|
Post by PreachCaleb on May 31, 2017 20:00:06 GMT
Well first of all, I'm trying to help you understand better, but I'm also willing to, which is why I asked for examples of something ill conceived or poorly executed in the MCU.
And yes, Martha and Tornadocide are prime examples of the writer trying to get to a conclusion without regard to the means of getting there. Tornadocide for instance very transparently is the writer saying to themselves, "Ok I want Johnathan to die willingly in a sacrificial act, while stressing the point that Clark's powers can't be used to help in the interest of secrecy. So I'm going to use a tornado. Now why would Johnathan and Clark both be near the tornado, but only Johnathan is in danger. Oh I got it, the dog won't get out of the car so Johnathan will have to go back for him. But I don't want to kill the dog, so he'll just runaway and won't matter any more to the scene because all I needed was an excuse to get Johnathan back to the car. Oh and Clark didn't go because I needed Johnathan to die, but it would have made more sense given that he has no chance of dying in the tornado, and he wouldn't have gotten stuck and there would be no reason to think he'd reveal his powers, but Johnathan goes anyway. So now I need an excuse for the Tornado to suddenly be close enough to kill Johnathan, but still make it believable that it was far enough away for him to decide to go back for the plot convenience dog in the first place. So I'll have to have a plot convenience Johnathan gets stuck. And there we have it. Clark couldn't have gone for the dog in the first place, but now he can't come because it might reveal his powers, which might be bad even though we don't know that, and Johnathan won't even try to run away. And scene." It's a string of plot conveniences that clearly weren't very well planned. It's just the first thing whoever wrote that thought of.
How about a clear example of Lois falling away from the black hole with all of the other cars flying up past her. There is no way to make that remotely make sense, especially when Superman has to fly with all his might to keep her from being sucked in right after he catches her. It's a bad scene.
Jimmy Olson dying without even being named so there is zero emotional impact, and basically for no reason.
Martha doesn't even make sense from the character's point of view. Either of them. It's very much like Tornadocide where it stands out as a knee jerk reaction scene that seemed cool when the writer first thought of it but wasn't very well planned.
So all of these things I'm talking about the writing and planning of a scene
Lex
And what makes you think that these criticisms of yours (Tornadocide, Martha, Jimmy's death, etc.) is the proper view, and it's not simply you turning a blind eye to the well crafted nature of these scenes. ? Maybe it is you who is not open to even attempting to look at these as well done elements of the film. They weren't well crafted. There's no reason for Clark to not be the one to go back for the dog. And who calls their mom by their first name to a stranger? It's not a blind eye. They just weren't done well. I can see what Snyder was going for, but like with some of Whedon's short comings (The Black Widow is a monster scene), it lacked in the execution. Far too contrived for its own good.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 20:23:06 GMT
Yes I read your breakdown, and basically all I see is you stating your opinion. Nothing concrete. Nothing to prove that your opinion is a valid criticism compared to what I criticized against the MCU movies. Lois falling away from a black hole when cars are flying up past her and then needing to be saved by Superman flying with all of his might isn't concrete to you? really?
See the Thor saves Loki from a black hole scene in TDW for how to do that right.
What? You think that's any less valid than saying that Ant-man retains his mass and strength despite shrinking in size and yet he can hitch a ride on Hawkeye's arrow despite supposedly retaining the mass of a 200 pound man?
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 20:24:10 GMT
And what makes you think that these criticisms of yours (Tornadocide, Martha, Jimmy's death, etc.) is the proper view, and it's not simply you turning a blind eye to the well crafted nature of these scenes. ? Maybe it is you who is not open to even attempting to look at these as well done elements of the film. They weren't well crafted. There's no reason for Clark to not be the one to go back for the dog. And who calls their mom by their first name to a stranger? It's not a blind eye. They just weren't done well. I can see what Snyder was going for, but like with some of Whedon's short comings (The Black Widow is a monster scene), it lacked in the execution. Far too contrived for its own good. Believe me, I have criticized the hell out of DC's movies and much much prefer MCU movies. I'm only doing this to show ArchStanton how hypocritical his stance is in claiming the MCU is flawless.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 20:29:10 GMT
Lois falling away from a black hole when cars are flying up past her and then needing to be saved by Superman flying with all of his might isn't concrete to you? really?
