bigdamnhero

I can see how you'd interpret Rhodes' response that way, and it seems as valid as mine. So I concede the point to you.

Ah, thanks. But I read Rhodey's response as being completely sarcastic.
 
"Anyone remember when I carried a nuke through a wormhole?"
"Nope. It's never come up."
"Saved New York?"
"Never heard that."
 
Especially accompanied by Natashsh's eye-roll, I think that was pretty clearly meant as "Oh, here he goes again, dude will NOT shut up about that damn nuke..." If that was actually the first Rhodey had heard about a nuke being fired at New York, I think his reaction would've been a tad stronger.
 
Point taken tho about ATC being a bit overwhelmed that day.

Yeah, whether or not the World Security Council's "stupid-ass decision" is publicly known is an interesting question; I don't think we've ever heard anyone outside of SHIELD or the Avengers mention it. In the real world something that big would be near-impossible to cover up, but in the MCU (and comics in general) SHIELD has covered up far worse. Yeah Stark likes to talk, but he couldn't have lasted all those years as a defense contractor if he wasn't capable of protecting classified information.
 
OTOH, if it wasn't public before Natasha Widowleaked all of SHIELD's secrets onto the Internet ("...and it's trending!"), then presumably it is now. Which may help explain why no one is in any hurry to rebuild the Council or SHIELD. It does seem like the Avengers should be getting a little more credit for stopping a nuke in the middle of stopping an alien invasion than they are. But maybe the public sees that as something Stark did, rather than something the Avengers did? Tony is hugely popular on his own, and he doesn't actually have "abilities" so he's not subject to that particular skepticism.
 
Either way, "The Incident" clearly refers to the entire battle. In DD they talk about The Incident destroying Hell's Kitchen. In JJ, we meet a couple whose kid was killed in The Incident. In LC, street vendors are selling videos of The Incident, specifically talking about "the Dude With The Hammer," "The Green Dude" and so on.

I thought Agents of SHIELD was finally getting really good again after last night's show, but then I realized it was an episode of Wheel of Fortune. 
 
Vanna White for Ms. Marvel!

The Incredible Hulk was basically The Fugitive with anger management issues, and no one-armed man.

My current comics list is mostly indie stuff - a lot of Image and so forth. I gave up on DC after New 52, and while I've heard some good things about the latest reboot I think I'm suffering from relaunch fatigue. There are still several good Marvel titles, tho crossover fatigue is the problem on that side. Ms. Marvel continues to be a delight. Spider-Man is actually fun again, the new Thor is interesting...I'm blanking out on other titles at the moment, and frankly haven't been keeping up over the last several months because reasons.
 
But I think the point is there have always been good comics stories and bad comics stories. Looking back it's easier to remember the good bits and forget the bad bits, whereas today I notice more ex-fans pointing at One Awful Story and using that to condemn the entire industry. Also, if you go back and re-read a lot of the great stories you remember, you may find not all of them hold up as well today. Some great story ideas, but some of the writing was pretty weak by today's standards.
 
As for superhero TV shows, I agree they weren't all awful. But even the best of them are painfully cheesy by modern standards. Mostly because the show runners refused to take the concept seriously and treated them like live-action cartoons. The fact that they were almost completely devoid of supervilllains certainly didn't help. If we're grading on a curve I'd say 70s Wonder Woman and 80s Greatest American Hero are among the best of their day, but neither could compete today with Supergirl, let alone Daredevil or Jessica Jones. (Unless you really like camp, in which case more power to you but I'll be over here.)

Possible, although TLS has more of a Star Wars style. Cap's theme reminds me of John Philip Sousa on super-serum.

Spinny kung fu superpowers. That does it. If I ever make a Champions character for real, THAT is going to be the name of the Martial Art I use.

My current comics list is mostly indie stuff - a lot of Image and so forth. I gave up on DC after New 52, and while I've heard some good things about the latest reboot I think I'm suffering from relaunch fatigue. There are still several good Marvel titles, tho crossover fatigue is the problem on that side. Ms. Marvel continues to be a delight. Spider-Man is actually fun again, the new Thor is interesting...I'm blanking out on other titles at the moment, and frankly haven't been keeping up over the last several months because reasons.
 
But I think the point is there have always been good comics stories and bad comics stories. Looking back it's easier to remember the good bits and forget the bad bits, whereas today I notice more ex-fans pointing at One Awful Story and using that to condemn the entire industry. Also, if you go back and re-read a lot of the great stories you remember, you may find not all of them hold up as well today. Some great story ideas, but some of the writing was pretty weak by today's standards.
 
