The UK Babe Channels Forum

(24-01-2014 04:48 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote: [ -> ]13 Assassins - Film 4 - 21.00

Quote: I counted that each men had to kill about 10 guys each for the kill count to go up. But all this is bs. If you have ever seen the film, you clearly see that in one clip of 4-5 seconds alone each man killed 3-4 each, and u had 30-40 minutes of pure sword fighting in here. In total each men killed about 30-50 people each, when i tried counting. And let's not forget that some of the characters, like the senior ones (the leader, his pupil, and a couple of the other older guys) were massacring in such a great extent, that the belief that their average was 10, or even 20 or 30, would sound ridiculous to anyone who saw the film.


This is a pretty important goof that I don't understand everyone on this thread has ignored.

And before some smart-a** tells me that they said "over 200" in the film, and not excactly 200, it still doesn't add up. When someone says "over 200", he is then referring to a number between 200 and 300, or more likely 200 and 250, but let's stretch it out to 300. Even with 300 ppl, that would leave 230 after arrow-killing, which means about 20 people each for the samurais. 20 people is still very, very few compared to the number of people we saw getting killed. It still doesn't add up in any logical way.

Quote:Vulgar vitriol and trolling masturbation go well together. But you may go blind ... if ... you ... keep it up. Haha!

However, assuming you are authentically concerned, did you do an actual kill-count? "Over 200" is an infinite amount and while the Lord's contingent was not infinite, it was ... over 200. The "70" are a diversion, a ruse by the the Lord to surprise the 13. Your posted "calculations" are too foggy and not well-thought.

Also, on another note, your writing ... needs an edit. Perhaps if you you stopped with the self-abuse ... :-))

Thanks for the laughs.

Quote: First of all, why do you think I am trolling? I have a general philosophy in my mind: *beep* everyone who tells u to write like a 17th century aristocrat, and speak how you feel.

And my calculations aren't wrong, they couldn't have been more right. The scout clearly said "over 200", and we have to pull 70 from this number, as the ensuing arrow-killing took 70 lives. What's funny is I actually, for the sake of argument, let the number be 300. Now, im being very generous with this number, and going over it is irrational, because if the scout saw over 300, he would have reported "over 300", not just in the logical sense of that world, but also for the reason of the audience; noting that there are "over 200" is clearly a message of information pointed towards the audiene that our heroes are facing these many ppl.

And about my grammer: *beep* capital I's and the " ' " between certain words, and you instead of u. I'm writing on my iPad (i would also direct my *beep* you' towards Apple, for causing me a lot of pain with not just monopoly over Samsung, but also for giving me *beep* products and stupid *beep* teenagers bragging how much they like their mediocre products).

And *beep* IMBb for cencor (<-- i probably wrote this wrong too, but Mr. Steve Apple, whom i am happy was killed by cancer, has restricted this too). I know the site is American, and they apparently (<--probably wrote that word wrong too) are prehistoric religion-apes, and are spooked by sinful language, but I really thought that the eastern coast states, being liberal and all, were the ones really ruling that wannabe democracy-state?

And before one of you language-conservative 50-year old hillbillies attack me with sentences like " ma daddee says those who say *beep* think they are cool" : *beep* you, and your daddy.



Edit: i cencored my *beep* with ****, but IMDb still found them offensive. What is this, Jesus camp?

Quote:Your saving graces are the unintentional humor rampant in your rants, your adolescent vulgarity and your obvious lack of education. Troll you are - and an ignorant one at that. You cannot write and cannot count. But again, thanks for the laughs. As a swan song, I sprinkle on my reply some sadness for you and your vapid life. And stop masturbating.

Love, etc.,

Quote:I love how you, knowing I am right, have completely stopped focusing on the case, simply because you know I'm right, and instead directed the focus against my personality. So much that you are more obsessed about your fantasy of me masturbating (hey, I don't blame you, you're not the first guy who fell for my attractiveness) than on discussing the major fault of this film.


Btw: watch the film again. And please tell me how many of the heroes you see kill under 20 each. Because if you are right, this should the average of the heroes.

Quote:My turn towards the ad hominem is a consequence of both your vulgarity and the lack of content in what you post. Also, I find your approach humorous. My mention of self-pleasuring is exactly what you are writing. It is not a fantasy, just allegory. I see no major fault in the film, just with you. But once again you have me chuckling. Got tissues? Luego and ...

Quote:you clearly see that in one clip of 4-5 seconds alone each man killed 3-4 each, and u had 30-40 minutes of pure swordfighting in here. In total each men killed about 30-50 people each, when i tried counting.

You may be right to some extent, but I think you also ignore some factors.

1. During the battle there are lot of time they don't kill enemies
I mean, they were running, chasing, hiding, setting up traps, etc.
If one can kill a handful of enemies within a few seconds,
it doesn't mean he keeps doing it every few seconds.
(Sometimes they were just staring at each other for a long time.)

2. The killing ability varies by samurai.
Some kill more than others.
If you see one samurai killed 30-50 on screen it doesn't mean others did the same off screen.

3. This is rather nitpicking, but you have to be careful to "count" deaths on screen.
If you see a samurai swings his sword to his opponent and he's down, it doesn't necessarily mean he's killed.
Some of the 13 samurai kept fighting after injured, so why not their enemies?

4. They are not "13" throughout the battle
This is my main point.
Most of them were killed too.
The more they lost their members, the less enemies they could kill.

12 out of the 13 were killed during the battle.
(We saw another survivor at the end but that one didn't return until it's over,
so effectively they lost 12.)

Suppose they were killed one by one at constant rate,
and every samurai has the same killing potential.

T: Total number of enemies killed
N: the Number of enemies killed by the samurai who dies first
L: the number of enemies killed by the Last samurai standing (= N * 13)

T = (13 * N) + (12 * N) + .... + (2 * N) + (1 * N)
= 13! * N
= 91 * N
thus
N = T / 91

If T = 200 then N = 2.19: L = 28.57
If T = 250 then N = 2.74: L = 35.71
If T = 300 then N = 3.296: L = 42.85

If we only see Ls, they are not that different from your observation
"each men killed about 30-50 people each"
I guess you forgot those who killed less, impressed by those who killed more.

Of course this is very, very simplified calculation,
and far from what we actually saw in the movie.

If my memory serves (I've seen this movie only once),
most of the 13 survived halfway through the battle.
And the samurai who died first probably killed more enemies than Ns above.

But my point is it's not simply (30 * 13) or (50 * 13).

Just another POV.

you couldn't make this shit up!