See the Thor saves Loki from a black hole scene in TDW for how to do that right.
What? You think that's any less valid than saying that Ant-man retains his mass and strength despite shrinking in size and yet he can hitch a ride on Hawkeye's arrow despite supposedly retaining the mass of a 200 pound man? I can't name an inconsistent scene in Ant Man no. He can always stand on things without his full size weight. And I certainly can't name one as blatantly obvious as the Lois falling away from a black hole scene. Can you?
But I was asking you to name more scenes you think are bad in the MCU. I really would like to hear your thoughts so I can consider them. You might find one I agree with and I love thinking about this stuff.
PS: Per your above post to preacher. You aren't showing me I'm being hypocritical. I've been very clear on the differences and am happy to define them more, but if the only point is I've found writing shortcuts with some DC scenes and don't see anything bad within the MCU and therefore I'm a hypocrite, then we've just watered down the conversation to the point of being meaningless. If you find something I've been hypocritical about, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 22:43:19 GMT
What? You think that's any less valid than saying that Ant-man retains his mass and strength despite shrinking in size and yet he can hitch a ride on Hawkeye's arrow despite supposedly retaining the mass of a 200 pound man? I can't name an inconsistent scene in Ant Man no. He can always stand on things without his full size weight. And I certainly can't name one as blatantly obvious as the Lois falling away from a black hole scene. Can you?
But I was asking you to name more scenes you think are bad in the MCU. I really would like to hear your thoughts so I can consider them. You might find one I agree with and I love thinking about this stuff.
PS: Per your above post to preacher. You aren't showing me I'm being hypocritical. I've been very clear on the differences and am happy to define them more, but if the only point is I've found writing shortcuts with some DC scenes and don't see anything bad within the MCU and therefore I'm a hypocrite, then we've just watered down the conversation to the point of being meaningless. If you find something I've been hypocritical about, let me know.
It's hypocritical because you're applying double standards. When someone points out a flaw in an MCU movie, regardless of how well it is backed up, you claim that they're just being negative or that they simply didn't understand or appreciate the intricacies of the scene. But when you point out a flaw in a DCEU movie, you act like it's a fact despite people claiming the exact same things against you. It's a double standard. Take for example this flaw in physics. Lois Lane drops to the ground despite everything else getting sucked upwards. That's a flaw, it's a valid complaint. Same thing with Antman being said that he maintains same mass and strength despite shrinking in size, which is why he's able to flip Black Widow over and on her back despite his diminutive size. Yet somehow he's able to ride an arrow and not mess with it's trajectory. That's also a valid complaint. Yet you only recognize the DCEU flaw and completely ignore and even defend the MCU flaw. Or another example is the Martha segment in BvS. There's a point to the scene, and there is a plan and goal to that scene. But the execution sucks, because it is highly unlikely that someone dead set on killing someone else will simply stop just because someone has the same mother's name. In the same way, Thor having a personality change in 2 days also has a plan, has a goal, there's a point to it. But it's just as poorly handled because it is highly unlikely that a thousand year old man will have a complete change in personality just because he had a crappy 2 days. Yet again, you only recognize the flaws of DCEU while completely turning a blind eye to the flaws of MCU. Just to be clear, I am not saying DCEU films are better. In fact I'll be the first to point out that DCEU films have, by and large, far more flaws than MCU films. I will, however, admit that MCU movies still have their flaws and will acknowledge them objectively. And this is where we don't agree: We both agree that DCEU movies are flawed, but you somehow believe that MCU movies are free of flaws.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 22:51:47 GMT
That's clearly not what happens with Ant Man though. And it clearly is what happens with Lois. So I'm not creating a double standard, you're creating physics that don't exist with Ant Man. It's not a valid complaint, because they've been consistent on how his powers work.
Thor's 2 day personality change is completely justified within the context of the film and isn't remotely comparable to Martha.
I really don't understand why you're trying to make these comparisons. I know you're trying to prove a point, but maybe it's time you realize that you don't really have a point to make.
