Rorschach1:
Your argument is flawed. You are a living example that a Christian Would do the very thing you say a Christian would never do.

We choose what to believe in. If we didn't have this choice, free will would not exist.

Exactly. They will still find a way to twist it though. I went on a journey to prove to myself it was real. And no doubt it is. I'm glad I did that and had doubts. This is real. And it brings me peace but it's still a wow on my end. People who are blind can't see so that's why you can't say a thing to them. They will also twist every amount of evidence out there. I don't entertain it nor do I push myself on anyone. People do notice the difference in me. That's Christ, not me.

Good morning.
Today I took a urethra swab and urine culture test for possible STI. It's been close to an hour since I did the swab and I've been having sharp pain urinating since then. Is it normal to experience pain after an hour of the swab? If yes, how long until the pain subsides?
Thanks

Darkprime:

Could have been good. But I still think Disney and Marvel should have shown more spine and set all of Phase 4 during the 5 year snap and put Endgame at the end of Phase 4. They could have had a Hawkeye film in the vein of Logan. And a smaller scale Black Widow film with Natasha having to pick up the pieces and operate in a world with mostly failed governments. It would have been an opportunity to do darker and more intimate character oriented films for a few years.

The problem with that approach is the availability of the principle actors. Having Chris Evans and RDJ in Endgame takes precedence.

dragonflyy:
[s][/s]
look at who's talking of delusions of intelligence

nigga you're on a public forum. if you don't want to look like a clown, next time keep ur pungent opinions to yourself

Mtcheewwwwww

Forget that guy. The debate is dead.

F0REVERB0SS:
Has anyone got any good suggestions for MCU information sources on either youtube elsewhere?

EVERY time i look for recent updates on youtube, I'm swamped with FAKE "announcements" that have headlines which are DELIBERATELY misleading, and sometimes amount to just an outright LIE.

Particulary annoying are the videos posted on there by...
EmergencyAwesome
and
TheCosmicWonder
...I would suggest people NEVER take their headlines literally or expect the substance of the content to match what it's headed with to draw hits.

I find the likes of Jeremy Conrad at MCUCosmic exercise responsible journalistic practice when it comes to the content matching the headline and the substance of the information not just being unsubstantiated speculation.
Where would people suggest i look for a quality of reporting closer to what I've found from MCUCosmic and less akin to the tactics of these hit-hungry youtubers?

In general, if it's not from Deadline, Vanity Fair, or another one of the major trades, than airways take it with a grain of salt.

Always trace whatever you read back to the source. If it's something like We Got This Covered, then don't put much faith into it.

Cottonmouth:
Guys abeg don't bother replying to Pu7pl3

He'll look back at this topic and feel very embarrassed. Don't give him more reason to.

Advice taken.

pu7pl3:


Unless you are blind or you just pretending to be you would have seen where I said that using big movies isn't 100% reliable as a metric for measuring acting talent before I also brought up range.. you on the other hand have just been trying hard to correlate things that doesn't even make sense talmbout "a flaw in your logic"...I'm not making any other explanations on this matter cos as far as I'm concerned there was no arguement there in the first place

It's easy to join the crowd and throw jabs but when I throw back I'm being condescending..y'all are just hypocritical lots with delusions of intelligence..y'all are actually the ones that look and sound foolish especially you thinking that the Rock Vs DDL is the same comparison as Cavill Vs Cox

Same old same old. Nothing new to see here.

pu7pl3:
I can't even..with you guys anymore... someone that claims to know how Hollywood works is saying that Cavill gets more roles just because he is good looking

There is nothing else to add here...run from it all you want, deny it all you want Cavill is the better actor and he will continue to be more prominent and relevant than Cox..

Cox can stick to his usual music videos and short films..it's what he is really good at...

The only one running here is you.

You're borderline trolling and seemingly just want to be condescending and get a rise out of people as opposed to offer any actual debate.

Dude nobody is forcing you to make comments. It's not compulsory. If you can't do more other than insult people or offer condescension, then kindly go else where. Cause at this point, the thread has been derailed long enough.

pu7pl3:


Actually, your talent speaks for you..if you are talented enough and show it you would always be called on for these kind of projects..

If Cox is as talented as y'all claim he would have been a bigger deal than he is now..it's simple

All of you here backing Cox as a better actor are just talking about his role in Daredevil..that's his highest point/level, that's where his range stops..Cavill on the other hand has alot of range Comedy, Action, thrillers and almost all prominent roles...we have seen him helpless, we have seen him as a spy, we have seen him handle swords etc and he looks to just be getting started

Again this comparison isn't the same as comparing Daniel Day to the Rock in any way, they are totally different comparisons

How is the comparison not the same.

The Rock is in more ''big'' movies, which is the entire basis of your argument.

You just don't like me pointing out your flawed logic. Otherwise, you'd be able to come back with more than ''it's not the same!'' Well, explain your position then?

