Ozymandias vs. Winter Soldier (h2h)

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
why do you believe he was testing himself? also i didnt see him or his equipment exhausted in any way to indicate they were pushed to their limits

Because there was no tactical value to catching the bullet. So to make storytelling sense, we can at least assume he did it to test himself.

Edit. I mean theatrics exist but theatrics also need to make storytelling sense, for the most part (unless not making any kind of storytelling sense is part of said theatrics Ex. a comedy which focuses on the absurd, which is not how I see Watchmen). To protect suspension of disbelief and somesuch.

Edit2. And I said "likely", not "definitely". The beauty of trying to personally make sense of something from a storytelling perspective is that we can all have our own interpretations of it.

Equipment meaning gloves as it obviously hurt when he caught the bullet. As I'm sure the gloves weren't really designed to allow him to catch bullets.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Because there was no tactical value to catching the bullet. So to make storytelling sense, we can at least assume he did it to test himself.

Edit. I mean theatrics exist but theatrics also need to make storytelling sense, for the most part (unless not making any kind of storytelling sense is part of said theatrics Ex. a comedy which focuses on the absurd, which is not how I see Watchmen). To protect suspension of disbelief and somesuch.

Edit2. And I said "likely", not "definitely". The beauty of trying to personally make sense of something from a storytelling perspective is that we can all have our own interpretations of it.

Equipment meaning gloves as it obviously hurt when he caught the bullet. As I'm sure the gloves weren't really designed to allow him to catch bullets.

yes it held no tactical purpose. there are dozens of reasons he probably chose to catch the bullet rather than snapping everyones neck.

a more reasonable guess would be he didnt want to kill the heroes and chose to appear beaten for the moment.

he also had no idea SS would fire one single shot either he may have even wanted to die but his reactions forced him to catch the incoming bullet... all theories but far better than him deciding to find out IF he could catch a bullet 😂

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
yes it held no tactical purpose. there are dozens of reasons he probably chose to catch the bullet rather than snapping everyones neck.

a more reasonable guess would be he didnt want to kill the heroes and chose to appear beaten for the moment.

he also had no idea SS would fire one single shot either he may have even wanted to die but his reactions forced him to catch the incoming bullet... all theories but far better than him deciding to find out IF he could catch a bullet 😂

And like I said, at this point, we're just guessing. And every interpretation becomes personal and not really right or wrong. It's our personal interpretation of ambiguous storytelling to make sense of things.

For what purpose, tho? I mean if he wanted to appear beaten, he might as well have stayed down. But he didn't. He stood right back ul and kicked SS soon after.

I would disagree with that, too. Had he wanted to die, there were plenty of chances to do so from the very beginning. But, like I said, you're free to think that. It just wouldn't make sense to me personally.

"Testing yourself" might not make storytelling sense to you, but it's a trope that happens a LOT in the stuff I read/watch in manga/anime (can't really stand comics anymore these days, so I'm stuck with these). It also happens at times in comics/cartoons. Eapecially to egotistical characters. To to say that it wouldn't storytelling sense or that it doesn't happen in storytelling in general wouldn't be accurate.

Don't know why we're even arguing this, it's all speculative and no one answer would be conclusively right or wrong. At this point are you arguing just to argue?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And like I said, at this point, we're just guessing. And every interpretation becomes personal and not really right or wrong. It's our personal interpretation of ambiguous storytelling to make sense of things.

For what purpose, tho? I mean if he wanted to appear beaten, he might as well have stayed down. But he didn't. He stood right back ul and kicked SS soon after.

I would disagree with that, too. Had he wanted to die, there were plenty of chances to do so from the very beginning. But, like I said, you're free to think that. It just wouldn't make sense to me personally.

"Testing yourself" might not make storytelling sense to you, but it's a trope that happens a LOT in the stuff I read/watch in manga/anime (can't really stand comics anymore these days, so I'm stuck with these). It also happens at times in comics/cartoons. Eapecially to egotistical characters. To to say that it wouldn't storytelling sense or that it doesn't happen in storytelling in general wouldn't be accurate.

Don't know why we're even arguing this, it's all speculative and no one answer would be conclusively right or wrong. At this point are you arguing just to argue?

im arguing with the fact you said he was testing himself and thusly stretched himself and his equipment to some point. also saying ozy surprised himself somehow... if you were simply tossing out some theory you should have said so 😂

all of the theories are just that theories including mines

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
im arguing with the fact you said he was testing himself and thusly exerted himself and his equipment to some point.

but all of the theories are just that theories

Yes, but like I said, it was my interpretation of it based on the factors involved and the resulting interaction afterwards.

Which is a theory. And a personal one at that.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
if you were simply tossing out some theory you should have said so 😂

.........

I actually did say that:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Edit2. And I said "likely", not "definitely". The beauty of trying to personally make sense of something from a storytelling perspective is that we can all have our own interpretations of it.