Do you have any other MCU scenes that are "bad" that I can consider. Another guy brought up Iron Fist and you'll notice I was much more critical of that, but nothing you've mentioned so far strikes me as bad in the slightest.
I'm giving you an honest chance here, but you're trying to justify Martha. I mean come on.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 22:58:52 GMT
That's clearly not what happens with Ant Man though. And it clearly is what happens with Lois. So I'm not creating a double standard, you're creating physics that don't exist with Ant Man. It's not a valid complaint, because they've been consistent on how his powers work.
Thor's 2 day personality change is completely justified within the context of the film and isn't remotely comparable to Martha.
I really don't understand why you're trying to make these comparisons. I know you're trying to prove a point, but maybe it's time you realize that you don't really have a point to make.
Do you have any other MCU scenes that are "bad" that I can consider. Another guy brought up Iron Fist and you'll notice I was much more critical of that, but nothing you've mentioned so far strikes me as bad in the slightest.
I'm giving you an honest chance here, but you're trying to justify Martha. I mean come on.
I'm not trying to justify Marth. I'm trying to point out that it's stupid, and just as stupid as Thor taking only 2 days to change personality. But ok, let's try to focus on only one thing at a time. What makes you think that Antman is being consistent? Do you agree or disagree that he maintains same mass and strength despite his small size?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on May 31, 2017 23:38:09 GMT
I'm not trying to justify Marth. I'm trying to point out that it's stupid, and just as stupid as Thor taking only 2 days to change personality. But ok, let's try to focus on only one thing at a time. What makes you think that Antman is being consistent? Do you agree or disagree that he maintains same mass and strength despite his small size? Martha and Thor aren't just as stupid though. I don't really have any idea why you think those are remotely comparable. There's frankly nothing wrong at all with Thor being humbled and meeting a girl over the course of a few days. The Martha thing is just a pure case of thought it was neato and didn't think it through.
Regarding Ant Man, and I'm actually really glad you brought this up, I'm not concerned with the real world physics of it. The only point that really matters is that it's presented consistently, meaning every time he's on somebody's shoulder or arrow he doesn't weigh it down, Yellow Jacket doesn't rip the bug zapper down because he's 300 lbs, etc. He only exhibits power when he punches basically, but if you can think of a time this was inconsistent I'd be curious.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 31, 2017 23:57:53 GMT
I'm not trying to justify Marth. I'm trying to point out that it's stupid, and just as stupid as Thor taking only 2 days to change personality. But ok, let's try to focus on only one thing at a time. What makes you think that Antman is being consistent? Do you agree or disagree that he maintains same mass and strength despite his small size? Martha and Thor aren't just as stupid though. I don't really have any idea why you think those are remotely comparable. There's frankly nothing wrong at all with Thor being humbled and meeting a girl over the course of a few days. The Martha thing is just a pure case of thought it was neato and didn't think it through.
Regarding Ant Man, and I'm actually really glad you brought this up, I'm not concerned with the real world physics of it. The only point that really matters is that it's presented consistently, meaning every time he's on somebody's shoulder or arrow he doesn't weigh it down, Yellow Jacket doesn't rip the bug zapper down because he's 300 lbs, etc. He only exhibits power when he punches basically, but if you can think of a time this was inconsistent I'd be curious.
There are multiple inconsistencies with Ant-man's physics. It was specifically mentioned in the movie that his mass remains constant despite his small size, and here are instances where that idea was supported: - While ant-sized, Ant-Man falls from the edge of bathtub onto a tile floor, cracking the tile as though with the weight of a full sized human. - He falls from a rooftop onto a car, denting the roof. - He punches full sized humans, and they respond as though hit by a full-sized punch. - He's able to judo-flip full sized humans - Another character, while tiny, is hit by a speeding toy train. The train is knocked aside as though it hit a full sized human. But then there are times when their mass seems implied to be as light as their tiny size: - Ant-Man is constantly running and climbing around on surfaces (air vents, ant tunnels, etc.) that couldn't possibly support the weight of a 200 lb man on a footprint the size of an ant. - The toy train, when expanded to the size of a real train, is heavy enough to rip through a wall and crush a police car. - Hank Pym carries a shrunken tank in his pocket on a keychain. It obviously doesn't weigh as much as a tank, but it does when expanded to full size. - Another character, while tiny, gets swatted with a (normal sized) table tennis paddle, and goes flying like an insect. - a flying ant is able to support Antman riding on it - Antman riding on Hawkeye's arrow without affecting trajectory
|
|
|
Post by Atom(ica) Discord on Jun 1, 2017 0:33:33 GMT
Martha and Thor aren't just as stupid though. I don't really have any idea why you think those are remotely comparable. There's frankly nothing wrong at all with Thor being humbled and meeting a girl over the course of a few days. The Martha thing is just a pure case of thought it was neato and didn't think it through.
