Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
Well, if you stopped posting deconstructions of my comment, or if you were to say something along the lines of "Oh, okay then..." or "Yes, we'll agree to disagree..." I'm sure you could find better definitons of closing a conversation online than I can articulate...
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not denying that review said that. But you wanted to have an ENLIGHTENED conversation here. So regardless of what someone may say on some other website, in what way do you think calling something dogshit HERE creates that enlightened conversation?
Well, I had hoped to find an article where they also described the movie as dogshit... But that was the best I could find at short notice... And when did I say that describing the movie as dogshit was an enlightened conversation? It was simply my thought on what I saw and read about the proposed movie... As for enlightened conversation, regardless of my scatological vocabulary, what you are doing, is not it...
Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
Well, if you stopped posting deconstructions of my comment, or if you were to say something along the lines of "Oh, okay then..." or "Yes, we'll agree to disagree..." I'm sure you could find better definitons of closing a conversation online than I can articulate...
Let me get this straight: unless someone does both of the following:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then you will never consider the conversation dropped? And if someone doesn't do both of those things, you will continue to keep replying indefinitely?
How is that *NOT* "last word" mentality?
And when did I say that describing the movie as dogshit was an enlightened conversation? It was simply my thought on what I saw and read about the proposed movie... As for enlightened conversation, regardless of my scatological vocabulary, what you are doing, is not it...
YOU were the one that invoked the term "enlightened discussion", not me. So my question is, if YOU want to have an enlightened conversation, how do you think calling something dogshit accomplishes that?
Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
Well, if you stopped posting deconstructions of my comment, or if you were to say something along the lines of "Oh, okay then..." or "Yes, we'll agree to disagree..." I'm sure you could find better definitons of closing a conversation online than I can articulate...
Let me get this straight: unless someone does both of the following:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then you will never consider the conversation dropped? And if someone doesn't do both of those things, you will continue to keep replying indefinitely?
How is that *NOT* "last word" mentality?
Because there is a difference between choosing to respond, and being psychologically compelled to do so and being unable to do otherwise...*
YOU were the one that invoked the term "enlightened discussion", not me. So my question is, if YOU want to have an enlightened conversation, how do you think calling something dogshit accomplishes that?
As a general description of what is not taking place here... I never said that I wanted to have a conversation on The Meaning of Life and other Important Questions... Just pointing out, as have others, that there is a difference between expressing an opinion and having a discussion, and a pedantic debate on the minutiae of what you perceive to be logical fallacies in someone's statements...
Are you two still at it?! At this point, your debate has lost all reference to the topic of this thread. Please, for the sake of your own sanities (not to mention mine), agree to disagree, if nothing else.
Are you two still at it?! At this point, your debate has lost all reference to the topic of this thread. Please, for the sake of your own sanities (not to mention mine), agree to disagree, if nothing else.
Let us first deconstruct the first part of your argument.
You state "For crying out loud."
Now. Nobody (to my knowledge) has cried, or said anything loud, therefore this part of your argument is null and void.
Secondly. You not responsible for the sanity of anybody on this forum.
Thirdly, I refuse to agree with something that I do no agree with. This would be the height of logical fallacy and therefor I cannot comply.
Fourthly (and finally). All of the aforementioned argument is just 'banter', and a joke. Please do not take it seriously. (I do not think you will...).
This is just an example of how to frustrate an argument, for the sake of it. (Not that I would suggest anybody here would do such a thing)...
Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
Well, if you stopped posting deconstructions of my comment, or if you were to say something along the lines of "Oh, okay then..." or "Yes, we'll agree to disagree..." I'm sure you could find better definitons of closing a conversation online than I can articulate...
Let me get this straight: unless someone does both of the following:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then you will never consider the conversation dropped? And if someone doesn't do both of those things, you will continue to keep replying indefinitely?
How is that *NOT* "last word" mentality?
Because there is a difference between choosing to respond, and being psychologically compelled to do so and being unable to do otherwise...*
I'm not saying you are "psychologically compelled" or "unable to do otherwise". I have always said you were choosing to do so. That said, you did say that you were *NOT* trying to "get the last word". So again, I ask:
If you are *NOT* willing to stop replying *UNLESS* someone both:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then how is that *NOT* effectively the same thing as trying to get the last word?
