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

So I've watched Avengers more times than I can count. I was wondering how would you guys rate the durability of these guys on a scale from 1 to 10.

1. Iron Man
2. Thor
3. Hulk

Please explain why.

Hulk is top

Ironman 5 or 6
Thor 7
Hulk 8 or 9

Ironman was damaged a lot in the movie and had to change suits because he was damaged from the shield propelor.

Thor has amazing durability but he was bleeding during punches from Hulk...when he fell a couple of thousand ft, got stabbed and had to dodge bullets.

Hulk, can't think of a time he was pierced or damaged.

Iron Man got caught in the propellers and was still going

Originally posted by golem370
Iron Man got caught in the propellers and was still going

That was very impressive.

Originally posted by carver9

Hulk, can't think of a time he was pierced or damaged.
He crumpled under chitari fire

ironman saved his ass

Originally posted by carver9
Ironman 5 or 6
Thor 7
Hulk 8 or 9

Ironman was damaged a lot in the movie and had to change suits because he was damaged from the shield propelor.

Thor has amazing durability but he was bleeding during punches from Hulk...when he fell a couple of thousand ft, got stabbed and had to dodge bullets.

Hulk, can't think of a time he was pierced or damaged.

I don't remember Thor dodging bullets. What scene was that?

And Hulk got a bloody nose from the chituauri barrage.

Thor ducked out of the F22's minigun fire when it was firing on Hulk.

Originally posted by Gecko4lif
He crumpled under chitari fire

ironman saved his ass

How long were they shooting at him? How powerful was the blast? IIRC, a single blast almost took out Ironman.

Bana tried to shoot him self through is mouth and Hulk spit it out lol

Originally posted by Zack Fair
1 to 10.


For this this to be meaningful:

I would suggest 1 is human durability, but what is 10?

Originally posted by Placidity
For this this to be meaningful:

I would suggest 1 is human durability, but what is 10?

Well going by comic book standards 10 would be something like preflashpoint Supes durability(on average)

Hulk fell the **** off the Hellicarrier, and survived it

Thor was dropped off the Hellicarrier, and survived it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor was dropped off the Hellicarrier, and survived it.

He didn't hit the ground like Hulk did

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
He didn't hit the ground like Hulk did

yes he did.

whether he escaped just before it dropped is irrelevant, because the speed of his fall is going to be exactly the same.

For example, if you could hypothetically jump off an airplace just seconds before it hit the ground, is that going to save you?

No.
Because you're going to be falling at the same speed as the airplane you just jumped from.

Do feats from Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk, and Thor count as well?

Originally posted by CosmicComet
yes he did.

whether he escaped just before it dropped is irrelevant, because the speed of his fall is going to be exactly the same.

For example, if you could hypothetically jump off an airplace just seconds before it hit the ground, is that going to save you?

No.
Because you're going to be falling at the same speed as the airplane you just jumped from.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Do feats from Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk, and Thor count as well?

They should

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Do feats from Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk, and Thor count as well?

Yeah everything canon to The Avengers counts.

I remember thinking in the theatre that Ironman's propeller feat was really, really impressive.

Heh, I didn't think it was that impressive. I mean his suit is likely made of some super kick-ass alloy because he is Tony Stark, whereas the propeller's were probably steel or some other regular not-super-high-tech metal.

What I mean is, I expected no less, any less and his durability rating would take a hit.

BTW, what would happen to Hulk or Thor was in that tight spot?

Yeah, it may have been a less durable material, but those things were moving ridiculously fast. I thought it was one of the best feats of durability in the movie.

Best durability feat has to be Iron Man's propeller survival.

The propellers on the helicarrier were huge and surviving it was very impressive.

Hulk falling 30,000 feet is better.

IMO, one of the most impressive feats of durability was when Loki was getting pummeled by Hulk.

+1 for Loki.

^ True that, although I felt it wasn't really a "serious" scene, more for comedy.

Loki didn't move again though for awhile plus he is a puny god. I think the shot that Caps shield took from Thor's hammer was impressive.

That was more a durability feat for the shield than for Cap.

Originally posted by KingD19
That was more a durability feat for the shield than for Cap.

