zslane

You seem to be forgetting that "comic book logic" is an oxymoron. "Action movie logic" even more so.

For the first two acts of IM3 the Mandarin was being captivatingly depicted as a Middle-eastern terrorist warlord, and they could have stuck with that and not turned it into a joke. That would have avoided the whole "racist asian" problem of the original comic book character as well. But instead Shane Black decided, with Marvel's approval, to subvert audience expectations in a bid to be Oh So Clever. Clearly it worked on some, but not on me. I was severely disappointed with the whole Trevor reveal and who the Mandarin actually turned out to be in the end.
 
I also dislike the entire concept behind Extremis, but that's a whole other bugaboo I won't bother to get into.

For the first two acts of IM3 the Mandarin was being captivatingly depicted as a Middle-eastern terrorist warlord, and they could have stuck with that and not turned it into a joke. That would have avoided the whole "racist asian" problem of the original comic book character as well. But instead Shane Black decided, with Marvel's approval, to subvert audience expectations in a bid to be Oh So Clever. Clearly it worked on some, but not on me. I was severely disappointed with the whole Trevor reveal and who the Mandarin actually turned out to be in the end.
 
I also dislike the entire concept behind Extremis, but that's a whole other bugaboo I won't bother to get into.

Whether the Mandarin was a racist caricature or not (and whether that was true through his whole run of comic stories through the years) is really irrelevant: you don't have to make him that way in the movies.  I think they just wanted to avoid having anything non-technological in the story, even alien tech.
 
And I'm really confident that Iron Man 3 was a script they already had around and adapted to be Iron Man.

Captain Doofus?  Not a great shot of him, he looks like Pee Wee Herman's buff brother
 
I prefer this look:
 

I just finished watching season two of Luke Cage. Let me start off by saying that I enjoyed this season way more than season one. I found the story more interesting and the characters far more compelling.
 
Bushmaster was a terrific villain, because not only was he absolutely riveting every time he was on screen, he actually was someone you could sympathize with in a way, even though his methods and the intensity of his obsession undermine that sympathy. Mariah Stokes was the more complex villain, the one you loved to hate, and I'm completely satisfied with the trajectory of her character arc. I really liked Tilda Johnson, and felt she added a nice wild card element to the drama. And, of course, the real shining stars for me continued to be Misty Knight and Shades.
 
Overall I would give season two a solid B+ grade, whereas season one was a C- for me.
 
However, there were two things that really bugged me throughout the season, and while they did not seriously impact my enjoyment of the season, they nevertheless rubbed me the wrong way. The first one was the incessant use of the phrase "I'm not gonna front." (and its myriad variations). This bit of ghetto slang came across as phony and forced when coming out of the mouths of otherwise intelligent and articulate characters. And it happens so often that what starts out as merely an awkward moment of bad writing quickly grates on the nerves.
 
The second one is more foundational, not just to the character of Luke Cage, but to the genre as a whole, especially as it pertains to the tonal line these shows are trying to walk. And this has to do with Luke's 30-point Code vs. Killing. I feel this puts Luke, as a character, into a morally flawed position given the gritty, violent environment he's forced to operate in (i.e., urban gang warfare).
 
This is sometimes described as the Batman and Joker Problem, and it came into clear focus in season two as Luke repeatedly vacillated between wanting Mariah dead (and for good, justifiable reasons) and yet always saving her from harm. Like Batman, Luke seems to conveniently forget (or disregard) the countless innocent lives that have been, and will be, lost by allowing such a homicidal maniac to always escape the lethal consequences of her own savagery.
 
When you are at war, triage becomes an unfortunate but necessary process of prioritizing, for determining who lives and who dies in order to save as many as can be saved, and in this context triage means putting the concerns of innocent lives, that will be inevitably lost as collateral damage, above abstract platitudes about the Rule of Law. And I'm not even talking about Luke doing the deed himself--I wouldn't want to see Luke cross that line--but rather the extraordinary lengths he goes to prevent even Bushmaster from taking care of the problem (and it is a very serious problem, folks).
 
