bigbywolfe

She can't do both?

Dad Says ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Movie Helped Son Speak
http://time.com/4004099/boy-speak-guardians-of-the-galaxy-groot/

Not sure I would want to handle the recoil, but the front heavy structure should help a little.   Reminds me of one of my son's nerf guns, which is what I was thinking about when I mentioned revolvers and tranq darts.  

If they keep his origin even remotely similar and have him learning magic in the "mystic orient" I see no reason why he wouldn't wear clothes of the culture (or more likely the uniform of the secret order) he is immersed in. 
If there is no reason to put him in a "costume" why would they put him in a suit with duster?  "Magicians wear dusters/long coats" is a urban-fantasy trope almost as played out as superheroes wearing capes. 
I'm not saying I think he'll look exactly like the comics, but if the audiences have accepted Thor in a cape and a giant walking tree and a talking racoon, I really don't see why they wouldn't accept the guy traveling between dimensions fighting a giant with a flaming head wearing a cape. 

In the early issues he needed the cape to fly. If they keep that as part of canon then the cape is necessary. Besides that it looks cool and the high collar and the Orb of Agamotto are kinda his trademark look.

Any character that I post here is based on RAW as I understand it. To do otherwise gives worthless characters and ones that don't work as advertised

Everyone is NOT automatically immune to their own powers unless others built. Otherwise Reflection would be worthless. If people were immune to their own effects by default there would be no need for Personal Immunity.

It's not personal immunity to a punch, IMO, it's personal immunity to an Explosion. And unless that special affect is a million little punches in every direction I'd have no problem with either Personal Immunity or Hole in the Middle as they're the same value (IIRC, if PI is +1/2 then forget I said anything) and the SFX of the Immunity could be "Hole in the Middle."

 
But I'd probably require something. 

Get off my fandom, you darn kids!
 
I get the point you're making, but I absolutely don't buy it.
 
Star wars fandom, Star trek fandom - they're each a teeny-tiny piece of a very big universe. Geekery is far bigger (and far older) than that. When I was a kid geek, I was into (as well as fantasy/SF) medieval music. It was incredibly hard to actually get hold of, since the internet didn't exist and accessible catalogues were tiny. What mailing lists existed were, you know, actual mailing lists that were made on paper and  - well, they were mailed. We used to exchange cassette tapes, that we had made of material found wherever. Mailing someone a recording of a recording of a recording of a recording of a concert someone somebody knew had recorded at some castle in Wales ... that's pretty damn geeky right there.  And it's a geekdom that had virtually no overlap with my other music geekdom at the time - which was African music - despite the fact that it operated in precisely the same way. Divisions in geekdom have a long and dishonourable history.
 
On the comics/movie side of things, there were fandoms built around different comics (especially anime, but also eurocomics and British comics) complete with conventions and cosplay dating back decades. The earliest big comic cons started in the UK and the US in the '60's. Movies and books were the same, as were gaming cons. Fandoms have not become more isolated since the turn of the millennium - speaking as someone who has experienced it up close and personal, I can promise you that the exact reverse is true. As comics and movie geekery has been mainstreamed (and profitable!), the fandoms have become more accessible (and also much bigger) - and also broader in their range. It's a lot easier to be a geek in multiple fandoms when it's readily accessible online.
 
I think you are right that the "real geek/fake geek" thing is a grognard attitude (not all grognards are old) - it's a desire to have a little area all of your own where the other kids can't play. That's not new. I met people like that in fandom 30 years ago, and I don't doubt that the attitude is much more ancient. But that attitude didn't define or determine fandom back then and it doesn't today either. Because of course, real fans - like real geeks - by which I mean people who are really interested in some kind of fandom - welcome people with an interest in their pet topic, even though not all of them are (or will become) hardcore. They always have, in my experience.
 
cheers, Mark

What the heck is an "actual sports fan"? Is there an exam? Some kind of certificate? Are you still allowed to attend sports events if you don't have the certificate? I've known plenty of sports fans who meet exactly the same criteria that you fulfill yourself. It doesn't seem to stop them  - or other people - identifying them as sports fans.
 
This makes the point that it's a ridiculous argument to start with. I know that there are people who actually feel that if you are not expert in their particular hobby, then you are not worth talking to - heck, I've met a few. But just as there is no such thing as an actual sports fan, there's no such thing as an actual geek. People have a gradient of interest (in sports, in games, in electronics, in whatever) - just like they have always had a gradient of interest, and frankly anyone who suggests that maybe you shouldn't take part because you know, you aren't an expert (as defined by a totally arbitrary personal scale) deserves a repeated slapping in the face with a well-aged fish. They're not fans and they're not geeks - they're just d***s.
 
There is no fast line defining a fan, or a geek, and there never has been. In reality, there never will be, because of course every fan started out with a less than comprehensive knowledge of their area of interest.
 
cheers, Mark

Which is a good thing, right?

Agreed. The whole idea that there is such a thing as a "real geek" and a "fake geek" is so precious as to be laughable. There's a crapton of fandoms/hobbies out there, and people are immersed to a greater or lesser degree in some/many of them. There are also many geekdoms that have nothing to do with gaming or fantasy at all. There doesn't exist some platonic ideal  ubergeek who masters every geekdom in depth.
 
I like scifi and fantasy, medieval music, play RPGs and videogames. Have done since long, long before any of those things were cool. But I'm otherwise pretty straight-up: I also like most of the the things that white middle class males are supposed to like.  Does that make me a "real" geek? Or not? I'm pretty sure some people would say yes, and some would say no, but the smart ones would say such a question is, at base so asinine as to not waste any time worrying about it.
 
Personally, when I check my give-a-**** meter, it's not registering this question at all.
 
cheers, Mark

She's not the most obscure character that's been used in the MCU, and has a connection to Luke Cage. Since they're doing Power Man and Iron Fist, it makes sense. I'm more surprised that they went with the Defenders for the team up show and not Heroes for Hire.

Strangely indifferent for some reason, actually.

Ok let me see if I can get this straight. She manufactured outrage where there was none? Or she used the very real, alarmingly aggressive reaction to her opinion on women in video games to become famous? Thereby having her address posted on the internet, having people threaten to harm her physically and sexually...and this was her plan from the beginning? It's all a sympathy rap? 
 
Here's what I know about her. She crowdfunded her video series. Therefore there was a number - a rather large number of people willing to donate money for her to buy dozens of games and critique them. She was NOT a person who was famous before this. She was, as you said, an anonymous critic at a second rate magazine. So the fact that she funded on her rather lofty goals says something. There were people willing to put up over $200,000 (in admittedly small increments) to see her views on sexism in video games. It might not be a majority of gamers but it was more than one wealthy individual - she had hundreds of people interested in her project. 
 
The minute she started her campaign she started getting attacked. The MINUTE. And when she funded the attacks increased and became more personl I remember this because for a few dark months in 2013 I subscribed to r/gaming and they lost their collective poop. She had yet to release one video, mind you. 
 
in fact, the attacks originally centered around her being a "scam-artist" because she hadn't produced a video within two weeks of her funding. They called her a thief and a fraud and crowed that she'd stolen the money and gone away. 
 
And then she put out her first video. Oops. Ok well then she's an attention whore! I mean we called her a thief but she made good on her offer. Great. She's still bad. And then they got some wonderfully pretentious "Professor" to "Destroy" her videos. And he countered her criticism of Princess Peach being nothing more than a prize to be won with, "She is a PRINCESS! She's special! Girls should want to be a princess!"...and thus made her argument stronger. 
 
Look, I've seen all of two of her critiques. And I played Dead or Alive in bounce mode so I harbor a bit of guilt I don't agree with her or anyone on all issues, and even if I thought she was the biggest attention whore out there (I personally think that's the Kardashian clan, and if we're going to stay in technology Kim Dotcom.) she is a critic doing what she is paid to do and therefore her voice is worth as much as any other critic out there (ie Not much) but there's really been no reason for the outrage and vitriol blasted in her direction. Unless you count being a woman reason. 
 
I can find her sanctimonious and not get much out of her videos without resulting to threats on her person but there are quite a few who can't and THEY are the reason she's famous. Not because she's a sanctimonious, self-satisfied critic of a form of entertainment but because the lunatic fringe of that form of entertainment couldn't be talked to like that by a woman. There are Thousands of Pop culture and game critics who didn't get threatened like she did who didn't have a firestorm erupt and they said much the same things she did. 

Oh...and now that my righteous rage has ebbed. I don't think that she deserves your praise, I can totally understand not liking her and suspecting her motives is a fair cop. I just can't see how she deserves the crap that she's gotten for essentially talking about video games. 
 
Don't give me the whole nerdrage thing, it's not nerd rage, I'm a nerd I don't rage at her, it's just rage.
 
I apologize if I came across acidic to you guys. 

I think this is the key. It looks to me like you don't want to accept what she says. Fair enough. I look at what she says and run it though a simple mental filter. Is what she says even credible? (It is). Are any of the people accused contradicting her? (They are not). Do other people involved support her claims? (They do). Does she have anything to gain financially? (She does not). Conclusion? She's probably telling the truth. I'll change my mind if contradicting evidence turns up, but for now, there is no reason to do so, unless one actively just doesn't want to. The fact that she's disgruntled means nothing at all, because if she's telling the truth, you'd *expect* her to be disgruntled.
 
Cheers, Mark

Fake female accounts to lure in men is my guess.

Looks like

Boy, what a joker
What a funny, funny guy
I'll never forget about Larry
No matter how I try

Disputes between directors and studios are common in Hollywood. That doesn't necessarily mean one side or another is unusually difficult to work with. Whenever you have more than one creative, strong-minded person with a vision involved in a project, there are bound to be disagreements. And those disagreements will color their perceptions of the parties involved. (I have to note that I've yet to hear Kevin Feige say anything negative about any past Marvel directors.)
 
I remember that after Iron Man 3 came out, Feige revealed the studio worried over how what Shane Black wanted to do with the Mandarin would be received by the fans. They let him do it anyway.
 
And honestly, more than once I've read negative comments about Marvel attributed to an actor or director, which said actor or director later disavows ever having made. Some people in the industry make a business out of stirring up controversy.

I didn't say that. I didn't mean that. And I do find it hard to believe you actually think I did. So for the sake of civil discussion, and out of respect for the other valuable and interesting things you have to say, I will refrain from taking offense.
 
Lucius Alexander
 
The palindromedary says it would be better if I refrained from even taking notice.

Inside Out in the theater.
 
Brilliant. Absolutely bloody brilliant.
 
As you probably know by now, it's as fantasy about the five core "feelings" that live in a little girl named Riley's head and control her emotional life. (Every other person in the movie has variations of the same feelings.) When an accident sucks the girl's "core memories" and two of the feelings (Joy and Sadness) out of headquarters and into the wider world of her mind, the girl's emotional life spirals out of control and Joy and Sadness struggle to get back to Headquarters while the three remaining feelings (Anger, Fear and Disgust) try to hold things together while they're gone and make matters much, much worse.
 
Joy wants Riley to be happy. The problem is she wants Riley to always be happy, regardless of what happens to her. The very existence of Sadness is an open annoyance to her, and behind her exuberant exterior she only tolerates the other feelings. She and Riley have one thing in common -- they both have some growing up to do.

she's his ->
 
mother