Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Proposed Amendment for the MVF Rules
Originally posted by KuRuPT ThanosiWhy would I forget feats? This is a versus forum. If you want to call Gandalf a maia then go ahead dude. What we shouldn't do is give him the power he has in the books.
So Gandalf isn't a Maia then because it was never said in the movie? Forget feats for a moment.. I'm referring to background material only right now
In regards to Gandalf, saying he's a "Maia" or not is kind of pointless, call him "some old man" if you like and he's still the badass who did this:
Scene still sends tingles up my spine
I would have to say no. There's too much non-movie sources and it would be too much research to have to go through them when trying to debate an issue.
For example, is everyone willing to read through the Twilight books whenever a twilight character is being debated?
When talking about movie characters, it's easy to youtube or google scenes to back yourself up. When we take in other sources then it will be a ridiculous amount of info and would be tough to call who's inventing stuff up and who's really basing off of feats. It would be a big mess.
Originally posted by FrothByte
I would have to say no. There's too much non-movie sources and it would be too much research to have to go through them when trying to debate an issue.For example, is everyone willing to read through the Twilight books whenever a twilight character is being debated?
When talking about movie characters, it's easy to youtube or google scenes to back yourself up. When we take in other sources then it will be a ridiculous amount of info and would be tough to call who's inventing stuff up and who's really basing off of feats. It would be a big mess.
Yeah, no body should be subjected to Meyer's horrendous writing.
But using the books to figure out exactly how...uh...what's his name? The Civil War vet...I forget his name. Jasper! Using the books to figure out how Jasper's emotion stuff works is certainly helpful in a vs. match-up. Using the books, we can determine that Jasper cannot use his ability on Hulk unless he's within ...I dunno...20 feet? And, at that, his power would definitely work (because Hulk is never shown to have mind-control blocking powers from his recent movie incarnations).
From the films, we can never ever determine this.
Let me start by saying this rule, would in no way make things easier. It just going to complicate debates and bog them down with arguments about canon.
Think about it right now the movies are canon end of story. When you introduce more source material. You end up with a tiered canon system or one source over riding the others etc. Arguments about which source takes precedents etc and you end up talking more about the mechanics of the fight if you will and less about the fight itself.
Not to mention as others have said movies are simply easier media to find/consume.
So for anybody whose thinking this will make things easier, it wont.
That said. If we are going to go forth with this conversation. I feel like their are a couple of different kinds of "source material".
The first one being the most discussed kind so far and that is adaptations. Such as Twilight or Lord of the Rings. Movies that retell the books story, but change or leave things out to suit their needs.
This kind of source material should probably not be used. Lest we end up with the movie Mobile Infantry having access to the Marauder suits from the Starship Troopers book. No, just no movie continuity is different from book continuity.
On the other hand we have cases were the "source material" expands on the universe/story of the movie. Such as Star Wars. Its Expanded Universe is supposed to line up with the movies and exist with in the same continuity. Therefore I less issue with using it. It'd still make Star Wars debates more complicated, but a case could be made for using it.
Perhaps instead of a sweeping rule change and one size fits all policy. We should instead allow the thread creator the freedom to dictate what sources are allowed, with in that particular thread. Even this can turn into a cluster, but a I feel like it's good middle ground.
So keep the MVF default as movies only, but should some what to make a thread that allows outside sources. Let them, though maybe it should be noted some how in the title.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, no body should be subjected to Meyer's horrendous writing.But using the books to figure out exactly how...uh...what's his name? The Civil War vet...I forget his name. Jasper! Using the books to figure out how Jasper's emotion stuff works is certainly helpful in a vs. match-up. Using the books, we can determine that Jasper cannot use his ability on Hulk unless he's within ...I dunno...20 feet? And, at that, his power would definitely work (because Hulk is never shown to have mind-control blocking powers from his recent movie incarnations).
From the films, we can never ever determine this.
