|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 26, 2017 20:55:59 GMT
MoS had "tornadocide"
BvS had the "Martha Scene"
and SS had the "dancing Enchantress"
Now, no scene in WW was as bad as these three but if you did have to pick, which scene would it be that made you go WTF??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 21:01:29 GMT
One machine gun in the trench scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 26, 2017 21:09:09 GMT
I'd say Sir Patrick being Ares was a WTF moment in a very good way. I didn't see that coming. |
|
dnno1
Sophomore
@dnno1
Posts: 321
Likes: 151
 
|
Post by dnno1 on Jun 26, 2017 21:37:38 GMT
MoS had "tornadocide" BvS had the "Martha Scene" and SS had the "dancing Enchantress" Now, no scene in WW was as bad as these three but if you did have to pick, which scene would it be that made you go WTF?? The scene where Wondy takes out the top of a building to kill a sniper. That was pretty much overkill IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 26, 2017 21:56:45 GMT
To me it was when we see a flashback or Ares back in his full godhood and he still had the same mustache. I mean, I could understand the God of War going undercover in a guise of a mousy looking man but then they do this flashback to his heyday and he STILL looks the same. WTF???
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 26, 2017 22:48:11 GMT
mmmm probably when steve buttfucks diana
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 26, 2017 23:17:15 GMT
mmmm probably when steve buttfucks diana So are you saying she's still technically a virgin? |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 26, 2017 23:45:32 GMT
I can't really pinpoint one. Aside from some conspicuous CGI shots, there wasn't anything especially cringe-worthy on that level.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 27, 2017 0:50:30 GMT
MoS had "tornadocide" BvS had the "Martha Scene" and SS had the "dancing Enchantress" Now, no scene in WW was as bad as these three but if you did have to pick, which scene would it be that made you go WTF?? The supposedly great no man's land scene appeared to be guarded by like 20 guys. Maybe 30 or 40 tops.
But no, the entire final battle with Ares' random powers, (I guess he can appear in mirrors or something? because reasons) and the fact that Wonder Woman doesn't use her power to beat him. Would she have won if he hadn't have force lighteninged her? I have no idea. Or what if he just never revealed himself at all. She certainly wouldn't have won then.
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 27, 2017 1:15:17 GMT
mmmm probably when steve buttfucks diana So are you saying she's still technically a virgin? not from what I saw. |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on Jun 27, 2017 5:05:16 GMT
mmmm probably when steve buttfucks diana So are you saying she's still technically a virgin? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 27, 2017 6:06:51 GMT
So are you saying she's still technically a virgin? religion is so silly. Seriously it's the 21st century. Who's still buying any of that crap? |
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Jun 27, 2017 7:06:14 GMT
Ares reveal/battle
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jun 27, 2017 17:43:34 GMT
religion is so silly. Seriously it's the 21st century. Who's still buying any of that crap? a lot of people? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 27, 2017 21:00:59 GMT
religion is so silly. Seriously it's the 21st century. Who's still buying any of that crap? a lot of people? Sadly that's true. It's just a weird practice of making up answer when you don't know the real answer, and then the ones that can get the most people to go along with it get called major religions and we're then supposed to respect the made up answer. If only a few people follow the made up answer it's ok to joke about it, but if a lot of people do, boy you have to take that stuff seriously. Yeah, no thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 27, 2017 21:15:23 GMT
Sadly that's true. It's just a weird practice of making up answer when you don't know the real answer, and then the ones that can get the most people to go along with it get called major religions and we're then supposed to respect the made up answer. If only a few people follow the made up answer it's ok to joke about it, but if a lot of people do, boy you have to take that stuff seriously. Yeah, no thanks. There are 2 ways to look at it. Either: 1. Religion is nothing more than people making up stuff to explain things they can't understand. Believing in something more than themselves in order to make themselves and their lives have more importance. or 2. Religion is actually based on historical events that have happened. Things that happened in the past that were unexplainable and thus triggered the start of religion and then just so happened that with time, these historical events slowly faded and seemed now nothing more than stories. |
|
havenless
Sophomore
@havenless
Posts: 715
Likes: 311
|
Post by havenless on Jun 28, 2017 0:12:12 GMT
They changed the origin of the Amazons to be some kind of sex race... .? Made to love men, who then immediately become the greatest warriors in human history. That makes sense...
