bigbywolfe

I think that's a matter of, someone writes one thing, and then the internet shares it. Years back, we could simply have a stupid theory, and it was just our stupid theory. Now, it gets shared, and people think a large swath of people follow it.
 
The flip side of PC is that many of the arguments that arise are because one person says something silly, and those who disagree generalize it to all feminists, all Republican/Democrats, all Americans, all Christians, all Atheists. Rarely does this apply, the number of groups in the above list that are in lockstep is very limited. Then, others get sensitive and turn it into 'society is falling apart because xxx', when, in reality, PC takes different forms for each of those groups. Anyone who thinks they don't practice political correctness is living an illusion.

Flash died in the Crisis. Continuity is nonexistent in the comic, I'm pretty forgiving of it in the show. The show would have to work hard to have less continuity than a comic where the second flash, many decades later, is written to have created the first flash, all revealed after the second flash has died and come back. And the entire world the first flash is from has ceased to exist in the same form.
 
And then the speed force. The speed force could simply be renamed speed midichlorians.
 
That said, I love both the comic and the show.

That approach would probably work better if the rest of the storytelling wasn't all linked and sequential.  I mean, if each episode was a story to its self in isolation to the rest of the series, OK.  But if everything except how his powers work has direct and regular, meticulous continuity...

Heh. Definition of Evil right here.

Prior to Marvel Studios/Disney pretty much every studio was incapable of having a cosmic being be anything other than a cloud monster.

It's called having a Code vs. Killing.

I think she'd prefer not to incinerate people, just as a thought.

Supergirl has been picked up for a full season, going from their starting point of thirteen to a total of twenty.
 
Rumors of a Flash crossover have been dispelled by the producer.

I've been thinking a fair bit about the Civil War movie trailer. As I've posted in the past on this very forum, I suspected cinematic Tony Stark's and Steve Rogers's positions would be reversed compared to their comic-book versions. Steve was raised with the ideals of serving his country, and trained to follow the chain of command as a soldier; while Tony has always resented and defied authority and been suspicious of people in power. Yet this trailer makes it look like they'll be much closer to the philosophy they espouse in the Civil War comic series.
 
On reflecting over the history of the MCU, though, I'm beginning to see a logical evolution in the perspectives of these two men which may be behind their change of heart. As we saw in Age of Ultron, Tony Stark is haunted by his vision of coming alien invasion, and wants to create a unified world defense against it. He's also seen first-hand what terrible harm uncontrolled super-beings can wreak, even with good intentions as with himself and Ultron; even his innocent friends, like Bruce Banner. OTOH Steve Rogers has seen that blindly following orders and suppressing your good conscience while performing questionable acts, can allow great evil to grow under your very nose. And he's now witnessing those orders being directed against his closest friend, in a way he believes is unjustified.

I generally agree that dropping hints here and there is good and something that I enjoy seeing. But there is a cost to every hint. There are a million and one things that Marvel could hint at in every movie but even if every single one only required 1 second to do, that is still going to be longer than the whole of the movie. And thus picking and choosing which ones are important is vital to the planning and production phase. Add to that that there is a limit to how much you can shoot. Every bit that makes the movie longer is a bit that costs the studio more money - and they want to see a return on investment. And if we are adding in hints that are more or less mystic and unclear and NEVER get cleared up in the movie series, then we are wasting money. After all, these movies are not designed to be advertisers for the comics; if I recall correctly, Marvel hasn't even seen that big of an uptake in readership despite all the movies. No, so adding in cryptic and un-noticeable lines about something that will never be explored is a bad business decision. 

So, now a days the studio has a stronger vision of what will be coming up and what they can expect to incorporate into the mythos of the MCU. Thus adding in an extra minute of "cryptic" foreshadowing is acceptable. But then again, having one writing team and director incorporate that into one movie that then binds the 'creative talent' of the next team and director is only going to cause contention - afterall, you never know when you will have a turn coat talent like Josh Wheadon show up who just wants to throw out your whole masterful plan. So minimizing stuff like that is probably best from a business perspective. 
 
Soar. 

Great. I have Phantom of the Opera stuck in my head. Inside my mind.

IMHO part of the "problem," if you want to call it that, is that many Marvel properties are in the hands of other studios. Two of them with the largest roster of attached characters, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four, can't be used by Marvel for their own movies. Spider-Man is just a recent addition, through an exceptional cross-studio shared production agreement.
 
But I believe it's also worth remembering that Marvel Comics have been around since 1961. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has only existed since 2008. And a big portion of these movies' fan base know the characters only through the movies. There's only so much time and energy you can devote to introducing new characters in movies. These things aren't comic books, massed produced on cheap paper through the efforts of a handful of producers. These big-budget movies require a small army of artistic and technical talent, working with expensive equipment for months and sometimes years; all of which has to be paid for.
 
Remember when we were all amazed when the first Avengers movie managed to balance more than half a dozen main protagonists? Maybe we've become spoiled in thinking they can just keep throwing more and more characters into a movie.
 
However, for me the (relatively) small number of protagonists in the upcoming Civil War helps focus the action and the stories down to their key components. IMHO it makes them seem more important, not less. Over the past seven years, these few people have caused the world to face the reality of threatening alien life and beings with godlike power; exposed corruption at the heart of the world's premier security agency while preventing its subverters from seizing world power; caused the devastation of at least two cities and massive destruction around the globe. They're famous, they're symbols, and they're polarizing influences. As Nick Fury said, they can't be matched, can't be controlled. The actions of this small number of heroes have repercussions far exceeding their numbers.

The Boston Symphony performed Beethoven's Ninth recently. There's a 20 minute stretch where the double bassists have nothing to do. Instead of sitting there twiddling their thumbs, they decided to hit the tavern next door. After slamming down a few beers, one of them looked at his watch and said, "Oh. we're late!"
 
Another said, "Not to worry. I tied the last few pages together of the conductor's sheet music together with string. It'll take him a bit to get it undone."
 
Once they stumbled back in their place, a woman in the audience saw the conductor looking nervous. She mentioned this to her companion.
 
"Of course," her date replied. "It's the bottom of the ninth, the score is tied, and the bassists are loaded."

Oh, you're missing the point, all right. Nobody is actually demanding reskinning. So nobody is going to be appeased, because nobody is asking for that apart, maybe, from you.
 
What women, by and large are asking for is characters written either with them in mind, or at least not specifically aimed only at guys only. Catwoman, not Batgirl. A female character who can stand or fail on her own merits, not Link with tits. They are also asking for the same kinds of choices that guys already get. When playing Diablo III, as a guy, I had the choice of gender-match characters ranging from young, lithe guy to grizzled veteran warrior. As a female, my choices ranged from hot shapely babe with short hair to hot shapely babe with long hair.
 
Reskinning as a a lazy-ass excuse for not addressing these issues is a source of discontent, not a demand people want addressed. So of course they won't be pleased. Who on earth would expect them to be pleased when served up something they have repeatedly said they don't want?
 
cheers, Mark

Why is Champions used as a measuring stick in the first place? You realize that they are fundementally different products. If not, why not complain that Friends and HERO are not compatible. Or how Pixels and HERO are not compatible. You are stating that they aren't compatible (A point which I think I did a good job at refuting) without addressing the greater point of "why even compare the completely distinct products?" That is like:
 
A - "The Great Spaghetti monster in space is real!"
B - "Why do you think that?"
A - "Because I think The Great Spaghetti monster in space is real!!"
B - "Why?"
A - "Because..."
 
At some point you need to actually address the basic question that is being asked: why compare HERO system to The Flash? Would it be equally okay to compare Monsters and Masterminds? How about Gurps? Would DnD Modern be okay? BESM? Fate? Are all of them reasonable? What do we do when BESM can account for something but DnD can't?
 
 
Why do you assume Grodd will never be able to use his MC? He has already shown that he can. The whole set up for that episode was him getting away with his MC. Even against a member of the team.
 
Cisco created a device to stop his MC but can't give an absolute protection against mental blasts, disorientation, and giant ape fists. So Grodd is still a rival. He is just one that doesn't have an "Auto-win" vs the Hero. And to put this in HERO terms for you since you seem to insist on it: Any GM who builds an NPC with an Auto-win and doesn't allow the PCs to negate that is a terrible GM. Any villain that can out power my Character Physically, Mentally, and is prevented from being neutered is a villain that is wholly uninteresting and the GM is terrible for using it. Are you suggesting that we should have terrible GMs in Champions? ^-^;
 
Lets also address the fact that your point is stupid - yes, absolutely stupid. In the first encounter with the Mental Defense device, the Flash gets knocked about and the device ends up malfunctioning. Thus, his ability to strictly resit Grodd is predicated on him not taking a big hit to the face. And Grodd, while not as fast as The Flash is still able to anticipate his movements to a degree and beat the ever living crap out of him - thus making him vulnerable to the most Game-Overy attack available: a full on Mental Domination via Mind Control.
 
Lastly, lets address your complete disregard for the source material: Heroes always find ways to narrowly beat out their opponents. It is not an exception to the rule that a Hero with some level of gadgetry or with helpers with some level of gadgetry manage to build a device to stop an opponent. No, it is not the exception; indeed, it is quite the opposite. How many times has Tony Stark made adjustments to his suit to defeat foes? How many times has Batman just remembered to bring McGruffin X in his utility belt in order to win? How many times has Ant-Man or Mr. Fantastic create some program or device to win a battle or find a baddy? These are not uncommon. These are expected. If Cisco, Kaitlin, Wells, and Barry were not doing this we would all call them idiots for not exploiting their best tools. And for someone who has complained so strongly that these characters suffer from Dumb Streaks to be demanding that they suffer from Genre destroying dumb streaks is peculiar at best.
 
I get it. Flash isn't doing exactly what you would do if you were the Flash. Too bad. Get over it. But making up excuses to be salty at a show is just mind boggling. And if you are really struggling to watch a show, just quit. I made my two (three?) complaint posts about Supergirl in the Supergirl thread and ended it there. There are people in that thread who like the show. They don't need me going in there explaining and complaining about how terrible a show that is every week. And quite frankly, I don't need that. It is just best to accept such as the way of the world and move onto greener pastures that make you happy.
 
Soar.
 
PS: We have also given a rather clear and obvious work around for Grodd's MC power. You can't protect everyone all the time from Grodd. And it only takes one civilian being captured to rendered The Flash incapable of something.

Well, I would think your GM would worry about whether or not Grodd was an effective villain for Flash.  IMO, Grodd at his current point level is still an excellent rival for a VERY inexperienced Flash character.

Bringing up the super strength orgasm is just dumb at this point. That's not how it works in the comics, that's not how it has worked in any previous DC property movies or TV shows, and there is absolutely no reason to try to apply some stupid "real physics" to superhuman mating. It's a non-issue and acting like it is, or worse, like it should be, is just looking for something to complain about.
 
EDIT: having super sex be an issue in supergirl would be extremely off genre. She can hold a building up by one corner and it doesn't collapse but it's sex and no other misuse of super strength that breaks your suspension of disbelief? Seriously?

Well, don't get me wrong, I love a good debate that starts with "Wait, hold on, let's suppose a man CAN actually fly, now...."  I guess as long as there is internal consistency, I'm good.  For example, let's just say that later on in the series, we discover that Supergirl can't have sex with a normal human for fear of physical injury.   This would be inconsistent because it has already been shown she has unbelievable control of even casual strength and nobody ever gets hurt when she saves them with super-speed.  Why?  I dunno.  But I also dunno how she projects lasers from her eyes, breathes liquid nitrogen, and hides her identity with glasses.  For that matter, how do those eye-lasers perfectly heat an entire turkey and not just punch a whole through it?  For some reason though, as I'm watching or reading, my mind just handwaves all of it. *shrugs*

Where I come from, we call it the audience not noticing that the show already has a room that de-powers Supergirl and that Supergirl has a sister with access to that room. Looks like a classic romcom setup to me.

I enjoy genres of fantastic abilities and make-believe physics.  Personally, I just can't pick and choose my suspension of disbelief.  I just check the whole thing at the door.  I highly doubt I've ever said this or that shouldn't be possible UNLESS it has already been established as so in a previously canonical story.  That's just me though.

Que conspiracy that the terrorist actions are staged government power grabs. 
 
I'll say write your congressmen; mine already votes against all this stuff. 

Oh lord. There's some folks on MSNBC talking about how video games (like MMORPGs) and apps to encrypt are making transfering secret messages very easy for terrorists and the like and Daesh might have used something like that for the Paris attacks. The media is talking about how the Intelligence community is talking about how they need to push into these venues to ensure our safety, and the reporters nodding sheeplike not realizing what that means.
 
In short, we're about to kill even more privacy of your average citizen in order to 'catch the bad guys'. 
The NSA officials must be giggling like school girls

A friend's Facebook status today:
"At this point in our culture I'm very surprised there aren't people with nut allergies boycotting The Peanuts Movie."