The shield borrows its durability from Cap.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
The shield borrows its durability from Cap.

Most durable thing in the movie = Cap's Sheild.

And maybe I'm remembering it wrong but I swear Thor gave Hulk a bloody nose when he bashed him into the plane.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Thor was dropped off the Hellicarrier, and survived it. dont lie

thor flew out of the container before it hit the ground

Originally posted by CosmicComet
yes he did.

whether he escaped just before it dropped is irrelevant, because the speed of his fall is going to be exactly the same.

For example, if you could hypothetically jump off an airplace just seconds before it hit the ground, is that going to save you?

No.
Because you're going to be falling at the same speed as the airplane you just jumped from. he flew out of the container

And he still hit the ground.

Originally posted by KingD19
That was more a durability feat for the shield than for Cap. the fact that caps arm or whole body didnt shatter is damn impressive

Originally posted by Newjak


Most durable thing in the movie = Cap's Sheild.

And maybe I'm remembering it wrong but I swear Thor gave Hulk a bloody nose when he bashed him into the plane. im pretty sure thor's fists had no effect on thor other than annoy him....only time thor hurt hulk was with mjolnir

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
And he still hit the ground. if i jump of a plane at 30,000 feet and parachute down, i guess i have the same durability as hulk then!

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
And he still hit the ground.

Exactly, Thor ended up flying into the ground, if anything his flight increased the speed at which he hit the ground.

1. Hulk
2. Who cares?

Originally posted by Starscream M
if i jump of a plane at 30,000 feet and parachute down, i guess i have the same durability as hulk then!

Horrible analogy.

hulk - 7.5
iron man - 5
loki - 5
thor - 5.5
captain america - 2
black widow - 1

How is Thor's durability just .5 superior to Iron Man's?

Originally posted by Starscream M
im pretty sure thor's fists had no effect on thor other than annoy him....only time thor hurt hulk was with mjolnir Did I say his fist, I know he used his hammer to hit Hulk into the plane.

But I still feel like he caused Hulk to have a bloody nose as well.

cuz i think IM's durability is pretty damn high...the propeller incident was one that imo could've potentially killed thor

i think IM has better pierce durability than thor while thor has better energy/blunt durability

Originally posted by Starscream M
he flew out of the container

Its closer to saying he DIVED out, which is why he skidded along the ground as he did.

Even if he flew, its exactly the same as jumping off the plane just before it hits the ground. It doesn't matter if you jump off just before its 20 feet from the ground, you're still going to die, because the speed of the airplane's fall will still apply to you.

This is the basic physics that people do not understand who are doubting Thor's fall. The height does not matter. The speed of the fall from the height, is what matters, and even if Thor flew out, he would just be adding the speed of the fall to his own flight speed.

Originally posted by Newjak

But I still feel like he caused Hulk to have a bloody nose as well. frankly, what you feel is of little relevance

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Its closer to saying he DIVED out, which is why he skidded along the ground as he did.

Even if he flew, its exactly the same as jumping off the plane just before it hits the ground. It doesn't matter if you jump off just before its 20 feet from the ground, you're still going to die, because the speed of the airplane's fall will still apply to you.

This is the basic thing that people do not understand who are doubting Thor's fall. The height does not matter. The speed of the fall from the height, is what matters, and even if Thor flew out, he would just be adding the speed of the fall to his own flight speed. dood, i get your point about jumping out doesnt help

but do you think the writers intended that...or did they write to the general public's expectations of what would happen...I think the latter, that they intended to depict thor slowed his fall by jumping (despite it being physically wrong...but lord knows comics are not known for adhering to physics)

edit: also I think he flew rather than dove....becuz if he dove, he couldnt have smashed through that container.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Its closer to saying he DIVED out, which is why he skidded along the ground as he did.

Even if he flew, its exactly the same as jumping off the plane just before it hits the ground. It doesn't matter if you jump off just before its 20 feet from the ground, you're still going to die, because the speed of the airplane's fall will still apply to you.

This is the basic physics that people do not understand who are doubting Thor's fall. The height does not matter. The speed of the fall from the height, is what matters, and even if Thor flew out, he would just be adding the speed of the fall to his own flight speed.

