Wrong, it blew up, ground zero was turned to glass. The effect was that the US knew a bomb like it would level whatever city it was dropped on.
....you're not getting this.
I'm talking before that. Before it blew up. Before it was tested. Before it was used.
When it hadn't actually done anything, when it hadn't exploded, IT. WAS. FEATLESS.
And while it was featless, nobody actually knew it's full capabilities.
Considering the brainpower they used on developing it, I am pretty sure they more than a theory.
No, it was a theory. That's how scientific progress is made. There's a theory, it is developed, it is tested, and then it's tested to see if the theory was true or not.
Neither do you seem to have any evidence it's actually as powerful as you want it to be.
It's powerful enough to kill the critter when shoved down their throats.
The critters in the movie seemed to be able to take it with little difficulty or harm before GZ decided to feed the breath directly into one of the critters gullet.
Yes, and they have feats of tanking actual missiles and stuff with even less difficulty.
So what's stopping Godzilla from shoving atomic breath right down their throat?
The Roman Empire doesn't exist either, yet you don't see me claiming they didn't control the entire western world at one point. The point is that the Kraken's feats are in the past, and what it did back then is why people are so terrified of it by the time of Clash.
That's a terrible point though.
Because there is PROOF that the Roman Empire existed. There is PROOF of the things they did, of the control they had.
The same can not be said of the Kraken.
Except they dont really, the Olympians of those movies did very little on screen. The best was probably Zeus staggering Kronos with a blast of lightning, the rest is simply that the Olympians are who they are and that we the audience accept that they are powerful.
Except in the second movie where both Hades and Zeus go around one-shotting a whole bunch of enemies once they decide to work together.
There's always that. An actual, legitimate feat displaying their power.
That Zeus rules Olympus, Hades is stuffed into the underworld and Kronos & Co. have been playing statue since the Kraken was added to the fight clearly speaks for itself. Otherwise they (or rather Zeus) wouldn't have asked Hades to create such a thing that could end up threatening him.
The Kraken was made with Hades own power, so obviously it's not as powerful as Zeus, because Zeus himself is equal to Hades if not superior in power, and the Kraken would only be a fraction of that.
But again, not that this matters, as what you're saying is again speculation, and thus is pointless.
See above.
It's been your argument from page 1 of this that the Kraken has no feats, and now you are doing a 180, are you that desperate to be correct?
Because that is literally the only point I've been making since Page 1, so yes, I am doing a 180. And that point is no less correct now as it was then.
However, it was YOU who felt the need to try to demean my point, a point that most users on here with a lick of common sense have accepted.
A featless character cannot be effectively debated for, because you have no real way to back up any of their attributes.
That right there is a true statement, whether you like it or not.
The Kraken was never featless, thats been part of my points since the beginning of this.
No no no. Incorrect.
You're point from the beginning of this was "Your statement about featless characters is wrong." That was your point from the VERY FIRST post you made in reply to mine.
You can't change sides now that your argument is failing in its legitimacy.
The thing is that you consider it featless, because none of the feats are on display the same way GZ fighting two monsters are. You've stuck to whats on the screen and ignore the context.
I'm not ignoring the context. I specifically asked you to show me where it even stated, in the context, that Kraken actually beat the Titans. Not that it was created for the Titans, but that it beat the Titans. You failed to do so.
And no it isn't, because even when a character has no feats to go on, it will still have basic stats.
That's pure assumption. If a character has no feats, you don't know what his stats are. He could be frail as a human, or he could be as strong as Superman. You don't know.
From those basic stats you will, or should, be able to estimate just what that character is capable of before it's done anything.
Very wrong.
Like you were pretty certain Godzilla could knock over a building in the 2014 movie well before you bought a ticket, right?
Noooo, I had no idea that Godzilla could knock over a building, because I hadn't seen the movie yet. I didn't even know how big he was in comparison to the buildings, or how strong.
So the answer is no, I didn't know. Now was I pretty certain? Yes. Being "pretty certain" is the exact same as making an assumption.
Either you know, or you don't know. There's no "kinda know."
I know full well what it means, which is why I am repeating that it is a "meaningless" line that borders on intentional ignorance.
And you would be one of the few people that actually thinks that, so call me ignorant if you want, but all logic points to this statement being true: If you don't know anything about something, there's no accurate way to completely ascertain it's capabilities.
Jmarshmallow
Log in to comment