RDU Neil

Alien: Covenant... absolutely horrible. WTF Ridley Scott?
 
Really enjoying Counterpart, on Starz. JK Simmons in a suspense action drama with the s-f twist of alternate Earths. Hands down my favorite show right now.

Yeah, the biggest weakness of Babylon 5's first season, apart from the low fx budget and some of the acting, was that it had to spend that entire season just setting up everything that was to be paid off in the coming seasons. But I think you will be pleased if you stick with it, and especially impressed when you watch the two-part S3 episode War Without End (because of how it ties to a very particular episode in S1).

We haven't started on S2 yet.  S1 was a guilty pleasure of mine.
 
We watched the first four episodes of The Alienist.  So far so good.  It's quite dark.
 
I'm also trying to regain my Geek Card by finally watching Babylon 5.  I'm two episodes shy of completing the first season.  The effects didn't age well, of course, but that's not a big deal.  It seems to be starting to find its groove, so I'll give it another season.  In that way it reminds me of ST:TNG, in that the first few episodes weren't all that great, but then it hit a stride.

Night of the Comet - I remember seeing this at the movie theater when it came out. Still an enjoyable film.

I'm also reminded of a quote from James Baldwin (I'm paraphrasing):  What a man believes he's doing and what he's doing in fact are two different things.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/box-office-black-panther-rules-oscar-weekend-nearing-900m-global/
 
It has been interesting to talk to non-comic geek or tangentially at best. My parents, both in their late 70s, didn't just see it, they really enjoyed it. Several people at the office who have kids and other such responsibilities, have now been getting around to seeing it, and really liking it. Kids are asking their parents to see it, and parents are asking about age ranges, etc. (We had the conversation with a friend of mine, whose daughter at seven was asking to see it, and it was the very first time she'd ever specifically asked about seeing a particular movie, and he was psyched to get to take her.)
 
That this film can actually ask hard social questions, do amazing comic book world building, have an all-star cast of actors bringing their A-game, and work as a mature, but accessible kids flick, while appealing to people who aren't following the Marvel universe... I'd say this movie is a reflection of a particular zeitgeist I'd never really expected to see in my lifetime. Such things don't last long in this day and age, but I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

You basically described me, completely. Nothing I hate worse than reading an instruction manual. A game should inspire and invoke a desire to play, to experience... and the rules flow from that. I'll probably never get to play Polaris, but every time I read it, I want to.

2 points in COM?

Very interesting and enlightening discussion of the cultural and historical influences in Black Panther:
 
 

Even adjusted for inflation to compare to earlier movies, having done so this fast is a very impressive feat.
 
Only real speculation now is how high on the all-time box-office list it will ultimately climb to.
 
And can we just take a moment to contemplate how far comic-book movies have come over the last twenty years?

Oh... this is a legit thread... I thought it was more like...
 
"How do I write up... "Power of paying off enormous student loans on a waiter's crummy tips!" and "Effective Blogging on Gender Performativity in Modern Polish Cinema" and "Living in a studio apartment with two other people without killing them" etc.

Yes... this does make things more complicated... more in the idea of "What about the base 10 STR" that characters start with? Is that not inherently part of who they are? It can't be aided?
 
We are very quickly in a really weird place here. Mainly based on how Adjustment Powers are working, less so than Inherent in and of itself, or inherently?     Like, if Angelic Strongwoman has Inherent 100 STR, does that mean she can't put on power armor that gives her +30 STR more? No, because that is not an Aid to STR as per the rules. So maybe Aid is the wrong way to go about it? If we want to keep that concept of "base human plus extra on top" then shouldn't any Aid to STR be built with just some version of "STR" that is somehow usable by others? 
 
Or maybe, what really needs to happen is that every ability (Characteristic or Power, I'm assuming Skills and Talents can't be affected by adjustment powers) has to be thought through at the beginning "Is there any situation where the ability could be enhanced or decreased in a way that isn't fundamentally transforming the character into something else?

This is actually a big part of this discussion. I remember haggling over it years ago as 5th was being debated. As Hero became a toolkit for building "any character you wanted" there was a lot of discussion about "Really? Any character?"    Because, as Sean mentioned, what was being assumed was "any baseline human, action adventure based character that may or may not have additional abilities layered on top."
 
My question is, has that every been formally declared? Because I do think it is axiomatic to Hero. (While you can try to play a game where everyone is a sentient virus, or even just non-action based humans like the cool new Jane Austen roll playing game out there, you really aren't being supported by the core rules of Hero, because they weren't built to play that kind of game.) Because if declared, then Inherent really is a way, maybe, to break that axiom... but it is also implying a limitation to the kinds of characters you should play, which is an interesting game design challenge.

I just view inherent as a 'cannot drain' advantage rather than defining what is or is not covered by the term inherent.  This way, if someone has an Achilles like character who is magically invulnerable, they could just make it inherent and say the magic is so powerful it can't be drained.  This makes it more liberal in use and require more GM monitoring but inherent isn't used too often so I don't see it as much of a big deal (I mostly do general damage Blasts/KA with villains and the drains are more for surprise attacks/flavor).

You can add that button to the list that includes El Dorado, the Fountain of Youth, the Ark of the Covenant, and my faith in humanity.

You are not loosing Geek Cred. You are shooting it away with a Catapult.

I totally agree with this... as I could watch "On your left..." over and over again... and have.
 
My main question is "what is the pill we are being asked to swallow?" What is the Russo bros' intent here, as they are too smart to just handwave it.  It is hard to separate what is being shown on screen from what strongly-invested viewers are seeing on the screen. I'm ok with it, but it is a question I have. Is the perception of Captain America as "Cap!" purposefully unclear... is it just more realistic "some people like him, some don't, some really have no idea who he is?"... or are we supposed to bring our comic book attitudes of "Cap! he's perfect, never wrong, always on the side of right, people who don't listen to him are villains!" to bear?  Is the movie expecting us to bring our preconceived notions, or not (especially since most movie watchers will not have those notions).
 
I find artistic intent really interesting, and wondering whether they expected a certain "reading" of events from the fans, or were just happy to allow for different interpretations, staying true to their internal vision of the movie Cap, and not really caring what any particular audience brings to it. Both of those are important artistic decisions in how character and content are framed for an audience.

Ah... a Dragonball reference. I remember, summer of '89, watching some bootleg Japanese VHS tapes of it. It had a look, full of extreme violence and cool super-martial arts visuals... but it made no sense. When it finally got ported over to the states, I heard that it scrubbed out a lot of the blood and violence, and remember being asked to watch an episode... and it had this guy with big hair getting all glowy... and after I went and made lunch, he was still just yelling and getting glowy... and then I went to work, and came home... and he was still getting bit brighter in his glowing...
 
... and yeah... never watched it again.

I totally agree with this... as I could watch "On your left..." over and over again... and have.
 
My main question is "what is the pill we are being asked to swallow?" What is the Russo bros' intent here, as they are too smart to just handwave it.  It is hard to separate what is being shown on screen from what strongly-invested viewers are seeing on the screen. I'm ok with it, but it is a question I have. Is the perception of Captain America as "Cap!" purposefully unclear... is it just more realistic "some people like him, some don't, some really have no idea who he is?"... or are we supposed to bring our comic book attitudes of "Cap! he's perfect, never wrong, always on the side of right, people who don't listen to him are villains!" to bear?  Is the movie expecting us to bring our preconceived notions, or not (especially since most movie watchers will not have those notions).
 
I find artistic intent really interesting, and wondering whether they expected a certain "reading" of events from the fans, or were just happy to allow for different interpretations, staying true to their internal vision of the movie Cap, and not really caring what any particular audience brings to it. Both of those are important artistic decisions in how character and content are framed for an audience.

I think 3rd edition got a bit too fiddly.  They did still publish some excellent scenario packs.  I think reading the third edition rules would not draw you into the system as they also sought to divorce it from Glorantha which made some of the game design decisions feel a bit contrived whereas in the context of Glorantha, those design decisions made real sense.

Maybe it's not such a bad thing that climate change will drown and suffocate all the humans.

Well yeah, he was a villain, not the hero.  Of course his methods will be villainous.  Of course his worldview has been twisted from what is a noble goal into a really really bad idea.  Sympathetic villain means you understand why he does what he does, not that you agree with it.  You can keep the evil-for-evil's-sake villains, I prefer mine with some kind of coherent personal motivation.

Actually, the fuel analogy was to the economic and political fallout from the "sinking." I hoped using that rather than referring to the boat's passengers would make that clear. I apologize if I misled you.
 
However,
 
 
Canada is not unaccustomed to a mass influx from the South seeking refuge from conditions they consider unacceptable. Our population got a major boost after your declaration of independence, from those who wanted to remain subjects of England.  Probably the largest group of educated, motivated immigrants we ever received were the tens of thousands fleeing the military draft during the Vietnam War. Thank you very much.
 
I can assure you, the immigrants we're likely to receive from the United States would be very welcome here. Please, though, try not to come all at once? There are ten times as many of you as there are of us --- we need time to clear some more land.

I had a villain team of cat-themed supers, called The Pride... The Leopard, King Tiger, Leonin, Lioness, Golden Tiger, "Smiley" (short for smilodon)... and Killine.
 

Ok... just watched this, and agree, 95%. I hated Dr. Strange, for just the reasons he positioned. I loved Wonder Woman for its sincerity. But Ant-Man? Ant-Man is a comedy, and it worked there, just as in the first GotG. And the airport scene in Civil War? It was inconsistent because it was a group of people fighting who never really wanted to fight. Stark's back and forth between his normal wise-ass demeanor and his passionate desire to talk Cap down were completely in character for me... as were the rest of the jokes. No one there wanted to fight, let alone really wanting to hurt the other side. The fact that it ended darkly worked there the same way, say, Del Toro's violence works in his movies... they are beautiful, idyllic, magical, and then some very blunt, awful violence happens that makes you uncomfortable, and it should. That scene with Rhodey was jarring because there was a price to pay that no one was happy about. It worked. To say that Marvel is painting all its movies in that light... that is a bit much. GotG 2 (worst... movie... ever) was an example of flat out stupidly trying to do the same jokes over and over. Ragnarok worked, because it was full-throttle comedy, and original... but Spider-Man: Homecoming? I wish he'd focused on that one, because it was the perfect match of a very funny movie, that got serious when it needed to, and didn't flinch from it. It was, again, sincere. Winter Soldier? Best, and most sincere of the Marvel movies... and still had very funny moments... that didn't undermine the drama.
 
Here's hoping that they manage to make Captain Marvel sincere, while still making her a wise-cracking, ace military pilot. IMO, if they miss the opportunity to do Top Gun (flipping gender roles of course) as superhero movie, they will have missed the boat.