zslane

I would also point out that Thor is, more or less, a warrior god, not a walking metaphor for Jesus. He is accustomed to killing his enemies, and I doubt he ever faced an enemy so daunting and so deserving of death (in his eyes) than Thanos. MCU Thor is quite a bit more nuanced than classic 616 Silver Age Thor. Killing Thanos was not out of character in my view, and if doing so shocked audiences it is probably because they were projecting a kinder, gentler version of Thor--the Thor they wanted him to be rather than the Thor he actually was--onto the character. Thor: Ragnarok may have added a much-needed facet of humor to the character, but it did not turn him into a cuddly teddy bear incapable of ruthless, vengeful action.

I would also point out that Thor is, more or less, a warrior god, not a walking metaphor for Jesus. He is accustomed to killing his enemies, and I doubt he ever faced an enemy so daunting and so deserving of death (in his eyes) than Thanos. MCU Thor is quite a bit more nuanced than classic 616 Silver Age Thor. Killing Thanos was not out of character in my view, and if doing so shocked audiences it is probably because they were projecting a kinder, gentler version of Thor--the Thor they wanted him to be rather than the Thor he actually was--onto the character. Thor: Ragnarok may have added a much-needed facet of humor to the character, but it did not turn him into a cuddly teddy bear incapable of ruthless, vengeful action.

It is not the act but the context... and you were supposed to be shocked by the act. It was not played for smirking good times. It was a moment of defeat for Thor, which played out in the rest of the movie, not a feel good "show the dude bro being KEWL!" moment.

Thematic context matters a lot.
 

I don't blame Superman for killing Zod.  He didn't have a choice.  I do blame Zack Snyder for making a Superman movie where protecting civilians is not a priority.
 
I said earlier, Marvel's heroes all have a body count.  I mean, dear God, Iron Man gave a teenage kid a suit with an "instant kill" option.  He's definitely got the irresponsible uncle role down.  Tony kills I don't know how many terrorists in the first movie.  Now these are all bad guys who are getting killed, and the heroes all make a dedicated effort to save innocent people.  And the only person who is portrayed as any sort of moral paragon is Cap.  Thor is awesome, but he's not exactly a role model in our modern society.  Captain America is a soldier, and we all accept that killing Nazis in WW2 is okay.  Then in Winter Soldier, he's kind of a James Bond superspy, going on missions for what he thinks is a good cause serving his country.  But Cap goes out of his way in Civil War to avoid killing any of the cops who are going after Bucky.
 
Superman is a different character altogether.  As far as moral symbols, he and Cap are similar.  But Cap has always been willing to kill, if he had to.  His powers are more limited, and often he doesn't have the choice.  Superman's powers mean that he almost always has the option to not kill.  If he had spent the entire movie saving civilians, and then he had to snap Zod's neck at the end, we'd have more sympathy.  As it was, he had just had a brawl where tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people would have died, and then he's sad because he had to kill the villain?  It didn't feel right.

Let's be fair here, Man of Steel has a heart-warming scene where Supes saves millions of acres of cornfields and dirt by deliberately dragging the battle into the center of Smallville.

I agree, on the whole, but I have always kinda felt that the extra effort Joss Whedon went to to show the Avengers protecting civilians in Sokovia while it was being ravaged by Ultron was a direct commentary on Superman's complete disregard for civilian casualties in Man of Steel. It was as if Feige and Whedon very much wanted you to know that their heroes cared about civilians in a way that Snyder's god-hero did not.

I admit that I have a hard time parsing Snyder's intent when it comes to the combat action of his superheroes. His DCEU movies inhabit this grim, ultra-violent milieu where bad guys appear to die left and right. This kind of setting doesn't enjoy the benefit of treating good guys and bad guys differently in this regard. The tone of the DCEU isn't such that I accept a traditional "comic book" approach to the consequences of the application of superpowered force.

I agree, on the whole, but I have always kinda felt that the extra effort Joss Whedon went to to show the Avengers protecting civilians in Sokovia while it was being ravaged by Ultron was a direct commentary on Superman's complete disregard for civilian casualties in Man of Steel. It was as if Feige and Whedon very much wanted you to know that their heroes cared about civilians in a way that Snyder's god-hero did not.

Humans would probably deal with recurring kaiju attacks the same way they deal with recurring natural disasters. Most folks would just rebuild and pray they survive the next one, just like people who live in Tornado Alley do. I mean, kaiju can easily be viewed as metaphors for natural disasters, which we live through on an annual basis (tornados, hurricanes, wild fires, tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides, etc.).

I agree, on the whole, but I have always kinda felt that the extra effort Joss Whedon went to to show the Avengers protecting civilians in Sokovia while it was being ravaged by Ultron was a direct commentary on Superman's complete disregard for civilian casualties in Man of Steel. It was as if Feige and Whedon very much wanted you to know that their heroes cared about civilians in a way that Snyder's god-hero did not.

I agree, on the whole, but I have always kinda felt that the extra effort Joss Whedon went to to show the Avengers protecting civilians in Sokovia while it was being ravaged by Ultron was a direct commentary on Superman's complete disregard for civilian casualties in Man of Steel. It was as if Feige and Whedon very much wanted you to know that their heroes cared about civilians in a way that Snyder's god-hero did not.

I admit that I have a hard time parsing Snyder's intent when it comes to the combat action of his superheroes. His DCEU movies inhabit this grim, ultra-violent milieu where bad guys appear to die left and right. This kind of setting doesn't enjoy the benefit of treating good guys and bad guys differently in this regard. The tone of the DCEU isn't such that I accept a traditional "comic book" approach to the consequences of the application of superpowered force.

In Avengers, Infinity War, and Endgame, the Earth was being invaded by a hostile alien army. The circumstances under which Tony killed all those aliens were what we call "wartime conditions", and his so-called victims were enemy combatants. There are many pacifists who consider all wartime combat as "murder", but I do not agree with them. Neither, apparently, does Tony Stark.

I don’t remember skepticism aimed at Ledger being cast as the Joker per se, but I certainly do remember the negative criticism that exploded upon leaks of the first images of him in his now iconic make-up. Just goes to show that images without context aren’t actually worth very much.

I'm one if the people that thought Affleck's Batman was very well done.  If they ever found a team to actually make a Batman movie again, I'd like to see him again. 
 
But I guess that possibility is as remote as them ever making a Superman movie about the actual character.

Humans would probably deal with recurring kaiju attacks the same way they deal with recurring natural disasters. Most folks would just rebuild and pray they survive the next one, just like people who live in Tornado Alley do. I mean, kaiju can easily be viewed as metaphors for natural disasters, which we live through on an annual basis (tornados, hurricanes, wild fires, tsunamis, earthquakes, mudslides, etc.).

I just got back from watching this movie. NO SPOILERS to follow.
 
If the recent Avengers: Endgame was "fan service," catering to those who had been following the evolution of the MCU, and the comics it's based on; then much the same could be said of G:KOTM. If you're already a fan of Toho's giant monster movies, you'll probably love this movie. (I am, and I do.) The film is replete with references to and riffs on its source material, from concepts to imagery to music. But the movie also builds on precedents established in 2014's Godzilla and 2017's Kong: Skull Island, and advances them into a more fully developed "monsterverse."
 
The kaiju/Titans are gloriously rendered here, with wonder, majesty, and terror. The four "name" kaiju from the Toho stable are all given scenes to shine in. The monster action is spectacular, and you get a lot of it, although there's more use of quick cuts and shaky-cam than I would have liked. Sometimes that made it more difficult to follow the action.
 
The plot of the movie is nothing ground-breaking, and fairly predictable, particularly if you're familiar with the conventions of the genre. OTOH if you like those conventions you may find it comforting. I consider the criticisms of the characters I've heard from some reviewers to be too harsh. Certainly there's no Hamlet or Lear among them, but several have decent story arcs and a few strong scenes. But other characters are there just to advance the story, or add some color or humor; and a few are seriously underutilized. Again, if you're familiar with the earlier kaiju movies you'll recognize some of the common character types. The cast are generally solid and make the most of opportunities given to them. I thought the screen time for the monsters and humans was actually pretty balanced, more so than in the 2014 movie.
 
As a piece of spectacle, this film deserves high marks. By some of the standards of movie-making -- plot, characterization, dialogue -- it's serviceable but nothing to write home about. But as a giant-monster movie it's a love letter to the genre.  If you approach it from that perspective you should get a lot of enjoyment out of it.

I never bothered to start. Teen angst isn’t what I’m looking for in my superhero entertainment, and that’s what the ads for this show conveyed to me. Same thing with the Runaways.

And Feige is still in charge of QC for the MCU. I do not look forward to the day he leaves that post.

And Feige is still in charge of QC for the MCU. I do not look forward to the day he leaves that post.

The thing is, that poll is a very select data sample. It only tells us what current Hero System veterans would like to see. It says virtually nothing about what type of setting would get the Hero System played by (more of) the RPG masses, which is what I feel a signature setting should aim to do.
 
I'd further argue that in the 21st century, there hasn't been a single superhero setting that has caught fire with TTRPG players at large, and the CU is not going to be the one to change that. No superhero setting will be, as I don't believe the majority of TTRPGers are interested in playing in that genre (regardless of how much they may like going to an MCU movie once or twice a year).

Hela would probably be the best candidate.  We don't really know what happened to her after Surtur destroyed Asgard.  I mean, we presume she died, but we don't really know that for sure.  Or what death means for a goddess of death.
 
Still, I don't think they should bring Thanos back anytime soon, if ever.  It makes Iron Man's sacrifice mean a lot less.

I wasn't happy with the MCU's habit of bumping off its classic villains so abruptly, but for this iteration of Thanos I have to agree it was time. He had a magnificent story arc doing justice to his character, and treating him with the respect due a villain of his prestige and magnitude of threat. I'd be quite content if Thanos never returns in a movie, and upset if there isn't a very long gap until he returns in any form.

I'm not thrilled with the Birds of Prey team being Elseworlds'ed like this though, putting Harley in charge of a team of heroes/vigilantes in place of Oracle. It's as if the producers couldn't think of a better way to showcase Harley (as a title character) without appropriating another property in the DC catalog and "re-invisioning" it. 🤮

I prefer Sif and Valkyrie, simultaneously.