Marvel puts some of their heroes into morally gray, tonally dark, iron age milieux and then gives them wildly incongruent gold/silver age ethoi. At least with Jessica Jones the showrunners understood that the noir tradition they were drawing upon demanded that their flawed hero be willing to kill the villain in order to protect innocent lives. Hell, even Daredevil, with his Roman Catholic derived Code vs. Killing, killed Nobu. Twice!
 
It's no wonder Luke Cage has a credibility problem with the evil warlords of NYC. When threatening Rosalie Carbone, all Luke could say with any credibility was that he would make her life a living hell by disrupting her illegal operations around town; threatening her life was simply not on the table and she knew it. While this is a common trope in superhero stories, it doesn't really play well when the tone and setting is more like John Wick than the 1960s tv Batman.

I just finished watching season two of Luke Cage. Let me start off by saying that I enjoyed this season way more than season one. I found the story more interesting and the characters far more compelling.
 
Bushmaster was a terrific villain, because not only was he absolutely riveting every time he was on screen, he actually was someone you could sympathize with in a way, even though his methods and the intensity of his obsession undermine that sympathy. Mariah Stokes was the more complex villain, the one you loved to hate, and I'm completely satisfied with the trajectory of her character arc. I really liked Tilda Johnson, and felt she added a nice wild card element to the drama. And, of course, the real shining stars for me continued to be Misty Knight and Shades.
 
Overall I would give season two a solid B+ grade, whereas season one was a C- for me.
 
However, there were two things that really bugged me throughout the season, and while they did not seriously impact my enjoyment of the season, they nevertheless rubbed me the wrong way. The first one was the incessant use of the phrase "I'm not gonna front." (and its myriad variations). This bit of ghetto slang came across as phony and forced when coming out of the mouths of otherwise intelligent and articulate characters. And it happens so often that what starts out as merely an awkward moment of bad writing quickly grates on the nerves.
 
The second one is more foundational, not just to the character of Luke Cage, but to the genre as a whole, especially as it pertains to the tonal line these shows are trying to walk. And this has to do with Luke's 30-point Code vs. Killing. I feel this puts Luke, as a character, into a morally flawed position given the gritty, violent environment he's forced to operate in (i.e., urban gang warfare).
 
This is sometimes described as the Batman and Joker Problem, and it came into clear focus in season two as Luke repeatedly vacillated between wanting Mariah dead (and for good, justifiable reasons) and yet always saving her from harm. Like Batman, Luke seems to conveniently forget (or disregard) the countless innocent lives that have been, and will be, lost by allowing such a homicidal maniac to always escape the lethal consequences of her own savagery.
 
When you are at war, triage becomes an unfortunate but necessary process of prioritizing, for determining who lives and who dies in order to save as many as can be saved, and in this context triage means putting the concerns of innocent lives, that will be inevitably lost as collateral damage, above abstract platitudes about the Rule of Law. And I'm not even talking about Luke doing the deed himself--I wouldn't want to see Luke cross that line--but rather the extraordinary lengths he goes to prevent even Bushmaster from taking care of the problem (and it is a very serious problem, folks).
 
Marvel puts some of their heroes into morally gray, tonally dark, iron age milieux and then gives them wildly incongruent gold/silver age ethoi. At least with Jessica Jones the showrunners understood that the noir tradition they were drawing upon demanded that their flawed hero be willing to kill the villain in order to protect innocent lives. Hell, even Daredevil, with his Roman Catholic derived Code vs. Killing, killed Nobu. Twice!
 
It's no wonder Luke Cage has a credibility problem with the evil warlords of NYC. When threatening Rosalie Carbone, all Luke could say with any credibility was that he would make her life a living hell by disrupting her illegal operations around town; threatening her life was simply not on the table and she knew it. While this is a common trope in superhero stories, it doesn't really play well when the tone and setting is more like John Wick than the 1960s tv Batman.

