Who's Stronger: Fat Thor or Ragnarok Thor?

  • 107 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for immoralimmortal
Posted by immoralimmortal (1927 posts) 13 days, 17 hours ago

Poll: Who's Stronger: Fat Thor or Ragnarok Thor? (67 votes)

Fat Thor 49%
Ragnarok Thor 51%

to make it even, give them both mjolnir (no stormbreaker for fat thor)

who do you think was the stronger fighter?

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#51 Edited by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

Yea but jurgens doesn't say thor would stomp superman like you have.

I never said that, I said Thor would one-shot Superman, but that it's a close fight due to speed. Very different things.

And the russos contradict each other with every single statement, you can't accept what they say as complete fact.

Proof? And it's literally their movie, their word is fact.

And to your earlier point, not knowing anything about comic feats shows that they have no idea about the characters they are directing.

They are directing MCU characters not the comic characters and both have had a love of comic books for quite a long time.

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#52 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

@kalkent:

I never said that, I said Thor would one-shot Superman, but that it's a close fight due to speed. Very different things.

If you are consistently capable of one shotting your opponent and per your word no selling their attacks, it is not a close fight.

Proof? And it's literally their movie, their word is fact.

Muh duh, their movie, it doesn't matter if feats directly contradict statements. They could have just meant mentally from all the hardships went through.

They are directing MCU characters not the comic characters and both have had a love of comic books for quite a long time.

Well then they suck at showing power levels for having a love of comics, Hulk suck in movies.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#53 Edited by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

If you are consistently capable of one shotting your opponent and per your word no selling their attacks, it is not a close fight.

I never said Thor would no-sell his hits, that's blatantly lying and putting words in my mouth to make me look bad. I said that Thor would shrug them off due to his high durability and especially his insane pain tolerance, which is completely difference.

Muh duh, their movie, it doesn't matter if feats directly contradict statements. They could have just meant mentally from all the hardships went through.

You do realize that every "feat" in Infinity War and Endgame was just their directorial decision, their opinion of power level informs feats, not the other way around. Their opinion of power levels is literally a better source then feats in Infinity War and Endgame.

Well then they suck at showing power levels for having a love of comics, Hulk suck in movies.

I don't care about your opinion that they didn't wank characters enough.

Online
Avatar image for rapterfan55
#54 Posted by RapterFan55 (745 posts) - - Show Bio

Goku solos

Avatar image for kalkent
#55 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

@kalkent:

I never said Thor would no-sell his hits, that's blatantly lying and putting words in my mouth to make me look bad. I said that Thor would shrug them off due to his high durability and especially his insane pain tolerance, which is completely difference.

You said thor would easily shrug them off and then proceed to one shot him, sounds like no selling to me.

You do realize that every "feat" in Infinity War and Endgame was just their directorial decision, their opinion of power level informs feats, not the other way around. Their opinion of power levels is literally a better source then feats in Infinity War and Endgame.

But the russos aren't even thinking about their feats. To them, they think the star is a brand new one and a full force of a star feat for thor, but in reality the color shows that it isn't and would have insanely lower temperatures.

I don't care about your opinion that they didn't wank characters enough.

Wank characters enough? So basically me being mad at Thor dominating Hulk after a lightning cloak comes on is not wanking characters enough. Smh kev.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#56 Edited by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

You said thor would easily shrug them off and then proceed to one shot him, sounds like no selling to me.

That's not remotely the same, shrugging something off isn't even as good as tanking it. Not sure how you haven't found that out after all the time on the site

But the russos aren't even thinking about their feats.

So why should we trust any feat from their movies if they're unintentional? How can we scale to feat if the writers don't have feats in mind when they write the interactions with characters in fights?

To them, they think the star is a brand new one and a full force of a star feat for thor, but in reality the color shows that it isn't and would have insanely lower temperatures.

So you're making the argument that in scaling to a character like Thanos, the Russos meant for us to say that Thor tanked the full force of a star.

