Netzilla

Like many things in the Hero System, there's more than one way.  Personally, I'd have them buy PSLs vs OCV penalties to Block Ranged Attacks through an OIF.  So, something like this:
+4 to offset OCV modifier Block vs Ranged Attacks (4 Active Points); OIF (bracers; -1/2) That allows the character to block thrown weapons at no penalty so long as they're wearing the Bracers.  For my campaign, if you want absolute ranged attack blocking with no chance of failure ever, I'll tell you that you can't buy it because it's over the top.  Maybe I'd allow it if you gave it an appropriate weakness, not unlike Desolid has.  If you want no penalty to block bullets, 8 levels seems reasonable.  You want to block mad scientist ray guns, well, in genre they really don't seem much harder to block than most other guns, so 8 levels probably works there as well.

I don't think anyone is arguing that everyone has to like it.  I think folks are arguing about how reasonable it is to allow unarmed blocking of ranged attacks.  Unsurprisingly most folks mileage varies.  The other main argument is whether or not allowing the unpurchased ability to block ranged attacks has somehow ruined the game or made it unplayable or is just plain bad game design.  All 3 claims have been made and I say they're all vastly overstating the situation; just like with the hyperbolic arguments about the removal of COM or the decoupling of figured chars.
 
Take out all the hyperbole and aggressive attitudes and we could have a reasonable discussion about what the original poster wanted: how do you, as an individual GM, handle the situation?  If you don't like it, you can simply post, "I don't like it and don't allow it" and them move on to allow other GMs to have their say.  This whole argument seems rather pointless as 6e's been out for 10 years already.
 
To address the OP's question:
Currently, I'm running a 6E Golden Age supers game and allow blocking ranged attacks.  To me, the fact that someone with quick enough reflexes can grab a book off a table to stop a thrown knife seems reasonable for a game emulating golden age comics.  They just have to deal with the -2 penalty I'll assess them for it.  If they tried it bare-handed, I'd make it -4.  If it were a bullet, I'd rule it unreasonable (bare-handed or with a book; use something more resilient and we'll discuss modifiers).  My base penalty for blocking a ranged attack bare-handed will be, at a minimum, -4.  That would be for blocking low-velocity weapon bare-handed.  Catching a non-weapon (a baseball) would be easier.  Blocking something high-velocity would be harder if not impossible. 
 
Like many things in GMing, I make rulings on the spot based on circumstances.  I'm a game judge so I use my judgement and haven't found doing so onerous or game-braking in any way.

I don't think anyone is arguing that everyone has to like it.  I think folks are arguing about how reasonable it is to allow unarmed blocking of ranged attacks.  Unsurprisingly most folks mileage varies.  The other main argument is whether or not allowing the unpurchased ability to block ranged attacks has somehow ruined the game or made it unplayable or is just plain bad game design.  All 3 claims have been made and I say they're all vastly overstating the situation; just like with the hyperbolic arguments about the removal of COM or the decoupling of figured chars.
 
Take out all the hyperbole and aggressive attitudes and we could have a reasonable discussion about what the original poster wanted: how do you, as an individual GM, handle the situation?  If you don't like it, you can simply post, "I don't like it and don't allow it" and them move on to allow other GMs to have their say.  This whole argument seems rather pointless as 6e's been out for 10 years already.
 
To address the OP's question:
Currently, I'm running a 6E Golden Age supers game and allow blocking ranged attacks.  To me, the fact that someone with quick enough reflexes can grab a book off a table to stop a thrown knife seems reasonable for a game emulating golden age comics.  They just have to deal with the -2 penalty I'll assess them for it.  If they tried it bare-handed, I'd make it -4.  If it were a bullet, I'd rule it unreasonable (bare-handed or with a book; use something more resilient and we'll discuss modifiers).  My base penalty for blocking a ranged attack bare-handed will be, at a minimum, -4.  That would be for blocking low-velocity weapon bare-handed.  Catching a non-weapon (a baseball) would be easier.  Blocking something high-velocity would be harder if not impossible. 
 
Like many things in GMing, I make rulings on the spot based on circumstances.  I'm a game judge so I use my judgement and haven't found doing so onerous or game-braking in any way.

Again asked and answered if you've been reading the thread:
 
 

Again asked and answered if you've been reading the thread:
 
 

Depends on what you mean by reliably.  How many levels with the Dodge maneuver do you need to be able to Dodge reliably?
 
They need to pay points to buy Deflection if they want to do those things at range.  If they want to block those things within arm's reach, they don't need Deflection.  They need justification (such as bracers, a shield or a lightsaber) and (if they want to be good at it) CSLs or PSLs.

