PhoenixoftheTides's forum posts

#1 Edited by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

@mark_stephen said:

It's strange to think of the X-men and the Avengers fighting together after AvX, and really after what the Illuminati has done it's even stranger to view any group or person as worse, even the Red Skull.

"Rick’s story is massive and will touch all corners of the Marvel Universe in new and interesting ways."

Doubt it.

"There’s a fine line between good & evil."

Sorry, that line for me was erased a long time ago. Marvel characters being heroic is like politicians being honest, it might happen now and then but the default setting for the modern marvel characters is semi-villain or dumb. The idea that they'll suddenly start being heroic and working together and be smart is laughable when I think of AvX and other big events.

I do think Invisible Woman, and a (very) few others have solidly held on to that noble high ground. But I agree - the Marvel U. is just a weird place to be in; the villains are actually less villainous than the "heroes," and the size of the super groups actually makes it seem like they are just beating up on the "bad guys" who are just unlucky enough not to be powerful enough or well-connected enough to fight back.

My main question to the creative team heading things up is, with all due respect, after you tear down a superhero so they cross the line to villainy or anti-hero status, is it really possible to make them a hero again?

I have to ask, because I see these characters getting into event after event after being dragged through the mud, but none of them really seem to learn anything for the better from it.

#2 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

@dman1366: I know! I never took them that seriously, just considering them typical comic book book hyperbole where almost any new threat is The Most Powerful Threat Yet and the superheroes are Potentially Very Powerful in Convenient Circumstances, but Usually Nowhere Near As Powerful on a Daily Basis.

I think these distinctions are arbitrary, and prefer to just go off of feats. We know Franklin Richards is uber powerful because he actually did the things he was said to be capable of. Other characters...not so much.

#3 Edited by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

@dman1366 said:

@martinceld: That is the most rediculous thing I have ever read. Since when did the X-Men get turned into DBZ? OMG HIS POW3R LVL IS 9000>!!!!!!!!xxxxxxx!!!!!!

Since the '90s.

If you want to be even more confused, Marvel Wikia does a good job listing the amount of times omega was used to describe a mutant:

It also notes instances where a ranking system was used to apply to a mutant with no explanation. Can be interesting to read through, but from reading some of the posts in this thread, I doubt everyone could reconcile how you could be an omega class mutant in one field, but not an omega level mutant. Doesn't seem that confusing to me, but I'm firmly on the "Who gives a crap. Random term is useless." side of the debate.

#4 Edited by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah but to be fair Morrison did destroy Magneto to the point that they had to retcon it into being someone else. Having a proud mutant who was also a Holocaust survivor become a crazed drug addict was pretty crappy. I will agree with you on Whedon though, the X-men were pretty good during his run.

Good point.

The Avengers and Marvel heroes in general hate the Punisher because he kills. Yet they work with Wolverine, Deadpool, and Elektra; the latter two of which will kill for money or sport.

Both good points. The X-Men haven't felt like a family in years; they fell into the "too many members" trap. With friends like those...

And, yeah, the blatant hypocrisy in the Marvel U. can get annoying.

#5 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio
@w0nd said:

Quicksilver has been upgraded to an unknown ammount, his limitation was what made him interesting , not hes just another person whos speed is inconsistent

Agreed. Without limitations, super speed either becomes teleportation or just a trigger for inconsistent feats to more conveniently job for rando opponents.

#6 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

@ryagan said:

Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was probably a more accurate portrayal of the character. Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman was really good, but in a different way. Pfeiffer's was more unique and probably a lot tougher to pull off, but she nailed it. I was really surprised at how well Hathaway did, though. I prefer Hathway's Catwoman overall because the character was more grounded. Pfeiffer's Catwoman is still awesome, but the character was a little over the top. In terms of sexiness, however, Hathaway wins.


#7 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio


#8 Edited by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

Dazzler and Longshot.

And they made a pretty good team:

#9 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

I think it would be easier to just classify them by their feats. Basically, a mutant who has no potential to do anything that powerful would simply be called 'weaker' - no muss, no fuss (ex: "This is a weak mutant. Cerebro has monitored them for weeks, and they never registered more than a 0.4 on the energy scale."). I like your idea in generally, but I think just simplifying everything is easier to justify given how genetics work and would give writers more freedom.

#10 Posted by PhoenixoftheTides (3562 posts) - - Show Bio

The will is just terrible. We got December's solicits and they are STILL on the will. I can't believe some can still say Bendis X-Men are good.

Someone's buying it, so there is an audience.