Wank characters enough? So basically me being mad at Thor dominating Hulk after a lightning cloak comes on is not wanking characters enough. Smh kev.

That was waititi... and he wasn't dominating

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#57 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

That's not remotely the same, shrugging something off isn't even as good as tanking it. Not sure how you haven't found that out after all the time on the site

You said casually/easily shrug off though.

So why should we trust any feat from their movies if they're unintentional? How can we scale to feat if the writers don't have feats in mind when they write the interactions with characters in fights?

It is different when it comes to statements.

So you're making the argument that in scaling to a character like Thanos, the Russos meant for us to say that Thor tanked the full force of a star.

Why would Thor get scaled to thanos?

That was waititi... and he wasn't dominating

He was. If the grandmaster hadn't interfered with that disk he would've put down Hulk very quickly.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#58 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

You said casually/easily shrug off though.

Ok? You do know that a no-sell is taking no damage from something right. Shrugging something off is taking damage, but not letting it slow you down.

It is different when it comes to statements.

Why? You're literally pointing out statements are more reliable/intentional then feats.

Why would Thor get scaled to thanos?

Thanos beating the shit out of him.

He was. If the grandmaster hadn't interfered with that disk he would've put down Hulk very quickly.

Hulk was literally fine, that's just your head canon. That's an example of shrugging off a hit btw. Anyway, still doesn't change you got mad at the Russos for something Watiti did

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#59 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

@kalkent:

Ok? You do know that a no-sell is taking no damage from something right. Shrugging something off is taking damage, but not letting it slow you down.

And then one shotting your opponent after apparently.

Thanos beating the shit out of him.

So You mean thanos scales to thor then.

Hulk was literally fine, that's just your head canon. That's an example of shrugging off a hit btw. Anyway, still doesn't change you got mad at the Russos for something Watiti did

No, it isn't headcannon, thor was already tanking hulk wailing on him and getting a 2 to 1 hit ratio on him without the cloak, with amped striking power it was clear he was ready ot beat the daylights out of him.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#60 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

And then one shotting your opponent after apparently.

Yeah...

So You mean thanos scales to thor then.

Right, and since scaling is intention, shouldn't we scale off directorial intention?

No, it isn't headcannon, thor was already tanking hulk wailing on him and getting a 2 to 1 hit ratio on him without the cloak, with amped striking power it was clear he was ready ot beat the daylights out of him.

Thor could literally do nothing to Hulk before he got the amp, and even afterword it didn't seem like his hit did much despite the fact he hit him directly in the chin, the most susceptible part of the body. Thor probably would've won, but there's no reason to think he would've crushed considering Hulk's heavy physical edge.

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#61 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

Yeah...

Lmao Okay buddy.

Right, and since scaling is intention, shouldn't we scale off directorial intention?

Not if feats directly contradict directorial intention.

Thor could literally do nothing to Hulk before he got the amp, and even afterword it didn't seem like his hit did much despite the fact he hit him directly in the chin, the most susceptible part of the body. Thor probably would've won, but there's no reason to think he would've crushed considering Hulk's heavy physical edge.

He sent him through hundreds of meters of alien metal casually, was dodging a ton of hits, stunned him with a gut jab. And hulk was dazed from that punch, and it was heavily implied the grandmaster had to intervene to prevent thor from winning.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#62 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

Lmao Okay buddy.

Ok. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not if feats directly contradict directorial intention.

  1. They straight up don't
  2. Feats literally are directorial intention

He sent him through hundreds of meters of alien metal casually, was dodging a ton of hits, stunned him with a gut jab. And hulk was dazed from that punch, and it was heavily implied the grandmaster had to intervene to prevent thor from winning.

And yet through all of that never came close to putting him down. It's almost like a good feat for Thor isn't a bad feat for Hulk

Online
Avatar image for indomitableregal
#63 Edited by IndomitableRegal (17712 posts) - - Show Bio

How many threads of this ilk are gonna be made? Fluffy Thor. And while we're at it, he has the better facial hair too.

Avatar image for kalkent
#64 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

Not if feats directly contradict directorial intention.