Are you two still at it?! At this point, your debate has lost all reference to the topic of this thread. Please, for the sake of your own sanities (not to mention mine), agree to disagree, if nothing else.
Are you two still at it?! At this point, your debate has lost all reference to the topic of this thread. Please, for the sake of your own sanities (not to mention mine), agree to disagree, if nothing else.
Let us first deconstruct the first part of your argument.
You state "For crying out loud."
Now. Nobody (to my knowledge) has cried, or said anything loud, therefore this part of your argument is null and void.
Secondly. You not responsible for the sanity of anybody on this forum.
Thirdly, I refuse to agree with something that I do no agree with. This would be the height of logical fallacy and therefor I cannot comply.
Fourthly (and finally). All of the aforementioned argument is just 'banter', and a joke. Please do not take it seriously. (I do not think you will...).
This is just an example of how to frustrate an argument, for the sake of it. (Not that I would suggest anybody here would do such a thing)...
No, certainly not.
Although I am crying out loud now after seeing that .gif!
Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
Well, if you stopped posting deconstructions of my comment, or if you were to say something along the lines of "Oh, okay then..." or "Yes, we'll agree to disagree..." I'm sure you could find better definitons of closing a conversation online than I can articulate...
Let me get this straight: unless someone does both of the following:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then you will never consider the conversation dropped? And if someone doesn't do both of those things, you will continue to keep replying indefinitely?
How is that *NOT* "last word" mentality?
Because there is a difference between choosing to respond, and being psychologically compelled to do so and being unable to do otherwise...*
I'm not saying you are "psychologically compelled" or "unable to do otherwise". I have always said you were choosing to do so. That said, you said you were *NOT* trying to "get the last word". So again, I ask:
If you are *NOT* willing to stop replying *UNLESS* someone both:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then how is that *NOT* effectively the same thing as trying to get the last word?
That's acqually a different question... In response to this question, yes, if is effectively the same thing as trying to get the last word, but as I said in response to your original question, the difference is in the psychology of the responder... One chooses to respond, one has to...
Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
Well, if you stopped posting deconstructions of my comment, or if you were to say something along the lines of "Oh, okay then..." or "Yes, we'll agree to disagree..." I'm sure you could find better definitons of closing a conversation online than I can articulate...
Let me get this straight: unless someone does both of the following:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then you will never consider the conversation dropped? And if someone doesn't do both of those things, you will continue to keep replying indefinitely?
How is that *NOT* "last word" mentality?
Because there is a difference between choosing to respond, and being psychologically compelled to do so and being unable to do otherwise...*
I'm not saying you are "psychologically compelled" or "unable to do otherwise". I have always said you were choosing to do so. That said, you said you were *NOT* trying to "get the last word". So again, I ask:
If you are *NOT* willing to stop replying *UNLESS* someone both:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then how is that *NOT* effectively the same thing as trying to get the last word?
In response to this question, yes, if is effectively the same thing as trying to get the last word
But earlier you said you *WEREN'T* trying to do that. So now you are are. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?
but as I said in response to your original question, the difference is in the psychology of the responder... One chooses to respond, one has to...
I did not intend to imply you were not *choosing* to do so. If that is how it sounded, that was not my intention. But regardless, you have actually answered my question above, and you are now contradicting your earlier statement that you were *NOT* trying to get the last word.
But earlier you said you *WEREN'T* trying to do that. So now you are are. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?
but as I said in response to your original question, the difference is in the psychology of the responder... One chooses to respond, one has to...
I did not intend to imply you were not *choosing* to do so. If that is how it sounded, that was not my intention. But regardless, you have actually answered my question above, and you are now contradicting your earlier statement that you were *NOT* trying to get the last word.
Because I'm a Human being with the free-will to do so if I so choose...
I never thought that you were making that implication, I simply clarified the difference, and as mentioned above, I have free-will, I can change my mind if I so choose... What you class as 'contradicting myself', I see as 'changing my mind' and choosing to act accordingly...