I'm pretty sure Hulk has resisted mind control in the comics. I think it was even explained why at some point and given the implications of this rule Hulk's comics should be just as valid a source for him as the Twilight books are for Jasper.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is pretty much what I say.If the movie contradicts the canon source material, the source material should trump the movie.
If we need more information from the canon source material, it should be used.
So, for Twilight, the books clarify quite a few things as there are far better explanations of their powers in the books.
Same with LotR. I can think of a few threads where being able to use the explanations from the books would have resolved some thread-lock.
Same with HP.
At that point aren't you just talking about the book versions? and whats the point of having the conversation in the MOVIE versus forum?
Originally posted by FrothByte
I would have to say no. There's too much non-movie sources and it would be too much research to have to go through them when trying to debate an issue.For example, is everyone willing to read through the Twilight books whenever a twilight character is being debated?
When talking about movie characters, it's easy to youtube or google scenes to back yourself up. When we take in other sources then it will be a ridiculous amount of info and would be tough to call who's inventing stuff up and who's really basing off of feats. It would be a big mess.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
I'm pretty sure Hulk has resisted mind control in the comics. I think it was even explained why at some point and given the implications of this rule Hulk's comics should be just as valid a source for him as the Twilight books are for Jasper.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
At that point aren't you just talking about the book versions? and whats the point of having the conversation in the MOVIE versus forum?
All of these issues can simply be resolved. Movie canon supercedes all. This clause is to root out the technicality that when a movie or franchise is based off of something like a book, then the source material should count and not be disgarded.
And stop being so lazy about research for debates. That kind of irresponsible debating leads to half the flamewars in this place to begin with. 😠
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
All of these issues can simply be resolved. Movie canon supercedes all.
First off, you'd need a second vote at least to establish that. Second off anybody that has dealt with debates involving multiple sources can tell you it's never that simple. What you basically end up with an argument about whether the movie is in fact in conflicted with the book or not. Trust me people can twist sources to meet their needs.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
This clause is to root out the technicality that when a movie or franchise is based off of something like a book, then the source material should count and not be disgarded.
Regardless of what this clause was set up to do. It will complicate things, not make them easier.
Also as I've mentioned why should we assume the movieverse is the same as that presented in the book. Given most of them have clear and present differences.
Like I said its different if its an inclusive universe built from multiple sources and medias.
Do you really want Comic hulk, Ferrigno Hulk, Bana Hulk, animated Hulk, and Avengers Hulk to count as the same person, do you think that even makes sense?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
And stop being so lazy about research for debates. That kind of irresponsible debating leads to half the flamewars in this place to begin with. 😠
So not reading the book a Movie was adapted from to have a debate in a MOVIE versus forum. Is lazy.
That like saying not watching the movie is lazy when you write a book report.
I mean seriously do you really think the Starship Troopers movie and book exist in the same continuity?
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
First off, you'd need a second vote at least to establish that. Second off anybody that has dealt with debates involving multiple sources can tell you it's never that simple. What you basically end up with an argument about whether the movie is in fact in conflicted with the book or not. Trust me people can twist sources to meet their needs.
#1: No, you don't. That's giving away the power of the rules and the OP, if you do that, then your not doing it right.
#2: I'm a regular at Spacebattles. I know what multi-source wars are.
#3: Here, the movie canon is still the highest source, but that does not mean that the books or other original sources are discounted. Basically put, movies take prime source, not the absolute and only source.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Regardless of what this clause was set up to do. It will complicate things, not make them easier.
Question then, why are you even in here? Debates are meant to be complex, not decided with one liners like most people here use.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Also as I've mentioned why should we assume the movieverse is the same as that presented in the book. Given most of them have clear and present differences.
Because sh!t like time and budget constraints, creative choices, edit cuts, and all that other stuff plays a factor. A lot of the basis for the movies story and background gets lost in transition, and much of that background becomes non-canon, or illegal under the current rules. This needs to change.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Like I said its different if its an inclusive universe built from multiple sources and medias.