  1. They straight up don't
  2. Feats literally are directorial intention

And that's where directorial intention gets extremely tricky. If they honestly intended for Thor to tank the full force of a new born neuron star with gravity and everything, he would be approaching and surpassing comic high tiers such as Superman,Thor,etc in durability. Do you honestly think they intended for him to be as durable as Post-Crisis Superman, 616 Thor,etc. Cause I sure don't. And also, the intention means crap when it is clear that the color means the star is old as hell.

He sent him through hundreds of meters of alien metal casually, was dodging a ton of hits, stunned him with a gut jab. And hulk was dazed from that punch, and it was heavily implied the grandmaster had to intervene to prevent thor from winning.

And yet through all of that never came close to putting him down. It's almost like a good feat for Thor isn't a bad feat for Hulk

You trash talk thor for failing to put Hulk done, but conveniently dump your memory of the fact that an enraged Hulk was wailing on Thor's face and all thor did was daydream.

Avatar image for ready_4_madness
#65 Posted by Ready_4_Madness (18865 posts) - - Show Bio

Fat Thor is Prime Thor.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#66 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

And that's where directorial intention gets extremely tricky. If they honestly intended for Thor to tank the full force of a new born neuron star with gravity and everything, he would be approaching and surpassing comic high tiers such as Superman,Thor,etc in durability. Do you honestly think they intended for him to be as durable as Post-Crisis Superman, 616 Thor,etc. Cause I sure don't. And also, the intention means crap when it is clear that the color means the star is old as hell.

I think they intended for him to take the full force of a star. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they didn't compare him to comic Thor/Superman's history and say "he's weaker for sure." I doubt comic Superman or Thor have any influence on MCU

You trash talk thor for failing to put Hulk done, but conveniently dump your memory of the fact that an enraged Hulk was wailing on Thor's face and all thor did was daydream.

Do you have like an issue? Can scaling only be bad for characters? Neither character was bad in that fight, both have showed they have great striking elsewhere and in that fight both showed exceptional durability.

Online
Avatar image for bladeoffury
#67 Edited by BladeOfFury (3907 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent: The IW directors wouldn't have comic Superman in mind when giving Thor feats.

What Fat Thor feat contradicts the idea that he's in his prime, btw?

Avatar image for kalkent
#68 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

I think they intended for him to take the full force of a star. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they didn't compare him to comic Thor/Superman's history and say "he's weaker for sure." I doubt comic Superman or Thor have any influence on MCU

Yea, too bad full force of said star was from a dying star and has calculated by NwName to be a 98 kiloton feat. Yea, and that is exactly the problem. The Russos aren't going to think too hard about the implications of their feat, they are just going to throw crap at the audience, and now you have an issue where MCU Thanos in five punches dwarfs the ability of a neuron star in a minute.

Do you have like an issue? Can scaling only be bad for characters? Neither character was bad in that fight, both have showed they have great striking elsewhere and in that fight both showed exceptional durability.

No, I don't have an issue.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#69 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

Yea, too bad full force of said star was from a dying star and has calculated by NwName to be a 98 kiloton feat. Yea, and that is exactly the problem.

Calcs(if they're complex) are incredibly stupid. Clearly the writers didn't write out how impressive it would be with math(plus I doubt the reliability)

The Russos aren't going to think too hard about the implications of their feat, they are just going to throw crap at the audience, and now you have an issue where MCU Thanos in five punches dwarfs the ability of a neuron star in a minute.

Yeah, but they do think about power levels. And I don't see the problem, the Russos clearly wrote Thor as incredibly powerful and they wrote Thanos as incredibly powerful as well.

Besides I think it's pretty easily interpreted as Thor taking the full output of a star. Which I doubt is actually star level.

No, I don't have an issue.

Then why is your only reaction to a good feat in scaling to call it a bad feat for the other character.

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#70 Edited by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

Calcs(if they're complex) are incredibly stupid. Clearly the writers didn't write out how impressive it would be with math(plus I doubt the reliability)

That's the point.

Yeah, but they do think about power levels. And I don't see the problem, the Russos clearly wrote Thor as incredibly powerful and they wrote Thanos as incredibly powerful as well.
So you think they wrote Thanos to be able to output star level force with casual jabs, oh boy...

Besides I think it's pretty easily interpreted as Thor taking the full output of a star. Which I doubt is actually star level.

Nah, etiri said full force which is the russos interpretation of etiri so full force muh.

Then why is your only reaction to a good feat in scaling to call it a bad feat for the other character.

Explained already.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#71 Edited by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

That's the point.

You're literally proving my point?

So you think they wrote Thanos to be able to output star level force with casual jabs, oh boy...

No, the star did more to Thor then Thanos, but yeah they literally wrote the Star Forge feat and Thanos beating the shit out of Thor. They wrote exactly that.

Nah, etiri said full force which is the russos interpretation of etiri so full force muh.

This is being purposely dense. It's clearly just the full force of the output, which makes sense with everything we're shown.

Explained already.

You literally haven't.

Online
Avatar image for macleen
#72 Posted by macleen (3772 posts) - - Show Bio

@nn5 said:

They're just the same. Fat Thor would win with SB though.

Avatar image for kalkent
#73 Edited by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

You're literally proving my point?

I was saying directors put little to not thought into feats.

No, the star did more to Thor then Thanos, but yeah they literally wrote the Star Forge feat and Thanos beating the shit out of Thor. They wrote exactly that.

Damn, Post-Crisis Superman dies to Thanos in five jabs then cause he ain't tanking the full force of a new neuron star either.

Explained already.

You literally haven't.

Avatar image for corapvp
#74 Posted by coraPVP (410 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't understand how they can say EG Thor is the most powerful he has been when he was so much more impressive in infinity war. Just shows that they wrote him badly in EG if they claim he was more powerful there than infinity war

Avatar image for kryptonianking88
#75 Posted by KryptonianKing88 (609 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

Out of curiosity, what level do you put the star at?

I think it's small country at the highest

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#76 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

I was saying directors put little to not thought into feats.

So if directors put little thought into feats, and feats are just them trying to show power levels, wouldn't that make a statement more reliable then feats?

Damn, Post-Crisis Superman dies to Thanos in five jabs then cause he ain't tanking the full force of a new neuron star either.

Alright, be purposely ignorant and dense because you can't find a way to counter my argument.

Online
Avatar image for gaoron
#77 Edited by Gaoron (10115 posts) - - Show Bio

About equal physically but fit Thor would still win due to superior fighting skill and agility making him the true "Prime Thor"

Avatar image for gateofbabylon
#78 Edited by GateOfBabylon (5349 posts) - - Show Bio

To be honest, I don't think there's any real difference in power between Ragnarok, IW, and EG Thor once you remove Stormbreaker from the equation.

Avatar image for kalkent
#79 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

So if directors put little thought into feats, and feats are just them trying to show power levels, wouldn't that make a statement more reliable then feats?\

No because since they already put zero thoughts into feats their statements are going to be even more questionable.

Alright, be purposely ignorant and dense because you can't find a way to counter my argument

Nah man not being dense, Etiri said full force not full output and that is the Russos interpretation of how Etiri is so Thanos casually outputted full force of a star damage in casual jabs GG.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#80 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

No because since they already put zero thoughts into feats their statements are going to be even more questionable.

They don't put 0 thoughts into feats, feats are a part of story telling. They just put less in CV. And feats are literally them trying to convey their opinions of power levels, statements are the more direct source. Us interpreting feats ads a middleman

Nah man not being dense, Etiri said full force not full output and that is the Russos interpretation of how Etiri is so Thanos casually outputted full force of a star damage in casual jabs GG.

Alright, I think they were showing something clearly different(our differences shows why statements are more reliable), but if you think that's what they meant, the Russos simply think Thor and Thanos are that impressive.

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#81 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

They don't put 0 thoughts into feats, feats are a part of story telling. They just put less in CV. And feats are literally them trying to convey their opinions of power levels, statements are the more direct source. Us interpreting feats ads a middleman

They pretty much do though, story telling is completely different from power levels. They literally have no idea about the implications of their words and feats, and that is a problem. Also, cv users know far more about feats and yes I am saying it than the Russos and most people do. Other sites along with directors pretty much know jack.

Alright, I think they were showing something clearly different(our differences shows why statements are more reliable), but if you think that's what they meant, the Russos simply think Thor and Thanos are that impressive.

Well in that case I think the Russos are stupid. I mean they both supposedly had two universal weapons collide with each other which in reality would cause the damn planet to explode but that didn't happen did it.

Avatar image for arthur_morgan
#82 Posted by Arthur_Morgan (922 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent: so you put your own over analysing fan calcs over the directors word?

yh, no.

Avatar image for arthur_morgan
#83 Edited by Arthur_Morgan (922 posts) - - Show Bio

so we gonna ignore that fat thor being weaker implies you ppl think prime thor had his power becouse lolmuscles?

thor isnt a bodybuilder, he doesnt get his power by doing situps.

when the end battle started he had all his powers.

Let me guess? he survived the star feat becouse his muscles protected him?

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#84 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

They pretty much do though, story telling is completely different from power levels.

Power levels are literally part of story telling, especially in something like a superhero movie.

They literally have no idea about the implications of their words and feats

So why should we trust feats if they're even more unreliable then statements? As far as I can tell, all you're pointing out is that debating in generals is pointless.

Also, cv users know far more about feats and yes I am saying it than the Russos and most people do. Other sites along with directors pretty much know jack.

"i know more about the Director then their character in their movie where they are the literal creator"

Well in that case I think the Russos are stupid. I mean they both supposedly had two universal weapons collide with each other which in reality would cause the damn planet to explode but that didn't happen did it.

Bruh it's a comic book movie and you're getting mad they didn't have the Earth explode. It's called suspension of disbelief not stupidity. Secondly it's literally their movie, you can't call them stupid for thinking their characters in their movie are not the level they think they are. You would be the stupid one in that scenario

Online
Avatar image for leothegreatest
#85 Posted by LeoTheGreatest (6181 posts) - - Show Bio

Fat boy wins.

Avatar image for sportjames23
#86 Edited by sportjames23 (1158 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg: Jurgens can say whatever he wants, but Busiek actually SHOWED Superman beat Thor. And that’s all that matters.

Avatar image for mangonation
#87 Posted by MangoNation (120 posts) - - Show Bio

Ragnarok Thor wins, he's more skilled at using his abilities. Although stat wise they're the same.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#88 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg: Jurgens can say whatever he wants, but Busiek actually SHOWED Superman beat Thor. And that’s all that matters.

No

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#89 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

Power levels are literally part of story telling, especially in something like a superhero movie.

Yes but power levels are a way less important part of story telling so it don't matter.

So why should we trust feats if they're even more unreliable then statements? As far as I can tell, all you're pointing out is that debating in generals is pointless.

Because feats are the equivalent of written records of things.

"i know more about the Director then their character in their movie where they are the literal creator"

Except your logic sucks. This isn't like J.K. rowling where she is the ultimate authority on harry potter because she wrote everything. The russos have an entire team helping them, a team with different opinions. And thor has had multiple directors.

Bruh it's a comic book movie and you're getting mad they didn't have the Earth explode. It's called suspension of disbelief not stupidity. Secondly it's literally their movie, you can't call them stupid for thinking their characters in their movie are not the level they think they are. You would be the stupid one in that scenario

Muh duh I throw insults because I'm salty.

Avatar image for kalkent
#90 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio
@kevd4wg said:
@sportjames23 said:

@kevd4wg: Jurgens can say whatever he wants, but Busiek actually SHOWED Superman beat Thor. And that’s all that matters.

No

And superman wasn't even using his speed back then. But muh duh thor one shot with big lightning thing.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#91 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent

Yes but power levels are a way less important part of story telling so it don't matter.