I thought Ben Affleck did a fine job playing an older, somewhat grizzled and jaded Batman. It's too bad that he didn't get to play Batman in better films, and that the gig was only ever intended to be a very short one for him (he never wanted to play the caped crusader for more than a movie or two).
 
Cavill isn't bad as Superman, but he doesn't really bring anything to the role, IMO. He's such a dial tone that about the most positive thing I can think of to say is that I can't think of anything that terribly negative to say.
 
For me, the true standouts in the DCEU so far have been Gal Gadot and Ray Fisher. Don't get me wrong, I thought Margot Robbie did a fine job playing Harley, but she wasn't given the best material to work with either, and I honestly don't feel her Harley would have garnered half the (enduring) attention it has if it hadn't been for the outfit she wore.

I agree with you completely, Trencher, and especially with your "missile" examples.
 
However, I'd like to point out that today's 6e power-writeup culture would express those powers with about half a page of inscrutable Hero-ese each, rather than the "low cost work" design/presentation you've shown, which is more of a pre-5th edition approach (and ultimately more readable and more playable, IMO).

Paper, pencil, and occasionally a calculator was all I ever needed.

Yeah the wings are there for a reason, the cowl looks dumb without them (and the A).  The artist who designed him (JACK FREAKIN' KIRBY) knew graphic design and what worked and what did not.  Leave it to Hollywood to figure they know better.

No, that would not be fair to say. The USO costume was meant to look like a cheap off-Broadway costume, purely for its humor value, and they succeeded there.
 
I feel that you have to adapt his classic costume in much the same way you have to adapt Spidey's costume. You add some texture, maybe some light armor elements (more kevlar, less plates and pads), and tone down the blue a bit like they did for Spidey, but not as dark as it has progressed since Avengers. The key will be in how you do the face mask, but I am convinced it can be done without it looking silly or cheesy.

I just wanted to take a moment and say:
 
Neener neener neener, I told you* so.
 
Overall, I don't hate the costume, just parts of it. Going for the classic aesthetic is nice to see. (I freaking hate the new hoodie cape look for the character.) The gold foil looking crap needs to go, though. You can barely make out the lightning bolt shape because of the gold foil stuff around it. The boots are atrocious. The textured material of the base layer combined with all the metallic accessories makes it look like it's a high tech suit and not at all inline with the mystic origins of the character IMO.
 
The fake muscles weren't needed after Levi's bulk up, IMO. The original character art was never that damned muscular, they used to actually draw comics characters to look like normal, non-steroid popping strongmen, and Levi definitely has the build for it. That said, they kept it to a somewhat tolerable level.
 
I agree that's Freddy hanging out with him in the pic. His facial expression has enough gee-whiz about it that I think it fits the tone. If this is a still from a scene being shot, then the tone seems spot on for a Captain Marvel movie, so I'm hopeful on that front. I'm a fan of Zachary Levi, too, so I'll see it. I remain cautiously optimistic, but this one's going to be streamed or Red Boxed rather than a theater visit for me.
 
 
*Not directed at zslane, who I quoted, just whoever had the temerity to disagree with me earlier.

I agree with you completely, Trencher, and especially with your "missile" examples.
 
However, I'd like to point out that today's 6e power-writeup culture would express those powers with about half a page of inscrutable Hero-ese each, rather than the "low cost work" design/presentation you've shown, which is more of a pre-5th edition approach (and ultimately more readable and more playable, IMO).

None of the class/level games reveal their under the hood how things actually work design rules. Even SRDs only tell you the conclusions, not the hows and whys.
 
That is actually Hero's strength and flaw. It is the underlying meta-rules.

