Originally posted by Silent MasterSo how would you dispute Superman's tectonic plate shift that averted an earthquake as stated in the BvS newspaper? Thats something that's also been swept aside by fanatics on this forum.
But it helps a DC character, thus guessing from non-experts are 100% true. just like statements of fact are 100% false when coming from Marvel experts.
Originally posted by NemeBro
1) You're not using strength in the correct context here, first of all. Batman was referring to Superman's durability, rather than his capacity to lift x weight.2) And studying his cells and DNA would enlighten him toward the source of Superman's power, his cells' ability to store and hyper-efficiently utilize solar energy. But read below.
3) Doing some quick research I actually think I misremembered Batman's research of Superman and was mistakenly giving him some of Lex Luthor's more extensive and direct studying of Kryptonian DNA.
4) Are you truly disputing that the Motherboxes' purpose is to terraform worlds? Did you actually watch the movie? That is literally Steppenwolf's goal, to reclaim the Motherboxes to change Earth into a Apokoliptic hellscape.
1) "Stronger than a planet" isn't "tougher than a planet", tho. Choice of words seem misleading. Are you just saying that they meant Superman is tougher than anything in the planet?
2) I don't think understanding cells (not DNA) and mitochondria gives researches the upper limits on one's capabilities.
Also, bit of a disconnect here. First you say that his understanding is about toughness, now it's about utilization of solar energy. Pls explain what you're trying to get at here.
3) I watched the montage, all that is shown is what looks like Kryptonite matrix and a few strands of DNA. I still fail to see how this qualified Batman as some sort of expert in Kryptonian capabilities. All it tells me is: Kryptonite was tested against Kryptonian DNA and shows that it has negative effects.
4) Not doubting what a Motherbox can do (where did I say I did), I'm doubting their understanding of it as the Motherbox was being portrayed as some sort of unfathomable technology. They would have some basic understanding of it, no doubt, but fully understanding its inner workings, capabilities and limitations as if they were experts seems a bit of a stretch.
But still willing to change my mind if there is an instance where Cyrborg's dad was able to show a full understanding of the Mother Box and managed to transfer said info to them. I just need scene so I can review it.
Originally posted by NemeBro
You're using a statement from Diana hyping the energies of the Motherbox as being too powerful and dangerous to use in an attempt at downplaying them. Interesting strategy, I'm not sure it will work for you though.So your argument is that Batman made a random guess out of nowhere that Motherboxes are meant to terraform planets (lol)?
That's a big strawman there. I never said they didn't know what a motherbox could do. Just they aren't really experts on it.
It's like saying that I know how destructive a nuke is, but that doesn't necessarily mean I know precisely how a nuke works.
Just that their portrayal of the scene seems to have a lot of guesswork and hypotheticals. The scene shows desperation on their part and the need to use untested extremely risky measures.
Originally posted by NemeBroSame thing happened to me on the first page. Welcome to every single Killermovies forum debate ever.
It's so weird, I have been nothing but civil since I started posting in this thread, only to have this kid come in and attacking things I never actually said. What a strange little man.
Honestly, it's why I sometimes cant stomach debating here for more than a few replies per thread. Some (not all) people tend to ignore feats, post personal attacks, and manufacture asinine arguments to get a leg up.
Originally posted by FrothByteBut in a fictional movie? Knowing that nothing in the movie contradicted it's occurrence, and the director included it intending it to be an actual feat?
To be fair, a lot of newspaper articles aren't 100% true.
Originally posted by Arachnid1
Same thing happened to me on the first page. Welcome to every single Killermovies forum debate ever.Honestly, it's why I sometimes cant stomach debating here for more than a few replies per thread. Some (not all) people tend to ignore feats, post personal attacks, and manufacture asinine arguments to get a leg up.
Chill man, I'll debate with you. I promise I'll be nice. 😄
Originally posted by Arachnid1But in a fictional movie? Knowing that nothing in the movie contradicted it's occurrence, and the director included it intending it to be an actual feat?
Well, yeah. Nothing in fictional movies suggests that every single newspaper article is true. Or that they're not exaggerated.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) "Stronger than a planet" isn't "tougher than a planet", tho. Choice of words seem misleading. Are you just saying that they meant Superman is tougher than anything in the planet?