All of that said, I do agree with Ryan's post above that this debate has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. That being the case, and seeing as how Marc has admitted he will reply indefinitely unless someone says something he approves of and no longer challenges his view, I will make a formal statement:
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
All of that said, I do agree with Ryan's post above that this debate has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. That being the case, and seeing as how Marc as has admitted he will reply indefinitely unless someone says something he approves of and no longer challenges his view, I will make a formal statement:
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
All of that said, I do agree with Ryan's post above that this debate has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. That being the case, and seeing as how Marc as has admitted he will reply indefinitely unless someone says something he approves of and no longer challenges his view, I will make a formal statement:
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
All of that said, I do agree with Ryan's post above that this debate has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. That being the case, and seeing as how Marc as has admitted he will reply indefinitely unless someone says something he approves of and no longer challenges his view, I will make a formal statement:
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
All of that said, I do agree with Ryan's post above that this debate has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. That being the case, and seeing as how Marc as has admitted he will reply indefinitely unless someone says something he approves of and no longer challenges his view, I will make a formal statement:
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
Nagus. This likely to be the last direct response I make to you regarding this particular matter.
Despite any 'conflict' or disagreements we may have had in the past, I (and I am sure others) do sort of see you as one of the 'national' treasures of STO. Your discussions and insights (even prior to the forums being switched over) have often been interesting and enlightening, you often find and bring up the finer points of a discussion and help get to the 'root' of the matter at hand.
That said, sometimes this strength of yours does have a tendency to over analyze things to the point that it becomes 'painful' to watch, especially when you decide to focus upon highly trivial matters to the point that the matter at hand becomes a 'back story' and a tendency to being 'pedantic'.
We all have our failings (and you are more than welcome to point out mine) I can probably be accused of being at times being meandering, mean, hostile, or just an outright 'idiot'. (As probably we are all at one point in life).
I can see you are a highly intelligent person, and you are more than capable of 'rooting out illogical arguments'. But life and talk and banter and discussion is not always about 'being right', you can be right, and still be gracious (in fact the recent end and your response (despite not being completely mature about it) to this current thread is testament to that).
Sometimes it's just OK to let people 'talk' without poking holes in what they say. It may irk you if you don't like what they are saying, but that's OK too.
Don't let it be said that I am giving you a lecture on how to behave or how I am 'holier than thou'.
Far from it, I have probably committed far worse 'forum crimes' than yourself.
But as a person who has seen you drift from 'firm but fair' to (what I would say) 'Judgmental and pedantic' I thought I should comment.
And, that is coming from somebody who does (despite all contradictions) likes you very much.
All of that said, I do agree with Ryan's post above that this debate has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. That being the case, and seeing as how Marc as has admitted he will reply indefinitely unless someone says something he approves of and no longer challenges his view, I will make a formal statement:
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
Nagus. This likely to be the last direct response I make to you regarding this particular matter.
You will probably note that in the last few posts, Marc and I had a somewhat "humorous" end to this little debate. The matter was effectively over, prior to you making yet another response about it. That said, rather than try to debate anything you have said, I will give you the same victory I gave him:
You win. You are right. I am wrong. You also win the internet.
That way all of that off topic personal attacks can stop, and no one will feel compelled to keep arguing their position. And then, maybe, people will start talking about the topic of the thread again.
All of that said, I do agree with Ryan's post above that this debate has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread. That being the case, and seeing as how Marc as has admitted he will reply indefinitely unless someone says something he approves of and no longer challenges his view, I will make a formal statement:
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
Nagus. This likely to be the last direct response I make to you regarding this particular matter.
You will probably note that in the last few posts, Marc and I had a somewhat "humorous" end to this little debate. The matter was effectively over, prior to you making yet another response about it. That said, rather than try to debate anything you have said, I will give you the same victory I gave him:
You win. You are right. I am wrong. You also win the internet.
That way all of that off topic personal attacks can stop, and no one will feel compelled to keep arguing their position. And then, maybe, people will start talking about the topic of the thread again.
