xybernauts's forum posts

#1 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

@time: I agree. The early 90's had some pretty good books in my opinion. I enjoyed the creation and development of Cable's character and his relationship with X-Force and Stryfe. The original Age of Apocalypse was great. It was the late 90's that stunk.

I didn't really read any X-Men stories during the first millennium. I tried but it didn't keep my interest. I particularly hated the black movie style X-Men costumes though. I tried Age of M, but I think that story really was terrible.

As for AvX I actually like that story. It got me reading X-Men comics again and the story made sense. I also liked BOTA. I enjoyed the twisted temporal nature were we see various timelines getting tangled. To me time travel is a major cornerstone of X-Men comics so to me it was getting back to the roots of what made X-Men comics great with a number of interesting twists.

My only problem with BOTA is that the time travel concept isn't coherent. In one scene original Cyclops dies and as a result present Cyclops ceases to exist. Yet when that healer mutant brings him back to life he reappears. The problem is that this suggests whatever happens to the original X-Men immediately effects the present and future X-Men and yet we haven't seen any other major changes to the timeline. Despite these flukes I still enjoyed the story.

#2 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

Great article! Truthfully, I just read this article today after reading JL #23 and finding out Outsider was Alfred of Earth 3, but regardless there are so many connections that the article makes that I didn't make while reading the story. This article really did a good job of putting two and two together for me. Also great background info.

The one thing i'm not sure about is the theory regarding the idea that Apokalypse invaded Earth 3's earth. Technically if all the villians in earth 3 are heroes and all the heroes are villians doesn't that mean earth 3 denizeins of Apokalipse are good guys? And if they are doesn't that mean they wouldn't invade and decimate earth 3 earth? Unless of course they invaded earth 3's earth to save it from the Crime Sydicate and something went wrong. Also another possibility is that that it's New Haven that invaded earth 3's earth.

#3 Posted by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

Personally after Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 I don't blame him. I think he wants to do quality work and don't want to be associated with shit.

#4 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio
  • I think Cheadles portrayal of Rhodey was a real improvement. I loved his action scenes. Wish he had more both in and out of armor. (Technically he had no real in armor action scenes).
  • Love the remote armor concept. And I agree, JARVIS was portrayed well.
  • I also enjoyed the romance between Stark and Pepper. And I liked seeing Pepper in armor. She should have her own custom armor.
  • I also enjoyed Stark's Avenger's induced PTSD.
@novi_homines said:

@thetimestreamer: Lol yeah I never knew the mandarin had so many fans. Some are legitimately mad, but I believe there are many that are simply hating this movie just to hate it. Lol

Also, how'd you like Jarvis in this movie? I can't overestimate how well they handled him. I loved him in this movie. Him and tony fit together amazingly. I wonder if he has that big of a role in the comics. If not, he definitely should.

I think it's less of an actual fan base and more of an expectation. Basically people expect the Mandarin to be Iron Man's arch enemy. If anything he's supposed to be Iron Man's Magneto or his Joker. People don't hate movies just to hate them, people just have different tastes. They have different expectations. I for one was expecting Stark's greatest nemesis. Plus the fact that the trailer was misleading didn't help. The movie was touted as being Stark's greatest battle, but instead it was a dud. Plus the story lacked focus. It felt like the movie was going some where significant, but it didn't really. It had a lackluster end.

Before the twist, the terrorist Mandarin actually seemed like a really good idea. Ben Kingsley's performance was really good. For along time now Marvel has been experimenting with different aspects of his character. I really liked this extremist direction, but really wish they kept his character serious in a Magneto-ish sort of way. Basically I hated the twist.

Also, after the Avenger's I was expecting to see magic introduced into the Iron Man world. The fact that it wasn't was a big disappointment.

The movie was shit, but it had some good elements.

#5 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

@mbecks14 said:

Wow. 4 out of 5?? Thought it was just a bad movie. The first half felt like an extended trailer with it’s complete lack of focus and melodrama. The plot was over crowded, and unfocused with no real villain to latch onto. And while there were definitely some awesome moments of action and genuinely funny moments, there was way too much squeezed in that felt completely irrelevant And there was no blend between the over-serious plot and the over the top ridiculousness of the humorous bits, it felt like a checkerboard of campy comedy and overly political drama.

We had the Extremis, the Mandarin, the Iron Patriot, Aldrich Killian, Tony’s post-Avengers PTSD, Tony/Pepper, and that kid. So there was A LOT going on in this movie. And it was really just too much. They could’ve picked one plot point and gone for it. I really hated what they did with the Mandarin too.

I completely agree.

Personally I don't know if Marvel purposely screws up these movies to lower expectations for future movies or if they honestly think this is quality material. This movie was better than Iron Man 2, but worse than Iron Man 1.

The biggest disappointment was that there was no real "Big Bad" in the movie. We had AIM and the Mandarin, but the movie never really developed AIM and the Mandarin isn't even really the Mandarin, literally. The trailer leads one to believe that the Mandarin was going to be Stark's greatest foe, but instead he turns out to be a big nobody. It's sad because I really liked this terrorist version of the Mandarin. I was expecting to see something on par with Loki or Red Skull. A real Marvel villain. I would have prefered the chinese sorcerer, but this terrorist version of the Mandarin still had a lot of potential, but even that amounted to nothing. The concept of the AIM think tank could have been really awesome, but instead we get two superficial characters who represent the entire group. They should have developed the think tank more thoroughly.

