The Thor Message Board >> View Thread
1 2 3  >> All
Author
Comicguy1




This was during the Kurt Busiek /George Perez Avengers run correct? Hmmm. I don't remember that. I have most of the run, really liked it, Perez was great, and I rememer some pretty impressive Thor showings (During that whole overlong drawn-out to eternity infinity and beyond Kang War, Thor took on the Presence and came close to killing him. The Presence is a pretty powerful villian, he can probably tie the Silver Surfer. And of course, his showing against Ultron in the classic Ultron Unlimited storyline.).

I know that they said that he was bulletproof, but did we ever see anything like this? Did he get hit with a bullet and hold his arm and fall to the ground or something like a normal person would? Actually, regular people can any many times have survived gunshots to the head and lived. So I doubt that, if this happened (And again, I'm sorry, but I don't remember this ever happening.), Thor would sustain much damage. I'm just wondering if this happened, or if this is something that they just SAID. If anybody knows of any circumstances, please let me know, and I'll be eager to raid my collection for the back issues (Not like I need an excuse. This is a cry for help really, is all that it is.).


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 on Windows 7
Mighty_Thor




...even if Thor has always been "bulletproof" since inception (you know, withstanding lasers and far more powerful attacks), and during the late 80s and early 90s where there were specific instances that bullets actually hit him and was never injured...and of course during JMS's run. And now, he is officially bulletproof, even if he has always been (except for that one Black Panther issue, which the writer already retracted anyway).


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows 7
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    ...even if Thor has always been "bulletproof" since inception (you know, withstanding lasers and far more powerful attacks), and during the late 80s and early 90s where there were specific instances that bullets actually hit him and was never injured...and of course during JMS's run. And now, he is officially bulletproof, even if he has always been (except for that one Black Panther issue, which the writer already retracted anyway).

To say he was "bulletproof" since inception is a lie pure and simple. To say he now is, however, is true. 

Also, for the hundredth time, using laser, Hulk punches or god knows what else but bullets, to support Thor always being bulletproof is a fallacy in it's purest form. This was discussed to death several times before and every time someone, often me, had to remind the person making the statement you made above that the nature of the attack was the key not it's power. A lot like WW who too had issues with bullets despite her standing up to stuff a LOT more powerful than mere bullets. It also goes WAY before KB as he himself already explained it several times. Before the chain mail Thor debut, Defalco's story was the exception not the norm. An exception that all fans were happy to see, but an exception none the less.

Again, I will refer you to the last thread on the topic. Here





Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Mighty_Thor




To say that Thor has always been bulletproof is not a lie. Name one instance...just one...in a Thor comic where bullets actually harmed him.  Not one issue.  And yet he has withstood much worse.
So, YOU had to remind any one bringing up the argument of more powerful attacks...etc...The reason this topic has had this much traction is because YOU kept on being devil's advocate.  You can disagree, sure, but if you are the only (or often the one) who keeps on bringing it up, then what does that make you?
 
Here is the inherent flaw with the "nature of the attack as the key and not the power" argument...the thing is, Thor has no weakness against bullets.  Name one instance...just one...where that was mentioned in a Thor comic.  None.  Only Kurt Busiek (and Tom Brevoort, to support his pal) tried to make that stuff up.  Prior to them, there were no mention whatsoever about Thor being allergic to bullets.  Now, you keep on bringing this flawed logic...hmmmm...I wonder why.  Could it be, anything to bring Thor down?  Or just a difference of opinion?  Any opinion is welcome, but it should be supported by something concrete...like say...printed in comics...not just some supposition of Kurt Busiek and Tom Brevoort (the latter having been wrong about a lot of things lately)....Just name one instance where it's written that Thor is allergic to bullets...or he was harmed by a bullet in a Thor comic...come on, put me in my place, i dare you.
 
About Wonder Woman...her predicament is not actually relevant to Thor.  The thing is, I read a John Byrne comic explaining WW's durability, where he basically stated that pointed objects like a javelin or a bullet can pierce her skin, but she can take blunt attacks (like a punch) because she is tough.  She has often been injured by lasers and fire.  She was instantly burned by a mere second burst from a Martian heat vision, and was instantly KOed.  Thor on the other hand have taken Superman's heat vision full blast and walked through it, not even using his hammer to shield himself....i say that proves Thor is far more durable than Wonder Woman, or Captain Marvel (who has always been written going into shock everytime Supes would tag him with heat vision, even a low-level one...come on, you know this).  Besides, whatever WW is, or is not, has zero relevancy concerning Thor, since, one- different characters,  two- different comic companies, three- different back story.  If Thor is somehow a lump of clay made flesh by Asgardian magic and imbued by the Asgardian gods with portions of their power, even then Wonder Woman's durability would still be irrelevant concerning Thor's.
 
You can disagree all you want, and you can reply everyday, that doesn't make you correct.  You do realize that just because you posted the last reply doesn't mean you are the winner here, right?  This is a message board with various opinions...sometimes, it's better to live and let live.  But by your own admission, you keeo on pointing how Thor was not bulletproof...well, that is kind of pathetic, really, and bordering on obssession.  People need not agree with you, you know.
 


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows 7
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



We could have avoid all this retyping and finally leave the past behind... but no, we can't do that now can we?


    Quote:
    To say that Thor has always been bulletproof is not a lie. Name one instance...just one...in a Thor comic where bullets actually harmed him.  Not one issue.  And yet he has withstood much worse. [/quote]

Your mistake here is thinking only bullets shown harming Thor can undermine your stance. You are wrong. It's true JIM #100 doesn't show Thor bleeding after taking a bullet. However, it does show us Thor fleeing from cop's bullets BECAUSE, as the text explicitly say, he wasn't safe from them.

