Spawn vs. Thanos: Who Would Win? (1 Viewer)

[EGLSShin]

Thanos was way more deadly in the Infinity War comics than the movies, way, way, way more Brutal.

 

[tenordas]

Thanos was way more deadly in the Infinity War comics than the movies, way, way, way more Brutal.

The comic version of Thanos worked way better for me. I know we've discussed and some didn't like his motivation in the comics, but I found his actions in the film somewhat ridiculous. He was all "eco-Thanos" trying to keep the universe "in balance" by wiping out half of sentient life, but then he destroyed the stones. That was simply not credible. A being as old as Thanos would know how quickly life would return to the level it was so would have kept the stones intact so could repeat his 'half-genocide every century or two to continue his 'balance'. So, to me, he came off as incredibly stupid with no forethought or vision.
The selfish motivation of finding an eternal mate in Death made him more believable to me. His scheme spoke of a warped, but ingenious mind, and his blunt brutality toward 'mere mortals' made more sense.

As to the original question, I think Thanos having the Gauntlet isn't fair. I mean, he could wipe out Spawn without ever even having to come into contact with him. Better to have him face Spawn just as himself. Thanos is incredibly powerful without the gauntlet, so he could conceivably defeat Spawn without that cheat.

But let's face it, Stan Lee's answer is always the correct one.

 

[faceman]

But let's face it, Stan Lee's answer is always the correct one.

I belong to a classic Marvel group on FB. These types of question are asked all the time. The answer is the opinion of the writer.

 

[Eeyore]

The comic version of Thanos worked way better for me. I know we've discussed and some didn't like his motivation in the comics, but I found his actions in the film somewhat ridiculous. He was all "eco-Thanos" trying to keep the universe "in balance" by wiping out half of sentient life, but then he destroyed the stones. That was simply not credible. A being as old as Thanos would know how quickly life would return to the level it was so would have kept the stones intact so could repeat his 'half-genocide every century or two to continue his 'balance'. So, to me, he came off as incredibly stupid with no forethought or vision.
The selfish motivation of finding an eternal mate in Death made him more believable to me. His scheme spoke of a warped, but ingenious mind, and his blunt brutality toward 'mere mortals' made more sense.

As to the original question, I think Thanos having the Gauntlet isn't fair. I mean, he could wipe out Spawn without ever even having to come into contact with him. Better to have him face Spawn just as himself. Thanos is incredibly powerful without the gauntlet, so he could conceivably defeat Spawn without that cheat.

But let's face it, Stan Lee's answer is always the correct one.

MCU Thanos could have simply doubled the resources necessary to support the growth of sentient life. The MCU version didn't make sense. He needed a better reason. He could have simply owned it and stated that he preferred the killing but it wasn't addressed.

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

MCU Thanos could have simply doubled the resources necessary to support the growth of sentient life. The MCU version didn't make sense. He needed a better reason. He could have simply owned it and stated that he preferred the killing but it wasn't addressed.

This is exactly what I thought. That motivation made zero sense. All ANYONE would have to do was say, just double the resources by using the stones, problem solve. The comics motivation made MUCH more sense. Btw, I read a comic where he succeeded in killing every one in the universe{s} and at that moment, Lady Death appeared to him, I believe as a bride.

 

[Zztop]

Freddy Kreuger or Wolverine?

 

[Paul]

MCU Thanos could have simply doubled the resources necessary to support the growth of sentient life. The MCU version didn't make sense. He needed a better reason. He could have simply owned it and stated that he preferred the killing but it wasn't addressed.

MCU kept it kid-friendly. Otherwise, you go the Deadpool route.

 

[DaveXA]

MCU kept it kid-friendly. Otherwise, you go the Deadpool route.

Yep, pretty much. And that's understandable. I'm fine with a Deadpool, but overall, I prefer the tamer Avengers presentation. And it will probably continue going forward because Disney.