Do you believe that all words carry only a single definition that is usable?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strength
The first three definitions all partly or fully support its usage in describing something being durable or resistant to harm.
2) I don't think understanding cells (not DNA) and mitochondria gives researches the upper limits on one's capabilities.
For a human no, but we're not talking about a human. More importantly, you seem to have missed that I've already acknowledged I was mistaken about the context of this scene. Can you read?
Also, bit of a disconnect here. First you say that his understanding is about toughness, now it's about utilization of solar energy. Pls explain what you're trying to get at here.
Where do you think his durability comes from? One leads to the other. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
3) I watched the montage, all that is shown is what looks like Kryptonite matrix and a few strands of DNA. I still fail to see how this qualified Batman as some sort of expert in Kryptonian capabilities. All it tells me is: Kryptonite was tested against Kryptonian DNA and shows that it has negative effects.
Read above my son.
4) Not doubting what a Motherbox can do (where did I say I did), I'm doubting their understanding of it as the Motherbox was being portrayed as some sort of unfathomable technology. They would have some basic understanding of it, no doubt, but fully understanding its inner workings, capabilities and limitations as if they were experts seems a bit of a stretch.
I didn't say they'd fully understand its inner workings, only that Silas Stone extensively studied it and passed on the knowledge to Cyborg (the former statement is true, and the latter is implicit given Cyborg's own working knowledge of it being a perpetual energy matrix).
But still willing to change my mind if there is an instance where Cyrborg's dad was able to show a full understanding of the Mother Box and managed to transfer said info to them. I just need scene so I can review it.This is still a strawman.
Let me streamline what I'm saying for you:
The Motherbox's function is to destroy and restructure a planet, right? Batman knows this, obviously. He then theorizes that by activating the Motherbox and exposing Superman's body to its planet-reshaping energies, Superman's body will have the strength to withstand them and would be rejuvenated, which he was correct about. I'm not claiming Batman or even Silas Stone have encyclopedic knowledge on the Motherbox, only that the basic premise of perpetual energy machine that reshapes planets had said energy applied to Superman without destroying his body due to his invulnerability. I would agree it was a desperate gamble, but it was portrayed as one Batman was correct on. Would you agree?
Originally posted by Nibedicus
That's a big strawman there. I never said they didn't know what a motherbox could do. Just they aren't really experts on it.
Then you have been strawmanning me. The most I've said is that Silas Stone extensively studied it. Do you dispute this?
It's like saying that I know how destructive a nuke is, but that doesn't necessarily mean I know precisely how a nuke works.
Sure, and like a nuke, though Batman could not build his own Mother Box, he has an idea of how colossal the energies Superman would be exposed to are.
Just that their portrayal of the scene seems to have a lot of guesswork and hypotheticals. The scene shows desperation on their part and the need to use untested extremely risky measures.And the portrayal of the scene is that Batman's hypothesis was correct. 👆
Originally posted by NibedicusYou're a great poster as far as I've seen. Honestly, never change. 👆
Chill man, I'll debate with you. I promise I'll be nice. 😄
Originally posted by FrothByteHave you ever heard anybody use the saying "to feel the full force of" something with the nature of the statement being intended hyperbole? I have. Who's to say Eitri's statement wasn't exactly that when he stated that Thor would take the full force of the neutron star?
Well, yeah. Nothing in fictional movies suggests that every single newspaper article is true. Or that they're not exaggerated.
You see what I'm getting at. People tend to draw that line when and where it pleases them. They'll throw out Supermans feats and claim that soandso was lying, or this person doesn't know what their talking about, always going to the extreme to discredit Supermans best. Meanwhile, those same people will treat a potentially hyperbolic comment as gospel because it amps Thor, despite the fact that the feat in question is so far above anything Thor has ever shown. Anyone can apparently interpret any feat in any way as long as it backs their argument.
IMO every feat should be included as intended by the writers and directors. Give Supes and Thor their best. Otherwise, each side will just continue to lowball and attempt to discredit the other. This sets a solid line.
Originally posted by NemeBro
1) Do you believe that all words carry only a single definition that is usable?https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strength
The first three definitions all partly or fully support its usage in describing something being durable or resistant to harm.