Any reasonable person would definitely not think it's a given Thor was always, from inception, bullet proof after reading that. There was also the reference KB made to support his view regarding this topic. Heck even the ONE clear example of Thor taking actual bullets still left welts on him. So much for him having always been bulletproof as oppose to bullet resistant.


    Quote:
    So, YOU had to remind any one bringing up the argument of more powerful attacks...etc...The reason this topic has had this much traction is because YOU kept on being devil's advocate.  You can disagree, sure, but if you are the only (or often the one) who keeps on bringing it up, then what does that make you?

Well, 2 things explain why I'm so aggressive about that topic and I WILL continue to be unless I have someone who actually stop playing on words and provides me with actual facts proving me wrong:

1) I don't like lies.

2) I already invested a lot of lines on that topic in the past so I kinda resent it when people decide to ignore what I took time to come up with.

I don't disagree with your stance BECAUSE I want to. I  disagree with it BECAUSE it has no leg to stand on considering what we know.


    Quote:
    Here is the inherent flaw with the "nature of the attack as the key and not the power" argument...the thing is, Thor has no weakness against bullets.  Name one instance...just one...where that was mentioned in a Thor comic.  None.  Only Kurt Busiek (and Tom Brevoort, to support his pal) tried to make that stuff up.  Prior to them, there were no mention whatsoever about Thor being allergic to bullets.  Now, you keep on bringing this flawed logic...hmmmm...I wonder why.  Could it be, anything to bring Thor down?  Or just a difference of opinion?  Any opinion is welcome, but it should be supported by something concrete...like say...printed in comics...not just some supposition of Kurt Busiek and Tom Brevoort (the latter having been wrong about a lot of things lately)....Just name one instance where it's written that Thor is allergic to bullets...or he was harmed by a bullet in a Thor comic...come on, put me in my place, i dare you.

 
As proven by JIM #100 what you say here is utmost BS. I'm sorry but what you pretend doesn't exist, does exist and on top of it was not written by KB but by Thor's creator. Are you back in your place now?

Of course, it's a lot easier to say I want to bring Thor down!! I'm a troll! isn't that obvious? Screw the scans supporting me or KB. Only you, who is a true Thor fan, can speak the truth. Me? I'm a hater. 


    Quote:
    About Wonder Woman...her predicament is not actually relevant to Thor.  The thing is, I read a John Byrne comic explaining WW's durability, where he basically stated that pointed objects like a javelin or a bullet can pierce her skin, but she can take blunt attacks (like a punch) because she is tough.  She has often been injured by lasers and fire.  She was instantly burned by a mere second burst from a Martian heat vision, and was instantly KOed.  Thor on the other hand have taken Superman's heat vision full blast and walked through it, not even using his hammer to shield himself....i say that proves Thor is far more durable than Wonder Woman, or Captain Marvel (who has always been written going into shock everytime Supes would tag him with heat vision, even a low-level one...come on, you know this).  Besides, whatever WW is, or is not, has zero relevancy concerning Thor, since, one- different characters,  two- different comic companies, three- different back story.  If Thor is somehow a lump of clay made flesh by Asgardian magic and imbued by the Asgardian gods with portions of their power, even then Wonder Woman's durability would still be irrelevant concerning Thor's.

Of course WW can't be relevant. Do you imagine what that would mean? Sadly for you she is relevant because it does demonstrate quite nicely that in comics, the power of an attack isn't all that matter. She can take more than bullets, but she still has trouble eating them. Yes, Thor has taken a lot worse, but except for ONE instance, and even so a not very impressive one all things considered, all previous dealings with bullets were resolved with avoidance by Thor. Some avoidance were outright stated to be because the attacks were threatening. None before, save ONE, directly had Thor proving otherwise. That is reality. That I'm a troll or a hater doesn't change that fact. But you would know all about it had you read the previous thread.
 

    Quote:
    You can disagree all you want, and you can reply everyday, that doesn't make you correct.  You do realize that just because you posted the last reply doesn't mean you are the winner here, right?  This is a message board with various opinions...sometimes, it's better to live and let live.  But by your own admission, you keeo on pointing how Thor was not bulletproof...well, that is kind of pathetic, really, and bordering on obssession.  People need not agree with you, you know.
     

I sure can, I do disagree,  and don't forget that  what you just said also applies to you. Saying stuff isn't a proof you are correct. However, showing a scan of JIM#100 with Thor fleeing bullet BECAUSE  he wasn't safe from them is a lot better than just me saying so.

As for me being pathetic, well I suppose that makes two of us. I don't see you conceding anything despite having been shown wrong so spare me your I'm more mature act. Like I said, I have already invested a lot of time on that topic so I'm not ready to let it all go now just because someone feel he doesn't have to read a word I've said now or before. I let go of plenty of other thread all the time but some are harder to let go. You may disagree, but if you want to do so with the argumentation supporting you, you will have to work a lot harder than that. People don't have to agree with me, they have to support their arguments with evidences that can stand-up to mine. What you gave me so far is not solid at all. You play with words hoping to avoid some scans being valid. It's not working.




