Iron Man and Thor vs.

Originally posted by h1a8
The feat is unquantifiable. It was many variables that played a role.

1. Engines were overloaded by IM
2. Engines already had energy
3. A large structure collapses in a domino effect when a critical part is severed.
4. Thor struck the generator and sent lightning through it.
5. We see the land mass blow up from energy that was within it.

Tony hit the engine to stop the engine, there is no evidence it did anything to the land mass.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
The Rod didn't explode, and we see practically no debris.

Tony hit the engine to stop the engine, there is no evidence it did anything to the land mass.

Even IM tells Thor to wait until he's finished overloading the engines. The writer's intent is crystal clear. IM contributed to the feat.

But all of this is moot anyway.
Thor stood there charging his hammer for over 10 seconds.
This would give tens of thousands more energy than a standard bolt of lightning.
This is not practical in a forum fight. Thor would not sit there and let Thor charge his Hammer for 10 seconds.

Thor from the first movie did Jotunheim feat with only 2-4 seconds of charge.

If I'm not mistaken, holding an electric current longer or shorter does not change it's voltage and ampere. You still get jolted by the same amount of voltage whether it's a prolonged exposure or a short one, you just get exposed to it longer. But holding the charge longer does not "amplify" it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
If I'm not mistaken, holding an electric current longer or shorter does not change it's voltage and ampere. You still get jolted by the same amount of voltage whether it's a prolonged exposure or a short one, you just get exposed to it longer. But holding the charge longer does not "amplify" it.

Originally posted by h1a8
No Thor was absorbing the lightning, not holding it.

So prove it. Prove that Thor can absorb electricity and then amplify its charge.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So prove it. Prove that Thor can absorb electricity and then amplify its charge.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Ironman vs. Ironman is easy, since his first movie showcased him being a lot tougher than his proceeding suits. Especially if we consider IM1 and IM2 combined, because IM2 gave him that uber laser.

Thor vs Thor is harder to call, because Thor continued to showcase feats of immense power throughout the movies. One big difference though is how smart Thor fought in his first movie and how easily he and creatively he used his powers. For example, spinning his hammer to create ice projectiles, utilizing a whirlwind to incapacitate his enemies, the Jotunheim strike, his "hammer-time" moves in dispatching multiple Frost Giants... heck had Thor behaved like that in Avengers and AoU he could have taken the entire chitauri/ultron ground forces on his own.

Another aspect is how fast he could utilize his powers in the first movie. In Avengers for example, he called down lightning first before redirecting it to IM. He called down lightning first before he redirected it to the Leviathans. In comparison, his AOE lightning strike against Loki was near instantaneous. Even his Jotunheim strike was vastly faster than his lightning strikes in Avengers.

So with that in mind, Thor 1 would defeat any other Thor incarnation, simply because of how dominant he was and how he showcased mastery of his powers.

Good points, Froth. I can see the two Thors fight going either way; the Jotunheim buster feat is what I forgot about that opening ice giant fight. Great feat. I'm up in the air on Thor vs Thor.

Everyone agrees Tony from IM 1 beats the brakes off Tony from CW.

I do wonder how the fight between the teams would play out?