|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Dec 9, 2017 5:34:26 GMT
No, he didn't. 1st, 3:53 of your video proves that I'm right that Superman didn't put the guy through any wall. Lois is standing in between the guy and Superman. Since Superman doesn't have phasing powers like Martian Manhunter or Shadowcat have, it's impossible for Superman to charge at the guy from the front without going through Lois, who was still standing. So the only other possibility was Superman simply used his superspeed to get behind the guy and then pulled the guy through the hole in the hole that Superman created when he punched a hole through the wall. So the guy was pulled through the hole in the wall but not driven into the wall. 2nd, Zack Synder himself has confirmed that Superman didn't kill the guy. The Director of the movie obviously knows more about what happened in that scene he filmed than you do. Zack Snyder confirms Superman didn't kill anyone in BvS"Snyder addressed the issue, explaining that Superman is innocent and also the man is probably gone for good.
Simply put, Snyder said the man is "not dead but not a problem either"Well considering Snyder has no comprehension of human anatomy in his films, he could say a character that jumps off a building is still alive. I know I'm not going to convince you, but since you need everything spoonfed, lets break it down ![]()  Cape is clearly to us, so he's still facing the wall with the guy. Then...  His back is still too us as he's going thru the wall. You can clearly tell because you can see his ass. Then...  You can clearly see the back of his legs, so he definitely didn't turn his back when he went thru that wall. Then...  Still the his backside clearly with his cape. So yeah, Superman clearly speared the guy thru the wall. Sure, maybe he's alive because Snyder says so. But in reality, the guy would be dead |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Dec 9, 2017 5:38:27 GMT
That was in the last 5 minutes of the movie. Yeah but my comment was just based on the fight itself. But that was something that he only did AFTER Bucky told him about Zemo and his plan to release five dangerous super soldiers. The others were not interested in that part, they only wanted Bucky who wasn't the threat. Cap broke the law in order to deal with the threat that nobody else was aware or was interested in. Hawkeye and Ant-man's involvement didn't have anything to do with aiding Bucky flee from the law. Their involvement was about them helping Captain America with stopping the super soldier assassins. When Ant-man met Captain America and Cap asked him if he knew what they were up against he mentioned the "psycho assassins". They were aiding Captain America not the Winter Soldier. You've gone completely off track here. This was about the reason for why the two characters fought. Somehow you've gone from that to talking about something completely different from an entirely different movie altogether. Do you see why I call him out on his bullshit and call him a ****?? Because he is one. You can't have even a rational debate or argument because he's just going to fuckin' lie because his precious DC universe is falling apart and can't admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 9, 2017 6:27:37 GMT
Hawkeye and Ant-Man fought on Bucky's side during the airport fight and it was their distraction of the members on Iron Man's team that allowed the 2 fugitives, Bucky and Cap, to escape. That's true but they were not fighting for Bucky's sake. Their involvement wasn't about stopping Bucky from getting arrested. It was about helping Captain America so he could stop the five Super Solider assassin's from being released. MCU says all their movies are connected. So if it's all supposed to be connected, then it's fair game to talk about events in those other movies. Unless MCU's movies aren't all connected and Kevin Feige is just a liar. They are connected but again Tony Stark giving out his address in Iron Man 3 doesn't have anything at all to do with Iron Man and Captain America in Civil War, that's a completely separate issue. Them fighting made sense. Iron Man wanted to kill Bucky for killing his parents. Captain America fought Iron Man in order to save Bucky knowing it wasn't really his fault. Batman and Superman fighting didn't make any sense. Batman just wanted to kill Superman because he was scared of what he might do. Superman fought back because...I have no idea, there was no need at all for him to act the way he did. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 9, 2017 9:08:02 GMT
Hawkeye and Ant-Man fought on Bucky's side during the airport fight and it was their distraction of the members on Iron Man's team that allowed the 2 fugitives, Bucky and Cap, to escape. That's true but they were not fighting for Bucky's sake. Their involvement wasn't about stopping Bucky from getting arrested. It was about helping Captain America so he could stop the five Super Solider assassin's from being released. MCU says all their movies are connected. So if it's all supposed to be connected, then it's fair game to talk about events in those other movies. Unless MCU's movies aren't all connected and Kevin Feige is just a liar. They are connected but again Tony Stark giving out his address in Iron Man 3 doesn't have anything at all to do with Iron Man and Captain America in Civil War, that's a completely separate issue. Them fighting made sense. Iron Man wanted to kill Bucky for killing his parents. Captain America fought Iron Man in order to save Bucky knowing it wasn't really his fault. No, Cap and Iron Man fighting in the last 5 minutes of the movie didn't make any sense at all because the only reason they were even at that remote base in Siberia at the same time watching a videotape record 25 years ago from a camera that just happened to be a the right location and pointed at the right angle was because of the most convoluted scheme in CBM history, a scheme that didn't make any sense at all.
