I loved First Class! I've loved all of them except Origins because they totally screwed Deadpool up. Thankfully, Ryan Reynolds is a huge DP fan and helped make the DP movie happen, and away from FOX(IIRC).
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
X-Men: Apocalypse Official Trailer
- Thread starter Megalith
- Start date
I loved First Class! I've loved all of them except Origins because they totally screwed Deadpool up. Thankfully, Ryan Reynolds is a huge DP fan and helped make the DP movie happen, and away from FOX(IIRC).
I don't need too, I'm not trying to shove my beliefs down everyone else's throat. There was absolutely no need for him to bring religion in a thread about a movie thread. Literally Zero reason. It was an unbelievably stupid post. I've said it over and over. If you want to believe in any specific religion, more power to you. I have no objection at all to what you want to believe. Where I am going to speak up however is to those people who just can't seem to keep it to themselves and find it necessary to whine about how x offends their faith.
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
Since when is the burden of proof not on the claimant?
Our incomplete understanding of the universe isn't justification for making shit up... And that's exactly what's spiritualism/religion is.
aeonrevolution
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 2,571
Well I, for one, get a sense of pride of us as a species that we are slowly, but gradually, moving away from religion.
Seems like it won't go away unless kicking and screaming though.
Seems like it won't go away unless kicking and screaming though.
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
Better yet, can we NOT put Jennifer Lawrence in every god damn movie along with Bradley Cooper and Robert Deniro and whoever else just keeps getting cast in movies together again and again like those 3 did once more with the new movie "Joy" opening Christmas day, please?
Agreed.Better yet, can we NOT put Jennifer Lawrence in every god damn movie along with Bradley Cooper and Robert Deniro and whoever else just keeps getting cast in movies together again and again like those 3 did once more with the new movie "Joy" opening Christmas day, please?
Wait... she is in another this month?? Dear God, kill me. Give some other actors/actresses a chance.Which is the claim? That there is a supreme being or that there isnt one?
I would argue that the claim would be that there is not one, in this case. There is more history surrounding the worship and belief of such a being(s) than there isn't. There are plenty of first hand accounts of divine intervention, etc...
So if someone has seen something with their own eyes, and you tell them that they are foolish because you didnt see it, then you have the task of providing the evidence that what they saw/experienced was make-believe, as seems to be the case.
So you want them to recast her role?
She is playing the same role she has been playing for years.
How about we leave people in the damn roles they are cast in and NOT change people every single movie. Honestly watch all these movies, how many different people play the role of half the people?
Lets ignore the old and young versions as those make sense. However within the same time line they change people every movie in some cases. It is hard enough to keep up with the stories with them constantly undoing / redoing parts of the story line. At least keep the people the same so that we aren't trying to figure out who this new person is only to realize oh that is this person but with a new actor. In some cases as a much different person. Toad X-Men looked like a normal person. Toad in days of future past looked like about like a toad face wise and had a much different persona. Sabretooth in the first x-men was stupid, couldn't talk and was more animal looking. In X-men origins was more humanlike played by a different person, more intelligent and talked. Emma frost changed actresses between movies. The beast changed between movies. Stryker changed between movies so that we had had 3 different people play him during the same time frame. Kitty Pride changed between movies..... the list goes on and on. I am glad to see them actually keeping the same people.
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
I think he means don't put Jennifer Lawrence in every movie, literally - not as Mystique in X-Men movies since that's now her role in them. But Lawrence does seem to be in a shitload of movies, just like Bradley Cooper is. I remember seeing Cooper years ago when he was studying acting at The Actor's Studio (yes, that TV show is actually an acting school) and was caught in a few episodes of that show where he, as a student, was in the audience and was able to ask questions of some of the actors featured - one of them was Robert Deniro actually - and so as time passed and he started getting acting jobs he's now been in quite a few of them in a relatively short period of time, just like Jennifer Lawrence has been.
I don't mind the same actors being cast in the same roles - literally the same recurring role. What I do mind is probably what that poster was meaning: seeing the same actors in a ton of movies coming out in rapid succession, different roles but the same actor and believe it or not even in spite of the variety since it's the same actor the shit gets boring fast.
I could be wrong but I believe that's what sleepeeg3 meant.
I don't mind the same actors being cast in the same roles - literally the same recurring role. What I do mind is probably what that poster was meaning: seeing the same actors in a ton of movies coming out in rapid succession, different roles but the same actor and believe it or not even in spite of the variety since it's the same actor the shit gets boring fast.