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Mighty_Thor




Well, your mistake is relying on one scan which neither support your argument nor undermine mine.
1) JIM #100 didn't show Thor being allergic to bullets.
2) JIM #100 didn't show being harmed by bullets.
3) Thor's statements..."luckily, i can deflect their shells with my enchanted mallet before they can strike me" and "I can fly to another part of the city where I will be safe from their bullets"....both never explicitly state that he is weakened by bullets. 
You do not like play on words?  neither do I.  Your only support regarding your position is that "well, Stan lee wrote these phrases you see...Thor flee from bullets...he's most likely not bullet proof.  Bah. That's just silly.  In a court of law, that is not even an evidence.  It's NOTHING.  Those statements by Thor can be interpreted several different ways, but given that it is Stan Lee, it's just for dramatic effect.  Would it have worked had Thor stated..."yeah coppers, your bullets are a joke, I am impervious to them, but I will fly anyway just to ponder why you are treating me like a criminal. me the son of odin, all-around good guy? Me, who is bulletproof!"  Get it?  Reading comics is alost art to you if you have to have everything spelled out for you.
 
And about my point "just saying so"...nope.  Read Thor's bulletproof goodness in several different posts somewhere (I am sure you have the time to search for them, since you are here preaching your dogma every single day).......It's just not me saying so....DeFalco, Roy Thomas and the writer who wrote the Bombadeers story, all show Thor taking on machine guns, grenade launchers and a gattling gun from an aircraft....so there are evidence showing Thor taking on bullets by three different writers before JMS....while there is not a single scan showing him being harmed by a bullet....I would take 3 evidence showing Thor being bulletproof, rather than one scan showing nothing other than Thor fleeing (more to ponder why he is being treated like a criminal).  Those are not "play on words"...there are actual scans....go and look for them...hop to it man.
 
And about the "pathetic part"...we are not alike.  The pathetic part is not the fact that we both do not concede...it's your need to make it your business to correct people who do not agree with you....that's pathetic.  If you follow this particular topic, I merely stated that the original poster meant "bullet resistant" and gave a short summary of how it came about.....then here you are with guns a blazing. Meh.  I have a lot more thing going for rather than being a message board freak.
 
And about Wonder Woman...her durability is not relevant to Thor's because they are different characters from different comic companies.  That is a fairly simple thing to grasp, i think.  No need to play on words....meh.   Besides, John Byrne succinctly explained her durability (as I am sure you have read that particular issue, since it's a landmark issue or something, it's been a while).  Whereas Thor, nope...no such explanation....unless you count those trading cards bios, where Thor's durability has always been listed as 6 (highest is 7)...that's gotta be greater than mere bulletproof.
 
You can disagree, sure....but I take comfort in the fact that in my extensive Thor collection, there is not one comic showing him being harmed by a bullet....while you can make your one panel "non-evidence" scan into your avatar for all i care.
 
I reject your premisem, your argument and your conclusion.  And i assume you do the same.  There really is nothing to be gained by re-typing everything.   And I do not have a need to change your mind.  Go and troll your way to all the topics, if you must.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows 7
swmcbf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,173


He doesnt say he  is isnt bulletproof but that he needs to get away from the bullets to figure out why he is being treated like a criminal.
 


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    He doesnt say he  is isnt bulletproof but that he needs to get away from the bullets to figure out why he is being treated like a criminal.

     

Then why use words like "safe" and "luckily". There aren't tons of ways to spin this one. His concern was the bullet when those words were used, not his possible criminal record.



Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
swmcbf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,173


Safe from being shot at doesnt mean from injury.Luckily no one else gets hurt from stray bullets.Spin less than interpretation in this case apparently.Do you REALLY think others opinions are only lies?


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    Safe from being shot at doesnt mean from injury.Luckily no one else gets hurt from stray bullets.Spin less than interpretation in this case apparently.Do you REALLY think others opinions are only lies?

Uh... no. His words were I'LL be safe. Not the pedestrian will be safe. What is it with this topic?




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



So, I'll make one a lot shorter and not answering you point by point. I'll go to the essential.

Your stance here in this thread, as well as the previous one not so long ago, is that there is nothing in Thor's past supporting him not being fully bulletproof BECAUSE no bullet was ever shown injuring him.

My answer to that was:

1) JIM#100  showing you it isn't so.

2) That you do not need to see Thor injured by a bullet to conclude your stance is compromised.Thor saying he isn't safe from the bullets does the job very well.

Your answer to that was:
1) It's only words that can mean anything we want.
2) It's all drama.. without anything dramatic at all.
3) Thor isn't WW.
4)You have only one example while I have 3.

My answer to that:

1) What the hell do you think it means? Try something creative. This is desperation on overdrive here. Luckily for you you have tons of people who are hoping you find something actually swallow-able to say to shut me down. But go on, humor me.

2)Where is the drama if you say the drama has no reason to exist anyway? Doesn't make tons of sense to speak of the danger of something if it's not dangerous one bit. There are limit to poor writing. It's insulting for the reader and also for the writer to say something like that. 

3)Thor isn't WW. We agree. I used WW not because she is Thor, but BECAUSE you, as well as several others before you, tried the "Thor has to be bulletproof since he can resist much more powerful attacks" line of argumentation.WW shows us that a character doesn't HAVE to be bulletproof BECAUSE she can resist more powerful attacks. Do I like it? Nope, not one bit. I always said so for WW. The problem is, it's still valid. Bottom line the "he can resist more so he has to..." argument is not a proof by itself.

