zslane

The One Ring was designed to make it easier for its wearer to dominate others, particularly those of weak mental fortitude or those easily corrupted. Sauron was all about domination and control, and the One Ring reflected this. He knew he would never be able to subdue and control his most hated enemy, the elves, through military action or the sheer power of his will alone, so he tricked them into crafting the means by which he could: the rings of power. His greatest fear in the Third Age was that his ring would find its way into the hands of someone who could use it against him; an elf lord, a descendant of the Kings of Westernesse, or another maia. They would have the means to bend Sauron's armies to their will rather than his, and he would be supplanted as the "lord of the rings" (and all of Middle-Earth as a result).
 
In terms of FRPG "powers", I would say it grants Invisibility with a very slow Transform Self into Wraith side effect, and a small Cumulative Mind Control with a massive Area of Effect that can only be unlocked by someone with a massively high EGO and PRE (and the Endurance to keep it going long-term).

The One Ring was designed to make it easier for its wearer to dominate others, particularly those of weak mental fortitude or those easily corrupted. Sauron was all about domination and control, and the One Ring reflected this. He knew he would never be able to subdue and control his most hated enemy, the elves, through military action or the sheer power of his will alone, so he tricked them into crafting the means by which he could: the rings of power. His greatest fear in the Third Age was that his ring would find its way into the hands of someone who could use it against him; an elf lord, a descendant of the Kings of Westernesse, or another maia. They would have the means to bend Sauron's armies to their will rather than his, and he would be supplanted as the "lord of the rings" (and all of Middle-Earth as a result).
 
In terms of FRPG "powers", I would say it grants Invisibility with a very slow Transform Self into Wraith side effect, and a small Cumulative Mind Control with a massive Area of Effect that can only be unlocked by someone with a massively high EGO and PRE (and the Endurance to keep it going long-term).

Ternaugh is absolutely correct. We single folks are not expected to get the same value from the PVOD price as a family, or even a couple. As usual, those of us who do participate subsidize all the families out there (just like with health insurance and other financial programs with society-wide reach).

I don’t think you’re the target audience for the streaming option*. I have always assumed that it’s aimed at families who already subscribe to Disney+. The math works a lot better for a family of 4 or more, and does include repeat viewings.
 
 
*I’m not either, as I live alone.

Shazam! was mediocre at best, in my view. It tried too hard to be an homage to Big, and while that worked for lots of people, it didn't work for me. The movie suffered from tonal whiplash to a degree, and the supersuit was awful.
 
As for Aquaman, I agree with you. It was colorful, but the underwater action scenes made no sense whatsoever and were a complete cinematographic mess more often than not. Moreover, I don't care for this take on the character, which isn't Jason Momoa's fault; he does a great job doing what he is asked to do. I just think this particular Aquaman characterization is rather misguided, and almost a little embarrassing to watch sometimes.

Shazam! was mediocre at best, in my view. It tried too hard to be an homage to Big, and while that worked for lots of people, it didn't work for me. The movie suffered from tonal whiplash to a degree, and the supersuit was awful.
 
As for Aquaman, I agree with you. It was colorful, but the underwater action scenes made no sense whatsoever and were a complete cinematographic mess more often than not. Moreover, I don't care for this take on the character, which isn't Jason Momoa's fault; he does a great job doing what he is asked to do. I just think this particular Aquaman characterization is rather misguided, and almost a little embarrassing to watch sometimes.

I'm sure it is all in an effort to make gods "relatable" to general audiences. It seems that television is still not regarded as the place for epic spectacle. Teevee is small, you see, and so too must the action be.
 
Agents of Shield tried to put the entire world in peril every season, but the show didn't have the budget to really do it right, and so everything seemed really small even though we were constantly told how huge the stakes were. And while Disney presumably gives these Disney+ shows bigger budgets and permits them to have whatever scope Feige wants, there seems to be an unspoken rule that says the shows can't be allowed to match (or eclipse) the scope and spectacle of the movies. In Disney's mind, teevee can never be allowed to compete with the movies. And it usually shows (no pun intended).
 
It is the same with Star Wars. The Mandalorian is just low- (okay, medium) budget side action; (mostly inconsequential) events in the margins of whatever epic struggle the movies intend to cover.

I wonder what the studio execs think the reason for that is. I wonder what the real reason for that is. (The answer is rarely the same for both.)

I wonder what the studio execs think the reason for that is. I wonder what the real reason for that is. (The answer is rarely the same for both.)

No limitation. GM handwavium at an appropriate (or inappropriate, for the player) time.

It just seems to me that Disney isn't maximizing the potential of the IP they are working with, and merely because it is the small screen that is the delivery device. For instance, I've seen season 1, chapter 4 of The Mandalorian done twice before; once when it was called The Seven Samurai and then again when it was re-skinned as The Magnificent Seven. But since this is teevee we're talking about, it had to be scaled down to The Rugged Two apparently. The grand cinematicism of Star Wars and the MCU is being reduced to "fit in the home", which I find disappointing.
 
WandaVision was similar in that it spent far too much time developing a single idea, primarily I suspect because that was much cheaper than producing 6 hours of story that had the scope and intensity of a trilogy of MCU Scarlet Witch movies. Which, IMO, should be the whole point of producing 6 (continuous) hours of anything that takes place in the MCU (or the Star Wars universe).

I happen to think it matters just how often this slow-drain END issue is going to affect the character. If the answer is "very rarely" then I question the merit in modeling it so accurately and bothering with all the bookkeeping it requires.

I'm sure it is all in an effort to make gods "relatable" to general audiences. It seems that television is still not regarded as the place for epic spectacle. Teevee is small, you see, and so too must the action be.
 
Agents of Shield tried to put the entire world in peril every season, but the show didn't have the budget to really do it right, and so everything seemed really small even though we were constantly told how huge the stakes were. And while Disney presumably gives these Disney+ shows bigger budgets and permits them to have whatever scope Feige wants, there seems to be an unspoken rule that says the shows can't be allowed to match (or eclipse) the scope and spectacle of the movies. In Disney's mind, teevee can never be allowed to compete with the movies. And it usually shows (no pun intended).
 
It is the same with Star Wars. The Mandalorian is just low- (okay, medium) budget side action; (mostly inconsequential) events in the margins of whatever epic struggle the movies intend to cover.

I liked the Shang Chi character as a kid growing up in the '70s (because let's face it, who didn't love Bruce Lee when they were kids in the '70s), but I am only slightly more interested in this movie than the Black Widow movie, which isn't really saying much.

I liked the Shang Chi character as a kid growing up in the '70s (because let's face it, who didn't love Bruce Lee when they were kids in the '70s), but I am only slightly more interested in this movie than the Black Widow movie, which isn't really saying much.

That also describes the aspirations of the first Suicide Squad movie. It was dumb and violent, but it wasn't much fun. I'm skeptical that even James Gunn can elevate the core premise to the point where it escapes its intrinsic dumbness and delivers on the fun. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Whenever a debate about superhero comics strays down the path of, "well in the real world...", you know something is wrong.
 
In my experience, comic book writers--even the highly regarded ones--generally don't write with enough deftness (and depth) to make any "real world" allegory actually work because there are too many essential things they handwave away just to get on with their story. You can't say, "Well we have racism and bigotry in the real world, and so it makes sense that mutants would be victims of such," and also ignore the fact that in the real world, non-mutant superheroes would also be hunted down and destroyed if they behaved as they do in the comics. The massive amounts of collateral damage they regularly incur would see to that. I mean, something like the Sokovia Accords would never have any legal authority in the real world, but the sentiment behind it is nevertheless 100% dead on realistic and sensible.
 
I largely agree with Christopher that attempts to say something deep about racism and bigotry is completely undermined by these stories being implanted in a universe that is inconsistent and conceptually dishonest/oversimplified about the interaction between normal humans and superpowered beings--mutant or otherwise--in general.

Whenever a debate about superhero comics strays down the path of, "well in the real world...", you know something is wrong.
 
In my experience, comic book writers--even the highly regarded ones--generally don't write with enough deftness (and depth) to make any "real world" allegory actually work because there are too many essential things they handwave away just to get on with their story. You can't say, "Well we have racism and bigotry in the real world, and so it makes sense that mutants would be victims of such," and also ignore the fact that in the real world, non-mutant superheroes would also be hunted down and destroyed if they behaved as they do in the comics. The massive amounts of collateral damage they regularly incur would see to that. I mean, something like the Sokovia Accords would never have any legal authority in the real world, but the sentiment behind it is nevertheless 100% dead on realistic and sensible.
 
I largely agree with Christopher that attempts to say something deep about racism and bigotry is completely undermined by these stories being implanted in a universe that is inconsistent and conceptually dishonest/oversimplified about the interaction between normal humans and superpowered beings--mutant or otherwise--in general.

The TV shows aren't as big of a financial risk (as blockbuster movies), and the first three all lean more heavily into the currency of being known and accepted franchises than they do into their wokeness. Throwing in a bit of diversity here and there costs them nothing. However, you can expect the budget of a show like Ms. Marvel to be smaller than the others because of the higher risk it entails. And if it doesn't pull its weight in terms of bringing in subscribers to Disney+, don't expect to see a second season. Subscriber numbers are far more important to Feige's corporate overlords than how many brownie points a show scores with SJWs.
 
Black Panther and Captain Marvel were risks, roughly on par with giving Guardians of the Galaxy a try, and they went into production despite their wokeness, not because of it. They were expected to deliver on other more important strategic goals (i.e., as final pieces of the Phase 3/Infinity War puzzle and, in the case of Capt. Marvel, as setup for Secret Invasion). Had Black Panther not done as well as it did at the box office, we wouldn't be talking about its sequel today since its most important function had already been served by the time of Endgame. Disney is willing to play the PR game of appealing to the social agenda of the moment, but only so long as it doesn't interfere with their larger financial considerations.

The TV shows aren't as big of a financial risk (as blockbuster movies), and the first three all lean more heavily into the currency of being known and accepted franchises than they do into their wokeness. Throwing in a bit of diversity here and there costs them nothing. However, you can expect the budget of a show like Ms. Marvel to be smaller than the others because of the higher risk it entails. And if it doesn't pull its weight in terms of bringing in subscribers to Disney+, don't expect to see a second season. Subscriber numbers are far more important to Feige's corporate overlords than how many brownie points a show scores with SJWs.
 
Black Panther and Captain Marvel were risks, roughly on par with giving Guardians of the Galaxy a try, and they went into production despite their wokeness, not because of it. They were expected to deliver on other more important strategic goals (i.e., as final pieces of the Phase 3/Infinity War puzzle and, in the case of Capt. Marvel, as setup for Secret Invasion). Had Black Panther not done as well as it did at the box office, we wouldn't be talking about its sequel today since its most important function had already been served by the time of Endgame. Disney is willing to play the PR game of appealing to the social agenda of the moment, but only so long as it doesn't interfere with their larger financial considerations.

I look forward to the MCU movie where nearly the entire cast and crew are native Americans and Inuit.

Kang is fine and all, but I won't be satisfied until they give us Galactus--properly depicted--as the big bad.

Physicists can speculate about multiple universes and collapsing wave functions all they want. What they won't be talking about is people physically travelling back and forth between multiple universes in the manner found in literature and movies.

Feige wants to beat WB/DC to the multiverse punch, hoping to make the Flashpoint movie look like a lame attempt at copying Marvel's success, yet again.

Feige wants to beat WB/DC to the multiverse punch, hoping to make the Flashpoint movie look like a lame attempt at copying Marvel's success, yet again.