level of destruction.

Do you know what the word initial means?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you know what the word initial means?

Yes I do

Are you sure?

Just trolling now?

That does explain why you're attempting to "correct" what froth said, despite knowing that what he said was accurate.

I don't think it was accurate

If you knew what initial actually means, then you would know it was accurate

More trolling I see

I agree, you pretending not to be able to understand such a simple statement is obviously an example of trolling.

Originally posted by juggerman
It was Thor and Stark working together. The strike rebounded on itself causing that level of destruction.

Stark had nothing to do with the initial shockwave that flattened the surface. The term "rebound" implies that the force went back on itself. As far as I can tell, the force generated all flowed outward. I'm not discounting your theory but you'll have to present a bit of proof.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Stark had nothing to do with the initial shockwave that flattened the surface. The term "rebound" implies that the force went back on itself. As far as I can tell, the force generated all flowed outward. I'm not discounting your theory but you'll have to present a bit of proof.

To me it looks like the explosion is coming from under the buildings. Pause at 54-56 seconds to see what I mean.

YouTube video

I'm of the opinion Thor's strike caused the core to basically bust which is what caused all that surface destruction we see. That wasn't all Thor. Which is why I think the Jotunheim Buster is a better example of Thor's power. There was no reason the think that one was assisted in any way while this one is questionable as to how much was his doing alone

Originally posted by Silent Master
I agree, you pretending not to be able to understand such a simple statement is obviously an example of trolling.

Well I guess trolling is all you can muster since you have nothing of use to contribute here

Originally posted by juggerman
Well I guess trolling is all you can muster since you have nothing of use to contribute here

Questioning whether or not you know/understand what initial means isn't trolling, it's a legitimate response to your last several posts.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Questioning whether or not you know/understand what initial means isn't trolling, it's a legitimate response to your last several posts.

Your question was answered yet you continued to harp about it instead of actually attempting to drive the conversation forward. That's clearly trolling bud 👆

Continued to harp on it? all I did was ask if you were sure and then you went directly into claims of trolling.

I await your next post claiming that I'm trolling by continuing to harp on it, all the while not being aware enough to realize you're guilty of doing what you accuse me of.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Continued to harp on it? all I did was ask if you were sure and then you went directly into claims of trolling.

I await your next post claiming that I'm trolling by continuing to harp on it, all the while not being aware enough to realize you're guilty of doing what you accuse me of.

Yes harp. You asked and I answered. Could've ended there but no. If you would like to drop the point now I'm all for it. I expect you won't though 😗

Is h1 ever going to post proof to back up his claim?