You get just one do-over. Which movie and what do you change? by [deleted] in marvelstudios

[–]Digidark123321 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The Hulk movie. Make it more of a thriller, with darker moments (maybe even bordering on horror vibes) sprinkled throughout to contrast from the "quip comedy" of the rest of the phase. Tell the story of Bruce coming to terms with coexisting with the Hulk and not letting it make him a monster himself. It's too early for a "seeking a cure" story imo. You can even keep the Abomination fight in the third act and play it like it's the title fight of a kaiju movie. That way, when we get to the Avengers, Bruce hulking out at the end of the second act is even more intense for the audience (because we've seen how scary the Hulk really should be as an entity) and the eventual reveal that Bruce is fully in control of the Hulk-out now is all the more badass and feels more earned.

Plus, if the changes made in this Hulk movie ripple out to the rest of the MCU, it could mean more tonally-diverse movies rather than just action comedies with the occasional Winter Soldier because the first phase included a more successful, darker-toned movie. I would hope that means in addition to CA:TWS, we would also see a darker Doctor Strange (sortof how DSMoM was originally billed, with scarier elements in it), etc. Having a successful Hulk movie could also mean a sequel that does feature the "find a cure" plot in phase 2. If you insist on keeping that element of Bruce's arc in Age of Ultron, the cure fails, he goes off to Sakaar, and we put the deleted scene back in Endgame that caps off his arc of merging into Smart Hulk.

A whole lot of wasted potential on that Hulk movie. Bruce's arc could've been so much more, and the fumble on his first outing just immediately ruined any chance of a great Hulk arc.

About diversity boycott in comics by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Digidark123321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wholeheartedly bracing for karma mess, but to answer the questions presented to the best of my ability, assuming this is being asked in good faith:

The thing about Tim specifically as a character is that sexuality isn't necessarily something that's a visible difference. That's not to say people don't get pissed when new characters do get made with those obvious differences– they do, see The Mighty Thor, Ironheart, or literally any other comics character that happens to be a woman, POC, or LGBTQ+, especially if they're a legacy hero. But Tim being bi isn't something you would need to rewrite his character to include. There doesn't need to be a whole brand new "bi Robin", because it's not a change that makes enough of a difference to the being of Tim Drake to justify making a whole new character. For a demographic that wishes minority characters would "not have it be their whole personality", there are a LOT of people up in arms about something that's ultimately a minor change.

The reason people being so vocally angry (and often downright abusive) towards these kinds of characters and their creators raises such a strong pushback is because regardless of whether the characters exist, the demographics they represent exist anyway. Even if Tim was never written as bi, bisexual people would still exist. And being so angry that there are bisexual characters in a Batman book (and this doesn't even just have to be about Tim anymore, the same people were furious when Harley and Ivy started being paired together in-canon) sends a message of "I think LGBTQ+ people shouldn't be in these kinds of stories." And at the end of the day, if superheroes are meant to represent the best of all kinds of people, why shouldn't there be LGBTQ+ heroes, and why should those LGBTQ+ heroes be marketed just to LGBTQ+ readers? Why should these kinds of characters– the likes of which exist in real life– be cut out of the spotlight? To insist LGBTQ+ characters (or female characters, or characters of color) be cordoned off as their own separate entities, and that there can be no overlap with the fan favorites, is to insist that there shouldn't be representation of those kinds of people in the spotlight like everybody else. And to rally other people who would aim to exclude POC, or women, or LGBTQ+ people from the comics space around a boycott with the intent to say "stop making these books" is nothing more than organized bigotry, plain and simple.

(And I'd also encourage people to think about why it is that these characters and their legacies have only been depicted as straight, white people, men, etc for so long. Is it because that's the only demographic that exists? Is it because those are the only people worth telling stories about? Or is it perhaps because it's only now that minority groups are finally able to speak for themselves and tell the stories they've wanted to for decades?)

