|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 17:15:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 17:08:39 GMT
I would but your mom told me not to steal your lunch again. Is that lenlen’s ... uh ... lunch? Ewwww.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 15:14:20 GMT
Congrats Kevin Feige, no one dare give a bad review
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 13:56:31 GMT
Yes. I liked it better than A Quiet Place. There is something to be said about not seeing the shark.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 13:50:03 GMT
Very disappointing. Split was very good and the tie in to Unbreakable was great. I was looking forward to this one.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 13:35:52 GMT
So it this important issue still not resolved? I believe it is resolved. Simple explainations have been explored and there is a general consensus that the topic has little merit. Right now, I think we’re just mopping up the troll excrement. Watch your step!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 1:47:19 GMT
If Thor:TDW is a 1 and The Avengers is a 10 ... I’d give Aquaman a 4.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 1:40:37 GMT
It’s a damn shame.
Whenever the DCEU does good (that’s twice now) their poor fans have only a brief period of time to bask in the glow of success before the MCU comes along and steamrolls the party with another monster hit ... and just to rub it in, they do it using some obscure superhero that most people never even heard of, fer cryin’ out loud.
Bunch of jack-boot thugs, I tell ya!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 12, 2019 1:25:05 GMT
The most valid explanation is that audiences are expected to have a bit of common sense, can put the pieces together, not need everything spoonfed to them, and can understand the idea behind a fictional movie. I too concur. Looks like this is just another case of DC-Fan being the only one failing to comprehend a simple thing. Somehow, in his mind, that makes everyone else the moron. 😂 😂 😂 😳
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 11, 2019 1:57:04 GMT
Because Disney doesn't want any DC movies nominated for Oscars. A sentiment shared by many!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 11, 2019 1:30:00 GMT
Not surprising that King Kong Shady would come up with such a ridiculously naïve explanation The hilarious thing about Always Wrong is that when he isn’t busy being wrong himself (a rare occasion), he’ll find a way to piggyback on someone else being wrong. Tristan’s mischaractorization of my statement is what was “naive”... as I pointed out in a follow-up post. Two birds with one stone! ... and the second bird flew into the stone, on purpose!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 10, 2019 13:14:49 GMT
Still, how in the world, uh universe, Thor could find the exact spot in Wakanda is still literally Deus ex Machina and requires your good will speculation and incredibly convenient coincidences. What do mean, “exact spot”? Thor simply followed the alien spaceships down to Wakanda. The rebel meeting did not provide the exact coordinates of the trench. We can presume that data was downloaded to the fighters that were specifically involved in the attack ... though we didn’t actually see it happen, so I guess that’s a “plot hole”. Han Solo would not have been privy to that information since he was a civilian who was bugging out with his loot. In all likelihood he simply followed the rebel spaceships down to the trench at the exact moment the plot needed him to save the day. (Sound familiar?) And, there was no way Han Solo could have known which ship was Luke’s ... unless he was using a “GPS” ... or some other conveniently contrived made up technology that the script never specifically mentioned. The similarities between the circumstances of Thor’s arrival and Han Solo’s arrival are obvious. If you want to dump on IW then you’re going to have to throw SW under the bus too. Don’t hurt yourself trying to nit-pick your way out of it.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 10, 2019 11:47:47 GMT
How did Thor know the exact location where Thanos was? - It was established that Thor knew Thanos would be on Earth for the magic stone...? How and where was that established? Provide dialogue and exposition from the film showing how he knew were Thanos is. - How did Thor find the spaceship/Thanos of all places in obscure Wakanda? King Kong's explanation is childishly naive (Earth is big) and seems not to be in the movie. Without GPS you could search a small object on Earth for decades. Provide dialogue and exposition from the film. Thor didn’t know the exact location of Thanos. Thanos was on Titan when Thor arrived on Earth. It was established that Thor knew Thanos would be coming to Earth at some point to retrieve two of the infinity stones when Thor said that two of the infinity stones were on Earth. That is why Thor went to Earth. As Thor was bifrosting his way to Earth, he must have seen those giant spaceships descending upon the planet from space. You know, the same manner in which Han Solo saw Luke Skywalkers tiny little spaceship against the backdrop of the big Death Star. Simple.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 10, 2019 2:23:06 GMT
So ... it’s been established that Thor knew there were Infinity Stones on Earth and, naturally, Thanos would come looking for them. Any of you knuckleheads having difficulty with that? As he approaches Earth he sees that alien spaceships are descending upon Wakanda and concludes that is where the action is. Simple. Now, its obvious that the OP has a serious idiot affliction, but I didn’t realize that it was the sort of thing that could be transmitted to others. Unless you guys are not taking proper precautions.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 9, 2019 7:56:07 GMT
Did you see it coming? Did it upset you then? Are you upset about it now? Do you really dig it? What about IM3 as a whole? Loved it! Loved it it even more after seeing this ...
