Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Water Bottle]

13 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

Hmm. Let's say for a second that I am correct. Do you really think that it'd detract from the original impression you had? Care to explain further why? 

 

Yes and because the power of that scene comes from BP realizing revenge is futile. Thus stopping Zemo from killing himself is important to that.

 

Also as far as Zemo knows he got what he wanted. He has no reason to live now. His family is gone now, the team responsible broken up, he has no more purpose. So trying to commit suicide completes his arc.

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, ChipMunky said:

 

Ehhhhhhh. He's not dumb. Although, he does try to kill himself. SO maybe he is.

 

Why would he have any reason to think they will get back together?

[ZattMurdock]

1 minute ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Yes and because the power of that scene comes from BP realizing revenge is futile. Thus stopping Zemo from killing himself is important to that.

 

Also as far as Zemo knows he got what he wanted. He has no reason to live now. His family is gone now, the team responsible broken up, he has no more purpose. So trying to commit suicide completes his arc.

 

4 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

We the audience know its temporary. From his perspective? It is permanent.

 

See, so here's where it gets interesting in how we fundamentally understand Zemo differently, and both answers are valid. The way I see it, he does know that it's temporary. Zemo in the MCU is sort of a way more cerebral version of Frank Castle with superheroes. His mission will never be over until he gets rid of the so called superheroes. He knows that what he did was impressive, but he wants more, because he knows that what happened with his family might happen again. I don't think he sees it as permanent, but just a crack on Avengers armor. Regardless our understanding, Zemo is too much of a great character in the MCU to go wasted. Him getting powered up to go head to head with someone like Cap at the very least is obviouly the next step, imho. 

[Barnack]

12 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Why would he have any reason to think they will get back together?

 

Stake ?

 

That is a bit an issue with end of the world type of stake, it make the plan to break them (or them breaking up over anything) always feel a bit strange when the world is literally in jeopardy from threat only them can act on.

 

I imagine that is an aesthetic comic-book reader are used to (and after a decade or so, the Avengers will too and go back to act has if saving the world was not the only important element, people getting use to anything).

Edited May 9, 2017 by Barnack

[Water Bottle]

2 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Stake ?

 

That is a bit an issue with end of the world type of stake, it make the plan to break them (or them breaking up over anything) always feel a bit strange when the world is literally in jeopardy from threat only them can act on.

 

He does not Thanos is coming. So as far as he believes the world is either safe or he thinks Earth will be fine without them.

[Barnack]

24 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

He does not Thanos is coming. So as far as he believes the world is either safe or he thinks Earth will be fine without them.

 

But the world was just attacked by aliens around 2012 in that MCU universe no ? Aliens that absolutely need superpower to deal with them, at least the movie really do not show humans even trying to fight them back like we see in a War of the Worlds movie.

 

Who in that context would consider the earth being safe ? (Fully admit total lack of knowledge on my part on this, was the source of the ET invasion identified and officially eliminated ?)

 

In that context, it sound really selfish, childish (and unbearable imo) to see them fight among themselves for personal stuff.

 

At least the movie recognize this and address this, with Vision saying that super aliens attack and superviliain that humans cannot deal with, by definition exist only since the Avengers assembled and that maybe they are triggered them.

 

Raising the stake almost always mean that almost all means are easily justified, when the world was saved from destruction it make people look stupid to complain that a building was destroyed in the process, but that just a general issue with the movies in general, they put a giant stake but want to keep morality issue about that world ending treat was avoided (when they are by definition all easily justifiable)

Edited May 9, 2017 by Barnack

[RandomCat]

11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

But the world was just attacked by aliens around 2012 in that MCU universe no ? Aliens that absolutely need superpower to deal with them, at least the movie really do not show humans even trying to fight them back like we see in a War of the Worlds movie.

 

Who in that context would consider the earth being safe ? (Fully admit total lack of knowledge on my part on this, was the source of the ET invasion identified and officially eliminated ?)

 

In that context, it sound really selfish, childish (and unbearable imo) to see them fight among themselves for personal stuff.

 

At least the movie recognize this and address this, with Vision saying that super aliens attack and superviliain that humans cannot deal with, by definition exist only since the Avengers assembled and that maybe they are triggered them.