Regarding Ant Man, and I'm actually really glad you brought this up, I'm not concerned with the real world physics of it. The only point that really matters is that it's presented consistently, meaning every time he's on somebody's shoulder or arrow he doesn't weigh it down, Yellow Jacket doesn't rip the bug zapper down because he's 300 lbs, etc. He only exhibits power when he punches basically, but if you can think of a time this was inconsistent I'd be curious.
There are multiple inconsistencies with Ant-man's physics. Times when his mass is implied as consistent with his full-size mass: - While ant-sized, Ant-Man falls from the edge of bathtub onto a tile floor, cracking the tile as though with the weight of a full sized human. - He falls from a rooftop onto a car, denting the roof. - He punches full sized humans, and they respond as though hit by a full-sized punch. - He's able to judo-flip full sized humans - Another character, while tiny, is hit by a speeding toy train. The train is knocked aside as though it hit a full sized human. And then there are times when their mass seems implied to be as light as their tiny size: - Ant-Man is constantly running and climbing around on surfaces (air vents, ant tunnels, etc.) that couldn't possibly support the weight of a 200 lb man on a footprint the size of an ant. - The toy train, when expanded to the size of a real train, is heavy enough to rip through a wall and crush a police car. - Hank Pym carries a shrunken tank in his pocket on a keychain. It obviously doesn't weigh as much as a tank, but it does when expanded to full size. - Another character, while tiny, gets swatted with a (normal sized) table tennis paddle, and goes flying like an insect. - a flying ant is able to support Antman riding on it - Antman riding on Hawkeye's arrow without affecting trajectory And of course there's the fact that they specifically mention in the movie that his mass remains the same, and then is contradicted by the examples I stated above. I'm no physics expert but, in these discussions a lot of the properties of such are being muddled. 1. Mass - the amount of matter an object contains 2. Weight - the measure of the force of gravity extended on an object 3. Rigidity ... 4. Inertia ... And so on. The best place to start in a discussion like this is how does the McGuffin itself work? (i.e., Pymm Particles). PP's basically allow the user to bypass Galileo's square-cube law entirely. Once that is out of the window, Ant-Man can be any combination of densities, sizes and weights. Essentially the particle is a liscense to throw out known physics altogether. SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 1, 2017 0:46:21 GMT
There are multiple inconsistencies with Ant-man's physics. Times when his mass is implied as consistent with his full-size mass: - While ant-sized, Ant-Man falls from the edge of bathtub onto a tile floor, cracking the tile as though with the weight of a full sized human. - He falls from a rooftop onto a car, denting the roof. - He punches full sized humans, and they respond as though hit by a full-sized punch. - He's able to judo-flip full sized humans - Another character, while tiny, is hit by a speeding toy train. The train is knocked aside as though it hit a full sized human. And then there are times when their mass seems implied to be as light as their tiny size: - Ant-Man is constantly running and climbing around on surfaces (air vents, ant tunnels, etc.) that couldn't possibly support the weight of a 200 lb man on a footprint the size of an ant. - The toy train, when expanded to the size of a real train, is heavy enough to rip through a wall and crush a police car. - Hank Pym carries a shrunken tank in his pocket on a keychain. It obviously doesn't weigh as much as a tank, but it does when expanded to full size. - Another character, while tiny, gets swatted with a (normal sized) table tennis paddle, and goes flying like an insect. - a flying ant is able to support Antman riding on it - Antman riding on Hawkeye's arrow without affecting trajectory And of course there's the fact that they specifically mention in the movie that his mass remains the same, and then is contradicted by the examples I stated above. I'm no physics expert but, in these discussions a lot of the properties of such are being muddled. 1. Mass - the amount of matter an object contains 2. Weight - the measure of the force of gravity extended on an object 3. Rigidity ... 