Originally posted by Starscream M
dood, i get your point about jumping out doesnt help

but do you think the writers intended that...or did they write to the general public's expectations of what would happen...I think the latter, that they intended to depict thor slowed his fall by jumping (despite it being physically wrong...but lord knows comics are not known for adhering to physics)

Originally posted by Starscream M
frankly, what you feel is of little relevance

Originally posted by Starscream M
frankly, what you feel is of little relevance Dude now you're just being a pain.

I said I feel as though I saw Hulk with a bloody nose after Thor hit him into the plane.

If that isn't the case then so be it, but nobody is telling me it wasn't true.

If someone would like to watch the scene over again and tell me I'm wrong go ahead.

It wasn't the height that was the problem, it was hitting the ground in that container. That seemed pretty obvious to me.

And even then, there is no guarantee that Thor would have been killed. People act like it's some kind of foregone conclusion. Damage was almost certain, whether it would have resulted in bruising or death is anyone's guess.

Originally posted by Newjak
Dude now you're just being a pain.

I said I feel as though I saw Hulk with a bloody nose after Thor hit him into the plane.

If that isn't the case then so be it, but nobody is telling me it wasn't true.

If someone would like to watch the scene over again and tell me I'm wrong go ahead. if you said thats how you remembered it, thats one thing. saying you feel it seems wrong to me...its too wishy washy.

if you remembered thor giving hulk a bloody nose, then fine, I'll go rewatch and see if I can confirm

Hulk > Thor > Loki/Iron Man > Captain America > Black Widow/Hawkeye

That's how I'd rank them in terms of durability based on what I remember. Iron Man's getting caught in the propeller might be the greatest feat alongside Hulk's and Thor's fall though.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
It wasn't the height that was the problem, it was hitting the ground in that container. That seemed pretty obvious to me.

And even then, there is no guarantee that Thor would have been killed. People act like it's some kind of foregone conclusion. Damage was almost certain, whether it would have resulted in bruising or death is anyone's guess. thor would not have been killed imo even if he didnt escape the container

I do think thor might've died if he went through the propellers like tony did though

Originally posted by Starscream M
dood, i get your point about jumping out doesnt help

but do you think the writers intended that...or did they write to the general public's expectations of what would happen...I think the latter, that they intended to depict thor slowed his fall by jumping (despite it being physically wrong...but lord knows comics are not known for adhering to physics)

edit: also I think he flew rather than dove....becuz if he dove, he couldnt have smashed through that container.

This isn't a comic.

This is a movie.

And movies attempt to adhere to physics more than comics, as a rule.

Besides this, I don't deal in speculation.

Since the movie doesn't attempt to give a specific explanation, we are FORCED to adhere to logic for the answer. Not 'this is what I think based on me not knowing much'.

And you have no way of knowing if a dive wouldn't have worked vs flight. What I saw was him pushing off the other wall with his leg strength and breaking out with mjolnir, if he flew, he would have...flown.

Originally posted by Starscream M
thor would not have been killed imo even if he didnt escape the container

I do think thor might've died if he went through the propellers like tony did though

Yea, based on what Thor has survived, I'd argue it wouldn't kill him or anything.

Thor was made of sterner stuff than Iron Man's armor. He might be superior in piercing damage though due to being made of metal and all that.

Originally posted by CosmicComet


And movies attempt to adhere to physics more than comics, as a rule.

Not fantasy/action/comic movies.

Originally posted by Mindset
Not fantasy/action/comic movies.

Yes they do.

Superman Returns for instance.

Fact: Thor hit the ground at the same speed, actually faster, than Hulk did. Why? Because Thor added his own propulsion from leg strength, on top of the speed of the fall still being in-tact.

But on the other end, Thor hit dirt, whereas Hulk hit a ceiling. So it balances out.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Yes they do.

Superman Returns for instance. No they don't.

Superman 1, for instance.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Yea, based on what Thor has survived, I'd argue it wouldn't kill him or anything.

Thor was made of sterner stuff than Iron Man's armor. He might be superior in piercing damage though due to being made of metal and all that.

Seeing as Thor was crushing Iron-man's armor with his bare hands and dented it with a headbutt, I'd agree.

