NuSoardGraphite

It was quite good. Hopefully this is the beginning of the DCEU changing its fortunes.

Ant-Man Could Crush Superman, Science Declareshttp://www.cbr.com/ant-man-could-crush-superman-science-declares/Captain Marvel Is Taking a Trip Into the Quantum Realmhttp://movieweb.com/captain-marvel-movie-quantum-realm/Source article for both:Ant-Man Could Destroy Superman, Says Quantum Physics: Dr. Spiros Michalakis explains the unbelievable potential of Ant-Man.https://www.inverse.com/article/32022-ant-man-quantum-physics-dr-spiros-superman-captain-marvel

LOL, no.

It isn't (see my correction above). The only thing halved by Move-By is the character's effective Strength (which might affect the damage of a weapon somewhat, but is unlikely to halve it).

 

Personally I've never understood why we halve Strength for Move-By though. Even more strangely, per the RAW for FHC, you also halve your Strength when making a Move-Through with a weapon (as the halving clause for weapons is contained in the set of rules shared by Move-By and Move-Through), but not for a Move-Through made without a weapon... It seems strange to me to have a maneuver that imposes significant penalties in order to add velocity-based damage at the expense of strength-based damage. Which is why characters I build that rely on such tactics almost always take Passing Strike, or one of its equivalents (such as Charge).

Agreed. A knight who regularly practices lance charges from horseback would likely develop one of the Martial Maneuvers to use it with purely for efficiency sake.

So I want to create an "unbreakable" magical dagger as treasure. The characters won't be spending character points on it. I don't think it's an Unbreakable Focus as it is not recoverable if they lose it. Do I simply NOT use the "Real Weapon" limitation, or is there another preferred method to make it "unbreakable"?

Domt use real weapon. Add Difficult to Dispel.

So does the basic HKA with OAF that I did not work? I appreciate the Damage Shield explanations and people seem to be suggesting that's the way to go, but I'm unclear if there's anything wrong with the simple HKA version I did above.

OAF works. You dont need the damage shield. Its just a lot of people are stuck on the idea of damage shield being an elemental aura surrounding something so tend to use that to represent an elementally wreathed weapon. Its not necessary though.

Why is the damage bonus of a killing attack halved?

That is a completely ineffective attack and not indicative to what the maneuver would actually do to a target in the source material. That needs to be fixed!

Something on this level?

No, from what I recall, Barry Allen had a force field when running that obviated the need for protection.

I thought it was an experimental Russian pilots suit meant to be able to handle high g-force maneuvers and tough enough not to shred due to friction.

5th edition is my go to.

It is like a more detailed and malleable version of 4th edition, which is the version I started with (though I did play some 3rd ed stuff too) so that is what I prefer.

Crits = Max rolllable damage.

Fumbles = GM fiat giving the character a disadvantage. In the midst of combat thats generally a slip and fall and 1/2 DCV or disarmament as the weapon slips from their fingers and flies away in a random direction.

Just a weird question.... Is there a cheaper way to build an area effect Transfer than buying Area Effect Transfer?

 

I've got a villain who has an area effect Death Aura which I want to translate into him stealing the characteristics of others. He's a skilled normal aside from this power and he has a bit of tech he uses for defense. I just want to be able to use this without costing a septillion points...

Yes, there is. Its just much slower. You use less dice, but add AoE and Continuous on the Transfer. Then increase the maximum by +2 for each additional character point spent. It should look something like this

1d6 Transfer (15)

+20 maximum effect (10)

Continuous (+1)

Area of Effect radius (+1)

75 active.

Full phase activstion (-1/2) only vs biological organisms (-1/2)

Total points 38.

With this you would roll 1d6 of Transfer per phase. If you want it to drain and transfer multiple characteristics, then it will cost significantly more. Continuous allows the character to activste the power the continue draining without using a phase. The area of effect it 5". The maximum is 26 character points transfered, which is pretty significant. 26 points of Strength. 13 points of Body or Con. 8 points of Dex. 13 points of Ego, etc.

