Originally posted by FrothByte
And do you have proof of this or speculation on your part?
Froth, you know that's not how proof works right?
The planet destruction part is the higher feat. To assert that this is what Bi-Frost does is the part that requires evidence. To simply assume that it does is the speculation since it was never shown in the movies to actually do this.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Ah, bayformers.... I am a Transformers fan, but Bay's movies are so poorly told, and the lore so horribly mangled that I couldn't make a decent argument for it to begin with.If this was say, Prime, or G1, or even the Unicron Trilogy, I could make some decent arguments, but Bayformers would get mangled, at least by the Asgardians.
So it comes down to the Kryptonians vs the Asgardians, and a lot of the Krytonian's victory conditions hinge on A: the planet orbiting a yellow or blue star instead of it's natural red one, which torpedoes the credibility of their success. Their tech is advanced, but not as advanced as the Asgardians. The powers, and superior tech of Asgard wins the day for them. Only via act of OP and having a day or so to soak up some Yellow or Blue solar radiation could this situation be flipped.
OP says that the Kryptonians all have yellow sun abilities
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Froth, you know that's not how proof works right?The planet destruction part is the higher feat. To assert that this is what Bi-Frost does is the part that requires evidence. To simply assume that it does is the speculation since it was never shown in the movies to actually do this.
No, the way proof works is that you need to post proof if you want to claim something different from what was shown in the movie. Since Heimdall, Thor and Loki specifically say that the Bifrost will destroy a world if left unchecked, you'll need to provide proof if you want to claim that it was only destroying the surface.
Unless I'm mistemembering this and you can show that they specifically said only the surface.
Originally posted by Silent MasterOdin isn't in Odinsleep in this thread. Also destroying someone's planet isn't going to win. No one is fighting from their planet.
How do you not know that Odin was indisposed(Odinsleep) and Loki was in charge and it was Loki that was trying to destroy the Frost Giant's planet?
Originally posted by h1a8
Odin isn't in Odinsleep in this thread. Also destroying someone's planet isn't going to win. No one is fighting from their planet.
They need to launch their ships from somewhere no? And while the e Kryptonians are busy preparing their ships Asgard can just blast them with the bifrost.
Originally posted by TheVaultDwellerNo he wasn't. Odin had awakened.
What Odin is doing is irrelevant, seeing as Loki was on the throne at the end of Thor: The Dark World.
Originally posted by FrothByte
They need to launch their ships from somewhere no? And while the e Kryptonians are busy preparing their ships Asgard can just blast them with the bifrost.
Thread doesn't say War starts at eachs planet. We assume they meet on a particular battlefield and fight.
Regardless, it's not in either Odin or Thor's character to do such things. They would rather destroy the bridge than to do that.
Originally posted by FrothByte
No, the way proof works is that you need to post proof if you want to claim something different from what was shown in the movie. Since Heimdall, Thor and Loki specifically say that the Bifrost will destroy a world if left unchecked, you'll need to provide proof if you want to claim that it was only destroying the surface.Unless I'm mistemembering this and you can show that they specifically said only the surface.
No, we only see the surface of it actually being affected. Visuals take precedence over character statements. Unlike say the Death Star for example, In Rogue One we only see high nuclear explosion levels of destruction. If it were not for ANH or ROTJ we could only assume that this is all the station is capable of. However, we know the Death Star is planetary in destructive capacity thanks to ANH's Alderaan destruction.
Unfortunately We have no scene of Bifrost ripping a world up in the same way.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
No, we only see the surface of it actually being affected. Visuals take precedence over character statements. Unlike say the Death Star for example, In Rogue One we only see high nuclear explosion levels of destruction. If it were not for ANH or ROTJ we could only assume that this is all the station is capable of. However, we know the Death Star is planetary in destructive capacity thanks to ANH's Alderaan destruction.Unfortunately We have no scene of Bifrost ripping a world up in the same way.
That's like saying a candle flame can't burn you because you put your finger above it for 1 millisecond and didn't get burned.
Or getting stabbed by an icepick and telling the doctor it is only a flesh wound because you only see a tiny wound on the surface. Because apparently visuals are more important than statements from people who actually know what they're talking about.
You do realize that the bifrost wasn't going to destroy that world with just one hit right?
If this is how your logic works then we might as well say the world engine is not capable of terraforming Earth in MOS, Galactus can't actually destroy Earth or that Hulk can't actually kill Black Widow in a fight because he wasn't shown to do so.
Originally posted by FrothByte
That's like saying a candle flame can't burn you because you put your finger above it for 1 millisecond and didn't get burned.Or getting stabbed by an icepick and telling the doctor it is only a flesh wound because you only see a tiny wound on the surface. Because apparently visuals are more important than statements from people who actually know what they're talking about.
Now don't be stupid. That's not even remotely close to assuming a weapon can do something completely an order of magnitude higher than what we actually saw it do.
If you want to run with the statement rather than what we saw happen, that's still on you to demonstrably prove that the higher feat is possible. People shouldn't have to prove that the lesser feat is the norm, thats not how establishing high end feats ever worked.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Now don't be stupid. That's not even remotely close to assuming a weapon can do something completely an order of magnitude higher than what we actually saw it do.If you want to run with the statement rather than what we saw happen, that's still on you to demonstrably prove that the higher feat is possible. People shouldn't have to prove that the lesser feat is the norm, thats not how establishing high end feats ever worked.
You'd have had a point if Heimdall, Thor and Loki didn't explicitly say that it would destroy the Frost Giant world. You only saw the surface getting destroyed because that was what was visible. What wete you expecting, an X-ray snapshot of how deep the bifrost was cutting through their world? Their world didn't get destroyed because Thor stopped the bifrost before it could cause too much damage.
Let me try this from a different angle: Do you believe that had Thor not stopped the Bifrost, then it would have completely annihilated the Frost Giants?