Originally posted by Starscream M
if you said thats how you remembered it, thats one thing. saying you feel it seems wrong to me...its too wishy washy.

if you remembered thor giving hulk a bloody nose, then fine, I'll go rewatch and see if I can confirm Except that is what I said the first time around.

Originally posted by Newjak

And maybe I'm remembering it wrong but I swear Thor gave Hulk a bloody nose when he bashed him into the plane.

Originally posted by Mindset
No they don't.

Superman 1, for instance.

Wonderful. Go back to the 70s.

Like I said, as a general rule.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Wonderful. Go back to the 70s.

Like I said, as a general rule. How does it matter if it happened in the 70's?

As a general rule? You mentioned one movie, I countered. You lost.

Well atleast Thor was the only warrior that can hang with Hulk mano to mano. Their blows were even on one another. They both drive each other through walls, planes etc and still ready for more.

Originally posted by Mindset
How does it matter if it happened in the 70's?

As a general rule? You mentioned one movie, I countered. You lost.

I constantly overestimate your ability to comprehend the obvious. I need to stop doing that. The 70s. People were less knowledgeable all around. No internet for quick references after all. Hell, that goes for Silver Age comics versus Modern as well. Writers are more knowledgeable and attempt to portray that in their stories.

Hence the difference between Superman 1 and, you know, Returns.

Yes, as a general rule. Which is redundant, because that's what 'as a rule' means in the first place. I was just trying to dumb it down for you.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
I constantly overestimate your ability to comprehend the obvious. I need to stop doing that. The 70s. People were less knowledgeable all around. No internet for quick references after all. Hell, that goes for Silver Age comics versus Modern as well. Writers are more knowledgeable and attempt to portray that in their stories.

Hence the difference between Superman 1 and, you know, Returns.

Yes, as a general rule. Which is redundant, because that's what 'as a rule' means in the first place. I was just trying to dumb it down for you. Lol, so in the 70's people thought that someone flying around the Earth at lightspeed and turning back time was completely logical?

You're a dunce.

Comics now make about as much sense as Silver Age, now they just skew physics to make them seem "realistic".

Originally posted by Mindset
Lol, so in the 70's people thought that someone flying around the Earth at lightspeed and turning back time was completely logical?

You're a dunce.

Comics now make about as much sense as Silver Age, now they just skew physics to make them seem "realistic".

Maybe, maybe not. Don't know the writer personally. I was referring to the feats in general, Superman could save a falling plane a lot easier as Christoper Reeves than he could as Routh, even if they are the same character in continuity.

Why? Greater attention to physics.

As always Mindset, you are always a step behind. But you're funny, so you're excusable.

And exactly, attempts, as I said.

Now, tell me what you think of Thor hitting the ground? That's the only thing I care about out of this tangent.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Maybe, maybe not. Don't know the writer personally. I was referring to the feats in general, Superman could save a falling plane a lot easier as Christoper Reeves than he could as Routh, even if they are the same character in continuity.

Why? Greater attention to physics.

As always Mindset, you are always a step behind. But you're funny, so you're excusable.

And exactly, attempts, as I said.

Now, tell me what you think of Thor hitting the ground? That's the only thing I care about out of this tangent. You don't know much. Superman had trouble saving a falling plane. Superman then lifting a island sized piece of rock and tossed it into space without it completely breaking apart. SO realistic, I'm glad we live in an age where comic movies adhere to physics.

You have nothing but mediocre insults because you're wrong.

Originally posted by Mindset
You don't know much. Superman had trouble saving a falling plane. Superman then lifting a island sized piece of rock and tossed it into space without it completely breaking apart. SO realistic, I'm glad we live in an age where comic movies adhere to physics.

You have nothing but mediocre insults because you're wrong. To be fair the Island was made of K-Nite so it may have been able to not break apart while if you watch the the little rock shield Superman used was breaking apart.

So it could have been more realistic then you're giving it credit for.

Hulk > Thor/Loki > Iron Man

Thor is obviously more powerful of the two but Loki actually had some pretty good durability feats and didn't look particularly less durable than Thor.

