drunkonduty

I find all these "how come other supers aren't painted with the same brush" questions interesting.
 
Let me pose a point about racism/hate that may help here:
 
So, because Marvel / Stan brought in the concept of mutants in 1963 and mutant hate sometime later (becoming a main focus of the titles in the '80s), and used Prof. X and Magneto as allegory for MLK and Malcom X; everyone has said "this doesn't make sense as an allegory for racism, because people can't tell the difference between Cyclops and Spiderman, just by looking at them."
 
So, the problem with this viewpoint, is that most people posting are from the era of the mutants as presented in the comics, and thus are thinking about racism in the context of modern times, where it is primarily ethnicity based, and thus is as simple for idiot racist as looking at the target of their hate; because it's as obvious as the target's skin color, hair, etc.  (Which is why they often can make mistakes, calling a Native American a slur for a Mexican, for instance.)
 
However, think about it in the context of the Civil War in the USA.  A political belief motivated war, having nothing to do with race, religion, or any outside, easily identifiable aspect.  It sometimes led to families hating and killing each other.
 
Between WWI and WWII period of Europe, and the Nazi hate for the Jewish.  It is often impossible to discern the difference between a Jewish person and non-Jew Caucasian of the same nation; especially when you start talking about Russian Jews (among others).  A point Magneto himself has made in both the comics and movies; yet ignored by this whole line of thought.
 
How about Northern Ireland?  Same people in every way, hating and killing each other simple because one was a Catholic and one was Protestant (among other reasons)?  
 
Want a more modern example?  How about the Genocide in Bosnia during the Bosnian War (92-95) - three different sub-cultures from the same area, same ethnicity, in some cases same families.
 
My point here is simple; just because it is not "obvious" that Spiderman is NOT a Mutant, and it is NOT obvious that Wolverine is NOT an altered human, but an altered Mutant, simply by looking at them, doesn't mean people still can't hate one, and not the other.
 
Hate and racism have never been isolated to "white vs. black (or brown)", until recent times.  Many times in history there has been hate against a sub-group with no possible way to simply "seeing" the difference; yet the human capacity to hate, and be aggressive toward any sub-group they wanted, has never been hampered by such simple things as having to be able to tell the difference in an obvious way.
 
So, I would challenge that looking at the "Mutant Problem" through glasses colored by today's ethnicity (color) based hate and not understanding the capacity of human nature to hate and somehow figure out who to hate, without it being obvious, is the true "cop-out".
 

Just watched Season 2 of The Great; a not even slightly historically accurate telling of the early years of Catherine the Great in Russia. Lots of silly fun and very pretty costumes.
 
 And Deep Space Nine. Never actually watched it before (bar the odd bit here and there.) It strikes me as a less good Babylon 5.

Just watched Season 2 of The Great; a not even slightly historically accurate telling of the early years of Catherine the Great in Russia. Lots of silly fun and very pretty costumes.
 
 And Deep Space Nine. Never actually watched it before (bar the odd bit here and there.) It strikes me as a less good Babylon 5.

Just watched Season 2 of The Great; a not even slightly historically accurate telling of the early years of Catherine the Great in Russia. Lots of silly fun and very pretty costumes.
 
 And Deep Space Nine. Never actually watched it before (bar the odd bit here and there.) It strikes me as a less good Babylon 5.

Honestly I think EVERY Trend eventually gets resented by creators who feel pressured by the success of said trend.  It happened with Westerns, IIRC. And likely others too. Newspapers/sites enjoy quoting such things because it gets fans of the trend riled and stirs clicks and traffic. 
 
To Ridley Scott, I say "I hear you even if I don't agree. I hope you make another good movie that brings you and others joy, meanwhile I'm going to watch Shang-Chi and have some popcorn. Later, dude!"

So do we replace BW with Shang-Chi?  That was certainly an option, but that would mean he's a "wow - I'm standing next to real Super-Heroes - what am I doing here?" Avenger rather than the non-WASP  major character that I believe they wanted for MCU.
 
 
I think they do a lot of "almost self-contained movies in a larger universe" that often fit into that larger universe in minor ways, or by later revelations.  Shang-Chi featured some other Marvel characters, but I think worked whether you knew who they were or not.  Eternals had a couple of nods to the broader MCU, the big one being the link to the snap and the return, featured in the trailers, but if you removed all references to the broader MCU, it would still have worked fine.  I'll pop another comment on Eternals and the broader MCU in the spoiler for those who have not seen it and don't want any further details beyond the trailers.
 
