battlewraith
-
Posts
1336 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
59 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:
This does happen in real life. Even if Riri Williams would not accept funding in exchange for an Iron Man type suit, she is intelligent enough to create other kinds of technology such as the vibranium detector. Surely there are other things she can be given funding to work on or invent other helpful and profitable technologies. She can use the money she makes from that to do her own thing. That is a far more endearing character than one who turns to a life of crime.
Yeah they could have her be working for some sort of firm and doing her own research. That would be a different show with it's own set of issue--probably half workplace melodrama. Maybe something similar to how She-Hulk was trying to continue her law career. You'd have the whole bit where she'd go awol to go fight some threat. It's been done.
As for endearing characters--there are a lot of criminals or former criminals that are popular characters. It's going to be a while before I get to subbing Disney to watch this, but judging from the previews it seems like she makes bad choices and then gradually finds her moral center. Not every character is going to be a moral paragon like Supes.
-
28 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:
I am so glad I didn't watch this show.
Putin probably doesn't like it either.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, BrandX said:
They're going to throw money at her because she invented an Iron Man suit and still has access to it.
Again:
There is no way in hell that, because she's really smart, someone is just going to throw a bag of money at her and let her just do what she wants.
Anyone fronting her money, would do so in order to acquire that technology and control it. Yes she would be funded and have earnings. No, she would not be allowed to take that tech and run around as a superhero.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, JKCarrier said:
They might hire her, but no corporation is going to write her a blank check and let her run wild. She'd be subject to all kinds of scrutiny, have to submit plans and outlines and budgets and cost/benefit analysis, and take notes from the higher-ups ("The focus groups didn't respond well to the 'rescue suit' concept. Can we make it a VR game controller instead?"). It would most likely end the same way her stint at MIT did. If she wants to do her pet project her way, that pretty much means self-funding.
Yeah, this objection that people keep fixating on is so bizarre to me. There is no way in hell that, because she's really smart, someone is just going to throw a bag of money at her and let her just do what she wants.I am sad that we won't see a plotline where she finances her superhero career through Patreon. They could spend an entire episode at least dealing with her trying to figure out her reward tiers. And then we could see her waiting for her monthly payout and delivering stuff to the Patrons. Maybe the top tier Patrons would get their own gimpier version of a power suit. And then in addition to all that drama, maybe we'd see her take out a mugger or something. It would truly be a show.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ghost said:
For every Critical Drinker going on and on about how bad everything Marvel is, there’s a ComicBookCast going on and on about how great everything Marvel is.
Are they not one in the same?
Nope. Not even close.
A shill is supporting the industry, trying to get as many people as possible to watch a film. As flawed as the industry is, it's a platform for a multitude of creative endeavors--writing, acting, directing, art, music, etc. Even a bad film is likely to shine in some respect and others may get a reappraisal after they have failed at the box office. Regardless of motivation, a shill is generally pro art.
A grifter follows an ideological script to crap on things for clicks.
-
37 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:
This is giving people like Critical Drinker far more agency and credit than they deserve. He simply does not have the power or influence to sink a film on his own. At some point, a bad film is just a bad film and if people are not turning out to see it, it is not because Critical Drinker told them not to.
Well, he has around 2 million subscribers on youtube. "People like him" probably range from similar youtube commentators to something like the entertainment wing of the Daily Wire. So is that enough to have an impact on a film's performance? Maybe? I think the effect is actually more corrosive on production. Studios don't know which "fans" they should be listening to. So they ignore fans in general or invest in directors/producers/etc. that they think have nerd clout like James Gunn, Zack Snyder, etc. which can pose it's own set of problems.
Regardless, increasingly people are not turning out to see movies. It might be a good film. It might be an ok film. It might be a bad film. But rest assured the outrage peddlers will be there with there litany of complaints about the industry and why "the fans" knew the film was garbage.