Waiiiiit. You're trolling me aren't you? Took me a while to catch on, but it looks like you are based on the unnecesarily baiting edit you made on your reply.

Not falling for it anymore, buddy. 😠

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, but like I said, it was my interpretation of it based on the factors involved and the resulting interaction afterwards.

Which is a theory. And a personal one at that.

wouldnt you agree suggesting he stretched himself and his equipment to their limits would require some indication he or his equipment faltered or became exhausted somehow? at that point youre simply making things up rather than speculating (if that makes sense lol)...IJS

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
wouldnt you agree suggesting he stretched himself and his equipment to their limits would require some indication he or his equipment faltered or became exhausted somehow? at that point youre simply making things up...IJS

Disagree. "Stretching to the limit" (w/c would happen if an item was used for something outside its inital design but can still be barely tolerated by its design or when it is used up to the max it can tolerate, but still within design parameters - "TO the limit" not "BEYOND its limits"😉 is not the same as "beyond/exceeding its limit" (wherein the equipment would falter/break/get damaged/exhausted). You're mixing definitions.

And at this point, you're just simply trolling as I have already exhaustively explained that it was simply a theory......

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Disagree. "Stretching to the limit" (w/c would happen if an item was used for something outside its inital design but can still be barely tolerated by its design or when it is used up to the max it can tolerate, but still within design parameters - "TO the limit" not "BEYOND its limits"😉 is not the same as "beyond/exceeding its limit" (wherein the equipment would falter/break/get damaged/exhausted). You're mixing definitions.

And at this point, you're just simply trolling as I have already exhaustively explained that it was simply a theory......

lol there are 0 indications he or his gear were pushed to there limits though... you simply made that up...

if theory meant making things up id let it slide.

but whatever

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
lol there are 0 indications he or his gear were pushed to there limits though... you simply made that up...

if theory meant making things up id let it slide.

but whatever

Yes, yes. Ignore reasoning. Ignore explanation for reasoning. Ignore clarification of explanation. Ignore clarification of theoretical nature of reasoning.

Make baiting accusation to force re-explanation to keep troll going.

Classic troll move. Although, I wonder how long you thought I'd keep playing when the gig is already up.

How the hell is this thread still going? Pretty sure the vast majority of the people who have posted here have stated their opinion on the result multiple times, and every single argument for either side has been beaten to death, over and over and over.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, yes. Ignore reasoning. Ignore explanation for reasoning. Ignore clarification of explanation. Ignore clarification of theoretical nature of reasoning.

Make baiting accusation to force re-explanation to keep troll going.

Classic troll move. Although, I wonder how long you thought I'd keep playing when the gig is already up.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
How the hell is this thread still going? Pretty sure the vast majority of the people who have posted here have stated their opinion on the result multiple times, and every single argument for either side has been beaten to death, over and over and over.

I honestly don't know 😂

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
Ylim trolling because you pulled something outvof your ass and labeled it theory? Lmao

>Make same bait accusation hoping to elicit response.
>Throw in LMAO for emphasis.

I'd say, lazily done. 4/10.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
I honestly don't know 😂

It's getting almost as bad as some of the more infamous Harry Potter and Khan threads.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, yes. Ignore reasoning. Ignore explanation for reasoning. Ignore clarification of explanation. Ignore clarification of theoretical nature of reasoning.

Make baiting accusation to force re-explanation to keep troll going.

Classic troll move. Although, I wonder how long you thought I'd keep playing when the gig is already up.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yup! Finally something I can agree with.

I strongly agree about theatrics (tho comic theatrics would be a more accurate term as they simply copied the scene from comics). From a storytelling perspective, he likely did it to test himself and it seemed like he wasn't even sure it would work. The result was surprising (to him and his opponents) and it stretched his abilities and equipment to their limits.

Hell, he could have just ducked, covered the distance and disarmed her easily. He is certainly fast enough and she certainly waited long enough to pull the trigger. Heck, he did something similar to Comedian and he had to cover a further distance.

This is comical at this point. I've point blank called how Ozy acted theatrics.. you've point blank said no... Somebody else says it was theatrics... OMGZORZ!!! Something I can finally agree with LOL. So on one hand, according to you he was taking unneeded risks in even trying to catch the bullet and essentially show off and test himself. Then in another, your like umm DUH why would he put himself I an vulnerable position. The bias and double standards continue to grow at fast speeds. It would be even more unneeded to actually RISK getting show and trying to catch. More risk than pretending to be shot and playing dead. That is a TRIED AND TRUE way in movies or real life to have people drop there guard. Yet, according to your Ozy would never take such a risk... yet according to you, he took a risk catching a bullet but that Is okay and plausible lol.