Zemo: "The Avengers killed my family. But even though I know of all of their identities I'm not going to do the logical thing and go after their families and loved ones. Instead, I'm going to come up with the most convoluted scheme in CBM history in which I'm going to find the only copy of a videotape of Bucky murdering the Starks that was recorded 25 years ago from a camera that just happened to be located at the right location and pointed at the right angle and that nobody knows about. And instead of doing the logical thing and uploading the video to the Internet for the whole world to see that Cap's BFF is a double-murderer, I'm going to wait for Bucky, Cap, and Iron Man to all show up at a remote base in Siberia at the same time (which I know will happen because I read that in the script) so they can all watch the videotape together."
|
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Dec 9, 2017 9:59:33 GMT
i like this scene better than anything i saw in civil war.
|
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 9, 2017 11:50:18 GMT
Zemo: "The Avengers killed my family. But even though I know of all of their identities I'm not going to do the logical thing and go after their families and loved ones. Why would he go after their families? He was just after them and tried to team them against one another so they'd kill each other off. He couldn't get to Thor's loved one, Hulk doesn't have any, Black Widow doesn't have any, Hawkeye has some but even the other Avengers weren't aware of that at first, Steve Rogers didn't have any. The only loved one to even go after would be Pepper Potts and I don't even think their relationship was public anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 9, 2017 12:50:33 GMT
No, Cap and Iron Man fighting in the last 5 minutes of the movie didn't make any sense at all because the only reason they were even at that remote base in Siberia at the same time watching a videotape record 25 years ago from a camera that just happened to be a the right location and pointed at the right angle was because of the most convoluted scheme in CBM history, a scheme that didn't make any sense at all. Zemo's plan made more sense than Joker being omnipotent in Dark Knight. And if you think Zemo wanted to kill their families, you weren't paying attention. But then again, you don't watch these movies. You just steal them. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 9, 2017 13:14:18 GMT
Honestly BvS shouldn't have been made, At least not as early as it was.
Civil War shouldn't have been forced into a Captain America film.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 9, 2017 15:00:43 GMT
All this debating about who was right in Civil War just shows to me how compelling that film was.
The conflict in BvS, for all the film and its fans lofty pretentions of maturity and adulthood, was a misunderstanding resolved by a whacky coinkydink.
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Dec 9, 2017 15:31:55 GMT
All this debating about who was right in Civil War just shows to me how compelling that film was. The conflict in BvS, for all the film and its fans lofty pretentions of maturity and adulthood, was a misunderstanding resolved by a whacky coinkydink. Excellent point. There isnt much to argue about over Batman's intent to murder Superman. Batman was the villain, no two doubts about it. The doubts are reserved for the ridiculous reason for the turn-about (Martha!), and the shift to the comically awful backup villain and his cave troll. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Dec 9, 2017 16:33:29 GMT
And then Superman was against Batman because he didn't approve of Batman's violent tactics. Yet, we saw at the beginning Superman killing a terrorist by slamming him through a wall at superhuman speed. He's just as violent. Superman didn't kill any terrorist nor slam any terrorist through a wall in BvS. Yes. He did. Do not lie. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Dec 9, 2017 16:38:28 GMT
Nope. Like I proved above and President Ackbar also proved above, Superman didn't kill that terrorist in BvS. Zack Snyder confirms Superman didn't kill anyone in BvS"Snyder addressed the issue, explaining that Superman is innocent and also the man is probably gone for good.