1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:And you know this as fact? Every thumbs down on a movie trailer is from someone deliberately trying to tank a film just for the laughs? None of them cannot possibly be from anyone who just did not like the content?
Lol no I don't think it's people trying to do it for laughs. These are people that are aggrieved that studies are not catering to them.
Do I know that for a fact? No, but it compellingly explains the bizarre behavior of negatively rating ads for properties in which you have no interest.
-
41 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:
So all of these fans who are not turning out to see the latest movie or watch the new streaming show are now "toxic" because they do not like badly written stories?
41 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:The fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.
Movies and shows fail for a variety of reasons. But you literally have to be living in denial to ignore the fact that there is a dynamic of culture war bullshit that pervades the reception of Marvel properties right now. A big tipoff is when you have people going around telling you what "the fans" think, or what they know. Or that something failed because the "the fans" do not like badly written stories.
I don't have a crystal ball showing me the heart of the fans. I can clearly see, again, a reactionary social media influencer whose business model is hating on woke industry product signaling to his audience: Wow guys this one is real shite. It's even more shite than the last thing I said was shite. And then a certain percentage of this moron's audience is going to take that as gospel that is indicative of how "the fans' feel about it. Before they argue with you that they are an individual and make up their own mind etc. etc.
4 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:I take it you never read product labels to see what is in the foods you buy or read the ingredients on menus at restaurants?
I don't eat mushrooms. I'll look at a menu and avoid ordering food that has mushrooms in it. I don't then get online and put the restaurant on blast for selling food with mushrooms in it.
Review bombing done based on a trailer is an effort to tank a film. It's laughable to me that people can't or won't take it for what it is.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, SuperJames said:
Your analogy falls down because CoH gives us the resources we need while playing. We don't have to do anything other than play.
It's not a perfect analogy but I think you're missing the point. If I make a new character and need enhancements, I like most everyone else do a lot of things other than playing that character. I somehow grind the resources--farming, playing the market, doing repetitive task forces, etc. If the enhancements were freely available, my focus would be on the actual goal--playing the character--and enhancing as I go.
20 hours ago, SuperJames said:Some people will play diligently every weekend for years to amass vast armies. Then someone else will say the models should be free, because hey, these are only pieces of plastic.
They are just pieces of plastic, given more perceived worth through the imposition of artificial scarcity.
The person playing diligently every weekend should've gotten some entertainment value for their time. The issue is that this expectation is replaced with a grind mentality where the value of playing is measured by what you acquired, not what you experienced. And then the people invested in this virtual rat race want everyone else to have to commit to the same grind in order to preserve the sense of worth they associate with the time they spent grinding.
-
5 hours ago, Intrinsic said:
Why would you want to remove that source of enjoyment?
Because that source of enjoyment for some players is predicated on an imposed hassle for all players.
Similarly when people say “if everything were free, the game would lose meaning”, they are arguing that the gameplay itself is not sufficient. The repetitive tasks they routinely do only matter for the reward. Ergo, everyone should have to grind those repetitive tasks in order to prop up this value system.
Imagine you had a chess league where, in order to play, people had to periodically carve their own pieces. The more diehard players would flex on casuals with their more artfully carved pieces. They would have themed sets they collected. There would be a market where you could acquire pieces, resources to make pieces, etc. But at the end of the day, the actual game is still chess. It’s not made any better for these side activities and in some ways the league makes it harder to play.
Under this scenario, you might have someone show up and suggest that the league do away with all this fixation on pieces—everyone plays with a standard set. The response would be the same. “If I wanted my pawns just handed to me, I’d go play in that other league.” The success and failure of MMOs is that they prop up gameplay with various grindy timesinks to keep people playing. This entails a conflict between people who would like a more dynamic game, with less associated time sinks, and people for whom the game is essentially a platform on which to accumulate stuff.
-
In terms of games that I think have great stories and could potentially be great movies:
Bioshock
Half-Life 2
maybe Hades as a full length animated feature.