Since you're not, then I assume you can't. Therefore, I'd exit this argument. You are starting to look foolish.

pu7pl3:


How?

I think his best acting performances has been in few TV shows but that's about it, apart from his good mainstream movie roles in Downton abbey,theory of everything (to an extent) and a few low-key music videos..that's his range and where his capabilities end so I don't see how he is more talented than Cavill

This I can answer for me.

Cavill has never in anything he was in shown the dynamic level of acting Cox did in Daredevil alone.

Cavill is a guy I have always seen as ''fine'' in the movies and shows he was in, but he has never stood out or wowed me. Cox has shown me that. Therefore, better actor.

Better quality work = better actor.

pu7pl3:


Can you listen to yourself at all? Daniel Day Lewis is an older and more accomplished actor with numerous awards and movies under his belt, why would I compare him to the Rock?

You have no point me man, it's obvious you just came here to twist logic

I am showing the flaw in your logic.

Popularity and number of blockbusters you're in means nothing in regards to talent or quality. It's a measure of popularity. That's not the same.

If your logic were true, The Rock would be a better actor than DDL.

BankyGee:

You 'not making any point man... Why do you think Charlie's better than Cavill? You're talking about Mr. Biggs. How's that different from trash also?

He said Cavill is a better actor cause he gets more work in popular blockbusters.

So, by this popularity = best logic he presents, Mr Biggs is one of, if not the, best restaurant in Nigeria. Cause they get more business than most other restaurants.

So if I am not making any point, that shows a flaw in his argument.

Will he also want to try telling me The Rock is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis?

Lol.. Good luck with that argument

pu7pl3:


I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

Yeah just...no. So Mr Bigg's makes the best food in Nigeria?

This argument is trash, man. Straight fire trash.

Charlie Cox in Daredevil is better than anything I have ever seen Cavill do. I would agree that Cox doesn't immediately scream Superman to me, though. But in terms of pure talent, I def think Cox has more of it.

Tmach137:
@ if it's not broken don't fix it. But since they opened up the idea of a multiverse, i wouldn't mind exploring a series of films inside an alternate universe

Exactly. Why would the MCU ever need to reboot? They'd just continue to tell new stories with new characters within the pre-established continuity. That's like rebooting Star Wars.

SPIDER-MAN 3 STORY IS “ABSOLUTELY INSANE” SAYS TOM HOLLAND

https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/marvel-spider-man-3-story-tom-holland-comments/?amp


With last year’s rift between Sony and Disney seemingly in the rearview, the MCU forges on with one of its “absolute motherf*cking pornstars” very much in the fray. Spider-Man will be back on the big screen for a third instalment in the studios’ joint web-slinging franchise on July 16, 2021, and star Tom Holland has confirmed in a new interview with – *squints* the Philippine Daily Inquirer *checks notes* no that’s right – that production will get underway this summer, calling the film’s story “absolutely insane”.


... “I’m super happy about it. We will be shooting Spider-Man 3 in July in Atlanta,” Holland said, while insisting he doesn’t yet know if he’ll make an appearance alongside other Sony characters like Venom or Morbius, or in future Marvel Studios movies either. “I’m not sure as to what they want me to do.”...

.... He confirmed that Zendaya’s MJ will also be back for the next Spider-Man movie, but admitted that the couple might not be in the best place when we rejoin their burgeoning love story. “I’m not too sure what [the relationship between Peter and MJ] will be.” ....

.... Holland was very publicly gutted last year when it seemed as though Sony and Disney-Marvel would part ways over reupping their Spider-Man partnership, but it seems he ultimately held some considerable sway over the outcome....

Lala39:

One continuous take? How would Marvel Studios, as they would include a mid credits scene and a post credits scene.

Even 1917 isn't a continuous take, it's just very long takes. I could possibly see Marvel doing that, depending on the director, but I don't see any reason they would copy 1917 wholesale and do both long takes and a war movie at the same time.

dragonflyy:

yeah. RDJ should have gotten a nom to be honest. his performance was more moving than 90% of the people who got nominated
but he's not playing a divorcee, a washed up actor/comedian, or a person in a "true story", so fuçk him I guess

Strong disagree

hulk616:
spider man homecoming was very good unlike BvS trash

I meant it in the sense that BvS had a fantastic trailer and ended up being subpar. While Homecoming had a bland first trailer and ended up being a hit with critics.

You can't really judge a film based off trailers.

I don't know if it makes sense to state that a movie will be a great film; that a movie will be a hit or a flop from a first trailer. You would think that Batman V Superman and Spider-Man: Homecoming would have thought a lot of people some lessons.

FX dropped some cool trailers today for shows coming to Hulu. I think FX is the unsung hero of the Fox purchase. Some of the greatest content anywhere.

I don’t know about Sony, but if Universal hasn’t lost those Namor and Hulk rights to Marvel Iike the rumours suggest then I can’t imagine the Mouse will ever get them back. For some strange reason it doesn’t seem like there’s an expiration date on those distribution rights, which is crazy.