4. Inertia ... And so on. The best place to start in a discussion like this is how does the McGuffin itself work? (i.e., Pymm Particles). PP's basically allow the user to bypass Galileo's square-cube law entirely. Once that is out of the window, Ant-Man can be any combination of densities, sizes and weights. Essentially the particle is a liscense to throw out known physics altogether. SaveSaveNah, you're just trying to make it more complex than it is. An object's weight is pretty much tied to its mass. Greater mass = greater weight. If Scott's mass remains the same then his weight also remains the same. Besides, it doesn't really matter what background explanation you put into it, the fact is that the behavior of his mass (AND weight) are inconsistent. One moment Ant-man is as immovable as a 200 pound man and the next moment he's as light as an ant. In any case, my objective here is not to nitpick Ant-man but merely to show that Ant-man breaks physics just as much as Lois Lane did.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 1, 2017 0:57:20 GMT
There are multiple inconsistencies with Ant-man's physics. It was specifically mentioned in the movie that his mass remains constant despite his small size, and here are instances where that idea was supported: - While ant-sized, Ant-Man falls from the edge of bathtub onto a tile floor, cracking the tile as though with the weight of a full sized human. - He falls from a rooftop onto a car, denting the roof. - He punches full sized humans, and they respond as though hit by a full-sized punch. - He's able to judo-flip full sized humans - Another character, while tiny, is hit by a speeding toy train. The train is knocked aside as though it hit a full sized human. But then there are times when their mass seems implied to be as light as their tiny size: - Ant-Man is constantly running and climbing around on surfaces (air vents, ant tunnels, etc.) that couldn't possibly support the weight of a 200 lb man on a footprint the size of an ant. - The toy train, when expanded to the size of a real train, is heavy enough to rip through a wall and crush a police car. - Hank Pym carries a shrunken tank in his pocket on a keychain. It obviously doesn't weigh as much as a tank, but it does when expanded to full size. - Another character, while tiny, gets swatted with a (normal sized) table tennis paddle, and goes flying like an insect. - a flying ant is able to support Antman riding on it - Antman riding on Hawkeye's arrow without affecting trajectory I already said his punching power and striking/falling power is retained. It is delivered consistently though, so it works just fine.
As you pointed out he flies on bugs, and the tank key chain doesn't weigh as much as a tank. That's always consistent. The weight is less when they are small clearly.
His punching and striking power is amplified though.
You got anything else because none of this is a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 1, 2017 1:02:52 GMT
There are multiple inconsistencies with Ant-man's physics. It was specifically mentioned in the movie that his mass remains constant despite his small size, and here are instances where that idea was supported: - While ant-sized, Ant-Man falls from the edge of bathtub onto a tile floor, cracking the tile as though with the weight of a full sized human. - He falls from a rooftop onto a car, denting the roof. - He punches full sized humans, and they respond as though hit by a full-sized punch. - He's able to judo-flip full sized humans - Another character, while tiny, is hit by a speeding toy train. The train is knocked aside as though it hit a full sized human. But then there are times when their mass seems implied to be as light as their tiny size: - Ant-Man is constantly running and climbing around on surfaces (air vents, ant tunnels, etc.) that couldn't possibly support the weight of a 200 lb man on a footprint the size of an ant. - The toy train, when expanded to the size of a real train, is heavy enough to rip through a wall and crush a police car. - Hank Pym carries a shrunken tank in his pocket on a keychain. It obviously doesn't weigh as much as a tank, but it does when expanded to full size. - Another character, while tiny, gets swatted with a (normal sized) table tennis paddle, and goes flying like an insect. - a flying ant is able to support Antman riding on it - Antman riding on Hawkeye's arrow without affecting trajectory I already said his punching power and striking/falling power is retained. It is delivered consistently though, so it works just fine.
