RideASpaceCowboy's forum posts

#1 Edited by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

Namor was wrong.

In your defense of him you assume a utilitarian ethos which pursuits “the greatest good for the greatest number.” If such were the correct moral principle, then such a conclusion would indeed be correct.

I argue, however, that a deontological ethos should be followed in moral decision making, in which all moral actions are considered in a vacuum. Thus the question “Is it wrong to murder a populated world” can never be qualified with “in order to….” The action is wrong, in and of itself, and therefore ought not to be committed.

A deontologist solves the Trolley problem by distinguishing between active and passive deeds. The act of preventing a trolley from running over five individuals is morally commendable, but not morally obligatory. The active deed may be praised, but the passive deed of allowing the individuals to die cannot be condemned. Inversely, when the active deed itself constitutes murder, as in the cases of switching the lever or dropping the fat man, then the active deed becomes morally condemnable, while the passive deed remains morally neutral, as in the first case.

When the Illuminati save one or more worlds, their actions are morally commendable.

When the Illuminati murder a populated world, their actions are morally condemnable.

When the Illuminati fail to save or murder a world, their actions (or lack thereof) are morally neutral, on the exact same moral level of everyone else on Earth-616 who failed to act in regards to the incursions.

The fate of the world is NOT in their hands, but the state of their souls IS in their hands. And the latter is infinitely more valuable than the former.

#2 Edited by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

Namor was wrong.

In your defense of him you assume a utilitarian ethos which pursuits “the greatest good for the greatest number.” If such were the correct moral principle, then such a conclusion would indeed be correct.

I argue, however, that a deontological ethos should be followed in moral decision making, in which all moral actions are considered in a vacuum. Thus the question “Is it wrong to murder a populated world” can never be qualified with “in order to….” The action is wrong, in and of itself, and therefore ought not to be committed.

A deontologist solves the Trolley problem by distinguishing between active and passive deeds. The act of preventing a trolley from running over five individuals is morally commendable, but not morally obligatory. The active deed may be praised, but the passive deed of allowing the individuals to die cannot be condemned. Inversely, when the active deed itself constitutes murder, as in the cases of switching the lever or dropping the fat man, then the active deed becomes morally condemnable, while the passive deed remains morally neutral, as in the first case.

When the Illuminati save one or more worlds, their actions are morally commendable.

When the Illuminati murder a populated world, their actions are morally condemnable.

When the Illuminati fail to save or murder a world, their actions (or lack thereof) are morally neutral, on the exact same moral level of everyone else on Earth-616 who failed to act in regards to the incursions.

The fate of the world is NOT in their hands, but the state of their souls IS in their hands. And the latter is infinitely more valuable than the former.

#3 Posted by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

Every week I hear questions from listeners asking you to help cull their pull lists, often for monetary reasons. While I myself have no spending limit on the comics I buy, at the same time I also want to be prudent with my money. Thus I recently changed my purchasing habits with regards to comics, and in the process started spending far less money while buying far more books. With the exception of a few select titles, most of the comics I buy are through Comixology's $.99 sales. These occur frequently enough that I'm never too far behind on series I'm interested in, they allow me to splurge on story lines as I do with Netflix or Hulu shows, and they're often relevantly timed around recently released movie or an upcoming event (I can't wait to get all of Uncanny Avengers right before Axis). DC almost always has a week long sale going on, and Marvel has sales every Monday and Friday (I recently got all of Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2 for about $25 the day the movie came out, less than I spent at the theater). My 64 GB iPad can't even hold half of my comics anymore. Hopefully this helps your fellow listeners save some money and expand their digital collections.

#4 Posted by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

With this issue alone Namor is arguably the greatest villain in the history of the Marvel Universe.

