The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: But Thor's bullet-proofness has been established well before his new series.
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 at 03:07:34 am EST (Viewed 7 times)
Reply Subj: You are hopeless...
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 05:52:12 pm EST (Viewed 164 times)

Previous Post


      I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "proof" and resistant. If you say that Thor is bulletproof, that means no bullet can ever penetrate his skin. So a 50 cal uranium slug, or let's just say adamantium even, is fired from a gun worthy of Cable, does that mean it's no threat to Thor? Also, I think that when you say bulletproof, it also means that bullets won't hurt him at all. Just because they can't penetrate his skin doesn't mean they won't sting.

    You're exactly right! The debate should be if Thor is bullet-proof, or maybe just resitant to bullets. Some here are arguing that he could be killed by an ordinary conventional bullets- a la Wonder Woman. Now, conventional wisdom would tell you that a Heat-Seeking Missile has more destructive fire-power, and could just as easily pentrate an armored Tank as well 50 cal Uraniun slug.. Even further, a Gigantic Mortar Shell that could rip a Tank to shreds and could tear a gaping hole in the side of a BATTLE CRUISER- has potentially far more penetrating power than a 50 CA Uraniun slug- see Thor-#117..

First, to answer many here, I think it was quite obvious in this discussion that the use of "bullet-proof" had in mind 21th century conventional human bullets. Not super-duper indestructible and extraterrestrial ammunition that travel at many times the speed of light and beyond.  Nobody is totally bullet-proof period, but many are bullet-proof by our current human standards.

Second, as far as I'm concerned, it was only Thor's past that was suspicious in regard to him being "bullet-proof". Marvel seem to have made their mind once his new series began.

Finally, as you have been told SEVERAL times now, conventional wisdom using heat-seeking missiles argumentation is irrelevant in this topic. Utterly so. The same goes for the "explicit" excuse since those excuses weren't always there to begin with and for some characters they still aren't.

I think your main point is just JIM #100 and in those RARE instances which Thor had to block bullets...remember Thor, as a rule, fight more powerful foes than thugs with machine guns, so those instances (where he had to block bullets) are rare...
Let us look at your argument in another way...
You say it's "suspicious" whether Thor is bulletproof or not in the past because he has been shown to have concerns against them.  And that it's not the power of the attack but the nature which is at the crux of the issue (hence Thor can shrug off lasers and nuclear blasts, but not bullets) ....  Would that be a fair summary of your position?
If that is your point...what about those other instances which Thor has blocked lasers, and has shown concern against punches by powerful foes?  We know he can take them (from various examples).  But since he blocked them, does that mean Thor is also not laser-proof?  But we know he is durable enough to withstand conventional lasers, has been to the sun, and can survive the harsh cold environment of space.  But at some point or another, in the past, writers have written him to have some concerns against them.  Would that, in itself, prove that in the past Thor is somehow not laser-proof, or that he can somehow not be durable enough to take on hulk-level punches?
The point is ridiculous.
I can accept the idea that Thor is not bulletproof, if in the past, it was explicitly stated that a bullet is one of his weaknesses.  If that's the case, then i can accept that the other high-end showings of Thor (nuclear blasts, lasers, etc) are irrelevant.  But the thing is, there is no such thing.  It's like Superman, other conventional weapons will not harm him, but throw a kryptonite rock at him, he is pudding.  In that case, other high-end conventional attacks are irrelevant, because we are talking about his weakness to kryptonite.  With Thor, there is no such limitation established.  You just have JIM#100 showing Thor at one time chose to flee from cops shooting at him (which I have already told you, he seemed more puzzled why they were shooting at him, than concern from bullets), which is not an evidence in itself.  It's just a vague portrayal, which establishes nothing.
Meanwhile, there are concrete showings, in the past, and in the present, where Thor is bulletproof.  So, I take more stock in that, rather than some vague one panel thing.