@kryptonianking88: And about how much can he lift based on that?
In terms of Physical Strength, where would you rank these characters in order?
@bladeoffury: Fine, might as well include War Machine
@kryptonianking88 said:
@bladeoffury: Motherbox and maybe World Engine
Superman has a 10,000+ ton feat in MoS when he's standing beneath the WE which is exerting enough force in a concentrated beam to push back 10,000 tons of water much wider than the beam's width which means the center of the beam would have to be exerting even more force.
Credit to Crunch5481 for bringing that up
Why is separating the motherboxes impressive?
And the World Engine is a much better feat than that.
It's a pretty clear outlier, considering Clark's performance at the oil rig in the same movie, as well as Snyder's intent.
I mean, yes? What is the point you are trying to make here? Also, Faora and Nam Ek kept up, but they also received worse attacks than they could throw at Clark. Zod is their superior, but he was also dominating the fight against Clark for a bit until Clark eventually overpowered him at the end. What is this supposed to prove?
You're saying that Zod can't scale from Clark because Clark took some damage right before they fought. So, I brought up that Faora and Nam Ek do scale from Clark, because Clark didn't take any damage before they fought. Zod > Faora and Nam Ek, so he too, scales from Clark.
I never said it would increase that drastically, and I was implying that there was something more than the concentration that could be a factor. Being able shift a tectonic plate is a massive outlier feat for Clark considering what goes on in both MoS and BvS, so I'm just trying to reason how that outlier could be explained here. It's already entirely questionable if that feat happens or more importantly how exactly it was done.
You didn't say it would increase that drastically, but that's how drastically it must increase in order for the tectonic feat to be justified.
Again, I'm operating under the assumption that the tectonic feat is legitimate.
I never said or suggested 99% of it was unlocked. Shifting a tectonic plate would be a drastic change, yes, but we don't know how Clark would've gone about doing it that's why I said he might've gotten stronger in a similar manner he did in Man of Steel.
I can't think of any way Clark could have shifted the plate with his strength without having the strength to shift the plate. We don't know how Clark went about doing it but there isn't much we can assume.
You said that's not how strength works, and there's no indication of the movie. Does this mean you think Clark going from struggling with an oil rig to destroying the World Engine was no change at all? He didn't unlock anything in between those instances?
No, this is just inconsistency, as supported by Clark's struggle to lift a trainafter MoS. It is also supported by Zack's chart.
I mean there is clearly a contradiction in Snyder's work if that's the case, but we the audience have to take it for what it is. Not what the filmmaker intended, but failed to show.
I disagree. Let's take a look at shockwaves.
vs
The mountain-busting shockwave created by the World Engine makes Clark and Zod's clashes look pathetic. So, going by what we see on-screen, the World Engine immediately becomes a huge outlier since the Kryptonians were unable to replicate even a fraction of such destruction when hitting each other with full force. When we take intent into consideration, however, we acknowledge that shockwaves (and their intensity) are an artistic choice, one the directors often don't make. As such, we ignore the clear discrepancy in power that we see on-screen because of the likely possibility that the writers didn't intend it to exist.
I can provide many more examples when the authorial intent overrides what literally happens on-screen. Bullets, for example. If you watch any live-action gunfight in slow motion, you'll see that the bullets are a lot slower than their real life counterparts. So, would you say that bullets in live action are slower than cars on the freeway (as they are on-screen), or would you say that bullets in live action are as fast as actual bullets (as they are intended to be)?
I also don't know if you can exactly make a direct comparison between a cruise missile or what happened at the oil-rig. He gets knocked out in both situations, but the point of me bringing up the oil-rig is to compare strength (between that and the world engine), whereas the missile compares durability (compared to the oil-rig).
Strength and durability flow into each other. For one, Clark flew into the Engine headfirst, so the force applied on him is equal to that which destroyed the Engine, meaning that his durability is already up there. Second, Doomsday gets WE scaling, so Clark's ability to take multiple attacks from the monster also suggests that his durability is on this level of strength.
Imagine putting Thanos above DCEU Superman.
@bladeoffury said:
You're saying that Zod can't scale from Clark because Clark took some damage right before they fought. So, I brought up that Faora and Nam Ek do scale from Clark, because Clark didn't take any damage before they fought. Zod > Faora and Nam Ek, so he too, scales from Clark.
Actually I don't think I ever really said we can't scale Zod from DCEU Supes because he might've been weakened. I suggested Supes might've been weakened in that fight, but I never really said it outright because it may or may not have been the case.
You didn't say it would increase that drastically, but that's how drastically it must increase in order for the tectonic feat to be justified.
Again, I'm operating under the assumption that the tectonic feat is legitimate.
If you believe it's legitimate then there's really nothing much else to be said here. Supes would be outright stronger than anyone else on this list. That's especially why it's considered an outlier feat, the difference between the Oil-Rig to moving the Space Ship and busting up the World Engine is nothing compared to moving a Tectonic Plate.
I can't think of any way Clark could have shifted the plate with his strength without having the strength to shift the plate. We don't know how Clark went about doing it but there isn't much we can assume.
