Well, lets see. Let's look at each of the Infinity Stones and their maximum potential destructive output:
Power Stone: Can destroy entire planets
Reality Stone: Destroy all Nine Realms during the Convergence
Mind Stone: Can "level a city" according to Cap in AoU
Space Stone: Has the "potential energy to wipe out the planet", according to Black Widow in Avengers
As for the other two, their abilities don't really pertain to raw destructive power so I won't include them.
But I think its clear that at least 4 of the 6 Stones have a destructive output at least equal if not greater than what that Neutron Star would be dishing out. So I don't see how the Infinity Stones hurting Thor contradicts his feat on Nidavellir.
Well, fair point that the power stone can destroy planets, I'm not sure how much energy a neutron star puts out but a focused beam, which Eitri described as " the full force of the star" seems to me to be more than capable of incinerating a planet pretty easily. Can't really definitively say that it's more than an infinity stone, but I suspect it would be.
Thor did well to survive having the power stone held to his head, which would have incinerated pretty much anyone else instantly.
Bear in mind also that its not as if Thor just tanked the star with no damage. His body was charred black and Rocket literally said he was dying. That was probably the closest to dying we've seen Thor come in the entirety of the MCU and it thus made clear that the star's output was his absolute limit in terms of physical endurance.
That is true, it did nearly kill him.
Well, except for the time that Kurse nearly beat him to death, but he certainly was badly injured by the star.
But don't you think that just holding the hammer is kind of a cheap way of an instant heal ? I mean it's like Stormbreaker can do whatever the plot needs it to do - unlike Mjolnir, which had some clearly defined limits, which worked to Thor's advantage and disadvantage sometimes.
To me that's not great writing.
Well, Thor has been consistently shown to have excellent energy durability:
No-selling town-sized explosions:
Tanks the Bifrost explosion with no damage:
Withstands exposure to the Aether as its nearing its full power:
Survives being at the centre of a city-busting explosion (albeit KO'd):
And, at the start of IW, he survives a massive explosion caused by the Power Stone that atomises the Grandmaster's - very large - ship:
And while he was KO'd by this too, its worth remembering that he had already been beaten to a bloody pulp by Thanos AND had the Power Stone drilled into his skull. In fact, he was so badly injured that he was struggling even to stand up.
And none of those explosions (even the Sokovia one) did anywhere near as much damage to him as the star beam did, since although he was KO'd by the Sokovia and Statesman blasts, neither of them brought him even remotely close to death.
So I think its reasonable to conclude that the star beam's output was simply far above any of the previous energy outputs Thor had had to real with.
That I agree with, Thor is very tough, and there's a big difference between an explosion and a focused beam of energy.
Well firstly, Surtur, even in his weakened state, is still a very powerful being, so I doubt that the flames he shoots out of his sword are just the same normal Earth fire lol. And secondly, the fact that Thor blocked it doesn't prove that the flames would seriously hurt or kill him. He may have just been trying to avoid the slight discomfort that may have come with being enveloped by the fire.
Not to mention that we see superheroes (and villains) dodge/block attacks that they can definitely just tank all the time. We even see Superman jump out of the way of the strafing of the A-10 Warthogs during the Smallville fight in Man of Steel. Does that mean that the bullets would kill Clark? Or is it more likely that he dodged them because although they wouldn't put him down, they would still hurt?
We also have Superman dodging Cyborg's missile after being resurrected in BOTH versions of Justice League. The same logic applies.
Okay, first thing....come on, are you really suggesting that Surtur is able to put out anywhere near Stellar levels of heat or at least sufficient heat to inconvenience a being who could survive stellar levels of heat and radiation for a whole minute ? That doesn't seem a particularly strong argument to me.
As for Superman, there are some aspects of this discussion that are very relevant to Superman, but the Warthogs not so much - because this is Superman's first ever fight and he literally does not know how powerful he is - Thor is a 1500 year old warrior god, and been in countless battles and he's probably got a better idea of his limitations.
As for Superman dodging the missile, well he's literally just been resurrected and doesn't even know who he is. Again, a bit different from Thor vs Surtur.
Except the Russo Brothers explicitly said that they wanted the whole Nidavellir sequence to be the ultimate demonstration of Thor's power, strength and physical endurance. So this wasn't about finding the "cleverest" way of forging Stormbreaker, but rather the one that would best show Thor's raw might.
