acer51's forum posts

#1 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

Girls because of the Phoenix, while it is possible for Strange to defeat such a cosmic force it's about as likely as him beating Galactus single handedly. while the other members of the boys teams are more powerful then the people on girls team I think that they prevent the boy team from gaining the edge that they need to combine forces and overpower the Phoenix.

On the other hand Surfer, Kyle and Fate might be powerful enough to take out Scarlet, Raven and Zattana quickly enough to come to Stranges aid. But no even if all the heroes on the boys team combined forces they probably wouldn't be able to stop the Phoenix.

And a blood lusted Scarlet witch is very dangerous She'd probably take out at least one of the guys out.

I'd say the girls take 7/10 here.

#2 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

(Deleted)

#3 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

What's offensive, derogatory, disrespectful is largely subjective, down to how individuals, groups, entities treat and view and find ideas, concepts. Means there can be disagreement about such things but in practice also requires various authorities imposing and enforcing certain guidelines (can be individual, peer groups, organizations, nationalities etc) - side note, people do not actually have to be upset or offended by a concept to find it inappropriate. Rules are't necessarily made by individuals or groups sensitivity to an idea or concept but this is a very common projection.

As far as I can remember the context of the word rape being used in Battles context being denounced as suitable was to do with how accessible and casual the site would be. The idea that a lot more people are put off by such terms being used that way and because in of itself the term was a symptom of a lot of ignorance displayed in those forums around gender. When a male poster creates a Battles thread using a semi famous Tumblr teenage model as their avatar and profile picture, and pretends that they are a girl and the Battles thread they make is a Me vs You thread and you end up with an excess of 50 users trying to flirt and chat up said poster? Thats kind of eery. I'd find the claim that some users have some strange ideas about gender valid. So just ideas that are designed to overall improve the conditions of any forum and make the place more friendly, accessible and open to more people. Generally good. Personally I am kind of split on the matter since I don't like censorship, and I rarely post in Battles anyway. I understand the reasoning behind the decision though, and you have two general sides opposed, and the priority laid with making the term prohibited in the context of 'who beats who' in order to make that part of CV more accessible and friendly to more people. It runs the risk of alienating users that really really want to use the word, but was seen as a risk worth taking.

I don't use the term and never have in the context discussed, and all the people I know would look at me very strangely if I started using the word. "Oh man I had an awesome breakfast, I raped those bacon and eggs, and then I played some Basketball and dude, I raped everyone on the court like something wicked. Went to work and I raped last years Accounting reports all over my desk. Did you watch Cap 2? That movie raped every other CBM. Then I met a pretty girl at McDonalds some fancy high end restaurant and I absolutely raped her - now she is going out with me on Friday night. Who wins between Hulk and Beast? Yeah Hulk rapes Beast man. Professor X Mindrapes Beast too. I'm so dominant with my lifestyle I be making everyone look like my rape victims" - but thats just me and my personal circles. I totally understand that many people will use the term with no offense intended and in their personal circles everyone would just be cool and not blink an eyelid and so no problem right? I also don't like to use the word because its slang and if Battles is supposed to be about reason, logic and debate then such terms like it and stomp and owned don't work well inherently because they are not accurate defined objective terms and so only good for exaggeration which may be more satisfying to say for some but lacks finesse in actual reasoning and ability to determine a fair conclusion. So in that sense I think people should be choosing better alternatives for words anyway.

As far as specifically renaming it, I fall with the people that don't think there is a need to rephrase it. I already think that people already don't articulate themselves well when it comes to expression of opinion or view in battles. We have terms like "Star/Galaxy/Planet Buster" when those in reality can have size differentials greater than the difference between a cat and an elephant. So they are essentially useless terms to people who actually have a good understanding of stars, galaxies and planets but for those that have an inaccurate understanding of those things, its a faster way to sell the idea of a characters power than actually having to apply and articulate reasoning. So instead of more blanket terms being used I would prefer users actually just provide explanation. "I think Martian Manhunter would win this encounter because he has demonstrated the ability to telepathically control over one hundred individuals, including already demonstrating that he can and has telepathically controlled Nightwing and Huntress, so in a one on one match up with Nightwing I think he would win" instead of just saying "MM mind rapes" but you know, that requires more effort and stuff.

In response to your third and fourth paragraphs respectively.

Though people in your social circle would find that use of the word "rape" odd there are many people who would and have used the word exactly the way you described in your examples and receive gratification from their peers. People in these groups will often be of a more antisocial nature but It's also worth noticing that they are often the salt of the earth despite their tendencies and will usually be the first to help you in your time of need. A very prim and proper evangelical will often pass you by or even sneer at you if your in need of any assistance - be it car broken down or out of house and home due to some major disaster natural or otherwise. As opposed to a motor biker who while covered in tattoos from top to bottom may use the word rape on a casual daily basis but will be the first one to help fend off a rapist.