Less important compared to what? And writers still consider these things.

Because feats are the equivalent of written records of things.

Statements are written down as well. Basically the difference between feats and the statement from the author is that feats are looking at ancient heiroglyphs and trying to figure out what they mean, while the statement is the translation in modern english right next to it and you think that the english is wrong even though the same person wrote both.

Except your logic sucks. This isn't like J.K. rowling where she is the ultimate authority on harry potter because she wrote everything. The russos have an entire team helping them, a team with different opinions. And thor has had multiple directors.

Um, but it is. It's Joe and Anthony Russo's movie, they are the ultimate opinion on Thor in Endgame, and since he was stated to be > IW, where he was clearly at his peak before, they're intent is made very clear, and there's really no one who can tell them they're wrong about their movie.

Not that internet nerds won't try of course.

Muh duh I throw insults because I'm salty.

>Calls Directors stupid for not having Earth explode when IG hits stormbreaker
>Gets mad when pointing out your logic sucks

@kalkent said:
@kevd4wg said:
@sportjames23 said:

@kevd4wg: Jurgens can say whatever he wants, but Busiek actually SHOWED Superman beat Thor. And that’s all that matters.

No

And superman wasn't even using his speed back then. But muh duh thor one shot with big lightning thing.

Bruh it was in a crossover and unlike the MCU a vast plethora of writers have written both Thor and Superman(and it's not like Buseik is exactly a huge writer for either). Using that fight is like literally some of the dumbest argumentation I've seen.

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#92 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

@kalkent

Less important compared to what? And writers still consider these things.

Less important to the overall plot of the movie.

Statements are written down as well. Basically the difference between feats and the statement from the author is that feats are looking at ancient heiroglyphs and trying to figure out what they mean, while the statement is the translation in modern english right next to it and you think that the english is wrong even though the same person wrote both.

Yes but you can't see statements, you need proof to back it up, and feats are the proof.

Um, but it is. It's Joe and Anthony Russo's movie, they are the ultimate opinion on Thor in Endgame, and since he was stated to be > IW, where he was clearly at his peak before, they're intent is made very clear, and there's really no one who can tell them they're wrong about their movie.

Except the Russos didn't come up with every single plot point and every single part of the script and every single power level by themselves, while Rowling did. Gg. Also, Ragnarok thor is literally IW Thor so the Russo's aren't the ultimate authority on him, they are the same so another director is involved.

Not that internet nerds won't try of course.

Calls me a nerd without even knowing me personally, seems legit.

>Calls Directors stupid for not having Earth explode when IG hits stormbreaker

That was a joke, I was referring to your egregious statement of stormbreaker being universal. I hope that was a joke.

>Gets mad when pointing out your logic sucks

Wrong.

Bruh it was in a crossover and unlike the MCU a vast plethora of writers have written both Thor and Superman(and it's not like Buseik is exactly a huge writer for either). Using that fight is like literally some of the dumbest argumentation I've seen.

Canon is canon though, and Superman wasn't even using his speed back then so no kev. gg. Thor didn't one shot him with big lightning thing.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#93 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

Less important to the overall plot of the movie.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not taken into consideration. Writers plan out fights, they know the fans care about this kind of thing. But all feats come from their core beliefs, which are shown in statements.

Yes but you can't see statements, you need proof to back it up, and feats are the proof.

We literally can. The Russo's made a statement and we both saw it or we wouldn't be debating it.

Except the Russos didn't come up with every single plot point and every single part of the script and every single power level by themselves, while Rowling did. Gg. Also, Ragnarok thor is literally IW Thor so the Russo's aren't the ultimate authority on him, they are the same so another director is involved.

And yet they are the Ultimate Authority. They're statement > Something that slipped into the movie without them noticing.

Calls me a nerd without even knowing me personally, seems legit.

You use Comicvine, You're a nerd.

That was a joke, I was referring to your egregious statement of stormbreaker being universal. I hope that was a joke.

I was joking as well, don't worry.