4) You say I only have one example while you have several. The problem is, that's not quite true because I have more than that if only because KB also used a different argument than JIM#100, but you also used examples of missiles and grenades to "support" your stance that there were more than ONE instance of Thor being bulletproof. Like I already explained to you, missiles and grenades aren't bullets. If you want to counter me on my stance regarding the nature of the attack, you will have to use examples using the same nature of attack: bullets not missiles or god know what else. 

Also, since YOU say there was nothing in Thor's past supporting him being anything less than bulletproof, YOU have the burden of dismissing ANY proof to the contrary. Even ONE showing illustrating you wrong destroy your presumptions. The opposite isn't true because I only disagree with the claim there is nothing in Thor's past that can hint to another story. As you saw, there is.

As a final note I'll spare you my first reply about you not being pathetic ... unlike me that is...I'll simply point out that if I'm replying on the Thor board every day the time stamps sure fail to show it. Also, just to repeat myself once more, I do not let go easily of topic in which I have a history  in them. A topic like this one. If for you it's pathetic, then fine, I can live with that. However, if you do not like what I say, and since you aren't as pathetic as I am, you can always walk away like the adult you pretend to be. As far as I'm concerned, the only way I will walk away from THAT topic is if you beat me in the debate or if the mod close the thread. Otherwise, don't hold your breath. That being said, I guarantee you that IF you present me arguments that destroys mine I will gladly concede and change my tune . It's just that so far all you could do is try to play with word and pretend it's all false drama... if the situation was reverse, and your argumentation was mine, the whole board would be laughing at me HARD.







Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
swmcbf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,173


I dont know-it just reignites occasionally.Thor does say where Ill be safe from the bullets but I take that to mean safe place to determine what was going on.Different interpretation I guess.All those shots as he flew away couldnt miss.It has been a long time since I have read those issues.It would have carried more weight as an example if Thor had been hit and injured.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows XP
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786


It's a 50 year old reference from before Thor's abilities were established and it's not conclusive of anything. Maybe Thor was thinking like Blake. Maybe Thor hadn't tested his durability to bullets and was unsure. You can come up with many explanations.

In other words, it's weak. And that's essentially all the 'not bulletproof/resistant' crowd ever had.

We do know that whenever bullets hit Thor, they didn't do significant damage. Except for one incident with Busiek's fingerprints on it.



Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
bd2999

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

    So, I'll make one a lot shorter and not answering you point by point. I'll go to the essential.
    Your stance here in this thread, as well as the previous one not so long ago, is that there is nothing in Thor's past supporting him not being fully bulletproof BECAUSE no bullet was ever shown injuring him.
    My answer to that was:
    1) JIM#100  showing you it isn't so.
    2) That you do not need to see Thor injured by a bullet to conclude your stance is compromised.Thor saying he isn't safe from the bullets does the job very well.
    Your answer to that was:1) It's only words that can mean anything we want.2) It's all drama.. without anything dramatic at all.3) Thor isn't WW.4)You have only one example while I have 3.
    My answer to that:
    1) What the hell do you think it means? Try something creative. This is desperation on overdrive here. Luckily for you you have tons of people who are hoping you find something actually swallow-able to say to shut me down. But go on, humor me.
    2)Where is the drama if you say the drama has no reason to exist anyway? Doesn't make tons of sense to speak of the danger of something if it's not dangerous one bit. There are limit to poor writing. It's insulting for the reader and also for the writer to say something like that. 
    3)Thor isn't WW. We agree. I used WW not because she is Thor, but BECAUSE you, as well as several others before you, tried the "Thor has to be bulletproof since he can resist much more powerful attacks" line of argumentation.WW shows us that a character doesn't HAVE to be bulletproof BECAUSE she can resist more powerful attacks. Do I like it? Nope, not one bit. I always said so for WW. The problem is, it's still valid. Bottom line the "he can resist more so he has to..." argument is not a proof by itself.
    4) You say I only have one example while you have several. The problem is, that's not quite true because I have more than that if only because KB also used a different argument than JIM#100, but you also used examples of missiles and grenades to "support" your stance that there were more than ONE instance of Thor being bulletproof. Like I already explained to you, missiles and grenades aren't bullets. If you want to counter me on my stance regarding the nature of the attack, you will have to use examples using the same nature of attack: bullets not missiles or god know what else. 
    Also, since YOU say there was nothing in Thor's past supporting him being anything less than bulletproof, YOU have the burden of dismissing ANY proof to the contrary. Even ONE showing illustrating you wrong destroy your presumptions. The opposite isn't true because I only disagree with the claim there is nothing in Thor's past that can hint to another story. As you saw, there is.
    As a final note I'll spare you my first reply about you not being pathetic ... unlike me that is...I'll simply point out that if I'm replying on the Thor board every day the time stamps sure fail to show it. Also, just to repeat myself once more, I do not let go easily of topic in which I have a history  in them. A topic like this one. If for you it's pathetic, then fine, I can live with that. However, if you do not like what I say, and since you aren't as pathetic as I am, you can always walk away like the adult you pretend to be. As far as I'm concerned, the only way I will walk away from THAT topic is if you beat me in the debate or if the mod close the thread. Otherwise, don't hold your breath. That being said, I guarantee you that IF you present me arguments that destroys mine I will gladly concede and change my tune . It's just that so far all you could do is try to play with word and pretend it's all false drama... if the situation was reverse, and your argumentation was mine, the whole board would be laughing at me HARD.





