zslane

Favorite YouTube title of the day: BATWOMAN'S RUBY ROSE IS A TOXIC MAN!

I don't really care how Thanos came to be "who he was" any more than I cared how Darth Vader came to be who he was. This need to go back and examine the early lives of characters who became iconic at the end of their lives is rarely worth the time and effort put into it. Let's just let Thanos remain the best MCU villain there ever was and leave it at that. Deconstructing him will only dilute his mystique.

The current resurgence in popularity of D&D has been helped by this weird interest in watching the game streamed online. It somehow became a spectator sport, and maybe having one or two celebrities (actors) associated with the game helped that a little bit as well. If there were regular live twitch streams of Champions being played that were of the caliber of, say, Critical Role, then maybe it would pick up some momentum. It would at least get some exposure.

The resemblance is rather striking:
 

I don't really care how Thanos came to be "who he was" any more than I cared how Darth Vader came to be who he was. This need to go back and examine the early lives of characters who became iconic at the end of their lives is rarely worth the time and effort put into it. Let's just let Thanos remain the best MCU villain there ever was and leave it at that. Deconstructing him will only dilute his mystique.

I'm with you on that, Spence. I have never found watching others play an RPG to be anything but mind-numbingly boring. Yet somehow it has become a thing on the Internet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If Thanos was the only good villain that Marvel had to pick from in the past 50 years, it might be worth filling his backstory more, but I'd rather see someone else take the screentime.

Agreed. The Marvel reservoir of villainy is deep. With the MCU turning a page on a new era, IMO it would make more sense to draw from it for fresh additions to the MCU.

The people I see criticizing the Batwoman trailer are primarily conservatives and anti-feminists who don't like that this version of Kate Kane is taking a loud-and-proud "I am woman, hear me roar" approach to her life. Basically what it comes down to is that this Kate Kane is someone who, if she were a real person, the critics would not like and wouldn't be able to stand being around. That's fine, but that doesn't make the show bad, or even potentially bad, it just makes it something they shouldn't waste their time watching. Not every tv show is going to appeal to everyone. Not every superhero tv show is going to appeal to every superhero fan. The volume of hate expressed online is not a reflection of the likely quality of the show, in my view, but rather purely a reflection of how easy it has become for shrieking harridans to find a (like-minded) audience and be heard.

The people I see criticizing the Batwoman trailer are primarily conservatives and anti-feminists who don't like that this version of Kate Kane is taking a loud-and-proud "I am woman, hear me roar" approach to her life. Basically what it comes down to is that this Kate Kane is someone who, if she were a real person, the critics would not like and wouldn't be able to stand being around. That's fine, but that doesn't make the show bad, or even potentially bad, it just makes it something they shouldn't waste their time watching. Not every tv show is going to appeal to everyone. Not every superhero tv show is going to appeal to every superhero fan. The volume of hate expressed online is not a reflection of the likely quality of the show, in my view, but rather purely a reflection of how easy it has become for shrieking harridans to find a (like-minded) audience and be heard.

I'd avoid adventures like the modern D&D ones where so much is on rails. I like the approach of Savage Worlds' Plot Point campaigns where there is an overall epic plot with places to insert quests and things. But the whole thing is woven loosely enough that the GM doesn't have to force the flow of play in a fixed narrative direction. I feel that the rule of thumb should always be: "The story (of an adventure or campaign) is what ends up happening given all the player choices, not what is supposed to happen according to some overly-specified and rigid plot blueprint."

I think Dr. Doom would be a good second film antagonist. And then they can present Silver Surfer as the third film antagonist, heralding Galactus as the big bad for Phase 4 overall (i.e., the new Thanos). I think ~20 years is plenty of time for audiences to forget the Fox attempt at a Galactus storyline.

uh... really? Phantom Zone was just schlocky "super jail where villains go until writer needs them for a story" stuff. The PZ was more of a sieve than Arkham. So many of the things taken as canon were basically "bad writing MacGuffins" and not something that should be considered intrinsic to the mythology, but people never seem to recognize that. So many tropes that need to be jettisoned around superheroes and certain characters in general were manifestations of the reality of the medium or the politics of the time, and not intrinsically part of the fiction. 

This is why I loved the MCU, because, for the most part, they kept the core aspects of the character and world, but dumped all the non-essential minutia that so many cling to, but are essentially unimportant. Cap was always Cap no matter how many costume changes, or whether his shield was vibranium or adamantium or indestructible or not, or whatever. I think why Endgame was ultimately so amazing, while DCEU falters, is that they've failed to find and portray the core aspects of the characters in a compelling way on screen. (Wonder Woman being the shining example of when they DID make it work. Gal Gadot's version is nothing like, say, George Perez's in the details and presentation... but at the heart, it absolutely is... thus it works.)

Since the evaluation for "worthiness" is a completely plot-driven analytic, not necessarily a logical or internally-consistent one, I would resist the urge to judge the merits of Thor's actions on the basis of What Would Mjolnir Do.

I think being merged with Kree DNA and energy from an Infinity Stone is all the explanation we need on that score.

Yes, but a clarification is needed.  Hero has cranked out multiple sets of rules from huge to small.  There already exists a bare minimum 6th Edition rule book.  The problem is Hero rulebooks are not playable as they are.  Hero rulebooks are basically design documents that can be used to create a game.  What is really needed is a "set" that would allow a brand new player to buy the box on Monday, read it Tuesday and run a intro session on Wednesday. 
 
Too many people don't understand that building characters, NPCs and such is not the objective and is not playing. 
 
Running a PC in an adventure is playing.

I too am totally on board with an FF reboot that takes place in the 1960s. It would neatly address the fact that they never seemed to be around/active in the 2000s during the core years of the MCU. It could also be the start of a whole different corner of the MCU: its post-WWII past. We barely got a taste of that from the Agent Carter tv series. I think it would be fun to have an MCU franchise that operated exclusively in the 60s (and maybe 70s).

Who is being punished, the audience or the cast & crew? 

Thor at that point is also the king of Asgardians, as Odin was before him. It is the right of a king to mete out justice for the 50% of Asgardians that did not survive the Decimation.

Start an unnecessary war between Asgard and the Giants endangering innocents on both sides. Thor had sworn to preserve the peace and broke that promise. 
 
He was worthy during the time heist as he was fulfilling his oath to: 1) guard the Nine Realms, 2) preserve the peace, and 3) cast aside all selfish ambition and pledge himself only to the good of all the Realms. Undoing the Decimation (ie snap) was deemed by Mjolnir to be in accordance with Thor's oath. 
 
Even without the Infinity Stones, Thanos is still a deadly combatant. Remember that Thor saw Thanos smashed Hulk. He had no reason to presume that Thanos was defenceless while sitting down. 

His failure wasn't in killing Thanos.  That never entered into it.  It never bothered Thor at all.  Do you think Odin, father of Hela, would be bothered by the idea of his son executing Thanos?
 
Thor's failure was in not killing Thanos in time.
 
 
It wasn't heroic for Thor to kill Thanos as he did.  Not at all.  That was the point of that scene -- they had failed as heroes.  All that was left was to render judgment.  Thanos absolutely deserved it.  Even 2014 Thanos recognized that.

CREATE AN ACCOUNT
1) Create a Forum account at https://score.savecoh.com/index.php?action=register
2) Create your Game Account. This is the account that you will actually use to log into City of Heroes. To do this, click "Game Account" on the forums after signing into your forum account. You can find this just above the Announcements category. Alternatively, you may use this click: https://score.savecoh.com/index.php/board,1.0.html

INSTALL COH
1) Download Tequila if you're on Windows from http://patch.savecoh.com/tequila.exe, or Island Rum if you're on Mac OS from http://ir.powermad.net/islandrum-mac.zip.
2) Install the game in whatever directory you want. For Windows 8 and above, it is important that this is not in your Desktop, Documents, or Downloads folder due to permissions. We recommend installing to C:\Games\City of Heroes. It is also important to make sure Tequila goes into the same location as the rest of the CoH files.
3) Tequila and Island Rum should automagically download the client once you start them, but note that due to server load, your download may be slow.
4) Once Tequila or Island Rum have finished updated, ensure that "Homecoming" is selected at the top left and click "Play"
 
If you have any problems getting going, and there are lots of ways to run into problems (everything from account passwords that are too long to trying to run the game on a laptop or using a 4K monitor), I recommend joining the COH Discord or the Homecoming Discord.

The resemblance is rather striking:
 

Since the evaluation for "worthiness" is a completely plot-driven analytic, not necessarily a logical or internally-consistent one, I would resist the urge to judge the merits of Thor's actions on the basis of What Would Mjolnir Do.

This post is going to creep a little bit towards politics, but I'll try to keep it non-controversial.
 
In the first Iron Man movie, Tony Stark is basically Mr Super-Republican.  Remember it's 2008, we're at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and things aren't going great.  Now here comes this billionaire arms-dealer, a walking poster board for the second amendment, who goes overseas and fixes things.  Can't find Osama bin Laden?  Tony Stark can.  He's just going to fly over to Iraqistan and blow away the bad guys.  Yeah he has his awakening where he decides that selling weapons is a bad thing, and dedicates his life to world peace, but he's gonna start that process by killing people we don't like.  That movie really fit the mood of the country, where we just wanted to go over there and smash somebody and make it okay again.
 
John Wayne killed people in his movies.  Most of those were post-WWII and up through early Vietnam.  Yeah, they were cowboy movies, but they were also war movies.  Even if he's playing a cowboy, he's also basically a symbol of mid-20th century America.  Even if he's literally fighting the Comanche, he's also symbolically fighting the Cold War.  After John Wayne died, Schwarzenegger filled that role.  It didn't matter if he was fighting aliens in the jungle or teaching kindergarten, those were basically war movies.
 
In the MCU, that role is shared by Iron Man and Captain America.  Tony Stark represents America's might, and Cap represents America's ideals.  And just like John Wayne's movies or Schwarzenegger's movies, most of the MCU films are symbolically still about war and America's place in the world.  They're about responsible use of power and what happens when we screw up.  There's a whole big layer of meaning to the MCU, and I'm not sure it was 100% intentional.  Maybe partially intentional and mostly it's just a factor of how good movies reflect the times in which they were made.  Captain America is a superhero, but he's also the Navy sniper who shot those pirates who had seized that boat (exactly what I thought of in that Winter Soldier scene).  Iron Man is a superhero, but he's also the pilot who drops a smart bomb, or the SEAL team who fly in a stealth helicopter and kill bin Laden.
 
Superman isn't any of those things. Superman is, as zslane said, a Jesus metaphor.  He's ultra powerful, he's really really nice, and he watches over us.  And we don't really like the idea of Jesus snapping people's necks.