How so?
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Do you really want Comic hulk, Ferrigno Hulk, Bana Hulk, animated Hulk, and Avengers Hulk to count as the same person, do you think that even makes sense?
There is a huge difference between that and what I am describing, Riot.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
So not reading the book a Movie was adapted from to have a debate in a MOVIE versus forum. Is lazy.
Not checking the source material, however, is.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
That like saying not watching the movie is lazy when you write a book report.
Are we writing book reports? No. He are debating vs matches, which requires research on more than the one source of media you wish to utilise. It's utilising all related sources. Failure to do this leads to half formed opinions that should have been aborted before they formed.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
I mean seriously do you really think the Starship Troopers movie and book exist in the same continuity?
Which came first? What is the original source?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
#1: No, you don't. That's giving away the power of the rules and the OP, if you do that, then your not doing it right.
Have you read this thread so far, we've got poster suggesting that in the case of conflict then original source should be takien over the movie. Then we've got people like you that are purposing the opposite. So those details would have to be hashed out.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
#2: I'm a regular at Spacebattles. I know what multi-source wars are.
And you've learned nothing from your experience. You've never slogged threw page after page of argument over whether a piece of evidence counts instead of debating the actually versus the thread is about? And if you have you want to recreate that cluster here? Really, seriously?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
#3: Here, the movie canon is still the highest source, but that does not mean that the books or other original sources are discounted. Basically put, movies take prime source, not the absolute and only source.
You're still not getting it. How do you establish a contradiction between the two sources.
If you've really spent time on Spacebattles think about all the arguments had about the Star Wars EU vs the movies and what evidence counts and doesn't.
And you don't think it'd happen here to?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Question then, why are you even in here? Debates are meant to be complex, not decided with one liners like most people here use.
Maybe I should clarify context. Their seems to be school of thought that thinks this rule will clear thing up or make the debates easier. I was simply pointing out it wont.
That said complex is fine, but making things overly complex just for complexities sake. Is pointless and time consuming.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Because sh!t like time and budget constraints, creative choices, edit cuts, and all that other stuff plays a factor. A lot of the basis for the movies story and background gets lost in transition, and much of that background becomes non-canon, or illegal under the current rules. This needs to change.
This isn't really an answer to the question you quoted.
Lets go over it anyway. Maybe changes are made because of the issues you mentioned on the other hand maybe things were changed on purpose. In other words going down that road basically turns into an argument about author intent.
Trust me you don't want to deal with that.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
How so?
Because an adaptation, is a re-telling of a story, changed as needed. That doesn't all way and doesn't actually need to concern itself with the original version.
Some thing like the Star Wars EU on the is designed to work together and be part of the same continuity.
There's a big difference.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
There is a huge difference between that and what I am describing, Riot.
How so?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Not checking the source material, however, is.
You mean like not watching the movie? Because you do realise this is a MOVIE versus forum? Right?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Are we writing book reports? No. He are debating vs matches, which requires research on more than the one source of media you wish to utilise. It's utilising all related sources. Failure to do this leads to half formed opinions that should have been aborted before they formed.
Explain to me why you think sources that exist in clearly different continuities should be utilised?
Explain to me why non-movie sources, should be used in a movie versus forum?
Explain to me how opinions about movies, based on those movies is half formed?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Which came first? What is the original source?
The book, but it doesn't matter. I your not familiar with it. The example means nothing.
Let me ask you a different question. If their was a Book Versus Forum and somebody wanted to bring in information from the film version of a character, would you be okay with it?
I say no.
People will spend more time arguing about what can be used/not used than the actual topic.
Every other section limits allowable feats to its relevant medium - i.e. Comics Vs, Games Vs, etc.
There is always Foreign Cinema for those who want it, although I admit I most prefer a debate with the Movie Vs regulars.
Damn man, when you mangle quotes, you mangle them BAD... that took a while to sort...
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Have you read this thread so far, we've got poster suggesting that in the case of conflict then original source should be takien over the movie. Then we've got people like you that are purposing the opposite. So those details would have to be hashed out.
That's what we are doing, aren't we? I mean, lets be honest, the original material should never be thrown out in the first place, because they contain details that may be relevant.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
And you've learned nothing from your experience. You've never slogged threw page after page of argument over whether a piece of evidence counts instead of debating the actually versus the thread is about? And if you have you want to recreate that cluster here? Really, seriously?
It can't be worse than simply throwing away legit evidence in a pointless dick-waving contest like a few people here utilise. At least then the debates would be legitimate and not based on which piece of key evidence one can throw away on a technicality.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
You're still not getting it. How do you establish a contradiction between the two sources.If you've really spent time on Spacebattles think about all the arguments had about the Star Wars EU vs the movies and what evidence counts and doesn't.
And you don't think it'd happen here to?
The higher source always takes precedence. Always.
If you are referring to the massive calculation wars brought on by Incredible Cross Sections (ICS) being thrown around, denied, countermanded by higher sources, then re-legitimised by Leland Chee and the sheer sh!t storm that brought on, then yes, I know what you are talking about.
I personally didn't care about ICS before Chee said what he did, when people still discounted the source, that's when I got involved. It was still a legit, recognised source, but certain individuals were using it as an instawin button, while others wanted to disallow ICS entirely.
This is also simple to solve, assuming people have enough grey matter to think with. Higher canon supercedes lower canon. If the visuals don't agree with the lower sources, then the higher sources stand, unless a logical explanation is offered with evidence to explain the disparity. This is what debates are.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Maybe I should clarify context. Their seems to be school of thought that thinks this rule will clear thing up or make the debates easier. I was simply pointing out it wont.That said complex is fine, but making things overly complex just for complexities sake. Is pointless and time consuming.
It will make it harder for fools to throw away legitimate evidence they don't like. That is a big plus in my book.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
This isn't really an answer to the question you quoted.Lets go over it anyway. Maybe changes are made because of the issues you mentioned on the other hand maybe things were changed on purpose. In other words going down that road basically turns into an argument about author intent.
Trust me you don't want to deal with that.
We deal with that constantly all over KMC's various vs debate forums.
And your reply illustrates a growing trend towards the path of least resistance, and losing much of the "meat" in the process.
I could literally pull hundreds of quotes, even very recent ones of people going "Movies only!" in response to someone citing legitimate evidence, followed by a slew of ad-hominems and back-seat modding. Basically put, the rules are being used to hamstring legitimate arguments.
An example of course is the LOTR series. Much of the background information comes from the books, so much that Jackson couldn't fit the majority of it into the movies. Now, under the current rules, a good 80% of the settings lore, history, and facets are illegal, despite much of the setting relying on that information. Tell me, why can't people use legitimate evidence pertaining to the lore and history of LOTR legally?
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Because an adaptation, is a re-telling of a story, changed as needed. That doesn't all way and doesn't actually need to concern itself with the original version.Some thing like the Star Wars EU on the is designed to work together and be part of the same continuity.
There's a big difference.
Oh? And the LOTR series is not compatible with it's book incarnations? ASOIAF is not compatible with the HBO Series Game of Thrones? the Star Trek movies are not compatible with it's TV series? I'm sorry, that's not right.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
How so?
Because those are all different continuities entirely. When a movie is a retelling of the same story, same characters, same circumstances, has the same history and lore, and is intrinsically bound the the knowledge of it's source material, then that source material should also be examined. But, when a movie is, like for example, a reboot, it creates it's own set of circumstances that are unique to it. The Hulk movies have all pretty much been reboots, unlinked to prior work outside of the very basics. The new Star Trek movies are also unlinked to previous iterations.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
You mean like not watching the movie? Because you do realise this is a MOVIE versus forum? Right?
