zslane

While not completely immune, the various Netflix MCU series don't really suffer much from this affliction. It isn't the medium, it is the people in charge. Broadcast networks still have a certain ingrained attitude towards superheroes that Marvel, on the whole, does not.

As far as X-Franchise goes X-Men 2, The Wolverine (i.e. the second one) and Days of Future Past (with Rogue Cut) would be my favourites. 

Marvel's 'Cloak and Dagger' TV Series Pushed Back until Someone Cares.
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/57038937.jpg

I don't think we have to worry about that on this show, and neither does Supergirl. The writers are in complete control over the consequences of every punch, every move-through, and every encounter with her heat vision. If they wished, they could have her use her heat vision on a thug's hands (to disarm him) without maiming him. He would drop his weapon, give a sharp yelp, and maybe wring his hands in pain a little, but this is Supergirl on the CW after all, not Game of Thrones on HBO.

I'm willing to agree that we saw very different episodes. The parts you liked felt way too Smallville for me, to be honest. And I don't find Lena Luthor particularly attractive or interesting, but I guess that's just me.

I also read that with WW2, the Nazis are so clearly the evil to be vanquished and Wonder Woman's fight ends up being against just one faction of the conflict. Whereas with WW1, there are no clear good guys and bad guys, just misguided leaders and idealistic soldiers; her battle is with all men, not just one faction of them. This makes for a much stronger feminist statement.

Distrust of superheroes, irrespective of their origin, seems to me to just be a manifestation of the paranoid zeitgeist that insists we can't trust anyone in a position of power (and by extension anyone who enjoys great wealth). Even if it is true that our society is drowning in feelings of powerlessness and cynicism, I'm a little disappointed that we would rather wallow in it than cultivate visions of hope and optimism.
 
At least with Supergirl, we are given a milieu in which the heroes carry a message of unapologetic optimism in opposition to the forces of paranoia, intolerance, and fear-mongering. If the show is appropriating those memes in order to deflate them and deprive them of cultural power, then that's another reason to love it all the more.

I'm not aware of the hype, mostly because I don't pay attention to entertainment news. What I do see, however, is a lot of excitement and enthusiasm for the movie. I don't think the degree of excitement and anticipation I'm seeing is unwarranted, so I don't see it as succumbing to hype. People seem to be genuinely jazzed about its potential.
 
And I understand why: Dr. Strange will be the first movie to fully explore "magic" in the MCU, and it will be starring an actor that a lot of us nerds really love. The visuals look terrific and he appears to adopt his classic costume at some point. What's not to be excited about?

Oh hell yes!

Distrust of superheroes, irrespective of their origin, seems to me to just be a manifestation of the paranoid zeitgeist that insists we can't trust anyone in a position of power (and by extension anyone who enjoys great wealth). Even if it is true that our society is drowning in feelings of powerlessness and cynicism, I'm a little disappointed that we would rather wallow in it than cultivate visions of hope and optimism.
 
At least with Supergirl, we are given a milieu in which the heroes carry a message of unapologetic optimism in opposition to the forces of paranoia, intolerance, and fear-mongering. If the show is appropriating those memes in order to deflate them and deprive them of cultural power, then that's another reason to love it all the more.

Distrust of superheroes, irrespective of their origin, seems to me to just be a manifestation of the paranoid zeitgeist that insists we can't trust anyone in a position of power (and by extension anyone who enjoys great wealth). Even if it is true that our society is drowning in feelings of powerlessness and cynicism, I'm a little disappointed that we would rather wallow in it than cultivate visions of hope and optimism.
 
At least with Supergirl, we are given a milieu in which the heroes carry a message of unapologetic optimism in opposition to the forces of paranoia, intolerance, and fear-mongering. If the show is appropriating those memes in order to deflate them and deprive them of cultural power, then that's another reason to love it all the more.

Distrust of superheroes, irrespective of their origin, seems to me to just be a manifestation of the paranoid zeitgeist that insists we can't trust anyone in a position of power (and by extension anyone who enjoys great wealth). Even if it is true that our society is drowning in feelings of powerlessness and cynicism, I'm a little disappointed that we would rather wallow in it than cultivate visions of hope and optimism.
 
