MCU vs thread....controversy and chaos

[metaphysician]

Well, apples and oranges - the Eternals are not living beings. Mutants are the product of evolution, but Eternals are the product of direct design.
They are synthetic, as much as Arishem says.

So really, there's no comparison.

Its not really that at all. Its simply that, as a species, Eternals are on average much more powerful and capable than mutants. Going by the comics ( since we have no data whatsoever for an "MCU mutant" yet ), the average mutant is a normal person, with either one or a small number of related powers, which operate at a low to mid level of scope. These can go up via luck and training, but even amongst actual X-Men members ( who are both fully trained and generally selected for useful/potent powers ), you still are basically looking at mid-tier characters, people who operate on a level definitely above "street" but who aren't really in the ballpark of, say, A-list Avengers members.

The Eternals, by contrast? Their power set as a species goes something like this:
-Mid level brickiness
-An especially good caliber of regenerative immortality that can recover from anything short of total bodily destruction
-Energy projection of similar magnitude to their brickiness
-Flight
-Low level telepathy and telekinesis
-Low level matter manipulation, mostly good enough for utility use ( think "costume changes" )
-Long distance teleportation, though requiring a great deal of effort and fatigue

Note, this is not "the average power level possessed by an Eternal". This is the *baseline*, the floor of abilities which every ( Earth ) Eternal possesses by default. It only goes up from there, and it goes way up, with the "name" Eternals possessing personal specializations that push them into the A-list Avenger scale, or even the cosmic scale ( *coughMakkaricough* ).

Basically, sure, mutants do have their odd outliers, like Xavier or Magneto, who are extremely powerful. However, they are just that, outliers, on a species for whom the vast majority of members would be at best comfortable getting into a fight with Spider-man. Eternals *start* in a place well beyond that, and pretty much the entirety of their "name" set exist at the same power scale as those handful of mutant outliers.

( Of course, there is balance. The other side of the coin is that there are only like a hundred or so Eternals in existence, period, whereas mutants are a demographics with millions of people. )

 

[Batmannerism]

Its not really that at all. Its simply that, as a species, Eternals are on average much more powerful and capable than mutants. Going by the comics ( since we have no data whatsoever for an "MCU mutant" yet ), the average mutant is a normal person, with either one or a small number of related powers, which operate at a low to mid level of scope. These can go up via luck and training, but even amongst actual X-Men members ( who are both fully trained and generally selected for useful/potent powers ), you still are basically looking at mid-tier characters, people who operate on a level definitely above "street" but who aren't really in the ballpark of, say, A-list Avengers members.

The Eternals, by contrast? Their power set as a species goes something like this:
-Mid level brickiness
-An especially good caliber of regenerative immortality that can recover from anything short of total bodily destruction
-Energy projection of similar magnitude to their brickiness
-Flight
-Low level telepathy and telekinesis
-Low level matter manipulation, mostly good enough for utility use ( think "costume changes" )
-Long distance teleportation, though requiring a great deal of effort and fatigue

Note, this is not "the average power level possessed by an Eternal". This is the *baseline*, the floor of abilities which every ( Earth ) Eternal possesses by default. It only goes up from there, and it goes way up, with the "name" Eternals possessing personal specializations that push them into the A-list Avenger scale, or even the cosmic scale ( *coughMakkaricough* ).

Basically, sure, mutants do have their odd outliers, like Xavier or Magneto, who are extremely powerful. However, they are just that, outliers, on a species for whom the vast majority of members would be at best comfortable getting into a fight with Spider-man. Eternals *start* in a place well beyond that, and pretty much the entirety of their "name" set exist at the same power scale as those handful of mutant outliers.

( Of course, there is balance. The other side of the coin is that there are only like a hundred or so Eternals in existence, period, whereas mutants are a demographics with millions of people. )

Yup, can't disagree with anything you said.....but that wasn't what I was going for at all.

My distinction is that Mutants are a natural phenomenon, yes there was some tinkering with the gene pool but otherwise they are a product of evolution.


Eternals are artificial, they were created by explicit actions of the Celestials - and designed to be incapable of evolution ( and in the comics there are limits on their degree of free will).

So my point is that comparing them is like comparing a horse to a sports car.

 

[Docker2.0]

Makkari wins. Next up:

Thena

vs Valkyrie

Who you got peeps?!

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm going with VALKYRIE

 

[metaphysician]

Thena vs Valkyrie:

Battle of the low feat characters, part N! *ahem* But more seriously, I give it to Valkyrie. They are both basically Superhuman Warrior With Magic Weapons. However, Valkyrie was generally portrayed as a peer of Thor, whereas Thena was portrayed as a peer of Ikaris. Since I am confident that Thor > Ikaris, *especially* after Thor received his first big power up? That is basically that. Plus, Valkyrie was the only survivor amongst the, well, valkyries, in their fight against Hela. While we have basically zero context about that battle, its still a further weight on Valkyrie's side, seeing as Hela remains one of the heaviest hitters in MCU ( I'd give her the victory against all ten Eternals, to put it one way ).

 

[Batmannerism]

Makkari wins. Next up:

Thena

vs Valkyrie

Who you got peeps?!

Thena.

Assuming her Alzheimers doesn't kick in.
Physically she's strong enough to knock Ikaris around a bit and those blades appear to be pretty deadly - and a little more versatile as they can be turned into shields too.

Jolie is also a better actress.


I'll say Thena 7/10, with the other 3 times her illness causing problems.

 

[Batmannerism]

Thena vs Valkyrie:

Battle of the low feat characters, part N! *ahem* But more seriously, I give it to Valkyrie. They are both basically Superhuman Warrior With Magic Weapons. However, Valkyrie was generally portrayed as a peer of Thor, whereas Thena was portrayed as a peer of Ikaris. Since I am confident that Thor > Ikaris, *especially* after Thor received his first big power up? That is basically that. Plus, Valkyrie was the only survivor amongst the, well, valkyries, in their fight against Hela. While we have basically zero context about that battle, its still a further weight on Valkyrie's side, seeing as Hela remains one of the heaviest hitters in MCU ( I'd give her the victory against all ten Eternals, to put it one way ).

Was Valkyrie really a peer of Thor ? In the final battle with Hela she's barely a distraction, and Hela throws her around with ease. Thor does lot better against his evil sister than Valkyrie does.


She survived the Valkyrie vs Hela battle because she fell under a dead comrade.

I suppose I'm biased by my dislike of the character, I find Valkyrie generally unlikable, whereas Thena was kind of tolerable.

I also concede merely surviving 2 engagements with the MCU's most powerful villain to date ( not counting Dormammu or the Celestials) is a feat
that cant be ignored.
Hela at her weakest crushed Mjolnir, so that's a feat pretty much unequaled.

I count Thena's ability to make shields and weapons simultaneously skews the balance in her favour in this engagement- but I'll concede its a draw. So 5/10 to both.

Thena is also older and more experienced than Valkyrie.

 

[Bayne]

I love Valkyrie, but I don't buy that she's equal to Thor. I think she's at least one rung down the ladder from the average Eternal in terms of both strength and durability. And Thena is supposed to be the most experienced fighter the Eternals have.

Combine that with the fact that mcu Valkyrie has shown no actual powers beyond strength and durability whereas Thena clearly has and I don't see how Valkyrie wins.

 

[Batgirl0202]

Was Valkyrie really a peer of Thor ? In the final battle with Hela she's barely a distraction, and Hela throws her around with ease. Thor does lot better against his evil sister than Valkyrie does.


She survived the Valkyrie vs Hela battle because she fell under a dead comrade.

I suppose I'm biased by my dislike of the character, I find Valkyrie generally unlikable, whereas Thena was kind of tolerable.

I also concede merely surviving 2 engagements with the MCU's most powerful villain to date ( not counting Dormammu or the Celestials) is a feat
that cant be ignored.
Hela at her weakest crushed Mjolnir, so that's a feat pretty much unequaled.

I count Thena's ability to make shields and weapons simultaneously skews the balance in her favour in this engagement- but I'll concede its a draw. So 5/10 to both.

Thena is also older and more experienced than Valkyrie.

I'll go with Thena as well.

I could say why but you just said it better than I ever could

 

[InCali]

Thena without a doubt. Valkyrie is in no way an equal to Thor and survived her encounter with Hela by luck. Thor gave a much, much, much better fight against his sister. Thor and Thena would be a better fight with Thor coming out on top.

 

[Batmannerism]

I love Valkyrie, but I don't buy that she's equal to Thor. I think she's at least one rung down the ladder from the average Eternal in terms of both strength and durability. And Thena is supposed to be the most experienced fighter the Eternals have.

Combine that with the fact that mcu Valkyrie has shown no actual powers beyond strength and durability whereas Thena clearly has and I don't see how Valkyrie wins.

