@Master Bruce I feel like the first Thor films tried to be very Shakespearean but when they weren't getting what they wanted they just went "Bring in Taika" and he went the opposite way. Honestly think Thors banishment scene and Lokis argument with Odin are two of their best moments.

I finally return from my holibobs today, so hoping to catch up ok the IC before starting on a post.

Also I've been thinking and I might make Tim a roaming character if that's ok, since I'm currently looking to play support for more than just 1 character (unless that's actually fine of course and not an issue)

I finally return from my holibobs today, so hoping to catch up ok the IC before starting on a post.

Also I've been thinking and I might make Tim a roaming character if that's ok, since I'm currently looking to play support for more than just 1 character (unless that's actually fine of course and not an issue)

Limitations only exist on driving characters. Support and roaming it's really as many as you can handle.... just be sensible.

I also think Thor: Ragnarok is severely overrated. Love Taika, but he really went out of his way to make a more fan-fictiony movie than a Thor movie good on it's own merits. Thor's best movie appearances are easily Infinity War/Endgame for me, with the first Thor tailing distantly behind. Those movies seemed to get what works about him, and Ragnarok feels like it's about this entirely other thing that I care less about.

I think because of IW / Endgame, the three Thor movies become a lot more compelling. Thor's arc is maybe more convincing than Cap or Stark's, and I don't think Thor gets the credit he deserves for it. Man's lost everything, including the belief in himself. Him not thinking he's worthy in Endgame is heartbreaking.

@Hillan It wasn't till I started rewatching that I really noticed his influences on the films and they uh... they're not great. I get that Natasha isn't happy that she can't have kids but that she thinks herself a monster because off it?

I'm not chiming in on the rest of the conversation because you people have insane opinions but I'll comment on this. So many people make this statement, but that isn't at all what Nat was claiming during that scene and it's honestly baffling people keep misconstruing it.

She never claimed she was a monster because she can't have kids. She was explaining and listing the myriad of things the Red Room had done to her and the others to turn them into monsters - emotionless killing machines. Banner had just said he can't have a happy domestic life like Barton can because he's a raging, murder monster, and Nat was confiding in him that she, too, was a murder monster due to everything she's done and also can't have a happy family life.

Just because two things are said in the same dialogue does not mean that they are uniquely linked. She wasn't saying she was a monster because she's infertile. She said she's a monster and that she's also infertile - both separate from each other but linked to Banner's comments.

There's a lot to hate about some things in the MCU, but the outrage surrounding this moment was widely blown out of proportion.

<Snipped quote by Sep>

I'm not chiming in on the rest of the conversation because you people have insane opinions but I'll comment on this. So many people make this statement, but that isn't at all what Nat was claiming during that scene and it's honestly baffling people keep misconstruing it.

She never claimed she was a monster because she can't have kids. She was explaining and listing the myriad of things the Red Room had done to her and the others to turn them into monsters - emotionless killing machines. Banner had just said he can't have a happy domestic life like Barton can because he's a raging, murder monster, and Nat was confiding in him that she, too, was a murder monster due to everything she's done and also can't have a happy family life.

Just because two things are said in the same dialogue does not mean that they are uniquely linked. She wasn't saying she was a monster because she's infertile. She said she's a monster and that she's also infertile - both separate from each other but linked to Banner's comments.

There's a lot to hate about some things in the MCU, but the outrage surrounding this moment was widely blown out of proportion.

Honestly it's been a while since I've seen it so once I finally get my way rewatching through Phase 2 I'll probably totally see this.

Also it's discussion feel free to weigh in on our opinions, it's healthy.

<Snipped quote by Sep>

I'm not chiming in on the rest of the conversation because you people have insane opinions but I'll comment on this. So many people make this statement, but that isn't at all what Nat was claiming during that scene and it's honestly baffling people keep misconstruing it.

She never claimed she was a monster because she can't have kids. She was explaining and listing the myriad of things the Red Room had done to her and the others to turn them into monsters - emotionless killing machines. Banner had just said he can't have a happy domestic life like Barton can because he's a raging, murder monster, and Nat was confiding in him that she, too, was a murder monster due to everything she's done and also can't have a happy family life.

Just because two things are said in the same dialogue does not mean that they are uniquely linked. She wasn't saying she was a monster because she's infertile. She said she's a monster and that she's also infertile - both separate from each other but linked to Banner's comments.

There's a lot to hate about some things in the MCU, but the outrage surrounding this moment was widely blown out of proportion.

This. All of it.

<Snipped quote by DocTachyon>

1) Incredible Hulk is under rated and under appreciated within the MCU and is one of the best films within the MCU and I still stand that for a solo film it has one of the best, if no the best, final fight.

2) Endgame was overrated. I know a lot of people are like boo you just didn't like how Hulk was portrayed and that's right. More importantly I felt like it suffered from some real pacing issues, I understand why everything is in it and I wouldn't know what to cut, I just feel like it doesn't work.

I try not to agree with Sep, but I think he got it right here.

Hey, OOC discussion is cool. That in mind...

What are your unpopular superhero/superhero media opinions?

For instance, considering what's been said in this thread... I didn't think The Suicide Squad was that great. 6/10-ish. It's a vast improvement over the original of course, but from the hype I was expecting something mindblowing, instead I got something that felt like a low to mid MCU outing.

Ant Man is the best MCU movie.

Hey, OOC discussion is cool. That in mind...

What are your unpopular superhero/superhero media opinions?

I absolutely loved the Snyderverse movies, and the fact that I never got to talk about them without getting dogpiled for it was so demoralizing that it honestly killed my enjoyment of the superhero genre altogether.

My unpopular onion is that printed cape comics, the big two if nothing else, are cesspools of worker abuse and nepotism, nobody in their editing rooms has any idea or desire to do a better job, and the medium has basically not had anything new or interesting to say for at least twenty years.

and the medium has basically not had anything new or interesting to say for at least twenty years.

Disagree entirely on this one. Thor and Hulk have both had some amazing material within that time.

<Snipped quote by Dead Cruiser>

Disagree entirely on this one. Thor and Hulk have both had some amazing material within that time.

The problem that cape comics have created for themselves is that trying to make a story about one of these characters is a self-defeating enterprise. You can't introduce any stakes because none of the characters can die, or if they do they'll come back, or if they don't we'll just meet one from an alternate universe, or the whole story will be made pointless when the next writer comes onboard. They're too tied up in smelling their own farts caretaking their very lucrative "modern myths" that they forgot that myths are supposed to have a point, or a conclusion.

This is why manga is beating the big two in (last I checked) basically every market on the planet.

<Snipped quote by Sep>

The problem that cape comics have created for themselves is that trying to make a story about one of these characters is a self-defeating enterprise. You can't introduce any stakes because none of the characters can die, or if they do they'll come back, or if they don't we'll just meet one from an alternate universe, or the whole story will be made pointless when the next writer comes onboard. They're too tied up in smelling their own farts caretaking their very lucrative "modern myths" that they forgot that myths are supposed to have a point, or a conclusion.

This is why manga is beating the big two in (last I checked) basically every market on the planet.

I mean in fairness to CapeShit they try to actually kill off the characters but then inevitably the successor comic flops as FanBoys are dicks. Other than a brief appearance in an event (where he was resurrected by Hydra) Bruce Banner was dead for two years. Dying in 2016s Civil War and coming back in Immortal Hulk (which is a great story).

Don't get me wrong, I believe what you say has merit and that it's incredibly hard to have characters grow/progress so a lot of the time they don't. I however believe in the last couple of years they've been making a real push to try and make these characters grow and change.

Maybe we'll finally get a PermaDeath.

@Sep A big part of my cyncism toward capeshit is because I hate the actual companies Marvel and DC, insofar as the people responsible for their comics divisions, as well as their editiors. They're uniformly disgusting people with wildly unethical business practices and routinely shield abusers in the industry.

My favorite example is Marvel's current editor-in-chief, Chester Cebulski, got his foot in the door at Marvel by pretending to be a Japanese man named Akira Yoshida, and he's tried to keep up the lie to this day by pretending that "Akira" was a different real person that worked for Marvel.

That's not exactly accurate...

He already had his foot in the door, since he was already an Associate Editor under Ralph Macchio. It just allowed him to circumvent policy which prevented editorial staff from writing or producing stuff without special permission (and also to solicit work from other companies, namely Dark Horse)

If he didn't have his foot in the door, quite frankly the pseudonym would have been completely unnecessary in the first place.

@Hound55 Missing the forest for the trees here, the issue is the racefaking that was (and continues to be) instrumental to the career of one of the most influential people in the comic industry.

I prefer Ang Lee's Hulk to the MCU's Hulk, actually.

@Hound55 Missing the forest for the trees here, the issue is the racefaking that was (and continues to be) instrumental to the career of one of the most influential people in the comic industry.

See, you're reading an intent in there with racefaking... and I don't think it was there. At least initially.

He's a guy who's long had an interest in Japanese comic and graphic novel culture and I suspect picked a pseudonym which he felt was "cool".

Biggest racial issues came later when he found himself in too deep ad developed a backstory for the pseudonym and (much more relevant) the cultural appropriation because he dealt with typical tropes and concepts from a pretty Westernised view (which to some extent is unsurprising... he's working in comics and existing Marvel concepts which are themselves Westernised concepts picked up from popular culture - closer to a photocopy of a photocopy... - which I personally find more offensive because I hate when they do that shit with Australian/Aboriginal stuff)

He wasn't doing it "to get his foot in the door" or "to get ahead", he already had a job. And the pen name disappeared the second he was able to legally write in his own name, so I'm not sure how it continues to be instrumental either... particularly since it's public knowledge he was using the pseudonym and has been for about five years and is a source of embarrassment for him.

Of all the shitty things in comics, this wouldn't crack my top 20. And if it happened in TV or film media it wouldn't make the top hundred.

I've signed correspondence 'Houndito Brigande' for years, Hell, I think it's still my twitter... it's not because I'm racefaking as Latino, it's because I like Al Pacino movies. Started that about a half decade before Cebulski did, I suspect for similar reasons.

Where it becomes murky is whe you start backstorying a character for said pen name - which he did and apologised for (unsurprising though... he was covering up a breach of contract - not because he was circumventing in-house rules to preserve diversity and affirmative action, but rules designed to preserve creators rights)- as it starts to suggest people are "trying on" a cultural identity as an outfit... which is ignorant of the fact that many people are not in a position of privilege to remove said outfit when it becomes inconvenient for them.

Which is before we get to the significant upscaling of diversity from across the Pacific at Marvel since his employment BECAUSE of that interest he has in Japanese comics and culture... the likes of Gurihiru... and Marvel Voices wouldn't have happened without him, to name a few recent examples off the top of my head.

I've signed correspondence 'Houndito Brigande' for years

The more I find out about you the more based you become. This is hilarious.