Well, since we don't see Superman resisting lightning, does that mean he has no durability to it?
After all, if durability showings are specialized based on category of damage, then Superman has zero resistance to lightning?
I, personally, do not subscribe to this category-only durability logic. I mean, why do we suddenly say that Thor's neutron star "feat" is only heat based rather than a (somewhat top top topx100 end) expression of his overall durability?
Of course there are def some exceptions to that (such as when that specialized durability is expressively mentioned via storytelling).
Idunno, not saying I'm right. Just that the logic is a bit off for me.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, since we don't see Superman resisting lightning, does that mean he has no durability to it?After all, if durability showings are specialized based on category of damage, then Superman has zero resistance to lightning?
I, personally, do not subscribe to this category-only durability logic. I mean, why do we suddenly say that Thor's neutron star "feat" is only heat based rather than a (somewhat top top topx100 end) expression of his overall durability?
Of course there are def some exceptions to that (such as when that specialized durability is expressively mentioned via storytelling).
Idunno, not saying I'm right. Just that the logic is a bit off for me.
Totally agree. The logic is definitely off here.
Ive been saying all along that I dont even mind if the Neutron Star feat was Just Heat. Because that in itself in an Insane durability feat. And theres no indication anywhere that Thor is specifically resistant to change in temperatures (he survives the cold of space as well). Hes clearly just durable. Much like Superman, but with greater durability feats than Superman.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Because Thor has been hurt by far less in other occasions.The neutron star feat is very removed from everything else in the MCU's power level and should not be used as an argument to say Thor can't be damaged by anything under that, lol.
It's the Spiderman vs Firelord dilemma.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Totally agree. The logic is definitely off here.Ive been saying all along that I dont even mind if the Neutron Star feat was Just Heat. Because that in itself in an Insane durability feat. And theres no indication anywhere that Thor is specifically resistant to change in temperatures (he survives the cold of space as well). Hes clearly just durable. Much like Superman, but with greater durability feats than Superman.
The problem is the feat should make it so Superman could wail on Thor all day and achieve nothing, because stars are more than just heat.
Unless we're gonna say they somehow figured out how to negate all the other forces of the star besides the heat. I dunno.
Thor has been hurt by far less force and we aren't even talking his low end feats.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Of course Superman can hurt Thor. I mean Hulk and Thanos can so why not Supes?This fight will be all about Supermans Speed and superior strength vs Thors exotic attacks and Stormbreaker.
But yeah Thors durability might help to even out the physical contest (ignoring speed).
You mean Thor's superior strength? The simple act of him holding on while being hit with billions of tons of force dwarfs superman lifting an apartment complex.
And the durability from that feat.
Yes, I'm gonna say neutron star, we use on screen feats , that's an on screen feat. With eitri describing exactly what was taking place.
Thor holds the advantages in striking, ranged attacks, fighting skill and experience, lethality ( willing to kill) , weapons, ( he has one), the ability to teleport now ( slowly, but its there).
Thor has comparable, if not greater strength and durability, it really is greater by on screen feats but well call it comparable just because most of you will go into a seizure just thinking about it.
Superman has a MASSIVE speed advantage, which definitely makes up for a lot of his shortcomings. And before IW I would give Clark the win 8-9/10. But Thor holds a lot of advantages in this fight.
Originally posted by Surtur
The problem is the feat should make it so Superman could wail on Thor all day and achieve nothing, because stars are more than just heat.Unless we're gonna say they somehow figured out how to negate all the other forces of the star besides the heat. I dunno.
Thor has been hurt by far less force and we aren't even talking his low end feats.
He was hurt by far less until Infinity War. We use most current versions. And this most current version has survived the full force of a star, and a power gem created explosion while severely weakened.
Superman has zero feats to say he can hurt the most CURRENT and obviously UPGRADED version of Thor. Thor ragnarok and before, yes, obviously. Now? No.
Originally posted by ShadowFyre
He was hurt by far less until Infinity War. We use most current versions. And this most current version has survived the full force of a star, and a power gem created explosion while severely weakened.Superman has zero feats to say he can hurt the most CURRENT and obviously UPGRADED version of Thor. Thor ragnarok and before, yes, obviously. Now? No.
Fair points, since one could argue that the events of Ragnarok forced Thor to unlock his full power, thus explaining the star feat.
Its not like he had a power up in IW though (aside from Stormbreaker).
The movie is set right after Ragnarok. So the Thor who ranked that is essentially the Thor from the end of Ragnarok.
Unless we think his lightning god-mode somehow amped all
His stats. I personally doubt it, because I know he was tortured weakened but he couldnt physically harm Thanos. Whereas Hulk still could.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Its not like he had a power up in IW though (aside from Stormbreaker).The movie is set right after Ragnarok. So the Thor who ranked that is essentially the Thor from the end of Ragnarok.
Unless we think his lightning god-mode somehow amped all
His stats. I personally doubt it, because I know he was tortured weakened but he couldnt physically harm Thanos. Whereas Hulk still could.
My theory is yeah maybe that did upgrade him(the events of Ragnarok).
You mean until Captain Marvel shows up?
Anyway, OF COURSE Superman can hurt Thor. One great feat doesn't totally negate the others. Don't we take the average? Was it stated that everything Thor can do is amped? The star feat is a great feat for Thor, no doubt. But it doesn't all of a sudden make Thor unbeatable. Hell, the movie starts with Thor ALREADY beat. Superman can hurt Thor. To say otherwise is wanking of the highest order. Like H1 levels of wanking, just for Thor instead of Superman. Don't be H1 guys, just don't.
Originally posted by Surtur
The problem is the feat should make it so Superman could wail on Thor all day and achieve nothing, because stars are more than just heat.
This is exactly what people would be arguing for Superman if the roles were reversed.
10000% they would be. There is cognitive dissonance because of how BEYOND everyone, including Superman, Thor was by the end of Infinity War, that I think it gives some people migraines.
As of IW, Superman could literally wail on Thor no real damage (*cough* Ragnarok *cough*). Thor would then proceed to casually cut his head off if Clark stops using CBR like super-speed. Even Thor's raw strength feats (Holding the IRIS open under that pressure, moving the rings, throwing Stormbreaker through the IG etc.), are by far the greatest strength feat in either Universes. It would be like an infant with super-speed fighting a bear.
This is the only conclusion we can reach objectively. We HAVE to give Superman the benefit of the doubt, and give some wiggle room, and average Thor down significantly. Which is fine, and something I agree with 100%, but it really pisses some people off. 😂
IW was the best Marvel movie ever. Thor goes from enduring a Star to overpowering the IG with a throw.