Kurse vs. General Zod

Yeah, when I hit check message it said that I had not written anything. Odd.

So you say that I have not proven the f-35 was not using standard equipment. I subsequently do in my next post, then you state that the proof is irrelevant. This is getting hilarious.

"Other than trying to reject on screen showings"

Funny, because I'm the only one in this discussion that is actually using the evidence that we see on screen. You are the one who is dismissing the visual and audio evidence. You're practically shoving your fingers in your ears and saying, "Na nah nah nah nah nah, It's a GAU 22! It's a GAU 22!"

"Again, filmmakers are allowed to be inaccurate with how they portray RL objects"

Says who? You? Forgive me for not bowing to your self-asserted authority and proceeding to simply laugh at this statement.

2. When I said "we" had a lengthy discussion, I meant we as a community. Plenty of people wouldn't buy Darth Thor's "fist lines = super speed theory".

No, I am not in the "sonic boom punch" camp.

Oh it is definitely a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter class warplane. Never have I doubted that. But simple observation tells me that it is using a non-standard loadout that we can not identify with any certainty.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
1Yeah, when I hit check message it said that I had not written anything. Odd.

1) So you say that I have not proven the f-35 was not using standard equipment. I subsequently do in my next post, then you state that the proof is irrelevant. This is getting hilarious.

2) "Other than trying to reject on screen showings"

Funny, because I'm the only one in this discussion that is actually using the evidence that we see on screen. You are the one who is dismissing the visual and audio evidence. You're practically shoving your fingers in your ears and saying, "Na nah nah nah nah nah, It's a GAU 22! It's a GAU 22!"

3) "Again, filmmakers are allowed to be inaccurate with how they portray RL objects"

Says who? You? Forgive me for not bowing to your self-asserted authority and proceeding to simply laugh at this statement.

4) 2. When I said "we" had a lengthy discussion, I meant we as a community. Plenty of people wouldn't buy Darth Thor's "fist lines = super speed theory".

No, I am not in the "sonic boom punch" camp.

Oh it is definitely a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter class warplane. Never have I doubted that. But simple observation tells me that it is using a non-standard loadout that we can not identify with any certainty.

1) No, what I was saying was that it was never explicitly mentioned or even hinted at on screen (via the story) that this was some sort of special loadout F-35. That somehow this aircraft is not using a gun that was specially developed for its use and role. And that some other hypothetical gun must be in use. Without any hint of proof beyond bad SFX, you are resorting to speculation, other than simply acknowledging that filmmakers quite often make these kind of mistakes with these sort of things and just take things at face value.

2) Yeap, so your strategy now is to essentially buckle down, ignore suspension of disbelief, ignore the fact that filmmakers can and are allowed to be inaccurate with their depictions of RL objects and stick with your narrow view of how movie props should behave exactly like their RL counterparts. Bravo. 👆

3) Yes, says me and any sane person who watches movies. It is called "suspension of disbelief". Movie objects will not behave (and often times will not even appear) the same as RL objects. What is important is what the filmmakers are trying to portray. And in this case, they are trying to portray a F-35 shooting Hulk. Nothing more, nothing less. Attempting to scrutinize little details (that they probably haven't even considered) when it's freakin visually clear what they were trying to portray is just downright desperate. Again, you're free to think what you want. But pardon me for thinking that's simply because you're willing to stoop to any level just to weasel out of showings you cannot rebut.

This is how you sound to me right now:

"Hey! Ppl can't walk away from explosions like that without getting effed up! The movie must be telling us that it isn't a real explosion."

"Hey suppresors don't sound like that in RL, must not be a standard suppresor!"

"An uzi doesn't sound like that in RL and it can't carry that many bulletsz!!! Must be a special uzi! That can't be a standard uzi the guy just dodged right now, so let's disregard this showing!!!"

Do you go to musicals and critisize how that wooden panel made to look like a tree isn't really a tree in the play as well?

No. Just no.

Thankfully, other than you, even those on the pro-Zod/Kryptonian side acknowledge suspension of disbelief as a reason to disregard these little inaccuracies else we'd have really crappy debates about comparing props with real world objects thru irrelevant details.

