Has anyone ever read an article that seemed like it was being way too cynical or critical?
Almost as if it was trying too hard in order to seem funny or something? Like it's criticisms were almost baseless
In my opinion,it just seems like garbage reviewing and it really does annoy me.For example:
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=47926
http://www.cracked.com/article_16983_the-11-most-retarded-fictional-weapons.html
Like on the comicbookresources thing with:
Ex Nihilo- I don't really understand how one can be confused about the character. I mean,you don't even need to buy the first issues to learn about his character. Throughout the event you can clearly see that,at the very least,he cares about the preservation of life...something he thought that the builders and gardeners were always doing (and something he's always been doing,but he messed up a bit on Earth...especially because Earth is,of course,a bit special). I believe that this was stated many times in the early issues (and preludes) of Avengers and even in the event of Infinity itself (in the beginning,I believe). If new readers are confused because they wanted to jump on the event on issue 3,then they have no one to blame but themselves.
Another thing....I don't really understand the complaints about him being a good guy and how it (somehow) contradicts him being a good guy.
- I guess that means that Batman,Daredevil,Nightcrawler,Batgirl,Venom (who isn't exactly a hero,but still),etc aren't all heroes because they look too "demonic". For god's sakes,he doesn't even look demonic,really. I mean,I like his awesome design and character. Same with Abyss. I don't see what the many complaints of him being "demonic-looking" are about. I mean,if we are just stating that,in our opinions,that he seems to have a slight demonic design,then that's fine...although horns don't automatically make something demonic,but whatever.
"Michael Bay's Super-Avengers in Space."- Is this supposed to be freaking clever?? Is this phrase supposed to be clever? And this almost seems like an incredibly stupid (I want to say retarded) notion. Apparently,something can't have more than 3 explosions without being accused of inspiration from Michael Bay. And "super avengers in space"....do you understand that this is a f*cking comic...what's wrong with it being in space? I am sorry if they are too "super"...it's not like they are supposed to be fictional heroes (some of them with godlike powers),it's not like they are supposed to be the world's mightiest heroes...oh no.
- First of all,all of the complaints of Michael bay adding unnecessary or excessive explosions (for example,in the Transformers movie franchise) are usually when explosions come out of nowhere or are in random places. For example,when Optimus Prime fought Shockwave in the 3rd movie,there was an explosion on almost every step he made (literally) and it's a bit unclear who made most of these shots. It's unclear if it's the Decepticons who are 2 feet in front of him,because Optimus is just running in a straight line right towards them and there are plenty of chances to shoot him and there is an explosion on every place BUT the target (which is him,although the movie was still good,but just clarifying some of the complaints of his movies). However,this is a huge space battle against hundreds/thousands of ships on both sides (at the very least). To not see that many explosions and firing is just silly. Not only that,but it's not like these explosions were happening on the planets that the Gardener and The Aleph was one (where there was no battle).
In terms of the Cracked article,there are many comments that 10 seconds worth of scrolling down (if one is interested) would show arguments defending some of the objects.
Here's one (it's too big):
Actually the batarang isn't a boomerang at all. have you ever seen it come back other then in batman and robin (the same move that brought us the genius of the bat credit card...) or a few instances where the batarang was specifically designed to come back (had a computer chip controlling it's flight path)? it's a throwing knife, but batarowing batknife sounds stupid so it's called a batarang. The only times I ever remember batman using one it always ended up stuck in something cutting a rope, pushing a button, knocking out a light ect. it's just named improperly it was never intended for him to catch the thing.
The bowcaster may seem retarded on the surface. however the us military has a weapon in development at the moment that works on a similar principal. it's called a railgun. it uses a magnetic field to accelerate a projectile to mach 8. at that speed the air around the shell actually bursts into flame and something called hyper cavitation happens where the shell just through sheer force generates a vacuum around it enabling it to move even faster then we previously thought possible. so yes we gave up on string bound methods ages ago but we are just beginning to develop the type of weapon that the bowcaster is.
Odd job's hat, they actually tested this on mythbusters and found that the hat would work best for cutting a statues head off if it were a blunted metal disk not razor sharp. If I remember correctly they did manage to get a hand thrown hat with a blunted metal disk in the rim to cut off the head of a statue. The reason for it being his hat in the first place was because it would be a concealed weapon nobody would even think to question. mission accomplished there. however being as it would have to be a blunted disk if you threw it at a human neck it would be little more then an annoyance.