Although it is true that stars planets and galaxy's differ greatly in size volume and density, and that this is something the common comic book fan often overlooks it is also something that writers and artist usually fail to take into account. Many comic book characters are portrayed inconsistently, sometimes shown to be able to accomplish a feat that he/she is shown incapable of reproducing later. These inconsistency's will usually vary based on said characters age. This is because of course change in writers and artist as these people will have different opinions on how strong the character should be. This creates inconsistent material to debate with, Martian Manhunter may have been able to telepathically control over one hundred individuals but in another instance he could barley manage ten (I don't know that this is true for a fact I'm just using it as an example I personally know next to nothing about Martian Manhunter). While I think most of us would prefer very well grounded and set character feats it simply isn't possible as long as writers are given the ability to play with what the characters limitation are. Due to this when in debate between characters who's abilities are more or less loosely defined an easy way to compensate is generalize. This is because a generalization is often harder to refute then a specific number given, and in a situation where a specific number is going to be considered less reliable what usually would be considered a juvenile debate tactic suddenly becomes an at least somewhat plausible way to debate with credibility.

Another reason to generalize is because the author generalizes too. When was the last time you saw the circumference of a planet given right before it was destroyed? If you ever have I'd like to know the name of the comic, not because I'd doubt that one did exist but because I'd love to read a comic where the story is that well thought out. The point is that if an author of a comic has ever given such exact specifications then it was a rare occasion. It's not that I don't think that we shouldn't be more specific and official in our debates, quite the contrary I think we should try our best to construct well thought out forums of reasoning and that we are very far away from doing that. A considerable rise in which we conduct ourselves when debating comic books would actually cause the inaccuracy's of the comic books to be revealed as through the debates we would find ourselves at impasses created by writers who didn't consider that carefully. This is actually what usually happens when logical debate dominates a thread which leaves me with a realization gained only as I write this which is that if comic book fans strove to be more intellectual and questioned the plots that they read instead of suspending their own disbelief it would force writers to be more intellectual and think their plots out well and not contradict other writer works.

It could be argued though that such suspension of disbelief is the cornerstone of fiction as a medium and breaking of that suspension would ruin the fun of such works of fiction. This is true but even in a world where we're accepting the appearance of mutant powers or space ships or whatever your favorite genre of fiction is the world has to at least be consistent within the realm of its own rules. Back to the future for example takes the idea of alternate realities to justify time travel being possible but if this is a world of alternate realities it doesn't make sense for Marty's (the protagonist) very existence to be in danger because he's not from the timeline he's in so he would still exist in the timeline he is from. I hope that was a good plot hole example but if that one doesn't work just pick from one of the thousands of plot holes in any work of fiction. So I guess in the end I agree with you except for the idea that we have sufficient source material to work with in the first place, not that everyone would be accurate or articulate with that information but still it would be nice for those of us who want to debate well to be given consistent works to debate with.

Not as if I'm the paragon of reason and credibility though. I believe my first post on Comic-vine went something like "SPIDERMAN STOMPS".

#4 Edited by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

Get rid of Ultimate Spider-man it's a slap in the face to all Spider fans and is a part of the whiny tween humor that only the mildly retarded or completely brain washed can enjoy. The only high point of the show is the art and the only way this show could be respectable would be if it was the Deadpool show because in the Marvel universe only he is capable of the kind of totally non linear thinking and plot line. Norman Osborn as Venom? What the hell were they thinking?! Now I've been forced to see two naked buts without any warning his nerdy white but and Hugh Jackmans hairy one.

I mean what the hell is wrong with these people? Exposing children to nudity! I mean I know they censored it with the pixel things but just the idea of it. The only characters I liked in the first few episodes I was willing to watch were the ones who weren't Spider-man.

AND A THIRD SEASON?! Spectacular Spider-man's what deserves a third season. This is the show we like, the show that does Spider-man justice, in a whimsical funny way that respected my intelligence. I feel like my IQ is dropping whenever I watch that show (which I havn't since like episode 5 of season one). Shows like this feed the retarded attitude of middle school prats who only talk about sex and defecation. I loved Spectacular.

This is the problem with Disney they make good movies sure but then they turn around and feed us this horse****. I mean come freaking on Spider-mans not a bed wetter with an attitude, he's a hero . This is not that hero.

#5 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

Sounds like your in a bad location you gotta get out of there, I know easier said then done but you gotta work to get out of whatever hood your living in where people are always getting shot.

#6 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

Namor is displayed as having combat abilites in the mainstream aqua-man throws balls of water.

Whenever the rest of the super-friends went off to fight the bad guys he dived in the ocean and did something useless.

#7 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@squares said:

Can someone provide me with a definition for fanboy?

Defenition of a good fanboy

Fanboy is a pejorative term used to describe an individual who is utterly devoted to a single subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered a passion but is within reason.

Definition of a bad fanboy

Fanboys are people who remain loyal to their particular obsession so much so much so that they disregard any factors and logic that differ from their point of view.

Example: "Batman can beat anyone with prep."

He'd study the chemicals in the cigarettes and use them to synthesize something that reverses the effects. He might need other chemicals in his Bat-cave but I think he could do it.

#8 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@wells said:
@acer51 said:

@saiyan_earthling said:

@acer51 said:

Wait why did Spider-man punch Cap?

Because Cap knew that Flash Thompson, who Spider-Man considers to be someone important to him, was Agent Venom, and Cap never told him.

But Captain America doesn't know Spider-mans secret identity so he has no way of knowing that he's friends with flash. I mean Flash Thompson was the president of the Spider-man fan club but without knowing Spider man's peter theirs really no reason Captain America should feel obligated to tell him that.

yeah, but whether he knew that spider-man knew flash personally cap still should have at least told him that the venom symbiote was bonded to a new host.

But Spider-mans known about agent Venom since Spider-island, if Cap deserved a punch for that it should have happened a long time ago and not at a time where Spider-mans credibility is in question.

Just looks like bad writing to me.

#9 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@war_killer: @acer51: Actually there IS a difference between cartoon rights and TV show rights. Marvel is not allowed to use characters such as Spider Man or X-Men in any live action TV show. Look up "Mutant X" which was a TV show in like 2003 about unique (as in new) characters with the X-gene that Marvel produced with some other company. Fox ended up suing them because it broke their deal with the X Men rights.

Oh well that ship is sailed then.

Maybe they could make cartoons that somehow fit into the MCU?

#10 Posted by acer51 (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

@acer51 said:

@war_killer said:
@acer51 said:

Wait if Lionsgate entertainment bought Man-Thing why was he name dropped towards the end of the S.H.I.E.L.D show.

I haven't watched AoS, but I do know that there are some loopholes with Marvel being able to use certain characters on TV, but not in the movies. Like I believe Marvel currently has the TV rights to Spider-Man, while Sony has the movie rights. Meaning that, from my understanding...though I could be wrong, Marvel could do a TV show staring Spider-Man, they just can't have him appear in the movies with The Avengers.

If my understanding of this is correct, though I'm not 100% sure it is, the same thing could be applied to Man-Thing. Even if his movie rights are owned by another studio, if Marvel has the TV rights to the character then they should be able use him AoS all they want...but if they want to mention his name in say, Avengers 2, then they are unable to because they don't have the movie rights for him.

Not sure if all of that is correct, but that's one way I saw how it was explained. Movie rights by themselves can get a bit messy in terms of who can and can't use certain characters, so when you throw TV rights into the mix, then everything gets even more confusing.

That would be right because they run a cartoon series with Spider-man albeit not a fan but it stars the character and run on T.V there can't be a difference between cartoon rights and t.v rights.

If this is true it means they could use Spider-man, the daily bugle and all those guys to help support the t.v shows.

The problem with that though is, even if they have Spider-Man appear in say, Agent's of S.H.I.E.L.D., because Marvel doesn't have the movie rights to Spider-Man, even if they establish him in the MCU through AoS, he still wouldn't be able to appear in Avengers alongside Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor. Some might not think that a big deal, but with Spider-Man being one of Marvel's biggest characters, having him appear alongside their other big characters would be more beneficial for them.

Not to mention that say, if Marvel did have Spider-Man appear in a TV show set in the MCU, and if they then got the movie rights back, they would have to continue using the same Spider-Man that appeared in the TV show. They could get a new actor, but because it's still all one universe and Marvel isn't planning on rebooting it, they would still have to use whatever version of Spider-Man they used in the show. They can't have one Spider-Man appear in a TV show, yet have a completely different Spider-Man appear in a movie, not when both are suppose to be in the same universe.

So even though Marvel does have the TV rights to Spider-Man, until they get the movie rights back they're limited on what they can really do with the Web-Head. And with him being one of this biggest characters, the last thing they would want is to screw up any chance of introducing him into their ever expanding movieverse.

He doesn't need to take off his mask at any point, if he's just making appearances on the Daredevil show there's no reason for it and if they get a good actor and he gets popular they'll want to use the same guy anyway. There's no way they'd be able to get away with this without declaring legal war on Sony though.