I find quiet a few things wrong with this trainer/movie.
Days of Future Past? wtf is this? are we using james bond movie titles now?
Jennifer Lawrence does not suit as a younger Rebecca Romijn.
The whole movie does not feel like previous xmen movies.
Unless it'll be 3+ hours long, they can't do justice to address time travel topic.

Apparently there just happened to be a 2000 year old witness to Jesus' water walking miracle present. Or maybe he was a time traveller.

I thought the same thing, but then I saw that it's a 30 minute film.

So long as they keep the pace up, I can see it working. If there are 10 epic events they just have to spend under 3 minutes on each. They already have a dinosaur, a laser arcade game, Thor, Hitler, a viking babe, high tech 80s time travel, and intro douchebags.

Fitting plot in there could be a problem, but that doesn't look like it could stop them.

When it comes down to a fair fight, Batman loses against anyone that doesn't just fight hand to hand and/or has a healing factor / super strength. But that's not what Batman's true power is. These idiot fanboys and their value system based on Street Fighter / Mortal Kombat bullshit. 3, 2, 1 -- Fight!

No, no, no, humans: His true strength delves into something which can only be whittled down via the collapse of Earth itself: Economic superiority. But even then, he's the Ritchie Rich of superheoes and would likely be able to rebuild his wealth on another planet.

All Batman needs to do is acquire an object of immense power and then employ it against whoever it is he's up against. He doesn't even need to fight but chooses to fight. If he's fighting Superman, obtain kryptonite -- or hell, gain access to the Siege Perilous and then just destroy the mind of whatever passes through it. He's friggin' Bruce Wayne and has a vast web of connections, bolstered by his income, which can get him ANYTHING.

Anyway. There are cosmic entities which have a greater pull of resources than Batman so let's match Batman's economic superiority (he's basically an army) against an actual threat backed by near infinite resources, such as the Negative Zone's Annihilus, Titan's Thanos, a time traveler like Kang the Conqueror, or the hive mind of the Phalanx.

Hell, I'd love to see Batman hack Galactus' base of operations and then invade and divert cosmic consonance.

But this pussy footing Batman VERSUS Deadpool is moot. Batman VERSUS anyone in a normal match up is stupid. Elevate your understanding.

Buy your ticket and then time travel a thousand years where space travel is -- OMG THE NOTHINGNESS OF THE FUTURE. WHAT HAPPENED?!

I want to start a time-travelling email server. But it can only send emails to the future.

Not even time travel by a few seconds, minutes, and hours?

I want to know if VS will still be around in 2080!

Your video, 10 Reasons Why Time Travel is No Good, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Your video, Funny clip from Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 10 Badge!

Some of the highlights:
• At one point, the show interviews one of Hugh Hefner‘s ex-girlfriends holding a Carl’s Jr. cheeseburger because the burger chain sponsored this hot steaming pile of disaster.

• Macy Gray (remember her?!?!?!) dropped by to give what seems like a completely stoned performance of that song that won her a Grammy 12 friggin’ years ago.

• On multiple occasions, Kennedy and/or the show’s producers ask on a hot mic whether the show is currently live (hint: it was) while liberally peppering in some profanity for the sake of it. The first few seconds of one return from commercial break began with Kennedy on-stage looking around confusedly while off-camera voices asked “Where’s my stage manager?” and declared: “Don’t fucking give me shit.”

• The control room couldn’t seem to figure out how to press the right buttons and so interviews were cut off mid-sentence, camera shots sometimes never changed, random Carl’s Jr. ads ran during the middle of broadcast, and a video of Jamie Kennedy at a comedy club took about 10 seconds to load.

• One random woman in the crowd figured out how to read teleprompter behind co-host Stu Stone and mimicked his read for an entire two minutes. Sheer brilliance.

• Some guy dropped a big ol’ “motherfucker” live on-air.

• Oh hey, Bone Thugs-n-Harmony (remember THEM?!?!?!?!) must’ve time-traveled from the 1990s to perform a few songs, seemingly missing the memo about “not cursing on air,” because… umm… they cursed. A lot.

• Kennedy channels the 2003 film that made him relevant for 10 whole minutes — Malibu’s Most Wanted — and tries his best at hitting on a drunk black woman: “You should go white, because it’ll keep your vagina very tight.”

• The show ends with a spontaneous fight on-stage behind the hosts… and then silence as the credits roll. Perfection.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kdoc-los-angeles-had-the-most-spectacularly-disastrous-new-years-special-in-the-history-of-television/

In the multiverse theory of reality, anything that can happen, happens on some plane of the brane (not precisely the theory, but it rhymes). Time travel simply places you in one of those possible timelines where history is such that your presence cannot create a paradox. All those disappearing people and body parts couldn't/wouldn't happen. The film takes a more determinist and uni-universe slant, I guess.