4) Well, "we" can be read as "you and I" so pardon my misinterpretation.

Because it doesn't make sense based on a TON of information (both from a movie and real world sense) that was already covered in those discussions. Filmmaker's intentions seemed far more in our favor (again covered in thise discussion) as well. You have to know that one's personal SFX interpretations DO NOT carry any weight unless you can undoubtably prove the intentions behind it as they are simply your own personal interpretations of what the filmmaker's intentions are due to the ambiguity of the item in question. Especially when there are other possible (more feasible) reasons (covered in said discussion) of what it could mean.

That is completely different from the filmmaker specifically using an item and the SFX team simply being inaccurate with its portrayal. Where there is little ambiguity on what the filmmakers were trying to portray and zero in-movie information (outside of effects errors) contradicting it. This is basic stuff.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
Yeah, when I hit check message it said that I had not written anything. Odd.

So you say that I have not proven the f-35 was not using standard equipment. I subsequently do in my next post, then you state that the proof is irrelevant. This is getting hilarious.

"Other than trying to reject on screen showings"

Funny, because I'm the only one in this discussion that is actually using the evidence that we see on screen. You are the one who is dismissing the visual and audio evidence. You're practically shoving your fingers in your ears and saying, "Na nah nah nah nah nah, It's a GAU 22! It's a GAU 22!"

"Again, filmmakers are allowed to be inaccurate with how they portray RL objects"

Says who? You? Forgive me for not bowing to your self-asserted authority and proceeding to simply laugh at this statement.

2. When I said "we" had a lengthy discussion, I meant we as a community. Plenty of people wouldn't buy Darth Thor's "fist lines = super speed theory".

No, I am not in the "sonic boom punch" camp.

Oh it is definitely a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter class warplane. Never have I doubted that. But simple observation tells me that it is using a non-standard loadout that we can not identify with any certainty.

This is getting desperate now. You seem to believe

"Says who? You? Forgive me for not bowing to your self-asserted authority and proceeding to simply laugh at this statement."

When in fact that isn't what is going on here, what is going on is you're being intentional obtuse and inconsistent. It's not about catering to somebody views on a matter, it comes down to siding with that important thing we call logic.

If we know it was a certain type of plane, and know that certain type of plane carries this weapon. That is LIKELY the weapon used. We don't go... well it didn't sound like that or exactly look like that... so I'm going to just throw out the showing entirely as we don't know that it is. WUT??? That makes logical sense to you? It doesn't, and far from it.

We know for a fact filmmakers use sounds effects from various sources to put in their movie. When a AK is being fired in the movie, you might not always get an authentic AK sound. That doesn't mean it's not an AK. It's unbelievably desperate to try and throw out a showing based on that. You have to do what makes the most logical sense, not the least, you always side with the most. It makes more logical sense that the filmmaker wanted this particular load out for that plane, the standard one, we don't presume he wanted something to different just because it didn't quite look and sound the part. That makes the least logical sense, and what you're seemingly siding with. That is the issue.

By your logic, and here's where you're being inconsistent, we should throw out the Black hole showing for Superman and Lois. Being that it didn't act like one normally would, and people were seen moving around said pulse and not sucked in, well then, guess it wasn't a actual singularity. To say nothing of the fact that if it truly was a black hole of sorts that close to earth... the consequences of that would be utterly devastating to earth, and you would've seen a done more damage almost instantly. There wasn't. Guess we'll just throw that whole showing out then right?

@ Nibedicus.

1. I know that no special mention was made of the F-35's weapons. Fortunately, I don't need exposistion to be handed to me in order to make a judgment on something.

When you say "SFX" do you mean sound effects or special effects? Because my judgment is based on both visual and audio evidence.

2. Suspension of disbelief is when John McClain survives a grenade, suffers 3 stab wounds and 5 gunshot wounds, and jumps out of a 15 story window onto concrete and is STILL able to put up a decent fist fight in the finale.

I could easily suspend my disbelief if, for example, the gun was firing from only one port with a proper report but didn't run out of bullets. I'm more than familiar with the bottomless clip phenomenon of films. That wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The F-22 that shot at Iron Man in his first film didn't have the proper BRRRRRR sound that it's gun should have, yet I have no doubt it was a F-22's Vulcan cannon because it looked and behaved like one, they just ****ed up the weapon's report.