Simply put, Snyder said the man is "not dead but not a problem either"Snyder thinks Superman slamming a normal human through a wall at super speed won't kill him? Yikes. No wonder Superman is a sociopath in the DCEU. He's being directed by one. |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Dec 9, 2017 17:26:01 GMT
That's true but they were not fighting for Bucky's sake. Their involvement wasn't about stopping Bucky from getting arrested. It was about helping Captain America so he could stop the five Super Solider assassin's from being released. They are connected but again Tony Stark giving out his address in Iron Man 3 doesn't have anything at all to do with Iron Man and Captain America in Civil War, that's a completely separate issue. Them fighting made sense. Iron Man wanted to kill Bucky for killing his parents. Captain America fought Iron Man in order to save Bucky knowing it wasn't really his fault. No, Cap and Iron Man fighting in the last 5 minutes of the movie didn't make any sense at all because the only reason they were even at that remote base in Siberia at the same time watching a videotape record 25 years ago from a camera that just happened to be a the right location and pointed at the right angle was because of the most convoluted scheme in CBM history, a scheme that didn't make any sense at all.
Zemo: "The Avengers killed my family. But even though I know of all of their identities I'm not going to do the logical thing and go after their families and loved ones. Instead, I'm going to come up with the most convoluted scheme in CBM history in which I'm going to find the only copy of a videotape of Bucky murdering the Starks that was recorded 25 years ago from a camera that just happened to be located at the right location and pointed at the right angle and that nobody knows about. And instead of doing the logical thing and uploading the video to the Internet for the whole world to see that Cap's BFF is a double-murderer, I'm going to wait for Bucky, Cap, and Iron Man to all show up at a remote base in Siberia at the same time (which I know will happen because I read that in the script) so they can all watch the videotape together."
Dude, grow the fuck up, why don't ya and stop being a fuckin' child. All your bullshit is just your opinion. Civil War is better and that's a fact. 91% on RottenTomatoes while BvS is only 27%. So yeah, the consensus is that Civil War is better. No one gives a shit what you think around here. You hate it, fine, but don't be coming on here and telling others they're wrong just because you got a stick up your ass about the poor performance of the DC films. Seriously, just grow up. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 9, 2017 17:33:31 GMT
No, he didn't. 1st, 3:53 of your video proves that I'm right that Superman didn't put the guy through any wall. Lois is standing in between the guy and Superman. Since Superman doesn't have phasing powers like Martian Manhunter or Shadowcat have, it's impossible for Superman to charge at the guy from the front without going through Lois, who was still standing. So the only other possibility was Superman simply used his superspeed to get behind the guy and then pulled the guy through the hole in the hole that Superman created when he punched a hole through the wall. So the guy was pulled through the hole in the wall but not driven into the wall. 2nd, Zack Synder himself has confirmed that Superman didn't kill the guy. The Director of the movie obviously knows more about what happened in that scene he filmed than you do. Zack Snyder confirms Superman didn't kill anyone in BvS"Snyder addressed the issue, explaining that Superman is innocent and also the man is probably gone for good.
Simply put, Snyder said the man is "not dead but not a problem either"Well considering Snyder has no comprehension of human anatomy in his films, he could say a character that jumps off a building is still alive. I know I'm not going to convince you, but since you need everything spoonfed, lets break it down Cape is clearly to us, so he's still facing the wall with the guy. Then... His back is still too us as he's going thru the wall. You can clearly tell because you can see his ass. Then... You can clearly see the back of his legs, so he definitely didn't turn his back when he went thru that wall. Then... Still the his backside clearly with his cape. So yeah, Superman clearly speared the guy thru the wall. Sure, maybe he's alive because Snyder says so. But in reality, the guy would be dead Of course Superman is facing the wall. That's what I wrote above. Since you don't read too well, I'll repeat what I wrote above: "pulled the guy through the hole in the hole that Superman created when he punched a hole through the wall"Now when someone is punching something (like Superman punching a hole through that wall), that usually means they're facing the direction they're punching. So Superman was facing the wall when he punched a hole through the wall and pulled the guy through the hole in the wall that he punched out. That supports not only what I wrote above about Superman punching a hole in the wall and not killing that guy but also supports the comments of the Director, who knows a lot more about what's happening in that scene he filmed than you or hauntedknight do. And this once again shows the hypocrisy of MCU fans. MCU fans want to claim that Superman killed that guy even though the Director who filmed that scene confirmed that Superman didn't kill that guy yet MCU fans are so quick to believe Josh Whedon's claim that the Avengers limited the Chitauri to a 5-city square block area when I've already proven may times that made no sense at all that just 3 people (Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor), 1 of whom can't even fly, could contain hundreds of flying Chitauri inside a 5-city square block area. But Josh Whedon said it happened so you gullible MCU fans believe that bullshit nonsense. But now that Zack Synder confirmed that Superman didn't kill that guy and the evidence supports his comments, you MCU fans refuse to accept it. That's hypocrisy! |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 9, 2017 17:38:04 GMT
All this debating about who was right in Civil War just shows to me how compelling that film was. The film wasn't compelling at all and there was no debate about who was right. Cap was a power-hungry tyrant who didn't believe in the Constitution and didn't believe that a jury of 12 people should be deciding the guilt of his BFF and decided that since he was stronger than the people, he would appoint himself judge, jury, and dictator and declare that his BFF was not guilty of 2 violent murders.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 9, 2017 17:38:28 GMT
Of course Superman is facing the wall. That's what I wrote above. Then Snyder once again showed he didn't now what he was doing when he said the guy was alive. Because what he showed us was him dying. All that proves is Snyder didn't know what he was doing. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 9, 2017 17:39:31 GMT
The film wasn't compelling at all and there was no debate about who was right. Yeah there was, you just have to not set out to hate the film before it starts. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 9, 2017 17:39:51 GMT
All this debating about who was right in Civil War just shows to me how compelling that film was. The conflict in BvS, for all the film and its fans lofty pretentions of maturity and adulthood, was a misunderstanding resolved by a whacky coinkydink. There isnt much to argue about over Batman's intent to murder Superman. Batman was the villain, no two doubts about it. There isn't anything to argue about over Cap being a power-hungry tyrant who didn't believe in the Constitution and didn't believe that a jury of 12 people should be deciding the guilt of his BFF and decided that since he was stronger than the people, he would appoint himself judge, jury, and dictator and declare that his BFF was not guilty of 2 violent murders.
Cap was a tyrant who spit on the Constitution and spit on the American people and Cap was clearly the villain, no doubt about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 9, 2017 17:41:07 GMT
Superman didn't kill any terrorist nor slam any terrorist through a wall in BvS. Yes. He did. Do not lie. No he didn't. Zack Synder himself has confirmed that Superman didn't kill the guy. The Director of the movie obviously knows more about what happened in that scene he filmed than you do. Zack Snyder confirms Superman didn't kill anyone in BvS"Snyder addressed the issue, explaining that Superman is innocent and also the man is probably gone for good.
Simply put, Snyder said the man is "not dead but not a problem either" |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Dec 9, 2017 17:42:25 GMT
Nope. Like I proved above and President Ackbar also proved above, Superman didn't kill that terrorist in BvS. Zack Snyder confirms Superman didn't kill anyone in BvS"Snyder addressed the issue, explaining that Superman is innocent and also the man is probably gone for good.
Simply put, Snyder said the man is "not dead but not a problem either"Snyder thinks Superman slamming a normal human through a wall at super speed won't kill him? Yikes. No wonder Superman is a sociopath in the DCEU. He's being directed by one. Superman didn't slam him through the wall. Superman punched a hole through the wall and pulled him through the wall. Like Snyder said, the man isn't dead.
And this once again shows the hypocrisy of MCU fans. MCU fans want to claim that Superman killed that guy even though the Director who filmed that scene confirmed that Superman didn't kill that guy yet MCU fans are so quick to believe Josh Whedon's claim that the Avengers limited the Chitauri to a 5-city square block area when I've already proven may times that made no sense at all that just 3 people (Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor), 1 of whom can't even fly, could contain hundreds of flying Chitauri inside a 5-city square block area.
But Josh Whedon said it happened so you gullible MCU fans believe that bullshit nonsense. But now that Zack Synder confirmed that Superman didn't kill that guy and the evidence supports his comments, you MCU fans refuse to accept it. That's hypocrisy!
|
|