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 9, 2019 7:31:35 GMT
LOL! Looks like we can add probability to the list of topics you don’t understand, Always Wrong. Of course we are talking about independent picks, duh! Even common sense should tell you that the probability of someone going 0-4 increases with the number of people participating. One person, the probability is, as you said, .0625, or approx 6%. Two people, the probability of one of them going 0-4 increases to 12% Three people, 17% Ten people, 47% 21 people, 74% No wonder you were afraid to dive into the deflategate science yourself, instead you just chose to believe everything the NFL spoon fed you. What a putz. You Pats fans really are idiots. When the picks are independent of each other, the probability doesn't increase or decrease with more numbers. If you flip a coin, the probability is 50% heads and 50% tails. If you flip a coin and it turns up heads 20 straight times and you flip the coin a 21st time, the probability is still 50% heads and 50% tails. Because each flip of the coin is independent of all of the other flips. Each participant makes their picks independent of everyone else's picks. So whether there are 21 participants or 121 participants, there are still 15 of 16 ways that a participant can get at least 1 correct pick. Once again, you're analysis is flawed, just like your DeflateGate excuses. The probability of a coin toss coming up heads each time it is tossed is 50%. The probability of it coming up heads at least once in 21 tries is almost 100%. Just like the greatly increased probability of a whiff occurring at least once when 21 people make their picks instead of just one person. That is, after all, what this is all about. You were incredulous that a whiff could occur in a large group because there was only a 1/16 chance it could happen to any one person. Once again, you have misapplied some basic facts and come to the wrong conclusion. Common sense should have sounded an alarm that you were barking up the wrong tree. You might want to think about giving it a try sometime. Always Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 9, 2019 0:24:26 GMT
21 participants, four coin tosses, the likelihood of one of those participants going 0 for 4 is almost 100%. More flawed analysis, just like your flawed DeflateGate excuses. The likelihood of a participant going 0-for-4 would be 100% only if no duplicate picks were allowed (i.e. if no 2 participants can make the same picks). In this case, each participant's picks is independent of other participant's picks and thus duplicate picks can occur and thus the likelihood of any participant going 0-for-4 is very slim, since there are 15 of 16 ways to get at least 1 correct pick. LOL! Looks like we can add probability to the list of topics you don’t understand, Always Wrong. Of course we are talking about independent picks, duh! Even common sense should tell you that the probability of someone going 0-4 increases with the number of people participating. One person, the probability is, as you said, .0625, or approx 6%. Two people, the probability of one of them going 0-4 increases to 12% Three people, 17% Ten people, 47% 21 people, 74% No wonder you were afraid to dive into the deflategate science yourself, instead you just chose to believe everything the NFL spoon fed you. What a putz.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 8, 2019 13:31:19 GMT
You win, DC-Fan . Your troll-posts just keep improving. Amazing, m’lad, really just amazing. Someone ought to write all these down as a how-to trolling guide; I really don’t have enough superlatives. 10/10. (Cue “I am not a troll”—now. But now that I’ve preëmpted the boy he won’t write it. Woe, woe is me.) Calling these “troll posts” suggests that you do not believe DC-Fan is really as stupid as he appears. He’s just trolling the board with this made up stupid act to get attention. I’m not so sure about that. When he says he is not a troll, I’m inclined to believe him. All evidence indicates that the stupidity is legit!
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 8, 2019 12:55:01 GMT
how does anyone go 0-for-4 when 15 of 16 ways results in at least 1 correct pick? 21 participants, four coin tosses, the likelihood of one of those participants going 0 for 4 is almost 100%.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jan 8, 2019 3:12:05 GMT
Indianapolis 34 Kansas City 27
Dallas 20 LA Rams 30
LA Chargers 21 New England 27
Philadelphia 31 New Orleans 38
|
|