Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So the larger which hits with 100% more strength knocked Nam back and the smaller one didn't knock hulk back.
Yes. Although I would day one knocked the one guy pretty far while the other was barely noticeable to the other guy. Comes down to levels of effect IMO. One had a powerful impact, the other was treated as you would a sptiball.
Originally posted by Silent Master
There you go then, the Hulk was able to partially roll with the hits and that is the reason he didn't get sent flying as far.
Except for the part where it doesn't look like that's what happened. At all. He got countered unexpectedly both times.
I find it funny how nobody made it out as low balling Thor until I showed how those strikes pale in comparison to those from the Kryptonians. Now you're saying Hulk rolled with the punches and still got put on queer street by the second blow. Poor showing for him. Ill make sure that is known in the Faora vs Hulk thread.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes. Although I would day one knocked the one guy pretty far while the other was barely noticeable to the other guy. Comes down to levels of effect IMO. One had a powerful impact, the other was treated as you would a sptiball.
Having trouble following. The larger and more powerful weapon knocked names back, the less powerful one pissed hulk off, is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, I pointed out the inconsistencies in my posts in the other thread. But standard armament of an F35 is the GAU 22. And it's 3-4 second max firing time (around 200 rounds). Firing rate isn't slow tho, what you see are the tracer or TP rounds. There are multiple rounds fired for each visible TP round you see.There was no indicator of it being anything else or even if there are other gunpods designed for the F-35. It comes down to movies being inconsistent in general about these kinds of things. Heck, if you want to argue these kinds of things, one can say that the A-10 in MoS was inconsistent with how fast the firing rate was based on the impact marks on the movie. But this is "movies", and consistent physics isn't its strong point. However, if you want to claim that a different weapon was being fired, onus is on you to prove it.
I know how tracer works.
No, you claimed it was a certain weapon based on standard f-35 specs, I provided evidence to the contrary that that f-35 was not using anything close to standard loadout. Therefore YOU need to properly identify it if you want to compare to the A-10's weapon. I properly conceded that we may never be able to identify it.
And the firing rate was too slow, you can hear it. If fired with a choppachoppachoppa sound when it should be a proper BRRRRRR like the A-10 performed.
There is no doubt about the weapon system being used by the A-10s in Man of Steel, the only possible debate that can be had would be the type of ammunition they were using; depleted uranium, tungsten, or something similar. For the sake of the residents of Smallville though I hope it wasn't the DU.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Having trouble following. The larger and more powerful weapon knocked names back, the less powerful one pissed hulk off, is that what you are saying?
Fair assesment, yes. Although, if we base it one the first 2 seconds for a more apples-to-apples effect period comparison (as Nam-ek did not experinced prolonged A-10 autofire at the period Hulk did), initial effect within the first 2 seconds for BOTH characters would be Nam-ek knocked back, Hulk barely noticing.
Originally posted by TheGrat1
I know how tracer works.No, you claimed it was a certain weapon based on standard f-35 specs, I provided evidence to the contrary that that f-35 was not using anything close to standard loadout. Therefore YOU need to properly identify it if you want to compare to the A-10's weapon. I properly conceded that we may never be able to identify it.
And the firing rate was too slow, you can hear it. If fired with a choppachoppachoppa sound when it should be a proper BRRRRRR like the A-10 performed.
There is no doubt about the weapon system being used by the A-10s in Man of Steel, the only possible debate that can be had would be the type of ammunition they were using; depleted uranium, tungsten, or something similar. For the sake of the residents of Smallville though I hope it wasn't the DU.
You didn't prove that the F-35 was not using standard loadout, you've asserted that said standard weapon system isn't behaving according to how it should be behaving assuming exact knowledge of how these weapons work.
Filmamkers have tended to be inaccurate with their portrayals of RL objects, it can be because they are ignorant of how weapons work at times. Other times they do it for dramatic effect. What they do do consistently, however, is be explicit when they want to portray something in their films and tend to be very specific about what it is and specific about showing on screen when they choose to add in differences with its RW counterpart, unless there is a reason (whether it be story based or an easter egg) not to be. In short they are more concerned with the "what" than the details surrounding it. What they don't expect the audience to do, however, is to nitpick specs of the props they use to behave exactly as their real world counterparts behave. Essentially, no. It is quite obviously an F-35 and unless you have on screen proof that they explicitly and intentionally deviated it from what a standard F-35 has and what an F-35 uses, then it's an F-35 with standard speccs.
And yes, SFX tend to be inconsistent and inaccurate. Among other FX, this tend to be the most inconsistent of all. To this day, many movies still get the suppresor sound wrong. Hell many still get basic gunfire wrong. The fact that we are here arguing this shows the levels you are willing to nitpick just to get your argument accross.
Hell, you claim that you have no doubts about the A-10 GAU 8 being what it is but listen close to the samples:
This is how an A-10 GAU 8 sounds during a test. It goes VRRRRRRR!
This is how the A-10 sounded GAU 8 sounds in MoS. It went TGTGTGTGTG!
(0:16)
That is unless we are listening to different movies here. Admittedly, it sounded closer to the A-10 than the marvel version F-35 sounded to its RW counterpart (as it does have some background Vrrrr). But that is irrelevant, after all, we're nitpicking soundfxs now.
The fact that we are arguing about this is sad to me and shows the depths that this has all sunk.
Seriously, it would be nice if everyone stopped the lowball game and just called things as they happen exactly as it explicitly happened on screen.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You realize how much bigger faster and stronger the A-10 run is vs the F-35..the gun can kill tanks more effectively then other tanks..
I do realize that. Not lowballing how powerful and scary an A-10 is, it is my all time fave aircraft (as I'm sure it is for a LOT of ppl).
