The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
In Reply To
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 08:18:01 pm EST (Viewed 145 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 07:15:47 pm EST (Viewed 107 times)

    Even Busiek's Thor worst depiction *IS* resistant to bullet as he only sustain superficial damage or the non-lethal kind.

Busiek's opinion of Thor is that bullets are potentially lethal to him, otherwise he wouldn't block them.

    If we use your definition then, yes, he was definitely wrong as far as I'm concerned. However, if we use mine it's a whole other story.

The term 'bulletproof' is used loosely, just as invulnerability is. Superman isn't invulnerable, even though he's touted as such. He is -- much like Thor -- highly resistant to conventional injury.

    It's a tad hard to swallow he would  knows how to fly and is good enough with his hammer to deflect bullets but isn't aware of his durability to the point we see him act, and talk, like he does here.

It's not hard to swallow at all. At the same time he was fearful of bullets, he felt confident that he could withstand a ground-zero atomic explosion.

    Maybe if a latter issue reveal something about JIM#100 or the character regarding his durability knowledge I'd be ready to concede again.

Superman couldn't stop a falling globe weighing no more than a dozen tons.

    Thor being surprised he can stand-up to bullets later or something like that would do nicely. Otherwise it's way too far fetch for my taste. Sorry.

No worries I'm not trying to sell you anything. I'm just laying out the facts, and you're welcome to keep dry humping JiM #100 or accept what has been presented to you.

    It is if you use story 26 years more recent to explain something 26 years earlier

Fortunately I'm not doing that.

    I'll let you know if that happen. I suggest you worry about yourself. That being said, I can't see  this ending well by looking at the thread so far.

I agree. You keep raising the volume, Mr. Triple exclamation point.

    Why do I HAVE to disagree with Busiek again?

Because you keep invoking his name, his argument, and are his staunch defender in this thread.

    Possibly bleeding from bullet and only showing welts is very different yet they both aren't "proof" level.

And while Superman may be tough, he isn't anywhere close to being invulnerable. He's not even bulletproof, to be honest.

    My point was, there is an historical reason why welts were "acceptable" for many 
    Thor fans. As a Superman fan, I can assure you NO fan would think it would be acceptable in the light of that character's history unless he is severely depowered because it has always been the very least level of durability for him.

I'm still not seeing your point. Is this about Thor vs. Superman for you or something? Is that your dog in the game?

    Thor, OTOH, it was his celebrated best vs bullets. Best as in the matter was really ambiguous before that. 26 years of ambiguity that was happily greeted with welts.

It's not a matter of being greeted happily, it's about accepting the evidence. 

Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
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