Then you're wrong, objectively.
Why can you not accept this and move on? These forums are not fictitious or subjective, they are here for a purpose you are ignoring in favour of what you think would be better.
You are wrong, by fact.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f102/t478590.html
The forum rules.
"6) However, if you start the thread in a more proper manner, like this for example:
Robocop vs. Terminator: One is a cyborg cop and the other a cybernetic organism designed for killing. Which of these two would win?
-Robocop's feats are (explain his feats) and Terminator's feats are (explain his feats).
-Here are some images of both characters in a fight. [insert pics here, but must be relevant to the topic]
-So based on this info provided, who wins?".
What about that don't you grasp?
Respect Forums are what you're looking for.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
My way is even more ridiculous in your eyes and most other people's it seems.... but not mine... It's subjective.
It's not subjective, stop being stupid.
You are saying fictional character A would beat B, based on preference.
The criteria isn't subjective, though. You examine the abilities both of them have, then the hypothetical discussion of: "Based on these, who would win in a fight." begins.
That is how Vs forums work, because they're not about character preference, they're about elements OF those characters that are NOT subjective.
I prefer Jason Bourne to Spider-Man, in movies. He's not actually going to beat Spider-Man, though. If the two fought, based on that which is displayed in their respective movies, it's impossible that Jason Bourne would beat the man.
Your method is stupid, and you literally have no basis for explaining why it's better, outside of "Well I like him more.", which doesn't work.
So, go for it. Why is your way better?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then you're wrong, objectively.It's not subjective, stop being stupid.
You are saying fictional character A would beat B, based on preference.
The criteria isn't subjective, though. You examine the abilities both of them have, then the hypothetical discussion of: "Based on these, who would win in a fight." begins.
That is how Vs forums work, because they're not about character preference, they're about elements OF those characters that are NOT subjective.
I prefer Jason Bourne to Spider-Man, in movies. He's not actually going to beat Spider-Man, though. If the two fought, based on that which is displayed in their respective movies, it's impossible that Jason Bourne would beat the man.
Your method is stupid, and you literally have no basis for explaining why it's better, outside of "Well I like him more.", which doesn't work.
So, go for it. Why is your way better?
-AC
I would like to see a Vs forum where people would talk about the merits of characters against the other in a different way, I'd like people to discuss and compare the cool things that characters have done in their films against each other, the way they've been written and performed. Not a head to head as such but more of a race (not literal of course). People talking about the merits of the films and the characters within them as opposed to a dissection of the characters and a show of fisticuffs.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
I would like to see a Vs forum where people would talk about the merits of characters against the other in a different way, I'd like people to discuss and compare the cool things that characters have done in their films against each other, the way they've been written and performed. Not a head to head as such but more of a race (not literal of course). People talking about the merits of the films and the characters within them as opposed to a dissection of the characters and a show of fisticuffs.
Yes, Vs threads based on WHOLE characters, which character is the better character overall etc, as I just said. I'm aware of what you'd like, I'm not disputing that. This just isn't a place for it, fact.
That isn't what this forum is for. You're not wrong for wanting that, but that isn't what this place is for, what about that is troubling you?
Your solution was to show up and just...ignore everything, which has just lead to you looking immeasurably silly.
You wouldn't go into the General Discussion Forum and say "I want to discuss Generals.", and then treat it like a discussion forum for generals, would you? No, because that's not what it's for, despite the word in the title being the same.
Versus means to be pitted against, and in this specific forum, that is limited to fighting. I don't see why it's taken multiple long posts for you to accept this.
-AC
You're correct, the way that I've gone about showing my opinion on the whole premise for the forum is wrong and pretty darn childish. I act before I think the large majority of the time and get myself in holes... Then I start to think.
I've never disputed what this forum was for, just put foreward what I'd prefer it to be for. I didn't actually know about that rule before now. So in the future I'll try not to take the smartarse approach when it comes to the word versus.
I would however like that rule to be modified to allow for threads which allows us to pit characters and films agaisnt eachother in other ways, which can be specified within the opening post of the thread.
(I guess this is me admiting I'm wrong, but only when it comes to the way I've conducted myself and ignorance towards the rules.)
I knew when I made my initial post that it was not what I was supposed to do, I wasn't ignorant of that. I just thught that it was a majority enforced view as opposed to a rule made one... Which changes everything, as it means I have no basis to argue against the rule followers, but more towards the rule maker. Which I will do tomorrow I reckon. (Maybe not argue but suggest a rewrite)
Usually, when it comes to McClane i don't think that training and military experience matters very much. This is why i believe McClane would fuking rock Riggs. McClane has had no such training but he still makes shit dead like a pro. When it comes to Bourne, however, he is essentially a machine that became self aware. Most of the things he does comes without thinking but rather, by natural instincts. Bourne is programmed to kill and he follows this programming out better than anyone else and he doesn't even remember his programming.
John has a genuine shot at taking Bourne down in a gunfight. McClane has a nack for dodging bullets and he is also a good shot.
Yep.... He runs/moves and he shoots being elusive and hard to hit and uses cover well.
Thusly dodging bullets.
After all: He survived the sheer amount of lead launched at him during Die Hard, Die Hard 2: Die Harder, Die Hard with a vengance, and Die hard 4.0. Enough lead to melt down and rebuilt as a life size Eiffel Tower, probably.
(NOT counting the shots taken at him in decades of service in between movies..!!!)
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well if it was a Die Hard movie, even if Bourne had John McClane kneeling with a Beretta to the back of his head, again I have to cite McClane's superior luck.The gun'd jam or would magically be suddenly out of bullets or something.... Allowing McClane a spilt second or two to swing round and bite off Bournes testicles, spitting them back in Bourne's horrified face... and if that wouldn't be enough, McClane being McClane: A "Matttttttt Daaaaaaaaaaaaaay-miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin" taunt or two'd find their way in there at the finishing move.
Or summat like that. 😛
😆
You the man, dude 😂