-
36 minutes ago, arcane said:
Firm believer in needing to take a power if you’re after its animation
Maybe you're a firm believer in Bigfoot as well but that also isn't an actual argument for or against this proposal.
The game is a comic book reality that mixes technology and magic. I see no reason why magic themed characters should have to pay some sort "power tax" because their aesthetics were overlooked at the START vendor (which also offers magical items like blackwand).
-
1
-
2
-
-
It's a basic of tenet of product design in 2025. "There is a wealth of information out there."
So if you buy a microwave and can't find any start button--google that shit. Log on to the company website and ask the community.
We have never been this connected in the history of the species, so there's no excuse for things being straightforward.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Rudra said:
If this is true, then it would indeed make the discussion irrelevant. To quote you though: show it to us.
He showed you. What does that screed about streakbreaker have to do with anything?
-
2
-
-
Maybe the GMs can prominently sticky something like this:
"Lord give me the strength to ignore the threads I do not like
The courage to post in the ones I do
And the wisdom to know that people are different"
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:
Co-starring Jessica Walter (aka, Lucille Bluth of Arrested Development) as Morgan LeFey!
Which reminds me of the Dr. Strange we could've had:
-
1
-
-
I remember it being on tv. I think it was typical of 70s tv productions--like 90% exposition and 10% payoff/action (if that).
-
4 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:
What keeps getting lost in this conversation (and by the author(s) of this "article") is that majority of the playerbase are not high end speed runners with fully optimized IO builds steamrolling thru +4x8 content. The majority still use SOs and common IOs and are playing at +0 to +1 at the default team size.
How do you know this? I’m not saying it’s not true, but the content that I typically do it seems like it’s the norm to have a fully IOed build that is in some way optimized for steamrolling +4x8. I consider the “high end” people to be optimized for hard mode content or set up to carry a team of lowbies through +4x8 missions.
-
2
-
-
But you didn’t have to nerf my brute
Make out like regen never happened and it was nothin’
And I don’t even need a buff
But you treat me like a warshade and it feels so rough
No you didn’t have to stoop so low
Have my friends farm emp merits and then nerf conversion
Guess that I don’t need that though
Now you’re just an MMO I used to know
Now you’re just an MMO I used to know
Now you’re just an MMO I used to know
-
4
-
2
-
1
-
3
-
-
11 minutes ago, ZacKing said:
To be honest, no I'm not going to watch it. I'm clarifying why, which we are allowed to do here. I can read a menu and see that I don't like the ingredients. I don't need to taste the dish to know it doesn't appeal to my liking, and I'm absolutely allowed to let the chef know if a dish doesn't taste good.
It's just not your thing. And you're helping us understand why it's just not your thing.
-
7 minutes ago, Excraft said:
Sounds like armor to me.
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.
14 minutes ago, Excraft said:But why does Riri Williams build an Iron Man suit then if there's better tech out there?
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.
-
1
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Excraft said:
How can you miss T'Challa running around in an indestructible nanotech vibranium suit that can harness and refocus kinetic energy or their robes that can project force fields? Stark didn't have any of that until Infinity War.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:
Law brains and tech brains don't always work well together. And it's not like universities haven't actively tried to rip off unsuspecting students' and researchers' work over the years. (Not to mention sponsoring corporate institutions like Google, Roche, and many others).
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.
-
1 hour ago, ZacKing said:
I'm sure they will. I don't think it makes sense that she wouldn't have anyone backing her or wanting someone of her genius and talent working for them, if not for the prestige alone.
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.
-
1
-
Ironheart Trailer
in Comic, Hero & Villain Culture
Posted
They could do a lot of things. They could put her in a mansion with a butler. I don't see how these other options would be certainly better and more relatable. Tony Stark started off as an arms dealer. He is certainly responsible for more death and devastation than Riri will do in this series. He changed his mind when he almost got yeeted by one of his own missiles.