Originally posted by Mindset
You don't know much. Superman had trouble saving a falling plane. Superman then lifting a island sized piece of rock and tossed it into space without it completely breaking apart. SO realistic, I'm glad we live in an age where comic movies adhere to physics.

You have nothing but mediocre insults because you're wrong.

Poor Mindset, always fails to see the bigger, general picture of a statement so tries to retort with holes that were obvious to anyone in the first place. I blame this stemming off the fact that you probably didn't know what 'as a rule' meant. The rock was breaking apart, actually, so still more realistic than similar things he did in Superman 1, like move tectonic plates.

My insults always seem to rile you up, since you're always wrong whenever you've attempted to address me.

I ask again, what, do you think of Thor hitting the ground? That is the only thing I wish to know.

Originally posted by Newjak
To be fair the Island was made of K-Nite so it may have been able to not break apart while if you watch the the little rock shield Superman used was breaking apart.

So it could have been more realistic then you're giving it credit for. K-nite never showed any kind of super durability. In fact, iirc, it broke like regular rocks.

Superman needed to reach escape velocity in order to get it out of Earth's orbit.

Originally posted by Mindset
K-nite never showed any kind of super durability. In fact, iirc, it broke like regular rocks.

Superman needed to reach escape velocity in order to get it out of Earth's orbit. Excuse me it was crystal mixed/given K-Nite properties. That is what I meant.

So it may have been more durable than normal rock.

Originally posted by Mindset
Lol, so in the 70's people thought that someone flying around the Earth at lightspeed and turning back time was completely logical?

You're a dunce.

Comics now make about as much sense as Silver Age, now they just skew physics to make them seem "realistic".
Yeah, silver surfer has also travelled through time via FTL travel around earth in the same era.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
Poor Mindset, always fails to see the bigger, general picture of a statement so tries to retort with holes that were obvious to anyone in the first place. I blame this stemming off the fact that you probably didn't know what 'as a rule' meant. The rock was breaking apart, actually, so still more realistic than similar things he did in Superman 1, like move tectonic plates.

My insults always seem to riled you up, since you're always wrong whenever you've attempted to address me.

I ask again, what, do you think of Thor hitting the ground? That is the only thing I wish to know. The rock was barely breaking apart, it was still the size of an island when he pushed it out of orbit. As a general rule it would have to, you know, be a general rule, i.e. show that for the majority of instances the laws of physics are adhered to...which is obviously not the case. For example, as a general rule, it's best not to listen to you because you don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to think I'm rile up that's ok, you're still wrong.

He hit the ground at a slower speed than Hulk did.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Seeing as Thor was crushing Iron-man's armor with his bare hands and dented it with a headbutt, I'd agree.

Exactly what I was thinking!

Originally posted by Newjak
Excuse me it was crystal mixed/given K-Nite properties. That is what I meant.

So it may have been more durable than normal rock. And it was breaking like regular rock.

Look at the fight scene when they were kicking Supes ass.

Originally posted by Mindset
And it was breaking like regular rock.

Look at the fight scene when they were kicking Supes ass. You mean where he hit a few skinny pieces?

Do you think if Superman lifted the Fortress of Solitude into the air it would be weak enough to break apart in the way you are describing?

Thor is more badly wounded when Loki stabs him than after his fight with Hulk.

Originally posted by The Sorrow
Hulk > Thor/Loki > Iron Man

Thor is obviously more powerful of the two but Loki actually had some pretty good durability feats and didn't look particularly less durable than Thor.

Originally posted by Newjak
You mean where he hit a few skinny pieces?

Do you think if Superman lifted the Fortress of Solitude into the air it would be weak enough to break apart in the way you are describing?
We see it breaking like regular rock, we don't see it being super strong.

What do you want me to say?

Originally posted by Mindset
The rock was barely breaking apart, it was still the size of an island when he pushed it out of orbit. As a general rule it would have to, you know, be a general rule, i.e. show that for the majority of instances the laws of physics are adhered to...which is obviously not the case. For example, as a general rule, it's best not to listen to you because you don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to think I'm rile up that's ok, you're still wrong.