Not going to argue with you, but I will say that I always personelly thought it was dumb there was any problem for Thor or WW with bullets. Conceptually it can make since as they are both very similar. Much more similar than many like to think (I find Thor to be much more interesting of a character than WW though), and I think part of it is that they are vulnerable to alot of the classic weapons. Swords, axes and so on. We clearly see their cultures using that sort of thing as tools to harm one another and they can be harmed by them. By extension it makes sense that bullets would hurt them. That said I think writters should have made it clear that these weapons are enchanted or something and made a difference between them and the mundane.

Things are what they are. I always thought it is a dumb debate. Same with WW, especially on the BB. The folks who downplay WW because a guy could just get a gun and shoot her sort of thing is just stupid. And I think some focus to much on it.

I know you know what you are doing but I would not even bother debating the point anymore. I think you have made your point well and not much more can be done. Just my two cents.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 on Windows 7
jazzbass6

 





Thor is resistant to conventional injury due to his dense physiology. Bullets = conventional weaponry. It does not say bullet proof but resistant (similar to when Hulk gets shoot)


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    It's a 50 year old reference from before Thor's abilities were established and it's not conclusive of anything. Maybe Thor was thinking like Blake. Maybe Thor hadn't tested his durability to bullets and was unsure. You can come up with many explanations.

    In other words, it's weak. And that's essentially all the 'not bulletproof/resistant' crowd ever had.

    We do know that whenever bullets hit Thor, they didn't do significant damage. Except for one incident with Busiek's fingerprints on it.


I disagree because what is at stake here is the validity of any statement saying that nothing existed prior to KB that could hint at Thor possibly not always having been bulletproof all the way to his inception. Nothing you propose here remove the fact JIM#100 is EXACTLY what many say doesn't exist prior to KB. You would have to be quite dishonest to reprimand anybody saying Thor wasn't always bulletproof after reading that issue. At the VERY least the burden of the proof would definitely be yours to shoulder.

Also, no I don't think it's weak because it state in no ambiguous ways that Thor didn't felt safe from handguns ammunition. Stating it's because Thor powers were not well define is what is weak. It would be like me saying Superman couldn't initially fly because his powers were still ill defined. That's laughable.He was initially jumping and then, inexplicably, he began to jump farther and farther until he was seen flying. That IS reality.

Finally, and for the last time I hope, there is no need for Thor to be hit by bullets to cripple the stance stating he was always bulletproof. What JIM#100 did is extremely efficient in that regard. If this was a Superman book, you would be laughing at me HARD for saying what you just say here. KB, decided to have Thor be KO by a special bullet, mind you, because he felt there was more evidence pointing to Thor not being outright impervious to that kind of attack than the opposite. The only time he was hit by bullets (not lasers or grenades or nukes) he still had welts and fans celebrate that events like they had won the world cup... that says a lot to anybody who wonder if Thor bulletproofness was always so clear all the way to day one. But that's me...




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    I dont know-it just reignites occasionally.Thor does say where Ill be safe from the bullets but I take that to mean safe place to determine what was going on.Different interpretation I guess.All those shots as he flew away couldnt miss.It has been a long time since I have read those issues.It would have carried more weight as an example if Thor had been hit and injured.

Don't you think you are working a little too hard for that one? Why is it outright impossible that, initially, Thor wasn't conceive bullet proof? Superman was initially jumping. So what? Is it shameful? He evolved into flying. I don't get the defensive reaction from all this as if it was a personal attack at Thor's glory. Ask yourself, would you accept the excuse you try to pull off here if it was about someone else and from someone else? Let's stop pretending. What is said is quite straightforward no? 




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:

      Quote:

      So, I'll make one a lot shorter and not answering you point by point. I'll go to the essential.
      Your stance here in this thread, as well as the previous one not so long ago, is that there is nothing in Thor's past supporting him not being fully bulletproof BECAUSE no bullet was ever shown injuring him.
      My answer to that was:
      1) JIM#100  showing you it isn't so.
      2) That you do not need to see Thor injured by a bullet to conclude your stance is compromised.Thor saying he isn't safe from the bullets does the job very well.
      Your answer to that was:1) It's only words that can mean anything we want.2) It's all drama.. without anything dramatic at all.3) Thor isn't WW.4)You have only one example while I have 3.
      My answer to that:
      1) What the hell do you think it means? Try something creative. This is desperation on overdrive here. Luckily for you you have tons of people who are hoping you find something actually swallow-able to say to shut me down. But go on, humor me.
      2)Where is the drama if you say the drama has no reason to exist anyway? Doesn't make tons of sense to speak of the danger of something if it's not dangerous one bit. There are limit to poor writing. It's insulting for the reader and also for the writer to say something like that. 
      3)Thor isn't WW. We agree. I used WW not because she is Thor, but BECAUSE you, as well as several others before you, tried the "Thor has to be bulletproof since he can resist much more powerful attacks" line of argumentation.WW shows us that a character doesn't HAVE to be bulletproof BECAUSE she can resist more powerful attacks. Do I like it? Nope, not one bit. I always said so for WW. The problem is, it's still valid. Bottom line the "he can resist more so he has to..." argument is not a proof by itself.
      4) You say I only have one example while you have several. The problem is, that's not quite true because I have more than that if only because KB also used a different argument than JIM#100, but you also used examples of missiles and grenades to "support" your stance that there were more than ONE instance of Thor being bulletproof. Like I already explained to you, missiles and grenades aren't bullets. If you want to counter me on my stance regarding the nature of the attack, you will have to use examples using the same nature of attack: bullets not missiles or god know what else. 
      Also, since YOU say there was nothing in Thor's past supporting him being anything less than bulletproof, YOU have the burden of dismissing ANY proof to the contrary. Even ONE showing illustrating you wrong destroy your presumptions. The opposite isn't true because I only disagree with the claim there is nothing in Thor's past that can hint to another story. As you saw, there is.
      As a final note I'll spare you my first reply about you not being pathetic ... unlike me that is...I'll simply point out that if I'm replying on the Thor board every day the time stamps sure fail to show it. Also, just to repeat myself once more, I do not let go easily of topic in which I have a history  in them. A topic like this one. If for you it's pathetic, then fine, I can live with that. However, if you do not like what I say, and since you aren't as pathetic as I am, you can always walk away like the adult you pretend to be. As far as I'm concerned, the only way I will walk away from THAT topic is if you beat me in the debate or if the mod close the thread. Otherwise, don't hold your breath. That being said, I guarantee you that IF you present me arguments that destroys mine I will gladly concede and change my tune . It's just that so far all you could do is try to play with word and pretend it's all false drama... if the situation was reverse, and your argumentation was mine, the whole board would be laughing at me HARD.