The FACT that this F -35's weapon possesed none of a standard GAU 22's characteristics ( two guns instead of one, relatively low discharge frequency on the report, and far more ammunition expelled than a f 35 can carry at it's prpoer fire rate) is more than enough reason for me to cast doubt on its actual identity.

Also, "suspension of disbelief" is a weak cop out on a debate forum where we overanalyze fight moves, count frames, and apply Newtonian physics to nearly every action amd you know it. Nearly any controversial issue can be handwaved away with it.

It doesn't even apply in this situation. Nothing about the attack that the f-35 performed was something I couldn't believe was possible. It simply does not line up with how a standard F-35 would perform. This is something you can not refute. Hell, you won't even try.

3. I never once doubted that an f-35 attacking Hulk was what they were trying to portray. The only issue of contention for me is your insistence that the weapon being used was a GAU 22 when it behaved nothing like it.

"This is how you sound to me right now:

"Hey! Ppl can't walk away from explosions like that without getting effed up! The movie must be telling us that it isn't a real explosion."

"Hey suppresors don't sound like that in RL, must not be a standard suppresor!"

"An uzi doesn't sound like that in RL and it can't carry that many bulletsz!!! Must be a special uzi! That can't be a standard uzi the guy just dodged right now, so let's disregard this showing!!!""

Except I have witnessed those things happening in films before and had absolutely no problem with them. Because people surviving shit they should not, and the bottomless clip phenomenon are common tropes in film and fiction in general. The gun being used by the F-35 wasn't just a little off it was way off.

This is how YOU sound to me right now:

"If it looks like a machine cannon, sounds like a machine cannon, and acts like a machine cannon it must be a GAU 22!"

Only someone who is wholly ignorant of a GAU 22's characteristics would not raise an eyebrow over the identity of this weapon. I would not even rule out the rounds being more powerfull than a 25 mm. I simply admit we don't KNOW. That's the difference between you and me on this subject: I'm willing to embrace my ignorance, while you insist on asserting that which you cannot prove.

4. No problem. I understand how that could have been confusing.

I'm curious, what is the extent to which a filmmaker can inaccurately portray an item before you believe it is no longer that item?

@ Thanosi

Since when did I throw out the showing?

Hulk was obviously hit with large caliber ammunition and he barely noticed it. Well done for him. I'll state that all day everyday. What I will NOT do is state that he was shot by 25 millimeter ammunition from a GAU 22 firing at 3300 rounds per minute because it is obvious to me that that is not what happened. The fact that it either escapes you or you are simply willing to let a wholly inaccurate portrayal slide is not my problem.

Neither you nor Nibedicus can prove that it was a GAU 22. End of story.

This is a dead issue as far as I'm concerned and I don't care to discuss it further. It has virtually nothing to do with the thread anyway. Neither Hulk, Nam-Ek, an A-10 Thunderbolt, or an F-35 are involved in this fight. Let's move on.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Post "feats" and quantify please.

You're dreaming with that "quantify" stuff. I have neither the time the resources or the interest. But I will judge feats as best and objectively as I can.

I just rewatched all of Thor and Hulk's fight scenes in the MCU.

Thor's best purely physical striking feats, meaning without lightning enhancing his hammer, where him smacking frost giants around and slugging Hulk in the Helicarrier. A rough estimate of his opponents' mass puts those well below Zod's uppercut feat.

Hulk did much better. His best feats were blowing out stone columns at the college campus with a double punch, punching Thor across the Helicarrier, heavily denting the Leviathans' armor with his fists at least three times (hard to quantify though considering we have no idea how hard it is, although a much higher melting point than titanium is a safe bet) smacking Hulkbuster through a building with a large metal rod, and launching Ultron with a punch after his vibranium shell had been damaged.

I actually think a few of these are better than any strike the Kryptonians did in Man of Steel without the aid of flight or jumping.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
@ Nibedicus.

1. I know that no special mention was made of the F-35's weapons. Fortunately, I don't need exposistion to be handed to me in order to make a judgment on something.

When you say "SFX" do you mean sound effects or special effects? Because my judgment is based on both visual and audio evidence.