As for superhero TV shows, I agree they weren't all awful. But even the best of them are painfully cheesy by modern standards. Mostly because the show runners refused to take the concept seriously and treated them like live-action cartoons. The fact that they were almost completely devoid of supervilllains certainly didn't help. If we're grading on a curve I'd say 70s Wonder Woman and 80s Greatest American Hero are among the best of their day, but neither could compete today with Supergirl, let alone Daredevil or Jessica Jones. (Unless you really like camp, in which case more power to you but I'll be over here.)

Gotcha. No pronlemo.
 
Looks like Luke Cage broke Netflix a bit yesterday. I contributed with five episodes worth. Good stuff so far, very good. Great casting on this one, IMO, both on major and all the supporting characters. I think Netflix Marvel is probably the best live action supers franchise going at the moment. (I count Marvel as three franchises: Netflix, AoS, and the movies, since none of them interact in any meaningful way.)

Seems like you had to reach a long way back to find those few. But you also hit on the key, IMO:
 

I will suggest a "fan" enjoys the average produced by the medium, not just the select few, once every few years or so, that are truly Stellar.
 
And the reality is that movies are also going to range from pretty bad to slightly above mediocre to truly stellar. I think the current MCU and even DCU crop has done pretty well in avoiding, or at least minimizing the "pretty bad" (Halle Barry as Catwoman, anyone? The Daredevil, Ghost Rider and Punisher movies? Batman's armor with nipples? The Fantastic Four movies? Compared to these, how does MCU or DCU look?). But the average movie is going to be an average movie. No one sets out to create dreck, but sometimes they do. Much more often they reach high, but achieve average.
 

I can't speak to '50s Superman. I think Wonder Woman embraced Supers, at least to some extent, with the advantage that DC tended more towards ordinary human adversaries/criminal masterminds than the Marvel Super Villain of the Month model. The '70s Hulk was a "fugitive with a heart of gold" show with a quasi-Supers twist, not really a Supers movie. I recall reading about Ferrigno being frustrated that the Hulk was not allowed to develop - it was really the Bixby/Banner Show.
 

I'd call that a "dramady", though it predated the term, wrapped in superhero trappings.
 

I'm never quite sure where to classify that one - SitCom Supers to some extent. But it did that well, and was entertaining. Largely because of that, it holds up.
 
The reality is that even restricted to Supers, comics can cover a wide array of genres. The Cap producers got that - they were quoted as calling the First Avenger a WW II film wrapped in comic book superheroes, with the Winter Solder being a political thriller wrapped in Superheroes. Even The Avengers could be described as an alien invasion flick, wrapped in Supers, and (at least to me) the first Iron Man film was more science fiction (of the armored suit/cyborg/robot variety) than superheroes. Superheroes have proven to be able to cross over with, and emulate, many genres.

So if you like virtually nothing in the source material, why would you expect the translation of the source material to another mention make it match your preferences.
 
I`m not sure what to call the New 52 (and I had asked what we call it when the books that were there at the start hit issue 52 more than a couple of years back). I think Old 52 is probably preferable to Prebirth.
 
So what superhero material in the past was so head and shoulders superior to what we see today? Are there comics you have re-read recently that hold up to your current high standards, or does the passage of time make the old stuff seem better because the stellar stuff is remembered and the dreck forgotten?

First let me say that I completely agree with LL's assessment of MCU Tony Stark.
 
I want to further respond to the particular observation that I quoted above. It is a disease in Hollywood to have protagonists make decisions for (and keep secrets from) others "to protect them". This is such a profoundly flawed sentiment in real life that it kind of shocks me that writers continue to use this plot contrivance with an almost obsessive regularity in their fictive worlds.
 
And this is not just a problem in movies. It is a staple of television drama as well. The thing is, it doesn't really work. Any viewer past the age of a tween understands, on some level, how disrespectful and narcissistic that attitude is, and yet Hollywood insists on making characters, presumably good and heroic characters, do this again and again as if it makes any kind of sense.
 
I will say that I think it works to an extent for Tony Stark precisely because he is arrogant and narcissistic to enough of a degree to really believe he is protecting the world and that he knows the best way to do that. But as a general rule, this attitude simply does not fit well when worn by your average protagonist.
 
This is really just another anti-Hollywood rant, not an anti-MCU rant or an anti-Tony Stark characterization rant.