 

Raising the stake make all means justified, when the world was saved from destruction it make people look stupid to complain that a building was destroyed in the process, but that just a general issue with the movies in general, they put a giant stake but want to keep morality issue about that world ending treat was avoided (when they are by definition all easily justifiable)

 

Well, the flip side of course is the other world ending threat was caused by Tony's hubris. So...Maybe the world would be safer without the Avengers.

 

I'd also disagree that raising the stake makes all means justified. Letting a group of people die isn't what a Hero should do, if letting them die means he can defeat the villain faster/easier. At that point he isn't an Avenger or a Hero. That's the thing with Civil War, it wasn't hinged on property damage, but people's lives being lost. Innocent people died because of the actions of our heroes.

 

Tony's arrogance caused a lot of people's deaths. Wanda's inexperience the same. We can argue semantics that her actions allowed less people to die, but people still died, and since she is a hero, she does feel bad about her failure.

 

It should also be pointed out the Aliens invaded for all of like 30 minutes. No military could possibly be mobilized within that time to have any effective chance to fight back against them, and we do know that a singular nuclear warhead was enough to blow up their main ship, so I doubt any of the guys on the ground could possibly survive against any real military attack.

[Barnack]

5 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Well, the flip side of course is the other world ending threat was caused by Tony's hubris. So...Maybe the world would be safer without the Avengers.

 

Sure, it is easy to get why they are piss at them for that, but as long as you have world ending stuff happening that need them, what you wanna do, no the world is not safe without the Avengers (while maybe with the theory that universe supervilain come just because they<re is some powered good guy to fight for fun and worthy challenge)

 

Quote

I'd also disagree that raising the stake makes all means justified. Letting a group of people die isn't what a Hero should do, if letting them die means he can defeat the villain faster/easier.

 

If you make the villain to powerful and is treat high enough (like the world existence) by default yes doing anything that go out of the way of taking him out as fast has possible tend to be cringe worthy and totally irresponsible. But like I said I think that it is deeply rooted in the genre and fans love/do not see it anymore. I could not watch Jessica Jones because they do not shoot with a gun (when you often see them at a short enough distance to do so) a super villain that could destroy the world and is currently destroying many life just to help one person falsely accused of murder, by making the bad guy too powerful it make look stupid and irresponsible (and usually selfish) any plan that does not take it down has false of possible imo.

 

You want the hero to have some moral question about what he do and if the mean is justified by the end, don't put a possible eminent end of all world scenario.

 

Quote

It should also be pointed out the Aliens invaded for all of like 30 minutes. No military could possibly be mobilized within that time

 

Post 2001 at NewYork city ? (pure semantic here, but I would think jet answer time to obvious treat must be kind of short now). But it is a fantastic world that can say that they are not as good, they don't seem to be, in Ultron the military is not used much either.

[RandomCat]

6 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Sure, it is easy to get why they are piss at them for that, but as long as you have world ending stuff happening that need them, what you wanna do, no the world is not safe without the Avengers (while maybe with the theory that universe supervilain come just because they<re is some powered good guy to fight for fun and worthy challenge)

 

This also makes the assumption Zemo cares about the world. He was going to kill himself, he didn't care about protecting the world.

 

6 minutes ago, Barnack said:

If you make the villain to powerful and is treat high enough (like the world existence) by default yes doing anything that go out of the way of taking him out as fast has possible tend to be cringe worthy and totally irresponsible. But like I said I think that it is deeply rooted in the genre and fans love/do not see it anymore. I could not watch Jessica Jones because they do not shoot with a gun (when you often see them at a short enough distance to do so) a super villain that could destroy the world and is currently destroying many life just to help one person falsely accused of murder, by making the bad guy too powerful it make look stupid and irresponsible (and usually selfish) any plan that does not take it down has false of possible imo.

 

You want the hero to have some moral question about what he do and if the mean is justified by the end, don't put a possible eminent end of all world scenario

 

I personally to the fiber of my being disagree with this. I really can't ever say letting people die is the right choice. I can never say the ends justify the means. Those aren't heroic actions. It isn't irresponsible or selfish to believe that saving life is the right thing to do. This is something we disagree on a deeply moral level, and we will never see eye to eye on.