And now I know exactly how seriously to take any resulting criticisms.

Italian politician who was against mandatory chickenpox, measles, polio, etc. vaccinations comes down with chickenpox.
 
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/434838-italian-politician-who-opposed-making-chickenpox-vaccinations

I don't think anyone is arguing that everyone has to like it.  I think folks are arguing about how reasonable it is to allow unarmed blocking of ranged attacks.  Unsurprisingly most folks mileage varies.  The other main argument is whether or not allowing the unpurchased ability to block ranged attacks has somehow ruined the game or made it unplayable or is just plain bad game design.  All 3 claims have been made and I say they're all vastly overstating the situation; just like with the hyperbolic arguments about the removal of COM or the decoupling of figured chars.
 
Take out all the hyperbole and aggressive attitudes and we could have a reasonable discussion about what the original poster wanted: how do you, as an individual GM, handle the situation?  If you don't like it, you can simply post, "I don't like it and don't allow it" and them move on to allow other GMs to have their say.  This whole argument seems rather pointless as 6e's been out for 10 years already.
 
To address the OP's question:
Currently, I'm running a 6E Golden Age supers game and allow blocking ranged attacks.  To me, the fact that someone with quick enough reflexes can grab a book off a table to stop a thrown knife seems reasonable for a game emulating golden age comics.  They just have to deal with the -2 penalty I'll assess them for it.  If they tried it bare-handed, I'd make it -4.  If it were a bullet, I'd rule it unreasonable (bare-handed or with a book; use something more resilient and we'll discuss modifiers).  My base penalty for blocking a ranged attack bare-handed will be, at a minimum, -4.  That would be for blocking low-velocity weapon bare-handed.  Catching a non-weapon (a baseball) would be easier.  Blocking something high-velocity would be harder if not impossible. 
 
Like many things in GMing, I make rulings on the spot based on circumstances.  I'm a game judge so I use my judgement and haven't found doing so onerous or game-braking in any way.

As long as we're quoting Snopes:
"In an email sent to Snopes.com, Brandon Kendhammer, associate professor of political science at Ohio University and an expert in Nigerian politics, said the religious dynamics of the conflict were further complicated by the fact that Fulani herders had also been attacking farmers in Zamfara State, “where nearly all the farmers and victims are also Muslim.” He added, “Here, the conflict very clearly appears to be rooted in the impunity of criminal gangs.” "
 
I think the real reason the Nigerian atrocities are getting less play than the New Zealand massacre has to do with the fact that one is in Africa, and the other is in a first-world Western nation we don't expect to be plagued with such violence. In Nigeria, violence is expected, thus, not "news."
 
Lucius Alexander
 
In a Lucius Alexander post, a palindromedary tagline is to be expected.
 

The conflict in Nigeria appears to be a fight over resources between primarily Christian farmers and primarily Muslim ranchers, with large numbers of deaths on both sides. Religious affiliation is more of a secondary issue, that’s being used selectively by certain sources.
 
 

Benjy was quick enough to rip up the pavement as Quicksilver charged him so his momentum carried him up in the air where he had no mobility.  I am pretty sure he has done this with other Blasters, like the Torch, in the past.
 
 
We already have varying levels of "realism".  Anyone can Block a knife, a sword or Wolverine's adamantium claws.  Shouldn't that be at least similarly injurious to most characters' hands?  [RAW does provide for penalties - see below]
 
I would go one step further and say that you CAN block both ranged and non-ranged attacks.  That one has always grated on me.
 
 
That's just bad game design.  Why should I have to decide which objects are sufficiently tennis ball like to be affected?  Is a baseball OK?  A badminton birdie isn't even round!  What about a football?  American or European?  How about a thrown pillow?
 
Do I need WF: Tennis Racket, or can a badminton player use a tennis racket as well?  A lacrosse player?  What about squash?  Clearly handball is out!  What about a ping pong paddle?  A baseball bat?  Are there weapon groups for sporting equipment?  Which WFs does high school phys ed grant as an Everyman skill?
 
Just bad game design!
 
 
Seems to me there are a lot of OCV and DCV modifiers, many of which require some GM judgement (surprise maneuver, for example).
 
 
And we're back to situational realism.  I don't need gauntlets to block a sword, or a tiger's claws, or an elephant trampling me, but I need a special power to bat a thrown rock away with a stick?
 