I could be wrong but I believe that's what sleepeeg3 meant.
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
Also, the main reason a given actor doesn't appear in the same role from movie to movie in a series could be complicated: money issues, contractual obligations that prevent them from being in a sequel after being featured in the first movie of a series, or they just flat out get sick of being that character for whatever reason.
Example: Robert Downey Jr basically did Iron Man (the first movie) and after it was done he literally said in several interviews that he was done, no more, wasn't interested in it even in spite of being contractually obligated for 3 movies (with that first one in the can he had to do two more). He fought it, was willing to actually fork over cash out of pocket to get out of the contract but eventually not only did he return to the role for Iron Man 2 and 3 and also 3 Avengers movies now (and a tiny bit part during the end credits of "Hulk" the Edward Norton version playing Tony Stark) but they ended up renegotiating so he'd get more cash to do it and stop complaining about it.
But sure, we'd all love to see the characters that start in a role stick with it. Biggest example of this happening IMO? Alec Baldwin playing Jack Ryan in "The Hunt For Red October." He was absolutely perfect in that role, and I fully expected and hoped to see him play Jack Ryan in sequels of the Tom Clancy novels but, he had some contractual obligations for some Disney project that prevented him from ever being Jack Ryan again, sadly.
So we ended up with Harrison Ford in the role for two more movies and while he did an OK job, Alec was Jack Ryan after Red October, hands down. Ford was just too old in reality because Ryan was supposed to be in his mid to late 30's, etc. I liked the sequels, not as much as Red October, but Ford just didn't pull it off for me.
And don't even get me started on that travesty known as "The Sum Of All Fears" with Ben Affleck in the lead role as Jack Ryan. Wrong, wrong, oh so wrong.
Example: Robert Downey Jr basically did Iron Man (the first movie) and after it was done he literally said in several interviews that he was done, no more, wasn't interested in it even in spite of being contractually obligated for 3 movies (with that first one in the can he had to do two more). He fought it, was willing to actually fork over cash out of pocket to get out of the contract but eventually not only did he return to the role for Iron Man 2 and 3 and also 3 Avengers movies now (and a tiny bit part during the end credits of "Hulk" the Edward Norton version playing Tony Stark) but they ended up renegotiating so he'd get more cash to do it and stop complaining about it.
But sure, we'd all love to see the characters that start in a role stick with it. Biggest example of this happening IMO? Alec Baldwin playing Jack Ryan in "The Hunt For Red October." He was absolutely perfect in that role, and I fully expected and hoped to see him play Jack Ryan in sequels of the Tom Clancy novels but, he had some contractual obligations for some Disney project that prevented him from ever being Jack Ryan again, sadly.
So we ended up with Harrison Ford in the role for two more movies and while he did an OK job, Alec was Jack Ryan after Red October, hands down. Ford was just too old in reality because Ryan was supposed to be in his mid to late 30's, etc. I liked the sequels, not as much as Red October, but Ford just didn't pull it off for me.
And don't even get me started on that travesty known as "The Sum Of All Fears" with Ben Affleck in the lead role as Jack Ryan. Wrong, wrong, oh so wrong.
No, the claim clearly is that there is one. I have never claimed there isn't one. I simply said to prove it. As per the usual though, the group claiming tries to dodge.
There are zero "Verifiable and Testable" first hand accounts. That being the whole crux of the argument. As a rule some people don't seem to understand the concept of verifying and testing of evidence. A claim made in a vacuum of like minded individuals doesn't mean a thing if it cannot be independently tested and verified.
So your argument is if you make up nonsense for long enoighbit becomes the reasonable position? Riiight. Good show.
And no, it's on the person claiming to have seen crazy shit to provide the evidence.
So far nothing in thousands of years.... Hmm...
I think he means don't put Jennifer Lawrence in every movie, literally - not as Mystique in X-Men movies since that's now her role in them. But Lawrence does seem to be in a shitload of movies, just like Bradley Cooper is. I remember seeing Cooper years ago when he was studying acting at The Actor's Studio (yes, that TV show is actually an acting school) and was caught in a few episodes of that show where he, as a student, was in the audience and was able to ask questions of some of the actors featured - one of them was Robert Deniro actually - and so as time passed and he started getting acting jobs he's now been in quite a few of them in a relatively short period of time, just like Jennifer Lawrence has been.
I don't mind the same actors being cast in the same roles - literally the same recurring role. What I do mind is probably what that poster was meaning: seeing the same actors in a ton of movies coming out in rapid succession, different roles but the same actor and believe it or not even in spite of the variety since it's the same actor the shit gets boring fast.