The whole "Batman doesn't kill" thing is only rarely true in the comics, and it has never been true in the films, there have been deaths of criminals either through his direct action, or from collateral damage, or through Batman's inaction, from the very beginning of Batman comics and they have never gone away. There have been villain deaths in every single Batman film almost all of which are from Batman's direct action. The branding thing was also used in comics, not so much as something Bruce did to be fair, but it was done by Jean-Paul Valley aka Azrael during his time as Batman following Bruce being paralyzed by Bane. No joke with very little work I can find stories with Batman induced fatalities from nearly every year of his publication history, with the small exception of the ultra campy 1960s era under the Comics Code Authority (aka the Adam West era), thankfully that didn't last long.
As I said, in general Batman does not kill people. In general does not mean never. Portraying him as a crazed killing machine is not accurate as far as I'm concerned. That's more Punisher than Batman to me. Also, Batman has avoided killing criminals in the films. He could have very easily let the Joker plummet to his death in TDK, yet chose to save him.
Nowhere in BvS is Batman portrayed as a "crazed killing machine", no idea where you would get that idea. As for the films and deaths in them, starting with the Burton films, in Batman he killed Joker, in Batman Returns he killed Catwoman, though she didn't stay dead cause of the silly garbage Burton pinned onto Catwoman. She did however state specifically that "Batman killed me" right before she fried Christopher Walken's character. Batman Forever, Two-Face flipped his coin to decide if Batman lived or died and Batman flung a handful of coins into the air causing Two-Face to try to catch them all and fall to his death. Batman and Robin... well I can't really call out the deaths in this one as I have refused to watch it for some time now, however since it is a Batman film then either Poison Ivy, Bane, or Mr. Freeze died, possibly all of them. Batman Begins, aside from Ras'al Ghul, whose death Batman is responsible for, there are entire articles about the collateral deaths in the Nolan films, specifically that Batman essentially killed 40+ people. Batman The Dark Knight, again Two-Face flipping a coin, Batman carries him bodily off the side of a building, he was dead after impact, especially since Batman landed on him. Batman The Dark Knight Rises, Catwoman killed Bane Batman killed Talia, ran her off the road and left her in an exploding vehicle. These specifics again in addition to the collateral deaths in these films.
The whole "Batman doesn't kill" thing is only rarely true in the comics, and it has never been true in the films, there have been deaths of criminals either through his direct action, or from collateral damage, or through Batman's inaction, from the very beginning of Batman comics and they have never gone away. There have been villain deaths in every single Batman film almost all of which are from Batman's direct action. The branding thing was also used in comics, not so much as something Bruce did to be fair, but it was done by Jean-Paul Valley aka Azrael during his time as Batman following Bruce being paralyzed by Bane. No joke with very little work I can find stories with Batman induced fatalities from nearly every year of his publication history, with the small exception of the ultra campy 1960s era under the Comics Code Authority (aka the Adam West era), thankfully that didn't last long.
As I said, in general Batman does not kill people. In general does not mean never. Portraying him as a crazed killing machine is not accurate as far as I'm concerned. That's more Punisher than Batman to me. Also, Batman has avoided killing criminals in the films. He could have very easily let the Joker plummet to his death in TDK, yet chose to save him.
Nowhere in BvS is Batman portrayed as a "crazed killing machine", no idea where you would get that idea. As for the films and deaths in them, starting with the Burton films, in Batman he killed Joker, in Batman Returns he killed Catwoman, though she didn't stay dead cause of the silly garbage Burton pinned onto Catwoman. She did however state specifically that "Batman killed me" right before she fried Christopher Walken's character. Batman Forever, Two-Face flipped his coin to decide if Batman lived or died and Batman flung a handful of coins into the air causing Two-Face to try to catch them all and fall to his death. Batman and Robin... well I can't really call out the deaths in this one as I have refused to watch it for some time now, however since it is a Batman film then either Poison Ivy, Bane, or Mr. Freeze died, possibly all of them.
Mr. Freeze actually did a face-turn at the end, but not until after Batman beat him in hand to hand combat. Ivy got locked up at Arkham. Bane might be dead though. Robin and Batgirl kicked off his Venom tube and you see him start screaming and flailing as his serum suddenly wears off.