Although the rules already tell me that "If appropriate, the GM can assign a penalty (-1 to -3) to Block if one character is using a melee weapon and the other is not (in other words, he’s performing an unarmed Block against an
armed opponent, trying to use his bare hands to stop a weapon)." - isn't that also requiring me, the GM, to assess what, if any, penalty is appropriate?
 
 
But I can Block Zippy's Move Through when I can't block a ranged attack from a projectile of a similar size, moving at a similar speed.  Why is that not just as much a problem for "realism" and "not everyone can do that"?
 
And, again, RAW requires the GM assess whether I can "perceive" Zippy's attack, so again we need a GM judgment call.
 
One cinematic solution to your dilemma is "everyone can block ranged and HTH attacks".  Add a penalty - one size fits all so one penalty number - for Blocking ranged attacks, if you wish, and allow a bonus for using an object especially suitable to Block the incoming attack and oh, look - we're done.  Very cinematic, and Block for ranged attacks is now pretty much the same as Block for HTH attacks.  Missile Deflection is now as simple as enough PSLs to offset your standard penalty for Blocking a ranged attack.
 
 
Or you simply rule that no focus is needed.  "The GM may require"  To the penalty question, will you also commit what DEX I need to act first every time for the whole campaign, or the OCV I need to always hit?  Missile Deflection was "Block for ranged attacks", so to know I would have reliable missile deflection, I always needed to know the maximum OCV, and account for the possibility of multiple attacks.
 
Deflection would also solve part of the problem, as it removes any requirement to have an object.  Maybe you even buy it No Range - he can only deflect an attack in close proximity to him.
 
It really feels like you are just looking for reasons to dislike the rule.

Every grunt on the field of battle with a buckler or a shield has the potential to avoid arrow-fire by blocking with that shield; you see this in Braveheart (the movie). "Pure … bad … design" was the old way of requiring every single one of them to have purchased Missile Deflection just to have a chance of avoiding arrow-fire.  That was horribly unrealistic.  The current approach allows far more realism than the 4e/5er way did.  Sure, it's unlikely Joe Schlep can knock an arrow out of the way with his buckler, but it's POSSIBLE … without him having 20 CP in Missile Deflection … and the new rules account for that.
 
You, the GM, are supposed to be the guy who susses out just how possible/probable or impossible/improbable such things are in your game.  It sounds to me like you don't want to.  If that's the case, then don't … and forbid Blocking ranged attacks … but understand that by doing so, you've imposed something unrealistic, since Joe Schlep should have a chance of doing so; however improbable, it is still physically possible in the real world, after all -- without Joe Schlep having the 4e/5er equivalent of Missile Deflection just to have a shot at it (which was even MORE unrealistic, since he always should have had a shot at it).

Also, it's quite historically accurate to be able to block arrows with shields.  It is the historical go-to tool for dealing with ranged attacks.

Reminder: Aunt May would need a suitable item to use for this (say a silver serving tray?) … unless she bought Deflection.

I think the entire point of everyone being able to perform a Block against ranged attacks was to simulate the concept of being able to knock arrows away with swords.  The game is, after all, called 'Hero System' … not 'Boring Average Joe/Jane System'. If everyone being able to block ranged attacks isn't your style, as a gentle reminder, the section on blocking ranged attacks found on 6e2 p59 begins as follows (bold/underlining added by me for emphasis): "With the GM’s permission, characters may Block Ranged attacks."
 
Also as another gentle reminder (one that plays to your tennis ball example), per 6e2 p59, "...the penalties for trying to Block a Ranged attack unarmed are more often incurred, and can be more severe (-4 or worse)."  i.e. You, the GM, are supposed to impose penalties appropriate to the size/speed of the ranged attack being blocked, the means of blocking the ranged attack (e.g. unarmed, with shield, with sword, etc.), and the like.  Using your tennis ball example, what, exactly, is the problem with any unarmed person being able to do it?  Sure, it's hard -- reflect that by assigning appropriate penalties -- and if the person succeeds, then s/he overcame the difficulty.  It's as simple as that.  Why all the fuss on your part? Assign the modifiers, and let the dice be thrown!

The first two also apply to Block.
 
To the third, you don't get to move (e.g. behind cover) with a Block.  It's not as easy as an unopposed DEX roll.  DFC does not require a Shield.
 
 
Like the Thing ripping up some pavement and Blocking an incoming Blast?  I don't find the tennis ball analogy very persuasive.  The other player is not trying to hit you with the ball.  And why would being able to play a great game of tennis let you deflect a bullet or a laser beam more effectively?
 
Meanwhile, if Aunt May rolls a 3, she can Block the Hulk's haymaker.  Or his Leaping Tackle move through.  Or Wolverine's claws.  Or the Iron Fist.
 
