battlewraith

Something like a Pride festival is only political in the sense that there are reactionaries who don't want to acknowledge such communities exist.

It's just not your thing. And you're helping us understand why it's just not your thing.

I didn't say it wasn't armor. I said it wasn't power armor. Nobody is going to mistake Black Panther or Killmonger for Iron Man. And if you put Tony Stark into one of those suits, the results would be laughable in comparison. Because someone thought it would be an entertaining story to tell. And superhero comics aren't exactly centered around practicality. You still get lame characters like Hawkeye on Avengers rosters.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energy-usage-climate-footprint-big-tech/

I didn't miss it. It's not power armor. T'Challa was already superpowered without the suit and I think he was the only one wearing that type of outfit. Being able to to project force fields from robes supports my point--maybe going all in on an Iron Man style power suit is not the way to go. Maybe that's not as desirable an option in light of other tech that becomes apparent.

Even something like videogame development. I was at a university once where a group of students were developing a game (not even, more of a mod for something) and a lawyer appeared at a meeting and informed them that the university would own the rights to this work.

Are you actually going to watch this? You kicked this thread off saying no thanks. You're pointing to a narrative expectation that you have--that based on what has happened before you would expect Riri to have funding and she doesn't. I get that but it doesn't bother me. There could be reasons why investors are not as hot to back something like that--the government already has a version, the technology is seen as too expensive, there are more attractive options available, etc. I only saw the first Black Panther movie, but I don't remember seeing a bunch of people running around in power armor despite their superior tech. Moreover I think it's pretty clear from the trailer that they want to tell a story about this character doing things on her own. Dramatically it makes sense to distance her from the other films. I'm also not real worried about the continuity between the films and the Disney miniseries, any more than I expect comics to change tone, logic etc. every time a new writer comes on board.

Tony was a billionaire who owned the tech that he developed to become Iron Man. That clip is him refusing to share the tech with the US government. AFAIR the reason was that the government couldn't be trusted with it. So RiRi working with Rhodey for the government runs against the grain of the clip you're referencing. Which is from 2010. All I've seen is the trailer for this show, so they will probably explain why she doesn't have funding. There are all kinds of reasons why government agencies/investors wouldn't pursue Iron Man style tech. Unless you're dealing with a Tony Stark level intellect, it's probably way more cost effective to mass produce robotic drones. And dealing with a Tony Stark intellect has a track record of being a pain in the ass. If she was working for someone like the government or a large corporation, she wouldn't own anything she made and it would be under lock and key at all times.

Because it isn't a perpetual money making machine. The fact that it worked once doesn't mean that it's going to keep working indefinitely. As the MCU continues and they move on to less recognizable characters, this complex background lore is going to be baggage. That doesn't mean that the films shouldn't connect with each other in some way but it will make more sense for them to be self contained so that someone with no knowledge of the universe can enjoy it as a standalone experience.

I don't know what they intend with this series, but I think that Marvel is maybe waking up to the notion that every film or series shouldn't hinge on what came before in the MCU. The nerds are going to keep track of the overall continuity, but the general audience will not remember every plot point from previous films, assuming they have even seen them. I like the general vibe of this because it reminds me of a typical story you'd see in a tabletop rpg where the assumption is not that the character is a billionaire with endless resources (although Tony in Ironman 1 built his prototype armor in a cave).

We watch the fallout. Whether or not AI is art is something that can be debated. Whether or not it's a tool is, IMO, pretty straightforward to answer. It's not. It's automation. The goal is to replace the worker. And we are already seeing this in the job market--entire divisions of companies being phased out in favor of AI. Recent college grads in general are facing much worse prospects at employment due to AI. The buggy whip salesman was phased out by technology. But I don't think that there is a natural human inclination to be a buggy whip salesman. AI is intended to replicate the products of human creativity while bypassing the effort that was needed to produce these artifacts. And LLMs have gotten to this stage of development by feeding off the work of human artists so that they can be removed from the equation.

Do you really believe that most players are unaware of these concerns? I think it's actually the opposite. Most players don't regularly post on the forums. Of the ones that do, most don't post suggestions because it's likely a complete waste of time. This place should be about ideation and communicating the types of things players would like to see. Instead, you have a cabal of forum regulars that treat these posts as engineering proposals. The problem is that only the most bland, pissant, non-impactful idea is going to make it past the gauntlet of economics you laid out.

Maybe you should start your own thread about how weird you find things. It would be a hoot. Glad you like this idea. Huzzah!

It's great that you care. Maybe DM though if you don't actually have any feedback. I think this is a great idea.