The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 08:33:23 pm EST (Viewed 192 times)
Reply Subj: The bottom line
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 05:53:05 pm EST (Viewed 191 times)

    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
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software