• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
I have to disagree. The only times people are found not guilty of a crime when they aren’t innocent is if there is not enough evidence to conclusively say they are guilty (When it is heavily implied they are), or evidence was tampered with / Improperly handled (OJ beat his charges “primarily” bc of this).

In this case, there are witness testimony, video evidence and medical evidence / testimony (that we know of). So if he beats this case after all this evidence is evaluated, there should be no scrutiny in “this” situation. The other allegations from his past is a separate issue and nobody has proof to substantiate them.
Any legal system of human design is going to fall victim to human error, and the US legal system is no different working either way, but I don't want to get too into this so I'll just leave it at that.
 
Any legal system of human design is going to fall victim to human error, and the US legal system is no different working either way, but I don't want to get too into this so I'll just leave it at that.
I acknowledge that being your opinion, but I’ll leave it alone after saying this; a legal system based on examining an evidentiary record of a person’s actions against the laws that govern them, by experts trained in interpreting those laws in front of jury of average people is FAR more sound than not.

You may not trust it because it is susceptible to human error (As all things in this world), but there is no better alternative in determining innocence or guilt before the masses.
 
Court rulings are not the end all be all determiner of whether someone is innocent in reality. Just a friendly reminder.
Doesn't mean we should doubt all trials results. What's the point of establishing trials if we decide to ignore the result and say "No, they're guilty for me, this is wrong!". Of course, it doesn't mean your assumption is wrong (it's entirely true) but that doesn't necessarily make it a general truth. I am not saying we should fully trust the institutions or that they can't make mistakes, just that we shouldn't automatically assume they all lie and cheat and their every decision is full of crap or mistaken. Like said above, we have no better system than this. It's either that or the voice of the masses and this is a guaranted return to disgusting shit like the Salem trials.

For the record, I know I'm not on Twitter and people here have that little thing called a brain but I'm quite paranoid so I'm going to say it, I am NOT defending Majors, in fact I believe he did what he's accused of. But I'll still wait for the trial to get a clear thought about it since even in a corrupt trial, genuine proofs can pop up. Just like we had to wait for the trial to understand Amber Heard was the real abuser and Depp the real (albeit certainly not without his faults) victim, we should wait for that to
 
I just want him to still play Kang
The problem at this point is not even how good he is as the character. The problem is that every version of the character is him now. So if he's recasted, that's going to be particulary weird and either they'll have to get an explanation for why the guy and all his variants, all of them having been shown to be identical physically, look so different or just leave it there to avoid the problem and everyone will rightfully point out this is just laziness. That or they completely change their story and toss him out altogether from the MCU. And if that happens, I prey Arishem that this will not be another Rise of Skywalker.
 
The problem at this point is not even how good he is as the character. The problem is that every version of the character is him now. So if he's recasted, that's going to be particulary weird and either they'll have to get an explanation for why the guy and all his variants, all of them having been shown to be identical physically, look so different or just leave it there to avoid the problem and everyone will rightfully point out this is just laziness. That or they completely change their story and toss him out altogether from the MCU. And if that happens, I prey Arishem that this will not be another Rise of Skywalker.
What I mean is I want the kang story to still go on and I want him to be the kang actor because I loved his performance as kang and He who remains
 
Personally speaking, I don't really care for an explanation for Kang's different appearance should he be recasted, as long as the new actor's performance is good

But I saw an interesting take on how they could explain it
 
Personally speaking, I don't really care for an explanation for Kang's different appearance should he be recasted, as long as the new actor's performance is good

But I saw an interesting take on how they could explain it

Can you give a tldr? I dont have a twitter account and it won't let me view the rest of the thread.
 
The problem at this point is not even how good he is as the character. The problem is that every version of the character is him now. So if he's recasted, that's going to be particulary weird and either they'll have to get an explanation for why the guy and all his variants, all of them having been shown to be identical physically, look so different or just leave it there to avoid the problem and everyone will rightfully point out this is just laziness. That or they completely change their story and toss him out altogether from the MCU. And if that happens, I prey Arishem that this will not be another Rise of Skywalker.
Well, some variants of Kang are aliens, as shown in the QM Post Credits. In addition to this, Monica being a CM Variant in other Universes and Loki having different looking variants set precedence for Kang having other looking Variants in verse. The contract he may have signed doesn’t change that precedence if they have to recast after the Lawsuit.
 
Ok I’ve finally watched the Loki season finale (peak)

As for additions:
I think he should at least receive nonexistent physiology because it’s quite literally stated that the place he’s slipping into by episode 5 and 6 “doesn’t exist” because the whole timeline and everything is just gone.

There may be more additions to add but that was just one that really popped out to me. I’ll review his profile over again.
 
 
Looked back at frigga funeral for the Star stuff.

(1:15)
If you look at the center of the nebula(or whatever it is) you’ll see after hemidall looks up, it like 7 stars shining brightly
 
Doesn’t he have a lot of evidence on his side tho
Apparently some “witnesses” said his Lawyers lied about their statements and everything, and even the Judge, after seeing said evidence, refused to dismiss the case against him. So… I’m all about innocent until proven guilty but, he gonna have to box these allegations.
 
Looked back at frigga funeral for the Star stuff.

(1:15)
If you look at the center of the nebula(or whatever it is) you’ll see after hemidall looks up, it like 7 stars shining brightly


9172605-9cab21db-1d26-47b0-9318-a46b6333e0d8.jpeg
 
Thoughts?
aBd5p9x_460swp.webp
Didn't watch the movie but I don't really have a big problem about it. The movie also apparently has Napoleon attending Louis XVI's execution which wasn't the case in real life so it's clear Scott is taking open liberties with history and is not really trying to outright tell a real-life accurate story.
I'm more concerned with how the movie will depict Napoleon (I do NOT want him to be some sort of innocent, misunderstood hero, he was a conqueror so he wasn't innocent but I hope the movie doesn't portray him as a psychopathic evil Hitler-like tyrant or dumbass who owes his victories to other people). Outside of France's vision of him and how much we owe to him, even today, Napoleon is an immensly complex figure and one of the most important figures in our entire species's history, so I hope they respect that figure (unlike say Assassin's Creed Origins with Caesar)
 
Back
Top