I could be wrong but I believe that's what sleepeeg3 meant.
Are you sure? It seems to me that a few people here are being very literal about not wanting her in this movie itself.
I do agree about seeing people in a lot of movies one after another. They just become the new "it" person that everyone wants to have. But this isn't really nothing new and actually just seems that way in some cases to be honest. Ellen Page for years did 4 or 5 movies a year. So she would have seemed to be the same way, but most weren't big name movies, she only did maybe 1 of those a year. Jennifer here is only doing 2 or 3 movies a year, but they are all big named movies so she appears to be in more. She did 2 movies this year and that is it, did 3 last year. By comparison Chris Hemsworth did 4 movies this year, yet seems like he did almost nothing. Emma Stone did 2 movies this year, but one could argue she hasn't been in anything and has fallen off the face of the Earth as you don't hear anything about her.
And that is the reason Hollywood goes after those people. You take notice if you see certain names in a movie at certain times. A certain person will blow up for awhile and even if they do only 1 or 2 movies you hear about them so much that it seems that they are doing about 20 so you know exactly what movies they are in and are going to be more tempted to go see that movie since you hear about it non stop.
Also, the main reason a given actor doesn't appear in the same role from movie to movie in a series could be complicated: money issues, contractual obligations that prevent them from being in a sequel after being featured in the first movie of a series, or they just flat out get sick of being that character for whatever reason.
Example: Robert Downey Jr basically did Iron Man (the first movie) and after it was done he literally said in several interviews that he was done, no more, wasn't interested in it even in spite of being contractually obligated for 3 movies (with that first one in the can he had to do two more). He fought it, was willing to actually fork over cash out of pocket to get out of the contract but eventually not only did he return to the role for Iron Man 2 and 3 and also 3 Avengers movies now (and a tiny bit part during the end credits of "Hulk" the Edward Norton version playing Tony Stark) but they ended up renegotiating so he'd get more cash to do it and stop complaining about it.
But sure, we'd all love to see the characters that start in a role stick with it. Biggest example of this happening IMO? Alec Baldwin playing Jack Ryan in "The Hunt For Red October." He was absolutely perfect in that role, and I fully expected and hoped to see him play Jack Ryan in sequels of the Tom Clancy novels but, he had some contractual obligations for some Disney project that prevented him from ever being Jack Ryan again, sadly.
So we ended up with Harrison Ford in the role for two more movies and while he did an OK job, Alec was Jack Ryan after Red October, hands down. Ford was just too old in reality because Ryan was supposed to be in his mid to late 30's, etc. I liked the sequels, not as much as Red October, but Ford just didn't pull it off for me.
And don't even get me started on that travesty known as "The Sum Of All Fears" with Ben Affleck in the lead role as Jack Ryan. Wrong, wrong, oh so wrong.
yes good all Jack Ryan. Never been played by the same person outside of Ford like you said. You did forget Chris Pine in Jack Ryan - Shadow Recruit. I honestly didn't realize at the time that all those movies were supposed to be the same person as 10 - 14 when they came out so didn't know anything about the series and never caught on that Jack Ryan was a name in all of them. Wasn't till years later I heard the name of some of the books in that series and realized all those movies were supposed to be the same guy.
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
Jack Ryan = John Patrick Ryan, so yep, same character, and yes I did miss Chris Pine in that latest incarnation. It wasn't that bad but, I use Red October as the yardstick to measure other Tom Clancy movies by and Red October was near perfect start to finish and stuck with the original novel's story also nearly perfectly, amazing piece of work.
I still rewatch "The Hunt For Red October" a few times a year to be honest, it's just that damned good.
I really wish Alec Baldwin could have stuck with that role for several movies, would have been pretty fantastic I think.
But then again, we'll be getting a Die Hard 6 at some point as Bruce Willis signed on a few months ago, wonder how badly they'll finally fuck up that franchise even more than the last one.
I love the movies, I love the character, but dammit, John McClane needs to just die and soon.
I still rewatch "The Hunt For Red October" a few times a year to be honest, it's just that damned good.
I really wish Alec Baldwin could have stuck with that role for several movies, would have been pretty fantastic I think.
But then again, we'll be getting a Die Hard 6 at some point as Bruce Willis signed on a few months ago, wonder how badly they'll finally fuck up that franchise even more than the last one.
I love the movies, I love the character, but dammit, John McClane needs to just die and soon.