#5 Edited by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

The new Star Wars comics which Marvel just revealed were among the most exciting and disappointing announcements at San Diego Comic Con. Exciting in that I'm very much looking forward to the series given their creative teams and Marvel's recent pedigree with their cosmic stories (Guardians of the Galaxy, Nova, Infinity, etc); disappointing in that, unlike Dark Horse, Marvel is either not allowed or not interested in exploring aspects of the universe outside of the narrow time frame of the films (all three titles take place right after Episode IV). While I absolutely agree with Lucasfilm's decision to reboot the Expanded Universe, most of the best comics which Dark Horse published (e.g. Tales of the Jedi, Legacy) were about entirely new characters and settings, and I was hoping that Marvel would continue that trend.

Now that all new Star Wars novels, comics, and shows will be part of the same canon and continuity as the films, do you think Lucasfilm will be placing greater scrutiny and less creative freedom on the Marvel series? What eras or events in the Star Wars universe would you want new series to eventually explore. I'd love to see Marvel's take on the formation of the Jedi Order personally.

#6 Posted by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

I would love if one of the upcoming unannounced Marvel Studios films that was just given a release date was Marvel trying to do a Superman movie better than DC. Out of Hyperion, Miracleman, and the Sentry, which would you most want to see on the big screen? Which story would you want adapted?

#7 Edited by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

Mass Effect

#8 Edited by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

Many fans are vocally upset about the recently announced decisions to have Sam Wilson replace Steve Rogers as Captain America and an (as of yet) unknown female wield Mjolnir as the new Thor. Had Marvel come to you with the idea to (let's imagine temporarily) replace these respective Avengers, which characters would you have recommended to take up the mantles? The rules are:

  1. You can't simply say Steve Rogers or Thor himself
  2. The replacement can never have been Captain America or Thor in the past (so no Bucky Barnes)
  3. The replacement must be native to the 616-Marvel Universe (e.g. no Ultimate Captain America or Ultimate Thor)

For Captain America my initial thought was Frank Castle, as he's a highly skilled soldier with a great deal of respect for Captain America and probably the best written among the "dark vigilante gunman" archetype in comics. But as I seem to recall, he did in fact take up the mantle at one point in the past. My next choice would have been Nick Fury Sr., a fellow World War II veteran and another of my personal favorite characters in the Marvel stable, but I'm guessing he'll be dead by the end of Original Sin. His Life Model Decoys might be around still, and if his consciousness we preserved across multiple androids that would be a cool work around, but Captain America has always been singular and unique. I finally settled Cable, another war-tested soldier and man out of time with excellent character design.

I haven't figured Thor out yet, but the version of Hyperion currently serving on the Avengers is my top candidate. He and Thor have a brotherly bond and I'm aware of no sins in the character's history which would preclude him from being worthy. Plus, he's essentially Superman!

Who would be your picks?

#9 Edited by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

I would love if one of these was Marvel trying to do a Superman film better than DC. Out of Hyperion, Miracleman, and the Sentry, any of their Superman-ectypes could make for a great film.

#10 Edited by RideASpaceCowboy (520 posts) - - Show Bio

Do you feel that the adaptation of comic book characters into other media tends to create a harmful feedback loop which negatively affects the characters in the original comic book medium? Allow me to explain: because comics target more focused demographics and have comparatively low production costs, creators have greater artistic freedom. However, in adapting such characters to film, television, and video games changes are often made to appeal to broader audiences, with studios often courting the absolute lowest common denominator. This then becomes the version of the character most familiar to the general public, and in a vain attempt to increase comic sales, the original version of the character in the comics is altered to reflect the changes made in other media.

Example:

Superhero costumes have become increasing visually busy since the advent of the modern superhero films, needlessly adding texture, piping, and other frills. In live action, because costumes are constructed out of real world material, this is a necessary part of translating the character from the printed page to the screen. When the processes is reversed, however, characters lose their strong and iconic silhouettes.

.

All that said, I'd love it if the new Robin that comes out of Robin Rises were none other than GCPD Detective John Blake. That's one place the comics can steal from the films.