I agree completely about the LotR expanded editions. They added much needed fleshing-out of certain aspects of the story. But that worked primarily because LotR is a 1200-page novel that doesn't really fit satisfactorily into only 6 or 7 hours of cinema; its epic story really screams out for the extra running time of the expanded editions, and even then I think they could have done more of the original story (and removed the nonsense that wasn't in the original story) and the films would have been even better still.
 
But I don't agree that the Marvel movies would benefit from expansion in the same way. I don't want Marvel to try and tell the narrative equivalent of a 400-page fantasy epic in every movie (not even the "big" ones like the Avengers movies). I only want them to tell the equivalent of a tightly plotted 3 or 4 issue comic book story arc. I can read that in less than an hour; it should be possible to tell such a story in a 2 hour movie.
 
 
I on the same page with you there. Most Asgardians of note who died in either Thor: Ragnarok or Avengers: Infinity War died like chumps and it just wasn't right.

This reminds me of Terminator 2 in which the scene in the warehouse where they patch up Arnie was originally much longer, but Cameron cut it down significantly because even though the scene was a good piece of character interaction, it completely ruined the momentum of the story. He was willing to sacrifice otherwise excellent footage in service to a better cinematic experience. Unnecessary fluff is still unnecessary fluff, even if it is well conceived and shot. All directors (and producers) should be so ruthless towards their footage.
 
As to whether further Thanos character development should be considered fluff or not is a matter of conjecture and opinion, I guess. Seems to me that if Marvel really wanted to explore this villain in more depth, they had the chance to do so for years and never really took advantage of it. Stuffing it all into one Avengers movie is not the way to compensate for that, IMO.

Yeah, I was never a fan of the Binary character design. I much prefer the current Capt. Marvel costume design, even over the black swimsuit.

I think DC also finally got fed up with decades of trying in vain to get people to call him by his correct name, Captain Marvel, instead of by his magic transformation word, Shazam.

Innovative artist and compelling storyteller. Opinionated, acid-tongued curmudgeon. Not an unusual combination. But his legacy is undeniable.

Trying and failing is only part of the Hero's Journey if it results in crucial character (or plot) development. The side trip to Canto Bight, for instance, did neither. Poe's actions may lead to some character development, but we haven't seen it yet. All we saw were the tragic consequences of his failures. Some of this has to do with the fact that this movie is a middle chapter, with plot and character development strands that won't get tied up and resolved until the next movie (if ever). But a lot of it, I feel, is simply the result of questionable writing and some questionable creative choices as a whole for this new trilogy.

Makes me wonder if it will be a version of the dubious gender-swapping trope where the male protagonist takes on a traditionally feminine role by being nurturing and empathic, while the female protagonist takes on a traditionally masculine role by being the prickly badass with issues. In a blockbuster action movie, I find it more interesting for both protagonists to occupy the same psychological space and compete for dominance within it, like in Mad Max: Fury Road, but Scott Lang is not the hyper-masculine badass type, so that can't really work here.

It's not much different than a typical CoC scenario when you think about it. If the party is facing the monster directly by the end of it, then they've done something wrong since their only real chance of success was to prevent the rampage from happening in the first place.

Hey, it could be a lot worse...it could be an "historical" scenario, and the PCs are stuck on Macragge when Hive Fleet Behemoth attacks...

As someone once said a long time ago on the old Red October BBS, "Silly wabbit, points are for players." Don't worry about the point cost for this; in fact, I don't think you even need a power-based write up at all. A purely descriptive one will do.
 
After all, since there is no treatment/cure for this, I'd say there's no point in going through the effort to work up all the Hero System mechanics that will be involved. If a genestealer hits with this attack it is, as you say, "game over" for that PC, and you might as well just tell the player to hand over the character sheet right then and there. What happens thereafter is purely narrative and not really subject to further game play, unless you want the player to roleplay the withdrawal from the society, the finding of a mate, and the raising of his or her hybrid offspring. But that's just asking the player to play (what has become) an NPC at that point, right?