 

7 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Post 2001 at NewYork city ? (pure semantic here, but I would think jet answer time to obvious treat must be kind of short now). But it is a fantastic world that can say that they are not as good, they don't seem to be, in Ultron the military is not used much either.

 

Jet answer time was pretty good. It takes time to mobilize any kind militaristic force. And especially authorizing something like a nuclear launch takes time.  I didn't say anything about the military not being good. even great militaries take time to respond to a surprise attack. There is no feasible way for the US military to respond to the attack in New York in any force to make a difference, and in universe is probably being told not to go in because they were planning on dropping a nuke on the city.

 

And in Ultron, there is definitely no way that any sizable military force could be made to have done anything. This is nothing to do with quality, just logistics. going from Africa, to South Korea, to an eastern European country. None of these countries have militaries that can react to the incidents that occurred to them within the time that these incidents actually happened. (I know, Africa isn't a country)

[eddyxx]

Mcu villains ranked

 

 

William Hurt returns as General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross

Loki

Hammer

Trevor

Zemo

Ultron

Ego

Stane

Winter Soldier

Alexander Pierce

Yellowjacket

I want my bird

Ronan

Ike Pearlmutter

Blonsky

Abomonation

Ayesha

Red Skull

Guy Pearce

Guy from Dr. Strange

Malekeith

Edited May 9, 2017 by eddyxx

[theStun]

I think essentially if Lex had just done a monolog at the end of BvS clearly explaining everything we just watched then it would be clear what his motivations were if only Lex was like Zemo. 

[RandomCat]

5 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

Mcu villains ranked

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

William Hurt returns as General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross

 

Loki

Hammer

Trevor

Zemo

Ultron

Ego

Stane

Winter Soldier

Alexander Pierce

Yellowjacket

I want my bird

Ronan

Ike Pearlmutter

Blonsky

Abomonation

Ayesha

Red Skull

Guy Pearce

Guy from Dr. Strange

Malekeith

 

Which Guy from Doctor Strange? Eye Guy or Space Head Guy?

 

And Perlmutter is totally higher on that list.

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

I personally to the fiber of my being disagree with this. It isn't irresponsible or selfish to believe that saving life is the right thing to do. This is something we disagree on a deeply moral level, and we will never see eye to eye on.

 

Thanks a lot for those long explanation by the way, and like I suspected fan of the genre are different than me about this (they must be).

 

But superheroes could save many of the 150k+ humans that die everyday, they are always (like you and me also are by not financing the installation of mosquito nets right now) not saving many life by choice of having something else they want or have to do, when it is fighting and saving the world at least (and not doing a party, shower, etc...) it is pretty much the only time they are not being terribly selfish and maybe not the best time to save some particular individual (and certainly not if that mean significantly hurting the chance you save the world).

 

Quote

There is no feasible way for the US military to respond to the attack in New York in any force to make a difference,

 

You would know way more than me, I only seen those movie at most one time and not all of them, but that was my point, you need the avengers in that setting, destroying them (or them fighting each other when they are a needed force to be ready in all time) fell childish and yes selfish. I would probably cringe if same team hockey player do not put everything behind them the time of winning the cup, imagine if they were protecting the world instead...

 

[eddyxx]

2 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Which Guy from Doctor Strange? Eye Guy or Space Head Guy?

 

And Perlmutter is totally higher on that list.

Eye guy. I cant remember his name and dont feel like googling.

[RandomCat]

Just now, Barnack said:

Thanks a lot for those long explanation by the way, and like I suspected fan of the genre are different than me about this (they must be).

 

But superheroes could save many of the 150k+ humans that die everyday, they are always (like you and me also are by not financing the installation of mosquito nets right now) not saving many life by choice of having something else they want or have to do, when it is fighting and saving the world at least (and not doing a party, shower, etc...) it is pretty much the only time they are not being terribly selfish and maybe not the best time to save some particular individual (and certainly not if that mean significantly hurting the chance you save the world).

 

I had this belief long before I was a fan of the genre. It's a belief I have about real life to, not just fiction. That's what I mean by this being a deeply held moral belief. This isn't a belief of what good fiction is. This is my belief what a good human is. A good human views saving life to be an unselfish act, and the responsible thing to do. That the ends do not justify the means. That a good human if they can should save the life, instead of letting a person die.

 

I feel like we're repeating ourselves here. Like I said before, this is something you aren't going to convince me of. And I am by no means trying to convince you of my belief. But this is my belief, it is one of the core foundations of my character as a human being.

 

Just now, Barnack said:

You would know way more than me, I only seen those movie at most one time and not all of them, but that was my point, you need the avengers in that setting, destroying them (or them fighting each other when they are a needed force to be ready in all time) fell childish and yes selfish. I would probably cringe if same team hockey player do not put everything behind them the time of winning the cup, imagine if they were protecting the world instead...

 

You didn't need the avengers in that scenario. In fact, the army would have won the battle anyway. If they dropped the bomb on New York, the aliens would have died, the machine that controlled the portal would have been destroyed. Army wins.

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

That a good human if they can should save the life, instead of letting a person die.

 

By how much it diminish the chance to save the world is it still the good thing to do, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30 % ? When does it shit to selfish (saving that one life to be sure to not feel bad after, not giving much value to the world and you own life if you have to live with that culpability, even thought you are risking the world and 7 billion other people for that).

Edited May 9, 2017 by Barnack

[RandomCat]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

By how much it diminish the chance to save the world is it still the good thing to do, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30 % ?

 

100%.

 

Edit: Okay, that's silly. But I hate questions like this. absolutely 100% should be your first response to save a life. realistically, 95-99% though.

Edited May 9, 2017 by RandomJC

[ZattMurdock]

1 minute ago, eddyxx said:

Mcu villains ranked

 

 

  Hide contents

William Hurt returns as General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross

 

Loki

Hammer

Trevor

Zemo

Ultron

Spoiler

Ego

Stane

Winter Soldier

Alexander Pierce

Yellowjacket

I want my bird

Ronan

Ike Pearlmutter

Blonsky

Abomonation

Ayesha

Red Skull

Guy Pearce

Guy from Dr. Strange

Malekeith

 

That's interesting. I'll take a serious stab on that. And THERE ARE SPOILERS HERE FOR VOL. 2 so you should edit it. 

 

The ones I think they are AMAZING to great:

 

1. Helmut Zemo

2. Loki

3.

Spoiler

Ego

4. Red Skull

5. Arnim Zola

6. Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross

7. Alexander Pierce

 

 

The ones that are good:

 

8. Dormammu

9. Obadiah Stane

10. Kaecillius

10. Blonsky Abomination

12. Aldrich Killian

13. Ronan

14. Crossbones

15. Justin Hammer

16. Yellow Jacket

17. Ulysses Klaue

18. King Laufey

19. Trevor Slattery

 

The ones that are meh, it could've been so much better:

 

20. Ultron

21. Malekith

22. Whiplash

23. Strucker (probably the thing that I hate the most when it comes to Age of Ultron)

 

I don't see Winter Soldier, Nebula and Yondu as villains in the MCU. More like anti-heroes or anti-villain in the case of Nebula. Thanos hasn't showed enough for me to give any kind of judgement, but I'm excited for him, Vulture and Hela. 

[eddyxx]

@iJackSparrow i edited it, I didnt realIze it was a spoiler. Kinda ruins my spoiler joke.

[ZattMurdock]

2 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

@iJackSparrow i edited it, I didnt realIze it was a spoiler. Kinda ruins my spoiler joke.

 

I freaking LOVE Thaddeus. I'm honestly hoping for a Thunderbolts coming out from Phase 4. Trying to imagine how a cool team of Thunderbolts would look like:

 

Citizen V (Helmut Zemo)

Winter Soldier

Nebula (yes, I know, but I think it'd give her an interesting dynamic)

Blonsky Abomination

 

To fill the rest of the team I'd get these characters from the comics: Moonstone, Songbird and maybe an out of the left field pick, like Obadiah Stane's son, Zeke as the new Iron Monger.