It depends on how he shifted that plate and whether or not he did it directly. I mean how would you move a tectonic plate in the real world if you could do that? It's not such a simple answer as just move it. Though I suspect that's probably what the writers were thinking when they wrote that headline anyways.
You said that's not how strength works, and there's no indication of the movie. Does this mean you think Clark going from struggling with an oil rig to destroying the World Engine was no change at all? He didn't unlock anything in between those instances?
No, this is just inconsistency, as supported by Clark's struggle to lift a trainafter MoS. It is also supported by Zack's chart.
I'm just operating based on the films here. Based on the movies that train feat seems like an outlier tbh.
I mean there is clearly a contradiction in Snyder's work if that's the case, but we the audience have to take it for what it is. Not what the filmmaker intended, but failed to show.
I disagree. Let's take a look at shockwaves.
vs
The mountain-busting shockwave created by the World Engine makes Clark and Zod's clashes look pathetic. So, going by what we see on-screen, the World Engine immediately becomes a huge outlier since the Kryptonians were unable to replicate even a fraction of such destruction when hitting each other with full force. When we take intent into consideration, however, we acknowledge that shockwaves (and their intensity) are an artistic choice, one the directors often don't make. As such, we ignore the clear discrepancy in power that we see on-screen because of the likely possibility that the writers didn't intend it to exist.
I can provide many more examples when the authorial intent overrides what literally happens on-screen. Bullets, for example. If you watch any live-action gunfight in slow motion, you'll see that the bullets are a lot slower than their real life counterparts. So, would you say that bullets in live action are slower than cars on the freeway (as they are on-screen), or would you say that bullets in live action are as fast as actual bullets (as they are intended to be)?
This is just bad logic. Why would Clark's punches necessarily have to generate shockwaves similar to the World Engine... If I remember correctly Clark was just fighting against the World Engine's beam and then eventually rode into it caused enough damage for it to explode. Even if Clark could replicate the same kind of shockwave he's not going to output that in just a few quick punches. He had the time and focus when he eventually overpowered the World Engine's gravity beam and blew up the ship.
Author's intent can be important when there is something that is left vague for us. In this case, if authorial intent contradicts what is actually being shown are we supposed to just throw out what the work actually shows versus what the author meant it for it be? I certainly don't think so. I mean by this logic all of J.K. Rowling's tweets and comments about her books are also supposed to be taken as the truth.
Strength and durability flow into each other. For one, Clark flew into the Engine headfirst, so the force applied on him is equal to that which destroyed the Engine, meaning that his durability is already up there. Second, Doomsday gets WE scaling, so Clark's ability to take multiple attacks from the monster also suggests that his durability is on this level of strength.
Technically it should. Whether writers think about equal and opposite reactions in fiction though is questionable.
Actually I don't think I ever really said we can't scale Zod from DCEU Supes because he might've been weakened. I suggested Supes might've been weakened in that fight, but I never really said it outright because it may or may not have been the case.
It was one of the main reasons for your uncertainty in Zod's ablity to replicate Clark's feat.
If you believe it's legitimate then there's really nothing much else to be said here. Supes would be outright stronger than anyone else on this list. That's especially why it's considered an outlier feat, the difference between the Oil-Rig to moving the Space Ship and busting up the World Engine is nothing compared to moving a Tectonic Plate.
No, I don't believe it's legitimate for a variety of reasons, but another user made that assumption, so I questioned his logic under that assumption, as Zod should scale from whatever Clark is capable of.
This is just bad logic. Why would Clark's punches necessarily have to generate shockwaves similar to the World Engine... If I remember correctly Clark was just fighting against the World Engine's beam and then eventually rode into it caused enough damage for it to explode.
Exactly - the fact that he could damage the Engine when its landing couldn't is what makes his bullrush more powerful than the landing impact.
Even if Clark could replicate the same kind of shockwave he's not going to output that in just a few quick punches. He had the time and focus when he eventually overpowered the World Engine's gravity beam and blew up the ship.
Not only was Clark weakened when he destroyed the machine, but he was also overpowering its gravitational pull. This means that in a regular state and without such force hindering him, his bullrushes are much more powerful. And yet, not a single one of his numerous bullrushes ever generates a comparable shockwave, which would be clear contradiction if not for authorial intent.
Author's intent can be important when there is something that is left vague for us. In this case, if authorial intent contradicts what is actually being shown are we supposed to just throw out what the work actually shows versus what the author meant it for it be?
Yes. That is, unless you think bullets in movies/shows are only as fast as cars on the highway.
Here is another example: link. This little kid just no-sold a fall at terminal velocity. Even though he was caught, such impact would decimate any regular human. So, would you say that he has vastly superhuman durability (as his feat suggests), or would you say that he's as durable as a normal kid (as he's intended to be)?
I mean by this logic all of J.K. Rowling's tweets and comments about her books are also supposed to be taken as the truth.
Yeah, they should be taken as the truth. Inaccuracies might occur if a lot of time passes between the books and the statement (in which case she might forget what her intent was), or if it's likely that she had to say something for political purposes.
Log in to comment