2. Suspension of disbelief is when John McClain survives a grenade, suffers 3 stab wounds and 5 gunshot wounds, and jumps out of a 15 story window onto concrete and is STILL able to put up a decent fist fight in the finale.

I could easily suspend my disbelief if, for example, the gun was firing from only one port with a proper report but didn't run out of bullets. I'm more than familiar with the bottomless clip phenomenon of films. That wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The F-22 that shot at Iron Man in his first film didn't have the proper BRRRRRR sound that it's gun should have, yet I have no doubt it was a F-22's Vulcan cannon because it looked and behaved like one, they just ****ed up the weapon's report.

The FACT that this F -35's weapon possesed none of a standard GAU 22's characteristics ( two guns instead of one, relatively low discharge frequency on the report, and far more ammunition expelled than a f 35 can carry at it's prpoer fire rate) is more than enough reason for me to cast doubt on its actual identity.

Also, "suspension of disbelief" is a weak cop out on a debate forum where we overanalyze fight moves, count frames, and apply Newtonian physics to nearly every action amd you know it. Nearly any controversial issue can be handwaved away with it.

It doesn't even apply in this situation. Nothing about the attack that the f-35 performed was something I couldn't believe was possible. It simply does not line up with how a standard F-35 would perform. This is something you can not refute. Hell, you won't even try.

3. I never once doubted that an f-35 attacking Hulk was what they were trying to portray. The only issue of contention for me is your insistence that the weapon being used was a GAU 22 when it behaved nothing like it.

"This is how you sound to me right now:

"Hey! Ppl can't walk away from explosions like that without getting effed up! The movie must be telling us that it isn't a real explosion."

"Hey suppresors don't sound like that in RL, must not be a standard suppresor!"

"An uzi doesn't sound like that in RL and it can't carry that many bulletsz!!! Must be a special uzi! That can't be a standard uzi the guy just dodged right now, so let's disregard this showing!!!""

Except I have witnessed those things happening in films before and had absolutely no problem with them. Because people surviving shit they should not, and the bottomless clip phenomenon are common tropes in film and fiction in general. The gun being used by the F-35 wasn't just a little off it was way off.

This is how YOU sound to me right now:

"If it looks like a machine cannon, sounds like a machine cannon, and acts like a machine cannon it must be a GAU 22!"

Only someone who is wholly ignorant of a GAU 22's characteristics would not raise an eyebrow over the identity of this weapon. I would not even rule out the rounds being more powerfull than a 25 mm. I simply admit we don't KNOW. That's the difference between you and me on this subject: I'm willing to embrace my ignorance, while you insist on asserting that which you cannot prove.

4. No problem. I understand how that could have been confusing.

I'm curious, what is the extent to which a filmmaker can inaccurately portray an item before you believe it is no longer that item?

1) And here lies the problem. You assume that the filmmaker's rules of storytelling should adhere to your own instead of accepting the filmmaker's storytelling as it is. Thing is, that's not how things work. Filmmaker > you.

You are basing your argument purely on the light special effects (w/c is what the cannon fire actually is in movies) and the sound effects. You never really saw the weapon, you're just basing it on its behavior based on these two SFX. SFX is the least dependable basis for determining what the object they are trying to portray is. This is something that has always been either intentionally (or not) incorrect due to factors such as budget, capabilities, dramatic effect or simple knowledge of the SFX team. Once you can acknowledge this, we can move forward with this debate.

2) I find your level of scrutiny rather arbitrary if anything. Why suspend your disbelief over something physically impossible (like unlimited bullets) or invulnerable action heroes or even accept that certain weapons behave incorrectly but have no doubts on their authenticity but all of a sudden since you don't like the firing rate, sound effect and weapon position you suddenly realize that it is impossible for it to be the weapon being portrayed? And FYI, being "way off." in your opinion is irrelevant. They got 2 things wrong. Sound FX and Light FX. That is all. Mistakes in those areas don't just happen in movies, they're downright commonplace.

