Stop.
Flat out.
These are laughable conspiracy theories and you'd have to do a helluva lot of proving to show that they are anything but such; to prove that the writer's intention was to create some ambiguous false headline off to the side of the screen to cause random debate on a Vs. forum.
Again, we defer to good ol' Occam's Razor here. Superman moved the tectonic plate because that is the simplest explanation.
And its probably an easter egg reference to the Christoper Reeve Supes doing the same exact thing in the 1978 movie.
As to the plausibility of the feat. We don't know the hard limits of Cavill Supes yet. Jor-El even told him to continually test them. He may have gotten exponentially stronger in 18 months.
But seeing as a highly weakened Superman busted through the World Engine, which was durable enough to fall at hypersonic speeds from space, down to the Earth and plow through a mountain completely unscathed, it's readily believable to me.
Said World Engine was also terraforming the entire planet and it would have gotten the job done in seemingly a few hours at most. Superman flew up through that same terraforming beam, again while heavily weakened.
Keeping in mind the scale of destruction he was dealing with, it becomes entirely plausible that he shifted a tectonic plate by himself.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
Stop.Flat out.
These are laughable conspiracy theories and you'd have to do a helluva lot of proving to show that they are anything but such; to prove that the writer's intention was to create some ambiguous false headline off to the side of the screen to cause random debate on a Vs. forum.
Again, we defer to good ol' Occam's Razor here. Superman moved the tectonic plate because that is the simplest explanation.
And its probably an easter egg reference to the Christoper Reeve Supes doing the same exact thing in the 1978 movie.
As to the plausibility of the feat. We don't know the hard limits of Cavill Supes yet. Jor-El even told him to continually test them. He may have gotten exponentially stronger in 18 months.
But seeing as a highly weakened Superman busted through the World Engine, which was durable enough to fall at hypersonic speeds from space, down to the Earth and plow through a mountain completely unscathed, it's readily believable to me.
Said World Engine was also terraforming the entire planet and it would have gotten the job done in seemingly a few hours at most. Superman flew up through that same terraforming beam, again while heavily weakened.
Keeping in mind the scale of destruction he was dealing with, it becomes entirely plausible that he shifted a tectonic plate by himself.
Excellent post...
👆
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Question, how did the reporter even know that Supes shifted the plates? Did he see Superman perform the "feat"? Is that even possible? Did Superman brag about it? Is that even in his character to do so?Newspapers can be wrong/lie/embelish the truth you know. To grab headlines and sell papers.
Exactly, it does say a lot that people are relying on a headline rather than feats that we actually see Superman perform.
I mean I'm iffy. I'd agree yes he most likely didn't use Kryptonian technology to shift those plates. So unless he somehow used heat vision to accomplish this(which wouldn't make any sense obviously) yeah it was most likely due to strength.
Even if the reporter exaggerated it..well, the feat is pretty far above anything we've seen(I'd forgotten the headline until someone mentioned it).
With all that being said...for me when it has come to statements and using them as evidence I just ask myself if there are other feats we have seen that would support this level of strength. Or any feats that even come close to it. If there were, yes I'd accept the statement.
Originally posted by CosmicComet
Stop.Flat out.
These are laughable conspiracy theories and you'd have to do a helluva lot of proving to show that they are anything but such; to prove that the writer's intention was to create some ambiguous false headline off to the side of the screen to cause random debate on a Vs. forum.
Again, we defer to good ol' Occam's Razor here. Superman moved the tectonic plate because that is the simplest explanation.
And its probably an easter egg reference to the Christoper Reeve Supes doing the same exact thing in the 1978 movie.
As to the plausibility of the feat. We don't know the hard limits of Cavill Supes yet. Jor-El even told him to continually test them. He may have gotten exponentially stronger in 18 months.
But seeing as a highly weakened Superman busted through the World Engine, which was durable enough to fall at hypersonic speeds from space, down to the Earth and plow through a mountain completely unscathed, it's readily believable to me.
Said World Engine was also terraforming the entire planet and it would have gotten the job done in seemingly a few hours at most. Superman flew up through that same terraforming beam, again while heavily weakened.
Keeping in mind the scale of destruction he was dealing with, it becomes entirely plausible that he shifted a tectonic plate by himself.
That wasn't a "conspiracy theory". That was a legit question. How exactly did the reporter witness said tectonic moving?
/shrug
And Occum's Razor is a logical guide (to help point the person to discover a possible right answer), it is not a logical constant as even its phrasing states that it can be wrong.
It was obviously an easter egg. I think we can all agree on this. A witty homage to previous movie incarnations of Superman. In your own wirds, the writer obviously did not put it there to spark some random debate in some obscure battleboard. So who is in the wrong here? The one using it as some sort of indisputable evidence or those that believe the little easter egg might well not be all that good as evidence?
You HAVE to agree, that at its best, it is as flimsy and weak an evidence as evidence can get. And if you ever tried to use a headline in a court of law and fail to have corroborating evidence to prove its authenticity, then opposing council would likely tear you a new one.
Best to use actual "feats" we can see on screen and let those do the talking.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
That wasn't a "conspiracy theory". That was a legit question. How exactly did the reporter witness said tectonic moving?/shrug
And Occum's Razor is a logical guide (to help point the person to discover a possible right answer), it is not a logical constant as even its phrasing states that it can be wrong.
It was obviously an easter egg. I think we can all agree on this. A witty homage to previous movie incarnations of Superman. In your own wirds, the writer obviously did not put it there to spark some random debate in some obscure battleboard. So who is in the wrong here? The one using it as some sort of indisputable evidence or those that believe the little easter egg might well not be all that good as evidence?
You HAVE to agree, that at its best, it is as flimsy and weak an evidence as evidence can get. And if you ever tried to use a headline in a court of law and fail to have corroborating evidence to prove its authenticity, then opposing council would likely tear you a new one.
Best to use actual "feats" we can see on screen and let those do the talking.
There is nothing to suggest that the report was wrong.
You need to prove that its wrong. Not the other way around.
Originally posted by abhilegend
It's not flimsy at all. It's a reference to a feat Superman does off panel.There is nothing to suggest that the report was wrong.
You need to prove that its wrong. Not the other way around.
Off panel "feats" are flimsy enough. But an off panel "feat" using a medium w/c even in the real world has been proven to be less than dependable where even the "how" on the method used to observe said "feat" is pretty sketchy sure sounds pretty damned flimsy to me.
I'm not trying to prove it wrong, I'm demonstrating how weak the nature of the evidence is.