These quotes are taken from the Director Commentary for IW:
In addition, an official MCU canon tie-in book states that a temperature of 50,000 kelvin was required to melt the uru:
(From The Wakanda Files)
So, basically if the writers and directors of the movie are telling us that Thor withstood the heat and energy of the star, then he did. Period.
First, I only ever go by what's onscreen.
Second, actually, yes that's the problem - clever counts.
The Russos generally are pretty good writers and what plays out on the screen usually makes sense - even within the fantastic physics of superheroes- that's why this scene stands out for me as particularly bad. After Thor has been through so much development in his movies, especially Ragnarok which also highlights his limitations.
I understand their desire to show off Thor's godliness but it could have been done in a way that was more consistent with what we've seen previously.
How he starts Nivadelir's rings moving again is beyond stupid - there must be much better ways of showing him using his strength to do this - e.g using a giant lever, which would actually be a better feat of strength. That took me about a minute to think of, I can't believe the Russos couldnt do better.
The lock mechanism could have been above the aperture for the star beam, holding that open could have been a mighty feat indeed.
I'm genuinely surprised at how the Russos seem to have just shut off their writing talents and gone for a pretty mindless spectacle, that falls apart if you turn on your brain for even a moment.
Finally, I do find it funny how people just LOVE to focus on the perceived inconsistencies of this one feat (and only this one) and ignore the inconsistencies that other characters display ALL THE TIME. It would be like asking why Superman doesn't destroy the planet every time fights someone, if he can move planets. Applying real-world physics to characters like this is absurd. If we applied these standards consistently, we would have to disregard almost every single comic book movie feat.
Take the infamous Quicksilver scene in DoFP. If Peter was actually moving that quickly then everyone in that room would be incinerated into vapour. But nobody questions that feat's legitimacy.
Thor seems to be the only prominent live-action superhero I can think of whose feats are just flat-out disregarded even in the face of huge evidence from both onscreen and offscreen sources.
Again, first, I always disregard off screen evidence- to me almost always onscreen evidence is the only thing that counts.
Second, you're right about inconsistencies in super hero writing.
The inconsistencies in Superman's power levels routinely piss me off, way more than anything to do with Thor.
I would suggest that Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman highlight just how destructive a battle between Superman and beings can be - which kind of answers you point - although they neglect to show how Superman flying at low altitude supersonic speeds doesn't cause massive devastation, which is a fair criticism.
So here's the real issue, as I see it. It comes down to explanation - suspension of disbelief and consistency.
Quicksilver totally should create massive destruction moving at those speeds - however, an explanation that's been given is that he isnt literally moving that fast he just moves out of sync with normal time, so his power is more a form of time travel than actual superspeed. Similarly the Flash has his magic bull**** speed force which allows him to ignore the laws of physics.
Superman is seen lifting a continent, and a building- both of which would have crumbled under their own weight. The Boys series used this to show why Homelander couldn't save a 747 airliner from crashing.
Back in the 80s John Byrne suggested that Superman achieves such things by using telekinesis rather than actual strength- Grant Morrison explained that Superman can extend his aura around things he's lifting to hold them together.
These are all completley ridiculous explanations but at least they give us a possibility of suspending disbelief.
The problem I have with the Nivadellir sequence is that it's inconsistent with what we've seen before( remember Surtur) and virtually no explanation is provided.
This is why I refer to it as bad writing, and I'm surprised that the Russos went that way. With a little more thought they could have showcased Thor's godlike toughness and strength in a way that was consistent with what we've seen before and allowed for suspension of disbelief.
The other thing is consistency. Given your examples of Thor surviving huge explosions I suppose can almost buy that Thor can survive, badly injured, the force of the star for a short time - until I think about Surtur, and don't get me started on the control discs. Maybe if there had been some sort of explanation for his miraculous recovery other than - he held his hammer ( and this is totally different from his recovery from near death in Thor 2011, because at that time Mjolnir was holding all his godlike power).
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree and move on.
Anyway,on't feel bad for Thor he seems to do alright.....I mean it's not like they're going to replace him with a female character in his next film....oh wait, whew at least Superman won't be subject to an arbitrary change in his next film.....
I mean, I could *guess* it would go to Quicksilver simply because it seems unlikely that the movie portrayed in the trailers would have Sonic as either fast or intelligent enough to win, but that is me guessing based on extremely limited evidence.
