Mjölnir;30703697 said:
I see the difference of your comments. I already said I specifically disproved the statement that Hulk showed no signs of physical damage (he's clearly bleeding from his nose when he's getting up from the rubble a good while later, which is of course minor damage but that was not the point you made). I did that because it renders any discussion pointless if it's not based on the proper facts. That's the first step to take, then we can do the comparisons.
Listen, because I am going to clarify my points in this post. Do you understand that? I am going to be very clear so there is no more misunderstanding. I was rushing earlier, I had things to do, still do, but now I am going to try and be very precise, least of all you try and ignore the point.
Can Hulk theoretically be killed? Yes. Meaning he can be hurt. My point is that he is clearly far more durable then Thor. This is your "bleeding" Hulk.
Now I am not even sure that is blood, but I will give it to you. And what did it take to do that to him? Huge fire power over a length of time. And it didn't even put him out. He got up moments later, and rescues Tony.
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
I'm talking Thor in the MCU, and I though everyone were as we've only given movie examples. In the comics Thor has clearly greater feats so there's less need to compare there. As for Cap in the MCU, it remains to be seen if he's worthy. The trailer clearly indicates that he's just close as he fails to lift it.
Cap can move it. It shows worthiness. No one else has been able to move it even a bit, including Thor, when not "worthy".
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
The discussion wasn't about Thor without Mjolnir when you jumped in, nor did I see you specify that, so therefor I saw no reason to comment on anything like that. People were talking about them being shown as equals in their fight, which contained Thor using Mjolnir. And what is supporting that Hulk wasn't in full rage when he was uncontrollable? Anger is not unlimited. It's far more likely that the heroes' strength levels will depend on what individual scenes need as superhero movies really don't hold up to the scrutiny we're currently applying.
My point is this. If want to talk about the qualities of two opponent, it seems bizarre to say one is on the same level as long as he is allowed to bring a weapon. If one guy brings a bat or a gun to a fist fight and wins, does that suddenly make him a better fighter? No. Thor needs Mjolnir to even compete with the Hulk, and that is all he is doing, competing. He isn't going to win. He hit him, full in the face, no protection, and Hulk flies back, stumbles a bit, shakes it off, and proceeds to continue fighting.
Which is why Mjolnir is important. Thor has shown to not be all that capable without it in MCU. Loki has shown more ability, if not brute strength. I don't believe he has even used lightning without it, which is why no one is sure what is going on in the AoU trailer.
And I think you are missing the point of the psychology of the Hulk. He can always get angrier. The bigger the threat, the more he can draw upon. It is why Bruce can't kill himself. He can be zen like a monk, and still his anger will rise to protect him. Just look at the AoU trailer. That beast is something we haven't come close to see.
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
That's not hostility, it's a clarifying comment since you keep saying something different after I point out errors in what you said. If you're not going to take responsibility for what you say then the discussion is pointless, and that can be said without being hostile if that is unclear. Without taking responsibility and arguing from that we stop having a reasonable discussion and rather fall into some contest to "win". Again I was pointing out that you stated an incorrect fact and, as said, the discussion is irrelevant if the facts are wrong.
No, it was hostile. I corrected you without being a jerk on the Thor flying thing. You can't help yourself because you are clearly fanboyin'. Which is fine, until you get hostile about it.
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
And Thor might just duck because he doesn't know what the plane guns do. Just because we don't see him being able to survive those rounds doesn't mean that he can't. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We also see Sif save him from being shot by an arrow in TDW and saying "you're welcome", but just after that Thor actually does get shot by one and it does nothing to him. With your logic the first case would have stated that he couldn't take the arrow.
I just realized something. Loki is not an Asgardian. Whether he can take a bullet or not is irrelevant, because he is a Frost Giant, not an Asgardian. You are going to need another example, because Loki does not actually apply.
But here is my overall logic. Thor, along with other Asgardians have shown to be vulnerable quite often. They don't walk around in armor or have an healing room for no reason. Plenty of dead Asgardians in TDW. The Frost Giants weapon hurt Fandral I believe. Thor has been beat up, cut up, and injured more then once. They aren't paper people, but they aren't Thor durable.
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
That's true, my statement wasn't correct when put in that general manner. He's always whirled it when he starts flying from an already stationary position though and only done anything else when Mjolnir already had forward momentum of it's own. Also if he used Mjolnir to fly he wouldn't have had any reason to hit the ground as he can fly way faster than the speed he was falling at, which further strengthens the interpretation that he just jumped out through the glass.
Mjolnir isn't a cure all to flying, just like how Superman has limits when he is moving at a very fast speed. When Thor goes through the glass, he lands at an angle indicating a momentum shift. He almost slides in to the ground. Mjolnir also bounces like in one direction , showing a lot of momentum.
But my overall point is this. If it isn't a problem for him, why does he need to escape the chamber? If landing at full speed isn't a problem for him, why do they emphasis his need to escape?
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
Thor jumping horizontally would not change the speed of which he impacted the ground because he was pushing off something that was moving at the same speed. What could differ is the air resistance when he broke out of the cage, but it would be negligible.
If it doesn't matter, explain the emphasis on Thor escaping the chamber.
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I only know that you told me that I need to rewatch the movie when you were the one being wrong, and now you're completely ignoring that you did.
Because you are missing my point. The Hulk lands completely unharmed. If he was injured by the fall, Banner would have been injured by the fall. He is perfectly fine when he wakes up. He took a straight fall from the heaven was perfectly fine.
Mjölnir;30703697 said:
"No, just no"? Seriously, that's the way we're arguing now? That Hulk smacked Loki easier than Thor did has nothing to do with that it's a bigger feat to destroy twice as much with one attack.
But to comment on the actual comparison, ignoring the false facts, Hulk has shown more durability and Thor has shown the biggest damage output.
The Hulk is clearly more durable and physically stronger. Thor shoots lightning using Mjolnir, that is great. The Hulk destroys at least as many space whales with his bare hands. Thus what the Hulk does is far more impressive. He does the same, if not more damage then Thor, using his body as a weapon. He throws himself into ships. That is a bigger feat imo and far more impressive.
t: For all his power and feats Thor will still be around saving Midgard and the Universe Thousands of years after the Hulk has faded from memory and turned to dust....
