battlewraith

You chime in on comments I make to someone else, don't like getting pushback, and then accuse me of trolling. I don't think that's how it works. If you don't like what I have to say, don't engage. Exert some modicum of self-control or put me on ignore.

So what? It's a suggestions forum. It's a place for feedback. Would you prefer to only read comments with which you agree?

It's not up to me, it's just how language works. You're equivocating. Lead by example as a phrase is about how people should conduct themselves. It says nothing about what people should do. What a weird thing to bring up. First of all, if a godlike being gets punched and goes flying to the ground into a crater--it's not really a good idea to be around that. Getting killed or endangered in this instance doesn't help Superman. Falafel guy's support was nice, but it didn't actually do anything. And it put him in harm's way. In reality we have police, fireman, etc. because we don't want ordinary people rushing in to help in dangerous situations--the reason being that the most likely outcome is a higher fatality rate. Moreover, if you think that Superman's purpose is leading by example, then...I guess he's a failure? What depiction of Superman has involved him transforming the world by virtue of being a great role model--as opposed to punching out Brainiac?

Sure, but you aren't me. The older this game gets, and the older the playerbase becomes, the more people on the forums seem to take their perspective as normal or reasonable and just dismiss other people's complaints. I'm not looking or expecting for things to change to suit me, but I do like to chime in and remind people that different players have different priorities. I also own a Honda irl.

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. This just seems like a reading comprehension fail. I said his actions involve flying etc. You're just reiterating what I said. He's inspirational in that he decides to act to do good things. Almost any human being could do the same thing to some extent. That's not leadership, particularly in the sense of Jor-el telling him to guide humanity. Supes fights crime and helps people caught up in disasters. What exactly does him beating up Darkseid tell us about what kind of government we should have, what kinds of technologies we should pursue, etc.

Because playing with SOs sucks. That's like asking "why bother trying to get a Ferrari when you can tool around in a Honda Civic?"

The game didn't launch with any of that. And the reason stuff like that gets in MMOs is that it's a timesink to keep people occupied. People complain about things they don't like doing. Different strokes for different folks. If you don't like doing something, then it's going to be a lot more arduous and seem to take a lot longer. Also the amount of time that it takes to make money on the AH is going to have more impact for people who have less time to play the game.

Superman stops bad guys. Like most other comic book superheroes. His actions involve flying, lifting heavy objects, heat vision, etc. The reasoning behind his actions is not some alien philosophy or something unique to him--it's the small town decency of the Kents. This inspirational message is something that is already part of human culture--figures like Jesus, Ghandi, etc. In fact Supes is often seen as a secularized version of Jesus. The difference is that Superman is nearly indestructible and can punch through steel. Superman is inspirational, but I don't see any real indication of him leading anything other than maybe coordinated crime fighting efforts.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but I think you're misunderstanding the point of Superman. The thing that makes him heroic is that he is a superior being that embodies the small town decency of the Kents. He does not hold himself to be better than other people, just more capable. Superman is fundamentally a helper, not a leader. Even in the Donner film, Kal-el never fully embraces Jor-el's vision of his purpose, as when Superman breaks the rules to save Lois at the end. While the Richard Donner scene is certainly far more benevolent than Gunn's, there are still questionable things about it. First of all, he's talking about the people of Earth being capable of good things if they have the proper leadership. Why are we to just assume that a Kryptonian, from an advanced civilization that did not survive and produced evil characters like Zod, is the one to be this leader? During the scene where Jor-el explains things about immortal beings, the galaxy, etc. he casually remarks that Clark has been gone 12 years. It's not like he told in advance, oh we're going to go on an educational voyage for 12 years. Martha's just left hanging. It's exactly this casual disregard for the concerns of the little people that Superman is not about. And it's a pretty consistent theme in Superman representations that people fear Supes will lose touch with humanity and start imposing his will.

Nobody will remember you for that. They will only remember you for dressing like an animal and punching people.