At least with Supergirl, we are given a milieu in which the heroes carry a message of unapologetic optimism in opposition to the forces of paranoia, intolerance, and fear-mongering. If the show is appropriating those memes in order to deflate them and deprive them of cultural power, then that's another reason to love it all the more.

I'm not aware of the hype, mostly because I don't pay attention to entertainment news. What I do see, however, is a lot of excitement and enthusiasm for the movie. I don't think the degree of excitement and anticipation I'm seeing is unwarranted, so I don't see it as succumbing to hype. People seem to be genuinely jazzed about its potential.
 
And I understand why: Dr. Strange will be the first movie to fully explore "magic" in the MCU, and it will be starring an actor that a lot of us nerds really love. The visuals look terrific and he appears to adopt his classic costume at some point. What's not to be excited about?

That interview is very good.
 
It is a shame, though, that this (more authentic and genuine) version of Superman has to be regarded as a "throwback". And while he may be more suitable for kids than Snyder's Superman, that doesn't mean that Supergirl is strictly for kids. I suspect that this Superman reaches and resonates with the widest possible spectrum of viewers, which I think is a good thing.

That interview is very good.
 
It is a shame, though, that this (more authentic and genuine) version of Superman has to be regarded as a "throwback". And while he may be more suitable for kids than Snyder's Superman, that doesn't mean that Supergirl is strictly for kids. I suspect that this Superman reaches and resonates with the widest possible spectrum of viewers, which I think is a good thing.

I will say, one of the funnier things during the comics Civil War was Tony trying to recruit the X-Men to join his side and Scott basically telling him to go @!#! himself. Mutants were required to register already and all the X-Men were registered, so he couldn't force them to help. So they would just sit back and watch as they had their own problems.
I do agree that the mutant hate as a substitute for racism made good stories, but in a lot of ways made no sense when heroes like the FF and others whose powers came from Magic or Science or whatever were loved.
Also, I never liked Namor is a Mutant. I liked Namor being the "Aquaman" of the Marvel universe, ie Atlantean.

That interview is very good.
 
It is a shame, though, that this (more authentic and genuine) version of Superman has to be regarded as a "throwback". And while he may be more suitable for kids than Snyder's Superman, that doesn't mean that Supergirl is strictly for kids. I suspect that this Superman reaches and resonates with the widest possible spectrum of viewers, which I think is a good thing.

That interview is very good.
 
It is a shame, though, that this (more authentic and genuine) version of Superman has to be regarded as a "throwback". And while he may be more suitable for kids than Snyder's Superman, that doesn't mean that Supergirl is strictly for kids. I suspect that this Superman reaches and resonates with the widest possible spectrum of viewers, which I think is a good thing.

Point taken.
 
I think this is a general problem with fantastical storytelling with no rules per se. When powerful characters and powerful artifacts are given whatever capabilities the writer wants/needs them to have, with little regard to internal consistency, everything tends to feel like deus ex machina. That may have worked okay for the ancient Greeks, but it plays less well with modern audiences, I think.

Point taken.
 
I think this is a general problem with fantastical storytelling with no rules per se. When powerful characters and powerful artifacts are given whatever capabilities the writer wants/needs them to have, with little regard to internal consistency, everything tends to feel like deus ex machina. That may have worked okay for the ancient Greeks, but it plays less well with modern audiences, I think.

I guess before we explain LMDs, we'd better explain how Cap was thawed out at different times in the two timelines. The start point for the Modern Marvel Timeline is the FF rocket flight (which is not even in the MCU). All else is history. WW II was as many years ago as it had to be for Cap to have been thawed out recently enough that Tony Stark, Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne were there as Avengers, and are of their present age in 2016. That was the mid-1960's when Avengers #4 was published. For Tony and Hank to have completed PhDs and been active as Supers for a bit, since they are not now in their 70s, the dates have moved forward.
 
How does it follow that "pretty amazing prototypes" in WW II means LMDs "must have" been in development before 2016? We don't even know their official date of development in 616 continuity - it's never been a plot point (or maybe I missed it?). Maybe Dr. Doom 2099 developed them, used his ancestral time machine to drop the plans on some SHIELD techie's desk in 1956 so he could develop them in 1965, and they all have a back door in their programming for Doom to exploit. The origins of LMDs have never been explored in 616 continuity, have they?
 