Tho I am glad that you have now (albeit seemingly unintentionally) retracted your position of "the pilot should have burned thru his rounds in under 5 seconds" prior position with your admission and acceptance of Hollywood's "unlimited ammo" phenomenon. I find it strange that you'd mention that you are "more than familiar" when this was actually you argument a couple of posts ago. And that you can't seem to wrap your mind (as you're still including it in your argument) around other common tropes like wrong firing rate and wrong soundfx (as most weapons IRL sound dumb, they tend to spiffy it up). Or that special FX teams tend to get things like weapon positions=ing wrong.

Ahhh. I see, here lies another root cause of the problem with you. You do not seem to understand the intentions of all the detailed analysis. You feel that "suspension of disbelief" is a copout when it is the very foundation of every argument made here (with varying degrees).

You see what we're actually trying to do is try to determine what the filmmaker is trying to tell us and from there extrapolate the forces/factors. We "overanalyze" things to come up with a clear picture of what forces/factors were in play in order to quantify and do a better comparison between showings. We do this because we cannot go by simply comparing things like SFX as movies tend to have different SFX budgets and SFX teams. So we use computable visual evidence (such as speed and approximate weight, or muzzle energy, etc) and attempt to extrapolate from there. But before ALL THAT, we need to accept what the filmmaker is trying to communicate and simply accept it for what it is.

What we do NOT do is try to discredit things by nitpicking details when such goes against filmmaker's intentions (and those that do, are just lazy). Once you realize that fillmaker's intention trump all and then work your way down, you'll start to get it.

"Nothing about the attack that the f-35 performed was something I couldn't believe was possible."

See, this is another problem. You seem to think that YOU have to believe something is possible before you can accept it as truth. When the truth is the opposite. YOU have to accept what the filmmakers are saying is truth relative to the audience otherwise you'll just simply be out of touch with what the movie is trying to convey.

When the filmmakers are trying to convey a story to a mass market that has little/no working knowledge of how these weapons work. The level of scrutiny of the details regarding their props is not really their main concern and YOUR level of scrutiny of the details is just simply irrelevant. As far as the target audience knows, they sent an F-35 (they probably used it as it is the fashionable plane to use these days in movies and because their SFX team simply had the CGI model all mapped out due to it being so commonplace in movies these days). As they made no mention in-story of it being nonstandard, it is an F-35. Nothing more, nothing less. Accepting that (as it is obviously filmmaker's intention) first and foremost, we move forward, going into OUR little details and ask: what is the standard armament of a F-35 and what are the forces it can generate to quantify said "feats"?

I don't need to refute anything about the behavior of the GAU 22. As that is not the problem. The problem it seems is your rather arbitrary, personal opinions and rules of how props should behave and your misguided belief of what the intentions of all the analysis here is and the method of how we went about it.

3. You claim that you have witnessed these things and claim that you've had ABSOLUTELY no trouble accepting it for other things but somehow cannot accept it for this thing. Going as far as using things in your argument that you say you have no trouble accepting for many things such as common movie tropes/errors like unlimited ammo phenomenon, wrong special effect, improper firing rates, etc. to try and deny that this is a GAU 22. Because a GAU 22 should not be allowed to commit in movies the very things you say you have ABSOLUTELY no trouble accepting other things to have.

Again, very arbitrary use of detail nitpicking here. It is very telling.

Yes, I agree, ppl who are very ignorant (I will disagree with the "only" part tho, there are also those that don't care and just want to enjoy the movie) of the GAU 22's characteristics would not raise an eyebrow over the identity of the weapon. Mind taking a poll of how many of the Avengers primary viewing audience are versed or actually even aware of a GAU 22's characteristics? Heck, I'll go as far as ask if they even know that an F-35 carries a GAU 22 or even that a GAU 22 is a gun. I'm willing to believe some would go as far as say (like my wife): "is that some sort of rock band?" (my wife is smart but her very liberal mind has very little interest/knowledge on military hardware). It is not about "embracing ignorance", your problem is that you believe that your criteria for details is at all relevant here and somehow trumps the filmmaker's intention.

4. Quick and simple answer? There is no extent. I will take things as how the filmmakers are trying to portray it. I'm of the generation where SFX was still a rather inconsistent technique in movies. Where budgets were nowhere near what they are today so we had to go by the concept of "well, if the filmmakers are telling us that is a giant fire breathing lizard that knows karate, we'll have accept that it's a giant fire breathing lizard that knows karate".