Pvp is part of the game. Yet the vitriolic hatred on the part of the much of the playerbase is such that pvp is not only entirely avoidable, it offers very little in terms of material reward for doing it as an activity. The market on the other hand, which some people describe as pvp, is extremely lucrative if you're willing to spend time doing tedious repetitive activities to earn money. I think a lot of people would love to skip that bullshit altogether , to the extent that they are less prosperous as a result. This is a superhero game. I didn't start playing so that I could shuffle components around and buy and sell stuff on the market. But if you don't do that, or regular farming, you're probably going to be low on inf.

Did you ever actually watch this series?

To anyone trying to understand why things happen, circumstances are always relevant. Despite a lot of questioning on your part , all I've seen here is that the streaming numbers for Ironheart, despite the show being dropped with little promotion, beat everything else on Disney+ at the time. This suggests that the show outperformed expectations. Ok, show me some data that shows advertisers pulling their ads because of the show's performance. Something that's not just a figment of your imagination. I've done a lot of searches on why Ironheart wasn't renewed. There actually has been no cancellation notice or renewal. What scant discussion I could find seems to indicate that Disney is moving away from standalone shows. If true, that would be an example of circumstance, which you think is irrelevant. Hilarious. I guess Captain Marvel beating things like the first two Ironman movies and most of the Captain America movies is a reflection on the quality of those movies as well eh? I dunno, have you seen what happens? I thought that Batman movie was great, but the development of the sequel has been tortured. It's now been pushed off until 2027, which is not good. Particularly since this was planned to be a trilogy. Weird example to bring up.

You have so little to run on that you're arguing about a specific word choice. By all means, tell me how you really feel about this steaming turd. Lol why don't you look it up if you think that matters. I'm not here to try to make your argument for you. Where Ironheart ended up in the charts is relative. The fact that it charted is not. It indicates that a substantial number of people watched. Disney doesn't have to air that second season. They could scrap it and rework the series. Or write it off altogether. You know, the things people here suggested the studio do with Ironheart. You have a double standard going here that you can't seem to acknowledge. Ironheart performed well, but didn't get renewed. Daredevil performed poorly but will still have the second season. Everything related to the production and release of these shows is contingent on a variety of business decisions and other factors. I BEG YOUR PARDON. Where did I say it would've been a raging success? Looks like you're making stuff up--seems a bit hypocritical. The point I made earlier was this: "my observation is that, despite being shelved and having minimal promotion, people watched the show. Given this data point, a more reasonable conclusion is that they should have released the series earlier, in closer proximity to the Black Panther movies, and it would've performed better." When companies are making more profits, they spend more. A second season of Ironheart doesn't equate to a raging success, any more than a second season of Daredevil will. Times have changed. Superman and Fantastic Four, both well executed, well intentioned successful superhero movies have made less money respectively than Thor: Love and Thunder.

I'm drawing a conclusion based on what you've said and your commitment to dragging this argument out. It's exactly what I just said. It performed better than everything else on Disney+ at the time. It made the Nielsen top ten list when it debuted. Daredevil: Born Again was released a couple months earlier and failed to chart during the entire course of its run. However, Daredevil will have will have a second season despite it's performance being the worst for Marvel streaming shows. I think that alone pretty much guts your vision of how things work. No it's just your baseless speculation. Another good example is the Tron franchise. Tron Legacy was a mild financial success. The studio was disappointed that it didn't kick off a new major franchise on a par with Pirate of the Caribbean. Nonetheless, they greenlit a sequel with the same lead actors and director. Then Tomorrowland bombed and the studio changed its mind, deciding instead to focus on things like the MCU. Now, 15 years later when cape films aren't as lucrative, we are getting another Tron movie.

LOL umm no, but you did describe it as a steaming turd of a show. Those things tend to go together. We were talking about streaming numbers, which were good. It out performed other shows on Disney+. The fact that it didn't get a second season doesn't negate that fact. As the article I posted indicates, other factors at the studio affect how and when they roll out shows. The decision not to continue Ironheart may have been made before the show even aired, in light of other priorities going on at Disney, and not reflective of how well the show was actually received.

