Deadshot Vs The guy from Wanted who can curve the bullet

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Curve in the air, sure. We've seen football players curve balls with kicks as well. Fly in a complete circle. Not so much.

And I can say that given the fluctuations in shot accuracy, not all shots were done while amped. Take that car scene itself. His first two shots are done while driving levelly and, while they are fairly close, there is some space between them. And, based on the trajectory, they actually look like they could have missed. Compare that to the third shot. He is flying through the air in a spinning car, has a very brief moment in which to make the shot, but manages to hit the guy center mass with seemingly casual ease. To me, that implies that he was amped for the third shot, but not the first two.

Because Wesley was rushing jobs sometimes, eager to get to Cross, and was getting frustrated that Sloan kept giving him other hits. And that made him a bit sloppy on a few occasions.

The barrels had a gradual curve on those weapons. It was not like the bullet was bouncing off a sharp corner. The fact that the closest RL example of bullets being directed in that way tended to end in failure implies that having a bullet deflecting off the inside of the barrel does more harm than good.

Anyway, we're literally just debating semantics at this point, and have moved somewhat away from the actual topic. So I think we might as well call it quits here. You think Deadshot wins. I think Wesley wins. We both interpret the way in which the adrenaline rush ability works differently. And you don't seem like you are going to budge your stance. And I know I am not going to budge mine. So we can either agree to disagree, or keep debating in circles until we get progressively more annoyed with each other, which doesn't serve any good purpose.

But you're right though.

Originally posted by KingD19
But you're right though.

Doesn't really matter at this point. I can tell when someone isn't going to budge on their stance, and I have no interest in going at it for another 10 pages.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Curve in the air, sure. We've seen football players curve balls with kicks as well. Fly in a complete circle. Not so much.

And I can say that given the fluctuations in shot accuracy, not all shots were done while amped. Take that car scene itself. His first two shots are done while driving levelly and, while they are fairly close, there is some space between them. And, based on the trajectory, they actually look like they could have missed. Compare that to the third shot. He is flying through the air in a spinning car, has a very brief moment in which to make the shot, but manages to hit the guy center mass with seemingly casual ease. To me, that implies that he was amped for the third shot, but not the first two.

Because Wesley was rushing jobs sometimes, eager to get to Cross, and was getting frustrated that Sloan kept giving him other hits. And that made him a bit sloppy on a few occasions.

The barrels had a gradual curve on those weapons. It was not like the bullet was bouncing off a sharp corner. The fact that the closest RL example of bullets being directed in that way tended to end in failure implies that having a bullet deflecting off the inside of the barrel does more harm than good.

Anyway, we're literally just debating semantics at this point, and have moved somewhat away from the actual topic. So I think we might as well call it quits here. You think Deadshot wins. I think Wesley wins. We both interpret the way in which the adrenaline rush ability works differently. And you don't seem like you are going to budge your stance. And I know I am not going to budge mine. So we can either agree to disagree, or keep debating in circles until we get progressively more annoyed with each other, which doesn't serve any good purpose.

You are right about the circle thing. I don't see a bullet moving in a complete circle or penetrating all those heads. That part is most likely impossible.

If I'm wrong on some points then I'm certainly not wrong on the point that Wesley was amped. Wesley, at that time, had the ability to amp at will. Remember being amped doesn't give you a consistent accurate aim from a distance. This was shown when he was in target practice. Anyway, you never addressed the point of how it makes no sense not to be amped before shooting someone. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT A NEGATIVE COST. Plus Wesley wanted to impress Sloan. Wesley was in a fast moving car and had to shoot someone ACCURATELY in the head (while driving and watching the road). It makes no sense to not be amped as that would be extremely hard to do under normal circumstances.
It was understood from the writer that is how they always operated. Get another member's opinion (someone who isn't bias and is well respected). And i'll be willing to appeal to them on that matter.

And a curved barrel is totally different from pushing a bullet on its side (as in a parry). Even if it's a gradual curve then bullet is still hitting the barrel HEAD ON.