Batman Begins, aside from Ras'al Ghul, whose death Batman is responsible for, there are entire articles about the collateral deaths in the Nolan films, specifically that Batman essentially killed 40+ people. Batman The Dark Knight, again Two-Face flipping a coin, Batman carries him bodily off the side of a building, he was dead after impact, especially since Batman landed on him. Batman The Dark Knight Rises, Catwoman killed Bane Batman killed Talia, ran her off the road and left her in an exploding vehicle. These specifics again in addition to the collateral deaths in these films.
Yeah, there's a LOT of scenes where you have to wonder if the random mooks lived. A good example is the extreme motorcycle rally that Batgirl and Robin participated in. I'm pretty sure that at least a few of the other racers DIED. Not necessarily because of what they did, but...
I'd like to remind @thegrandnagus1, that the moderating and related tasks is to be done by either Community Manager or the Forum moderators; so please do not do a backseat moderating.
Also a reminder to both to you & @marcusdkane - if you two keep derailing threads with your usual verbal ping-pong, the way I've seen it repeatedly, I'll be forced to address this and pass it up higher the chain.
/Friendly Reminder
[10:20] Your Lunge deals 4798 (2580) Physical Damage(Critical) to Tosk of Borg.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator "bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh." "Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness."~Day[9] "Your fun isn't wrong."~LaughingTrendy
Looking back on the history of Batman, in the earliest comics he was actually very violent (and even carried a gun), it was not until later that he made a semi promise not to kill his enemies (though he did not always keep this promise, for instance when he purposely used a remote control to take control of (and destroy) Ras Al Guls shuttle (1982, annual).
His less violent portrayal in the original Adam West series was necessary for the time, as sex an violence (and even mild swear words) were far less tolerated on T.V in the 60's which led to that programme being very zany and 'camp'.
Personally I have no problem with either side of the coin (less/more violent/campy), and most comic book characters are constantly re-written anyway, it keeps things interesting, and I think the same applies to films too.
One thing I do dislike about many film's these days is attempting to be 'dark' and 'gritty' when it is not always necessary - for instance Nolans films where the complete opposite of what the franchise had become (Bat nipples ect), and Batman begins was like a breath of fresh air for many people. However by the end of that franchise, I was completely turned off: The Dark Knight rises could have been a brilliant film if Nolan cut away 1/3rd of the film - to me, TDK was on overly long, overly melodramatic bloated mess.
Getting back to Superman Vs Batman, I think the problem is as some have pointed out needlessly 'dark'and 'gritty', its more of a continuation of Nolans films with new actors than a new franchise in itself. Just like people wanted a breath of fresh air and change of direction after the previoius franchise, I think people wanted something new from the Zynder franchise (well, I did - I can't speak for everyone ).
I think the Avengers (and other Marvel films) has done so well because its accessible, easy to watch, and does not take itself too seriously. Zynder however has given us more of the same stuff previously being peddled by Nolan (and with far less talent it would seem).
Looking back on the history of Batman, in the earliest comics he was actually very violent (and even carried a gun), it was not until later that he made a semi promise not to kill his enemies (though he did not always keep this promise, for instance when he purposely used a remote control to take control of (and destroy) Ras Al Guls shuttle (1982, annual).
His less violent portrayal in the original Adam West series was necessary for the time, as sex an violence (and even mild swear words) were far less tolerated on T.V in the 60's which led to that programme being very zany and 'camp'.
Personally I have no problem with either side of the coin (less/more violent/campy), and most comic book characters are constantly re-written anyway, it keeps things interesting, and I think the same applies to films too.
One thing I do dislike about many film's these days is attempting to be 'dark' and 'gritty' when it is not always necessary - for instance Nolans films where the complete opposite of what the franchise had become (Bat nipples ect), and Batman begins was like a breath of fresh air for many people. However by the end of that franchise, I was completely turned off: The Dark Knight rises could have been a brilliant film if Nolan cut away 1/3rd of the film - to me, TDK was on overly long, overly melodramatic bloated mess.
Getting back to Superman Vs Batman, I think the problem is as some have pointed out needlessly 'dark'and 'gritty', its more of a continuation of Nolans films with new actors than a new franchise in itself. Just like people wanted a breath of fresh air and change of direction after the previoius franchise, I think people wanted something new from the Zynder franchise (well, I did - I can't speak for everyone ).
