The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To

Member Since: Mon Feb 15, 2010
Posts: 2,301
Subj: Re: I posit an interesting point to consider for Thor's "bulletproofness"...
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 12:44:18 am EST (Viewed 118 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I posit an interesting point to consider for Thor's "bulletproofness"...
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 12:15:52 am EST (Viewed 126 times)

Previous Post



      The Wrecker has a mystic aura that prevents bullets from hitting him.

    NOT ACCORDING TO OHBMU 1983-84 he doesn't (which is what Watcher and I have been discussing). He is "capable of withstanding the impact of a .45 cal. slug. His skin is 5.5 on the Mohs scale of hardness due to the augmentation his body (bone, muscle and flesh) received by Karnilla's magic. As I stated typical physical Asgardian attibutes. Thor is both Asgardian and Elder God.

I'm just saying the Handbook's wrong.

    CCA- For the most part, the bad guys were using energy weapons (i.e things that don't exist). Guns do and until the CCA went the way of the dodo in the late 70's/early 80's, real firepower was used on a limited basis.

    This is from the code:

    Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated

    The CCA prohibited the presentation of "policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions ... in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority." (Hence Thor "running" in JIM#100)

None of that means that characters can't be shot at or shown to be bulletproof. You still had characters like Hulk and Superman being shot. Even normal humans were shot-- they just weren't shown bleeding all over the place.

In JIM #100, Thor says he's lucky that he can deflect the bullets before they hit him and flies to another part of the city to be safe from further shots. The bullets were a threat to him.

So you are saying that the "OFFICIAL HANDBOOK" is wrong WHY exactly?.... because it WHAT... DISPROVES YOUR ARGUMENT?

This is the literature at the heart of the debate between Watcher and I, and since I seem to have found some evidence based on a character with similar resistance attributes to Thor and puts my position on even stronger ground- You cry fowl and that the OFFICIAL HANDBOOK is wrong?

Am I understanding this correctly???

Thor and the Asgardians are "resistant to conventional injury". Just in case you need the definition of "conventional" in this instance, here you go from Merriman & Webster:

Using means other than nuclear weapons or energy (i.e. BULLETS)