My point is that if something takes much effort to prove impossible then we can ACCEPT it under the suspension of disbelief and still have a debate. It's hard to prove that a bullet can't curve. So we should just accept it.

Originally posted by h1a8
If I'm wrong on some points then I'm certainly not wrong on the point that Wesley was amped. Wesley, at that time, had the ability to amp at will. Remember being amped doesn't give you a consistent accurate aim from a distance. This was shown when he was in target practice. Anyway, you never addressed the point of how it makes no sense not to be amped before shooting someone. It increases the chance of success WITHOUT A NEGATIVE COST. Plus Wesley wanted to impress Sloan. Wesley was in a fast moving car and had to shoot someone ACCURATELY in the head (while driving and watching the road). It makes no sense to not be amped as that would be extremely hard to do under normal circumstances.
It was understood from the writer that is how they always operated. Get another member's opinion (someone who isn't bias and is well respected). And i'll be willing to appeal to them on that matter.

I am curious. Who is going to judge their impartiality? You could just say that anyone who disagrees with you is biased.

And I did answer. Wesley got sloppy when he was in a rush more than once in that film, because he was obsessed with going after his "father's" killer. That old bullet-maker also got the drop on him, when he was looking for Cross, because he let his eagerness to find Cross get the better of him. He also accidentally shot one of his own allies at one point, again, in his eagerness to go after Cross. And then some of it is also plot-related, to progress the story forward. Why did Cross initially approach Wesley in such a suspect manner, and get sucked into a fight with Fox? Surely a guy who had been staying ahead of the Fraternity could have found a better way to reach him. Why did Sloan choose to go inside the office at the end of the film, risking himself, when he could likely have sniped "Wesley" from another building? And those are not the only contrivances in the film.

You keep throwing out "suspension of disbelief" when we discuss the possibility of curving a bullet, but you want to analyze movie characters by typical RL standards when it comes to actions. You constantly take your interpretation of things, and then claim it's the "writer's" intent, as though you personally had discussions with these people when they wrote these stories. Then, when people disagree with you, you act like they're idiots for not going along with your opinion.

Originally posted by h1a8

And a curved barrel is totally different from pushing a bullet on its side (as in a parry). Even if it's a gradual curve then bullet is still hitting the barrel HEAD ON.

My point is that if something takes much effort to prove impossible then we can ACCEPT it under the suspension of disbelief and still have a debate. It's hard to prove that a bullet can't curve. So we should just accept it.

It doesn't take much effort at all. People have been using guns for centuries. Wanted has been out for 8 years. If it was realistically possible, someone would have done it by now. Hell, for curiosity's sake, I did a google search on whether it would be possible, and there are scores of articles debunking the Wanted bullet curving as unrealistic, ranging from professional shooters to professional physicists. Hell, even Mythbusters have actually tried it.

Edit: Anyway, I am done here. It is 6 pages, and you haven't provided any evidence to make me want to change my stance. And you clearly aren't changing your mind either.

YouTube video

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
I am curious. Who is going to judge their impartiality? You could just say that anyone who disagrees with you is biased.

And I did answer. Wesley got sloppy when he was in a rush more than once in that film, because he was obsessed with going after his "father's" killer. That old bullet-maker also got the drop on him, when he was looking for Cross, because he let his eagerness to find Cross get the better of him. He also accidentally shot one of his own allies at one point, again, in his eagerness to go after Cross. And then some of it is also plot-related, to progress the story forward. Why did Cross initially approach Wesley in such a suspect manner, and get sucked into a fight with Fox? Surely a guy who had been staying ahead of the Fraternity could have found a better way to reach him. Why did Sloan choose to go inside the office at the end of the film, risking himself, when he could likely have sniped "Wesley" from another building? And those are not the only contrivances in the film.

You keep throwing out "suspension of disbelief" when we discuss the possibility of curving a bullet, but you want to analyze movie characters by typical RL standards when it comes to actions. You constantly take your interpretation of things, and then claim it's the "writer's" intent, as though you personally had discussions with these people when they wrote these stories. Then, when people disagree with you, you act like they're idiots for not going along with your opinion.

