Juggernaut (Deadpool II) vs Abomination (MCU)

Originally posted by h1a8
Writer intent doesn't matter here. Otherwise, Colossus would be a planet buster (or at least a mountain range buster) based on the writer's intent that he is a peer to Gladiator, given their prolonged fight. Yet, in a forum debate, most people agree that Colossus is fodder to Gladiator, who could one-shot him, as could Thor with Mjolnir. There are plenty of examples where a writer intends for one character to be a physical peer to another, but scaling a character's outlier feats this way would yield absurd results.

Originally posted by h1a8
If two people have to debate writer's intent then one is trolling and the discussion should be discontinued. Writer's intent should never have to be debated when it is clear.

I am arguing on the writer's intent, that Abomination is stronger than a base Hulk.

It wasn't just intent, it was literally shown on screen. Abm was bigger and stronger. Hulk even makes a cowed face for a few moments knowing he's outclassed by a stronger opponent.

Until Hulk got buttmad over Betty being in danger, then his eyes glowed green, his strength increased, he overpowers ABM and lays down a savage beating.

Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing for the sake of arguing or a retard.

lzIZ6w85Jx8&ab

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I am arguing on the writer's intent, that Abomination is stronger than a base Hulk.

You didn't address this

Originally posted by h1a8
Otherwise, Colossus would be a planet buster (or at least a mountain range buster) based on the writer's intent that he is a peer to Gladiator, given their prolonged fight. Yet, in a forum debate, most people agree that Colossus is fodder to Gladiator, who could one-shot him, as could Thor with Mjolnir. There are plenty of examples where a writer intends for one character to be a physical peer to another, but scaling a character's outlier feats this way would yield absurd results.

Gladiator's strength is limited by his confidence. Also, he could have been holding back. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Abom being stronger than base Hulk is both consistent with movies and the comics.

Originally posted by h1a8
You didn't address this

Oh, because this isn't comics, but the Movie Versus Forum.

I'm going by what is shown on screen, and writer's intent. That he is meant to be, and is, stronger than a base/calm Hulk.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Gladiator's strength is limited by his confidence. Also, he could have been holding back. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Abom being stronger than base Hulk is both consistent with movies and the comics.

There's no such thing as "he could have been holding back." These characters don't exist in reality, so the audience would be aware if a character was meant to hold back, especially if it's a villain. The fight was presented as a prolonged, competitive battle. In a forum setting, Gladiator could one-shot Colossus even while holding back.

The Gladiator example is just one of many. Picking apart the example rather than addressing the overall point is nitpicking.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Oh, because this isn't comics, but the Movie Versus Forum.

I'm going by what is shown on screen, and writer's intent. That he is meant to be, and is, stronger than a base/calm Hulk.

By not addressing my point, you concede it. I've explained why scaling characters (even stronger ones) from the highest-end showings of others is flawed. It leads to absurd outcomes and, therefore, cannot be correct.

Additionally, using a character's highest-end feats to set their level in forum debates is simply a convention. It's not obligatory. Anyone can choose to focus on a character's more typical showings and disregard outliers, which shifts the argument to characters scaling only from the standard feats of others.

Originally posted by h1a8
By not addressing my point, you concede it. I've explained why scaling characters (even stronger ones) from the highest-end showings of others is flawed. It leads to absurd outcomes and, therefore, cannot be correct.

Additionally, using a character's highest-end feats to set their level in forum debates is simply a convention. It's not obligatory. Anyone can choose to focus on a character's more typical showings and disregard outliers, which shifts the argument to characters scaling only from the standard feats of others.

Because my original point still stands, and you in fact conceded it a long time ago and you reiterate in your post - you simply chose to ignore high end feats, as admitted by you.

Thus I have won with my first few contributions to this thread.

Originally posted by h1a8
There's no such thing as "he could have been holding back." These characters don't exist in reality, so the audience would be aware if a character was meant to hold back, especially if it's a villain. The fight was presented as a prolonged, competitive battle. In a forum setting, Gladiator could one-shot Colossus even while holding back.

The Gladiator example is just one of many. Picking apart the example rather than addressing the overall point is nitpicking.

Why are you even using comic examples to argue a movie battle? Abomination was clearly shown to be Hulk's superior in strength in TIH. Hulk needs to seriously ramp up his anger to match Abomination. This is consistent with both the movie and the comics, so you have no argument here.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Because my original point still stands, and you in fact conceded it a long time ago and you reiterate in your post - you simply chose to ignore high end feats, as admitted by you.

Thus I have won with my first few contributions to this thread.

Originally posted by Psychotron
Why are you even using comic examples to argue a movie battle? Abomination was clearly shown to be Hulk's superior in strength in TIH. Hulk needs to seriously ramp up his anger to match Abomination. This is consistent with both the movie and the comics, so you have no argument here.

Originally posted by h1a8
This has nothing to do with characters sharing each other's outlier feats. Any example from fiction - whether in a comic, movie, or elsewhere - will suffice to prove the point.

This isn't about outliers. Juggernaut's bridge punch is an outlier. Hulk's dynamic strength and Abomination being stronger than base Hulk are two of the most consistent things in the comics, and they were carried over to the movies.

Originally posted by h1a8
What original point did I concede to? High-end outlier feats can’t be used to scale other characters because of fictional inconsistencies that lead to absurd results. Both of us have repeatedly said in the past , "characters don’t share feats."

Whilst they do not share feats, writer's intent is clear that Abomination - from the very conception - is stronger than base Hulk.

Originally posted by Psychotron
This isn't about outliers. Juggernaut's bridge punch is an outlier. Hulk's dynamic strength and Abomination being stronger than base Hulk are two of the most consistent things in the comics, and they were carried over to the movies.

Yup and Abom doesnt get Hulk's high end feats.

Him being allegedly stronger only applies to typical showings of Hulk.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Whilst they do not share feats, writer's intent is clear that Abomination - from the very conception - is stronger than base Hulk.

Whether or not that's true doesn't defeat my point.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yup and Abom doesnt get Hulk's high end feats.

Him being allegedly stronger only applies to typical showings of Hulk.

Whether or not that's true doesn't defeat my point.

But your point misses the point. I am not sharing feats, I am scaling because writer intent is that they scale. Abomination as per writer intent is stronger than base Hulk - nowhere does it say typical or average. As you say, you are ignoring this and using the convention that we use average portrayals, but that isn't a rule, merely a made up convention. I will simply repeat myself until you can either refute writer intent, or conceded - netiher of which you will do.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But your point misses the point. I am not sharing feats, I am scaling because writer intent is that they scale. Abomination as per writer intent is stronger than base Hulk - nowhere does it say typical or average. As you say, you are ignoring this and using the convention that we use average portrayals, but that isn't a rule, merely a made up convention. I will simply repeat myself until you can either refute writer intent, or conceded - netiher of which you will do.

But you are sharing feats. For example, you are implying that Abom can duplicate Hulk's boulder toss simply because he is stronger.

All conventions are made up.
We just have to agree to disagree here.
Abom is not duplicating Juggs feat.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yup and Abom doesnt get Hulk's high end feats.

Him being allegedly stronger only applies to typical showings of Hulk.

Yes, we established that Abom is > base Hulk. Hulk at his angriest is > Abomination. Since a calm Smart Hulk threw a boulder hard enough that it exploded in the atmosphere, we can scale Abomination from Smart Hulk.

Originally posted by h1a8
But you are sharing feats. For example, you are implying that Abom can duplicate Hulk's boulder toss simply because he is stronger.

All conventions are made up.
We just have to agree to disagree here.
Abom is not duplicating Juggs feat.

Well it's not boulder tossing skill that lets him do it 😂

Which, btw, is another factor here. Blonsky was a skilled special ops soldier who was well trained in fighting. Colossus was able to contend evenly with Juggy, even though he himself was relatively unskilled (see his fight with Angel Dust).