Excraft

That's an interesting question. For the new Superman in specific, I think the falafel guy coming to help Superman got the point across. I do agree it is something they could build upon more. It's as you said though, how much or how little this kind of scene showing ordinary people inspired to do good is dependent on what the story calls for. You do see it in other films. The passengers on the train stepping in to protect Spider-Man from Doc Ock in Spider-Man 2 comes to mind. It's an interesting topic for discussion. Might make for an interesting thread.

Couldn't agree more. Their actions inspire and they lead by example to inspire others to be better people. They're not generals or politicians barking out orders from on high, they're walking the walk. Hell, in the case of Superman, his symbol from the House of El literally translates to "hope" on Krypton and represents being a force for good and an ideal for people to strive toward. Superman isn't telling everyone to sit back, relax, put their feet up and sip a cocktail because he's got this, he's using his powers for good and to inspire others to do good and make a better world. He does his best to help make the world a better place, and in doing so inspires others to do the same. ^ 100%.

If you say so. Correct and no one here has suggested otherwise. I take it you aren't familiar with the phrase "lead by example"? Either that or you're trolling. I suspect I know which. And how many ordinary people are doing that? I guess you missed the crowds of people standing around doing nothing while Superman was doing his thing. Only that falafel stepped in to help Superman when he was down.

I would say the latter.

Well no, his abilities are flying, lifting heavy objects, heat vision etc. He uses those abilities to fight crime and help people, not lord over them. He's inspirational through his actions. He doesn't need to act. He could let Luthor or Brainiac or any other bad guy take over the world. He doesn't. He decides to act and use his abilities to inspire others to do good deeds.

Fair enough. You're right. Thanks.

The circumstances are it did not bring in enough viewers to warrant further development. If the show were a huge success and became a watercooler show that everyone was talking about and advertisers were making a lot of money on, then it would have been renewed. What were the "expectations" and "expected" numbers for it to hit? Of course advertisers can and do withdraw from poorly performing shows. Their goal is to reach as large an audience as possible with their ads, especially in whatever key demographic they're targeting. Why do you think there are so many ads on broadcast and streaming? Television programs have been cancelled due to advertisers pulling out because of some controversy surrounding the show as well. If you want to go strictly by box office, it means Captain Marvel was a good movie and people went to see it, so it was a financial success. Ironman had 2 sequels as did Captain America, which are 2 more than Ironheart got. Yes, I've seen what happens when a studio releases a quality product. It sells tickets and makes a lot of money. As far as the Batman 2, from what I've read the script isn't finished yet and Pattinson may not be available yet due to other projects. I don't know if that's "tortured" or not. It did get a sequel greenlit, which is more than Ironheart has and also had The Penguin spinoff. What follow up series has Ironheart received?

I didn't care for the show and I didn't like the protagonist. There were some good parts, but overall not enough for me to rate this series very highly. I'd give it a 1 out of 5. I didn't "hate" it. There's no double standard at all. You're trying to backpedal because you're wrong and trying to compare apples to oranges. You tried to say that Daredevil didn't perform well, but still got a second season to claim quality doesn't matter. Daredevil is getting a second season because that's been the plan for it since very early on before filming began. Again, Disney already purchased 18 episodes and split that into 2 seasons. "Season 2" was already in production. That's not the same as Ironheart. A better comparison is to see whether Daredevil gets a third season. If it doesn't perform well, it probably won't. And when a program doesn't do well, regardless of the reasoning, and advertisers start pulling their money, the shows don't get renewed. Again, no way to spin it - Ironheart didn't do well enough to warrant a second season. Circumstances aren't really relevant. That's more a reflection on the quality of Fantastic Four and Superman than anything else. The Batman came out the same year as Thor: Love and Thunder, has good reviews from both critics and audiences and has a sequel in production. Not to mention it had a spinoff series on HBO Max. See what happens when a studio makes a good product?

