Lurker > superman 2000

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's a pretty good fight scene, really. It really drives home just how mismatched Batman and Superman are. When Superman isn't under the effects of kryptonite, Batman punches him several times square in the face and just hits with a "tink tink tink" for no damage whatsoever.

The way it makes sense as a fight is that it's the very first time Superman has encountered kryptonite. He actually catches the grenade launched at him, but then it explodes with kryptonite gas, and he's significantly weakened for the rest of the battle.

That plus the fact Superman didn't want to fight in the first place is why it made sense.

This makes me want to watch the fight. It sounds fun.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

lolife67 posted...

Ah! Well then the error is we're speaking about 2 different fights. I'm speaking of the live action one.

I haven't seen the live action one, but still, I'd wonder how Batman was able to cause Superman any level of inconvenience if Superman's body and brain can move and process information many times faster.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

lolife67 posted...

Um, no. The fight had barely started when he pushes Bruce down.

You are incorrect. I just posted the entire fight.

My response answered your initial question, though. You then pivoted to this as though it refuted my point, which would be moving goal posts.

No, it didn't and no, I didn't. You've yet to answer why Superman wouldn't just speed-blitz everything Batman threw at him if it's causing him inconvenience. If Superman can simply tank everything Batman throws at him, then sure, obviously there's no need to dodge. That isn't always the case though, so there's no need to be disingenuous.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

For the record, here's the entire fight in two videos:

https://youtu.be/zYGPZs7ovsA

https://youtu.be/9-ZYZdEN4g4

As you can see, there are various parts where Batman is just whoopin' Superman's ass, and Superman is clearly not in control when it happens.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

lolife67 posted...

No it wasn't.

Yes, it was. Once Batman made it a fight, all Superman had to do was incapacitate him, AND THEN attempt to reason (as I previously mentioned).

His entire goal was try and talk sense into Bruce and gain his help. He didn't have time to KO him and wait for him to wake up, so he wasn't going to just smash through him.

You don't have to "smash through" someone to incapacitate them.

And he did ty to incapacitate Bruce when he knocked him down and basically told him to stay there. He was shot with the K-nite immediately afterwards.

After a long, drawn-out fight where Batman did things he shouldn't have been capable of, hence the topic.

Not to mention your initial problem was him not dodging but you seem to be moving the goalposts a bit.

No, that's simply what this became after you responded to my response to another person's comment.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

masterpug53 posted...

Here's the full breakdown of the Batman v Superman fight in TDKR (graphic novel):

Batman's already set up in Crime Alley when Superman comes flying over with a military escort. Superman scans the area with x-ray vision, which triggers hunter missiles that Batman rigged to launch at him; at this point it's important to remember that Superman is still recovering from a nuclear explosion, something that Batman notes when Superman fails to dodge the missiles. After that, Superman lands, and takes a shot from the Bat-Tank that 'could sink a battleship.' Superman then disables the Bat-Tank, and tries to reason with Batman; Batman hits him with a high-powered sonic emitter. Superman rips off Batman's helmet. Batman uses some kind of shock gloves to fry Superman's brains. Superman punches Batman and breaks his ribs. Superman then notices Green Arrow fighting government troops, and Batman distracts Superman with a face-full of acid. Green Arrow then shots Superman with the kryptonite arrow. While Superman is incapacitated, Batman punches and stomps him until the medically-induced heart attack 'kills' Batman.

It's been awhile since I've seen TDKR animated adaptation, but I thought I remembered it being fairly accurate. The biggest takeaway is that Batman uses secondary tech attacks and tricks at first to try and keep Superman distracted, and doesn't actually engage him in hand-to-hand combat until after the kryptonite.

So yeah, this makes a lot more sense. The animated version added parts where Batman and Superman are straight-up duking it out and sending each other through environmental structures on some Dragon Ball shit.


---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

lolife67 posted...

The only time he was in danger was after being hit with the kryptonite, though. And being weakened, of course he can't move at super speed. Prior to that, why would he bother to dodge?

Because the entire time, his goal was to physically subdue Batman. Why is he indulging Batman at all instead of simply incapacitating him, and then attempting to reason?

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Yellow is reminiscent of electricity.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

lolife67 posted...

Even if Superman is standing still?

If Superman is standing still, then yes, it makes sense that Batman's (or anyone's) attacks can hit him. If he's fighting back and trying to avoid strikes, then no, it doesn't make sense.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

TheSavageDragon posted...

Because he doesn't do it against every single non powered opponent he's ever fought ?

Which is the very basis for topics such as this. If he's trying to physically subdue someone and they're somehow able to resist, he should just speed-blitz 'em.

