Avengers Cost NYC $160 Billion in Damages

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Thor could bring in some Asgardian jewels to pay it off, or Stark.

Reminds me of Ghostbusters 2. Somehow people have convinced themselves being saved from complete destruction was not worth the property damage and sue the heroes blind. It just wouldn't have felt quite as complete without that jerk at the end demanding the Avengers and SHIELD pay up.

Thor: Aye, 'tis true sir honourable human judge. This man verily dost possess no dick.

Well when one has to choose between "160 billion in damages" and "subjugation of the human race by aliens commanded by Loki," I think I would choose the latter.

ThePenguinKnight:
Thor could bring in some Asgardian jewels to pay it off, or Stark.

Stark would easily be able to cover it with the seemingly unlimited amount of money that he manages to rake in. At the very least he should be able to get a decent 200 billion from a private investor for his most recent suit and delivery system and about 150 billion for "Suit-case"

knhirt:

I think the mythology is actually pretty clear when it comes to nemeses. As I interpret it, Thor's nemesis would be Loki and Angrbo­a'a son, Mi­gar­sormr - the World Serpent. Thor first encounters the Mi­gar­sormr when it is disguised as a cat: one of a series of deceitful challenges issued to Thor by the j÷tunn ┌tgar­a-Loki's.
The next time they met, Thor tried to destroy the serpent, but was thwarted by the j÷tunn Hymir.
During Ragnar÷k, Thor finally slays the serpent, but its poison finishes him off as he walks away.

Loki, however, fights Heimdallr during Ragnar÷k and they slay each other. I'd say as far as the concept of 'nemesis' goes, those two match up better.

I don't follow. Are you trying to refute my point? Because from this, it looks like you agree with me. I was responding to a guy who did not understand why Loki was chosen as Thor's nemesis.

The mythology is not pretty clear however, far from it. There's no consensus on Loki's role, even his position as the trickster-god is subject to much debate. It is however, perfectly clear why Loki is Thor's nemesis in the comics.

is this in projected costs from lowering peoples IQ's by 30%? Seriously, dumber than transformers 3

Vault101:
why is Loki Thors nemesis? Liko was jsut a trickster int he mythology wasnt he?

in fact I think loki came up with the Idea to get thor to dress in drag to trick a bunch of goblins who stole thors hammer......mythology, not the comics

Because they're aliens in the film who inspired the mythology and are therefore not necessarily bound by it. There's a far longer comic book answer involving a cycle of many repeating Ragnaroks but who has the time?

I've always figured that comic book universes make up for their frequent city destruction by having a much higher GDP due to super-companies like Stark Industries and Wayne Enterprises. There's got to be an economic application for all that supertech.

Really the title should read "Avengers Would Have Cost NYC $160 billion dollars in Damages".

I was expecting to read about how making the movie somehow damaged the city, then I realized the title a lie. One of the problems with journalism these days.

image
damage control has this covered.

WhiteFangofWar:
Reminds me of Ghostbusters 2. Somehow people have convinced themselves being saved from complete destruction was not worth the property damage and sue the heroes blind. It just wouldn't have felt quite as complete without that jerk at the end demanding the Avengers and SHIELD pay up.

Thor: Aye, 'tis true sir honourable human judge. This man verily dost possess no dick.

that was in Ghostbusters 1 where they got locked up got that.

Well, in the comics they addressed this issue long ago by having things like "Damage Control Inc." which specializes in cleaning up after super battles.

It's important to also note that the whole "Reed Richards is useless" trope aside, technology invented by guys like him are also insturmental in this kind of thing. Basically if you have an entire universe of super beings out there, it presents solutions to a lot of the surrounding problems. In the movie-verse though there isn't enough supporting material to really explain it if in the next Marvel movies the city doesn't have parts of it still leveled.

Some super universes, especially those in RPGS (Gurps, or say White Wolf's old Aberrant setting) focus on civilly themed super-beings and even teams who do little more than public works and try and fill in the gaps between what other super beings do. Someone with say earth control powers, molecular control, magic, or similar things might be a great crime fighter or terrorist/villain, but not everyone is wired for that basically.

One interesting thing about the reconstructionist movement in comics is that it spells out in detail how problems coming from deconstruction such as "OMG the property damage" are generally solved by the concepts themselves.

(EDIT: Ooops, someone mentioned Damage Control already)

They really need to make skyscrapers more durable. With anti-air missiles and lasers. Maybe go for a fortress-city in the mould of Tokyo-3... her skyscrapers able to retract underground when under attack.

Lumber Barber:
The Escapist can't into naming articles. I was extremely happy, hoping some nasty shit happened in New York so that I can laugh my ass off, but as usual, misleading titles to grab attention have tricked me. This seems to be the norm on this website.

ima420r:
Really the title should read "Avengers Would Have Cost NYC $160 billion dollars in Damages".

I was expecting to read about how making the movie somehow damaged the city, then I realized the title a lie. One of the problems with journalism these days.

I like it when they play to peoples' gullibility.

*points and laughs*

wooty:
Soooooo, never mind, silly title and story.

Now, keeping on the track of silliness, someone should calculate the total damages that would be needed in the film 2012.

Bigger than Laufey's arse.

Marshall Honorof:
Flying around vanquishing evil sounds like a pretty good deal until you realize that for every superhero, there must always be an equal but opposite supervillain, like a karmic version of Newton's third law.

Which is why they had one villain fighting a bunch of heroes?

Hey, actually, that'd be cool, having a bunch of evil opposites for all of them. And to truly be opposites they'd have to be interesting and not make jokes unless they are funny. On the other hand, you'd need them to be led by a rubbish evil Fury.

...

Oh, and I'd say misleading title and all, only it's impossible that anyone was actually misled by it. Yeah, I know, people were this time, but even for Escapist titles it's obviously not true.

Costs twice as much as 9/11? It was a mother-f**king alien invasion intended to end or enslave all human life and seize a power source that could topple the foundations of galactic power.

I'm more impressed that it didn't damn well cost more. Besides I think the U.S.A. could claim monetary support from other nations for taking all of the damage from the aforementioned invasion attempt that would have ended up having lethal global consequences regardless of race, nationality, or theological belief.

And if they don't then America can just say, "Oh, well, I guess we'll just keep all this neat hyper-advanced alien weaponry and biotechnology for ourselves then."

$160 billion worth of damages in a single city vs. super-evil-villian-running-the-world...

Yeah, I think I know which I'd prefer.

Monetary costs aside, I wonder what the human death toll of that invasion would be?

Seems to be a common theme in huge PG-13 blockbusters like Transformers, GI Joe, The Avengers etc. Massive battles in a civilian population where you know hundreds of innocent people are dying in the crossfire but not a single one is actually shown onscreen.

There's several hundred dead right at the start when they start their surprise attack by blasting the hell out of the roads, but I think the largest number of deaths would have been when the big flying thing came in and deposited hundreds of ground troops into the buildings with the single-minded purpose of hunting down and killing anyone they saw. Since everyone who survived the initial bombardment would have retreated into the buildings for safety, we're talking multiple thousands at that point. Like 10 times the number of deaths in 9/11 at least.

Paul Krugman would be pleased to see the Chitauri implementing his new stimulus plan.

Gather:

Worst of all, most insurance policies do not cover alien invasion.

Looks like a good reason to change insurance agencies if you ask me... What agency covers "alien invasion" anyway?

I think I'm going to open an insurance company that deals exclusively in damages from alien invasions. Just 10$/year for 10,000,000$ coverage. Now who's interested???

Food for thought.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here