Canon is canon though, and Superman wasn't even using his speed back then so no kev. gg. Thor didn't one shot him with big lightning thing.

In terms of it being canon, it's strenuous canon to DC at best, and it's not Canon to Marvel. So basically even if it is canon to DC, since it's not canon to Marvel it's not actually 616 characters being used.

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#94 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's not taken into consideration. Writers plan out fights, they know the fans care about this kind of thing. But all feats come from their core beliefs, which are shown in statements.

Yea, except most casual fans don't care about feats and don't know jack about power levels, so no, they don't know fans care about muh feats.

We literally can. The Russo's made a statement and we both saw it or we wouldn't be debating it.

Except said statement contradicts the feat.

And yet they are the Ultimate Authority. They're statement > Something that slipped into the movie without them noticing.

Wrong. They should've noticed.

You use Comicvine, You're a nerd.

That was a joke, I was referring to your egregious statement of stormbreaker being universal. I hope that was a joke.

I was joking as well, don't worry.

Canon is canon though, and Superman wasn't even using his speed back then so no kev. gg. Thor didn't one shot him with big lightning thing.

In terms of it being canon, it's strenuous canon to DC at best, and it's not Canon to Marvel. So basically even if it is canon to DC, since it's not canon to Marvel it's not actually 616 characters being used.

Sounds like an excuse for thor losing to a character you don't like.

Avatar image for bladeoffury
#95 Posted by BladeOfFury (3907 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent: When the Shazam directors stated that Billy is just as powerful as DCEU Superman, did you accept it? You shouldn't, because while Shazam's directors have control over their own character and know their own intention in regards to him, they have no control over Clark, and they can only guess Snyder's intent just like we do. Same thing applies to feats.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#96 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

Yea, except most casual fans don't care about feats and don't know jack about power levels, so no, they don't know fans care about muh feats.

But like fans do. Clearly. The most hardcore fans do, and they want to please hardcore fans. So...

Except said statement contradicts the feat.

Where?

Wrong. They should've noticed

Other then the fact that this is pure conjecture about whether it happened is that they aren't perfect, but in that case shouldn't scaling not count either if the people directing it aren't perfect.

Sounds like an excuse for thor losing to a character you don't like.

Can't say I'm surprised, the idea of context has always been difficult for you.

Online
Avatar image for kalkent
#97 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

But like fans do. Clearly. The most hardcore fans do, and they want to please hardcore fans. So...

Many hardcore fans literally don't care about the feats, they care about the characters and the arcs themselves...

Where?

I meant feat contradicts the statement.

Other then the fact that this is pure conjecture about whether it happened is that they aren't perfect, but in that case shouldn't scaling not count either if the people directing it aren't perfect.

Excuse.

Can't say I'm surprised, the idea of context has always been difficult for you.

I mean, it is no secret at this point that you don't like clark.

Avatar image for kevd4wg
#98 Posted by Kevd4wg (14311 posts) - - Show Bio

@kalkent:

Many hardcore fans literally don't care about the feats, they care about the characters and the arcs themselves...

Ok, but people care about power levels. It seems like you're making arguments for why we shouldn't be looking at feats if no one cares about it...

I meant feat contradicts the statement.

When?

Excuse.

Huh?

I mean, it is no secret at this point that you don't like clark.

That's actually not true, but I know it's easier to simplify someone who disagrees with your opinion to just "doesn't like the character"

Online
Avatar image for anthp2000
#99 Posted by ANTHP2000 (31182 posts) - - Show Bio

Ragnarok Thor is hotter.

Avatar image for kalkent
#100 Posted by kalkent (3763 posts) - - Show Bio

@kevd4wg said:

@kalkent:

Ok, but people care about power levels. It seems like you're making arguments for why we shouldn't be looking at feats if no one cares about it...

Most comic vine people care about the feats unlike the other fans though.

When?

Color of the star indicates it is a very old star.

Excuse.

Huh?

That's actually not true, but I know it's easier to simplify someone who disagrees with your opinion to just "doesn't like the character"

Sure.