797 pts ยท March 28, 2015
This is your public profile. Write something about yourself!!
Philanthropic expeditions which little other than to remind us that he's a good dude. (5/?)
in abandoned buildings and an abandoned island where the heroes stand nothing to lose. Then more time is spent showing superman's (4/?)
Because the film is so busy the setting also becomes inconsequential. Most of the action takes place (3/?)
developed storylines. What's left of the film is forced to serve exposition because there are too many villains and heroes. (2/?)
It means that the film spends a significant chunk of it's runtime on cinematic slo-mo rather than creating a compelling universe with (1/?)
To borrow from a great review of the film, Batman vs Superman focused on moments rather than scenes.
SAVE MARTHAAAA!!!!
A bounty of Easter eggs does not a good film make.
More than anything I can't imagine them making a compelling or realistic film on either subject.
While I agree, I think the intent was to elevate the role of everyday heroes. Wahlberg did the same thing in Deepwater Horizon.
See exhibit A. The liquid is very watery. Furthermore, where did the ketchup come from? These are the questions that keep me up at night.
Possibly, but the red bottle has been a symbol of ketchup for a millennia. It also begs the question, where did the ketchup come from?
The prosecution submits exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/embed/_vLN9LLW9mA
So the future has passed.
That is on my list to watch over break.
-the term 'fact' is thrown around without properly representing said facts, even when the core argument is still solid. It can get slippery.
Well said. And it is an exceptionally strong consensus. I think our points are circling the issue of science communication and how loosely
But I didn't downvote you.
Maybe not when you have built in flippers.
Exactly.
Edit: I wrote AGW and then mistakenly expanded ACC. GW is global warming. My bad.
2/2 president Obama did not. I think accurately explaining 'facts' is very important when claiming fact.
I wanted to edit my first comment because I meant the way the general populous cites this is oversimplified. John Oliver did it right. 1/2
This is a much clearer representation of what '97%' really means: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
(Anthropogenic Climate Change). 33% concluded it is indeed caused by humans. 33/34 gives you 97%.
Just to say, 97% is a misleading statistic. The study took 11k studies on climate, and of them 34% took a stance on AGW
Trigger discipline.
These are amazing! Are you using rotoscope by chance?
Same
Philanthropic expeditions which little other than to remind us that he's a good dude. (5/?)
in abandoned buildings and an abandoned island where the heroes stand nothing to lose. Then more time is spent showing superman's (4/?)
Because the film is so busy the setting also becomes inconsequential. Most of the action takes place (3/?)
developed storylines. What's left of the film is forced to serve exposition because there are too many villains and heroes. (2/?)
It means that the film spends a significant chunk of it's runtime on cinematic slo-mo rather than creating a compelling universe with (1/?)
To borrow from a great review of the film, Batman vs Superman focused on moments rather than scenes.
SAVE MARTHAAAA!!!!
A bounty of Easter eggs does not a good film make.
More than anything I can't imagine them making a compelling or realistic film on either subject.
While I agree, I think the intent was to elevate the role of everyday heroes. Wahlberg did the same thing in Deepwater Horizon.
See exhibit A. The liquid is very watery. Furthermore, where did the ketchup come from? These are the questions that keep me up at night.
Possibly, but the red bottle has been a symbol of ketchup for a millennia. It also begs the question, where did the ketchup come from?
The prosecution submits exhibit A: https://www.youtube.com/embed/_vLN9LLW9mA
So the future has passed.
That is on my list to watch over break.
-the term 'fact' is thrown around without properly representing said facts, even when the core argument is still solid. It can get slippery.
Well said. And it is an exceptionally strong consensus. I think our points are circling the issue of science communication and how loosely
But I didn't downvote you.
Maybe not when you have built in flippers.
Exactly.
Edit: I wrote AGW and then mistakenly expanded ACC. GW is global warming. My bad.
2/2 president Obama did not. I think accurately explaining 'facts' is very important when claiming fact.
I wanted to edit my first comment because I meant the way the general populous cites this is oversimplified. John Oliver did it right. 1/2
This is a much clearer representation of what '97%' really means: https://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html
(Anthropogenic Climate Change). 33% concluded it is indeed caused by humans. 33/34 gives you 97%.
Just to say, 97% is a misleading statistic. The study took 11k studies on climate, and of them 34% took a stance on AGW
Trigger discipline.
These are amazing! Are you using rotoscope by chance?
Same