Your conclusion is wrong and you're just making things up in order to argue. I never used the word hate to describe my opinion of the show. Ok but what else was released on D+ at the time? If there wasn't anything else and Ironheart was the only new content being released, it's understandable it would chart higher on D+ because it's the only new programming on at the time. As for Nielsen, it barely charted higher than Poop Cruise.... Disney originally purchased 18 episodes of Daredevil: Born Again. This was initially planned for 1 season, however it wound up getting split into two. There was enough content and story for 2 seasons, so season 2 wasn't contingent upon season 1 performance. I think that pretty much guts your vision of how things work. And your fantasizing that Ironheart would've been a raging success had it been released earlier isn't baseless speculation at all? Not even a little bit? You can't spin this - were Ironheart a hit success, there'd be a season 2 regardless of when it was released.

So I never used the word "hate" to describe the show. You're making things up. What is "good" in this instance? Good compared to what? What other programs did it outperform? How did it compare to other MCU series? Or Disney knew it wasn't good and decided to hold off on releasing it in the hopes their next couple of projects started reversing the already declining interest. Once again, if Ironheart were a success, it would've have been renewed regardless of when it was released. That's a fact. I did see ads of my Roku home screen for Ironheart, but they didn't last long. It seemed to be gone in a day.

I don't believe I've ever used the word "hate" to describe the show. I think you love the show much it's warped your thinking and your blinded by devotion and can't admit the obvious. See? That can work both ways. It didn't get a second season. That's a patently obvious fact as to the show not doing well. Well no, what I'm saying is that Disney knew they had a turd on their hands and that no amount of hype or release proximity was going to save it. BP: WF performed markedly worse than the first Black Panther film ($1.34 billion vs. $859 million). The property was already declining. If Riri's solo story was that good, it would have garnered higher viewer numbers and received another season regardless of when it was released. Apparently they do. Did they greenlight a second season? It's possible those were factors. Regardless of the reasons, the show didn't get a second season, which means not enough viewers. The how and the why don't matter at this point.

Yeah no. I'm being honest here, it reads to me that you misread what was posted and zeroed in on a single comment out of context from someone who said they didn't like the series. You decided to go on the offensive and accuse them of something they didn't say because they didn't like the show. Also, how are you defining "did well"? Did well in comparison to what? It made the top 10 for the week on Disney? Ok, but what other new content was released that week? How does Ironheart viewership rank among other MCU streaming shows? I disagree. It's just as plausible that Disney shelved the series because they knew they had a huge steaming turd on their hands, and instead of wasting money on advertising, they shelved it while deciding whether to write it off or release it. Ultimately they decided to release the series, but decided not to spend on advertising because they knew it wasn't going to do well. If Disney were really confident they had a hit on their hands, they'd have hyped it up and released it years ago after Wakanda Forever to continue Riri's story. You can play the "what if" scenarios as to why the show failed and/or how it could have done better endlessly. The series didn't perform well enough for a second season. That's a fact. That's what's most important. I agree and I personally think it's part of the reason Marvel/Disney knew there wasn't much of a story here. I agree. I'd like to see a better script and totally agree Riri needs to do a lot of maturing first.

Don't know that I'd say the set is broken, but this part would be a welcome change.

I disagree, I think they are relevant. They're providing further context. The charts show people did watch the show, and that it may have done okay, but not well enough. The viewership hours weren't sufficient to warrant Disney renewing the series. I don't know about you, but I did find the info rather interesting and did a little research myself. I had thought most went just by straight viewership hours. I found some info about this Luminate company and how they collect their data. Some of it makes me want to read user agreements again for my streaming devices lol. Anyway, from what I found, they are able to track D+ stuff even though they don't get viewership numbers directly. They had reported on how the viewership for the MCU is declining back in November of 2024. Take that article for what you will. A lot of people (IIRC including some of those nasty YouTubers you hate so much) hopped all over that first article @Ghost linked to with the one chart as proof Ironheart sucked because it didn't make the top 10 viewership. I'd have thought given your ardent defense of anything Ironheart, you'd have been thankful that someone took the time to explain why that chart in particular wasn't accurate. I know I'm thankful. It added clarity to the discussion. I could be wrong here, but I think you're reading way too much into it. Seems very simple to understand. There's differences in numbers posted by various sources due to different collection methods and there's a degree of inaccuracy. If I'm being honest, you're trying really hard to accuse @ShardWarrior of saying Disney inflated their viewership numbers for Ironheart. @ShardWarrior repeatedly said that Disney he isn't saying Disney inflated anything, just that there can be some degree of inaccuracy in the data, especially considering that they all use different methods of data collection. That's all. Bottom line is, people did tune in for Ironheart, but not enough to warrant further seasons.

I understand that the Beta server is subject to frequent data wipes. Again, I don't disagree with you. All I said was recreating a character on the Beta server isn't going to take the "hundreds of hours" alluded to.

I can second that this does happen. It's not common, but I do see the occasional request in LFG for people running Aeon or ITFs that are requiring people to have "multiple IO sets" in order to join. There are a couple of really bad SGs that require people to have completely ridiculous builds created by one of the officers in order to run content with them. Any deviation from the build is allowed.

Well, yeah. I don't disagree. That's what I was getting at. All I was saying is that it's not a huge chore to recreate a character on the Beta server. You don't need to spend "hundreds of hours" playing it again and again to get back to whatever level progress you were at. You can recreate any character at any level within a couple of minutes. No need to even transfer it from a live server.

You can just re-copy the character to BETA or re-roll it with all the bells and whistles in a few minutes. It's not like you'd need to level up the character running all the content from scratch again. I think it's more people don't play on BETA because of the low population and most do want some feeling of progression.

A couple of things ... No disrespect was intended. It is true the HC team produces more content than some real development shop. See Cryptic Studios. STO barely gets a trickle of content. Pointing this out doesn't mean other real development shops suck. That's you making an assumption. All my post means is that some of them produce content at a slower pace than HC. That's all. You're injecting a personal hangup into my post that isn't there. If you want the cadence to improve, as others have suggested, volunteer for the development team.

No disrespect meant, but so what? This is just my 2 inf, but there's already so much content in this game. I really don't think we need more story content or power sets. I think we should be happy we have the game back and that the group of volunteers running it are still running it and not burned out. Is everything HC does great? Hell no. Some of it has been great, some of it has been a steaming pile. Overall, they've done a good job with what they have and accomplish more than other real development teams working on real games have produced. That's not something to complain about.

What's not getting done fast enough for you? How much are you expecting from volunteers doing this in their spare time? I think they've done a great job with the amount of content they've produced in the time they have, and that should be commended. I may not like everything HC does, but I'm thankful they are doing it.

Aw man, I just watched the final Black Sabbath show with Ozzy and Metallica. So sad to hear about this. RIP Ozzy.

Which in of itself is a pain, especially in cave maps and narrow hallways, and that isn't including KB knocking stuff into the map geometry where it gets stuck. Hence, the reason people avoided playing sets with heavy KB. There still are those people.

You just have issues with people not liking things. Nobody is confused. Nobody needs you to explain this to them. Nobody needs you to explain what an opinion is or what the term "subjective to the person" means. Just because I didn't care for a particular comic in no way means others won't enjoy it. I didn't care for Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow. I do encourage everyone to read it and make their own judgment about the story. Your point doesn't make sense though. People can dislike something and that doesn't make it bad for everyone. If I can be honest, it seems to me like you post here just to start arguments. I have to agree with what @ZacKing said earlier - you have the opportunity here to discuss the film and have yet to do so.

Actually, it's you who is very uninformed. I've read the Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow comic. I didn't care for it. You seem to have serious issues with people disliking something. What are you on about? I said exactly both. Please learn to read. I can use an even larger font to quote what I posted again for you if you need it.