I'll go with Thena as well.

I could say why but you just said it better than I ever could

Thena without a doubt. Valkyrie is in no way an equal to Thor and survived her encounter with Hela by luck. Thor gave a much, much, much better fight against his sister. Thor and Thena would be a better fight with Thor coming out on top.

It feels weird being on the majority side of a poll.

Remember when Angelina was a really legit actress ? I mean even the phoned in performance as Thena was better than Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie, with a lot less screentime - unless she was trying to make Valkyrie really unsympathetic.
, in which case it was a very effective performance

I guess I should feel like she had a redemption arc, but for some reason I didn't care. I think there an art to playing an anti hero who has a heroic turn,
you can't set yourself up to be too much of an *******, or people either dont believe or don't care.

 

[Bayne]

It feels weird being on the majority side of a poll.

Remember when Angelina was a really legit actress ? I mean even the phoned in performance as Thena was better than Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie, with a lot less screentime - unless she was trying to make Valkyrie really unsympathetic.
, in which case it was a very effective performance

I guess I should feel like she had a redemption arc, but for some reason I didn't care. I think there an art to playing an anti hero who has a heroic turn,
you can't set yourself up to be too much of an *******, or people either dont believe or don't care.

If it makes you feel more comfortable being disagreed with: I loved Thompson's performance and think her character is possibly the best one in the Thor films.

Meanwhile I haven't bought into an Angelina Jolie character in like 15 years and Thena, while sympathetically written, was no exception. The only reason I cared about Thena at all was because Gilgamesh cared about her and that actor did a great job selling that emotion.

 

[InCali]

If it makes you feel more comfortable being disagreed with: I loved Thompson's performance and think her character is possibly the best one in the Thor films.

Meanwhile I haven't bought into an Angelina Jolie character in like 15 years and Thena, while sympathetically written, was no exception. The only reason I cared about Thena at all was because Gilgamesh cared about her and that actor did a great job selling that emotion.

That's not really the point though.......

 

[Bayne]

That's not really the point though.......

It's not relevant to the fight at all. I already said what I think about that. Batmannerism apparently just needed someone to disagree with him, so I gave him my thoughts...

 

[InCali]

It's not relevant to the fight at all. I already said what I think about that. Batmannerism apparently just needed someone to disagree with him, so I gave him my thoughts...

 

[Batgirl0202]

Remember when Angelina was a really legit actress? I mean even the phoned in performance as Thena was better than Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie, with a lot less screentime - unless she was trying to make Valkyrie really unsympathetic.

I find that's fairly typical of Angelina, and I say this as a HUGE fan. It seems like she just phones in her roles more often than not. It's like she assumes that allowing us the privilege of watching her in a movie should be enough lol.

I've suspected for awhile that she only does popcorn movies (Lara Croft, Wanted, Salt, Maleficent, Eternals) in order to generate enough goodwill so she can do the projects she actually cares about (Unbroken, Beyond Borders, A Mighty Heart, First They Killed My Father). As an actress and a director, she's fabulous when she's actually engaged...

Anyway just my two cents. Carry on

 

[Batmannerism]

If it makes you feel more comfortable being disagreed with: I loved Thompson's performance and think her character is possibly the best one in the Thor films.

Meanwhile I haven't bought into an Angelina Jolie character in like 15 years and Thena, while sympathetically written, was no exception. The only reason I cared about Thena at all was because Gilgamesh cared about her and that actor did a great job selling that emotion.

Well, that's more like it. I struggle to see how Tessa Thompson could noticeably shine in a film that also features Tom Huddleston, Anthony Hopkins and Cate Blanchett, one of the best actresses of her generation - who unlike Tessa is capable of playing different characters in different films, rather than just .....herself.

But, to each their own I guess, and she'll be back soon enough, so you can enjoy her some more....as Queen of Asgard, which is one of the most ridiculous writing decisions Marvel has ever made: for Thor to go from spoiled warrior prince to noble hero and finally to legitimate leader who can make hard decisions......to throw that whole arc away because he got a bit sad ( meanwhile Steve copes by starting a support group).

Anyway, that has nothing to do with this poll. Who won ?

I will say that Angelina totally didn't phone in Tomb Raider one, she was having a blast doing that film and it shows - not a great film but great fun.

Probably her most phoned in action performance was "Wanted" wow that film was a stinker!