I did like the way they developed the Extremis concept. I also liked Pepper's and Stark's romance. Don Cheadle did a much better job as Rhodey. I'm glad that he got some action scenes in, but I wish we got a chance to see him really kickass in his Iron Patriot suit. The barrage of Iron Man suits was a welcome twist. It just pisses me off that Stark destroys all his suits at the end of the movie.

I really thought the kid was unnecessary. If they really need to add a kid to the movie then they should have added someone from the comics. The kids acting wasn't bad, but his placement felt forced. His presence was part of the reason the movie was derailed.

I hated the scenes with Happy Hogan. The acting was terrible and irritated the hell out of me. When he got hit by the bomb I was hoping that he died and was disappointed that he was just wounded. I mean after Daredevil, you'd think Marvel would have the common sense to keep Favreau away from acting on the big screen.

#6 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

3/5 stars

This movie was better than Iron Man 2, but worse than Iron Man 1. Iron Man 1 was the best IM movie. This movie certainly is not better than The Avengers. Avengers is the best superhero movie ever.

The villains in Iron Man 2 were better. AIM was very disappointing. It would have been nice if they developed the characters, particularly the brains behind the think tank.

I agree with @isaac_clarke: there was some good character development, but the movie didn't flow very well. The movie seemed to lack focus. Also, like @isaac_clarke: said, the humor "conflicted with the flow of the film at times due to it's frequent usage."

I hated the Mandarin twist. Ben Kingsley was doing such a great job developing the villainous sinister aspects of the Mandarin's character. I thought it was a really good idea to create a terrorist version of the Mandarin so the twist was a big let down.

I did like the way they developed the Extremis concept.

Don Cheadle did a much better job as Rhodey.

#7 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, technically human genetics is ALOT more complicated than that and Martian DNA, I don't even want to imagine how complex that would be. That's the simple answer.

You're assuming she has more control over her DNA then she may actually have. The transfusion was a medical experiment with unforeseen consequences (as Beast Boy's powers illustrate). The purpose of the transfusion was to just save Beast Boy's life. It wasn't meant to give him powers or turn his skin green, yet it did. The same logic can be used to explain Beast Boy's other powers.

While Miss Martian is a white martin and isn't a green martin, she spends most of her time in the form of a green martin. Maybe because she spends so much time as a green martin, that form is the dominate form in the DNA she gave Beast Boy. It's like exercising a muscle. The muscle you exercise the most is the strongest. For her the "metamorphic muscle" she exercises the most is her green martin form so that is the form that was dominate in the DNA she gave Beast Boy.

And while Miss Martian may not have the aptitude to take animal forms this does not mean she doesn't have the ability to become animals. Perhaps Beast Boy simply has the mental aptitude necessary to change into animal forms and that Miss Martin doesn't or maybe the combination of his DNA and Miss Martin is responsible or perhaps there was a third factor like the activation of a metagene. To me what makes this a good origin is the unpredictable and random nature of DNA. That's why this origin makes sense to me.

#8 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

I would follow the model of the DCU created in the Young Justice cartoon.

  • The The Hall of justice would be the Justice Leagues public base, but their real base would be the Watchtower which would be a secret to the public.
  • Younger Justice leaguers would be based out of Mt. Justice. There would be more then one team of Young Leaguers (similar to how the X-Men divided there teams up by Blue and Gold back in the 90's). One team comprised of the characters from the show Young Justice and the second team would be the team from the Teen Titans show. Naturally there would be two Robins, one on each team. Cyborg would be team liaison between the JL and the YJ.
  • The Justice League would be one organization made up of different teams. JL, JLA, JLD, JLI, etc. Instead of different teams that happen to be refereed to as a JL..
  • Wildstorm properties would be part of DCU's industrial military complex. They would be all controlled by the government. So for example Justice League of America wouldn't be a government organization.
  • Milestone properties would play a bigger role by placing more emphasis on minorities and urban blights.
  • Dakota city would be part of the DCU.
  • Wildstorm comics properties would all be government based. Basically Stormwatch, Team 7 would be the DoD's superpower response teams. Stormwatch wouldn't be based out of spacestation, but instead out of u vast underground complex somewhere on earth. Similar to the underground complexes that the Umbrella Corporation has in Resident Evil, or the one for Division in Nikita. WildCATS would be a PMC (Private Military Corporation) that uses super powered beings.
  • I'd incorporate Hanna Barbra superheroes into the DCU...Birdman, Space Ghost, Blue Falcon and Dinomutt, non-DCU Superfriends, etc.
  • I'd make Rotworld a permanent part of the DCU so we'd have an ongoing and permanent zombie apocalypse comic in the DCU. I'd try to apply Stephan King's concept of in the Langoliers miniseries. Essentially Rotworld would be another dimension not another timeline. In this dimension the universe is dead or dying. It's hard to explain so I just posted an excerpt from the The Langoliers wiki:

Toomey is captured and Bob deduces that, as they flew through an unusual aurora borealis during the flight, they have flown through a rip in the space-time continuum, traveling about 15 minutes into the past, where anything with energy or life has moved on without them; therefore, jet fuel would be useless. However, using Bob's logic, Albert correctly deduces that, since the plane contains electricity and life, that it contains its own pocket of the present time; therefore, anything loaded into the plane would subsequently regain its energy, even jet fuel.

#9 Posted by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssbm: I know that, but I'd be nice to have a few more minority characters that are A-Listers.

#10 Posted by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio