Originally posted by quanchi112
I await your decision and at least you didn't say it was spite against McClane unlike robtard who abandoned him.
Unlike you I both watch and pay attention to a film. So yes, McClane Vs Riddick in a knife-fight is spite. You're either ignorant to the films and need to watch them again or just retarded. I'd say 50-50 chance either way.
P.S., pointing out obvious spite isn't abandonment, you baboon. Now do some more flips for me; I have a pocket full of crackers.
Originally posted by RobtardSo you just insulted sado and the man isn't even here to defend himself. The man believes in McClane you don't. Sado just became both of McClane's arms.
Unlike you I both watch and pay attention to a film. So yes, McClane Vs Riddick in a knife-fight is spite. You're either ignorant to the films and need to watch them again or just retarded. I'd say 50-50 chance either way.P.S., pointing out obvious spite isn't abandonment, you baboon. Now do some more flips for me; I have a pocket full of crackers.
Originally posted by quanchi112
So you just insulted sado and the man isn't even here to defend himself. The man believes in McClane you don't. Sado just became both of McClane's arms.
Figures you'd chose the retard option. Sadako had the minerals to state he couldn't be 100% certain as he doesn't fully recall the Riddick films and he'd need to watch them again. No shame in that.
Maybe you should pay attention when watching films before you rant.
Originally posted by RobtardI think Riddick wins but Sado is a true McClane fan unlike yourself. He needs to rewatch the films to further analyze before declaring McClane null and void.
Figures you'd chose the retard option. Sadako had the minerals to state he couldn't be 100% certain as he doesn't fully recall the Riddick films and he'd need to watch them again. No shame in that.Maybe you should pay attention when watching films before you rant.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I think Riddick wins but Sado is a true McClane fan unlike yourself. He needs to rewatch the films to further analyze before declaring McClane null and void.
But unlike me who recalls all the films and base my "this is spite" opinion on that and unlike Sadako who only really recalls the Diehards so he's holding final judgement, you choose Riddick because you like him better; it has nothing to do with film-feats.
Now squeeze your plastic novelty flower for me and honk that horn.
Originally posted by RobtardI choose Riddick because he's flat out superior with knives. I don't need to rewatch films to render my decision which makes me wonder about sado and if he's even seen half these films he argues for. You are really attacking his character. Rob's going feral.
But unlike me who recalls all the films and base my "this is spite" opinion on that and unlike Sadako who only really recalls the Diehards so he's holding final judgement, you choose Riddick because you like him better; it has nothing to do with film-feats.Now squeeze your plastic novelty flower for me and honk that horn.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I choose Riddick because he's flat out superior with knives. I don't need to rewatch films to render my decision which makes me wonder about sado and if he's even seen half these films he argues for. You are really attacking his character. Rob's going feral.
Riddick is and to the point it's spite, you'd know that if you paid attention.
Oh look, trying to twist my argument like I'm saying something negative against someone else and not your clown-shoe ass. Clever.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I choose Riddick because he's flat out superior with knives. I don't need to rewatch films to render my decision which makes me wonder about sado and if he's even seen half these films he argues for. You are really attacking his character. Rob's going feral.
But McClane hasn't got any knife fight skills/feats which ultimately makes it an unfair contest. When you make up a specific type of fight both characters generally have to be well versed in that discipline or it makes no sense to even start it.
A better character to face Riddick that way would be L.T.Bonham or Aaron Hallam or Casey Ryback or any other skilled knife-wielding characters.
Originally posted by Sadako of GirthI wouldn't personally think you'd need to rewatch a riddick film to know he beats McClane. I guess you would. LOL.
I watched Reign of Fire once when it came out.I watch the diehards every year = Its not not rocket science, Quanchi.
Its a better way of doing things than watching a movie, forgetting half of it, remembering the other half wrong then coming off like a fool in arguments.
Originally posted by RobtardYou're just no McClane fan. I don't even see you as one anymore.
Riddick is and to the point it's spite, you'd know that if you paid attention.Oh look, trying to twist my argument like I'm saying something negative against someone else and not your clown-shoe ass. Clever.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow ZI just hear a lot of crying when McClane loses. It's just a movie versus thread and I don't see why people need to sob if their guy loses. I didn't make the thread. If I create a thread and McClane wins I have to hear how the guy doesn't stack up against McClane. It's just more ballyhooing over McClane.
