RDU Neil

Ok... I did that... but if I don't get that second book, you own me one, Chris!    

I have my theory on this... (and I'm of the mind that letting it into the open only spreads it, not drains it. The internet has done nothing if not allow the isolated and hateful to become the organized and hateful.)
 
On "white anger"... well, generally...
1) Humans have a psychological need to position themselves and their self-worth in social hierarchies. It is part of our social evolution.
2) No matter how enlightened we try to become, when pushed, stressed, devalued, etc., the human condition is to instinctively take out our frustrations on someone perceived as lower on the social ladder. We look for someone worse off than ourselves to make ourselves feel better.
3) In America, traditionally, even the poorest, most beaten down white man could still look around and find any non-cis gendered white male to put their boot on, to reassure them of their preferred place... and that preferred place was just assumed... what is called "privilege" these days.
4) In the past, when a NCGWM advanced, gained influence, social standing, power, etc., it could all be viewed through the lens of largesse on behalf of the white male. Psychologically, white males "let" the NCGWMs have their little slice of the pie.
5) But "these days" that privilege is not only being called into question, but the NCGWMs are taking power for themselves. Obama was the big change. This was a black man with real power. No one "let him" be president... he had actual, social changing authority... not a token nod from the white man. That was too much to take, because now all the other NCGWMs were "gettin' all uppity" and expecting... gasp... actual change!
 
So all that anger that simmered in the bellies of the white males (and those co-opted by their patriarchy... I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter, etc.) no longer has its traditional 'release'... psychologically, those white males and traditionalists can't vent their frustration and anger on the traditional "lower down the rung" targets. They have to face the truth... they are just as f***ed as everyone else that isn't the 1%... and they can't handle it. Their anger is being used, inflamed and manipulated by those in true power to keep that power, and keep it directed at the traditional targets, rather than at who deserves it.
 
That is "what is wrong with Kansas."  That is why so many people act/vote against their own interests. Pure, Machiavellian social manipulation... creating the packs of hunger dogs to be used by the Koch brothers and such to undermine social change and operational government that would threaten their oligarchy. It isn't a conspiracy... it is right out in the open... because they've learned that most people can't be sophisticated enough to really analyze and understand their predicament. They can provoked and nudged and do all the work for those in real power.

The internet, like all technology over the past century, is just accelerating this exponentially. Remove the buffers of distance and time, pour on the gasoline... hell, the bastards will light the match themselves.

I don't fall into that category. I never really liked the original at all... too cheesy. I loved the cast of the new one. It had plenty of heart and actual pathos and grim violence, and the heroism we saw came from a real place, not generic TV hack writing. 
 
It was flawed in many ways, but infinitely better than the original.
 

Well, if Captain America stands for U.S. values (real or purported) at whatever point in history we are... then they got it right with "Hail Hydra!" in this era.

I agree, the late '70s rosters were the best, and I liked the Falcon in there, but I don't think he served (at that time) with Wonder Man... he quit because he felt the government only put him on the team as "token black man" and when he quit, Wonder Man rejoined.
 
The Nefaria Trilogy is still my favorite Avengers story of all time... Cap, Wasp, Yellow Jacket, Beast, Vision, Scarlet Witch... vs. Power Man, Living Laser, et al., who'd been enhanced by Nefaria, etc. Jim Shooter writing, Byrne art before he got lazy... ah, my childhood.

Apparently SOME of us did!  ?

Ooh, I remember reading "Body Rituals Among the Nacirema" in sociology class. The only thing funnier than realizing who they really were halfway through, was the prof telling the students who hadn't gotten it by the end to spell "Nacirema" backwards.
 
Before dropping this line of discussion altogether, let me just relay a story which has circulated up here over many years. It's probably apocryphal, but it does encapsulate how Canadians tend to view and like to poke fun at our southern neighbors. Supposedly this is a radio conversation between the commander of an American warship and Canadian naval personnel in our bordering waters.
 
American: "Attention, our radar shows us on opposing vectors. Recommend you change course 30 degrees north to avoid collision."
 
Canadian: "Negative. Recommend you change course 30 degrees south to avoid collision."
 
American: "Repeat, change your course 30 degrees north."
 