Like I said, a matter of levels of effects.
Originally posted by TheGrat1
Except for the part where it doesn't look like that's what happened. At all. He got countered unexpectedly both times.I find it funny how nobody made it out as low balling Thor until I showed how those strikes pale in comparison to those from the Kryptonians. Now you're saying Hulk rolled with the punches and still got put on queer street by the second blow. Poor showing for him. Ill make sure that is known in the Faora vs Hulk thread.
Just like it didn't look like the people in MOS were bracing themselves or rolling with the punches to avoid being sent flying either. so if you can use that excuse for them and all the other times people with super-strength don't send people flying, then we can use it for Thor and the Hulk.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Just like it didn't look like the people in MOS were bracing themselves or rolling with the punches to avoid being sent flying either. so if you can use that excuse for them and all the other times people with super-strength don't send people flying, then we can use it for Thor and the Hulk.
Except I didn't use that for them. I only provided a potential hypothesis for why people stronger than Captain Rogers don't send people flying with every punch across the live-action (specifically comic book film) medium. Most of the time when the Kryptonians hit each other in Man of Steel they DID send each other flying.
These are minor details anyway. Thor is still nowhere near Kryptonian level of strength. I simply used the scenes as evidence in applying this hypothesis to that seen still doesn't advance Thor far at all.
Originally posted by TheGrat1
Except I didn't use that for them. I only provided a potential hypothesis for why people stronger than Captain Rogers don't send people flying with every punch across the live-action (specifically comic book film) medium. Most of the time when the Kryptonians hit each other in Man of Steel they DID send each other flying.These are minor details anyway. Thor is still nowhere near Kryptonian level of strength. I simply used the scenes as evidence in applying this hypothesis to that seen still doesn't advance Thor far at all.
Strength is irrelevant within the showings comparisom you were trying to make. What matters is striking power.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
You didn't prove that the F-35 was not using standard loadout,
From Wikipedia:
Armament
Guns: 1 × General Dynamics 25 mm (0.984 in) GAU-22/A 4-barrel Gatling gun, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 11][271]
See that "1 x"? It means it only has one. The F 35 in Avengers clearly had two gun ports.
Case closed.
Originally posted by NibedicusAnd yes, SFX tend to be inconsistent and inaccurate. Among other FX, this tend to be the most inconsistent of all. To this day, many movies still get the suppresor sound wrong. Hell many still get basic gunfire wrong. The fact that we are here arguing this shows the levels you are willing to nitpick just to get your argument accross.
Hell, you claim that you have no doubts about the A-10 GAU 8 being what it is but listen close to the samples:
This is how an A-10 GAU 8 sounds during a test. It goes VRRRRRRR!
This is how the A-10 sounded GAU 8 sounds in MoS. It went TGTGTGTGTG!
(0:16)
That is unless we are listening to different movies here. Admittedly, it sounded closer to the A-10 than the marvel version F-35 sounded to its RW counterpart (as it does have some background Vrrrr). But that is irrelevant, after all, we're nitpicking soundfxs now.
The fact that we are arguing about this is sad to me and shows the depths that this has all sunk.
Seriously, it would be nice if everyone stopped the lowball game and just called things as they happen exactly as it explicitly happened on screen.
Didn't we already have a lengthy discussion in this thread about what the filmmakers intended for us to see and what we actually saw? No one conceded Zod's speed with lines following his fist because they wouldn't accept an artistic interpretation excuse. Now Whedon gets let off the hook because of "inconsistencies"? Spare me.
Its not my fault that neither Whedon or his special effects department either know how an f-35 operates or care to portray it accurately on screen. As you said:
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Essentially, you have nothing but speculation.
For some reason, I can't seem to quote your previous post (site issues?). I'll just reply without quoting.
1) Two gunpods is irrelevant, they are allowed to portray RL objects incorrectly. The same way that the A-10 in MoS wasn't portrayed correctly either (of course there are levels of "incorrect" but a filmmaker is allowed all that as long as he can still maintain a level of suspension of disbelief). You can buckle down and reject the concept of movies being inaccurate with how they portray RL objects but that only means that you've really got nothing to debate with. Other than trying to reject on screen showings by nitpicking on screen items as they are being portrayed in the movies because they should somehow behave exactly as they do in RL, anyway. That, to me, is absurd. But you are more than welcome to think this way.
"Oh look, that doesn't seem like/behave like a real airplane shooting at Godzilla, must not be an airplane! Oh look! Buildings don't explode like that! Can't be a building! oh no no no those aren't buildings the aliens exploded in War of the Worlds!"
Again, filmmakers are allowed to be inaccurate with how they portray RL objects. If you refuse to acknowledge that, be my guest. But don't expect ppl to listen to you or believe in what you say.
2) Um no. We had a lengthy discussion (at least I think we must have in the past, as I do not remember who you are and when that happened, sorry) about how YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SFX (whose purpose and nature were never specifically mentioned nor alluded to or shown in the movie) isn't accurate as visual evidence does not corroborate your theory (the theory that I think you're trying to sell anyway, are you among "the sonic boom punches/super speed theory" bunch? It's the only argument where I can recall hearing "artistic interpretation" so I'll go ahead and assume this, pls correct if I am wrong.). That is NOT artistic interpretation vs RL object. It is personal theories/interpretation vs Visual evidence.
Visual evidence trumps personal interpretation/theories of SFX every single time.
It does not apply to this case. This is a F-35. You can complain about how its weapons system doesn't behave the way it should in RL all you want but that doesn't eliminate that it is a F-35. And an F-35 carries a GAU 22.