Jesus, this is getting painful now. It's not my fault you're illogical and decide to go with the least support view. I'll just go ahead and go with what is more likely and logical. Period, end of story. You continue to live in a fantasy world where exceptions are of greater value than the rule. It's ludicrous. If you care to test how, why do we go find all the evidence we can find of people hurting their hand and how they react?? Deal??

You find me all the videos or documented accounts of real life events where somebody has injured their hand. However, they don't make a single noise indicating pain or discomfort or anything signaling they are hurt. They purposely fall down... then close their eyes... still not indicating a thing is hurt... and then open their eyes with a smirk on their face. You find me all those references. I will find all the case evidence of people hurting their hand.. and REACTING like they've hurt their hand. You know oh shit that hurts... holding their hand in pain, calling for help, crying etc etc. I will find loads more evidence than you will ever find. And to be frank, it won't be the least bit close. Do you agree I'd have more evidence? Thus, why would you choose to side with an opinion that is the least supported? Why would you decide to side with evidence where somebody acted contrary to how most people act? That makes no logical sense to me and why this whole thing is funny at this point.

Lastly, get off the couch LMAO. Shows like Tosh... Worlds Dumbest etc etc... all have given us VASTLY more evidence of such injuries than just going through life having to experience them on your own. It's simply laughable to even assume you'd experience people with severe hand injuries more than by watching the shows on daily and stuff down our throats. With shows like this, we're exposed to vast more amount of evidence than we would other wise. Yet to you, this is a negative LOL. It could be negative to watch such crappy shows, what's is not a negative, is to have more case evidence you've now seen about a subject we're directly talking about. That can never be a negative. If you're up for the challenge shall we see who has more evidence and what is more likely?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
>Make same bait accusation hoping to elicit response.
>Throw in LMAO for emphasis.

I'd say, lazily done. 4/10.

Ok
🙄

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
This is comical at this point.[/strike] I've point blank called how Ozy acted theatrics.. you've point blank said no... Somebody else says it was theatrics... OMGZORZ!!! Something I can finally agree with LOL. So on one hand, according to you he was taking unneeded risks in even trying to catch the bullet and essentially show off and test himself. Then in another, your like umm DUH why would he put himself I an vulnerable position. The bias and double standards continue to grow at fast speeds. It would be even more unneeded to actually RISK getting show and trying to catch. More risk than pretending to be shot and playing dead. That is a TRIED AND TRUE way in movies or real life to have people drop there guard. Yet, according to your Ozy would never take such a risk... yet according to you, he took a risk catching a bullet but that Is okay and plausible lol.

Jesus, this is getting painful now. It's not my fault you're illogical and decide to go with the least support view. I'll just go ahead and go with what is more likely and logical. Period, end of story. You continue to live in a fantasy world where exceptions are of greater value than the rule. It's ludicrous. If you care to test how, why do we go find all the evidence we can find of people hurting their hand and how they react?? Deal??

You find me all the videos or documented accounts of real life events where somebody has injured their hand. However, they don't make a single noise indicating pain or discomfort or anything signaling they are hurt. They purposely fall down... then close their eyes... still not indicating a thing is hurt... and then open their eyes with a smirk on their face. You find me all those references. I will find all the case evidence of people hurting their hand.. and REACTING like they've hurt their hand. You know oh shit that hurts... holding their hand in pain, calling for help, crying etc etc. I will find loads more evidence than you will ever find. And to be frank, it won't be the least bit close. Do you agree I'd have more evidence? Thus, why would you choose to side with an opinion that is the least supported? Why would you decide to side with evidence where somebody acted contrary to how most people act? That makes no logical sense to me and why this whole thing is funny at this point.

Lastly, get off the couch LMAO. Shows like Tosh... Worlds Dumbest etc etc... all have given us VASTLY more evidence of such injuries than just going through life having to experience them on your own. It's simply laughable to even assume you'd experience people with severe hand injuries more than by watching the shows on daily and stuff down our throats. With shows like this, we're exposed to vast more amount of evidence than we would other wise. Yet to you, this is a negative LOL. It could be negative to watch such crappy shows, what's is not a negative, is to have more case evidence you've now seen about a subject we're directly talking about. That can never be a negative. If you're up for the challenge shall we see who has more evidence and what is more likely?

You're not understanding to what the meaning of the "theatrics" that I'm agreeing with to mean. I meant "theatrics" from a storytelling point of view. Not "theatrics" as in "Ozy is theatrically pretending to play possum". You implied the latter not the former. However, if you said the former, pls repost it here so I may agree with you, I must have missed it. If it is the latter, perhaps understand what the other person means before making proclamations? That way, we can all avoid looking silly and wasting each other's time?

And facepalm at you clinging to what I already stated many times as a personal theory with no weight or bearing. Are you seriously that desperate or did you just skip my rather long exchange with OS on just that statement.

