Buffy & Angel vs. The Matrix

[choptop]

To be fair, it was only the first bullet-timing ever, a film technique the Wachowskis developed specifically for the Matrix.

no Deacon Frost was bullet timing be for THE MATRIX in 1998.

[Siriel]

It's good enough for me to view the speed gap between either of them as better than slight.

I agree, one-on-one I would give him the win over Buffy, and a considerable majority over Angel. (Depending on the day of the week, Angel is significantly more resistant to blunt trauma.)

But I think two on one they can take it more often than not.

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

That little girl has some good durability.

[Carabas]

no Deacon Frost was bullet timing be for THE MATRIX in 1998.

That's not bullet time (as a film technique, not the definition Rumbles gives to the word). That is simplistic slow motion with really crappy CGI bullets added to it.
Bullet time is when the camera pans around a scene in slow motion or even frozen in time.

[Carabas]

There were guns in the show, she handled dealing with them in a way that spoke to her being bad at handling guns. Her abilities as demonstrated in the show are what they are. "That is how fiction works" does not actually allow for inventing a level of capacity for someone that not only they never showed, but had full out examples of a lesser capacity. It's not even "Buffy in dealing with guns forgot her speed" or something, it's "Buffy had a limit called 'people with guns' as far as tackling them head on".

That is not what I was saying.

The argument was made that Buffy didn't run into guns very often because she was very poor at dealing with guns. A purely doylistic argument. That's not how fiction works.
Very early on the creators made the decision to make guns serious business. If they had gone the Matrix way and made guns into pretty an cool toys, the abilities of their protagonist would have been different to reflect that different creative choice (and Buffy would likely use guns herself and be very good with them).

A character in a martial arts show doesn't run into guns very often not because the character isn't very good against guns, but because it's in a martial arts show.

All of which has nothing to do with Buffy versus Matrix characters.

[Captain Morgan]

What is it about Buffy that causes such wild inflation of her performances, usually in regards to ignoring her history with guns or otherwise arguing that her actual canon is irrelevant to her feats?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm actually curious. Do Buffy threads attract people who just don't normally do rumbles? Even then, that doesn't really seem to explain the cognitive dissonance for her.

[Pendaran]

I agree, one-on-one I would give him the win over Buffy, and a considerable majority over Angel. (Depending on the day of the week, Angel is significantly more resistant to blunt trauma.)

But I think two on one they can take it more often than not.

Yeah, I don't find that implausible or anything.

[Carabas]

What is it about Buffy that causes such wild inflation of her performances, usually in regards to ignoring her history with guns or otherwise arguing that her actual canon is irrelevant to her feats?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm actually curious. Do Buffy threads attract people who just don't normally do rumbles? Even then, that doesn't really seem to explain the cognitive dissonance for her.

I think that part of it is that characters on a huge Hollywood blocjbuster budget will practically always have better feats than characters on a shoestring tv budget.

Spider-Man would lose to practically anybody if he was restricted to the feats from his Nicholas Hammond live action tv series. And it's not as if the makers of that series intentionally set out to make a Spider-Man that was weaker than the comics version.

[Iron Fist]

They certainly never show this, or even anything near it.

Yes they do, they load Neo full of martial arts and they say they've been doing it for hours so he already had a crap ton loaded into him.

[Powerboy]

What is it about Buffy that causes such wild inflation of her performances, usually in regards to ignoring her history with guns or otherwise arguing that her actual canon is irrelevant to her feats?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I'm actually curious. Do Buffy threads attract people who just don't normally do rumbles? Even then, that doesn't really seem to explain the cognitive dissonance for her.

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. In this case, her performance against guns is being wildly exaggerated. But people have pointed out at other times that her high-end feats seem often ignored. I think it has a lot to do with how rare they are.

[Captain Morgan]

I think that part of it is that characters on a huge Hollywood blocjbuster budget will practically always have better feats than characters on a shoestring tv budget.

Spider-Man would lose to practically anybody if he was restricted to the feats from his Nicholas Hammond live action tv series. And it's not as if the makers of that series intentionally set out to make a Spider-Man that was weaker than the comics version.

Sure, but people don't argue that Spider-Man from his live action TV series is way more powerful than he actually was. That's not how rumbles work. Hell, it's not how basic logic works.

The other thing is that the creators of Buffy could have easily raised the power scale without spending more money. Just establish early on that she and most vampires are bullet proof, thus explaining why guns don't show up. Doesn't require much for special effects, and suddenly the scale of the conflict has been raised.

But Buffy is ultimately a show where vampires get taken out by normal humans shoving them onto tree branches, or being stabbed with a pencil. They decided to make it that way, not the budget.

[Carabas]

The other thing is that the creators of Buffy could have easily raised the power scale without spending more money. Just establish early on that she and most vampires are bullet proof, thus explaining why guns don't show up. Doesn't require much for special effects, and suddenly the scale of the conflict has been raised.

That's bad storytelling.
You don't explain why something you're not going to show anyway isn't a factor. That kind of writing leads to doing an origin story for Barry Allen's bowtie.

And the scale of the conflict has not been raised in any way. Also, guns are already useless against vampires, which they did explain at some point.

[Slade1]

That's not bullet time (as a film technique, not the definition Rumbles gives to the word). That is simplistic slow motion with really crappy CGI bullets added to it.
Bullet time is when the camera pans around a scene in slow motion or even frozen in time.

No it's not. Bullet timing is whan a character dodges a bullet fired at him after the bullet has left the muzzle of the gun. It doesn't matter if the bullets are crappy CGI and it doesn't have to be shown in slow motion or frozen in time. The above clearly is in slow motion in any case. As you can see the bullet move past where his head was.

[Carabas]

No it's not. Bullet timing is whan a character dodges a bullet fired at him after the bullet has left the muzzle of the gun.

No. That's the Rumbles definition.

Mainstream bullet time is a specific cinematographc technique that has nothing to do with bullets or dodging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time

[The MunchKING]

No it's not. Bullet timing is whan a character dodges a bullet fired at him after the bullet has left the muzzle of the gun. It doesn't matter if the bullets are crappy CGI and it doesn't have to be shown in slow motion or frozen in time. The above clearly is in slow motion in any case. As you can see the bullet move past where his head was.

He specifically said he was talking about the film technique not the actual speeds.