Are you now predisposing that the scientific method is the only way to to know something is true? Are you going to throw out every other way to know something such as metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and logic?
If that is the case, you should throw out science as well since itself is based on things that can't be proved such as the laws of logic and the reliability of the cognitive faculties we all use to know the world
lostinseganet
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 1,220
I hate the way this Apocalypse looks.
First thing's first, that armor is straight from Ship. So they better include Ship and maybe explain where it came from. Also, he better say that epic line from the cartoon: "I am as far beyond mutants, as they are beyond you. I am eternal!"
Also, I think it'd be a good time to introduce Cable, even though I know that's unlikely. The X-Men, as they are, are no match for Apocalypse. AT ALL. Also, it's more likely that Mystique would be working with him, given he wants to utterly rule the humans and/or exterminate them.
Lastly, I have no idea why people care about the religious reference in the trailer. Apocalypse predates the Bible by a few thousand years. It's the core of the comics. If you're having trouble with that, then I suggest you stop reading comic books because it's a common theme.
Also, I think it'd be a good time to introduce Cable, even though I know that's unlikely. The X-Men, as they are, are no match for Apocalypse. AT ALL. Also, it's more likely that Mystique would be working with him, given he wants to utterly rule the humans and/or exterminate them.
Lastly, I have no idea why people care about the religious reference in the trailer. Apocalypse predates the Bible by a few thousand years. It's the core of the comics. If you're having trouble with that, then I suggest you stop reading comic books because it's a common theme.
This the best you can do? A weak straw man argument? Zero attempt to prove anything, just an argument of deflection. How sad, you have made an "Eternal" decision based on frighteningly little information and have remained uneducated about it for who knows how long.
You have my pity.
There's a bit of humor in you making a statement that deflects and creates a strawman to declare that someone else is using a strawman and is deflecting.
Your posts have basically said you would only believe God exists if it is verifiable and testable (scientific method), and that should be extended to everyone else as well. Let me know if that's wrong.
All your posts sound as if they are full of anger and hate. I wonder who should have pity for whom.
Mugato
Muh Feelz!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 933
Anymore unfortunately, freedom of speech takes a backseat to progressive politics and feelings. Sad.
D
Deleted member 245375
Guest
I've been "online" since the mid-1970s starting off with a 50 baud Hayes "Smartmodem" that cost me two summers of grass-cutting income (those were the days I tell ya) and horrible connection quality even at that lowly speed because of the acoustic couplers we had to use in those times and the one rule I knew even then and a few years before the first real "chat" service got started - CompuServe's CB Simulator - there were two things you just didn't discuss "online," ever:
Politics and Religion.
No two topics will ever ignite firestorms faster than either of those and certainly if they happen to be in the same conversation it'll go thermonuclear in three shakes (nuclear physicists should get that joke), it's almost a proven fact of online life by now as this thread has proven once again.
Some things just never change.
Politics and Religion.
No two topics will ever ignite firestorms faster than either of those and certainly if they happen to be in the same conversation it'll go thermonuclear in three shakes (nuclear physicists should get that joke), it's almost a proven fact of online life by now as this thread has proven once again.
Some things just never change.
Ethics is a human construct. Every other animal lives and survives based solely on survival of the fittest. Example: Many species practice indiscriminant cannibalism but it is extremely rare in humans even though we out number most mammals populations. On point to your argument, we have many ethical boundaries and still battle ethical boundaries in many areas today, such as genetic manipulation or stem cell research. Arguing for a certain set of ethical boundaries is not explained with, "Just cause" or, "Because I/it feels..." which is where the God argument always ends.
Aesthetics, lets look at the definition:
"A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
The branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste."
Ok, so....its a completely subjective experience that is, once more, built by humans to describe their environment based on their perceptive functions. Being a technology forum, I make the assumption that we are all fairly intelligent people. With that in mind, I'm sure you're aware that my perception of the world is slightly different from yours, from Kyle Bennett's, and from every other person in the world. Even with these slight differences in perception, we all experience hot as being hot, cold as being cold, see red as red, and blue as blue. The perception of God is nonexistent, we don't hear/see/feel/taste God. You may argue that we see God every time we open our eyes and all that warm fuzzy type stuff but that is not direct or indirect evidence of him.
Logic...not even sure how you can argue logic because science and the scientific method utilize logic whereas religion completely ignore logic. Science says, "Give me observable facts." Religion says, "Here are the facts, don't question them."