If we had LMD tech back in the mid-1960s in 616, how come no one developed repulsor tech until Tony came along (a moving target in time), unstable molecules waited for Reed Richards to come along (that keeps getting further ahead of WW II as well), gamma bombs were left undiscovered until Banner came along and those particles waited unknown until Pym discovered them? How did Dum Dum Dugan live through WW II without Sergeant Nick Fury there to save his life numerous times, like he did in 616? With no FF, why hasn't the MCU been eaten by Galactus? Why, with no FF, there was no rescued Sub-Mariner to fly off the handle and throw Steve's iceberg into warmer waters - he should still be frozen in there.
 
The movies and TV shows take their inspiration from the comics. They are not bound to identical continuity. The comics change their own continuity all the time anyway. There are plenty of divergences of at least equal significance to the timing of LMD development between the comics and the movies.

Yeah, it took the week off.

First let me say that I completely agree with LL's assessment of MCU Tony Stark.
 
I want to further respond to the particular observation that I quoted above. It is a disease in Hollywood to have protagonists make decisions for (and keep secrets from) others "to protect them". This is such a profoundly flawed sentiment in real life that it kind of shocks me that writers continue to use this plot contrivance with an almost obsessive regularity in their fictive worlds.
 
And this is not just a problem in movies. It is a staple of television drama as well. The thing is, it doesn't really work. Any viewer past the age of a tween understands, on some level, how disrespectful and narcissistic that attitude is, and yet Hollywood insists on making characters, presumably good and heroic characters, do this again and again as if it makes any kind of sense.
 
I will say that I think it works to an extent for Tony Stark precisely because he is arrogant and narcissistic to enough of a degree to really believe he is protecting the world and that he knows the best way to do that. But as a general rule, this attitude simply does not fit well when worn by your average protagonist.
 
This is really just another anti-Hollywood rant, not an anti-MCU rant or an anti-Tony Stark characterization rant.

First let me say that I completely agree with LL's assessment of MCU Tony Stark.
 
I want to further respond to the particular observation that I quoted above. It is a disease in Hollywood to have protagonists make decisions for (and keep secrets from) others "to protect them". This is such a profoundly flawed sentiment in real life that it kind of shocks me that writers continue to use this plot contrivance with an almost obsessive regularity in their fictive worlds.
 
And this is not just a problem in movies. It is a staple of television drama as well. The thing is, it doesn't really work. Any viewer past the age of a tween understands, on some level, how disrespectful and narcissistic that attitude is, and yet Hollywood insists on making characters, presumably good and heroic characters, do this again and again as if it makes any kind of sense.
 
I will say that I think it works to an extent for Tony Stark precisely because he is arrogant and narcissistic to enough of a degree to really believe he is protecting the world and that he knows the best way to do that. But as a general rule, this attitude simply does not fit well when worn by your average protagonist.
 
This is really just another anti-Hollywood rant, not an anti-MCU rant or an anti-Tony Stark characterization rant.

First let me say that I completely agree with LL's assessment of MCU Tony Stark.
 
I want to further respond to the particular observation that I quoted above. It is a disease in Hollywood to have protagonists make decisions for (and keep secrets from) others "to protect them". This is such a profoundly flawed sentiment in real life that it kind of shocks me that writers continue to use this plot contrivance with an almost obsessive regularity in their fictive worlds.
 
And this is not just a problem in movies. It is a staple of television drama as well. The thing is, it doesn't really work. Any viewer past the age of a tween understands, on some level, how disrespectful and narcissistic that attitude is, and yet Hollywood insists on making characters, presumably good and heroic characters, do this again and again as if it makes any kind of sense.
 
I will say that I think it works to an extent for Tony Stark precisely because he is arrogant and narcissistic to enough of a degree to really believe he is protecting the world and that he knows the best way to do that. But as a general rule, this attitude simply does not fit well when worn by your average protagonist.
 
This is really just another anti-Hollywood rant, not an anti-MCU rant or an anti-Tony Stark characterization rant.