Sure. It's hardly that the pampered rich boy who had a "long list of character defects" and poor stress management habits before all this shit started should have trouble dealing with the aftermath of a major war where he not only saw death & destruction on a scale he'd never encountered before, but nearly died himself from riding a freakin nuke into another dimension? And then had his brain messed with and saw his own creation trash Sarkovia and nearly wipe out humanity? And the only woman he's ever had a real relationship with just walked out on him? And then he learns his parents didn't die in an accident but were murdered by a man standing right in front of him, and BTW one of his few actual friends (Cap) knew this and didn't tell him? Seriously, most professional soldiers who have trained their whole lives for combat would be quivering pieces of PTSD after all that, and as Cap pointed out the first time they met, Stark's no solder.
 
Now if if you don't like that the writers have dumped all this crap on Tony, ok. But I don't think we can say they haven't made his reaction to it believable.
 
And as others have pointed out in the superhero genre "Reacting Badly" almost always translates to "Hitting Someone." Seriously, how can we criticize the MCU for not following genre tropes, and then turn around and criticize them for having this disagreement end in a fight between friends? It doesn't get more comic book than that.
 
I'm also not sure Tony was trying to "kill" Cap. Beat the shit out of both of them? Absolutely. Kill Bucky? Maaaaaybe. But I don't think Tony would've killed Cap even if he'd won. Sure he wasn't exactly pulling punches, but he's fighting Captain Freakin' America - no need for kid gloves there.
 
Personally I think Stark's character arc has been one of the best things about the MCU thus far. He's grown from the guy telling Congress to pound sand in IM2, to realizing that maybe he doesn't in fact know everything. He's also made some really bad calls, and frankly I think he secretly is ready to let someone else take that responsibility for awhile. But at the same time, he's still who he is so even when he's trying to do the right thing he still has trouble getting past his own ego.
 
All that said, I'm hopeful that Marvel intends CW to be the low point, and that future movies will be about them working their way back out of the abyss, regaining both the public's trust and each others' trust. I really enjoyed CW: but one movie was enough and I'm ready for them to go back to fighting villains.

I think "anyone would react" in a strongly negative way is pretty reasonable. But that's a genre trope element. In Trek (certainly TNG onwards), violence is a last resort. Diplomacy, discipline and discussion is the starting point for problem resolution - especially for trained officers of the Federation interacting in that capacity.
 
In Superhero comics, problems are solved with punches and energy blasts. Add to that, Tony has never been great with self-discipline and impulse control, and top it off with the stress of recent events and, at least within Superhero Genre Action Movie reality (hey, there's that Cinematic Reality we keep talking about in Hero System), his reaction is at least plausible. Now, if he spends the next half dozen movies assembling a team of villains to storm Avengers Tower and take vengeance on Cap, that's problematic. But an initial emotional reaction? That's well within the bounds of the genre tropes.

I'm sorry, I realize it's just my opinion, but I have a lot of trouble characterizing Tony Stark's reaction to seeing his parents brutally murdered before his eyes, with the guy who did it standing right in front of him, being protected by the man who knew the truth about his parents and kept it from him, as being "batshit insane." IMHO almost anyone in that situation would have reacted that way.
 
I see a clear arc in the development of Tony's character and views to where he is now, which is logical and understandable, as I see a clear arc in Steve's. No question, this incarnation of Tony Stark has major character flaws, which have been with him in one form or another from his first film -- massive ego, self-centered world view, need to control his environment, and more recently a savior complex -- but he's come a long way from where he started. He's fallen more than once, but picked himself back up, which to me is far more heroic than being some paragon of virtue and self-confidence. He genuinely wants to do good, help people, and protect his friends, and is willing to make major sacrifices to do so. From his perspective he's bent over backwards trying to bring Steve Rogers on what he considers the right side, only to keep being rebuffed. His biggest problem is he keeps making decisions for others "for their own good," which torpedoes his efforts.
 
I consider this Tony Stark a hero. Just a flawed one. Which makes for good drama IMHO, YMMV etc.

So.. not Extreme Miss?

Comics can suck too, and most of them do. It's like we're criticizing the shows for not living up to the very best of comics' potential, while ignoring the vast amount of mediocre to laughable material that makes up about 95% of comics ever published.
 