At least OS I know is simply trolling. To avoid any more time wasted on personal theories, let me clarify one last time. For your benefit and the benefit of anyone else:

My clarification:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Edit2. And I said "likely", not "definitely". The beauty of trying to personally make sense of something from a storytelling perspective is that we can all have our own interpretations of it.

See the underlined? Do you understand what that means? Pls read. Do you know that the whole point of me even mentioning it is that it is simply a -personal- interpretation of what happened to justify a silly plot hole to myself. Not to anyone else? Are you (and OS) so seriously desperate for any kind of debating "win" that you would take a personal interpretation that I've already acknowledged multiple times as a personal thing (and not a platform I am trying to defend) and cling to it hoping to what? Make yourself look like you're winning an argument when I've already stated many times that it's not position I'm actually arguing but a personal interpretation on possible PIS? I have even explained COUNTLESS times that in this regard, we can all be right or wrong?

Again, let me clarify further if it is too hard for you to understand:

Fact: Guy catches bullet.
Fact: Guy didn't need to catch bullet.
Fact: Guy is a genius who shouldn't be doing dumb things.

Theory: Maybe he was testing himself.

We take all the above "Facts" at face value as those all happened in the film and cannot be disputed. Now a lot of us would be scratching our heads at the why of all this, as to many it wouldn't make sense to catch a bullet if you can just simply catch it. I personally came up with said theory as something I thought to -myself- so that it would make sense to -me-. I then shared it here so that I can inform ppl on what I thought to lighten the mood a bit. I, however, at no time, did insist that this is what ACTUALLY happened as there are little/no facts supporting said theory. I agreed with SO as I thought we believed the same things. As soon as he switched to trolling me and made it apparent that we actually shared different views, I clarified. Immediately. With extreme specificity. He, instead, decided to completely misrepresent what I said simply to troll me. Not very effectively, but it is sad that he'd managed to suck one other person into it.

I hope you took the time to read that. And I hope that clears things up.

Anyway, moving on:

First, please don't go "least supported view" when you only really have one other person supporting yours. It's disingenuous.

Second, your implication that he was playing dead is a theory. Just like my above theory. And, equally, it has as much weight. Zero. Prove it or shut it.

Fact: Ozy catches bullet.
Fact: Ozy falls down after catching bullet.
Fact: Ozy falls down the full length of the stairs and did not recover his balance/footing even though he certainly had the skills to do so.

The above is indisputable. This all happened on screen and no one can argue it.

Playing dead? Theory.

Third, let me get this straight, you want me to find a video with an EXACT real-life situation where a guy injures their hand, gets stunned, lies down, closes their eyes, then stands up with a smile on their face? Sure, I'll do it!!! Right after you find a video/news clips of a guy catching a bullet, pretends to be dead by falling down steps and lying down with his eyes closed and then shows the bullet to everyone.

Silly isn't it?

Fourth, your basis for trying to prove how a fictional armored hand of a fictional character is by watching Tosh and World's dumbest. This is the extent of your life experience and this is your foundation of knowledge in medicine. Then you make assertions that a person can only react a certain way to sudden limb injuries/pain. Yes, many of those DO happen IRL. NO, those are not the ONLY possible reactions to pain/injury. Sheesh.

Me? My wife's a Physical Therapist that specializes in sports injuries, her mom a nurse, her dad a doctor. 3 relatives that are doctors. One surgeon. I used to box, I have actually broken my hand (well 2 fingers anyway) and my wrist. I also broke my ankle (as well as sprained them multiple times) in sports injuries. I do not recall once crying and yelling out or writhing in agony like you say a person should based on what you've learned from your Tosh and World's Dumbest friends that time I broke my fingers/wrist (I did cry out once when I broke my ankle, however). Granted, adrenaline (never get angry when sparring) and shock from the pain must have dulled my sense of pain, the shiner i got sure wasn't bothering me that time. I do remember feeling dizzy and had to sit down from the pain. I was in agony, no doubt. But I didn't act like a 5 year old with a boo boo like you seem to expect everyone should act.

You must know that:

A person can get stunned by a sudden injury or pain to a body part. Again, not saying KO'd. Stunned.
A person can fall down or lose their balance if said cause of injury/pain that stunned them also carried a lot of force in it.
A person (especially one with a degree of pain tolerance) can recover and stand up if said pain and injury is something they can tolerate.

You must understand shows are there for entertainment? And that many times they select the loudest and funniest ones to get the ratings.

You must also understand that not everyone behaves exactly the same way to pain and injury. And depending on the circumstances, the person involved and the nature of the injury, reactions can VARY greatly.

You must surely understand that when talking about fictional characters with superhuman abilities, even these facts need to be thrown out and we should just follow the story and take things at face value?

Seriously, get off the couch. Once a person uses reality shows as a basis of how the world should work, you just KNOW there's a problem there.

Kt just got served.