Except I didn't create a strawman, You did and have been deflecting in every single post. That isn't a debatable point.
You have this ridiculous notion that the scientific method is extremely narrow in scope, yet another thing you are terribly wrong about. There are plenty of ways to prove and verify things, none of which you can do in regards to god.
I'll state it as simply as I possibly can for you to understand. I have absolutely Zero qualms about the notion that a "God" may exist. However until you can prove beyond doubt that it does, you have no argument. As I said in my very first post, there are 41,000 religions in the world. All of which claim their way is the true way. I would wager you don't know hardly anything about more than a dozen of them AT BEST and yet you are willing to sit here and blindly defend yours with ZERO evidence and ZERO knowledge. That is the epitome of fanaticism and arrogance.
There isn't a shred of hate or anger in my posts, just annoyance at someone who would make such an obviously ill informed and arrogant claim with absolutely no means to prove it.
The scientific method is a human construction.
Actually, under a subjective moral worldview, ethical boundaries are based around "Just cause." If all ethics are subjective, then to break an ethical boundary is equivalent of just going against the latest trend. Science itself is based on the concept that the certain moral values its built upon are fundamentally objective.
Hand waving away an entire branch of philosophy with "it's a completely subjective experience" is also very condescending. By presupposing a subjective view of beauty, you yourself are making a philosophical statement about it.
You may not feel God, that doesn't say someone else doesn't. You are relying on the notion that your senses evolved so you are getting an accurate representation of reality as well. However, evolution doesn't care one wit about whether it is accurate. It could have very well evolved so that your reality is nothing but a delusion because that would better suit your survival. You could very well be a brain in a vat, and your entire world view, all of your senses, are nothing but a figment of your imagination.
Logic, as in the branch of philosophy that was pushed forward in the Christian western world. You really think that the Christian philosophers throughout the ages haven't used the laws of logic when conducting their philosophical arguments?
Science itself was built on the Christian worldview. The assumption that the world is a rational, orderly place is the very foundation on which science flourished.
That's a strawman.
What? The scientific method solely exists to test and verify the natural world. It doesn't have the ability to do anything else.
Is this "prove beyond a doubt" criteria only reserved for God in particular? If not, where else do you apply this criteria?
That seems pretty hateful and angry.
LeninGHOLA
Vladimir Hayt
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 18,416
Is an XMen trailer really sparking "deep" discussions on religion and philosophy? It's a goofy, half-assed comic book movie.
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
Feels like they are going out of their way to ensure the plot focuses on having a young cast lineup. But that's just IMO. Not really a fan of this approach.
Protoform-X
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,203
Isn't it normal in stories for the bad guy to call himself "God" or "a god" only to be shown his place by mere "mortals?" I think it's actually a pretty good lesson in there: No matter how powerful you think you are, you are not God.
Dayaks
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 9,773
Generally I wait for these movies to come out on Netflix or TV. They are enjoyable, but they just seem to be missing something.
I don't care if people are religious. Beyond me why they have to project it in others faces. Hell the first post in this thread to attack anyone was by someone that looks a bit off the deep end religious and attacks an entire generation. It's Interesting.
I don't care if people are religious. Beyond me why they have to project it in others faces. Hell the first post in this thread to attack anyone was by someone that looks a bit off the deep end religious and attacks an entire generation. It's Interesting.
So are you going to actually try to prove anything? Or are you just going to keep at this pedantic game of trying to pretend like you have a tenable argument when you in fact don't?
You are under the spurious assumption that I have been trying to prove anything to you. Questioning the reasoning and logic behind your statements, is not the same thing as trying to prove something. You won't even answer if the "prove beyond a doubt" criteria you set is only reserved for God question I posed. If that is the criteria you set for everything, what point would there be for anyone to try and prove anything to you? Outside of mathematics, that's impossible.
Given the group they are using they kind of have to. This is the past version of the xmen, not the current time crew. So back when they were in their teens and twenties. Not the 40+ that you have in xmen 1 - 3. I want to say they said before they were going to jump back and forth. So the last movie had both groups, this one is the past. Next will be the older group. In time they have to move to must the young people as the original cast will be getting to old.
Nah, he will be back for the next movie. Problem isn't fox but that he is the character people latched into. So they are giving what the general public wants, which might differ from what hard core fans want. But they are here to make money and will do what makes money
Because your question has no merit. Nothing is fact until there is tangible proof. That isn't reserved only for god.
Monkey34
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5,140
Yea, wanting actual evidence and facts before committing to believe something is such a funny position to have.