 
If anything, I think Marvel movies resemble early Marvel comics.  Sometimes the characters cross over in earnest, and when they do not there are still nods to the broader MCU in which they reside.
 
The other advantage of the Eternals is that, as largely unknown commodities to the general population, a lot of changes could be made to fit the desired movie. Without moving to spoiler territory, the breadth and variance of powers was expanded considerably.  Of the ten Eternals, Sersi, Gilgamesh, Phastos and Makkari became non-white, and Kingo went from Japanese to Indian.  Ajak, Sprite and Makkari changed gender, and Phastos was assigned an alternate sexual orientation (I don't believe the comics ever addressed his sexuality, whether hetero or otherwise).  Only Ikaris and Druig remained white males, and Thena remained a white female.
 
That worked well in this context, as the audience didn't identify changes in "iconic" characters - none of the Eternals are pop culture icons.
 
The movie is also more serious in tone than most MCU offerings.
 
 
Agreed, at least for the most part.  I think Fiege does a decent job balancing a movie that someone seeing an MCU film for the first time can understand and enjoy with connecting each movie to a larger tapestry.  Some work better than others, as some have more back story than others, but even the more interconnected movies have more of a "now I want to know more about what else has happened in other movies" feel than "I feel like I did not understand what was going on".  That's how I felt when I started reading comics as a kid in the early '70s. I am less certain on the movies as I did watch them all, largely in sequence.  We got into them with home video in the lead-up to the first Avengers, which my son was very excited by.

The difficulty with not doing Dr. Doom or Magneto is that they are the definitive villains for those two titles. They are the foils for Reed Richards and Professor Xavier. They were designed to be such from the very beginning.
 
For the Fantastic Four I suppose you could use some version of Kang, but it looks like the MCU is already setting that up for someone else.
 
The Hellfire Club make good villains for the X-Men, but putting together an entire team of villains is something I don't recall the MCU doing yet. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done, but the degree of difficulty might be higher.
 
The difficulty with the X-Men, in my humble opinion, is that all of the really noteworthy stories involving the team have already been botched by that other studio. Days of Future Past? Done that, and not well. Dark Phoenix? The less said about X3, the better, and let's not even mention the second iteration. (As an aside, I think the best treatment of the Dark Phoenix storyline that I've seen was a actually season 1 of The Umbrella Academy.) God Loves, Man Kills? That would make an amazing movie, except for two things: first, X2 tried to do it without actually doing it (and largely failed) and second, you couldn't get a faithful version of that movie made in today's political climate.
 
I, for one, I'm just fine without the Fantastic Four and the X-Men migrating into the MCU. But I also understand the potential monetary draw, so I suppose it's only a matter of time.

I'm not sure why people get all anxious about a Fantastic Four movie. Pixar did two of them, and one of them (the first) is arguably one of the greatest superhero movies ever made.

Okay you guys can talk now.
 
Shang-Chi greatly exceeded my admittedly low expectations.  It worked as both a wuxia film and a MCU movie, and managed to tell a new story on top of that.  If I try real hard I can think of imperfections, but nothing that pulled me out of the movie or is otherwise even worth bringing up here.  Simu isn't Jackie or Donnie but he held up the action sequences surprisingly well, and I liked all the callbacks to classic martial arts movie tropes.

I would say that Ikaris, Phastos and Ajak all had changes to their belief system, as it was presented, though Ikaris came late. I would also say that upon learning the major reveal of the movie, they all had moral choices to make, some moreso then others. I would say all ended up going with their personality as it was presented, which is not bad. We don't say Steve Rogers didnt have a interesting character arc because he ALWAYS stuck to what he believed was right.
Again, if you haven't seen it, it would be tough to explain. Granted Gilgamesh and Thena had interesting characters but not so much an arc. At the center of the movie, it really is about Sersi, Ikaris and Sprite. The others are support, but all have their ingrained personality and beliefs and stick with them. I say all that while trying not to give away the movie. It is better then people are saying. I did not find it boring, as I thought there was enough action along the way and I found the characters interesting for the most part.

Just got back from it and I would agree with everything written here.
I felt, as the movie got further in, that we got a better Justice League movie (especially if you take the similarities to some of the characters - Ikarus - Superman, Phastos - Batman (with higher tech), Gilgamesh - sort of Aquaman, Thena - Wonder Woman, Makkari - Flash). and despite not being 4 hours (needed per Snyder, still haven't seen his version), I would say you got some pretty good character development. At least I, who never read Eternals, understood each ones character pretty well. In the end, the whole movie is about varying degrees of Love and loyalty.

From my Facebook review....
 
Movie Review: (That recently released Marvel movie that shall for the moment remain nameless due to FB algorithms.) I found this movie pleasantly surprising. It's certainly not deserving of the hate it's been getting. The movie is long and is in general less action packed than other recent Marvel films. That's to be expected as the film is packed with characters that need at least a minimal amount of fleshing out. This movie is beautifully shot and the sense of scale in scenes involving the Celestials is impressive. The film also benefits from a good cast and impressive FX work. There are a few plot holes, but they're all minor. My only major gripe is that I would have liked more investigation into what a 5000 year old person would be like and the film only hints at that on occasion. In that sense, this would have worked somewhat better as a series. There's two post credit sequences...one of which was expected and the other which came as somewhat of a surprise. The film also has a very good end fight....which potential directors of a Superman/Flash clash should take note of. As far as the criticisms of it being "woke" (a term I hate by the way), if seeing people on screen who aren't WASPs bothers you that much, I can't help you. This film will be divisive, but as a foundation to build upon future cosmic level MCU stories, this really is a must see.

I saw Eternals today.  Given the clunky nature of the comic book source material, IMHO this is the best adaption that could have been make.  It takes the source material seriously and never plays it for camp.  The actors are all very good, though given the large cast some characters get bet fleshed out than other.  There is humor but never at inappropriate times.  The stakes are huge both for the world and the characters personally and they give them the the weight that they are due.
 
Viewers who go in looking for another MCU action comedy are going to be disappointed.  But viewers who like comic books and don't feel a need to wink wink nudge nudge the story may enjoy Eternals.

Oh, I have a DnD world I've been running for 20+ years, I'll just PnP everything into it.  But thank you for the warning!

Yeah, I think it works well. And it's my preferred way of doing it unless I was running a specific martial arts campaign.
 
For new players it might be a bit more complex than buying martial manouevres. I think that "choose this power to be able to do X" is already well established as a gaming convention. Whereas "here's a bunch of flexible bonuses, do with them as you will" can be a bit intimidating when someone is already under the kosh from learning a new system.

In my campaign there are "Clerics" as a "class", those are characters that are devoted to their God(s) and gain mystical abilities because of that, but the main thing is they follow and attempt to live up to the ideal of their God(s) and spread the word, work(ed) in churches, monasteries, etc...
 
But I also allow any "Class" of character, if they are true believers in a God, to purchase a special Faith Talent (that the Clerics also have), and then they can buy special abilities like "Healing Hands" or "Turn Undead". This is how you would make a traditional "D&D" type Paladin in my campaign, make a fighter, have him be a believer in a God, buy Faith, then buy healing or turn undead abilities. 
 
But it also allows for other "holy/believer" characters to gain mystical abilities because of their faith/belief so you can have a Blacksmith who can turn undead, because of his/her true faith in the God(s) or a Sailor who can Heal the injured, etc... 
 
I never liked how only certain people (ie, "clerics") were granted special abilities by their God(s) when the God(s) might have tons of true and faithful believers out there amongst other careers. So this way it allows non-"clerics" who want to play devote believers in a certain God also have access to some special abilities. 
 
EDIT to describe what the Faith Talent is. In my games all spell casters cast using an Endurance Reserve for their mystical abilities. Wizards have a certain type of Magical Endurance reserve for spell casting (that has it's own rules for recovering), while Druids have a "nature Magic Spell reserve" which differs from the Wizards one, and Devine spell users have a Faith Endurance reserve that they use to cast spells, that also recovers differently then either wizards or Druids. 
 
As example of END Reserve recovery, wizards recover via study and rest, druids recover by being in the wilderness (deeper/more remote in the wilds the quicker they recover) or by being with animals/nature, and Faith recovers via Prayer & good deeds (feeding the poor, tending the injured, giving money, etc...).

I choose tomato sauce. It's mostly sugar and should wash off pretty easily. Also, unlike say chili sauce, it won't sting if it gets in a cut or something.

I've always been struck by the difference in the write-ups for published spells in Hero Games fantasy books for Fourth Edition versus Fifth/Sixth Edition. I know many folks dislike how in the former the spells are grouped into "spell colleges," but each college feels unique and colorful to me. All the spells in a college are linked with SFX, but although the mechanics of certain spells are nearly identical college to college, the way they're described feels so different. Each college discusses the philosophy behind it, details how a magician moves and speaks while casting spells, the fine details of the material components, what each spell looks and sounds and feels like, why the side effects of a miscast spell are the way they are, how small changes in circumstances would interact with the SFX, and so on. The spells have a flavor, almost a personality, all their own.
 
The 5E+ spells (grouped in "arcana," essentially another label for "college") are so much drier. They concentrate on game mechanics, and to their credit offer more variations of spells for greater power, speed, ease of use, etc.; but the SFX, although present, are laid on pretty thinly, and philosophy is almost nonexistent. The situational nature of the SFX are also mostly left to the imagination of the GM/player.
 
IMHO the 4E spells are a fine example of how to make Hero mechanics fully unique from one example to another. I always try to add more of that flavor to every spell, weapon, superpower that I write.

Here's a sample of a few pages

Compare this fellow - 40/40 defenses, 8 DC attack - to his counterpart - 20/20 defenses, 16 DC attack.
 
They have equal SPD and CV.  DefenseMan will roll an average 28 STUN, getting 8 past defenses. OffenseMan will roll an average 56 STUN, getting 16 past defenses.  I'd say the advantage is with OffenseMan, not DefenseMan.

Acrobatics can be a useful in-genre tactic. Is the unmovable character directly in front of something their opponent needs to take? Flip right over his head. The Champions genre book suggests allowing "appropriate unlikely actions" from things like Acrobatics and Combat Maneuvers that would suit the genre and be particularly stylish.   (See Champions 6E p. 55.) Optionally, relatively minor actions that would normally require an Attack Action can be performed as a Half-Phase action instead. So you'd be well within your rights to have an acrobatic opponent flip over "Captain Invincible," grab the item in passing, and land right back in front of him. You might even allow him to then toss the item to a waiting partner.

@Mr. R does your friend have any Mental Defense? I got hit by Plague once and the Mental Illusions kept me out for awhile. Also Ego Blast is a pain.

There are numerous ways around a character like that.  I am assuming he also has significant mental power because otherwise any mentalist can absolutely ruin him.
 
Images can alter the battle field so when he goes to block the villain from getting the object he is actually protecting the wrong thing.  The same images can create false attackers so he thinks he is actually winning, but later finds out he was had.
 
Precognition/Time Manipulation is another good way around the character.   The opponent uses his knowledge of what the character is going to do to invalidate the character.  For example someone with precognition could easily steal the item and replace it with a fake before the character got there.  Someone with the ability to move through time could simply avoid the character by traveling back in time.
 
The classic creating a diversion always works.  Give the character a choice of saving a bunch of innocents or saving the item.  Are you going to stop me, or the bomb I planted in the middle of the crowded building?  Threatening his DNPC’s is another classic solution.

Indirect on any attack. Sure, they stand in front of the villain, but when the villain's attack goes around them to hit the true target, smile.
 
Stretching allows the thief villain to steal that mcguffin he is guarding.
 
Still, if that type of character is ruining the campaign, then that character needs to be retried.
 
Just remember to not bleep up the character just because you don't like his power set. Remember, you approved of it in the first place.

I mean, you can straight up model D&D (not model what D&D tries to model and fails badly at, but D&D itself, with all it's perverse mechanical foibles) in Hero.  The idea that being able to do so in a non-arbitrary way takes anything away from that seems silly to me, but I played & ran D&D for a long time, used lots of variants, made many of my own spells (and there is a method to the madness of D&D spells and 'balancing' them to their level), and so have long, long since seen behind that curtain.
 
If you were to cook up a magic system in Hero, and run a game using it sharing only the final point cost and a description of each spell, you could achieve the same sort of wonder-by-ignorance effect for the players. Because, really, that's all it is, it's not magic feeling really magical, it's just the cheap sense of wonder you get between encountering something for the first time, and eventually understanding it or just getting used to it.  
 
In contrast, I feel like a VPPs in Hero, or the magic systems of games like Ars Magica or Mage:  the Ascension feel more like they're 'really' magical, precisely because they aren't just a finite set of arbitrary spells made up by some ex-insurance actuary in the Midwest who figured magic-users should be something like wargame artillery.