2) For a human no, but we're not talking about a human. More importantly, you seem to have missed that I've already acknowledged I was mistaken about the context of this scene. Can you read?
Where do you think his durability comes from? One leads to the other. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Read above my son.
3) I didn't say they'd fully understand its inner workings, only that Silas Stone extensively studied it and passed on the knowledge to Cyborg (the former statement is true, and the latter is implicit given Cyborg's own working knowledge of it being a perpetual energy matrix).
This is still a strawman.
Let me streamline what I'm saying for you:
4) The Motherbox's function is to destroy and restructure a planet, right? Batman knows this, obviously. He then theorizes that by activating the Motherbox and exposing Superman's body to its planet-reshaping energies, Superman's body will have the strength to withstand them and would be rejuvenated, which he was correct about. I'm not claiming Batman or even Silas Stone have encyclopedic knowledge on the Motherbox, only that the basic premise of perpetual energy machine that reshapes planets had said energy applied to Superman without destroying his body due to his invulnerability. I would agree it was a desperate gamble, but it was portrayed as one Batman was correct on. Would you agree?
1) I can certainly agree that strong = tough. Just needed you to clarify that that is what you meant (thus the question at the end).
2) Batman is a human, so I'm not sure what you mean. I acknowledge your correction, just that I also wanted to address you pre-correction comment out of courtesy since you made the time to type it up. Why the aggression?
Durability can come from a lot of things in fiction. But being able to figure out where his durability works and getting a full understanding of its upper limits from (maybe) simply looking at what powers his cells is a bit of a stretch. Especially since it was never even alluded to in the scene in question at all.
3) And I can agree with you here. Some basic understanding of the device is an acceptable read on the scene. But we need to agree that, even at that point, the device and its inner workings is still being portrayed as unfathomable. Thus, they can't be experts and we cannot take their words as literal and quantifiable.
4) I can def agree to this. In fact, this is exactly how I saw the scene. What's our disagreement again?
Originally posted by Arachnid1
Have you ever heard anybody use the saying "to feel the full force of" something with the nature of the statement being intended hyperbole? I have. Who's to say Eitri's statement wasn't exactly that when he stated that Thor would take the full force of the neutron star?You see what I'm getting at. People tend to draw that line when and where it pleases them. They'll throw out Supermans feats and claim that soandso was lying, or this person doesn't know what their talking about, always going to the extreme to discredit Supermans best. Meanwhile, those same people will treat a potentially hyperbolic comment as gospel because it amps Thor, despite the fact that the feat in question is so far above anything Thor has ever shown. Anyone can apparently interpret any feat in any way as long as it backs their argument.
IMO every feat should be included as intended by the writers and directors. Give Supes and Thor their best. Otherwise, each side will just continue to lowball and attempt to discredit the other.
For what it's worth, I was never one of those posters who insisted that Thor took on the full force of a neutron star. So you won't get any argument from me there. I'm of the opinion that majority of what is said in movies are very flexible and subjective unless backed up by feats.
That said, Eitri was the person in charge of that forge, the expert of his craft and thus the authority on what kind of powers were at play in his forge. I'm pretty sure the person who wrote that newspaper article was not an expert in seismic technology or tectonic plates. Eitri's knowledge was provided first hand, whereas the newspaper article was probably already 3rd hand information.
Originally posted by NemeBro
1) Then you have been strawmanning me. The most I've said is that Silas Stone extensively studied it. Do you dispute this?2) Sure, and like a nuke, though Batman could not build his own Mother Box, he has an idea of how colossal the energies Superman would be exposed to are.
3) And the portrayal of the scene is that Batman's hypothesis was correct. 👆
1) I never said you claimed it. I was merely saying that I might be missing some scenes so my understanding of what the movie was trying to say might be missing some context (and that might be where our disagreement lies).
Granted I also mentioned what I needed to see in order to change my mind so perhaps it was bit leading?
2) Not quantifiably, tho. He might know "really really lots" of energy but not its "megatonnage." I'm sure we can agree to that.
3) "Let's zap this maybe not-dead guy with life energy and see if it works wasn't a bad plan, really". So I can certainly agree that it worked out for the best in the end. 👆