Avengers Cost NYC $160 Billion in Damages

Recommended Videos

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
WhiteFangofWar said:
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.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
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)
 

MammothBlade

It's not that I LIKE you b-baka!
Oct 12, 2011
5,246
0
0
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 said:
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 said:
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 said:
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.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Marshall Honorof said:
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.
 

lordmardok

New member
Mar 25, 2010
319
0
0
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."
 

zombiesinc

One day, we'll wake the zombies
Mar 29, 2010
2,508
0
0
$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.
 

XMark

New member
Jan 25, 2010
1,408
0
0
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.
 

kTrmnatr

New member
Apr 26, 2012
26
0
0
Gather said:
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???