      Quote:



    Quote:
    Not going to argue with you, but I will say that I always personelly thought it was dumb there was any problem for Thor or WW with bullets. Conceptually it can make since as they are both very similar. Much more similar than many like to think (I find Thor to be much more interesting of a character than WW though), and I think part of it is that they are vulnerable to alot of the classic weapons. Swords, axes and so on. We clearly see their cultures using that sort of thing as tools to harm one another and they can be harmed by them. By extension it makes sense that bullets would hurt them. That said I think writters should have made it clear that these weapons are enchanted or something and made a difference between them and the mundane.



    Quote:
    Things are what they are. I always thought it is a dumb debate. Same with WW, especially on the BB. The folks who downplay WW because a guy could just get a gun and shoot her sort of thing is just stupid. And I think some focus to much on it.



    Quote:
    I know you know what you are doing but I would not even bother debating the point anymore. I think you have made your point well and not much more can be done. Just my two cents.


I think it IS dumb. I always thought so for WW as well BTW. I often said as much. However, it being dumb isn't the issue at all. Can you agree nothing before KB can provide any support to the claim Thor was not always bulletproof after seeing JIM#100? I can't. It's not hate, or me liking this. I do not. I think it's absurd and I'm glad it's gone. Honest. However, there is a ground to support what some pretend doesn't exist.  For some reason, it seem VERY important that Thor was bulletproof from get go. What does it change apart from removing a lot of vilification toward some writers and posters?

That being said, thanks for the word of advice.





Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    Thor is resistant to conventional injury due to his dense physiology. Bullets = conventional weaponry. It does not say bullet proof but resistant (similar to when Hulk gets shoot)


I have nothing against that claim. It doesn't invalidate anything I can come up with. I can agree with you.




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
jazzbass6




It was not my intent to invalidate anything, only to provide sources (i.e. Marvel's many Official Handbooks) that state Thor's resistances and to what. What was my intent was to diffuse some of the heat in the debate between you and Mighty _Thor


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786



    Quote:
    I disagree because what is at stake here is the validity of any statement saying that nothing existed prior to KB that could hint at Thor possibly not always having been bulletproof all the way to his inception.

This is what they call a straw man. The argument isn't whether there is any proof existent of Thor's vulnerability to bullets prior to Busiek, it's how strong that proof is, whether its stands up to scrutiny, and whether it should overshadow the clear-cut examples of Thor withstanding bullets.

Pointing to JiM #100 and resting your case is, quite simply, weak sauce. That issue occurred, what, 4-5 issues after Odin and the Asgardians dressed up as U.N. representatives to trick Loki?

Come on.



Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    It was not my intent to invalidate anything, only to provide sources (i.e. Marvel's many Official Handbooks) that state Thor's resistances and to what. What was my intent was to diffuse some of the heat in the debate between you and Mighty _Thor

 I thank you for doing so.



Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:

      Quote:
      I disagree because what is at stake here is the validity of any statement saying that nothing existed prior to KB that could hint at Thor possibly not always having been bulletproof all the way to his inception.

    This is what they call a straw man. The argument isn't whether there is any proof existent of Thor's vulnerability to bullets prior to Busiek, it's how strong that proof is, whether its stands up to scrutiny, and whether it should overshadow the clear-cut examples of Thor withstanding bullets.

    Pointing to JiM #100 and resting your case is, quite simply, weak sauce. That issue occurred, what, 4-5 issues after Odin and the Asgardians dressed up as U.N. representatives to trick Loki?

    Come on.

Come on yourself. I don't see how JIM can be weak in regard to the topic or how it's a straw man. I don't twist anybody's word to pretend I counter what he said. The one twisting a LOT of words and argument here isn't me. Not by a long shot.

The argument I oppose here is: Thor was bullet proof from day one (or inception if I have to use my opponent's own word). It's anything, but a fact is the problem and you guys apparently prefer providing all sort of ridiculous excuses rather than admit it looks exactly the way it is written. JIM #100 strongly support the idea it wasn't always the case because it clearly tell the reader Thor was careful to avoid being hit and that he wasn't safe. 