If I'm being honest here, I think you hate this "steaming turd of a show" so much that it's warped your thinking. My "offensive" here was simple, yet diabolical. I swooped in and pointed out that the week it debuted on Disney+ that it was the most streamed thing on the platform. People did watch the show. Ghost was actually the one to state that it did well on the platform. I ran with it. Oddly enough, you didn't grill him on what his definition of "did well" was. Moreover, if you think that maybe it didn't do well, go ahead and explain why. Apparently now on a videogame forum chat thread, we not only need to acknowledge that numbers can be fudged, but also have to provide market research. Knock yourself out. If hype, advertising. and proximity to the movies have an influence on a show's success, then you've just restated the reasons why the show didn't do as well as it might have. You boldly assume that, since you hate this show then the Disney execs must have agreed with you. In actual reality, there are other reasons why the show was held up: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/marvel-star-wars-tv-shows-movies-slowdown-1235326681/

No it's just a very typical exchange on these forums. I said that it did well on Disney+ and after argument and reminders that this data can be fudged we all seem to be on the same page that--yes, it did well on Disney+. Huzzah. I think that's a bit too reductive to be the bottom line. Disney shelved the series for three years and did minimal promotion, at least according to what people have stated here. Under those conditions, it seems to have performed very well. Which goes back to my earlier statement--if the studio had handled the series better, it probably would've performed better and maybe gotten a second season.

Sure, maybe. But I'm trying to make sense of your contribution here. The claim was that people didn't watch the show. According to Disney, they did. Now, unless someone actually wants to argue that Disney is not to be trusted on this--that's it. The claim is wrong. As far as I can tell, nobody here is claiming that Ironheart did gangbusters compared to other popular shows, just that it did well. So the lists that were provided are irrelevant to the point, other than to indicate what numbers Disney is giving which you can just google. I'm not taking issue with your background or perspective on numbers. I'm taking issue with this: Okay, so......... What am I supposed to do with this? Is it just a generic PSA that can be applied to any figures coming out of the entertainment industry (or any other industry for that matter)?

It was not directed at you, on purpose, to avoid this exposition. I don't disagree with anything you said about the numbers. I question the rhetorical goal of what you're saying. There is a cultural trend to be skeptical of data sources: scientific research, medical data, government statistics, etc. Skepticism is generally good. We shouldn't just take everything on faith. However, this current trend generally amounts to a vague dismissal of information based on insinuation. Someone said that people didn't tune in for this show. The list indicates that a substantial amount did tune in. That's a pretty simple claim. It doesn't matter to me that some, all , or none, of the figures on that list may have been exaggerated. The only case that would be relevant is if Disney decided to fabricate an audience for a show they left on the shelf for 3 years and did little to promote. You cared enough to write all of that based on someone referencing the list.

They wouldn't, unless some executive at Disney had a deep emotional commitment in a Disney+ show pulling ahead of Trainwreck: Poop Cruise. This is 2025. When people are confronted with a specific data point they don't like, they will often launch a vague, generalized attack on the source of the data. "I'm not saying this company lied (because then I'd have to show evidence), but companies do lie about these sorts of things."

Again, no clue what you're on about. Yes, and my observation is that, despite being shelved and having minimal promotion, people watched the show. Given this data point, a more reasonable conclusion is that they should have released the series earlier, in closer proximity to the Black Panther movies, and it would've performed better. You still would've hated it, but maybe it would've garnered a second season.

The reason I watched this show is because my wife wanted to watch Andor season 2, so we subbed Disney+ (which we now no longer have). Saw some ads, so I thought I'd give Ironheart a shot. So this "my precious Disney" stuff--I have no clue what you're going on about. I watched Loki, Agatha, and Ironheart. That's it. And I thought the point of this thread was Ironheart. I strongly suspect that you've consumed more Disney product than I have. I labelled it bitching because it is. This show didn't appeal to you so you think maybe it should've been scrapped and started over. I don't think you were really the intended audience for this show. Eventually, I think you will get over it. God speed.

If it was the most streamed thing on Disney plus, then obviously people were tuning in. And this was, by your account, with no build up or promotion until about 1 week before. Did it make your top ten list? No. Did any other superhero series? Lol no. I thought people were done bitching about this show weeks ago. With all this enduring hatred, they must've done something right.

And yet it was the most streamed thing on Disney+ the week it debuted. Letting it sit on a shelf until there was substantial superhero fatigue was most likely the real mistake.