Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah but perhaps I'm not understanding the importance of this as it pertains to this discussion? Especially since I've just been kind of hopping in here.
Thor (who can damage adamantium) > Adamantium > chains Superman broke.
Basically it was a subtle argument (very slick) and hard to catch.
Originally posted by h1a8I mean other than you saying this. Is this what they said definitively? The great thing about discussion is you can you know ask them if that is what they meant.
Thor (who can damage adamantium) > Adamantium > chains Superman broke.Basically it was a subtle argument (very slick) and hard to catch.
Is this what is referred to?
I guess this is strong evidence for Thor and Thanos has shown to be stronger than Thor
Originally posted by TheHulkster
Is this what is referred to?I guess this is strong evidence for Thor and Thanos has shown to be stronger than Thor
Ehhh to be fair all that says is Thor is strong enough to break an alloy of adamantium. It doesn’t give any datum that suggests that mass of that alloy can endure the force it takes to haul a star of whatever mass at whatever velocity.
Originally posted by TheHulksterYes I do believe that was the feat used.
Is this what is referred to?I guess this is strong evidence for Thor and Thanos has shown to be stronger than Thor
Originally posted by TheHulkster
Where has primary adamantium been broken?
This is why adamantium was brought up.
Originally posted by carver9
Dark have posted about inconsistencies in books before but fail to do so in this one (and we know why). Dark is inconsistent and tends to pick and choose on what to and what not to accept. Replace Superman with Hulk and he would've dissected the heck out of this showing.
Troll.
@diesl
won't let me reply to you... BUT So we are going to sit here and act like dude wasn't boasting the whole storyline? The robots were supposed to be unbeatable, they weren't. The writer was writing the character to boast like he was the shit. EVERY comic writer has written a boasting character, let's not act like it isn't a thing. 😂
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
@dieslwon't let me reply to you... BUT So we are going to sit here and act like dude wasn't boasting the whole storyline? The robots were supposed to be unbeatable, they weren't. The writer was writing the character to boast like he was the shit. EVERY comic writer has written a boasting character, let's not act like it isn't a thing. 😂
dur
Re: Can Thor and Thanos break The chains in UP and The Sky
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvilI mean clearly the feat is intended to be word candy to show off Superman. These types of things get thrown out so much at this level though that it almost has lost it's impact for me at this point.
No Mjolnir
This just kind of reminds me of the wankfest wordsoup that was Pak's run with Hulk.
Originally posted by Newjak
I mean technically Dam was talking in the context of wanting to see Thor break adamantium and Rage was responding to it.Abhi was the one trying to say that even adamatium couldn't perform what the chains superman broke would perform.
And it sounds like the Adamantium discussion kind of cascaded from there.
Pretty much
@Newjak exactly
The Thor feat happened because they tell you exactly what happened, it's unarguable, goofy writing and unrelatable to real world physics nonetheless. The Superman feat tell you something grand but doesn't expand on why it matters when the character making the claim consistently overshot his assessments of the chains and their forces in the storyline.
The robots WERE unbeatable by everyone....EXCEPT Superman (who didn't just defeat one, but ~30).
The chains WERE unbreakable by everyone....EXCEPT Superman. He just happened to be better than the guy's calculations.
Like Stark and his 'buster' suits. They are DESIGNED to fight and defeat threats - but Stark's opponents still prove him wrong.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
The robots WERE unbeatable by everyone....EXCEPT Superman (who didn't just defeat one, but ~30).The chains WERE unbreakable by everyone....EXCEPT Superman. He just happened to be better than the guy's calculations.
Like Stark and his 'buster' suits. They are DESIGNED to fight and defeat threats - but Stark's opponents still prove him wrong.
um It's the writers intention to write an exciting story. That might include a villain boasting like he's hard before he learns he's not as hard as he thinks.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Probably:This is the closest I can find to Thor breaking Adamantium:
https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/original/5/52246/1406383-thor_144.jpgAdamantium is historically very unbreakable in Marvel history, and has resisted Thor's strongest attacks. I 100% think Thor has a much better chance of breaking the chains in the OP scans than Adamantium. Adamantium has such significance in Marvel, even if he did break it, it would be retconned eventually.
Then again, I thought the same of Cap's shield, and now it's had to be reinforced by Asgardian Uru to have the same invulnerability it use to have story-wise.
Nope
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
um It's the writers intention to write an exciting story. That might include a villain boasting like he's hard before he learns he's not as hard as he thinks.
Indeed, and also the writer's intention to show that Superman is above others.
Look, no one is disputing the unbreakable part - because...well, Superman broke it. It's not unbreakable.
The cool part is that they were chains designed to haul stars between galaxies.
Like a villain boasting his gun is so powerful the bullets it fires would kill anything.
Would it kill anything? Well, that's debatable.
Does the gun fire bullets? Not the point of debate.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85Like I said very reminiscent of Pak's Hulk run.
Indeed, and also the writer's intention to show that Superman is above others.Look, no one is disputing the unbreakable part - because...well, Superman broke it. It's not unbreakable.
The cool part is that they were chains designed to haul stars between galaxies.
Like a villain boasting his gun is so powerful the bullets it fires would kill anything.
Would it kill anything? Well, that's debatable.
Does the gun fire bullets? Not the point of debate.
This is part of the reason I don't find Superman as interesting anymore. He's still one of my favorites but it gets boring hearing about the same types of feats from him all the time. Also it's pretty common to have these one character is going to be the spotlight periods and therefore all other characters must suck during this time.
Captain Marvel in the MCU is another good example to me.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Indeed, and also the writer's intention to show that Superman is above others.Look, no one is disputing the unbreakable part - because...well, Superman broke it. It's not unbreakable.
The cool part is that they were chains designed to haul stars between galaxies.
Like a villain boasting his gun is so powerful the bullets it fires would kill anything.
Would it kill anything? Well, that's debatable.
Does the gun fire bullets? Not the point of debate.
It's largely unquantifable, regardless. for a calc, you would have to know the time it would take to from A to B. You can't know what that speed is. You can only infer. I can ship a package across the world by boat or plane; urgently, leisurely, by it's natural course. It's the same great distance but nowhere is it stated the necessary speeds to make the calculations valid.
This feat would be better used in a say GL vs Supes where GL's constructs have power to haul stars and this is proof that Supes can break them despite that.
Common sense dictates one probably wouldn't be moving what is the most or near to the most massive physical objects in the universe, complete with gravitational fields to match, at light speed. The more I think on it, the less sense that makes. Even within the realm of suspended disbelief in fiction, moving stars at glacial speed, i.e. like a terraforming project, makes infinitely more sense than say light speed Transport
