The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To

Member Since: Mon Feb 15, 2010
Posts: 2,301
Subj: There isn't, really.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:25:36 pm EST (Viewed 8 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Well, i can't speak for Oliva...but...
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 04:01:52 pm EST (Viewed 450 times)

Previous Post

    ...Thor surviving all those high powered attacks is a good evidence to show his durability. Now, if you have some evidence which show that a bullet injured him, then there is proof that he is not bulletproof. But the thing is, there is none. And there are evidence showing that he is.

There is. There's Thor's own statements and behavior and the Black Panther issue.

All the things he has taken would be sufficient evidence if he did not act as though bullets were a threat and had not stated that bullets were a threat. Then I could write off the BP issue as a mistake and that'd be that.

    Citing Wonder Woman is not really relevant because she and Thor are different characters from different comic companies. Different character treatements can be attributed to different writers having different take on the same character. WW surviving superman-level blows has been explained...she can take blunt attacks, but not pointed ones. WW surviving a nuclear explosion is a one-time thing, which I have not seen. But her overall showing points to the case that she is not durable to withstand even a martian heatvision. To all of a sudden being able to survive a nuclear explosion is kind of incredible. That could be what Tom Brevoort would call a "mistake". But I have no strong opinion about WW either way. She may or may not be bulletproof. That's not my concern. Thor, however, is. I say he is bulletproof because he has been shown to be such, with no contrary evidence.

Wonder Woman is a character who survives attacks from powerful beings, powerful explosions, being hit by various weapons, yet is vulnerable to bullets.

It's a perfect of example of "How is it possible?"

First, the Roy Thomas issues happened before Black Panther. So, we have contradicting depictions of Thor. But, the Black Panther issue by written by someone who had no idea about Thor's durability (and was in fact advised by Kurt Busiek). I think the Thor depiction by Roy Thomas, who has written Thor before, and one of the definitive writer of the character, carries greater weight than the Black Panther writer.

Second, the writer of Black Panther said that the artist goofed, and that the weapon was supposed to be high-tech, and the bullet was actually vibranium piercing. I do not know if that is true, but that is one of the explanations given.

Third, the Black Panther issue caused such a controversy because up until that point, Thor was just accepted as bulletproof.

Fourth, Thor didn't actually say that bullets are a threat to him. He just blocks them so he can be safe from them. Not that - "oooh, i must block them or else I am doomed". Knowing Stan Lee's writing style, he intended that more for effect than anything else.

Fifth, there are enough issues by various writers supporting that Thor is bulletproof, so as far as I am concerned, i am already satisfied by that fact.

Sixth, Wonder Woman is a different character from, it may be possible for her to be uber in other things except for bullets, but that does not necessarily follow for Thor, unless there is some sort of showing that he is allergic to bullets.

Anyway, again, agree to disagree.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows 7
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