Christopher R Taylor

Better would have been the writers to have ever watched an episode of the series. I actually liked the casting of the 2 leads at the time. Will had the confidence/arrogance of West and Kline was a chameleon in his roles, so how about a role that allows him to play and actor excellent at adapting to roles.
wish they hadn't allowed Branagh to S#!t over a role made famous and given, in a lot of ways, gravitas by Michael Dunn. Not to mention the thoroughly disgusting General as the hench villain.

That's on my list of movies that should never be remade.  Don't $#&@ with perfection.
 
I would love to see an actual Wild Wild West movie, 'cause the one we got wasn't one.

The hologram doctor was the only good character on the show, and he wasn't even real.

https://i.imgur.com/oxyXzfT.mp4
 

Potter made for better TV watching.  Blake was true to the original book and story: that one quite reasonable way to endure the madness of war is to become mad yourself in certain ways.  That was the whole point of the character in book and movie, but it can't really stand up in an extended TV series.  So from the point of view of TV, you're correct about Blake.  But for those of us who cue off the earlier work and its fundamental theme ... no, it would have been more appropriate if the TV series had ended with Radar reading the telegram in the operating room.

Babylon 5 really took off in the second series when Sinclair was replaced by Sheridan. It just seemed to galvanise everything. That or when Morden came onboard and made offers to the ambassadors.
 
The X-Files. Although the Pilot and Deep Throat were strong, it was not until Ice that we had another really gripping story. The fact that there were several capable support actors in it helped but the script was really strong as well.

Not a fan of Batwoman's love interest on moral grounds.
 
Don't try to wreck this lady's marriage to rekindle your military academy romance.
 
Nothing heroic about trying to get someone to cheat on their spouse.
 
I do miss the days when heroes held the moral high ground and super heroes held them to impractical, but laudable standards.

Yeah that's part of what I am working up for the Jolrhos Players Guide, letting people do very minor effects with a Magic Skill roll and 1 END such as start a small fire, anything under 6 active points, basically.  You can zap someone with your wand to do minimal damage and make a flash of light; it will kill a mouse, but won't really hurt a person.

My fear for a "various power tiers" character would be similar to the "situational limitation" character, like one with a lot of powers that only work at night.  The character alternates between a low-powered tag-along and the uber-character who eclipses the rest of the team.
 
Much like Luck, it requires a lot of GM effort and oversight to make it work in the game.
 
If Luck is used as a major component, then the GM and player need to find a common expectation of how effective Luck will be in-game.  The mechanic was never really intended as a major focus power (remembering it was limited to 3d6 for much of the game's history).  If the character is going to make a significant investment (i.e. AP at campaign standard attack level), and/or it will consume significant resources (costs END; requires actions), then the power has to be run in a manner that it carries a value commensurate with that cost.  To me, that means "less effective than the same AP in an attack in combat", as it has non-combat benefits as well, but still pretty effective in both contexts.
 
Turning over some of the control to the player is probably essential - the GM has a lot to do already, without setting the effects of Luck every time the PC's phase comes around.  Having a list of generic possibilities for various levels of Luck success and letting the player suggest what happens after the roll could alleviate some of the pressure, as well as allowing the player a better feeling he controls the character (Luck included) and is more a participant in the game than a bystander.
 
Ultimately a challenging concept to integrate satisfactorily in the game, whatever approach is taken, and a great example of the principal of "let's see how it works for a few sessions, then decide whether something has to be changed".

Buck Rogers started out as kinda campy but pretty good for the sci fi at the time, then they had the writer's strike and apparently the producers had their 8 year old nephew write the show or (as I strongly suspect) dusted off some crappy old show they never made but had scripts for) and it went truly awful with bird guy and Buck flying around space exploring strange new worlds.

Not just Arrow. 
Modern comics as a whole have essentially forgotten what a Hero is.
These days they are so busy trying to "gimmick" their way into popularity rather than telling a convincing heroic story.
 
Well, I'll leave it there, no use for a rant...
 
 
Original Batman (1939 pulp) showed little or no remorse for killing or maiming criminals, bad guys caught in the act and violent were routinely dispatched. 
 
And I remember he actually carried and used 45's for a while. 

Gnomes.  I blame house gnomes, its their idea of a joke.

This is the link for my basic magic system, there's a lot more about it in my book The Fantasy Codex, but this gives you the bare bones.
 
Hint: when I come out with the Player's Guide for my Jolrhos campaign setting, this will be altered slightly and expanded.

In power terms, the build I used for the Fantasy Codex was:
 
Detect Invisibilty, targeting
Images (glowing outline) vs sight
 
Detect allows you to find and target the person, images makes them glow, whether they're invisible or not

One of the best things about all incarnations of HERO /Champions is near-total backwards compatibility.   
 
And yes, there were a number of thin adventures and larger, multi-session adventures from 4e....   ... and possibly some third party stuff for 5e?  I don't recall for certain. 
 
I have no idea what exists adventure-wise for 6e, but a quick look through the site store will probably clue you in.
 
The only caution I can give you if you're looking at older adventures is that the builds were simpler in older edtions: you may want to tweak any characters in these books by adding defenses or modifiers that didn't exist then. 
 
Or you may not want to do that; I don't know.  I will caution you, though, that if you are looking specifically for adventure modules, stay away from Escape From Stronghold.  While it's an interesting look at a "Super Jail," and has a couple of scenario suggestions, it is _not_ an adventure, no matter what it says on the cover.   
 
 
 
 

For that sort of agenda, I'd suggest this older Champions "Campaign Book" which includes three short introductory adventures, which can be run singly or linked sequentially (titles on the cover):
3rd Edition Champions differs from 6E, but is not that hard to adapt. More importantly, the adventures are easy to run, and include maps.

Classic Mystique

Classic Mystique

Classic Mystique

Classic Mystique

Its a matter of individual taste, but I do not like mixing sci fi or tech elements into fantasy or I think it loses its particular fantasy flavor.  Others enjoy that kind of thing.  My Jolrhos setting is much more traditional ("familiar but unique" is the phrase I use to describe it), and some people find that kind of more generic setting dull.

As originally envisaged the X-Men "universe" was a single title, so, yes. But it would be a mistake to think that there was a great master plan involved.
 
Especially during the 50s, (what became) Marvel's business model was to find a genre that was selling well, and spam the shelves with titles in that genre. They continued doing that into the 60s, as superheroes became the dominant genre.
 
The X-Men was one of those spam titles. The FF and Avengers were selling well, so Marvel put out yet another similar book. It didn't sell as well, so they didn't go for a fourth one. (The Defenders, The Champions and so on were from the 70s and later.)
 
At the same time, crossovers between titles were proving popular, so the X-Men were drawn into that as a matter of course, and very rapidly.
 
So, on balance, no, the X-Men weren't meant to be their own thing. (And they were the original team back then - quite different from the present day mess, despite versions of those characters still being around.)
 
---
 
To the main point of the thread: I prefer to develop my own fantasy worlds. Naturally they tend not to be as large or elaborate as published products.
 
They also tend to be relatively narrow in terms of what they cover - I don't build kitchen sink settings, although in theory they could evolve in that direction if I were to stick with a single one and keep incorporating new elements. On the other hand, I don't get too strict with themes. If I wanted to write a novel I'd write a novel.

I'm going to withhold judgment until after I've seen a few more episodes. I mean, until she's got the red hair flowing from the cowl and the red bat logo on the chest, she's not yet really Batwoman in my view.

What genre?

Its a matter of individual taste, but I do not like mixing sci fi or tech elements into fantasy or I think it loses its particular fantasy flavor.  Others enjoy that kind of thing.  My Jolrhos setting is much more traditional ("familiar but unique" is the phrase I use to describe it), and some people find that kind of more generic setting dull.