Still a fun movie. I don't have a problem with science fiction movies taking creative liberties with the science.

the only way to explain this movie is with a before and after universe. where universe one story line takes place, and another where the other version of the story happens, we watched timeline B. where the people are sent back to and killed. it IS possible that the mom was killed by some other gangsters and the kid goes awol in timeline A, the movie would have taken place, and that by sending people back are in fact sending them to the alternate version of timeline a.

or

in theory, if you follow how quantum states work, if sending someone back in time, you are actually removing him from our existence and creating a world for that person to appear in separate from ours but still within it, or kinda imbetween us, but not visible to us, and that 2nd world would then only exist because of that person, making sense that what happens happens, but by killing himself, he no longer is able to exist in that new world, forcing the matter in the new world to "overwrite" the original where he was sent from.
kinda like how quantum matter does not decide what it wants to be until it is measured. that stops world 1 from making sense, erasing world 1 with the new world 2. this is most likely the only way to prevent the time loop issue caused by most "time travel" movies.
or, in star trek terms, world 1 is real, world 2 is not. unless something happens in world 2 that breaks world 1. making world 2 the most likely outcome for the future. erasing world 1 and world 2 becomes the world.

or even simpler, world 1 happens, then interferes, creating a 2nd image of itself, until something happens in world 2 that breaks world 1s existance, they both exist, and don't. until something happens to tell matter in those worlds what happens. so until that point where world 2 overwrites world 1. both exist and world 1 is still free to interefere with world 2. or how ever many versions there are. you send someone back, they are killed, and both worlds are able to agree with the outcome merging and continuing as if nothing happened.

if you follow... i think i got ahead of myself with this one. this is all of course a movie.

bumda da da da da
I'm Doctor Who, I've got incredible wit.
With way more time travel experience, I'd pop you like a zit.

Well I built a Time machine out of a Delorian Kit
and when this baby hits 88 ! you gona see some Serious SHIT!

Ohhhhhhhhhhh

Well... not really.

First off, this isn't a specifically religious line of argument. Sure, the philosophers that he's quoting are indeed well known Christian philosophers. But one doesn't need to be Christian, or to be religious, or even broadly theistic in order to recognize the strength of some arguments for dualism.

So let's start with QualiaSoup's repeated comments about what would constitute a coherent account of dualism. His constant question is what an account of dualism would even look like without a physical account. For example, "How would an agent with no physical manifestation differ from no agent at all?"But this borders on circularity--if the only kind of coherent account that exists is a physical account, then there clearly cannot be a coherent account of dualism. Which is to say that QualiaSoup appears to be rejecting dualist accounts because they are dualist. Which is circular reasoning. If QualiaSoup wishes to advance such an objection, then it demonstrates nothing but the state of his beliefs about dualism, and says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the substance dualist theory of mind.


Moreover, he consistently conflates consciousness with cognition. Cognition pertains to the processing of data. An entity that is not conscious could certainly go through processes we would recognize as cognitive. Consciousness pertains to the awareness or the internal experience of, among other things, the objects of cognition. Even if cognition were largely handled by a physical brain, one could still assert a non-physical consciousness without any contradictions.

QualiaSoup does not seem to realize that substance dualism all but requires that damage to the brain result in bizarre functioning. One of the most consistent elements of dualist theories since the 17th century has been an understanding that the mind and the brain have causal relationships with each other. Pointing out the bizarre effects of brain damage on mental functioning no more disproves dualism than pointing out that drinking too much alcohol gets you drunk--the dualist already understands that these kinds of relationships must hold, and there are already the broad outlines of an account in place in dualism.

In his discussions of Swinburne's modal argument for dualism, QualiaSoup fundamentally misunderstands possibility and "apparent conceivability." Let's quote from the revised edition of Swinburne's Evolution of the Soul:

"The only arguments which can be given to show some supposition to be logically possible are arguments which spell it out, which tell in detail a story of what it would be like for it to be true and do not seem to involve any contradictions, i.e. arguments from apparent conceivability. Apparent conceivability
is evidence (though not of course conclusive evidence) of logical possibility." (pp. 324-325)

QualiaSoup's objection is clearly a straw-man argument when you look at the full passage. The counter-example of the time-traveler fails the "apparent conceivability" test immediately because it involves an obvious contradiction. Which is to say that, by Swinburne's definition, QS's example is NOT apparently conceivable. Moreover, QualiaSoup clearly misunderstands the notion of "logical possibility." A statement can be logically possible without being physically possible. It is logically possible that the moon is made out of cheese--there are no logical contradictions that would follow--despite its being a physical impossibility. Swinburne's argument has nothing to do with physical possibility--only logical possibility.

tl;dr
QualiaSoup needs to take some more philosophy classes. Philosophy is totally badass.

>> ^hpqp:

Once again QualiaSoup delivers a quality take-down of religious sophistry.

SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED.