Who Would Win (Film Edition)

TDKR Bane vs Depowered Thor

Thor easily.

The Avengers versus Gypsy Danger?

I would think Thor could use his hammer like an EMP.

The Avengers. Presumably, as they're up against something considerably tougher in the next movie. Gypsy Danger is just a big mecha - it can be physically damaged, and it would take heavy hits pretty fast from Thor's hammer and lightning and Iron Man's weaponry, not to mention the Hulk's ability to smash it into little pieces.

The Hulk versus the flying Kaiju would be a more even fight, since Hulk can't fly.

edited 1st Jan '14 4:56:58 PM by WarriorEowyn

Maybe, but the size difference is pretty staggering. I see it as pretty even myself.

Gypsy Danger's weaponry and defenses are incredibly sophisticated and Iron Man's weaponry and armor just don't match up to being shot by a giant Plasma gun. Captain America, Black Widow, and Hawkeye pose no credible threat to the mech itself. Thor's hammer is strong, but as portrayed in the films I'm not convinced it could easily take down something as large and tough as a Jaeger. And I remember Gypsy being immune to EMP attacks anyway. The same goes for Hulk who is probably the biggest threat, but how fast can he beat on the mech before he's vaporized by plasma or stomped by a giant robot boot? One on one, it'd lopsided in Gypsy Danger's favor but all together I'd call it a wash. All of the Avenger's power together focused on one target gives them a decent chance at success but not a clear victory in my opinion

Kaiju would actually be even less of a threat. They're fleshly and dumb beasts who Iron Man's, Thor's, and Hulk's attacks are much more effective on. Hulk and Thor could just land on the thing while Iron Man plays biplane with it.

Hancock vs. Thor?

edited 1st Jan '14 6:13:17 PM by Mr.Didact

Gypsy is too slow to hit many of them and Hawkeye has some arrows that would do some damage.

Also, if Mjolnir can fly through an entire ship without slowing down, it could do considerable damage to Gypsy.

The problem is that the Avengers are used to fighting giant monsters, and Gypsy is basically a giant monster, albeit a robotic one.

Besides, Thor could just put Mjolnir on Gypsy, and it wouldn't be able to get up.

Hancock versus Thor would be an interesting fight, because they have similar powers.

I'd give my edge to Thor, because he has Mjolnir, and it is very powerful.

Batman vs. Spider-Man. Without prep time.

Are you deliberately trolling?

No. Why do you think so?

It's like me or you swatting flies. You may miss some of the time, but when you hit it that thing's gonna go down hard. Gypsy only has to hit them once to kill nearly all of them. Yeah, I can see Mjolnir doing quite a number on Gypsy but Gypsy has taken some really atrocious hits but kept on going. The only giant monsters the film!Avengers fought where those whale things and they weren't all that impressive. The main difference between Jaegers and Giant Monsters are the Rangers who are badasses all around. I have to concede it'd be a close fight either way though.

That'd be something to see Though that begs the question if Gypsy's pilots would be worthy enough to wield it I wonder what makes one worthy anyway?

Thor's biggest advantage is his Hammer. Hancock seems to be at least as strong and tough, probably more since he can stop a train with no damage and Thor can be hurt by a knife. Hancock is also much more mobile with his flight. I'm not sure how much the Hammer can hurt Hancock but he'd at least feel it. With the hammer I'd say Thor has an even chance, without it the edge lies with Hancock in my opinion.

The TDK v Marvel matchups that are in Marvel's favor?

TDK!Batman would most certainly get his ass whupped by Spider-man. Spider-man has powers and the spidey-sense which renders Batman's trademark tactics obsolete. And Batman's only advantage in many of his fights with metahumans is having prep-time, taking that away take away most of his chances. Add in the fact that TDK!Bats is nowhere near the badass Bats is in other media and he would clearly lose to the stronger, tougher, and more agile Spiderman.

But since Bats will be rubbing shoulders with Supes and Wondy in the next Mo S movie, we'll have to reevaluate then, since he'll probably receive several upgrades in skill level.

Mace Windu versus Qui-Gon Jinn? Samuel L. Jackson or Liam Neeson?

Because even the slightest passing knowledge of the characters would affirm that a no-prep battle is a curbstomp? One side has a major advantage in speed, strength, durability, range, and senses, the other. . . doesn't.

Those are all fair points, but they don't really change the fact that Thor can do major, jaeger-crippling, ranged attacks from out of the guy's effective reach. The only thing everyone else has to do is provide a few seconds of distraction and cover, and possibly not even that ( Thor can fly pretty fast, after all, and a jaeger is a big, easy to spot target even from miles away ).

Besides, the knife that he was stabbed with was made to hurt Asgardians.

Ergo, it was not a normal knife.

edited 2nd Jan '14 12:39:22 PM by BaconManiac5000

MCU Loki vs Composite Raimi/Webb Spider-Man?

There are a few instances where it is implied that any bladed weapon can hurt Thor, like in the second film when a marauder threw a spear at Thor and Sif supposedly saved his life by blocking it. I don't know if that was a special blade or an old stabby spear.

Point still stands that Hancock has demonstrated clear advantages in speed and mobility and is probably his better in strength.

It's hard to say. They seem to have at least near equal strength and durability, Loki is probably tougher however seeing as he could survive an explosion in his face. Spidey has greater agility and webs whereas Loki has his illusions. However Spidey's sense might alert him to the trickery, but perhaps only when Loki uses it for sneak attacks. Loki has more experience in hand-to-hand combat, combat with blades, and is generally more tricky then Spidey. I'd say it would be a wash unless Loki has his Spear which would give him an edge due to it's power.

I still don't know who would win between Mace and Qui-Gon.

My opinion: Loki seems more durable by far (rifle shots to the skin seem like paintball to him, small explosives hurt more and can launch him but he can still recover easily) and has a wider variety of tricks, with his magic and weapons. However, Spider-Man seems to be his superior in raw strength and reflexes- Loki's best reflex feat is catching an arrow, IIRC. His webs are also depicted as being quite powerful, at least enough to stun his opponent. He could run circles around Loki, and Loki's durability advantage doesn't seem big enough that Spider-Man can't significantly harm him with his hits. So I'm giving this one to Spider-Man.

Is Mace vs Windu counting the EU or not?

Fair enough.

I don't know much about the EU beyond a few animated shows so why not both with and without?

edited 2nd Jan '14 6:46:38 PM by Mr.Didact

Isn't Mace supposed to be like, the best Jedi fencer besides Yoda? I feel like he would win.

Eh, I can't really see Spider-man hurting Loki. Spider-man is stronger than Cap, but not *that* much stronger, whereas Loki takes hits regularly from Thor and keeps fighting. In an actual arm-wrestling match, I'm pretty sure Loki would win, too.

The bigger issue is speed. Spider-man is faster than Loki, by a fairly large margin. That won't let him beat Loki, but it could well allow him to occupy Loki for a really long time. Especially since his danger sense would likely allow him to dodge a lot of Loki's illusion tricks, at least until Loki figures out a way to mask himself from such ( if he can make himself invisible to Heimdall, I'm sure he can figure a way to make himself invisible to spider-senses ).

Black Widow (Marvel Cinematic Universe) vs Jason Bourne

Considering the feats she pulled off in Iron Man 2, Avengers, Winter Soldier, etc, in a straight combat Natasha would demolish Bourne.

However, when it comes to escaping, improvising, manipulating the environment to his advantage, Bourne seems to be superior and he could probably shoot Natasha in the back.

On the earlier post about Gipsy Danger vs Thor, If you've seen Age of Ultron, you know that Thor would one-shot the shit out of Gipsy. During the climax of the movie, Thor manages to vaporize an entire city to tiny bits of dust with a single lightning. As long as the fight is in a open field with no risk of civilian casualties, Thor got this easily.

It was technically those big reactor engines that were making the city fly that vaporized it, Thor and Iron Man just set it off. Though that was a pretty huge lighting bolt there at the end.

As long as alcohol isn't involved, Hancock would waste Thor. He already beat a weather controlling blond(e) and nothing seemed capable of hurting him. His only vulnerable places seem to be his hair and nails, those are mostly dead cells anyway and the latter were still tough enough to rend iron.

Oh, Hancock is capable of reaching escape velocity, which would allow him to easily dodge most of Thor's weather effects even if they could hurt him and can effect an area of the moon to the point it's visible from Earth.

Groot vs Hodor.

Who would win...in a rap battle?