It doesn't take much effort at all. People have been using guns for centuries. Wanted has been out for 8 years. If it was realistically possible, someone would have done it by now. Hell, for curiosity's sake, I did a google search on whether it would be possible, and there are scores of articles debunking the Wanted bullet curving as unrealistic, ranging from professional shooters to professional physicists. Hell, even Mythbusters have actually tried it.

Edit: Anyway, I am done here. It is 6 pages, and you haven't provided any evidence to make me want to change my stance. And you clearly aren't changing your mind either.

So Wesley would drive fast in a moving car while trying to watch the road and simultaneously shoot a moving target accurately in head WITHOUT BEING AMPED? WHY? Give just one possible logical reason for this.

The other things you said are not valid. The fraternity could have found Wesley right after Cross turned against them. They could have been keeping watch and made it difficult for Cross to reach Wesley. See, as long as there is a possible and reasonable explanation then we go with it.

Let's just put it this way. You could be right or wrong. Wesley could have amped right when the car flipped or he was already amped before the car flipped. Since we don't know for 100% certainty then we can't accept that scene as proof.

And I made a rule about RL dynamics in debating fictional things.
The rule is, if something is very difficult or not possible to prove impossible then we accept it as truth. That means we don't apply RL dynamics to argue against it and just accept it. The shooting the wings off the fly is EASY to prove impossible. Bullets curving is not easy to prove. Myth Busters can't prove it because they can't move their hands faster than a bullet to get it to curve.

But all of this is moot. Why? Because there were other scenes (after the fly feat) where Wesley was very inaccurate with his shooting. So if you are right and Wesley didn't amp sometimes because he was sloppy (forgetting his powers) then he will do so in this fight. That means DS would win anyway, but for different reasons.

Congrats. You just argued against Wesley.

Originally posted by h1a8
So Wesley would drive fast in a moving car while trying to watch the road and simultaneously shoot a moving target accurately in head WITHOUT BEING AMPED? WHY? Give just one possible logical reason for this.

He didn't shoot him in the head. The shots never landed. They hit a bulletproof window. And because it is possible to drive fast and shoot at someone without having super powers. Have you not watched action movies? Jeesh. Seriously, go watch Fury Road or something.

Originally posted by h1a8

The other things you said are not valid. The fraternity could have found Wesley right after Cross turned against them. They could have been keeping watch and made it difficult for Cross to reach Wesley. See, as long as there is a possible and reasonable explanation then we go with it.

You ignore the point I brought up about Sloan. He had no reason to endanger himself to get to Wesley, yet conveniently ended up right on the X he planted. Wesley was also a rookie at the time, and one with a personal vendetta. It's like you've also never heard of rookie mistakes.

Originally posted by h1a8

Let's just put it this way. You could be right or wrong. Wesley could have amped right when the car flipped or he was already amped before the car flipped. Since we don't know for 100% certainty then we can't accept that scene as proof.

But I am supposed to just accept your claim that Wesley was always amped? lol

Originally posted by h1a8

And I made a rule about RL dynamics in debating fictional things.
The rule is, if something is very difficult or not possible to prove impossible then we accept it as truth. That means we don't apply RL dynamics to argue against it and just accept it. The shooting the wings off the fly is EASY to prove impossible. Bullets curving is not easy to prove. Myth Busters can't prove it because they can't move their hands faster than a bullet to get it to curve.

You made a rule? So what. Your rules aren't KMC rules. You aren't a mod. Other people aren't obligated to debate according to your personal rule set.

Originally posted by h1a8

But all of this is moot. Why? Because there were other scenes (after the fly feat) where Wesley was very inaccurate with his shooting. So if you are right and Wesley didn't amp sometimes because he was sloppy (forgetting his powers) then he will do so in this fight. That means DS would win anyway, but for different reasons.

Congrats. You just argued against Wesley.

Not at all. CIS is off unless stated otherwise. And the plot reason for Wesley's mistakes (Cross) is not in this thread. So nice try, but no dice.