Once again the arrow with a boxing glove is not as terrible of an idea as it might seem on the surface, I would remind you we actually use these in the form of a beanbag shot gun shell. It's a nonlethal weapon and you can ask anyone who has been shot with one how effective it can be. your confusing size with potential force. A lead shafted arrow with a boxing glove on the end with lead shot in it on a 100lbs draw bow would be devastating, probably able to shatter ribs like tooth picks.
Triple sword, triple stupid yeah nuff said on that, but to be fair it looked like the movie had a budget of 10 dollars and a handful of lottery tickets anyway.
The krull glaive, I don't care what you say it looks badass. Also I thought those blades retracted which would mean it has 5 handles to throw it with. That being said I haven't seen the movie krull in so long I didn't even remember this weapon until I saw this list.
The bat'leth is impractical in a gunfight, but you completely misunderstand the point of the weapon in the first place. It's a honorable weapon designed in a time of the klingon empire before any ranged weaponry at all. it's like saying "marines carrying swords is stupid." you idiot the swords aren't going to be used in a war. They are a ceremonial costume prop/dueling weapon. Ever notice whenever they were using one they were fighting a person who also had one and they were questioning their honor or challenging them for position? Also I don't know how you determine that the weapon is heavy considering it's on a tv show. who knows what metals it could have been forged from maybe on the klingon homeworld there is a metal alloy that is durable and weighs less then aluminum. I would also point out that as far as fictional completely original weapon designs go this one actually could be useable it has a curved surface for deflecting attacks 3 handles for multiple attack styles can be used two handed for force or 1 handed for long reach strikes not only that it's design would allow the user to deflect a strike while simultaneously initiating one. As far as injuring yourself goes, the same could be said for a sword the type of extreme movement it would require for you to get something pointed that far away from you back around to hit yourself would be ludicrous the back of the weapon is blunted not bladed so you would pretty well have to be trying to hurt yourself or holding it backwards.
The gun sword, once again something the military has actually used. they are called bayonets. the point being once you were out of ammunition you would still have a weapon to fight with. I'm not saying it's a great designed weapon(I've even heard it doesn't fire bullets that the gun fires blanks so it causes the sword to vibrate making it like a electric turkey slicer), it really pretty much isn't but your theory that a little bit of blood and some muscle tissue is going to cause the gun to explode when you fire it is a vast misunderstanding of how a firearm works. in reality it would just blow all that s**t out of the front like it does with a bullet. it's not going to be a sufficient enough plug to cause the weapon to function any differently then it normally would. as far as swinging the thing if you'll notice most of your own pictures you provided for this article do not have a standard pistol grip on them they have been sloped to go more inline with the weapon(the picture with the black background for instance). also it would have to be a revolver as the action from a semi auto or fully auto gun would be coming back into your hand given the fact that they changed the handle to make it useable as a sword.
The Dalek plunger, it's stupid but what do you want the budget wasn't exactly great I read somewhere that it was thrown together in a night because they wanted something that didn't look humanoid at all and had no budget so they used things they found to prototype it. It doesn't have hands for the same reason it doesn't have legs. those are features you would find familiar. the plunger wasn't a great choice but a tentacle would have been to complicated and expensive for the budget they had.
In conclusion you could have picked weapons that were alot worse like Xena’s Chakram the disk that's impossible to throw without slicing your own hand open. Tira’s Hula Bladed Hula Hoop from soul calibur, that gun that the punisher had that shot throwing knives. If you want retarded weapons from final fantasy universe how about The Racket in Final Fantasy 9. It shoots balls of air. or if you want a weapon that's had guns and stupidity combined with it how about the gun-chucks from bayonetta sai fang or whatever they were called. how the hell do those work. Now don't get me wrong i'm not saying anything on your list is a practical weapon i'm saying it's not nearly as ridiculous as your saying nor are they even close to the top 11. for number one I would have to pick the gun from superman at worlds end. I don't even have a way to describe it just look at the thing.
Another example is the question asked in the CBR article:
And he speaks like an undergrad Philosophy major?
He's basically a god. But he looks like a yellow devil. So…he's the Beyonder in cosplay?
1. So...how's he supposed to talk? Again,is this supposed to be clever or funny (I am thinking that it's just leaving out tons of information just in an attempt to be funny) He's basically a freaking god (same in terms of intelligence. After all,he DID create life itself). I don't expect ebonics.
2. Oh,I'm sorry...I didn't know that all Gods are supposed to look the same. Not only that,but I am not even sure if he is really a God itself (more like a being with Godlike powers)
I think that it's just trying WAAAAYY too hard to be funny by being overly critical or cynical (and again,it seems to leave out TONS of information and make baseless assumptions).
Log in to comment