Also, even the old OHOTMU entry on Thor doesn't dissipate anything about it as you can read:

POWERS AND ABILITIES 
Strength: Thor possesses Class 100 strength, enabling
him to lift (press) over 100 tons. Thor's strength is
doubled when he wears his enchanted belt of strength. Known
superhuman powers: Thor possesses the superhuman physical
attributes of an Asgardian, but as the son of Odin, lord of
the Asgardians, and Jord, elder goddess of the Earth, his
strength, endurance, and resistance to injury are greater
than those of the vast majority of his race. Like all
Asgardians, Thor is extremely long-lived (although not
immortal like the Olympians) superhumanly strong (the
average Asgardian male can lift about 30 tons over his head;
Thor can lift over 100 tons above his own), is immune to all
Earthly diseases, and is resistant to conventional injury.
(Asgardian flesh and bone is about three times as dense as
similar human tissue, contributing to the Asgardians'
superhuman strength and weight.) Thor's Asgardian metabolism
gives him far greater than human endurance at all physical
activities.

Even if I already know you will all brush aside the OHOTMU like so much dirt under a carpet (knowing full well many would embrace it if it was saying what they want it to say), it still add to the burden of the proof that things were not always like many would like them to be. Being resistant to conventional injury with tissues 3x denser than humans is hardly a strong evidence of complete bulletproofness like we can now see.

Also, as KB said before "He doesn't act as if he's bulletproof, he doesn't talk as if he's bulletproof, and we've seen his skin cut by blades. He says guns can kill him, and I'll take him at his word.

He also comment on Thor#480 and why he think that issue is the exception and not the norm. I don't think his reasoning is all that bad. At the very least, it has merit. There are also other source material he reference elsewhere, I think it was the last Viking, but I think you get the idea there is a solid ground for anyone doubting Thor was always bulletproof. Heck, even Thor#480 doesn't show us a bulletproof guy in the traditional sense of the word and it was the pinnacle of Thor vs bullets before the chain mail era we now have.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you and if anything is weak it's what you try here. If it was about Superman jumping there wouldn't even be a discussion. People would be laughing at me for trying what you do and with good reason.




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786



    Quote:
    Come on yourself. I don't see how JIM can be weak in regard to the topic or how it's a straw man.

Then let me explain it to you.

1) It's a straw man because you are saying the pro-bulletproof argument is that there is zero evidence that Thor wasn't bulletproof prior to Kurt Busiek and are arguing against that. This has never been the case, and anyone suggesting this was never relevant to the debate. The argument is -- and has always been -- that the vast majority of evidence suggests that Thor is bulletproof, and that every pre-KB example of Thor taking artillery backs this up.

2) JiM #100 is weak evidence because it takes Thor from a time when his abilities were barely established. When super-ventriliquism and hand-lightning were in play. When Loki had a vulnerability to water.

The OHOTMU is not evidence of anything, so I promptly snipped that part of your argument. Whether or not it would touted as proof if it supported the bulletproof argument, it simply isn't canon.


    Quote:
    He also comment on Thor#480 and why he think that issue is the exception and not the norm.

Yeah, he said it was an artistic mistake, while ignoring the two or three other incidents of Thor (or Thunderstrike) taking bullets. He stopped researching at THOR #480... missing THOR #486, an issue of Thunderstrike, and (IIRC) an issue of Daredevil.

BTW, someone please punch the person who enabled 'fancy font effects' for this board.



Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008





    Quote:
    1) It's a straw man because you are saying the pro-bulletproof argument is that there is zero evidence that Thor wasn't bulletproof prior to Kurt Busiek and are arguing against that. This has never been the case, and anyone suggesting this was never relevant to the debate. The argument is -- and has always been -- that the vast majority of evidence suggests that Thor is bulletproof, and that every pre-KB example of Thor taking artillery backs this up.


Sorry but it's false on both account.

First, in THIS thread, I debate vs a guy who said and I will quote "And now, he is officially bulletproof, even if he has always been (except for that one Black Panther issue, which the writer already retracted anyway)." JIM #100 is before the black Panther story and it does cripple the claim it ALWAYS was  like he said it was. So for that part there is ZERO straw man at all.

Second, even if we pretend the argument was always that there were MORE pointing toward bulletproofness than toward the opposite I still do not agree for the already explained reason I, and KB, presented on the topic. There aren't more on the side of bulletproofness because the bulk of what is presented, that I know of, isn't about bullets but about lasers and missiles or Hulk punches. The ONE bullet showing the other side has, that I know of, is what KB refers as the anomaly and more a showing of bullet resistance to begin with. So again, no straw man here either unless I miss something.

One way or the other I disagree. This is all old stuff to me and I suggest you click on the link I provided before to read what has been said before on that topic. The simple fact that polemic ever came to exist should ring a lot of bells. That being said, If you have anything new I'll gladly read it.


    Quote:
    2) JiM #100 is weak evidence because it takes Thor from a time when his abilities were barely established. When super-ventriliquism and hand-lightning were in play. When Loki had a vulnerability to water.

I'm sorry but how does that "argument" help you in this thread? Was JIM#100 a part of Thor history yes or no? Yes. So does the claim Thor was ALWAYS bulletproof before KB true knowing that? No. 

Again, is someone saying Superman was jumping at first using a weak argument because he would eventually fly therefore his powers weren't "well defined"? It's ridiculous. Thor was shooting lightnings from his hands in his debut so what? We are talking about the character all the way down to his inception aren't we? Yes, we are. So what is your point again? I find it funny that you point my argument as the weak one? Yours sound desperate.


    Quote:
    The OHOTMU is not evidence of anything, so I promptly snipped that part of your argument. Whether or not it would touted as proof if it supported the bulletproof argument, it simply isn't canon.
What a surprise 

It's not like I didn't I expected that. I will however say this: being an official Marvel product it still at least provide circumstantial evidences. Granted it's not enough on it's own, but coupled with JIM, Thor's behavior and speech  vs bullets as well as other instances where his life was said to be in danger by very low level of attacks, relatively speaking of course, it does seem to add it's weight to the evidence things weren't always the same. But I'll leave it at at that.