I love the idiocy presented here where you expect someone to run down an entire list of every movies to establish greater fidelity to physics than comics, I would expect it would simply be obvious to anyone who has extensive experience with both, that a moving visual medium 'as a rule' has to have greater fidelity than static images because of the circular reason in place that a moving picture IS more high-fidelity than a static one, and thus even subconsciously is expected to follow through more so on that front. That, was the thing that was obvious.

I bolded the most important part to me though,



to demonstrate the irony.

I expected you'd say this, and it was explained prior to you saying so why this is incorrect.

Originally posted by CosmicComet

Fact: Thor hit the ground at the same speed, actually faster, than Hulk did. Why? Because Thor added his own propulsion from leg strength, on top of the speed of the fall still being in-tact.

But on the other end, Thor hit dirt, whereas Hulk hit a ceiling. So it balances out.

This is what happens when you say something based on your intuition, vs actually being knowledgeable of the subject at hand.

Its ok though, no one ever expects you to be knowledgeable.

Originally posted by Mindset
We see it breaking like regular rock, we don't see it being super strong.

What do you want me to say? Tell me what you think would happen.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
I love the idiocy presented here where you expect someone to run down an entire list of every movies to establish greater fidelity to physics than comics, I would expect it would simply be obvious to anyone who has extensive experience with both, that a moving visual medium 'as a rule' has to have greater fidelity than static images because of the circular reason in place that a moving picture IS more high-fidelity than a static one, and thus even subconsciously is expected to follow through more so on that front. That, was the thing that was obvious.

I bolded the most important part to me though,

To demonstrate the irony.

I expected you'd say this, and it was explained prior to you saying so why this is incorrect.



This is what happens when you say something based on your intuition, vs actually being knowledgeable of the subject at hand.

Its ok though, no one ever expects you to be knowledgeable. OK, no counter on Supes ignoring the laws of physics by pushing the island out of orbit w/o it breaking. So you can't support your claim, understood.

That quote of yours doesn't make any kind of sense. For one, Thor did not jump downwards towards the ground, he flew out of the container at an upwards angle, or sideways (don't really remember), then hit the ground. Second, Hulk hitting the top of a concrete building that is about 30 feet from the ground would not make any significant difference in the force of impact than if he had just hit the ground w/o any interference.

You're wrong, accept it, embrace it, and let it wash over you.

newjak, just rewatched the hulk-thor battle...did not see hulk bleeding from the nose, although the quality wasn't the greatest

Originally posted by Newjak
Tell me what you think would happen. If it was made from the same material as what he lifted out of the ocean it would break apart around him.

just to confirm, thor jumped sideways out of the container, not downwards

Originally posted by Newjak
To be fair the Island was made of K-Nite so it may have been able to not break apart while if you watch the the little rock shield Superman used was breaking apart.

So it could have been more realistic then you're giving it credit for. you can't be serious

I think we all just need to take a step back, calm down, and realize I'm always right.

Originally posted by Starscream M
dood, i get your point about jumping out doesnt help

but do you think the writers intended that...or did they write to the general public's expectations of what would happen...I think the latter, that they intended to depict thor slowed his fall by jumping (despite it being physically wrong...but lord knows comics are not known for adhering to physics)

edit: also I think he flew rather than dove....becuz if he dove, he couldnt have smashed through that container.

It's my interpetation of the movies, that Thor cannot fly without spinning the hammer. So, I don't think he was flying as much as he was using his leg strength to get him out.

I could be wrong.

He doesn't need to spin Mjolnir to fly. He can just point and allow it to take him where he needs to go. I do imagine that spinning it likely gives him more speed.

Originally posted by nimbus006
It's my interpetation of the movies, that Thor cannot fly without spinning the hammer. So, I don't think he was flying as much as he was using his leg strength to get him out.

I could be wrong. Good point

Btw, I jumped before my plane hit the ground and I was fine.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
He doesn't need to spin Mjolnir to fly. He can just point and allow it to take him where he needs to go. I do imagine that spinning it likely gives him more speed. Proof?

Originally posted by Starscream M
Proof?

cA5TSexI8Pw

0:28 second mark.

ok, you're right, no need to spin (perhaps he does that for distance or speed)...but he does still need mjolnir though.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
cA5TSexI8Pw

0:28 second mark.