Canadian: "Negative, change your course 30 degrees south."
 
American: "This is the USS [whatever]. We are a large warship of the United States Navy. Change your course now!"
 
Canadian: "This is a lighthouse. Your call."

I have my theory on this... (and I'm of the mind that letting it into the open only spreads it, not drains it. The internet has done nothing if not allow the isolated and hateful to become the organized and hateful.)
 
On "white anger"... well, generally...
1) Humans have a psychological need to position themselves and their self-worth in social hierarchies. It is part of our social evolution.
2) No matter how enlightened we try to become, when pushed, stressed, devalued, etc., the human condition is to instinctively take out our frustrations on someone perceived as lower on the social ladder. We look for someone worse off than ourselves to make ourselves feel better.
3) In America, traditionally, even the poorest, most beaten down white man could still look around and find any non-cis gendered white male to put their boot on, to reassure them of their preferred place... and that preferred place was just assumed... what is called "privilege" these days.
4) In the past, when a NCGWM advanced, gained influence, social standing, power, etc., it could all be viewed through the lens of largesse on behalf of the white male. Psychologically, white males "let" the NCGWMs have their little slice of the pie.
5) But "these days" that privilege is not only being called into question, but the NCGWMs are taking power for themselves. Obama was the big change. This was a black man with real power. No one "let him" be president... he had actual, social changing authority... not a token nod from the white man. That was too much to take, because now all the other NCGWMs were "gettin' all uppity" and expecting... gasp... actual change!
 
So all that anger that simmered in the bellies of the white males (and those co-opted by their patriarchy... I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter, etc.) no longer has its traditional 'release'... psychologically, those white males and traditionalists can't vent their frustration and anger on the traditional "lower down the rung" targets. They have to face the truth... they are just as f***ed as everyone else that isn't the 1%... and they can't handle it. Their anger is being used, inflamed and manipulated by those in true power to keep that power, and keep it directed at the traditional targets, rather than at who deserves it.
 
That is "what is wrong with Kansas."  That is why so many people act/vote against their own interests. Pure, Machiavellian social manipulation... creating the packs of hunger dogs to be used by the Koch brothers and such to undermine social change and operational government that would threaten their oligarchy. It isn't a conspiracy... it is right out in the open... because they've learned that most people can't be sophisticated enough to really analyze and understand their predicament. They can provoked and nudged and do all the work for those in real power.

The internet, like all technology over the past century, is just accelerating this exponentially. Remove the buffers of distance and time, pour on the gasoline... hell, the bastards will light the match themselves.

The good Captain represents the "everyman" and woman, no matter nationality, as long as they fight for freedom and justice for all!

We fondled Battlestar Galactica ?

The Battlestar Galactica Reboot may have been more "realistic" but lacked heart.  The reason we remember the original show fondle is it had a cast we liked. 

The difference is that the first two Spideys weren't part of a decade-long cinematic franchise with unprecedented levels of continuity sharing between films, televisions shows, and video games. There was no ongoing continuity to preserve at Sony, so audiences never gave it a second thought when each Spider-Man reboot started anew (with a different actor). With the (rare) exception of Banner and Rhodey, both of whom only appeared in one movie before having the portraying actor replaced, each MCU character has been depicted by only one actor, and I am pretty confident that Feige intends to keep it that way.

'Effing Canadian optimism!
 
 
 
 
?

RDU Neil: Your theory is pretty much what a sociologist found and described in his book called, IIRC, Caste and Class in a Southern Town.. This was in, like, the 1920s? (Super-slow internet connection makes it hard to look things up and check the details, sorry. I expect Wikipedia could give you the summary.)
 
Dean Shomshak

I have my theory on this... (and I'm of the mind that letting it into the open only spreads it, not drains it. The internet has done nothing if not allow the isolated and hateful to become the organized and hateful.)
 