I think the Avengers (and other Marvel films) has done so well because its accessible, easy to watch, and does not take itself too seriously. Zynder however has given us more of the same stuff previously being peddled by Nolan (and with far less talent it would seem).
I think the reason Marvel has done so well isn't necessarily because it's not 'dark and gritty', but because Marvel spent 5 films building up their franchise before establishing the Avengers. DC has attempted to leapfrog that process by introducing most of the Justice League in one/two films. That has meant that BvS has had to fit in a bunch of characters and attempt to explain their presence, while still fitting in the battle between Bats and Supes and the battle with Doomsday in just one film - that's a lot to try and put into one film, and from what I've heard, it doesn't seem to have worked.
Comments
Well, I had hoped to find an article where they also described the movie as dogshit... But that was the best I could find at short notice... And when did I say that describing the movie as dogshit was an enlightened conversation? It was simply my thought on what I saw and read about the proposed movie... As for enlightened conversation, regardless of my scatological vocabulary, what you are doing, is not it...
Let me get this straight: unless someone does both of the following:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then you will never consider the conversation dropped? And if someone doesn't do both of those things, you will continue to keep replying indefinitely?
How is that *NOT* "last word" mentality?
YOU were the one that invoked the term "enlightened discussion", not me. So my question is, if YOU want to have an enlightened conversation, how do you think calling something dogshit accomplishes that?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
As a general description of what is not taking place here... I never said that I wanted to have a conversation on The Meaning of Life and other Important Questions... Just pointing out, as have others, that there is a difference between expressing an opinion and having a discussion, and a pedantic debate on the minutiae of what you perceive to be logical fallacies in someone's statements...
*Yes, I started a sentence with 'because'...
Are you two still at it?! At this point, your debate has lost all reference to the topic of this thread. Please, for the sake of your own sanities (not to mention mine), agree to disagree, if nothing else.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Let us first deconstruct the first part of your argument.
You state "For crying out loud."
Now. Nobody (to my knowledge) has cried, or said anything loud, therefore this part of your argument is null and void.
Secondly. You not responsible for the sanity of anybody on this forum.
Thirdly, I refuse to agree with something that I do no agree with. This would be the height of logical fallacy and therefor I cannot comply.
Fourthly (and finally). All of the aforementioned argument is just 'banter', and a joke. Please do not take it seriously. (I do not think you will...).
This is just an example of how to frustrate an argument, for the sake of it. (Not that I would suggest anybody here would do such a thing)...
I'm not saying you are "psychologically compelled" or "unable to do otherwise". I have always said you were choosing to do so. That said, you did say that you were *NOT* trying to "get the last word". So again, I ask:
If you are *NOT* willing to stop replying *UNLESS* someone both:
1) says something you are satisfied with or approve of, and
2) no longer continues to challenge your viewpoint
Then how is that *NOT* effectively the same thing as trying to get the last word?
Yes, I definitely agree that we disagree.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
No, certainly not.
Although I am crying out loud now after seeing that .gif!
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
But earlier you said you *WEREN'T* trying to do that. So now you are are. Why do you keep contradicting yourself?
I did not intend to imply you were not *choosing* to do so. If that is how it sounded, that was not my intention. But regardless, you have actually answered my question above, and you are now contradicting your earlier statement that you were *NOT* trying to get the last word.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I never thought that you were making that implication, I simply clarified the difference, and as mentioned above, I have free-will, I can change my mind if I so choose... What you class as 'contradicting myself', I see as 'changing my mind' and choosing to act accordingly...
Marc, you are right about everything. I am wrong about everything. You win everything. I lose everything. You are the best person in the world. I am the worst person in the world. You win the internet.
I will now allow you to get your "last word", so you can feel satisfied that the conversation has dropped. You can break the forum rules and insult me personally as you have before, or say anything you like. Whatever you say, I won't argue the points so that you can get the "last word" and be happy that you have "won" an argument on the internet. Congrats to you and your victory!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I have to admit, that was nicely done.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Nagus. This likely to be the last direct response I make to you regarding this particular matter.