 

[GW93]

Oh, I know. I just thought that even with Spawn's supernatural powers and abilities, with the Gauntlet, Thanos would have zero problems with Spawn.

One thing I didn't understand about the MCU version, Thanos was a mad Titan who believed that 1/2 of all life needed to go, why did he spare the Guardians of the Galaxy in his first skirmish with them. I get that Gamora was his "daughter" so sparing her made sense. Even sparing her boyfriend, Star Lord but Drax and everyone else? I am not mad, it just struck me as odd.

Star Lord earned Thanos' respect when Quill showed he was willing to sacrifice Gamora rather than let Thanos capture her.

As for the rest, Thanos didn't want to waste time piddling around. He had business to attend to, namely, getting Gamora to take him to the Soul Stone. He could always deal with the rest of the Guardians later (and he did -- the only Guardian to survive the snap was Rocket, and Rocket wasn't with them on Knowhere for the confrontation with Thanos.

 

[DaveXA]

Star Lord earned Thanos' respect when Quill showed he was willing to sacrifice Gamora rather than let Thanos capture her.

As for the rest, Thanos didn't want to waste time piddling around. He had business to attend to, namely, getting Gamora to take him to the Soul Stone. He could always deal with the rest of the Guardians later (and he did -- the only Guardian to survive the snap was Rocket, and Rocket wasn't with them on Knowhere for the confrontation with Thanos.

Yeah, this exactly.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Oh, I know. I just thought that even with Spawn's supernatural powers and abilities, with the Gauntlet, Thanos would have zero problems with Spawn.

One thing I didn't understand about the MCU version, Thanos was a mad Titan who believed that 1/2 of all life needed to go, why did he spare the Guardians of the Galaxy in his first skirmish with them. I get that Gamora was his "daughter" so sparing her made sense. Even sparing her boyfriend, Star Lord but Drax and everyone else? I am not mad, it just struck me as odd.

Because he was being true his "principles" that he wouldn't be the one to pick and choose who died, it would be totally random. I suppose he discounted the fact that the remaining Avengers could somehow undo it all after he destroyed the stones. I don't think there was any known method of time travel in-universe outside of using the Time stone.

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

Star Lord earned Thanos' respect when Quill showed he was willing to sacrifice Gamora rather than let Thanos capture her.

As for the rest, Thanos didn't want to waste time piddling around. He had business to attend to, namely, getting Gamora to take him to the Soul Stone. He could always deal with the rest of the Guardians later (and he did -- the only Guardian to survive the snap was Rocket, and Rocket wasn't with them on Knowhere for the confrontation with Thanos.

Not trying to argue but remember when he turned Drax into a coil? That's what I'm talking about, he could have just as easily just turned him into an inanimate object, with but a thought. It just didn't seem to fit that he would leave them unscathed. He was psychopathic in pursuit of his goal, scratching off a couple of enemies in pursuit of it makes more sense; at least to me.

 

[DaveXA]

Not trying to argue but remember when he turned Drax into a coil? That's what I'm talking about, he could have just as easily just turned him into an inanimate object, with but a thought. It just didn't seem to fit that he would leave them unscathed. He was psychopathic in pursuit of his goal, scratching off a couple of enemies in pursuit of it makes more sense; at least to me.

Well, I thought it was more to illustrate the powers of the reality stone (iirc). I mean, it occurred to me that he could have killed them, but there was a larger narrative at play, so I understood and get why the director went that route.

 

[SaintsFanInLA]

Well, I thought it was more to illustrate the powers of the reality stone (iirc). I mean, it occurred to me that he could have killed them, but there was a larger narrative at play, so I understood and get why the director went that route.

I get it, I do but imagine giving Ted Bundy or any other serial killer/mass murderer ther reality stone, then imagine them leaving people alive that they have already totally incapacitated. Again, I get your point but that IMMEDIATELY stood out as inconsistent TO ME in the theater.