Hell he doesn't even do it against super powered opponents that don't have some form of superspeed.
The only time you'll see Supes speedblitz is when innocents are in danger.

So basically, it just doesn't make sense altogether.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Robot2600 posted...

I've only read the comic and it seemed to make sense on the page.

I think the key is that Superman underestimates Batman. He sees the power-suit and is just focused on that, not thinking it's a threat but thinking that Batman thinks it is a threat. So Superman has no problem taking 1 or 2 punches from the thing while planning to talk Batman down.

In reality Batman knows it is not a threat, but it is big and flashy and works as the perfect distraction.

That makes A LOT more sense than what the animated version did. Batman and Superman were legit trading blows, and Superman was clearly being hurt.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Robot2600 posted...

Batman plans on Superman underestimating him and fights him in power-armor. Superman confidently grapples the suit only to have a surprise kryptonite arrow fired by the Green Arrow hit him in the chest.

I just watched that entire fight, and it's what inspired this topic. It makes no sense that Batman was able to land a single punch, let alone multiple hits.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

TheSavageDragon posted...

The notion of Batman vs Superman is equally as ridiculous as the internet's notion that Supes speedblitzes all the time.

Who ever argues that Superman speedblitzes all the time? The point is that he can, and I see no reason as to why he doesn't in fights against weaklings like Batman.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

In the time it takes Batman to reach into his pocket and pull out anything even vaguely green, Superman should be able to casually zip around the block before punching Bruce into a coma.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

This one is simple: firstly, they saw Alien and Aliens before they had ever heard of any "Mary Sue" nonsense on the Internet, and so, as they had no one to tell them what to think, they developed their own feelings based entirely on the movie itself.

So basically, your answer is conjecture.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

I see no reason Superman wouldn't be able to speed-blitz Batman in 100% of their battles.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

ThanksUglyGod posted...

For fucks sake OF COURSE REY IS OP!

THAT'S THE MOTHERFUCKING POINT!!!

How is the point of a protagonist to be overpowered? How does that make Rey compelling, relatable, etc.? We wanna see heroes earn their glory.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Have people forgotten what words mean? This is like asking, "Is it racist to think blue is a better color than purple?"

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

joe40001 posted...

Yep. Write a good movie with good characters, and the gender of those characters is effectively irrelevant.

Bingo. That's all it ever comes down to.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

l0gic posted...

So what exactly is unreasonable about the fact that "you can complain about ham-fisted 'wokeness' (which is a thing; let's not pretend Hollywood doesn't pander) while still making excellent points about fundamental stuff like story and characters."

It's not unreasonable. The person you're arguing with just wants an excuse to justify their dismissive attitude.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Subverting expectations is tight!

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

because holy shit is nuance dead here.

https://youtu.be/X4QEEFESwn4

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

sevihaimerej posted...

Is this kinda reaction to the N-word toxic masculinity?

Is saying the N-word in the first place toxic masculinity?


---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Legato-and-Vash posted...

I don't actually mean ban a word, but rather we should not have adopted it as a term of brotherhood and then say "white people can't say it." I don't think any of us should say it. Either that, or not flip out when white people say it. I just think the power should be taken away from the word. I certainly won't react if a racist called me the n-word. I will NOT give them that power.

Ah, I see. I agree.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

It's okay if she prefers taller guys. It's shallow, sure, but physical attraction is shallow by nature. I do think people could stand to be a bit more flexible, though, because you potentially miss out on great opportunities by letting every little "flaw" be a deal-breaker. And the idea that taller = more protection is somewhat naive; if a guy doesn't know how to fight, then their height/size is only going to make so much of a difference (unless he's facing someone who also doesn't know how to fight, which is most people...so meh, maybe she has a point lol).

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Legato-and-Vash posted...

This is what needs to happen and what should have happened.

Lmao, how the hell do you ban a word? xD
Just don't be a racist shit and only use the word in an academic context.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

If you use the N-word to be racist, I don't feel bad if you get your ass kicked for it. But you still shouldn't kick someone in the head while they're down; that's how you cause grave injury and possibly land in prison.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Damar posted...

Incel alert

How is that remotely indicative of someone being an incel? Y'all just use words to use words.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

MrMallard posted...

Can you tell me what the "left-wing opinion" he mentioned in the topic title is?

Because from my perspective, it looks like he's saying that liking Candyman is a left-wing opinion, and this entire topic was made in response to people who didn't agree with his opinion that this was a dogshit movie.

This whole thing basically started in another topic (look up Candyman in the search bar; his topic should pop up), and eventually devolved into this. His opening post explains why he didn't like the movie, and to my knowledge, it's only after multiple pages of people assuming the worst of his character that he abandons diplomacy.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Prestoff posted...