Despite any 'conflict' or disagreements we may have had in the past, I (and I am sure others) do sort of see you as one of the 'national' treasures of STO. Your discussions and insights (even prior to the forums being switched over) have often been interesting and enlightening, you often find and bring up the finer points of a discussion and help get to the 'root' of the matter at hand.
That said, sometimes this strength of yours does have a tendency to over analyze things to the point that it becomes 'painful' to watch, especially when you decide to focus upon highly trivial matters to the point that the matter at hand becomes a 'back story' and a tendency to being 'pedantic'.
We all have our failings (and you are more than welcome to point out mine) I can probably be accused of being at times being meandering, mean, hostile, or just an outright 'idiot'. (As probably we are all at one point in life).
I can see you are a highly intelligent person, and you are more than capable of 'rooting out illogical arguments'. But life and talk and banter and discussion is not always about 'being right', you can be right, and still be gracious (in fact the recent end and your response (despite not being completely mature about it) to this current thread is testament to that).
Sometimes it's just OK to let people 'talk' without poking holes in what they say. It may irk you if you don't like what they are saying, but that's OK too.
Don't let it be said that I am giving you a lecture on how to behave or how I am 'holier than thou'.
Far from it, I have probably committed far worse 'forum crimes' than yourself.
But as a person who has seen you drift from 'firm but fair' to (what I would say) 'Judgmental and pedantic' I thought I should comment.
And, that is coming from somebody who does (despite all contradictions) likes you very much.
You will probably note that in the last few posts, Marc and I had a somewhat "humorous" end to this little debate. The matter was effectively over, prior to you making yet another response about it. That said, rather than try to debate anything you have said, I will give you the same victory I gave him:
You win. You are right. I am wrong. You also win the internet.
That way all of that off topic personal attacks can stop, and no one will feel compelled to keep arguing their position. And then, maybe, people will start talking about the topic of the thread again.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Ok Nagus
It was actually a compliment to you.
But cheerio anyhow pal
Help me out with a few paragraphs dude
My character Tsin'xing
Also a reminder to both to you & @marcusdkane - if you two keep derailing threads with your usual verbal ping-pong, the way I've seen it repeatedly, I'll be forced to address this and pass it up higher the chain.
/Friendly Reminder
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
"bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh."
"Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness." ~Day[9]
"Your fun isn't wrong." ~LaughingTrendy
Find me on Twitterverse - @jodarkrider
His less violent portrayal in the original Adam West series was necessary for the time, as sex an violence (and even mild swear words) were far less tolerated on T.V in the 60's which led to that programme being very zany and 'camp'.
Personally I have no problem with either side of the coin (less/more violent/campy), and most comic book characters are constantly re-written anyway, it keeps things interesting, and I think the same applies to films too.
One thing I do dislike about many film's these days is attempting to be 'dark' and 'gritty' when it is not always necessary - for instance Nolans films where the complete opposite of what the franchise had become (Bat nipples ect), and Batman begins was like a breath of fresh air for many people. However by the end of that franchise, I was completely turned off: The Dark Knight rises could have been a brilliant film if Nolan cut away 1/3rd of the film - to me, TDK was on overly long, overly melodramatic bloated mess.
Getting back to Superman Vs Batman, I think the problem is as some have pointed out needlessly 'dark'and 'gritty', its more of a continuation of Nolans films with new actors than a new franchise in itself. Just like people wanted a breath of fresh air and change of direction after the previoius franchise, I think people wanted something new from the Zynder franchise (well, I did - I can't speak for everyone
I think the Avengers (and other Marvel films) has done so well because its accessible, easy to watch, and does not take itself too seriously. Zynder however has given us more of the same stuff previously being peddled by Nolan (and with far less talent it would seem).
I think the reason Marvel has done so well isn't necessarily because it's not 'dark and gritty', but because Marvel spent 5 films building up their franchise before establishing the Avengers. DC has attempted to leapfrog that process by introducing most of the Justice League in one/two films. That has meant that BvS has had to fit in a bunch of characters and attempt to explain their presence, while still fitting in the battle between Bats and Supes and the battle with Doomsday in just one film - that's a lot to try and put into one film, and from what I've heard, it doesn't seem to have worked.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood