|
So I saw Wonder Woman in theatres and I think some of the complaints are a little overblown. It’s not a good movie by any means but it is a functional one with good moments. But three very specific comments stood out to me as people just not watching the movie. Everyone who made a wish became somewhat blind to it’s moral consequences, especially Barbara and Maxwell, why wouldn’t Diana suffer the same fate in terms of her wish to have Steve back. Cheetah becoming Cheetah is because she literally says to Maxwell Lord I wish to be an apex predator, something unique that nobody has seen before and whilst he doesn’t do it immediately he does do it. The resolution of the movie happens because Maxwell and several people who made wishes with him denounce them, which undoes the effects of the wish, especially Maxwell renouncing his wish likely made most of the wishes he granted unstable if not null.
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 10:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Ah, the weird writing was due to the plot mcguffin. Now everything feels better. The point I'm making is everyone has a consistent reaction to the plot macguffin.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 10:58
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Maxwell doesn't need a motivation for the horrible things he does, because it was the magic stone making him amoral. This is good and interesting writing and I feel very rewarded having watched this story unfold. No, he was already motivated to do terrible things, but it went from a simple desire to be someone important to trying to take over the world. His morality decayed as his power and wish grew.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 11:04
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Most of those things still happened, though. US and Russia still launched nukes at each other. I get that the extra nukes the President wished for disappeared, but why did all the other nukes disappear? And even if we grant that all the nukes disappeared for some reason (a leap, but whatever), they still decided to go to nuclear war with each other, and they remember that they did it. That much is clear because they're watching the nukes disappear and DC still looks like it's in chaos. Then in the next scene everyone is just happy and throwing snow balls. And it's not just the nuclear war thing, the whole world was brought to chaos and should be insanely unstable, and the only wrap up we get is the snow ball scene where everyone is already happy. That's bad writing, because it feels like we missed something big. Either the stone THEN came in and wiped away everything AFTER we saw the nukes disappear, which would be weird and an odd way to present things, or the whole world just decided that what they saw was some sort of mass psychosis. "Whoa, that was loving weird how nukes just launched and the Irish (it was the Irish, right?) were suddenly being rounded up, and that wall that suddenly appeared out of nowhere disappeared just as quickly, and that oil dude appeared on our TVs talking about wishes, and started laughing maniacally, and some woman told us wishes were lies or something. Anyway, I better go shopping. Merry Christmas!" Oh yeah I make no excuses for the movie itself, I'm simply saying the movie has consistent logic. The stuff you talk about is still largely terrible yes. Although I kind of took the reading that the reason Diana hits on the guy at the end is the counterpoint to her whole I will never love anyone again thing with Steve, where it turns out that her issue might have been overly focusing on Steve as her one true love. For example Barbara was definitely into Diana in their early stuff together, and they totally hit it off. I figure the bit at the end was meant to be hey Diana if you had actually stopped moping about Steve maybe you would've met this guy, and now you've ruined it. I dunno it's definitely the outright weirdest part. As for everything stopping, I figure that's just people having been on the brink of destruction and deciding this is a terrible terrible idea. Or yeah the magic stone doing magic things I dunno, I just wanted to point out that all of those little comments are given reasons in movie, even if those reasons aren't great. I think the one that's definitely true is the Cheetah thing, which I felt a lot of people seemed confused when she literally says make me an apex predator to the man who grants wishes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Trying to understand Magmar's point. Wonder Woman's macguffin makes sense because it makes people amoral, something not stated in the movie. So hence everyone being bad I guess. Whip of truth was glowing all over the world, dispelling the self-lies and showing people the truth of their wishes, literally the opposite power of lies which is what the god who made the macguffin is a god of. As for Wonder Woman herself, she’s basically pushed into undoing her wish by the person it brought back, not her own currently weakened morality. I never said it was good, I simply said it’s consistent with what the movie shows. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jan 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Wait whip of truth glowing through the world, did we see the same movie? I dont remember that happening. Apparently not. After disrupting Lord’s broadcast and he climbs up onto the actual satellite whatever in the middle of the room, when Diana can’t approach Lord she starts giving him a speech, and then it’s revealed she’s managed to get the whip around his leg and into the broadcast. They then show the golden glow of the whip coming from every screen that Lord’s broadcast had taken control of, her speech and it’s magic spread the same way he was spreading by his wishes and lies. I actually did see the movie in theatres, maybe there are different cuts between theatre and the streamed version? If it’s a must be experienced in cinemas movie this might be why. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jan 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Mr. Apollo posted:I saw the streaming version and remember this. Ah good, so some people just aren’t paying attention. Understandable really, the movie might be internally logically consistent but that doesn’t make it interesting or good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:It is weird how they show her not able to reach him with the lasso a couple of times, then reveal that she somehow managed to reach him off camera at some point. She speaks the truth and the whip gets stronger maybe? Possibly reaching deeper into her godly heritage like she did with the invisible jet plane earlier.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
I think in fairness not everyone has to renounce their wish. For example, Barbara covers her ears specifically so she can’t hear Diana’s speech and renounce her original wish. She still loses all the things Lord gave her, because he took those from other people to grant her second wish without directly granting a wish, but I’m pretty sure she’s still super strong and fast and all that. Enough people renounced their wish when exposed to the truth that it saved the world. But as another example at no point does Max’s son renounce his wish that Max becomes great. It’s also worth noting that Max didn’t actually take anything in exchange for said wish, possibly because he can choose not to or the cost would be something he paid not his son. Also you’re right I was being a little aggressive, sorry for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2021 02:06
|
|
|
I mean, the phony in universe advertisments have some pretty clear references to Wanda's past so far. The Stark Brand Toaster starts beeping a menacing red and takes forever to "pop" almost like something else she'd have seen with Stark branding on it as a child (it's a bomb, the toaster is her memories of being trapped with a bomb that doesn't explode). The watch is (Baron von) Strucker branded with a Hydra symbol on it. Presumably we'll get an Ultron reference in the next episode.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2021 08:32
|
|
|
Robot Style posted:It's supposed to be his never-before-mentioned twin brother. Specifically, the movie originally had a scene of him talking with Jean about how as an unborn baby his powers were so strong they caused his twin brother to be born effectively braindead (think about how in Logan he can cause people to straight up have strokes or die when he has a bad moment). His parents, being rich as gently caress, paid to have their son taken care of in a hospital and allowed to grow up relatively healthy because the doctor's couldn't work out why he was only doing basic bodily functions with no higher brain functions. When Xavier dies in X3 his mind is transferred to the empty shell of his twin brother he left without any mind of his own pre-birth. Yes it's ridiculously brutal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 11:30
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:With the Potter Heads it's not only that, they only seem to be able to understand politics by quoting Dumbledore or reducing political ideologies to Wizard Houses. Most of the Harry Potter fans I know of like the books in spite of Rowling being awful, and disagree with her politics but have found things in the book that they personally found moving. It's generally a healthy thing to be able to separate the writer from the work in your mind. At the time the books seemed mostly fine, it's only all the post book stuff (and the epilogue to be fair) that show that no, Rowling was actually qutie nutty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Yeah, in hindsight there's a lot of parts of the book that have new context. But at the time for many children it was just fun fantasy escapism.VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:TBF, I don't think Hermione ever truly believed that. Neither did Dobby, who does work at Hogwarts, but specifically appreciates having been freed and is asking for pay if I remember. To relate this back to actual MCU, I guess Ultron and Vision being specifically born from Jarvis, who is arguably created to be a slave makes them kind of like freed house elves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
I always took it as a bit of a riff on the usual way that the token black character is applied, where they'll have some incredibly impressive history to prove they're a valuable team member and instead this kind of bland white dude is just a CIA agent in the right place to help. There's probably other options that have less awkward reality though. They could've made them a non-American Intelligence Agency for example, but for what it's worth I never really read his job as important beyond is government agent thrust into a world he has no power in and so must actually listen and assist the locals in the manner they choose. Also doesn't he explicitly say Killmonger is using the techniques the CIA taught him?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2021 04:34
|
|
|
I can definitely agree with what McCloud is saying, I feel that if they'd also mentioned Wakanda throwing it's political weight around and supporting more than just education in disadvantaged communities it might have landed better? Because the idea is that they're doing "aid work" to America and improving the quality of life and options for those suffering under the system, but there should also be comments on fixing the system itself. I can personally believe the system fixing is happening even if not mentioned, even if that's perhaps an idealistic outlook on a fictional world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2021 07:16
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Cherry looks like hot garbage and I’m starting to think that Tom Holland might not actually be a good actor Tom Holland is a good actor, he might not be good at picking good movies to star in though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
I'd like to see a Batman Movie about the Court of Owls and the Demonic Bat God under Gotham. That seems like it could be a fun set-up with Batman fighting the causes of the issues in Gotham (rich people who want it to suck, literal super-natural madness leading to super-criminals). You could get a bit meta with it because these are also kind of both about keeping the status quo of Gotham, which is what the comics demand with every reset because that's what people want to write, their version of the Batman story.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Who is the antagonist of the film? (Other than maybe Waller?) Starro was a big reveal in that trailer, and he does mind control stuff so could be the villain.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I don't think he was annoyed on behalf of Battlestar, more that Battlestar had a nickname, so he was clearly trying to be a superhero, too. "Me, I'm Battlestar!" Especially because Bucky's "super title" is one he clearly has no interest in continuing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
I fully expect Polka-Dot Man to survive the entire way through the movie, learn to love life again and want to keep on living, only to die at that very moment to some random accidental bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Genuinely from what has been said by people involved in the show since it finished, Buffy is good in spite of Whedon, not because of him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I guess it makes sense. Explosion suppressant foams are a thing and peoples insides are basically foam*. Also generally the fatalities from a grenade are from the shrrapnel not the explosion itself, and shockingly if a human body covers the grenade most of the shrapnel ends inside the body.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Yeah, the way it ultimately plays out is that the Ten Rings is real, the Mandarin is real, Guy Pearce was pretending to be them with the help of the actor, but the real one was still real and secretive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2021 18:31
|
|
|
Erik Stevens either wants to replace White Supremacy with Black Supremacy (that's kind of the line he plays up, that Wakanda should rise up in support of it's brothers and sisters across the globe and crush everyone else to do so) or he wants Wakanda to enter a war it cannot win and thus have it be destroyed whilst doing as much damage as possible to as many people around the world as possible. He explicitly, in the text, does not actually care about the future of Wakanda, it's people, or the world at large, that's why he destroys the Heart Shaped Herb, he intends to be the only person with the power of the Black Panther, and possibly for there not to be a king after him (because Wakanda will be destroyed, not because he's abolishing the monarchy). Now whether or not this is a particularly well written thing is separate, but this is what the movie portrays. You don't get to use cinematic analysis to twist around what the movie portrays directly.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 07:26
|
|
|
Collapsing Farts posted:His goals are split because on one hand he wants to arm the weak and create revolutions but he also says he wants to conquer the world and create an eternal wakandan empire. The movie could never decide with him. They'd make him cool and sympathetic and in the next scene he goes full psychopath and kills his girlfriend. He brings up legitimate issues with Wakanda and in the next scene he twirls his moustache and wants to take over the world. He's a really badly written character It could be that he's lying about one set of goals, and between them I imagine the more sympathetic goals are the ones he's lying about to maintain power. It certainly felt that way sometimes when I watched but I haven't watched in years.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 08:13
|
|
|
Black Panther does have the revolutionary who is earnest in their beliefs, it’s Nakia, and her revolution does in fact occur at the end. Whether you think it’s enough or not is a separate discussion, but the end result of the movie is T’challa and Wakanda performing a global revolution (hopefully) with zero bloodshed. Also in terms of the One Piece thing Fishman Island does do that incredibly well, but the thing with Wakanda compared to Fishman Island is that Wakanda is not intended to be representative of an oppressed people, they’re in a position where their lack of oppression allows them to help oppressed people and their isolationism has stopped them doing so. Fishman Island isn’t even recognised as a formal nation by the World Government and the Fishman and Mermaids are literally animals in the eyes of the law offered no protections at all and raided constantly if not for Whitebeard/Big Mom.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 09:23
|
|
|
multijoe posted:Buh? Actually no you’re right I was being overly generous, it’s still an attempt at global equality and life improvement which could lead to cultural or industrial style revolutions, but from the perspective of actual revolution against existing power structures it’s mostly shaking up with the new super power. It is however worth noting Nakia and Killmonger are intended to be saying similar things, Nakia wants outreach and improvement to help those who have been oppressed, Killmonger wants to arm and provide military support to them. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 09:53 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 09:50
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It's not even shaking up. The status quo is never, ever allowed to change in the MCU. Wakanda being a super power feels like it would be a shame up of global politics, and I think this argument is somewhat disengenuous because we so rarely get a look at the setting outside the superheroes until the most recent tv shows (which I would say does show a fairly different world from where we started. Honestly so far all of Phase 4 seems to be showcasing the ways the world has changed. Maybe we’ll see the results of Wakanda Outreach in the new Black Panther being a bunch of small Wakandas popping up around the world post-blip.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 09:58
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Killmonger doesn't care about black people because he destroyed the royal family's super-drugs? Killmonger doesn't care about the Wakandan people or their culture (hence destroying the super-drugs of their cultural super hero who they believe to be their great protector). Which means he doesn't particularly intend for Wakanda to win the war, because he doesn't care about the liberation of black people he cares about destroying Wakanda. It's the same thing as Baron Zemo, he presents one thing whilst planning another to hurt the people he holds responsible for the destruction of his family and life (as his entire motivation is the death of his father at the hands of T'chaka). I also admitted that I mis-spoke on that second bit, it's not a liberation movement, it's an outreach and life improvement initiative, which admittedly your actual valuation of it is up to yourself. My belief is that it's a strong step towards undoing inequality, and not a step towards global war (which I'd rather like to avoid regardless of the reason, which is not to say that violent revolution is never the answer). grieving for Gandalf posted:it would do so much more for black liberation to empower the weak in Africa to throw out colonial interests and the actors that propagate them than instituting an afterschool coding program in Chicago See, this is something I actually agree with, and it's a shame that no sides of the argument seem to consider this for a second, I guess it's likely that Wakanda doesn't send War Dogs to other parts of Africa, only internationally, in the modern era believing it unnecessary? From memory the goal of the War Dogs is espionage and to help keep Wakanda Isolated. Perhaps the change from Isolation will also cause Wakanda to do more local initiatives as well. RBA Starblade posted:How many times have they done it? I feel like the answer is going to be "In all the Marvel films I didn't watch" lmao By my count twice according to this thread, Eric (Killmonger) and Karli (Flagsmasher). There might be more though, not that I really agree either of those are that, Karli is not presented as a psychopathic murderer but someone pushed to the brink and brought low (hey look, it mirrors Walker, pity they don't fully commit by keeping them both alive and atoning/working towards a better future with less personal murder) and Erik is not actually presenting leftist ideals at any point, it's just easy to ascribe to him an anti-supermacist angle (when even his most positive interpretation involves Wakanda becoming a global empire). Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 15:25 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:At least 4: Iron Man 2, one of them Spider-Man movies, Capt. America TV show and Black Panther. Endgame and Infinity War are exceptions because they take the radical position of just agreeing with the villain. Whiplash wants to hurt Tony Stark because Tony Stark's father hurt his father, he's never shown any interest in anything leftist he just wants to be the one with the money and fame. Neither Spider-Man villain works for this, one is explicitly upper-middle class who thinks he deserves money and power and is willing to do whatever he can for them and the other is an embittered ex-employee (which yeah not a good look) who thinks he should be the next Tony Stark. Also I really don't think Endgame or Infinity War agree with Thanos, they just don't think that it's okay to undo 5 years of life to save the people he killed. grieving for Gandalf posted:it's just very insultingly liberal. black people in America or elsewhere don't need opportunity, they need the money and power that has been denied them for generations as their labor and natural resources have been exploited by colonial powers I agree, as someone from a people who have been denied culture and history myself. I just think that Wakanda doing outreach is a much better solution to the inequality than just arming people with super weapons and saying go wild, their outreach could be better and they could throw their political weight around pretty heavily to tear down institutional issues, but the idea that the only successful way to create revolution is violence is something I think we can agree is pretty dismissive. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 15:37 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Not saying he was leftist per se but that the film's framing that you have to kill people who violate your copyrights is both insanely reactionary and followed up on in a couple of movies. I'm pretty sure it's if someone is trying to kill you you're allowed to use equal rights. I don't think Tony would give a poo poo if Ivan had made a successful armour/arc reactor and used it to make money, or maybe he would, that's not what Ivan does. Ivan attempts to murder Tony Stark the second they meet.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Whiplash tells Stark to his face that his assassination attempt was instrumental: he wanted to foster resistance to the American military industrial complex. Wait seriously, I do not remember this. That's super fair if so and I retract my statement, I just remember Ivan wanting to kill Tony and have the money and fame denied to his father. Which are understandable goals especially wanting what your family was denied by the actions of a rich rear end in a top hat. Tearing apart Tony's life because of it seems kind of a dick move is all. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Vanko does frame this in terms of holding Stark, specifically, accountable for his crimes. Then he ends the interview by telling Tony that he knows he's dying painfully--meaning simple revenge is not his goal. Neat, I wonder if he's considered killing Tony Stark and tearing apart his legacy might empower the Military Industrial Complex, not weaken it, because Tony is currently refusing to share his knowledge and technology with the MIC. At least, outside letting Rhodey take a suit because Tony thinks he's dying. Thank you for reminding me of part of the story I forgot. I still don't particularly think Ivan Vanko has Leftist ideology, as you can frame/understand his actions around his desire to hurt and destroy Tony/Howard Stark and everything Tony/Howard Stark's legacy involves (including the Military Industrial Complex his family spent decades supporting), but it is fair to consider that he is doing things for reasons other than revenge and that those can include a general desire to destroy the MIC. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 15:48 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 15:46
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Tony is the MIC, doofus. Raytheon refusing to share trade secrets with Boeing isn't a blow against the MIC. I guess, I feel like Tony categorically shutting down all weapon's development (except his personal suits) and choosing to focus entirely on what I want to say is clean energy production (it never really comes up what Stark Tech actually sells, except the BARF thing which seems to be for helping with therapy) kind of makes him no longer part of the MIC or even the MIC itself, especially when he's actively denying the Army and other weapon's development companies access to his personal suit technology. But, this is an angle I had not considered, still not sure I agree but I certainly feel like I've got some perspective on Ivan and why people feel about him this way. Grendels Dad posted:Ivan doesn't show or express any interest in money or fame. He is a super-genius, he built his own arch reactor under even worse conditions than Tony. He could swim in money if he wanted to. And hurting the Stark Legacy, but also fair point on this I was misremembering the movie and for that I apologise. Oh also doesn't Ivan basically use Hammer (who is definitely wanting to produce Iron Man suits for the American Military and his own immense profit) and his factories to make drone soldiers that he sells to Hammer as being superior operators than humans that can be sold to the military but intends to have them mass bomb the Stark expo out of a desire to hurt Strark's legacy, even though at that point he would believe that Tony is dead in a ditch? Honestly it's been such a long time I definitely don't remember every individual bit of minutae about the motivations besides the broad strokes, that as have been proven can be misremembered. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 15:58 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Just imagine that the Stark legacy is referring to like, the DuPonts. This is your hero? Some guy who inherited a fortune from raining ordinance on the third world? We're asked to care about his family legacy(???) I don't actually know who the DuPonts are, but also no not really, I don't actually care about Tony Stark's Legacy; Ivan probably does, Tony presumably does but he also has stopped all weapon development and seems to want his legacy to have been create a better world than the one he started with hence the personal life risk of going out and being a superhero, as well as developing clean energy technologies and therapeutic holograms. I just think it's unfair to ascribe leftist motivation or ideology to Ivan Vanko, also don't think Tony deserves to be killed and have his life ripped apart for something his father did. Tony isn't a particularly good person a lot of the time, but he's definitely trying and I have to appreciate the effort. Honestly I think the disapointing part of that movie is making Howard come across at all as a good person, considering he seems to have been a poo poo father and a very selfish individual in terms of his business practices. The movie probably should've done more to make Howard Stark a historical villain who Tony must wrangle with (whilst dealing with his own memories of his strenuous childhood with the man as a father). Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 16:05 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You keep depoliticizing conflicts with this "Billy got mad at Jimmy" stuff. What's up with that? I'm presenting what the movie presents, I am aware that there are political readings of it, but I don't want to discuss politics with you because you are an infuriating rear end in a top hat at the best of times regardless of if you're right or wrong. Also I don't think we see any Stark weapons post Iron Man 1 except the suit of armour, which he literally only ever intends for personal use and control. Every other project we see is either Arc Reactor stuff (clean energy) or the therapy thing. Oh, I guess the Helicarrier engines in Winter Soldier too which is almost definitely on the edge of weapon production and it would have been nice to see how Stark felt about that after the fact.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:He also has the peace keeping robots in Avengers 2 that Ultron takes over, and the much worse assassination drones in Far From Home. He effectively "let's" Rhodes have the War Machine armor and presumably upgrades it over the course of the movies, and Rhodes is directly using it in a military capacity (unless the idea is that they are still using the original armor he took and it's the military itself that just keeps upgrading the armor). This is also reasonable, the peace-keepers in Avengers 2 don't actually have combat capabilities beyond being robots though right, I only remember them flying (admittedly dangerous) and standing there as a mobile barricade, this doesn't make them not dangerous or not weapons but their intent is to act like traffic cones realistically. The drones in Far From Home are way worse, and indeed presented as the ultimate goal of the villain in that movie, although I'm blanking on if they were destroyed or not by Peter in the end. Actually yeah, Tony is probably supplying Rhodes and the War Machine Armour with weapons because I distinctly remember one of the jokes in Iron Man 2 involves Rhodey using a Hammer missile and it failing so Tony makes him promise to come to Tony for his weapons. On the other hand War Machine's actual weapons never really seem anything specifically Stark inspired or required, they're just slightly better missiles or heavier weapons mounted on his effectively mobile platform, so nothing about his capabilities require Tony at all anyway. Maybe Stark vetoes and attaches them to the armour? So he does make SOME weapons, but they're all clearly meant as extensions of his personal capabilities, not to be sold/handed out to the military at large. Maybe it's like someone getting a car for their best friend for his birthday but Tony makes you cool gadgets for fighting people. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 16:25 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Hammer breaks Vanko out of prison so that Vanko can build weapons for him. Vanko goes along with this because he's a destitute escaped convict and needs access to tools and materials. He transparently does not give a poo poo about Hammer and is not going to deliver on a marketable product. Vanko was in prison for attempted murder. Also I've honestly found this far more informative on what I forgot or misremembered rather than re-watching a movie that I don't particularly enjoy (and I don't think I have access to it regardless and I'm not spending money to win discussions on the internet I don't actually want to win. I'm here for furthering my understanding and knowledge whilst sharing what I remember (or as the case may be, misremember)). I distinctly remember disliking the presentation of Whiplash (who at the time I found really cool in other Iron Man media, and in the movie he was kind of presented as one note and boring, although clearly that's not the case in hindsight given the discussion we've just had) and that I found Howard being "right" was fairly stupid considering the movie had a nice setup for Tony dealing with the demons of both his own making (poisoining=alcoholism) and those of his father (who definitely was presented as a far more ruthless businessman than Tony himself by that point, and definitely is implied to have been a very lovely father). Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Well for the peace-keeper bots specifically, aside from super human strength from being machines, remember from IM1 that the repulsors are part of the flight system and are specifically built into the hands for control (Tony just quickly realized you could also use them as weapons). So minimum they have that, which still makes them highly combat capable although admittedly not nearly at the level of Tony's personal armor which is kitted out with a bunch of additional weapons. Agreed, the fact they weren't destroyed is weird. There's a lot of weird in the MCU along those lines, it's one of the more consistent disapointments. It's why I am actually disapointed with Falcon on the Winter Soldier on the Flagsmashers front, because even if Karli is intended to be irredeemable, and I sincerely don't think she is, her followers were repeatedly shown uncomfortable and pushing back against her until she re-aligned them through (shoddy) rhetoric. Even if I was satisfied with the rest of the show and its writing. Halloween Jack posted:I give up. Sorry you feel this way, I was legitimately enjoying our discussion and you provided plenty of education and points I had not considered and that I did appreciate even if we continued to differ on interpretation and perspective. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 16:35 on May 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The idea that Wakanda would be destroyed, by the way, is entirely an invention of yours. It's not a concern for anyone in the film. If we're not allowed to read killmonger beyond the bounds of the film's footage, then Wakanda's imminent destruction's not really a thing either. This is not what I meant, reading beyond the film is fine, good even, outright rewriting the film to suit a narrative is not. I’m taking what I see and extrapolating intent and result with the destruction of Wakanda thing. Because what we see does suggest Erik Stevens doesn’t care about the future of Wakanda, only that he can use them to start a global war that might destroy them, or might leave him kind of a global empire. Also, I think that being upset Tony Stark in the only one use of the infinity gems he had chose to destroy Thanos and nothing else isn’t some we must always return to the Status Quo when he did not expect to have the gems ever in the first place and had an immediate threat needing an immediate solution. Especially when to me every movie and show since has been about the status quo having changed, the world has changed. But my readings are obviously my own and I’m not gonna sit here and tell you yours are wrong, that was never my intent. I just never saw the movies as ignoring the advancements (especially when we repeatedly see signs of advanced medical technology at the very minimum) so much as uninterested in going into deep detail about how Tony Stark gave every city an Arc Reactor. Yes the world still resembles our own, but fhat doesn’t somehow mean there hasn’t been changes. I’d certainly enjoy more signs of those changes, but I sincerely believe they exist, they’re just not some global super peace no more capitalism stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2021 04:31
|
|