IW Thor vs Superman

Originally posted by Silent Master
The people that did the special effects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Surtur wasn't 800m because they weren't thinking about his actual height in numbers when creating him. Otherwise, you wouldn't have such a large error. Making up a random number AFTER the fact does not hold any water.

And according to you, what's shown >>>>>interviews (which aren't allowed).

The people that did the special effects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The people that did the special effects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.

Originally posted by h1a8
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Surtur wasn't 800m because they weren't thinking about his actual height in numbers when creating him. Otherwise, you wouldn't have such a large error. Making up a random number AFTER the fact does not hold any water.

And according to you, what's shown >>>>>interviews (which aren't allowed).

The people that did the special effects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.

Some posters are claiming Surtur was 800m tall because it’s what the guys claims him to be.

Yet we denies Clark his earthquake feat in BVS from the newspaper?

Why the different standards?!

One is an obvious easter egg and the other is an actual statement of an animator on how they quantitatively scaled Surtur to a movie scene in relation to the environment using precise digital techniques.

Not saying that I agree that Surtur is 800m or anyhing, but how are those 2 comparable?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
One is an obvious easter egg and the other is an actual statement of an animator on how they quantitatively scaled Surtur to a movie scene in relation to the environment using precise digital techniques.

Not saying that I agree that Surtur is 800m or anyhing, but how are those 2 comparable?

An Easter egg met to showcase Clark’s powers and the good he was doing in the world. Just because it was a so called Easter egg, doesn’t make it less true.

Eas·ter egg
noun
1.
a hard-boiled egg that is dyed and often decorated as part of the Easter celebration.
2.
an unexpected or undocumented feature in a piece of computer software or on a DVD, included as a joke or a bonus.

what’s your point?

Easter egg = joke/bonus?

Originally posted by SquallX
An Easter egg met to showcase Clark’s powers and the good he was doing in the world. Just because it was a so called Easter egg, doesn’t make it less true.

Without visual feats it doesn't weight anything i am afraid. Even when there are visuals, the feats aren't as simple or literal as they seem and require a lot of analysis and background investigation.

Now, a piece of newspaper saying that Superman did something...Specially after coming from a newspaper well...just not enough to bring up a case buddy.

Originally posted by SquallX
An Easter egg met to showcase Clark’s powers and the good he was doing in the world. Just because it was a so called Easter egg, doesn’t make it less true

It was a homage/nod to the original Superman movies.

Would rather not rehash that debate. Here is a link to it if you want to hear all arguments on the newspaper clip debate.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=631067&pagenumber=1

On screen feats only here.

No newspaper clippings and no director/producers hype can replace actual feats Lol

Originally posted by Darth Thor
On screen feats only here.

No newspaper clippings and no director/producers hype can replace actual feats Lol

Surtur was actually taller than the Asgardian Palace, so the description of his height is accurate. h1 is just doing his usual downplay of Marvel feats.

It's obvious that Hulk wasn't shown too scale in that scene, because otherwise we wouldn't have been able to see him. it's called artistic license.

Furthermore, isn't like you can compare information from an in-movie Newspaper and actual information e.g. Director's words, Stan Lee's opinion, etc.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
One is an obvious easter egg and the other is an actual statement of an animator on how they quantitatively scaled Surtur to a movie scene in relation to the environment using precise digital techniques.

Not saying that I agree that Surtur is 800m or anyhing, but how are those 2 comparable?

But they did not scale Surtur to be 800m. They were not thinking about exact height when creating him.
He just threw out a random number AFTER the fact.

But all of that is irrelevant. If Hulk (2.6m tall) was stated by one of the FX people to be 20.6m then who do we believe? Are lying eyes or the FX person?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
On screen feats only here.

No newspaper clippings and no director/producers hype can replace actual feats Lol

https://www.fxguide.com/featured/building-character-with-thor-part2/?cn-reloaded=1

During the sequence Mega Surtur grew. He ranged from roughly 800m when he first appeared to about 4,000m when he finally destroyed Asgard.

Originally posted by h1a8
But they did not scale Surtur to be 800m. They were not thinking about exact height when creating him.
He just threw out a random number AFTER the fact.

But all of that is irrelevant. If Hulk (2.6m tall) was stated by one of the FX people to be 20.6m then who do we believe? Are lying eyes or the FX person?

So H1 what is your estimatefor Surtur size then??