Nice find.

Although my point was helping your argument

It still appears to me that he dove out the cage as opposed to flew.

Originally posted by lilshogun
Thor is more badly wounded when Loki stabs him than after his fight with Hulk.
So?

I've learned in this thread that Mindset is always right.

The Thor stabbing was odd. In tbat the guy get smashed by hulk with no signs of damage then basically a pocket knife goes right into him. Gotta love movies

Hulk was holding back.

Asgardians have always done better against blunt force trauma v piercing damage.

Originally posted by Mindset
OK, no counter on Supes ignoring the laws of physics by pushing the island out of orbit w/o it breaking. So you can't support your claim, understood.

Why would I have a counter to something I was never opposing in the first place?

Poor ol' Mindset. Putting himself in a tizzy thinking he has a counter point to an argument, when in fact he didn't thoroughly even comprehend what was being said.

The topic was never about this tangent you brought about yourself of whether a movie like Superman Returns is 100% physics accurate. The point was in counter to Bruce saying comics aren't that accurate as far as physics go, to which I said this that this NOT a comic, this is a movie. And that movies tend to at least attempt to have more realistic physics than comics(--At least when it comes to small scale real life possibilities, like you know, falling out of the sky.) And this is especially true of Marvel movies, since their characters are extremely unimpressive and toned down compared to the real thing (save Silver Surfer, he fares ok with his comic counter-part).



It makes perfect sense, especially if you actually remembered the movie correctly, like you know, me. Thor did not fly out an upward angle, and then suddenly crash at a downward angle towards flat ground. Lmao.

Here are screencaps. This is the only thing I could find. Frame rate and quality sucked, but it will do;

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/220/thor0.png/
^Shows where the container is falling, which is on some coast.


http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/42/thor1j.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/6/thor2x.png/
^Shows the sequence of Thor pushing off the wall.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/thor3.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/23/thor4.png/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/thor5.png/
^Shows the sequence of Thor breaking out of the glass. Notice in the last screen capture, the little smudge/dot is Thor, and he's not angling upward is he? No, he's actually angling downward, which adds to the speed of his fall, while changing the direction.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/thor6.png/
^Takes place in the exact same continuous shot as the last screen capture, shows the container crash landing in the sand/water.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/thorfinal.png/
^here we see Thor on the left, skidding after his crash landing at a downward angle in some flat meadow well away from the beach, a mere second or so after the container hit the ground. With a huge ass dirt cloud that a human sized going at merely the speed of terminal velocity could never make.

He pushed himself out at a downward angle, which added to the speed of his landing and also added a horizontal force to what otherwise would have been just a vertical force from a free fall, and that means his net force would have been even greater from the combination

The final word; Thor busted out of the container about 50 feet or so away from it hitting ground, and he pushed himself out of it at a downward angle and he hit a patch of earth so hard he made a dirt cloud on par with 50 lbs of TNT going off. How fast does a human sized object have to be going to make that kind of impact with the ground? A lot more than just what you get with terminal velocity assisted force, I'll you that much.

How does it compare to Hulk's falling? More or less should be comparable. Thor hit the ground at much greater speeds than just what terminal velocity would give him since he added his own propulsion to it from his length strength, but Hulk weighs more and he fell on a building instead of earth.


Neither are overly impressive feats for a blockbuster superhero movie though, honestly.



facepalm

Way to continue to disappoint in your comprehension. Read, again.
I never said anything about taking away from Hulk's feat just because he fell on a 30-50 foot building out of a 30,000 foot fall. I was giving Hulk PROPS for falling on something more solid than a patch of earth. Jesus Christ.



Pfft. Funny stuff. When have you ever been right against me? It's like a prime Cro Cop vs Josh Barnett; I just got your number. sneer

You still care about this thread?

Originally posted by Eon Blue
IMO, one of the most impressive feats of durability was when Loki was getting pummeled by Hulk.

+1 for Loki.

So what does that say about the fists that were hitting him. Loki -1?

Obviously Hulk

Yeah had some great durability.

Beat down by Thor

Blown up

Hulk smashed

Shot with that huge gun

and he seemed fine after everything

^Loki i mean