As you pointed out he flies on bugs, and the tank key chain doesn't weigh as much as a tank. That's always consistent. The weight is less when they are small clearly.
His punching and striking power is amplified though.
You got anything else because none of this is a problem.
Look at you ignoring all the other proof I just posted. Cracking tiles on a bathtub and denting the roof of a car yet not causing trajectory failure when riding on an arrow? Derailing a toy train? Are you going to address those or did I just prove that you do turn a blind eye and apply double standards? As for punching power, where in the movie is it explained that he somehow gains super strength or super striking power? If you listened closely to the movie you'd know that he hits that hard precisely because his mass is maintained and compacted into such a small size. If his mass isn't maintained then he also doesn't get that much strength to his hits. You can't have one while ignoring the other. Also, there is no such thing as falling power. I'm trying to have a proper discussion with you here, please don't insult my intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 1, 2017 1:39:38 GMT
Look at you ignoring all the other proof I just posted. Cracking tiles on a bathtub and denting the roof of a car yet not causing trajectory failure when riding on an arrow? Derailing a toy train? Are you going to address those or did I just prove that you do turn a blind eye and apply double standards? As for punching power, where in the movie is it explained that he somehow gains super strength or super striking power? If you listened closely to the movie you'd know that he hits that hard precisely because his mass is maintained and compacted into such a small size. If his mass isn't maintained then he also doesn't get that much strength to his hits. You can't have one while ignoring the other. Also, there is no such thing as falling power. I'm trying to have a proper discussion with you here, please don't insult my intelligence. I'm not ignoring anything. I addressed them directly and said they're all presented consistently, so I don't see the problem. The car was hit with an impact force, the arrow wasn't. There's a difference. I know you're very eager to proclaim that you've proven something, but you just haven't. You're resorting to hyper analyzing the physics of Ant Man. I mean if you're trying to convince me that there's a flaw in the MCU, surely you can do better than that. Ant Man was handled extremely well.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 1, 2017 4:05:27 GMT
Look at you ignoring all the other proof I just posted. Cracking tiles on a bathtub and denting the roof of a car yet not causing trajectory failure when riding on an arrow? Derailing a toy train? Are you going to address those or did I just prove that you do turn a blind eye and apply double standards? As for punching power, where in the movie is it explained that he somehow gains super strength or super striking power? If you listened closely to the movie you'd know that he hits that hard precisely because his mass is maintained and compacted into such a small size. If his mass isn't maintained then he also doesn't get that much strength to his hits. You can't have one while ignoring the other. Also, there is no such thing as falling power. I'm trying to have a proper discussion with you here, please don't insult my intelligence. I'm not ignoring anything. I addressed them directly and said they're all presented consistently, so I don't see the problem. The car was hit with an impact force, the arrow wasn't. There's a difference. I know you're very eager to proclaim that you've proven something, but you just haven't. You're resorting to hyper analyzing the physics of Ant Man. I mean if you're trying to convince me that there's a flaw in the MCU, surely you can do better than that. Ant Man was handled extremely well.
Wow. Just wow. I lay down irrefutable inconsistencies in front of your face and you continue to ignore them and try to weasel out of them. If an ant falls in a tub, it is not heavy enough to crack the tub. Antman cracked it, and yet is light enough to ride an ant. How do you explain that? I don't think you understand how physics work. Even the ability to punch strong needs mass, a lot more mass than an ant has. Also, you're ignoring the train feat.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 1, 2017 4:54:21 GMT
Wow. Just wow. I lay down irrefutable inconsistencies in front of your face and you continue to ignore them and try to weasel out of them. If an ant falls in a tub, it is not heavy enough to crack the tub. Antman cracked it, and yet is light enough to ride an ant. How do you explain that? I don't think you understand how physics work. Even the ability to punch strong needs mass, a lot more mass than an ant has. Also, you're ignoring the train feat. That's because everything is treated consistently. The way his powers work is consistent. The tank keys, standing on a person's shoulder, riding an arrow, etc all are done without weight, and then punching and falling are all done with force. It's consistent.
Second, you've attempted to change the subject slightly. We were talking about things that were done poorly (bad) in the MCU, and you've pigeonholed that to just things you can point out as somewhat inconsistent in order to make a claim that therefore they must be admitted to be bad. Which brings me to
Third, nothing about Ant Man is presented poorly, from his powers to the dialogue, acting, etc. If all you can do is say that Ant Man physics are weird, then yeah, no shit, but they're presented in their optimal form in this film and I couldn't have asked for better.
So I don't know where this is going. You seem more interested in trying to get to a place where you can say you've made your point than in reaching a point of understanding. I'm happy to keep explaining why I find scenes to be good if you have any more you think are bad, and if there is one that I agree is bad I'll be glad to say it, I just can't think of one. But if you're only interested in finding some method by which to say "AH HA!!!" then I don't know what the point is.
Do you have any other factors in the MCU you think are bad? Because how Ant Man's powers work isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 1, 2017 15:18:07 GMT
Wow. Just wow. I lay down irrefutable inconsistencies in front of your face and you continue to ignore them and try to weasel out of them. If an ant falls in a tub, it is not heavy enough to crack the tub. Antman cracked it, and yet is light enough to ride an ant. How do you explain that? I don't think you understand how physics work. Even the ability to punch strong needs mass, a lot more mass than an ant has. Also, you're ignoring the train feat. That's because everything is treated consistently. The way his powers work is consistent. The tank keys, standing on a person's shoulder, riding an arrow, etc all are done without weight, and then punching and falling are all done with force. It's consistent.
Second, you've attempted to change the subject slightly. We were talking about things that were done poorly (bad) in the MCU, and you've pigeonholed that to just things you can point out as somewhat inconsistent in order to make a claim that therefore they must be admitted to be bad. Which brings me to
Third, nothing about Ant Man is presented poorly, from his powers to the dialogue, acting, etc. If all you can do is say that Ant Man physics are weird, then yeah, no shit, but they're presented in their optimal form in this film and I couldn't have asked for better.
So I don't know where this is going. You seem more interested in trying to get to a place where you can say you've made your point than in reaching a point of understanding. I'm happy to keep explaining why I find scenes to be good if you have any more you think are bad, and if there is one that I agree is bad I'll be glad to say it, I just can't think of one. But if you're only interested in finding some method by which to say "AH HA!!!" then I don't know what the point is.
Do you have any other factors in the MCU you think are bad? Because how Ant Man's powers work isn't one of them.
I concentrated on one aspect because you failed to answer it properly. I'm not going to move on to a different topic and allow you a pass on this one. I noticed that you still keep ignoring the train feat. Also, how can you claim consistency when it specifically stated in the movie that Antman's mass remains the same, and then they go to show instances of him not maintaining said mass? The reason I'm concentrating on Antman is because you claimed Lois broke the law of physics by falling when everyone else was being pulled up. Agreed. I'm showing you that MCU does things like this too at times. Now if you want to excuse Antman's misuse of physics by saying "At least he does it consistently" then we can also apply the same rules to Lois by saying "hey, she consistently appears when she's needed, even if that means falling down from the sky". Like I said originally, you've been applying a double standard ever since. You can't even address the train getting derailed by hitting YJ. The fact that you think MCU movies are flawless already speak volumes.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 1, 2017 15:33:48 GMT
I concentrated on one aspect because you failed to answer it properly. I'm not going to move on to a different topic and allow you a pass on this one. I noticed that you still keep ignoring the train feat. Also, how can you claim consistency when it specifically stated in the movie that Antman's mass remains the same, and then they go to show instances of him not maintaining said mass? The reason I'm concentrating on Antman is because you claimed Lois broke the law of physics by falling when everyone else was being pulled up. Agreed. I'm showing you that MCU does things like this too at times. Now if you want to excuse Antman's misuse of physics by saying "At least he does it consistently" then we can also apply the same rules to Lois by saying "hey, she consistently appears when she's needed, even if that means falling down from the sky". Like I said originally, you've been applying a double standard ever since. You can't even address the train getting derailed by hitting YJ. The fact that you think MCU movies are flawless already speak volumes. Lois isn't designed to break the laws of physics, and that's not the only problem with that scene. The two major offenses are she's falling while cars far heavier than her are being lifted, and despite falling in one shot she then has to be saved by Superman who is flying with all his might. Why did he need to save her? She was falling right? Why was she falling if she was being sucked up with the cars? The shot itself makes no sense, forget the physics of it.
Ant man is designed to bend the laws of physics, and the way it's shown is presented consistently, as I've explained several times now.
The train weighs like nothing. It's a toy train. Who cares? It's a non issue. It's hilarious.
The fact that you have to get this nitpicky to try and convince me there are things I should consider bad in the MCU speaks volumes. And the fact that you have to try and make an equivalence between the Lois black hole scene and the toy train scene, just to try and say I'm being hypocritical tells even more.
Do you have an actual problem with the MCU? None of the examples you've presented so far are even close to bad as far as I'm concerned. I watched Thor again last night after you brought that up, and now I'm going to go watch Ant Man, because awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 1, 2017 15:38:16 GMT
I concentrated on one aspect because you failed to answer it properly. I'm not going to move on to a different topic and allow you a pass on this one. I noticed that you still keep ignoring the train feat. Also, how can you claim consistency when it specifically stated in the movie that Antman's mass remains the same, and then they go to show instances of him not maintaining said mass? The reason I'm concentrating on Antman is because you claimed Lois broke the law of physics by falling when everyone else was being pulled up. Agreed. I'm showing you that MCU does things like this too at times. Now if you want to excuse Antman's misuse of physics by saying "At least he does it consistently" then we can also apply the same rules to Lois by saying "hey, she consistently appears when she's needed, even if that means falling down from the sky". Like I said originally, you've been applying a double standard ever since. You can't even address the train getting derailed by hitting YJ. The fact that you think MCU movies are flawless already speak volumes. Lois isn't designed to break the laws of physics, and that's not the only problem with that scene. The two major offenses are she's falling while cars far heavier than her are being lifted, and despite falling in one shot she then has to be saved by Superman who is flying with all his might. Why did he need to save her? She was falling right? Why was she falling if she was being sucked up with the cars? The shot itself makes no sense, forget the physics of it.
Ant man is designed to bend the laws of physics, and the way it's shown is presented consistently, as I've explained several times now.
The train weighs like nothing. It's a toy train. Who cares? It's a non issue. It's hilarious.
The fact that you have to get this nitpicky to try and convince me there are flaws in the MCU speaks volumes. And the fact that you have to try and make and equivalence between the Lois black hole scene and the toy train scene, just to try and say I'm being hypocritical in some way tells even more.
Do you have an actual problem with the MCU?
The toy train still has more mass than an ant. An ant standing in the path of the train won't derail it. The fact that it got derailed, heck the fact that it stopped dead in its tracks means it hit something with a lot more mass than it has. And YJ wasn't exactly punching it either, he just stood there. See, this is what I'm hearing from you. DCEU movie breaks the laws of physics - you say it was a flaw and a mistake. MCU breaks the laws of physics - you say the character was meant to break/bend the laws of physics. You'd have to be trolling to not see how blatant your double standards are. Actually, just the fact that you claim the MCU is completely flawless already shows how unreasonable you are. So I really shouldn't be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 1, 2017 15:44:15 GMT
The toy train still has more mass than an ant. An ant standing in the path of the train won't derail it. The fact that it got derailed, heck the fact that it stopped dead in its tracks means it hit something with a lot more mass than it has. And YJ wasn't exactly punching it either, he just stood there. See, this is what I'm hearing from you. DCEU movie breaks the laws of physics - you say it was a flaw and a mistake. MCU breaks the laws of physics - you say the character was meant to break/bend the laws of physics. You'd have to be trolling to not see how blatant your double standards are. Are you still not getting that it's not about the physics? There is no double standard going on here.
Alright let me be clear. I don't consider anything to be wrong with the Ant Man scenes you're referring to. You can try and break down Ant Man physics all you like. The Lois scene visibly makes no sense as you're watching it. And she has no ability to manipulate physics. It's an apples to mushrooms comparison.
What's next?
|
|