Vance Astro's forum posts

#1 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

@rouflex said:

I'm not alright with this idea. Would they like it if John Stewart, Cyborg, Static Shock or Steel was portrayed by a white person? I know i wouldnt. Instead of changing the white characters into Black characters why dont they create more black characters? I know it's easy to say that but i cant agree with this idea of changing a character. Just like i have a hard time with some costumes.

I think this is stretching it a little. Making black heroes white for a film would actually serve no purpose for a film whereas changing a white character to black at least be explained. They aren't doing it, just to be doing it. Although I think their reasoning is stupid because there are plenty of black characters they can use, Comics as a entertainment format has always played the name game. They would rather take a name you know and put a different face on it, than have to do the work and get you acquainted with a black character you didn't know of before or that they just came up with. They do the same thing with female characters, that's why almost ever popular hero has a female version.

Moderator
#2 Edited by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

Besides, this rule wouldn't prevent certain users from creating spite threads because those users don't read the battle forum rules to begin with.

This is what I was thinking.

@night4345 said:

Prep battles should be banned.

I agree, the answers on those threads are purely speculative.

I disagree. What someone will or could do with prep time doesn't have to be speculative because that can actually be calculated based on their previous prep time showings in comics. People simply don't debate for prep properly.

Moderator
#3 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

@iamoptimusprime said:

@vance_astro said:

I don't really know if this would help.

Well for starters,it would prevent people from using nearly unbeatable characters in battles or characters that can only be destroyed by an omnipotent or a certain thing. It would help prevent spite matches.

No, I understand that part but what i'm trying to say is most of the spite matches we lock aren't based in characters who would be on this list.

Moderator
#4 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't have a problem with Deadshot being black, I have a problem with the casting of someone as friendly & safe as Will Smith playing a character like this. I don't think he has the acting chops. I've had this argument with my friends about Will as an actor but we've NEVER seen him play a character remotely like this. Everybody can't play good, bad & anti-hero. Some people need to stay in their lane.

Moderator
#5 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't really know if this would help.

Moderator
#6 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22 said:

@vance_astro: We are having some issues over the topic of when is gameplay mechanics permissible? I tried to explain to him what the rules are and I even quoted you, but I was accused of misrepresentation so I will let you speak for yourself.

As long as gameplay doesn't interfere with the story or with the reality of how characters abilities work then it's permissible. By this I mean, if you play as Sonya and you've beaten Johnny Cage you can't base an argument around that unless it actually happened in the story or if you're making an argument for Sub-Zero the idea of being frozen outside what's shown in the game would suggest you can't be frozen stiff and just come out of it because you get hit. Also there's no powerbars in battle forums. A character can't just tank a bunch of projectiles & punches & kicks, just because that's how the games work.

Moderator
#7 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

@mark_stephen said:

@vance_astro: He wrote her as a hypocrite during the trial of Starfox in the date rape is a joke storyline. Jen was sticking to principle until she thought Starfox used his powers on her, then she dumped all legal ethics and beat him up. He wrote her as incompetent during cw. No lawyer that I know of would agree with a law that would put people in prison for life if they didn't sign up and Jen didn't even realize that the law allowed SHIELD to draft her. A law that impacts her life and the life of the majority of her friends and she didn't know what it was going to do. After her showdown with Tony where he depowered her Jen promised to go after him legally and did not. After she found out that Doc Samson had been discussing her mental state with Tony (A clear violation of the Dr/Patient rule of privacy) Jen did nothing to him either. After everything Reed and Tony did she apologized to Reed for yelling at him just because she got her powers back.

Physically she was strong, but as a character she was written as weak, ineffective and pretty dumb. After the note of apology calmed her down I lost all respect for the character.

Dan Slott's run was supposed to be silly like Byrne's run. It seems you are taking this book more seriously than it was intended to be. Much of the Civil War stuff may not even have anything to do with the writer. You're saying that no lawyer you know would go along with a law who put people in prison or life if they didn't sign up but I don't think Dan Slott got to choose what side She-Hulk was on.

Moderator
#8 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

@bluejay4 said:

@vance_astro: Who said anything about forcing religion on people?

The guy who said "you can't ignore religion, especially in schools".

Moderator
#9 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio

@batwatch said:

Vance, the idea that our Founding Fathers were not religious is easily proven as false. I'm afraid you've been misinformed. I can give you a laundry list of examples of the FF speaking of the benefits or religion and asking for divine intervention if you would like.

It's either that they were against religion or that they were against Christianity. I may be getting that mixed up, but I do know that John Adams specifically stated this would be a better world if there were no religion in it. Statements made by the others seem more against Christianity than religion itself but I still don't think the country was built on religion which was my point and if it was than what religion would that be, because beyond the basic moral ideology found in many religions I can't find much of anything religious in how the United States operates.

Also, saying the country was built on slavery and suffering is a gross mischaracterization. That was part of our history and foundation, but it's hardly The Thing it was built upon. Saying the United States was built on slavery is like saying Barack Obama was built on drug use. It's a bad thing in his past, but it is hardly the only thing that defines him, and he has overcome it. The same is true with the United States and slavery.

If you're going to take issue with my opinion on this then maybe you should use a better analogy because the one you're using isn't even remotely comparable to what I put forth. Barack Obama's drug use is a small detail of his life, we've never had to deal with the negative effects of his drug use and apparently it didn't do much in the way of holding him back because he's our President but this country has an extensive history of genocide, racism, class discrimination & slavery, the effects of which some of us still have to deal with today & in some cases like with slavery the country benefited from it.

Moderator
#10 Posted by Vance Astro (91404 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator