Originally posted by h1a8
Because she is not a warrior but an actress. It's all about what the writer is trying to convey. A bulletproof character would be portrayed as such when encountering bullets
LOL. Lady Sif is not an actress, she is a warrior. Jaimie Alexander is an actress, but then she's not the one we're discussing here are we? Because I'm pretty sure nobody ever claimed that Jaimie Alexander is bullet proof.
Originally posted by Silent Master
He's not smart enough to realize that without a direct quote from the writer, saying "this is the writer's intent" is him speculating.
Writers knows Sif is bulletproof. Writer makes Sif block bullets to trick audience. Fail!
Originally posted by Silent MasterIt's speculation that she is bullet proof.
Of course it's speculation, if not feel free to post a clip where it's actually stated that was her reason.
Originally posted by FrothByte
No it's not common sense. Seeing as you're the only one who thinks like this then it's definitely far from being common.Loki is proven bulletproof. Thor can easily survive explosions that decimate an entire city. An Asgardian farmer can't get cut with a tactical knife. And Sif took a shotgun blast to her hip with no issues.
So if you want to claim that human ammo can hurt Sif, that's up to you to prove.
Anyway, there aren't even any guns in this thread. Not sure why you keep arguing about bullets.
Sif didn't take a shot to her hip. Do you know what that means? You have to prove it.
Originally posted by Silent Master
He's not smart enough to realize that without a direct quote from the writer, saying "this is the writer's intent" is him speculating.
Originally posted by Impediment
Screen feats are validation.Mere speculation doesn’t hold water.
Either provide concrete, detailed proof of your claims or concede.
Originally posted by h1a8
Writers knows Sif is bulletproof. Writer makes Sif block bullets to trick audience. Fail!It's speculation that she is bullet proof.
Sif didn't take a shot to her hip. Do you know what that means? You have to prove it.
First you try to dictate what should and shouldn't be acceptable in fiction. Now you try to dictate what the writers were thinking. You've got quite a high opinion of yourself don't you?
You still haven't replied to my question though: why are you even discussing bullets when there are no guns involved in this fight?
Originally posted by FrothByte
First you try to dictate what should and shouldn't be acceptable in fiction. Now you try to dictate what the writers were thinking. You've got quite a high opinion of yourself don't you?You still haven't replied to my question though: why are you even discussing bullets when there are no guns involved in this fight?
The original discussion was concerning whether random Asgardian swords were bulletproof to regular ammo.
Again, use your common sense and stop being stupid.
Originally posted by h1a8
The original discussion was concerning whether random Asgardian swords were bulletproof to regular ammo.Again, use your common sense and stop being stupid.
No, the discussion started because you claimed Skurge shot up Hela's blades. We now know this didn't happen, so why are you still bothering with this angle?
Originally posted by h1a8
Darth claimed random Asgardian swords were bulletproof to regular ammo. It's relevant because it relates to Hela's durability.
1. That was not what Darth claimed. Liar liar pants on fire.
2. Discussing regular human ammo has very little to do with deciding the outcome of this match. Please stop derailing the thread.