On "white anger"... well, generally...
1) Humans have a psychological need to position themselves and their self-worth in social hierarchies. It is part of our social evolution.
2) No matter how enlightened we try to become, when pushed, stressed, devalued, etc., the human condition is to instinctively take out our frustrations on someone perceived as lower on the social ladder. We look for someone worse off than ourselves to make ourselves feel better.
3) In America, traditionally, even the poorest, most beaten down white man could still look around and find any non-cis gendered white male to put their boot on, to reassure them of their preferred place... and that preferred place was just assumed... what is called "privilege" these days.
4) In the past, when a NCGWM advanced, gained influence, social standing, power, etc., it could all be viewed through the lens of largesse on behalf of the white male. Psychologically, white males "let" the NCGWMs have their little slice of the pie.
5) But "these days" that privilege is not only being called into question, but the NCGWMs are taking power for themselves. Obama was the big change. This was a black man with real power. No one "let him" be president... he had actual, social changing authority... not a token nod from the white man. That was too much to take, because now all the other NCGWMs were "gettin' all uppity" and expecting... gasp... actual change!
 
So all that anger that simmered in the bellies of the white males (and those co-opted by their patriarchy... I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter, etc.) no longer has its traditional 'release'... psychologically, those white males and traditionalists can't vent their frustration and anger on the traditional "lower down the rung" targets. They have to face the truth... they are just as f***ed as everyone else that isn't the 1%... and they can't handle it. Their anger is being used, inflamed and manipulated by those in true power to keep that power, and keep it directed at the traditional targets, rather than at who deserves it.
 
That is "what is wrong with Kansas."  That is why so many people act/vote against their own interests. Pure, Machiavellian social manipulation... creating the packs of hunger dogs to be used by the Koch brothers and such to undermine social change and operational government that would threaten their oligarchy. It isn't a conspiracy... it is right out in the open... because they've learned that most people can't be sophisticated enough to really analyze and understand their predicament. They can provoked and nudged and do all the work for those in real power.

The internet, like all technology over the past century, is just accelerating this exponentially. Remove the buffers of distance and time, pour on the gasoline... hell, the bastards will light the match themselves.

I have my theory on this... (and I'm of the mind that letting it into the open only spreads it, not drains it. The internet has done nothing if not allow the isolated and hateful to become the organized and hateful.)
 
On "white anger"... well, generally...
1) Humans have a psychological need to position themselves and their self-worth in social hierarchies. It is part of our social evolution.
2) No matter how enlightened we try to become, when pushed, stressed, devalued, etc., the human condition is to instinctively take out our frustrations on someone perceived as lower on the social ladder. We look for someone worse off than ourselves to make ourselves feel better.
3) In America, traditionally, even the poorest, most beaten down white man could still look around and find any non-cis gendered white male to put their boot on, to reassure them of their preferred place... and that preferred place was just assumed... what is called "privilege" these days.
4) In the past, when a NCGWM advanced, gained influence, social standing, power, etc., it could all be viewed through the lens of largesse on behalf of the white male. Psychologically, white males "let" the NCGWMs have their little slice of the pie.
5) But "these days" that privilege is not only being called into question, but the NCGWMs are taking power for themselves. Obama was the big change. This was a black man with real power. No one "let him" be president... he had actual, social changing authority... not a token nod from the white man. That was too much to take, because now all the other NCGWMs were "gettin' all uppity" and expecting... gasp... actual change!
 
So all that anger that simmered in the bellies of the white males (and those co-opted by their patriarchy... I'm looking at you, Ann Coulter, etc.) no longer has its traditional 'release'... psychologically, those white males and traditionalists can't vent their frustration and anger on the traditional "lower down the rung" targets. They have to face the truth... they are just as f***ed as everyone else that isn't the 1%... and they can't handle it. Their anger is being used, inflamed and manipulated by those in true power to keep that power, and keep it directed at the traditional targets, rather than at who deserves it.
 
That is "what is wrong with Kansas."  That is why so many people act/vote against their own interests. Pure, Machiavellian social manipulation... creating the packs of hunger dogs to be used by the Koch brothers and such to undermine social change and operational government that would threaten their oligarchy. It isn't a conspiracy... it is right out in the open... because they've learned that most people can't be sophisticated enough to really analyze and understand their predicament. They can provoked and nudged and do all the work for those in real power.

The internet, like all technology over the past century, is just accelerating this exponentially. Remove the buffers of distance and time, pour on the gasoline... hell, the bastards will light the match themselves.

My favorite scene in the classic "To Live and Die in L.A." where the main character gets totally blown away 3/4ths through the movie... and nope... nothing saving poor Richard Chance in that one... dead, dead, dead.

That was so shocking to see that happen in a movie like that, where the expected cliché's didn't come into play.
 
God I love that movie.

I'd ask how you did that, but I'd never understand it or remember how. Cool.

First
 
 
and yet
 
 
I'm afraid to ask what Vondy would write about something he did hate.  Although I bet it would be well written.  That first post is awesome.

Hey, look at what Google Docs can do!

This, a thousand time. All the ability to make the charater you wanted, to me, intuitively meant better story telling, less "the rule book says that in this instance I do this particular thing" and the constrictions of levels, classes, etc. It was transformative.
 
In our original High School group... 1981-85, we certainly embraced this, with a lot of copy cat characters that were only slightly different than Marvel and DC characters, but it was fully in the vein of the Bronze Age comics at the time... and NOBODY "ran the math."
 
When I got to college and taught friends there Champions, and later Hero 4th... I certainly influenced a certain playing style based on world building and characters and story telling, not "mastering the system."
 
No engineers, no programmers, no lawyers... but people who wanted to create cool superhero stories.
 
It has been a constant battle since them, for the past quarter century, to find the right playgroup, to avoid the Gamist mentality players, and realizing how Hero has become a system that ENCOURAGES that min-max, "run the math" bullsh!t (with 5th and 6th in particular). 
 
This is why I'm backing, but not too optimistic about, Champions Now. By returning to figured characteristics, and maintaining the labored point build aspect, it will just encourage the point shaving, n3 point breaks and all that crap. 
 
Like, I get, theoretically, why Edwards like END in the game (I dropped it 30 years ago and never looked back) as the idea of doing somehting big and splashy, but at an exhausting cost is cool... but too much damn math. I was hoping for something that focused on the in game of effect of exhausting the character (missed turns, vulnerable moments, dramatic decisions on whether to go "all out" or not) rather than going back to adding and subtracing incremental points over and over, calculating average END spend over a turn, etc.  BLEH!
 
And the fact that he is still using the Speed Chart. Something else I dumped decades ago, and it was a revelation how much more organically combats ran, while not making characters have to max their SPD or be left out of play much of the time, etc. 
 
Bringing characters back to an easy to read, simply built 250 points, etc, is really good. But bringing back a lot of the mechanics that led to the undermining of the play intent (we'll be back to mini-bricks with martial arts being the most efficient builds, and every character having their powers through 0IF and such) seems like a step backward into the bad stuff, not the good stuff.
 
Still, I backed it, and am interested in Ron's narrative set of rules for play, to see where he goes with that.

This, a thousand time. All the ability to make the charater you wanted, to me, intuitively meant better story telling, less "the rule book says that in this instance I do this particular thing" and the constrictions of levels, classes, etc. It was transformative.
 
In our original High School group... 1981-85, we certainly embraced this, with a lot of copy cat characters that were only slightly different than Marvel and DC characters, but it was fully in the vein of the Bronze Age comics at the time... and NOBODY "ran the math."
 
When I got to college and taught friends there Champions, and later Hero 4th... I certainly influenced a certain playing style based on world building and characters and story telling, not "mastering the system."
 
No engineers, no programmers, no lawyers... but people who wanted to create cool superhero stories.
 
It has been a constant battle since them, for the past quarter century, to find the right playgroup, to avoid the Gamist mentality players, and realizing how Hero has become a system that ENCOURAGES that min-max, "run the math" bullsh!t (with 5th and 6th in particular). 
 
This is why I'm backing, but not too optimistic about, Champions Now. By returning to figured characteristics, and maintaining the labored point build aspect, it will just encourage the point shaving, n3 point breaks and all that crap. 
 
Like, I get, theoretically, why Edwards like END in the game (I dropped it 30 years ago and never looked back) as the idea of doing somehting big and splashy, but at an exhausting cost is cool... but too much damn math. I was hoping for something that focused on the in game of effect of exhausting the character (missed turns, vulnerable moments, dramatic decisions on whether to go "all out" or not) rather than going back to adding and subtracing incremental points over and over, calculating average END spend over a turn, etc.  BLEH!
 
And the fact that he is still using the Speed Chart. Something else I dumped decades ago, and it was a revelation how much more organically combats ran, while not making characters have to max their SPD or be left out of play much of the time, etc. 
 
Bringing characters back to an easy to read, simply built 250 points, etc, is really good. But bringing back a lot of the mechanics that led to the undermining of the play intent (we'll be back to mini-bricks with martial arts being the most efficient builds, and every character having their powers through 0IF and such) seems like a step backward into the bad stuff, not the good stuff.
 
Still, I backed it, and am interested in Ron's narrative set of rules for play, to see where he goes with that.

I agree that poor Simon Williams has been poorly written over the past decade. Coming from a "I died and came back" and "brain copied" origin... I personally really liked his'80s incarnation where he turned into a generally nice guy who wanted to be an actor... actually matured and got over his Wanda obsession, etc. Whatever he came back as after dying again and again and coming back... and his "I hate the Avengers" thing that was never really addressed and just dropped... sad ending.
 
I really liked Pym as Yellow Jacket, and his downfall was actually good drama.
 
I have never found Banner Hulk to be at all interesting, except the Peter David era... Smart Hulk, the Pantheon, etc. But he still never felt like an Avenger there. She-Hulk whether by Byrne, or the great 2004 starting run where she was a super-human lawyer, were really strong character stories.
 
Looking back on the history of the Avengers, they were very clearly a PC group in somebody's Champs game. Second issue, one quits (Hulk) and the other changes (My shrinking guy is now a Growth guy!), and then a new player wants to play "This old character of mine who I loved... a WWII guy!" and only a few issues later, half the players have new characters (Speed guy... Focus multi-power guy... Power Pool gal...) etc.

Luke Cage 2 was much improved over 1.  The first was a bit bland and screwed up with a villain switcheroo in the last few episodes.  This season had heart and packed a punch.  The villain was much better and more nuanced.  Colleen and Misty did their thing.  Also enjoyed the 'super-endorsement' angle.

This, a thousand time. All the ability to make the charater you wanted, to me, intuitively meant better story telling, less "the rule book says that in this instance I do this particular thing" and the constrictions of levels, classes, etc. It was transformative.
 
In our original High School group... 1981-85, we certainly embraced this, with a lot of copy cat characters that were only slightly different than Marvel and DC characters, but it was fully in the vein of the Bronze Age comics at the time... and NOBODY "ran the math."
 
When I got to college and taught friends there Champions, and later Hero 4th... I certainly influenced a certain playing style based on world building and characters and story telling, not "mastering the system."
 
No engineers, no programmers, no lawyers... but people who wanted to create cool superhero stories.
 
It has been a constant battle since them, for the past quarter century, to find the right playgroup, to avoid the Gamist mentality players, and realizing how Hero has become a system that ENCOURAGES that min-max, "run the math" bullsh!t (with 5th and 6th in particular). 
 
This is why I'm backing, but not too optimistic about, Champions Now. By returning to figured characteristics, and maintaining the labored point build aspect, it will just encourage the point shaving, n3 point breaks and all that crap. 
 
Like, I get, theoretically, why Edwards like END in the game (I dropped it 30 years ago and never looked back) as the idea of doing somehting big and splashy, but at an exhausting cost is cool... but too much damn math. I was hoping for something that focused on the in game of effect of exhausting the character (missed turns, vulnerable moments, dramatic decisions on whether to go "all out" or not) rather than going back to adding and subtracing incremental points over and over, calculating average END spend over a turn, etc.  BLEH!
 
And the fact that he is still using the Speed Chart. Something else I dumped decades ago, and it was a revelation how much more organically combats ran, while not making characters have to max their SPD or be left out of play much of the time, etc. 
 
Bringing characters back to an easy to read, simply built 250 points, etc, is really good. But bringing back a lot of the mechanics that led to the undermining of the play intent (we'll be back to mini-bricks with martial arts being the most efficient builds, and every character having their powers through 0IF and such) seems like a step backward into the bad stuff, not the good stuff.
 
Still, I backed it, and am interested in Ron's narrative set of rules for play, to see where he goes with that.