Ironheart Trailer

[JKCarrier]

5 hours ago, BrandX said:

Peter Parker wasn't  required to help.

Peter clearly thinks differently. "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you."

 

5 hours ago, BrandX said:

By your logic, every soldier should feel guilty and be a criminal.  Natasha did her job for her government.  She later does the same things for another government and she's a hero.

Natasha was not a soldier for the Russians, she was an assassin. She's not "doing the same thing" for SHIELD. She says, "I've got red in my ledger. I'd like to wipe it out", not "I moved from Russia to the U.S. so I could kill people in a warmer climate".

 

Quote

Tony built weapons.  That is neither illegal or criminal now is grounds to be guilty, or else you have to say everyone involved in the making of such weapons are guilty. 

Ok, I'll say it: "Everyone involved in the making of such weapons are guilty."

All of these characters changed their behavior because they came to realize that their old behavior was morally wrong.

[BrandX]

43 minutes ago, JKCarrier said:

Peter clearly thinks differently. "When you can do the things that I can, but you don't, and then the bad things happen, they happen because of you."

 

Natasha was not a soldier for the Russians, she was an assassin. She's not "doing the same thing" for SHIELD. She says, "I've got red in my ledger. I'd like to wipe it out", not "I moved from Russia to the U.S. so I could kill people in a warmer climate".

 

Ok, I'll say it: "Everyone involved in the making of such weapons are guilty."

All of these characters changed their behavior because they came to realize that their old behavior was morally wrong.

 

That all goes back to feeling guilty.  Assassin for the government is no different than soldier.

 

Yes, they all had moral qualms with what they did, hence the feeling of guilt.

 

If however we go with the idea that just building weapons makes one guilty, then any who make weapons are free game on being taken out by those morally opposed to their weapon making (Quicksilver and Wanda), and yet they didn't go after the factories, which would've been far worse for Tony.

[ShardWarrior]

2 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I didn't know there was another Ironheart thread. Please point me to it.

 

This is the thread for posting analysis from the likes of Critical Drinker and other YouTubers.

[ShardWarrior]

16 minutes ago, BrandX said:

If however we go with the idea that just building weapons makes one guilty, then any who make weapons are free game on being taken out by those morally opposed to their weapon making (Quicksilver and Wanda), and yet they didn't go after the factories, which would've been far worse for Tony.

 

To add to this, this applies to more than just straight up weapons.  There are a surprising number of ordinary, every day items that can be used as lethal weapons too.

[battlewraith]

15 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Assassin for the government is no different than soldier.

Absolutely not true. Natasha, depending on the circumstances of her kills, is probably has committed war crimes according to international law. 

 

3 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

There are a surprising number of ordinary, every day items that can be used as lethal weapons too.

 

Which is why they found American pillows and hammers all over the Middle East after the Gulf war, right?  The mental gymnastics going on here is off the hook. 

[ShardWarrior]

14 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Which is why they found American pillows and hammers all over the Middle East after the Gulf war, right?

 

No one in the history of the world has ever been murdered by a knife?  Hammers can be used as weapons too.  You missed the point completely.  

[PeregrineFalcon]

2 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

This is the thread for posting analysis from the likes of Critical Drinker and other YouTubers.

No that thread is about the critics. I'm not talking about the critics, I'm talking about Ironheart and the fact that she's a criminal, not a superhero.

[TTRPGWhiz]

11 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I didn't know there was another Ironheart thread. Please point me to it.

It’s not specifically about Ironheart, it’s about critics and credibility (or the lack thereof, which is exactly where “Tim Pool watched it and said it was bad” belongs, if not in a dumpster). It starts with a post of a rage bait tweet with a made up quote being used as “evidence” of why preconceived notions about “who this movie is for” are justified (and ends with me debunking it). 

 

11 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I think we both know that they're just automagically taking the other side. And I think we both know why.

 

I watched it. It’s fine. I didn’t feel compelled to come to the City of Heroes forums and add my take on it. 
 

If “the other side” is “people who don’t ‘automagically’ crap on movies and shows before watching them”, then guilty as charged. 

Edited Monday at 01:06 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[TTRPGWhiz]

7 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

No one in the history of the world has ever been murdered by a knife?  Hammers can be used as weapons too.  You missed the point completely.  

What is the point, then? Do you believe arms manufacturers and companies that make hammers are producing equally dangerous items? Does my local hardware store have as much to answer for as Lockheed Martin?

No one in the history of the world ever built a house with a gun. A gun being used for what it’s designed to do is a deadly weapon. A hammer being used for its purpose is not.

 

This might seem tangential, but it’s the crux of what the Iron Man movies—and to some extent, Ironheart—are about. 

Edited Monday at 12:21 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[TTRPGWhiz]

20 hours ago, Ghost said:

@TTRPGWhiz

@battlewraith

 

Have either of you watched the show yet?

🤔

Yep. It was OK. I’ve seen better and I’ve seen worse. But I *have* seen it, which used to be the bare minimum for having an informed opinion. Halcyon times.