Seriously, there is a reason why no one else agrees with your stance in this thread. Just give it a rest.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
He didn't shoot him in the head. The shots never landed. They hit a bulletproof window. And because it is possible to drive fast and shoot at someone without having super powers. Have you not watched action movies? Jeesh. Seriously, go watch Fury Road or something.

You ignore the point I brought up about Sloan. He had no reason to endanger himself to get to Wesley, yet conveniently ended up right on the X he planted. Wesley was also a rookie at the time, and one with a personal vendetta. It's like you've also never heard of rookie mistakes.

But I am supposed to just accept your claim that Wesley was always amped? lol

You made a rule? So what. Your rules aren't KMC rules. You aren't a mod. Other people aren't obligated to debate according to your personal rule set.

Not at all. CIS is off unless stated otherwise. And the plot reason for Wesley's mistakes (Cross) is not in this thread. So nice try, but no dice.

Seriously, there is a reason why no one else agrees with your stance in this thread. Just give it a rest.

You have absolutely no proof that Wesley can amp AND then prevent from being shot after the bell. DS can fire on him in 0.3 of a second. Give me proof that Wesley can amped faster than 0.3 of a second.

Originally posted by h1a8
Of course it's possible but not likely to be successful. You are basically straw manning me at this point. It's extremely difficult to do is the point. The mission is important. Amping is free. If Wesley chose not to amp in various scenes then he loses in this fight by character.

LMAO. So we apply "suspension of disbelief" on curving bullets in RL, but this is too difficult to do in a movie? Even though it has been done in action movies by various people, on several occasions. And you need to learn what "Strawmanning" means.

Originally posted by h1a8

There is no proof or evidence that Sloan could have targeted Wesley without endangering himself. Remember Wesley was after Sloan, not the other way around. Sloan knows this. There's no evidence that Sloan is a sniper either. Both were in hiding.

We see that Sloan can curve a bullet with seemingly even greater ease than most Fraternity members, during Wesley's training. If nothing else, he didn't need to get anywhere near the desk, or that X mark. So good job lying. And LOL, your logic for why Sloan went out in the open, exposing himself to danger, to Wesley's office is he was "not" after him and was "hiding". Yeah, ironclad logic there.

Originally posted by h1a8

Yes because it's common sense, at least when he was trying to kill someone. So Wesley amped himself EVERYTIME he was trying to kill someone. My rule is a rule of logic.

Again, spouting your personal opinion off as fact, while ignoring things like human error/plot etc. while selectively choosing where you want "suspension of disbelief" to be applied.

Originally posted by h1a8

Plenty of dice actually. It's in Wesleys character to choose not to amp due to arrogance or whatever due to your argument. CIS is never off unless stated. Characters fight in character. This is KMC remember. You are confusing the forums.

Actually, in standard KMC Versus forum rules, it is agreed that CIS is off unless the OP specifies otherwise. That's how it has always been told to me. Also, "In character" does not automatically mean "character induced stupidity". Wesley also did his "rampage" in character. The point of the film is to show him changing his life, going from pencil-pusher loser to something else, and making mistakes along the way, until we get the guy at the end of the film, who slaughtered the Fraternity and killed Sloan. The entire plot of the film was about Wesley finding himself and improving. So, even if we apply "in character", unless stated otherwise again (and you can ask a moderator about this) we use the most current version. Which is end-of-film Wesley, who has been through everything and learned from all his errors.

Originally posted by h1a8

You have absolutely no proof that Wesley can amp AND then prevent from being shot after the bell. DS can fire on him in 0.3 of a second. Give me proof that Wesley can amped faster than 0.3 of a second.

Proof has been supplied. You just don't want to accept it. And you have absolutely no proof that Wesley was amped during every shot he made in the film, and that it took him multiple seconds every time to amp. See, I can play your own game.

Again, you have done nothing but spout your opinion, while dismissing any argument that doesn't conform to it.

Fact is that everyone but you thinks Wesley wins. You claim other people have not adequately provided evidence for their side. But you haven't provided anything of substance from our perspective. So this really is the last time I am responding to this.

But I imagine you will just come back and repost your same opinion, even though literally no one else agrees with you.

Nice to see that h1 still hasn't figured out the difference between his opinion and facts.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
LMAO. So we apply "suspension of disbelief" on curving bullets in RL, but this is too difficult to do in a movie? Even though it has been done in action movies by various people, on several occasions. And you need to learn what "Strawmanning" means.

We see that Sloan can curve a bullet with seemingly even greater ease than most Fraternity members, during Wesley's training. If nothing else, he didn't need to get anywhere near the desk, or that X mark. So good job lying. And LOL, your logic for why Sloan went out in the open, exposing himself to danger, to Wesley's office is he was "not" after him and was "hiding". Yeah, ironclad logic there.

Again, spouting your personal opinion off as fact, while ignoring things like human error/plot etc. while selectively choosing where you want "suspension of disbelief" to be applied.

Actually, in standard KMC Versus forum rules, it is agreed that CIS is off unless the OP specifies otherwise. That's how it has always been told to me. Also, "In character" does not automatically mean "character induced stupidity". Wesley also did his "rampage" in character. The point of the film is to show him changing his life, going from pencil-pusher loser to something else, and making mistakes along the way, until we get the guy at the end of the film, who slaughtered the Fraternity and killed Sloan. The entire plot of the film was about Wesley finding himself and improving. So, even if we apply "in character", unless stated otherwise again (and you can ask a moderator about this) we use the most current version. Which is end-of-film Wesley, who has been through everything and learned from all his errors.

Proof has been supplied. You just don't want to accept it. And you have absolutely no proof that Wesley was amped during every shot he made in the film, and that it took him multiple seconds every time to amp. See, I can play your own game.

Again, you have done nothing but spout your opinion, while dismissing any argument that doesn't conform to it.

Fact is that everyone but you thinks Wesley wins. You claim other people have not adequately provided evidence for their side. But you haven't provided anything of substance from our perspective. So this really is the last time I am responding to this.

But I imagine you will just come back and repost your same opinion, even though literally no one else agrees with you.

To prevent the thread from derailing. I'll just discuss only relevant things to the debate.

We don't know if Wesley was amped when he shot at the target in the car. It makes more sense for him to be thankful for him not to be. You have no proof that he wasn't. So that scene can not be used as proof on the speed in which Wesley can amp.

That leaves us with evidence of him amping in seconds from another scene and no evidence of him amping in less than a 0.5 seconds.

Wesley will amp as soon as the round starts, because only a fool would wait for the bell to start without mentally preparing himself for the fight at hand.

And while he won't amp before the match starts as that would be considered prep, there's nothing to stop him from amping right off the bat.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Wesley will amp as soon as the round starts, because only a fool would wait for the bell to start without mentally preparing himself for the fight at hand.

And while he won't amp before the match starts as that would be considered prep, there's nothing to stop him from amping right off the bat.

Sigh. I give up. Obviously you missed the whole point of my post.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sigh. I give up. Obviously you missed the whole point of my post.

You know, that is probably his plan. he's hoping that if he keeps it up long enough, people will give up and he'll "win" the debate by default.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Sigh. I give up. Obviously you missed the whole point of my post.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You know, that is probably his plan. he's hoping that if he keeps it up long enough, people will give up and he'll "win" the debate by default.

In the Surfer thread I changed my position and supported Surfer with the marvel supporters against the D.c. Supporters because Goober made a great point and supplied the evidence. I respected it and sided with him immediately.

If you were reasonable, you'd have posted proof by now. Instead you just keep insisting that your opinion should be considered fact.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you were reasonable, you'd have posted proof by now. Instead you just keep insisting that your opinion should be considered fact.

I did post proof. Wesley can't amp fast enough to prevent being shot right after the bell. The proof is the lack of evidence supporting that he can.

I can say that Spider-Man can't transmute matter like Surfer can.
I don't have to prove it as there is no evidence anywhere that supports it.

You posted opinion, not proof. Learn the difference.