The limitations are it takes a full phase to activate, so essentially the character has to stand still. You could also add Concentrate to that if you want to further reduce the cost. And the limited effect of Only works on biological beings meaning the drain cant be used on robots or vehicles or buildings or anything of that nature.

At 75 active the cost isnt too bad. It is a powerful effect. If used to drain Con or Body or Stun or Endurance, it can be an ability that turns the tide of battle.

You mean like Ant-Man, and the Guardians of the Galaxy? In some ways, secondary characters are better choices. When you mess around with their back stories (Don Blake was Jane's old boyfriend?), personalities (since when was Iron Man a wisecracking smartass?), etc. there's less backlash. Clearly Superman has to appear in the red and blue, but we don't need wings on Cap's cowl or Thor's headgear.

Ant Man is not a side character. He is supposed to be a core member of The Avengers. I would add Wasp to that as well.

The Guardians of the Galaxy didnt come in till Phase 2. In Phase 2 they needed to jntroduce the wider Marvel Universe that exists beyond the earth and the GotG was an absolutely brilliant way of doing that. When it comes to DC, Green Lantern should be that vehicle.

And Marvel is still not focusing on side characters aside from the GotG. Black Panther, Dr Strange and Capt Marvel are all core characters. They could do the Inhumans because Blackbolt becomes a major mover and shaker in the Marvel Universe (esp if they plan to introduce The Illuminati). They could do Namor as well. What Marvel is not doing is wasting time on doing a movie about The Wrecking Crew, or giving Elektra a stand alone film.

Why was it any more premature than a GoTG movie? None of the backstory was set up. Drax is supposed to have major links to Thanos. Gamora is Adam Warlock's sidekick. We haven't seen the Collector try to Collect the Avengers yet. Groot hasn't invaded the earth or fought the Hulk! Rocket hasn't appeared in Hulk's anniversary issue yet!!!

They had set up the wider marvel univers within the galaxy. At the point where GotG came out (phase 2) the situation on earth had been pretty well established. Thus GotG informed audiences of the political situation in space and showed them exactly how powerful and how feared Thanos was. And it also gave us the necessary back story on the Infinity Gems, so now we can namr them within the other films without needing that exposition. Guardians handled that. It was time.

Kind of like the comics it grew out of. "Hey, how can we link these elements to have a new, overarching plot?"

They dont have to do that with the movies. They have 40+ years of history with most of these books. All they have to do is figure out what version of the characters they want to go with, which stories they want to tell and put it together so it all makes sense. When they started the movie franchise, the first few films might have been trial and error seeing what resonated with audiences. But they are well beyond that now and reaching deep into long established Marvel lore to advance the franchise itself.

"A central role"? It was a McGuffin. And the earlier ones just as easily explained as retcons. Nothing in the early movies suggested they had anything to do with each other, which could be "won't they be surprised when we pull it all together" or just as easily "hey, maybe we can make it look like this was the plan all along".

Likely somewhere in the middle of those extremes.

So, how many years do we spend doing this? Comics as a medium are not the same as movies. They are released on a much faster publishing schedule. Building 75 years of backstory isn't really a practical objective. Really, we should have started with the WW II Justice Society, since that's really where DC's Supers legacy started, and built from there, right?

We spend as many years as we need to. We need to establish the rules first. Make introductions. Let the audience become familiar with and get comfortable with the characters. Then you destroy their world and change everything. It will resonate with audiences a whole lot more that way. Just look at the box office of the Marvel franchise. They are quite obviously doing something right.

And, of course, Avengers sucked because there was no Giant-Man and the Wasp, and they were founding members. Look what that did to Ultron and the Vision. We should have had at least two or three Ultron-focused movies before he made the Vision to infiltrate the Avengers, shouldn't we?