First off, that is a wild and irrational tangent you just went on. I never said this, and you should not jump to conclusions.
Second, if the movie is based on another work, why would you not check the original source material as well? It's not hard f**king work, and you'd be better informed of what you are actually debating rather than flying off on ignorance.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Explain to me why you think sources that exist in clearly different continuities should be utilised?
Did I say that? Where?
First off, when a movie is a retelling of a book or other media, it's not a different continuity. It's not like, say the difference between Pre-crisis Superman, and Superman Prime, for example. that is a completely separate universal timeline. There is a colossal difference between that, and the retelling of the exact same story.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Explain to me why non-movie sources, should be used in a movie versus forum?
Because movies that are adapted for the big screen often are incomplete in their histories and lore. To use LOTR as an example again, Gandalf, the Balrog, and Sauron are all Maiar, yet nothing like that is ever mentioned in the movies, however, it is known, and explained what these things are in the histories and lore of the world as written by the original author, Tolkien. Why should such evidence be discounted for the sake of expediency and a single minded devotion to movies only to the complete and utter exclusion of everything else, even when it becomes detrimental to the debates?
It sounds to me like it was a deliberate act to sabotage and hamstring arguments for the sake of being pedantic.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Explain to me how opinions about movies, based on those movies is half formed?
Because it's based on incomplete evidence and knowledge of the franchise in question. Simple really.
Nobody is expected to read every damned comic or published work of a character they are debating for or against. Characters like Hulk and Superman have been around for decades. I do however, expect people to familiarise themselves with the characters actual source canon as much as their movie iterations before throwing around mis-informed opinions, and then crying or throwing tantrums and going into rules lawyering when they get scolded for it.
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
The book, but it doesn't matter. I your not familiar with it. The example means nothing.
Well, I am familiar with the movies, so this is a good chance for me to explain the situation from your side of the argument, since I have not read the book.
Is there any information in the books, not shown in the movies, but does not directly contradict the films?
Originally posted by Riot-Gear
Let me ask you a different question. If their was a Book Versus Forum and somebody wanted to bring in information from the film version of a character, would you be okay with it?
As long as the information is not contradictive of the books, then yes, I'd be fine with it. Visual medium does indeed help with debates afterall.
Maybe I'm more tolerant of having more information rather than less compared to most people, but I always prefer having more information, rather than less information.
Another example of all of this, would be the book and movie Jaws. I own both the book, and the movie. I can tell you know, a lot had to be cut from the Jaws book story to make the movie. The entire sub-plot involving the Mob was cut entirely, making the Mayor little more than an @$$hole with no reason to be an @$$hole.
Originally posted by Placidity
Every other section limits allowable feats to its relevant medium - i.e. Comics Vs, Games Vs, etc.
I have to disagree with this part. Games vs has an allowance for canon books too, like Halo, and the various books and comics for Capcom's Street Fighter and Darkstalkers, for example.
Originally posted by Placidity
I think the romance brewing Riot-Gear and Darkstorm Zero is a case in point, and a small indication of things to come, should this proposal go through.
*Shrugs* if you prefer debates to be all one-liners, or sections of quotes of oneliners with about as much substance and culture as the contents of a toilet bowl, you should probably stop by HC sometime. 😛
Me? I always preferred a little bit more to my debates than that.
Originally posted by Darkstorm ZeroWhoa now, don't be disingenuous.
I have to disagree with this part. Games vs has an allowance for canon books too, like Halo, and the various books and comics for Capcom's Street Fighter and Darkstalkers, for example.
In games versus it was okay to use those because they are adapted from the video game and canon. Capcom's comics and anime (in the case of the SFIV one) explicitly showed the canon portrayals of the characters. The same is true of Halo.
This proposal does the opposite. It legitimizes the material the movies themselves are based off of.
I have to ask though: Impediment you say this wouldn't be used to give movie characters book/comic/whatever feats. Can you clarify on this point?