Apocalypse/Kurse vs. Doomsday/Superman

Originally posted by Silent Master
In other words you can't provide any proof, so you're just going to continue to insist that your speculation is actually proof.

And you are trolling by trying to discredit something that you actually believe, so that Superman isn't able to win against Kurse. Because you don't like Superman or favor Marvel characters more.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
>Newspapers are fallable/inaccurate in RL but somehow comic movie newspapers are 100% accurate.

>Acknowledges that writer put it there as an easter egg tribute shoutout to classic Reeves Superman, yet insists writer intentions clearly gave the "feat" to current Superman.

Superman's uppercut to Zod >>>>>>>Anything Kurse has done strength wise. If anyone disagree then let's debate it. I'll prove it.

Originally posted by Inhuman
Ok, well to simplify it for you, here in the movie versus Forum. We go by feats. Not by what is said, not by what is written, not by what is narrated, not what we imagine in our heads that characters are should capable of.
On screen feats tump everything. If we don't see the character performing a certain feat in the movie, it has to be disregarded.
This doesn't work like comics where the writer can say something on a panel and it could be used as a feat or description on what the character is capable of
Didn't think this needed explaining tbh.

No.

Evidence is evidence.

You have to prove the evidence is not valid.

There is no differing specialty rules unless specified directly, fictional debates have the same basic tenants.

Originally posted by h1a8
newspapers are fallible in real life but in fiction they are only if the writer shows it to be. You are arguing as if any of this stuff happened. Superman never moved tectonic plates because Superman never existed. But did he moved tectonic plates in the writer's mind? Yes!

Nope. You have it backwards.

Items/objects shown in movies have the same characteristics/behaviour as their real world counterparts, as such, newspapers represent the same level of credibility as their real world counterparts.

The only exception is that IF the writer specifically/clearly indicates that X fictional object behaves differently from their real world counterpart.

Originally posted by CosmicComet
No.

Evidence is evidence.

You have to prove the evidence is not valid.

There is no differing specialty rules unless specified directly, fictional debates have the same basic tenants.

And there are types of evidence. And levels of credibility that these evidence provide.

Proor/weak evidence is something many can simply reasonably disregard.

Unless of course you believe that bigfoot kept a farmer as his love slave.

http://squirrelsviews.blogspot.com/2009/10/crazy-tabloid-headlines.html

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Nope. You have it backwards.

Items/objects shown in movies have the same characteristics/behaviour as their real world counterparts, as such, newspapers represent the same level of credibility as their real world counterparts.

The only exception is that IF the writer specifically/clearly indicates that X fictional object behaves differently from their real world counterpart.

Originally posted by h1a8
Yes newspapers cam be fallible in fiction, but only After they were shown to be (like a retconn). In fiction, writers intentions are law. That's all that matters. We can't argue against what the writer is TRYING TO SHOW.

No. Fictional newspapers are, by default, as credible as the real world newspapers they represent. The same way as any fictional objects, by default, behave/work the same way as their real world counterpart. The writer needs to specifically point out that they behave differently before any argument can be made that they do. Otherwise no forum battle would work as we need to have a real world basis foundation to quantify "feats". Newspapers are not excempt from this basic rule.

And stop using that the "writer's intent", when writer's intent was clearly an easter egg tribute to a different Superman. This is highly disingenuous of you.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No. Fictional newspapers are, by default, as credible as the real world newspapers they represent. The same way as any fictional objects, by default, behave/work the same way as their real world counterpart. The writer needs to specifically point out that they behave differently before any argument can be made that they do. Otherwise no forum battle would work as we need to have a real world basis foundation to quantify "feats". Newspapers are not excempt from this basic rule.

And stop using that the "writer's intent", when writer's intent was clearly an easter egg tribute to a different Superman. This is highly disingenuous of you.

The easter egg reference is the exact proof of his intentions that Mos actually performed the feat. There is only one Superman in that work of fiction.

In the writer's mind Superman moved tectonic plates as Christopher Reeve did. End of story.

Originally posted by h1a8
No they aren't. They are credible if it's the writers intention for it to be. They have full artistic license of what they want to show.

The easter egg reference is the exact proof of his intentions that Mos actually performed the feat. There is only one Superman in that work of fiction.

In the writer's mind Superman moved tectonic plates as Christopher Reeve did. End of story.

And the writer made no specific mention of newspapers being infallible in his universe, so you're making up his intent in your head.

And no, it is not proof. It is simply an easter egg.

You didn't write BvS and you are not a telepath. So you clearly have no inkling on what was inside the writer's mind.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And the writer made no specific mention of newspapers being infallible in his universe, so you're making up his intent in your head.

And no, it is not proof. It is simply an easter egg.

You didn't write BvS and you are not a telepath. So you clearly have no inkling on what was inside the writer's mind.

Originally posted by h1a8
The writer didn't write a headline IN THE MOVIE while in his head it didn't actually happen in the movie.

Of course it can. That is what an easter eggs is...

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Of course it can. That is what an easter eggs is...

Only a fool would take a newspaper headline to describe an entire event without even reading the details of the article.

Headlines are meant to capture the attention of people, not to tell the proper story.

I concede as its moot anyway. We can use things that were shown.
Superman, by shown feats, is a lot stronger and more durable than Kurse. From knocking Zod a mile away to being knocked up a skyscraper without any damage.

Originally posted by h1a8
No, an Easter egg has no bearing on whether something in the story occurred or not. It's not like it appeared in deleted scenes or something. It appeared in the actual released movie as part of the story. So whether it is Easter egg or not is irrelevant. The writer wrote the headline for viewers to see AND Know that Mos did the same thing as Christopher Reeve did.

Pls google easter egg and come back to me...

Edit. Sorry. Didn't see your concession on this being an irrelevant item for discussion. If that is the case, carry on.

Originally posted by h1a8
It is proof. I just said that something doesn't exist if the writer didn't write evidence of it or its not based off common knowledge. That's 100% proof.

And you are trolling by trying to discredit something that you actually believe, so that Superman isn't able to win against Kurse. Because you don't like Superman or favor Marvel characters more.

I asked for proof, so are you going to post any or you just going to keep crying?

Originally posted by Silent Master
I asked for proof, so are you going to post any or you just going to keep crying?

Superman has several more SHOWINGS to prove that he's stronger, more durable, and faster than Kurse. Thus he beats Kurse.

Originally posted by h1a8
I conceded to that argument since it was getting nowhere and wasn't needed. You missed that post.

Superman has several more SHOWINGS to prove that he's stronger, more durable, and faster than Kurse. Thus he beats Kurse.

You conceded well after you made the post that I responded to so it's not that I missed your concession, it's that I had not gotten to it yet.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You conceded well after you made the post that I responded to so it's not that I missed your concession, it's that I had not gotten to it yet.