I watched all of the  CW/Berlanti shows, Agents of SHIELD, and even Lucifer last season. (And previous seasons for the older shows.) They all had some good points and some bad. Some of the shows with the worst bad points were also some of the most comic book-like shows, and I appreciated the attempt to embrace the genre, even when the plot induced stupidity was making me facepalm so hard that I risked concussing myself.

I buy it pretty easily. In fact it makes perfect sense. Who really likes bringing up that kind of news with anyone? People avoid giving bad news all the time. If there was no immediate need to tell Tony about Hydra, it's easily the kind of thing that would get put off, especially if he's already struggling with a difficult breakup and the aftermath of Sokovia.

Here are the Sorcery rules, which borrow a lot from the Valdoran Age. None of the PCs went for it, so looks like this is just going to be used by NPCs.
 
Sorcery:  Dark powers obtained by summoning or bargaining with demonic forces.
Most Europeans regard sorcery as straight-up evil. Most sorcerers believe (or at least tell themselves) sorcery is just a tool that can be used for either good or ill. They talk about fighting fire with fire, and the poetic irony of manipulating evil beings to do good deeds, and there is some truth in that. However, bargaining with demons is the original slippery slope to the Dark Side. Most sorcerers eventually wind up corrupted and/or insane no matter how well-intentioned they start out. Assuming they live long enough, that is.  In addition to Summoning per se, a wide variety of Powers can be created with “summon a demon” as the sfx, ie – “I send a demon to go look and report back” built as Clairvoyance, or “I summon an infernal spirit to protect me” bought as Resistant Defense. All sorcerers must buy Sorcery Skill (INT-based Power Skill) and KS: Demons (11- or better). Spell Research (aka Inventor) is needed if you want to create new spells or modify existing spells. Most sorcerers take Social Complication: Sorcerer (Infrequently or Frequently depending on how visible your powers are, Major Effect). Negative Reputation may be appropriate for characters that are commonly known to be sorcerers. In extreme cases: Distinctive Features: Demonic Aura might even be appropriate. Sorcery MP: Spells are typically purchased in a Multipower. Adding new spells (slots) requires in-game learning/research, as well as XP expenditure.Common Limitations: All sorcery spells must take at least -2 worth of Limitations, including:Requires A Sorcery Roll (@ -1 per 10 AP; -1/2) Side Effect  (Minor, on failed Sorcery Roll; -1/4) Unified Power (-1/4) Plus at least -1 of the following additional Limitations: Concentration, Gestures, Incantations, Extra Time, Foci, Increased END, or Charges. The following Limitations cannot be bypassed with the Overcoming Limitations maneuver: Requires A Roll, Side Effect, Unified Power, Charges, or Increased END. Sorcery Roll: Casting a spell requires a Sorcery Roll, at -1 for every 10 AP in the spell. The Sorcerer may get the usual bonuses from taking more time, excellent equipment, etc, and may also spend Obligation to add to the roll (see below). Side Effects: If you fail your Sorcery Roll, in addition to incurring Obligation (see below), the GM will roll on a custom Spell Failure table (TBD) to determine the consequences. Most failure results will be relatively minor, but can increase in severity based on how much you missed your roll by.  Trigger: Some experienced sorcerers have mastered the ability to complete the bulk of a spell ahead of time, leaving only a final key word or gesture to activate it quickly. The number of spells a sorcerer may carry prepared in this manner is equal to INT/3. Spell Research: Most sorcerers learn their spells from other sorcerers, musty old grimoires, or from demons themselves. But sorcerers with the Spell Research Skill can attempt to create new spells, or modify spells they already know.Spell Research typically takes 1 day of research per 10 AP in the spell. Creating a new spell requires a Spell Research Roll at -1 for every 10 AP; the roll for making changes to a spell the character already knows is only at -1 for every 20 AP. (The GM has final word on what constitutes a “new” spell vs. modifying an existing one.) The Sorcerer may take the usual bonuses from additional time, etc, and can spend Obligation to add to the roll (see below). Failing a Spell Research Roll has no Side Effects. The sorcerer can usually try again later, but failing three times generally means the desired spell is impossible or beyond their abilities. The sorcerer must pay XP for new spells or any increase to the cost of existing spells. Obligation: Invoking demonic forces is a decidedly two-edged sword. While demons can sometimes be commanded outright, much of sorcery involves bargaining with them for favors, knowledge, power, and ultimately souls. To reflect this, each sorcerer keeps track of their Obligation, a running total that reflects how much leverage they have over their demonic contacts…and vice versa. While narratively Obligation is typically spread among different demons or entities, for game purposes we’ll treat