As Surrealone notes, that 3 isn't overly likely - but Aunt May is far from a PC.
 
Allowing all of those attacks, and so many others, to be Blocked, then crying foul that someone could Block a tennis ball, seems like pretty selective "realism" to me.

You are hitting on one of my major peeves about 6th Edition. This "everyone can missile deflect" rule is a classic example of "logical internal extrapolation at the expense of actual good game play."
 
For most of the life of HERO in all its forms, Missile Deflection as a Skill, Power or whatever never raised an eyebrow. Everyone had a base chance to Block a HtH attack, but not everyone had a base chance to block a ranged attack. Somewhat illogical when you state it like that... but NOBODY thought it was a problem.

Why? Because any MEANINGFUL use of missile deflection by a character was truly a skill/ability/power beyond that of a "normal person."  It made sense that it was "special and needed a special ability on the sheet."
 
Example: I played a lot of tennis in my life. For all intents and purposes, most racket sports are "missile deflection sports" to a great extent. A projectile comes at you and you have to maneuver to knock it away... in fact, you have to learn "Missile REFLECTION" to do well, because you aren't just knocking the ball away, you are sending it back at a specific target on the other side of the net. Especially when you are "at the net" and you aren't stroking the ball, but punching it with short, deflective strikes.
 
So... you could argue that "well, anyone can play tennis, so anyone SHOULD be able to missile deflect... right?"   To this I say... no, not at all. For multiple reasons.
 
1. Anyone CAN try to throw up their hand and knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, and it would be highly difficult. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
2. Anyone CAN take a tennis racket at try to knock a tennis ball away as it heads for their face at speed. BUT... only someone who practices a LOT and develops techniques, would be able to actually do it at all reliably, even though the racket might make it easier. i.e. They'd have points spent on a skill or ability.
 
3. And this shows a lack of focus on the axioms of HERO. Rules and mechanics are sometimes based on "This is mechanically, internally consistent" and other times seem to be based on, "This is trying to reflect a part of reality we assume is baseline in the game."  In the case of Missile Deflection (or the lack thereof) they seem to be picking "internally consistent with Block on a mechanical front" vs. "does this reflect reality"... but at the same time, neither of these is what should be the deciding factor. Axiomatic of HERO is simulating/building action adventure characters and game play scenarios... and the only MEANINGFUL missile deflection in that milieu is a special ability. Nobody cares if you can play tennis in action adventure scenarios, what matters is whether you can effectively deflect or reflect an otherwise dangerous projectile/beam attack that demonstrates why you are special and a HERO.
 
4. Hell, sticking with the tennis example... even if I was a top level tennis pro... if I was "at the net" and instead of a tennis ball, my opponent was drilling a golf ball at me... well *&^%!! that! I'd be lucky if I could get my racket in place in time, and if I was at all aware, I'd be hitting the deck (Dodge) and not even trying to deflect. One... it is a lot harder to hit a smaller (just a bit smaller) faster (just a bit faster) projectile. My "Tennis Ball blocking skill!" I paid points for is not at all appropriate for this new, only slightly different scenario. Now... with time, and potentially a lot of brain damage, I might be able to learn a skill of "Deflect Golf Ball with Tennis Racket!" but no human would be very good at that except in extremis, and Missile Reflection, like actually placing the return shot... highly unlikely. We haven't even gotten to thrown rocks or hard hit balls in dangerous, random combat scenarios... let alone arrows or bullets, yet... and we are at the very edge of human ability. And even in those scenarios where a human somehow learned this, it would still be an extreme skill that should be reflected as a significant point expenditure and defined the rules.
 
5. Ultimately, the only MEANINGFUL missile deflections in the game are as above... deflecting ATTACKS (without being damaged) that are too small and fast and coming from range that most people can't see them, or react in time... thus someone who CAN do this is beyond normal... they have a ability/power/talent that should be called out... so put the damn power back in the book.

So, sexism, then.

So, exactly like Tom Cruise's character from Top Gun, which, I am pretty sure, is exactly what they were going for. She was, for all intents and purposes, a female version of that character. So, given you read that, it means she acted the part perfectly. I took that as being both a Kree thing AND her original personality fighting to get to the surface against their brainwashing. And, as the movie went on and she interacted with Fury and then the Rambeaus, you saw more humanity and confidence as opposed to the smugness.

The primary difference between the Wonder Woman movie and Captain Marvel is that one incorporates an archetypical myth and the other is an Hollywood action film set in WW1. 
 