But the big one was that They decided to completely omit why a bunch of Zeus-made Greek love-bots become South Americans. We just randomly start calling them Amazonian. Even in the movie they show Trevor in a small fighter plane leaving Germany. There's absolutely no way he gets to the coast of Brazil in that thing, implying he's probably in the Mediterranean. It's okay when you change origin stories, it's not okay when you stick with the plot links you've irreparably broken. I know people usually throw this word around incorrectly, but they've officially created a plot hole with that one... especially one that wasn't a plot hole to begin with. They made it into one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 28, 2017 0:14:23 GMT
Sadly that's true. It's just a weird practice of making up answer when you don't know the real answer, and then the ones that can get the most people to go along with it get called major religions and we're then supposed to respect the made up answer. If only a few people follow the made up answer it's ok to joke about it, but if a lot of people do, boy you have to take that stuff seriously. Yeah, no thanks. There are 2 ways to look at it. Either: 1. Religion is nothing more than people making up stuff to explain things they can't understand. Believing in something more than themselves in order to make themselves and their lives have more importance. or 2. Religion is actually based on historical events that have happened. Things that happened in the past that were unexplainable and thus triggered the start of religion and then just so happened that with time, these historical events slowly faded and seemed now nothing more than stories. There are some historical elements that are folded into religion, but things being unexplainable, just means they're unexplainable. I've never quite understood how anybody thought unexplainable means they have the explanation.
There are all sorts of things, like realizing the total energy of the universe has to be zero, and the other way to balance that out is if dark matter exists, and we've confirmed that via the accelerated rate of expansion. Yet we don't know what the nature of dark matter is. The proper answer in that case is that we don't know. We don't just say, "well it's unexplainable, and therefore some disembodied mind that exists outside of time and space (whatever that even means) must have done it". To make a conclusion you need a line of evidence demonstrating that conclusion is correct, not just saying that you can't think of a better answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 28, 2017 0:54:27 GMT
There are 2 ways to look at it. Either: 1. Religion is nothing more than people making up stuff to explain things they can't understand. Believing in something more than themselves in order to make themselves and their lives have more importance. or 2. Religion is actually based on historical events that have happened. Things that happened in the past that were unexplainable and thus triggered the start of religion and then just so happened that with time, these historical events slowly faded and seemed now nothing more than stories. There are some historical elements that are folded into religion, but things being unexplainable, just means they're unexplainable. I've never quite understood how anybody thought unexplainable means they have the explanation.
There are all sorts of things, like realizing the total energy of the universe has to be zero, and the other way to balance that out is if dark matter exists, and we've confirmed that via the accelerated rate of expansion. Yet we don't know what the nature of dark matter is. The proper answer in that case is that we don't know. We don't just say, "well it's unexplainable, and therefore some disembodied mind that exists outside of time and space (whatever that even means) must have done it". To make a conclusion you need a line of evidence demonstrating that conclusion is correct, not just saying that you can't think of a better answer.
We were not there in the past when these events happened, so we would not know. We view it with the critical eyes of someone who did not see something first hand and only has centuries' worth of stories to base from... so it's understandable that we're skeptical. That said, it would be foolish and arrogant to insist that an event was false when we ourselves weren't present in the event. I don't think we should believe everything we hear in religion, but I also think it's foolish to disregard everything in religion as nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Jun 28, 2017 6:28:15 GMT
We were not there in the past when these events happened, so we would not know. We view it with the critical eyes of someone who did not see something first hand and only has centuries' worth of stories to base from... so it's understandable that we're skeptical. That said, it would be foolish and arrogant to insist that an event was false when we ourselves weren't present in the event. I don't think we should believe everything we hear in religion, but I also think it's foolish to disregard everything in religion as nonsense. The only foolish and irrational thing would be to accept it as true with no sufficient justification/demonstration that it's even possible that it's true.
You wouldn't say it's foolish to disregard that we're living in a simulation for comparison. So it's not foolish to disregard unjustified religious claims.
And just to highlight how irrational religious claims are, not only is there no actual evidence for them, and every argument for it has a gap in logic, but there is actually is a logical path to us being in a simulation. As silly as that sounds, at this point, it's actually more reasonable, and yet it's the god idea people take more seriously.
|
|