Sorry, who won this one again

 

[Docker2.0]

Thena wins in a close one. Next up:

The Eternals

vs Hela

Who you got peeps?

 

[InCali]

Hooooooboy.........I could actually see this one going either way. None of them would last more than a couple of minutes against Hela, but they have such a wide array of powers and abilities (don't forget Sprite) that The Eternals could actually win.

It's a DRAW!!!!!

 

[Batmannerism]

Thena wins in a close one. Next up:

The Eternals

vs Hela

Who you got peeps?

Hmmmm. Im going with the Eternals, but only 6/10.

Sersi was temporarily disabled by a knife, so Sersi's blades, which instantly kill Asgàrdians, so she, Sprite and Ajak are probably going to be out of action quickly - and Sersi is the key to victory.

The Eternals are tough, really we only saw them die from having their cosmic energy drained or flying into the sun.

However, Hela can physically overpower Thor and even at her weakest could crush Mjolnir. I think it's reasonable to say she's physically more powerful than any of them one on one.
Add her speed, skill and bloodthirsty nature and she's got a degree of advantage over them.
I don't think that even with a combination of attacks they can't physically beat her into submission.

BUT, they don't need to , if the Eternals use teamwork with Sprite's illusions, Phastos, Ikaris' and Kingo's blasts with Druig, Makaari,Thena and Gilgamesh as additional distractions...and then Sersi uses her transmutation power to turn Hela to stone, they could win.

I mean she was able to at least partially transmute the Celestial to stone, even without the power of the unmind.

As such, the Eternals could overcome Hela, but an almost as likely outcome is that she disables them first. They would need perfect teamwork , but then they displayed precisely that against Ikaris with Thena, Phastos, and Makaari working in tandem to keep him off balance.

As such, I vote for a narrow Eternals victory...hopefully with Druig getting killed, sure he and Makaari look cute together, but he's still an ******* who enslaved a bunch of people to "protect" them and used them as human puppets.

 

[InCali]

Hmmmm. Im going with the Eternals, but only 6/10.

Sersi was temporarily disabled by a knife, so Sersi's blades, which instantly kill Asgàrdians, so she, Sprite and Ajak are probably going to be out of action quickly - and Sersi is the key to victory.

The Eternals are tough, really we only saw them die from having their cosmic energy drained or flying into the sun.

However, Hela can physically overpower Thor and even at her weakest could crush Mjolnir. I think it's reasonable to say she's physically more powerful than any of them one on one.
Add her speed, skill and bloodthirsty nature and she's got a degree of advantage over them.
I don't think that even with a combination of attacks they can't physically beat her into submission.

BUT, they don't need to , if the Eternals use teamwork with Sprite's illusions, Phastos, Ikaris' and Kingo's blasts with Druig, Makaari,Thena and Gilgamesh as additional distractions...and then Sersi uses her transmutation power to turn Hela to stone, they could win.

I mean she was able to at least partially transmute the Celestial to stone, even without the power of the unmind.

As such, the Eternals could overcome Hela, but an almost as likely outcome is that she disables them first. They would need perfect teamwork , but then they displayed precisely that against Ikaris with Thena, Phastos, and Makaari working in tandem to keep him off balance.

As such, I vote for a narrow Eternals victory...hopefully with Druig getting killed, sure he and Makaari look cute together, but he's still an ******* who enslaved a bunch of people to "protect" them and used them as human puppets.

6 out of 10??? I have it 5 out of 10!!!!

Well, you DO want someone to disagree with.....right?

 

[Docker2.0]

6 out of 10??? I have it 5 out of 10!!!!

Well, you DO want someone to disagree with.....right?

I got you!!!
Hela 7/10!

 

[Batmannerism]

6 out of 10??? I have it 5 out of 10!!!!

Well, you DO want someone to disagree with.....right?

One other small factor in the Eternals ' favour is that Hela is the goddess of death....none of the Eternals are actually alive, they're androids. In the comics her powers work best on living beings.

Just a thought.

 

[Docker2.0]

One other small factor in the Eternals ' favour is that Hela is the goddess of death....none of the Eternals are actually alive, they're androids. In the comics her powers work best on living beings.

Just a thought.

I agreed with you!!!

 

[Batmannerism]

I agreed with you!!!

I got you!!!
Hela 7/10!

Yeah...no. I'm going for a narrow Eternals win, and you've got Hela 7/10, soooooo.....we disagree.

This feels like a moment out of Father Ted.