__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
You claimed that it was done through pure strength and that was the writers intention.
Prove it.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
1. Christopher Reeve Superman done it that way and it was a reference to that scene.
2. If writer intended for Superman to not use pure strength and some equipment then the writer would have stated so.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
It is proof. The simplest explanation is what happened. Also, extra details doesn't exist if the writer didn't provide evidence towards it. We can't make stuff up. Actually there's nothing to discuss since you believe that Superman did it with pure strength. The discussion should be for those who don't actually believe.
In other words you can't provide any proof, so you're just going to continue to insist that your speculation is actually proof.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
>Newspapers are fallable/inaccurate in RL but somehow comic movie newspapers are 100% accurate.
>Acknowledges that writer put it there as an easter egg tribute shoutout to classic Reeves Superman, yet insists writer intentions clearly gave the "feat" to current Superman.
-Prove the director's intent was to somehow create this invisible newspaper writer that could somehow falsify information on the scale of a phucking earthquake being averted.
-Jesus Christ you are dumb. The two points are TIED you idiot, not mutually exclusive. The director had an article about Superman performing the feat as a call out to Christopher Reeves doing the same thing. In addition, that entire wall is newspaper clippings of the collection of heroic things that Superman had done for the last 18 months.
Are the rest of the newspaper clippings false too? Why is it that you would focus on that particular one?
If it is a false heading that the invisible column writer somehow disastrously got the details wrong for, then prove it.
Prove that this was Zack Snyder's intent. You can't, and won't.
Seeing as his intent was to show Superman as an unflinchingly heroic figure even while being distrusted by a large amount of people across the world. For that reason alone its just as valid to go the complete opposite direction of your assertion that the article was wrong or a lie and say that the writer may have been a Superman hater who even toned down the magnitude of the feat even more simply because he didn't want to give him full credit--afterall who knows, Superman may have had to deal with more than one tectonic plate that day. Just as likely as your inane conspiracy theory, and even uses IN-PLOT elements to justify its possibility, whereas yours has nothing to do with plot, you just assume it could be wrong because news articles can be wrong sometimes.
Anyway, the extreme assumptions more or less cancel each other out anyway, and thus it leaves us back to the center: Which is that the article title says exactly what happened. Not negotiable.
The fact that it exists at all is evidence alone that it happened. Occam's Razor lends it even more strength, since you don't automatically assume a newspaper clipping is factually incorrect. You do the opposite (but perhaps keep an open mind to new information coming in).
This is even stronger in fiction seeing as there was no actual column writer at all in existence. Only the director, Zack Snyder, who was trying to show Superman's heroic efforts for the past nearly 2 years, both in on-screen montage and further detailed by a collection of newspaper clippings.
You don't get to assume one phucking headline about something as cut and dried and as impossible to fake as a phucking earthquake was wrong.
The fact that you would even bring up this sh-itty conspiracy theory about "The column writer might have wrote a false story! People get the news wrong sometimes!" is another way of saying you don't want the feat to exist.
Too bad. The newspaper article exists and its truth is self-evident until proven otherwise, the same way that narration's words/narrator's boxes work.
__________________
Last edited by CosmicComet on Aug 22nd, 2016 at 02:39 AM
So since in Guardians of the Galaxy, Korath said "Thanos is the most powerful being in the universe" (without the infinity gems) then he automatically wins every VS. fight right?
__________________
Last edited by Inhuman on Aug 22nd, 2016 at 02:52 AM
Didn't watch Guardians yet so I will assume what you said is accurate.
But no, we assume the statement is true that Thanos is the most powerful of any one being in the universe.
We assume exactly what was said.
What we don't do is make 100% assertions about any tangentially related possibilities or events.
Though we can theorize that Thanos probably has a good shot of beating any one person out there in his universe for a majority since he is billed as the most powerful. What he is not however, is ALL-Powerful, which is why he is going after the gems. If you are not all-powerful, then you can lose.
I'm surprised I had to actually explain this.
That was a rather amateurish red herring by the way.
Ok, well to simplify it for you, here in the movie versus Forum. We go by feats. Not by what is said, not by what is written, not by what is narrated, not what we imagine in our heads that characters are should capable of.
On screen feats tump everything. If we don't see the character performing a certain feat in the movie, it has to be disregarded.
This doesn't work like comics where the writer can say something on a panel and it could be used as a feat or description on what the character is capable of
Didn't think this needed explaining tbh.
__________________
Last edited by Inhuman on Aug 22nd, 2016 at 03:43 AM
KMC Community Forums
Aug 21st, 2016 04:34 AM
Not negotiable.