Although, admittedly, I will roll my eyes at how badly they are portraying it. To enjoy a movie, I need to accept what the filmmakers are trying to portray regardless of how bad they portray it. Otherwise, I'd probably start to have trouble accepting a skinny time traveling immortal englishman solving multiversal crises by pointing a glowing pen at things. And that happens to be one of my favorite shows.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
You're dreaming with that "quantify" stuff. I have neither the time the resources or the interest. But I will judge feats as best and objectively as I can.

I just rewatched all of Thor and Hulk's fight scenes in the MCU.

Thor's best purely physical striking feats, meaning without lightning enhancing his hammer, where him smacking frost giants around and slugging Hulk in the Helicarrier. A rough estimate of his opponents' mass puts those well below Zod's uppercut feat.

Hulk did much better. His best feats were blowing out stone columns at the college campus with a double punch, punching Thor across the Helicarrier, heavily denting the Leviathans' armor with his fists at least three times (hard to quantify though considering we have no idea how hard it is, although a much higher melting point than titanium is a safe bet) smacking Hulkbuster through a building with a large metal rod, and launching Ultron with a punch after his vibranium shell had been damaged.

I actually think a few of these are better than any strike the Kryptonians did in Man of Steel without the aid of flight or jumping.

You forgot the Leviathan punch.

Well, if you have no time or interest to quantify said "feats" pardon if those of us who have done so disagree with your rather subjective opinion on what is stronger. I am not saying I am one of those who disagree, however. I am still on the fence on who has hit strongest in the movies. As I still want to do quantifications and comparisons.

Originally posted by TheGrat1
You're dreaming with that "quantify" stuff. I have neither the time the resources or the interest. But I will judge feats as best and objectively as I can.

I just rewatched all of Thor and Hulk's fight scenes in the MCU.

Thor's best purely physical striking feats, meaning without lightning enhancing his hammer, where him smacking frost giants around and slugging Hulk in the Helicarrier. A rough estimate of his opponents' mass puts those well below Zod's uppercut feat.

Hulk did much better. His best feats were blowing out stone columns at the college campus with a double punch, punching Thor across the Helicarrier, heavily denting the Leviathans' armor with his fists at least three times (hard to quantify though considering we have no idea how hard it is, although a much higher melting point than titanium is a safe bet) smacking Hulkbuster through a building with a large metal rod, and launching Ultron with a punch after his vibranium shell had been damaged.

I actually think a few of these are better than any strike the Kryptonians did in Man of Steel without the aid of flight or jumping.

This was a respectable post and I appreciate you at least taking the time to examine some of the feats in question. Seemingly you gave Hulk a fair shake. That said, I'm still not sure how you can think Zod wins this fight, when really, he would get curbed by Hulk. Literally curbed. Hulk is stronger and hulk is more durable. In the end, that is the difference here.

Why don't Thor's lighting enhanced strikes count?

I don't think we have ever seen Thor or Hulk even go all out in the movies like Zod did.

Kurse destroys him

Zod was smacking the shit out this guy like nothing

Kurse is a joke, a slow, weak and unimpressive joke like most MCU villains, im still waiting for a over the top superpowered fight in that verse.

Is that supposed to be impressive?

Thats pretty impressive

I honestly can see Thor or Hulk doing that world engine feat

Originally posted by TH3_V01D
Zod was smacking the shit out this guy like nothing

Kurse is a joke, a slow, weak and unimpressive joke like most MCU villains, im still waiting for a over the top superpowered fight in that verse.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
They got knocked back by bullets while hulk didnt, also hulk can jump far farther than foara can check out his first movie. He jumped a distance of Miles. Are superman's leg muscles strong enough to make him jump a few Miles at a time? From one city to another city?

Originally posted by Arachnid1
Your thinking of the wrong Hulk man. Thats Ang Lee Hulk. MCU Hulk has to jump up and climb buildings, never mind clearing the distance from city to city in a jump.

No, Ang Lee is different. You're thinking of Hulk from TIH which rebooted. He's the same as the one from the Avengers movies, despite being noticeably weaker.