But McClane hasn't got any knife fight skills/feats which ultimately makes it an unfair contest. When you make up a specific type of fight both characters generally have to be well versed in that discipline or it makes no sense to even start it.A better character to face Riddick that way would be L.T.Bonham or Aaron Hallam or Casey Ryback or any other skilled knife-wielding characters.
Yeah I wasnt real struck on the movies, tbh.
Especially the second one.
You see you touched on the thing thats the problem. Youre debating from the "our guy/their guy" perspective, with a seeming agenda on getting a reaction from those who have defended/debated for McClane in the past.
Its wasted effort as screen feats, displayed abilities logic and reason are the only true factors considered.
Hence why Van Zan is pwned so hard against McClane.
If anyone is shedding salty droplets, its you over the failure of "your guy" Van Zan.
Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
But McClane hasn't got any knife fight skills/feats which ultimately makes it an unfair contest. When you make up a specific type of fight both characters generally have to be well versed in that discipline or it makes no sense to even start it.A better character to face Riddick that way would be L.T.Bonham or Aaron Hallam or Casey Ryback or any other skilled knife-wielding characters.
McClane may never have handled a knife himself, but he has been in knife fights. That is to say faced opponents armed with knives. In some cases holding his own in others winning. Remember he iced a special forces soldier in Die Hard 2 While an icicle is not a knife. The manner he used it in could be translated into using a knife. In the same movie he also held his own against Cnl. Stuart who was both skilled and armed with a knife.
Which brings us to the fact that McClane has faced fighter as skilled if not more skilled on a technical level then Riddick, such as Rand and possible Mai Lihn and Stuart. He has also fought opponents who are faster then Riddick By which I mean fighting/reaction speed. Not ground speed. Such as Mai Lihn and Rand. He has also fought opponents who are more physically durable such as Karl. Riddick may be stronger then any body John has fought, but again folks like Karl weren't weaklings.
That said what we don't know is can McClane fight somebody who has all those traits?
Thing to consider. Riddick isn't hit often, his durability hasn't been tested. At least not with verifiable feats. McClane on the other hand is the kind of guy who could survive a train wreck with out us batting an eye. In other words this is an area in which John takes the edge, and by a large margin. For the record so do a lot of McClane enemies as well. At least until Riddick walks off a building falling on him or a head on collision with ans SUV.
John is also very creative and resourceful and not the I am strong enough to stab you with a cup resourceful, but really resourceful. This combined with his situational awareness is part of what makes him deadly.
Lets also not forgot that while its easy to get wrapped in the fights from Chronicles. The bounty hunter in Pitch Black gave Riddick a good fight and he was just a regular with nothing touching Johns shown abilities.
As for their fighting styles Riddick is and outside fighter who relies on speed and strength. Favoring big powerful movements. McClane likes to get in side and rough it up, he's a bruiser a brawl, a very skilled one though and in the past it has served him well to get inside on outside fighters and striker martial artists.
I think he can do it again here. However. Stuart is probable the closest to Riddick, McClane has fought and pure H2H that fight didn't go well for McClane. Still with his damage soak he may still be able to get inside and if he does, well..
He's always got a punchers chance.
Originally posted by Sadako of GirthZan has nothing to do with this thread keep your emotional pain in the other thread please. You claimed you need to rewatch the movie because you think McClane has a chance unlike robtard who says it is spite.
Yeah I wasnt real struck on the movies, tbh.
Especially the second one.You see you touched on the thing thats the problem. Youre debating from the "our guy/their guy" perspective, with a seeming agenda on getting a reaction from those who have defended/debated for McClane in the past.
Its wasted effort as screen feats, displayed abilities logic and reason are the only true factors considered.
Hence why Van Zan is pwned so hard against McClane.
If anyone is shedding salty droplets, its you over the failure of "your guy" Van Zan.
Originally posted by RobtardNo, I argue based off portrayals and feats you argue for who turns you on more.
Correct, the only fanboy around here is you; all your MVF arguments stem from which character or franchise you happen to be infatuated with at the moment.