I would have preferred that Antman been a founding member. And I would have liked to have seen Ultron introduced in an Avengers film and be helpful to the Avengers first, then betray them. It would have had much more impact then.

Speaking of Vision. The fact that Jarvis became Vision was awesome. Jarvis was introduced in the original Iron Man and had been in every movie that featured him. Audiences knew and were comfortable with Jarvis. So when Vision spoke with Jarvis voice, the average movie goer feels as if they already know the character. There suddenly isnt this new character that needs history and background in a team movie where there is very little time to do that.

Or maybe we should recognize that comics, prose novels, movies and weekly TV shows are all different media, with different strengths and weaknesses, which therefore need different approaches.

I am acknowledging this approach. I would say this for any studio attempting a long running and wide reaching movie or tv franchise. Not just for comic book movies.

The Gauntlet itself was shown as an easter egg in the first Thor film. I strongly suspect (but don't know for sure) that the tesseract, the stone in Loki's staff, and the Aether were known (by the Marvel braintrust) to be Infinity Stones by the time The Avengers began post-production. Even GotG was in development as far back as 2009, and so it is conceivable that by 2011 they knew that the power stone would play a central role in the events of the film.

 

Then again, maybe Joss Whedon saw all those unrelated elements and unconsciously threw Thanos in without realizing how he was potentially tying all of it together. Makes the case for his genius as a storyteller...

I dont for a second buy Whedon just putting Thanos in the end of the film as a bonus for the fans.

Why?

Because the Emmissary spoke to Loki in the middle of the film mentioning "The one who put the scepter in your hands" meaning Thanos. Why would that line be in the film if Thanos was just an easter egg.

It was a part of the plan, thats why. Whedon is full of crap.

I think "establishing their extremely complex relationships" may be a bit too much to hope for from the DCEU. I'll be happy if the Wonder Woman movie and the possible Batgirl movie avoid getting the stink of the rest of the franchise on them.

Hey, I'm just giving my opinion on what I think they need to do to get the feel right. Whether or not they actually even attempt the relationship dynamic is conpletely up in the air. (Personally I would love to see a creepy love triangle between Batman, Batgirl and Nightwing to show just how effed up their dynamic is, but I dont think they would go that far).

But why? I fail to see the need you refer to.

Not for comic nerds. They know the situation. For general movie going audiences and especially kids growing up who arent so familiar with these characters yet.

We need to establish Batman as the "dad" of the Bat family. Dick Greyson as the big brother and Batgirl as the sister, then the other Robins if they decide to include them. The bat family is so intricately woven together, the way in which you introduce them is of the utmost importance in establishing their extremely complex relationships.

I agree that the DCEU films feel rushed, but only in terms of overall vision. I mean, the movies themselves take just as long as any Marvel movie to make.

 

Now, just because Batgirl has "Bat" in front of her name doesn't mean DC has to wait for three Batman solo films and the JLA movie to come out before giving that character her own film. I can easily see them as being quite separable, especially since she's not a member of the Justice League. The key is to do it well, regardless of how tied (or not tied) it is to the rest of the JLA or Bat-franchise.

As I said earlier, they dont need multiple batman movies before doing some spin offs, but they need at least one and to introduce Batgirl in that movie. I feel that Suicide Squad would have been a lot more effective with audiences if we had seen Harley get taken down by Batman and locked up at the end of the first Batfilm with Joker vowing to break her out, with Suicide Squad building on that beginning. If Amanda Walher had been introduced as opposition to the concept of the Justice League within the Military Industrial Complex before showing audiences her big plan to use villains to do the governments dirty work. DC is missing so many great opportunities here by rushing, frankly is sad and dishearening to watch.

Another perfectly "natural organic way" to do it is to produce a team movie first, and then if it is successful, spin off solo movies for each of the other heroes after that. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that just because the Marvel approach has been successful that it is the only way to go about it. The X-Men movies were pretty successful before they spun off Wolverine (and by extension, Deadpool), for instance.

I agree with that sentiment. X-men did it organically, even if they made a few missteps along the way.

However with the DCEU, they are not doing it organically. They are forcing it big time. They dont wait to see how audiences react to the current movie to build on the natural ebb and flow of these things. They are rushing out their productions because they see their direct competition doing it, not taking into consideration the foundation their competition built over a decade and 5 films leading up to their team movie.

Honestly though, I have less of a problem that they are jumping right into their team movie and more of a problem that they are talking about (and filming) secondary character projects before even establishing their primary core characters.

Suicide squad was too early. And a Batgirl movie would be too early. They've barely talked about a Green Lantern movie and there's no sign of Martian Manhunter and yet they have already proposed Gotham City Sirens?

Yeah, its obvious DC has no idea what the hell they want to do. No plan. And no genius visionary guiding them. All they know is that they want some of those superhero billions! Hurry up and put the movies out!

I think you give Marvel way too much credit. I think they did an Iron Man and a Hulk movie hoping they would sell. Iron Man seemed a lot more like Robocop than a Superhero Story to me. Then someone said "what if we tack on an Iron Man/Hulk end credit scene, just for chuckles". So they did. And they saw that the fans are interested in an Avengers movie.

 

So, what should we do for the Iron Man sequel? Hmmm...why don't we toss in SHIELD and a Black Widow character? WOW - the fans ate that up! Can we bolt something like that on to Thor? hmmm...what if we toss a Hawkeye cameo into the "Thor goes to retrieve his hammer" scene, and make it guarded by SHIELD.

 

Hey, these are REALLY selling - what's the next step? Well, everyone is squawking about Avengers. We'd need Captain America - let's end his movie with an Avengers teaser, and start thinking about that next movie.

 

By that time, we have a franchise going, and the Avengers success pushed us into the next set of characters, so maybe a bit more "what characters can we build for the next one" started, but I also think the success of GoTG was a surprise, so they got more tied in. Meanwhile, we start thinking about retconning these Infinity Stones in, to better tie the movies in, and because wow, did the fans eat up that Thanos cameo we thought would be a cute one-off at the end of Avengers.

 

I don't think that the Marvel Studios have a photo of the wall design tying all these movies together that dates back from the scriptwriting for Hulk and Iron Man.

I think you are right about some of that. Certainly its been something Marvel had been thinking about. But once it was clear it was working its obvious they put together a plan by the time Captain America released. Possibly even Thor. Kevin Feige has said in interviews that the plan they are following was put into place before they even began filming the 1st Avengers film. That he always intended for this to be the result. Even if it was just a fever dream in Feige's head. at least someone at Marvel had an idea of what the hell they were doing and where they wanted to go. DC cant say that yet.

They cant get a Flash movie made. Its aleady gone through 3 directors. The script has been scrapped twice. Batfleck is in a similar state. Wonder Woman lost directors too. So far only Auquaman seems to be going smoothly because both Mamoa and director James Wan seem to be super into it.

I already answered this on Facebook!

DC didn't have to copy Marvel's approach of giving each signature character his/her own movie before putting them together in the team movie, and I'm not convinced that any of the DCEU movies would have been any better off had they done so. As I see it, the core problem isn't a lack of architectural patience, but that DC is creatively misguided (in terms of tone and characterization), and that infects everything they've done so far. Maybe Wonder Woman will be the turning point, but my sneaking suspicion is that Justice League will return to the same joyless, grimdark mode of storytelling as the other films, and the WW film will be the lone beacon of light in the DCEU.

I wouldnt call it Marvel's approach. Marvel is doing things in a natural organic way. You introduce the characters. Then you expand the world setting. You establish the rules of the universe first. Then you raise the stakes. Shake things up. Break some established rules and when all seems lost, the heroes make a comeback. Overcome the odds against them.

DC has barely established their world setting yet and already they've raised the stakes. The forces of Apokalyps is on their way and we havent been introduced to the Thamyscirans, the Atlanteans, the Speed Force, The Gods, Martians or the spectrum of emotional energy their powers. When the forces of Apokalyps arrive, our heroes are going to have to tap into these resources and audiences dont know what the f*** any of those things are yet.

They needed to introduce the greater DC universe before bringing in Darkseid and his baddies. They could have started with the Mother Boxes in the first few films, sure. Those are your McGuffins. Maybe have the scene with Flash trying to contact Bruce. But they should have done the core JLA members solo movies prior to Justice League to introduce audiences to how the DC univers e works before throwing everything and the kitchen sink at audiences.

Thats just how I feel about it. DC is just rushing, plain and simple. Yes they have writing issues and characterization issues. Absolutely. And its their haste to get movies out of the door that is the core issue here. They arent taking the time to get these individual movies right on any level. And they wont until they slow down and take stock of what they have and prioritize.

Aquaman actually looks pretty cool in that version of him. I didn't know he'd been introduced so early on.

Yeah Aquaman has been around a while. I think Namor only beat Aquaman by a couple of years.

Do we know that the Batgirl movie is coming out before the solo Batfleck movie? I'd assume that the Batfleck one is further along, given that they haven't formalized the deal for Batgirl yet.

Solo Batfleck film has been pushed back due to Affleck dropping out as director while he recovers from alcoholism. The script he and Terrio were working on has been scrapped, a new director has been brought in and they are starting from square one again.

I would say at this juncture its a bit premature to be announcing bat spin offs before the parent film is even in production.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/the-batman-finds-a-director-after-ben-affleck-drop/1100-6448163/

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescience.com/58304-ben-affleck-alcohol-addiction-relapse.html

https://www.google.com/amp/fansided.com/2017/03/15/rumor-batman-film-script-scrapped-again/amp/

I'm curious how a Chinese woman (Madame Gao) came to be in charge of (or at the very least, such a prominent member of) a Japanese assassin cult. That kind of cultural cross-breeding is inconsistent with the vice-like grip each culture exerts over their respective (martial arts) traditions. It just doesn't ring true to my ears. It feels more like a mistake.

My thoughts on that are that The Hand is global. They recruit regardless of ethnicity or origin, as long as you have the skills to contribute to the cause.

The Hand seems to want to get into K'un Lun. Or wipe it out. In either case The Hand would be very interested in recruiting insiders from K'un Lun like Madame Gao. And she has the tenacity and skills to be able to rise high enough to run her own coven.

Compare the Spider Man: Homecoming Trailer, and the Justice League Trailer.

 

Spider Man is about character. Justice League is about action.

 

Once again Marvel wins again.

I disagree.

I thought the Justice League trailer was stronger. I feel the Spiderman trailers have had tone issues.

I'm not really very impressed with Iron Fist from what I've seen so far. The dialog is terrible, there are too many cheesy kung fu movie scenes of a fight just to have a fight (get away from that door. No! Then lets fight!). Danny is not nearly as good as he should be -- he should wipe the floor with mooks, not exchange blows for several minutes. He's unstable and bizarrely irrational for someone who spent a long time learning discipline and martial arts. Just an underwhelming series from what I've seen.

 

And yeah, the martial arts are a bit underwhelming.

That was my problem with it....the lack of good Martial Choreography. That was the one thing they NEEDED to get right. And some of the dialogue was indeed weak, but I felt the same about Luke Cage and DD season 2. The basic story was solid, and Rand's inconsistent personality didnt bother me. His unstable emotional state is magnified by the torrent of chi flowing through his system from the Iron Fist. (Represented by the flashes he has when the camera shakes and he grabs his head) the whole reason he left K'un Lun was to figure out what happend with his parents and the uncertainty of it was preventing him from centering himself and balancing his chi. So his behavior deteriorating over the course of the show makes sense.