[battlewraith]

9 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

No one in the history of the world has ever been murdered by a knife?  Hammers can be used as weapons too.  You missed the point completely.  

You're trying to absolve arms dealers of moral responsibility by shifting the blame solely on misuse by the customer. Thus placing firms that make things like nukes and mines on the same level as Home Depot or Lowes. 

 

The difference is that Home Depot's business model is predicated on selling tools for construction projects. They encourage people to do home renovations, DIY projects, etc. Someone using a hammer as a weapon of opportunity does not advance their business model. 

 

Arms dealers sell equipment that is generally intended to blow shit up. That is the intent. That is the proper purpose. The business model entails selling as many of these weapons as possible. The proliferation of weapons increases the likelihood of warfare, which is a desirable outcome for the arms dealer because it boosts demand for the product. Death and destruction of property--often inflicted on innocent noncombatants-- is baked into this model. It is not some aberration like when someone gets killed with a hammer or a kitchen knife. 

 

Even in the sanitized version of Tony Stark in Iron Man 1, there is a recognition of this. He says there is "no accountability" and then shuts down his weapon division. He doesn't fire bad employees or have Jarvis run the operation. He stops it completely. Because there can be no  accountability--selling the arms entails bad consequences the same way tobacco companies promote cancer.  

Edited Monday at 02:12 PM by battlewraith

[ShardWarrior]

9 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

No that thread is about the critics. I'm not talking about the critics, I'm talking about Ironheart and the fact that she's a criminal, not a superhero.

 

Well no, you did not mention anything like that in your post.  You included a video from Tim Pool and said that he did not like it and you are glad you did not watch this show. 

 

3 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

What is the point, then? Do you believe arms manufacturers and companies that make hammers are producing equally dangerous items? Does my local hardware store have as much to answer for as Lockheed Martin?

 

No, I do not believe that these items are equally dangerous as that is not the point.  The point is just about anything can be turned into a lethal weapon, so at what level does the blame game start and where does it end?  Do some research sometime and look at how many deaths there are each year in the US alone to DUI related accidents.  Should the automobile manufacturer be held responsible because they built a car that allows someone drunk to drive it?  Why draw the line at arms manufacturers only?  Simply because they are making weapons and their intended purpose is to be used as a weapon?

 

I do not like the idea of weapons and arms manufacturing either, but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect, harmonious, peaceful world and we never will.  I hope we never have to use our weapons, but I am thankful we have them should we need them.  Whether we like them or not, businesses like Lockheed Martin are legitimate business.

 

3 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Yep. It was OK. I’ve seen better and I’ve seen worse.

 

I agree with you here.  I did not find this to be as bad as these YouTubers say it is.  While I find the story to be poorly written and the character of Riri to be unrelatable, I do think it better than Secret Invasion, which is a very low bar to hit.  My main gripe is that despite Riri being this super genius, she makes very poor decisions and is not learning from the mistakes Tony Star had already made.  That is one thing Stark always did - learn from his mistakes.  Riri seems to be intent on making her own despite have the benefit of learning from Stark.  It makes her look like one of those "so smart, they are stupid" types and I would like to have seen better than that.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Even in the sanitized version of Tony Stark in Iron Man 1, there is a recognition of this. He says there is "no accountability" and then shuts down his weapon division. He doesn't fire bad employees or have Jarvis run the operation. He stops it completely. Because there can be no  accountability--selling the arms entails bad consequences the same way tobacco companies promote cancer.  

 

Yeah that's magical fantasy world though.  In the real world, there are very bad, very evil people out there, and not having weapons to defend yourself leads to bad consequences for you.  Thinking that if the world magically stops manufacturing weapons that conflict will disappear is wishful thinking.  Even in the fantasy world of the MCU, the world still builds more and more weapons despite Stark ending his manufacturing of them.  

 

Anyway, if Stark was smart enough to know to keep his Iron Man tech out of the hands of everyone, Riri - who is supposedly smarter - should be able to understand that much.  

[Excraft]

Actually, thinking about this more, Stark DID continue making weapons.  The Iron Legion, Ultron, his various other suits of purpose designed suits of armor... those are all weapons.  Stark Industries may have stopped manufacturing weapons, but Stark himself went on making a whole lot more of them.  One of which nearly destroyed all life on Earth.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

Yeah that's magical fantasy world though.  In the real world, there are very bad, very evil people out there, and not having weapons to defend yourself leads to bad consequences for you.  Thinking that if the world magically stops manufacturing weapons that conflict will disappear is wishful thinking.  Even in the fantasy world of the MCU, the world still builds more and more weapons despite Stark ending his manufacturing of them.  

 

 

No, you're actually still in the fantasy world. 

Wars are generally fought for control of resources and political dominance. If you want to reduce the number of very bad, very evil people in the world stop behaving in a very bad very evil manner. Stop blasting innocent people to smithereens and expecting their relatives to not hold grudges. Stop propping up psychotic dictators that commit atrocities because it keeps the oil flowing or is politically expedient in some way. Keep war profiteers and lobbyists away from politicians so that the government isn't incentivized to manufacture and perpetuate armed conflicts in the world. There are a lot of options. 

[Excraft]

10 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

If you want to reduce the number of very bad, very evil people in the world stop behaving in a very bad very evil manner.

 

Yeah good luck with that.

[TTRPGWhiz]

9 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Why draw the line at arms manufacturers only?  Simply because they are making weapons and their intended purpose is to be used as a weapon?

Yes.

[JKCarrier]

21 hours ago, BrandX said:

Assassin for the government is no different than soldier.

Pop down to your local Veterans' Administration office, and ask the people you meet there if they are assassins. You should get some interesting responses.

[TTRPGWhiz]

8 hours ago, Excraft said:

Actually, thinking about this more, Stark DID continue making weapons.  The Iron Legion, Ultron, his various other suits of purpose designed suits of armor... those are all weapons.  Stark Industries may have stopped manufacturing weapons, but Stark himself went on making a whole lot more of them.  One of which nearly destroyed all life on Earth.

Did he make these before or after witnessing a vast alien army that eventually succeeded in wiping out half the life in the universe? Did he sell them to governments or were there a half dozen movies worth of story where he specifically and explicitly didn’t turn those weapons over? 
 

This is literally the point of the Tony Stark character arc in the MCU. He went from being blaise about who his company sold weapons to and who they hurt to trying to build a suit of armor for the entire planet. 

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

He went from being blaise about who his company sold weapons to and who they hurt to trying to build a suit of armor for the entire planet.

 

And how did that turn out?  Oh right... Ultron tried to destroy all of humanity.  Good going Stark!

 

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Did he make these before or after witnessing a vast alien army that eventually succeeded in wiping out half the life in the universe? Did he sell them to governments or were there a half dozen movies worth of story where he specifically and explicitly didn’t turn those weapons over? 

 

So what?  He still built weapons.  He could have withheld his repulsor tech from S.H.I.E.L.D. for use on their next generation of helicarriers.  He could have taken the War Machine armor back if he were so morally against weapons being in "the wrong hands".  Here is the funny part - you're on one hand saying weapons are bad and anyone manufacturing them for any reason is morally evil, but then suggesting now that since Tony Stark was a nice guy trying to protect the world, it was ok for him to create weapons of mass destruction.

 

2 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Yes.

 

Are all weapons offensive?  Or can they be defensive in application?  How are you going to defend yourself against an aggressor without weapons?  Like I said above, you're picking and choosing where it is or isn't acceptable to produce a weapon.

[ShardWarrior]

10 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Yes.

 

Right so, if you use a weapon of any kind to defend your life or those of your family or loved ones, you yourself are morally evil by your own standards.

[TTRPGWhiz]

1 hour ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

Right so, if you use a weapon of any kind to defend your life or those of your family or loved ones, you yourself are morally evil by your own standards.

EDIT: never mind, there’s no point in continuing this conversation. Guns for home defense are definitely the same as defense contractors who sell warplanes. Well done, you win.

Edited Tuesday at 12:39 PM by TTRPGWhiz

[TTRPGWhiz]

8 hours ago, Excraft said:

 

And how did that turn out?  Oh right... Ultron tried to destroy all of humanity.  Good going Stark!

It’s almost like Tony Stark’s tragic flaw is hubris. Like he has good intentions but makes troubling choices. Did you just fast forward to the fight scenes or what’s the story.

I’m all set with this thread. See ya the next time one of you come running

to the forums with a negative take about a movie that comes out a year later.

Edited Tuesday at 11:21 AM by TTRPGWhiz

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

 

I’m all set with this thread. See ya the next time one of you come running

to the forums with a negative take about a movie that comes out a year later.

 

[battlewraith]

9 hours ago, Excraft said:

So what?  He still built weapons.

 

I think you lost the point of the discussion. There are people here saying Riri is a bad character because she makes bad choices and gets involved in crime. 

Tony was brought up as a counterpoint to show a double standard. The consequences of his arms deals are far worse than the crimes Riri is involved in. But he is redeemed (after almost getting yeeted by his own weapons) and becomes a beloved figure in the MCU. You pointing out that Tony, even after his redemption, continues to make bad decisions that have almost world ending consequences makes that double standard even more apparent. 

 

9 hours ago, Excraft said:

Are all weapons offensive?  Or can they be defensive in application?  How are you going to defend yourself against an aggressor without weapons?  Like I said above, you're picking and choosing where it is or isn't acceptable to produce a weapon.

 

Yes, because that's what sane people do. You look at the consequences of what something is meant to do, how it will be used, what the effect on the public will be, etc. That's what public policy is: picking and choosing. We allow people to go into a store and buy Tylenol. We imprison people selling heroin on the street. Why? They're both selling a drug that can be misused. The reason is that societies generally aren't governed by cartoonishly simple comparisons.