How many thors equal one superman

Originally posted by h1a8
It doesn't matter what you called it. Being an easter egg or Bugs Bunny doesn't make something not canon. If something was the intention of the writer to have occured in a movie then it occurred in canon. The name you give things doesn't change that fact.

Same applies to you dumbass. You can't just claim something and expect it to be true.

Me: Writer's intent is that it was an Easter Bunny
You: Writer's intent is that Superman pushed the tectonic plate.

You did the exact same thing, and I'll reply with the exact same thing: The name you give things doesn't change that fact.

It was an easter egg. My fact is more factual than your fact. That's a fact. If you believe anything else then you're clearly trolling.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, I don't care about your opinion. I asked for proof and since you still haven't posted any.

I accept your concession.

Calling something an opinion doesn't make it one.
I can say that it's your opinion that water exists. Doesn't mean it's an opinion just because I said it was.

Same thing goes for proof. Whether your proof is sound or not, I can say that it is not. But saying it's not doesn't make it not. You must prove that it's not in order for it be not sound.

Here is a taste of your own medicine. "It's your opinion that you exist."

Originally posted by FrothByte
Same applies to you dumbass. You can't just claim something and expect it to be true.

Me: Writer's intent is that it was an Easter Bunny
You: Writer's intent is that Superman pushed the tectonic plate.

You did the exact same thing, and I'll reply with the exact same thing: The name you give things doesn't change that fact.

It was an easter egg. My fact is more factual than your fact. That's a fact. If you believe anything else then you're clearly trolling.

Names don't define facts. So calling something an Easter Egg has no bearing on whether it is canon or not.

The writer want you to think about the Reeve feat. This is a fact. Otherwise, why created the scene?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Same applies to you dumbass. You can't just claim something and expect it to be true.

Me: Writer's intent is that it was an Easter Bunny
You: Writer's intent is that Superman pushed the tectonic plate.

You did the exact same thing, and I'll reply with the exact same thing: The name you give things doesn't change that fact.

It was an easter egg. My fact is more factual than your fact. That's a fact. If you believe anything else then you're clearly trolling.

Ironic you calling people names without them calling you anything.

And still you think "Hulkbuster cant hurt Asgardians cause its made by Tony Stark."

So were you trolling when you said this highly ignorant statement?

Originally posted by h1a8
Writer's intentions are usually clear. This is a fact.
The writer wants the viewer to remember the Reeve feat and APPLY IT to this Superman.

If the writer had in mind that Superman didn't use strength, LIKE Reeve did, but rather some other device then he would have given details in order to not mislead the viewers. And he certainly wouldn't have referenced the Reeve feat at all.

This is common sense. Debating against it is trolling at it's finest.

To think that you are in charge of educating people alarms me. The writers intent was not to say Reeves feats apply to this version. There is no scenario where that makes any sense whatsoever.

But you know what fine: we are going to use your logic for a minute. So because this movie paid homage to a feat Reeves did, it means the writers intended for Reeves feats to apply to this character. Remember though, the 2006 film "Superman Returns" was more or less supposed to be a continuation of the Reeves films too, or rather..the first 2 Reeves films.

Stay with me for a second. Now in Superman Returns there is that scene where Superman lifts up the car and that is paying homage to one of the very early covers of the Superman comics. So by the logic you are trying to use it would mean the writers intent is also for the feats from the comics to apply.

Originally posted by h1a8
Calling something an opinion doesn't make it one.
I can say that it's your opinion that water exists. Doesn't mean it's an opinion just because I said it was.

Same thing goes for proof. Whether your proof is sound or not, I can say that it is not. But saying it's not doesn't make it not. You must prove that it's not in order for it be not sound.

Here is a taste of your own medicine. "It's your opinion that you exist."

The fact that your statement has no proof backing it up is what makes it an opinion, if you want it upgraded to fact. post proof.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The fact that your statement has no proof backing it up is what makes it an opinion, if you want it upgraded to fact. post proof.

Again, anyone can say that someone's statement has no proof backing when it actually does. You are just saying things, and not proving anything. You have to explain why my proof isn't valid. Just saying it isn't doesn't make it not.

Originally posted by h1a8
Again, anyone can say that someone's statement has no proof backing when it actually does. You are just saying things, and not proving anything. You have to explain why my proof isn't valid. Just saying it isn't doesn't make it not.

If your statement has proof, then post it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If your statement has proof, then post it.

1.The writer wants US to remember and think about the Reeve feat.
2. If inside the writer's mind was that Superman did not use strength like Reeve did to achieve the feat then wouldn't he add something so that us viewers wouldn't get mislead by HIS TRUE INTENTIONS?

There's basically a 0% chance the writer would say that Superman used equipment instead of strength to do the feat. Superman films (like comics) has always been inconsistent. Superman struggling with a less than 100ton Boulder in the first movie, yet lifts tectonic plates, yet moves the moon in the 4th movie, etc. You know Superman struggled with the the boat in the beginning of MOS right?
Yet shown strength orders of magnitude greater at the end of the movie.

Originally posted by TethAdamTheRock
How many thors equal one superman, how many hulks

This is strength

How many kurse

Huh?

What about Hulk?

Why is h1 restating his opinion, when I clearly asked for proof?

Because there is no proof.

Saying Reeve feats count for MOS is a HUGE stretch of the imagination. And certainly nothing that can be used for board arguments.

He's welcome to get a mod verdict if he really thinks it's clear evidence of that.

"Writer's intent" has got to be the most pretentious debating tactic I've ever heard in these boards.

Originally posted by FrothByte
"Writer's intent" has got to be the most pretentious debating tactic I've ever heard in these boards.

Especially since h1 is only stating his opinion on the writers intent.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Especially since h1 is only stating his opinion on the writers intent.

Exactly. It's pretentious because he's claiming that his opinions are the writer's intent and that everyone else's opinions are wrong just because it is not supported by writer's intent.

Omg SHUT UP already, GET A FCKING LIFE FROTH.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Because there is no proof.

Saying Reeve feats count for MOS is a HUGE stretch of the imagination. And certainly nothing that can be used for board arguments.

He's welcome to get a mod verdict if he really thinks it's clear evidence of that.

Originally posted by h1a8
The feat happened in the movie because of the news headline. It was the writer's intent that MOS performed the feat in the headline. Writer's intentions>>>>>what people like. So do you believe that the writer had no intention that MOS performed the feat in the headline?

Prove it.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Prove it.

Its illogical to create a headline that explains gives an event that never happened in the movie. The headline was created to tie MOS with Reeve Superman.

That's the proof.

Originally posted by h1a8
Its illogical to create a headline that explains gives an event that never happened in the movie. The headline was created to tie MOS with Reeve Superman.

That's the proof.

No, that is your opinion. you really need to learn the difference.