The mythology in Captain Marvel is the goddess who falls to earth, with amnesia. For a twist, this goddess has forgotten her Earth heritage, not her celestial heritage. Through a journey of self discovery with Fury acting as the role of wise companion (Ben Kenobi/Han Solo, etc) which leads to this divine feminine goddess embracing her humanity, her identity, her power, and turns on the technological God society who used her. As an added bonus She acts as a motherly figure to find her new charges, the Skrulls, a home. 
 
 
 

Stormbreaker's travel trick looked just like Asgard's Bifrost -- a column of coruscating, multi-colored light descending from the sky, leaving a circle of "runes" burned into the ground. Since Asgard and the original Bifrost are now ash and debris, I'd say the implication is clear that Stormbreaker allows Thor to create a bridge from wherever it is, to wherever he wants to go. A power like what comic-book Mjolnir has had almost from the beginning of Thor's "Journey into Mystery" days.
 
This Tesseract/lightspeed engine business reminds me of another McGuffin associated with the Kree from their early comic-book appearances, the Omni-Wave Projector. That secret allowed the Kree to communicate even across inter-galactic distances, but a Projector could also be made into a devastating weapon. Many enemies of the Kree have tried to obtain one.

My wife and I just saw it last night and I quite enjoyed it.  I'd put it in the top half of MCU films but not in the top quarter.  My wife enjoyed it more than I did.  Compared to WW, I consider them about on a par with the exception of CM having better villains.  As a result, it gets a (very) slight edge over WW from me.
 
As for what the underlying theme of the film is, I see it as having several.  First is how the Kree higher-ups find someone with massive potential power and then try to turn that person into a weapon to fight their wars with no real concern as to her well-being.  This has echos of how soldiers get treated in the real world by politicians all the time.  Useful in a time of crisis but otherwise ignored or simply paid lip-service to without any real regard for their actual well-being.  Additionally, as others have pointed out, there's the theme of the protagonist's true strengths comes from within and finding out who one really is, not from being told what to do/how to act.  Also already pointed out, is the theme that getting back up and continuing to try after failing is what makes one strong.  Finally, the theme of not abiding by limitations that others put on you but rather finding out for yourself just how far you can go.  That was possibly the most obvious theme of the film in my eyes.
 
On a different story/characterization beat, I liked getting to see a relatively young and unjaded Nick Fury.  I would have found it hard to suspend my disbelief if he was as confident and competent 24 years ago as he is currently.  I also didn't consider him to be simple comedic-relief or useless.  He did a pretty good job of evading Skrulls and was even able to out-fight one in HtH except that mere human strength isn't enough to really hurt one.  I'll agree that his main role in the film was to be Carol's guide on earth, but really, he's never been a front-line fighter/problem solver in any of the MCU films.  He's always been in the role of shadowy behind-the-scenes manipulator who arranges things so that the best person available can get the job done.  Probably pretty hard to do that when you've only got level 3 clearance in SHIELD.   His losing an eye to an incredibly dangerous alien animal that was able to disguise itself as a cat, I was perfectly fine with.
 
So, all-in-all I quite enjoyed it and my wife wants to see it again in the theater which is something she almost never does.

I remember that too. Frankly, I always found it a little odd that SHIELD took nearly 70 years to try to harness the Tesseract's power if they possessed it all that time, especially considering they had all that confiscated Hydra weaponry we saw in the first Avengers movie. The idea that it moved around some over the years seems more reasonable.

My thoughts:
 
It was good, but not spectacularly good. That's OK because Black Panther set an impossibly high standard and I knew going in that this movie wasn't going to meet it.
 
That said, it played to tropes. I am upset that it has been getting hate from "fans" simply because of the casting. Which is not at all fair, and to put it bluntly sick. Random commenters on Rotten Tomatoes are not gooing to decide whether I'm seeing a movie. I leave getting opinions on film; to the people who see 100 movies a year as part of their jobs. And Brie Larson was fine. And when it did play to tropes it played to them well.
 
Of course, the Kree turned out to be that bad guys. That was something I expected but was still surprised when it happened. and the Skrull (the ones who were sent to Earth at least) were not entirely blameless for their actions. They had to do what they did, I'll give them that, but inspiring paranoia isn't a great thing to do. It reminded me of a somewhat about average Doctor Who episode, and the Skrill makeup was terrible. 
 
Still, I enjoyed it. It wasn't a night at the movies (or a Cinemark club ticket) wasted. Again, Black Panther set an impossibly high standard for superhero films. I remembered that, and never expected Captain Marvel to meet that standard.