Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Team healing factor!

Deadpool
Wolverine
The Crow
Bloodshot
Kimiko (The Boys)
Dracula (Van Helsing)

vs

Colossus
Luke Cage
Translucent (The Boys)
Thing (2015)
Juggernaut (X3)
Hellboy

Who win?

Van Helsing Dracula could solo.

Originally posted by Robtard
Van Helsing Dracula could solo.

How so?

Let's see, he's super duper strong, super durable, has a healing factor far greater than Wolverine's, flight, unlimited stamina and can move so fast he appears to teleport, or can teleport. If that's not enough, he can only be killed by 'werewolf semen'.

edit: He also has three smoking hot and sexy wives

Originally posted by Robtard
Let's see, he's super duper strong, super durable, has a healing factor far greater than Wolverine's, flight, unlimited stamina and can move so fast he appears to teleport, or can teleport. If that's not enough, he can only be killed by 'werewolf semen'.

edit: He also has three smoking hot and sexy wives

1. He definitely has superhuman strength compared to humans, but not in relation to Juggernaut or the Thing. I'm not even sure he can hurt them. Even Luke Cage and Colossus might be a stretch.
2. He needs blood to survive. Without it, his powers fade and he can die. He doesn't have unlimited stamina, though it's clearly superhuman.
3. He might be able to teleport - I don't remember - but he's definitely not fast in combat unless you can show contradictory evidence, like something beyond his fight with Van Helsing.
4. He can be knocked out.

I'm thinking Juggs solos

Juggs who got killed by X-23 in Deadpool III?

Originally posted by h1a8
1. He definitely has superhuman strength compared to humans, but not in relation to Juggernaut or the Thing. I'm not even sure he can hurt them. Even Luke Cage and Colossus might be a stretch.
2. He needs blood to survive. Without it, his powers fade and he can die. He doesn't have unlimited stamina, though it's clearly superhuman.
3. He might be able to teleport - I don't remember - but he's definitely not fast in combat unless you can show contradictory evidence, like something beyond his fight with Van Helsing.
4. He can be knocked out.

Well, you'd be wrong.

He's literally billed as "immortal" and can only be killed by werewolf venom. When it comes to the parameters of this fight, he's not susceptible to fatigue.

He literally moves so fast he appears to be teleporting in the beginning scenes, that's an onscreen feat so it's valid. Period.

Based on what showing? I don't recall a Dracula KO.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, you'd be wrong.

He's literally billed as "immortal" and can only be killed by werewolf venom. When it comes to the parameters of this fight, he's not susceptible to fatigue.

He literally moves so fast he appears to be teleporting in the beginning scenes, that's an onscreen feat so it's valid. Period.

Based on what showing? I don't recall a Dracula KO.

All vampires are described as "immortal," but that doesn't mean they can't die. It's well-established that vampires need blood to survive - going without it for too long severely weakens them and can lead to death. Similarly, having healing abilities doesn't mean one can regenerate an entire head. You're applying a no-limits fallacy.

Post the scene where he supposedly moves so fast that he teleports. I saw the movie when it was first released in theaters, and I don't recall any actual speed feats.

No one is immune to being knocked out with sufficient force unless there's proof - this is yet another no-limits fallacy.

Originally posted by h1a8
All vampires are described as "immortal," but that doesn't mean they can't die. It's well-established that vampires need blood to survive - going without it for too long severely weakens them and can lead to death. Similarly, having healing abilities doesn't mean one can regenerate an entire head. You're applying a no-limits fallacy.

Post the scene where he supposedly moves so fast that he teleports. I saw the movie when it was first released in theaters, and I don't recall any actual speed feats.

No one is immune to being knocked out with sufficient force unless there's proof - this is yet another no-limits fallacy.

Van Helsing Dracula differs a lot from established vampire lore, eg the part were only werewolf venom can kill him should have been a big clue.

It's in the windmil scenel. Your lack of knowledge doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No one? Utter nonsense considering we're talking about fictional characters. eg Can Morgan Freeman's God of Abraman be KO'd? How about beings with no solid form? How about beings of pure energy? Beings of pure thought? You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Thinkerer
Juggs who got killed by X-23 in Deadpool III?


That was a shame for Deadpool 3 to do that given how Juggernaut was bigged up in Deadpool 2. Infinitely better than the X3 version.

Although X3 did include the unstoppable momentum.

Yeah but Deadpool2 Juggernaut didnt end up in limbo, it was the X3 Juggernaut that did, because of that timeline being completely discarded.

I liked X3 Juggernaut.
Vinnie Jones was good casting (as in, he actually had a personality), and the outfit was cooler.

How would Dracula put down Colossus or Juggs?

^^^Well yeah, those movies were mostly terrible. Maybe a few cuts above the Sony Venom/Kraven/Madame Web crapfests.

I personally just try and enjoy any FX and action scenes they manage to do well.

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Well yeah, those movies were mostly terrible. Maybe a few cuts above the Sony Venom/Kraven/Madame Web crapfests.

I personally just try and enjoy any FX and action scenes they manage to do well.

Agreed I'm generally not a fan of the first three X-Men movies. Mostly because they were just Wolverine movies. The best parts were the whole Xavier/Magneto conflict, which is why I loved the First Class series. Even the last two Fassbender saved them for me.

Loved the first two Deadpool movies as well. Not a big fan of the last one because again those movies generally portrayed characters decently (Deadpool, Colossus, Cable), and had a good story and character arc on top of the comedy and action. Whilst the last one had no story, no real character arc didn't give a crud for doing guys like Juggernaut right, and just seemed to all be based on the hype of a Deadpool and Wolverine team up.

X2 was the best Xmen movie together with the Rogue cut of Days of Future Past. The rest is all somewhat mediocre. Entertaining, but not great.

X1, X2, DoFP (RC is better) and Logan are all good superhero films.

The Wolverine, First Class and Apoc are fun and serviceable.

Both Deadpool films are wins, if they're included as part of the X series.

Nah for me First Class was the best hands down. Was a Charles and Eric origin story and was really well done.

Sure X2 was a better action flick, and DOFP a better sci-fi flick. But FC was everything that differentiates X-Men from others in the superhero franchise.

First two Deadpool movies were also fantastic. But obviously more comedic. But sure include Deadpool as X-Men movies. Given they all featured X-Men, which is basically the same as the first Three X-Men films.

https://media.tenor.com/D-8FuUp9J4kAAAAM/dude.gif