it as one “fungible” account.Obligation is earned by:Exceeding a required Sorcery Roll: +1 Obligation for every 2 below the needed roll. However, any bonuses from taking additional time, etc. (or from spending Obligation) do not count towards earning Obligation. Exceeding an EGO contest with a summoned demon: +1 Obligation for every 2 below what you need to command the demon. Giving information: Knowledge is power, and providing secret information to demons can buy Obligation proportionate to the usefulness and secrecy of the information. Performing tasks: Similarly, agreeing to perform a task for a demon can buy Obligation proportionate to the nature and difficulty of the task. Be wary… GM reward: As appropriate in game. Obligation is lost by:Failing a Sorcery Roll: -1 Obligation per 1 above the required roll. Failing an EGO Contest with a summoned demon: -1 per 1 you missed it by. Additionally, if a sorcerer loses control of a Summoned demon, any evil acts committed by that demon may reflect on the summoner’s soul as negative Obligation. Spending Obligation: Carrying a positive Obligation balance doesn’t accrue any direct benefits, but allows the sorcerer to spend Obligation on various things:Add to a Sorcery Roll before dice are rolled: +1 per 1 Obligation spent up to a max of +3. Overcome the results of a failed Sorcery Roll after dice are rolled: +1 per 2 Obligation spent. Note this is in addition to the loss of Obligation that accrues from failing the roll, and any Side Effects from the failure still occur. Add to EGO Contests with summoned demons before the roll: +1 per 1 Obligation spent up to a max of +3. Overcome the results of a failed EGO contest with a summoned demon: a sorcerer can spend Obligation to try and bribe the demon into voluntarily doing what the sorcerer wants. The cost will depend on the nature of the task requested, but at a minimum “Don’t attack me and return to Hell immediately” typically costs 1 Obligation for every 1 the Roll failed by. Sorcerers can spend Obligation to add to Spell Research Rolls, essentially calling on infernal powers to help them create/modify spells, at a cost of +1 per 1 Obligation spent. Obligation cannot be spent to overcome a failed Spell Research Roll after the roll. Spending Obligation can also reduce the amount of time required for Spell Research by 1 day per point of Obligation spent. (Time required cannot be reduced below 1 day.) Sorcerers can also spend Obligation to barter information from demons, as if they were Contacts. Cost varies based on the type and value of information sought. Results of carrying a negative Obligation balance:Being in debt to infernal powers shows up as a stain on the soul, which may be detectible by other magicians and practitioners of faith. Even those unable to consciously detect the taint may react to it subconsciously, making people less likely to trust the sorcerer. In game terms, this works as a kind of Negative Reputation, starting at -5 Obligation and increasing from there. As more debt accrues (typically starting around -10), the demons may call in the sorcerer’s marker by asking them to perform a task. These tasks can range from minor to epic, depending on how much Obligation the sorcerer owes. If the sorcerer refuses the task (or accepts it and then fails), the points in negative Obligation convert to additional character Complications – typically Distinctive Features, Social Obligations, or Hunteds. These Complications are permanent, at least until/unless they are bought off by a combination of XP and roleplaying. Keep in mind that Obligation is a practical measure of who’s controlling whom, not really an ethical comment on how good/evil the sorcerer is. Similarly, you don’t gain or lose Obligation for doing good/evil deeds; you gain Obligation by staying in command of your demons, and you lose Obligation by losing control. (Which may very well result in you being forced to commit evil acts, but that’s another matter.) Magic Items:Many sorcerers use enchanted items to assist their work: providing bonuses to Sorcery Rolls, boosts to certain Powers, Endurance Reserves, or enchanted weapons and armor. Most sorcerous items can be used by any sorcerer, but some are specific to the sorcerer who enchanted them. A few are specifically made to be used by non-sorcerers. However, religiously devout characters (to include those able to perform miracles) cannot normally use sorcerous items; conversely sorcerers cannot normally use holy items.   Generally, if you want to start the game with an enchanted item, you need to pay points for it. Items acquired in game are usually free and distributed by GM.

I just watched CW again and honestly I feel like you saw a totally different movie than I did.

I just watched CW again and honestly I feel like you saw a totally different movie than I did.

I just watched CW again and honestly I feel like you saw a totally different movie than I did.

And here I was wondering how many feet a cantri-ped had...
 

Now, to be fair the DC TV Universe is working out quiet well.  I was more entertained with the preview of the second Season of Supergirl then the entire last season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D..