I'll be the bigger person and say that most of the people here haven't watched the movie hence why almost everyone who replied to TC hasn't made a rebuttal yet. With that said, TC did not do any favors by being overly aggressive in his responses. He could've ignored all the trollish posts and waited for someone to give a better more nuanced response but no he kept on feeding them and why it's led to this quagmire of a topic.

I believe TC only started getting snappy when people were relentlessly rude to him. That said, you're right that feeding trolls doesn't exactly help a situation. Still, I don't think anyone would appreciate having harsh accusations unjustly hurled their way by the majority of people.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

harley2280 posted...

Toriyama is just collecting a paycheck. He doesn't draw any of the Dragonball art these days. He just shits out an outline, and gets paid while some fan fiction writer does all the work.

Apparently, even one of Toriyama's editors recently called the series a hollow piece of work that offers nothing of substance. He was shockingly honest about viewing DB as just a product meant to print paper lol

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Its plenty for us to tell that his complaints don't matter, LOL.

What kind of flimsy reasoning is this? Come on, bro. If you wanna be a bully, just say so.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

I4NRulez posted...

So Dragon Ball since Z came out

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

DBZ's writing was fucking awful lmao.

True, but Super takes it to a new level. If Z's writing was a C-, then Super is a straight D at best lol

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Akira Toriyama clearly gives less of a crap than ever. How do you have all the time/resources in the world to carefully craft a story, only to somehow produce something with even more plot holes, less creativity, weak stakes, etc.? At least when he wrote Z, he was improvising all the time on a super tight schedule lol

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

There's no need. His argument is so insubstantial that people can just shit on him all day.

How is it unsubstantiated? Is it not enough that he gave a checklist of what he thought was wrong with the movie?

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Okay but seriously, has anyone actually seen the movie besides TC? If so, can you actually articulate why you disagree with him? Because the constant echo chamber of "lol you're having a meltdown/I think you're secretly racist/right-wing/etc." is getting kinda corny. Would love to see someone actually address his critiques of the movie, whether it's in agreement or not.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

No thoughts?

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Actually, I feel this way quite often. Feels like a lot of things have peaked. Like, going from 8-bit graphics to polygons was a notable upgrade. Going from polygons to photo-realism was a notable upgrade. But nowhow much more visually improved can these games get? How many more specs can a cell phone have before its just like any other on the market?

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Iis it not clear that hes being sarcastic? Am I the only sane man left?

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Vicious_Dios posted...

The thumbnail alone already explains it all for me.

Hey, provocative titles are effective. lol

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

tl;dw

Watch the first few minutes and see if youre compelled to continue.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

https://youtu.be/byVhPbgXDns

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

I would go back to 2012, ignore college, and take my artistic ambitions a lot more seriously.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Scotty_Rogers posted...

A nearly legal supergenius who was trying to throw him in prison.

Actually, forget about him being "nearly" legal; Near was already 18. In the manga, Light dies in 2010; Near would have been turning 19 that year as he was born in 1991. Stop pretending that you actually care about this.

That's fine; I'm cool with him being an adult. It doesn't ultimately change anything, as Light would have gleefully killed him regardless (it's not like he knew how old Near was). "Light was excited about killing someone who COULD'VE been a kid" doesn't exactly make him look any saner, especially considering Near doesn't really give off the impression of being legal (a 5-ft. guy who still plays with toys).

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Worst yet, he was also planning to take out his own team, including Matsuda (who supported Light the most). He did this all with excitement.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Scotty_Rogers posted...

Light wasn't gleeful about killing a child. He was just gleeful about eliminating his last real opponents and living the rest of his life as Kira in "peace".

...and his last opponent was a child, who he was happily ready to kill. Quit playing semantics lol

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

_BlueMonk posted...

Wow. Both sides are equally bad

What a brilliant and new take

Your so smart

Already pulling this condescending strawman crap? Sounds like youre not looking to have an honest conversation.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

itachi15243 posted...

I'm sure if it came between your own life and a 15-17 year old boys, you'd choose your own.

I wouldnt express glee over it like a psychopath. It would just be the unfortunate reality of the situation. Light gets excited like a kid in a candy shop over the prospect of killing others, even if all they do is disagree with him.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

Scotty_Rogers posted...

He was going to sentence Kira to desu

I don't know what that means.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.

David1988 posted...

sure, but saying it is still better than not saying it

Not necessarily, because saying it without actually doing it just makes you either incompetent or a liar.

---

I don't hold grudges. Let's vehemently argue today and casually have a beer together tomorrow.