    Quote:
    Yeah, he said it was an artistic mistake, while ignoring the two or three other incidents of Thor (or Thunderstrike) taking bullets. He stopped researching at THOR #480... missing THOR #486, an issue of Thunderstrike, and (IIRC) an issue of Daredevil.

You are misquoting him here tho. He didn't say it was an artistic mistake. He said : "To decide that the scene is correct requires us to take large chunks of plot out of earlier stories (Hogun doesn't get wounded, the Asgardians have no reason to be impressed by automatic weapons and use them to invade Hel, etc.). But to decide that the scene is slightly incorrect requires only two minor fixes"

The artistic mistakes is only what he propose as a fix to solve the continuity problem Thor #480 represent from his POV. Doing the opposite is a lot harder without retconing a lot of stuff is what he says.

That being said, what issues are you referring to and are they before or after his BP story? You might have the proof you need if you were able to show me what you are speaking of. I could concede to you if those issues show what you pretend they do. No missiles, lasers or grenade tho. Bullets. You have a shot here don't waste it.


    Quote:
    BTW, someone please punch the person who enabled 'fancy font effects' for this board.
Someone might not like what you say here, but I must admit I have problems of my own with the quote system sometimes.




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786


This board ate my response, so I'm just going to post the scans. Enjoy.





Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    This board ate my response, so I'm just going to post the scans. Enjoy.





I have 2 general ideas regarding your examples.

Those are all good and valid scans. However, after looking at them, I'm left wondering how much of the past it covers since they all seem, relatively speaking, recent. If it does question KB decision to have Thor KO by a bullet to some extend, because those instances were all prior to his story (right?), it still a far cry from covering all of Thor's past all the way to inception point. Which in other word doesn't help much the statement I oppose in THIS thread.

Also, even in one of your scan, we have Thunderstrike saying " Uru hammer can handle the heavy artillery", which strongly imply his resistance to such attacks had a limit, or wasn't complete. It's very ambiguous to the point we don't know if what hit him was heavy artillery or left-over weaponry since he is struck after his hammer barrage routine that destroy or not the weapons. Why does it matter you ask? It matters because in Busiek's story, Thor was shot by a powerful and special gun using vibranium ammo, and it only temporarily KO him... which is pretty much in the same vein as someone needing his hammer to deal with heavier caliber, or who end up with welts when he take hit from them. So, in that regard, even if one can say KB did missed  some examples (maybe he knew too, and decided it was not representative enough compared to the rest, who know?), he still delivers something in the range of what your examples has provided all thing considered. So I'm left wondering, why is he so hated for that story?

Anyway, I'll partially concede that the numbers of bulletproof scans were more numerous past some point in Thor's history, and that the said point was earlier than I thought. However, like I said previously, it's not covering Thor all the way to inception point at all. It took time for him to have those clearer examples, and one can understand why there was a polemic if what we have here was the best and it came so late in the light of  what we had up to that point.




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Jonathanos


Member Since: Mon Feb 15, 2010
Posts: 2,301



    Quote:

    KB, decided to have Thor be KO by a special bullet, mind you, because he felt there was more evidence pointing to Thor not being outright impervious to that kind of attack than the opposite.


It was actually Priest who wrote the scene.  As I recall from Busiek's (many) discussions on this topic:
 
Priest spoke with Brevoort and Busiek about shooting an Avenger in the head with a grazing shot and Busiek suggested shooting Thor directly in the head because 1) a grazing shot was a cliché and 2) Thor would survive because the bullet would bounce (or flatten) against his skull.
 
Busiek later said there was no discussion of a special bullet.  (Nothing in the issue suggests it was a special bullet, iirc.)  He also said that he didn't believe it should have kayoed Thor.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows 7
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:

      Quote:

      KB, decided to have Thor be KO by a special bullet, mind you, because he felt there was more evidence pointing to Thor not being outright impervious to that kind of attack than the opposite.



    Quote:
    It was actually Priest who wrote the scene.  As I recall from Busiek's (many) discussions on this topic:

     
    Priest spoke with Brevoort and Busiek about shooting an Avenger in the head with a grazing shot and Busiek suggested shooting Thor directly in the head because 1) a grazing shot was a cliché and 2) Thor would survive because the bullet would bounce (or flatten) against his skull.
     
    Busiek later said there was no discussion of a special bullet.  (Nothing in the issue suggests it was a special bullet, iirc.)  He also said that he didn't believe it should have kayoed Thor.

In that case, I see less and less reason to hate the guy. His POV was clearly that Thor could handle bullets without fear for his life. The only thing was, it could pierce his skin and do some superficial damage instead of simply bouncing of his chest. 





Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786



    Quote:

    Busiek later said there was no discussion of a special bullet.  (Nothing in the issue suggests it was a special bullet, iirc.)  He also said that he didn't believe it should have kayoed Thor.


I distinctly remember Busiek saying he advised Preist that might Thor pass out from the shock.



Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
Norvell


Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786


JiM #100 was indicative that a Thor was wary of bullets at one time (which is easily explained), but it's not conclusive. So the evidence is pretty clear cut in favour of Thor being bulletproof. This is excluding all the evidence of Thor taking lacerating/piercing damage without bleeding.

Busiek is 'hated', for lack of a better word, because he launched an insult on intelligence against Thor fans.



Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
1 2 3  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software