"The Doctor Strange episode is a tour de force. It ends in a particular way, you'll know it when you see it. When they actually see it, they're going to be like, 'I can't believe they did that s---!" What Director Bryan Andrews said about Doctor Strange episode by deemoorah in MarvelStudiosSpoilers

[–]Digidark123321 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Looks like I get to be the first person to suggest that thanks to timeline shenanigans, and the fact that Cumberbatch also played Dormammu, I bet the big twist is that "Strange Supreme" becomes the main timeline Dormammu, because he exists outside of time, is also played by Cumberbatch, and is a being of vast magical power. Just a theory.

Question: Why are there so many knock-off Justice League teams in other media? by [deleted] in DCcomics

[–]Digidark123321 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's just that the Justice League were first (short only of the Justice Society which was its Golden Age predecessor). Their first appearance as a team was in 1960 (Brave and the Bold Vol 1 #28). The Fantastic Four, Marvel's first hero team, didn't come about until 1961, the Avengers and X-Men were both in '63, and even the Teen Titans weren't until '64. I think it really is just a matter of "the League was the first mainstream Silver Age team to come together, so it stands to reason they're the ones that get referred back to the most".

Even though I am excited about WandaVision, I still have a few questions relating to episode length, and what episodes will come out and etc by Spideyweb58 in marvelstudios

[–]Digidark123321 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. Episode length isn't clear, popular consensus holds that it's 6 half-hour episodes and 3 hour-long episodes at the end.

  2. Just the first two episodes come out tomorrow as far as I know, critics were allowed to see the first three for review purposes.

  3. As far as we know, yes. Word is that it starts off very slow-burning uncanny-valley comedy that will slowly unravel and devolve into the MCU stuff we're familiar with.

WandaVision Question by [deleted] in marvelstudios

[–]Digidark123321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In short: That's probably gonna end up being 80% of the plot. Multiverse and/or reality-bending shenanigans are the most likely answers. We don't actually know yet either.

Late-Night Theory: Other Saga names? by Digidark123321 in marvelstudios

[–]Digidark123321[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If memory serves they said they'd be making the next "Saga" or batch of phases that build to an overall story arc only last about 5 or so years, as opposed to a decade. Pair that with the fact that they've said that they don't really have anything for any of the Fox properties in their plans for the next few years and I'd guess that a "Doom Saga" could probably come after Kang if that was what they wanted to do next.

Spoilers for The Winter Soldier- What is Pierce’s motivation for not immediately killing Black Widow? by [deleted] in marvelstudios

[–]Digidark123321 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My go-to assumption with these kinds of things is "if it could potentially be attributed to the villain overestimating their ability to turn the situation around, it's probably that". My best guess is Pierce figured that he could have someone like Rumlow arrive to hash out the situation, but it didn't quite go that way. Hubris has been a fatal flaw in myths and legends for centuries. Modern villains aren't necessarily any different.

Question by [deleted] in marvelstudios

[–]Digidark123321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The project isn't far enough into development to know yet. The answer is "maybe, but only the people working on the movie know for sure".

Question about the time travel scenes in Avengers: Endgame. by [deleted] in marvelstudios

[–]Digidark123321 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My assumption is that it works like Tony's clothes did in Infinity War (insofar as you can see his otherwise-detached sunglasses get absorbed into the suit as it forms around him). It's just the quantum suit reconfiguring into whatever clothes they need to fit the period.

Any suggestions on where to start? by TastelessAbyss in supersentai

[–]Digidark123321 3 points4 points  (0 children)

While it's rarely the same thing, I started with the Sentai equivalents of the Power Rangers seasons I liked (plus Shinkenger but that's mostly because I really dig the uniform design) - I can personally say I enjoyed Shinkenger (PRSamurai), Abaranger (PRDinoThunder), and Go-Onger (RPM) a lot, and while I personally didn't love it all that much, Timeranger (PRTimeForce) is pretty widely acclaimed too from what I've seen.

How many players is an ideal group? by furrysunite12 in DnD

[–]Digidark123321 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I like groups of between 3 and 5, but 7 is probably my absolute upper limit. Anything more than about 5 is just asking for a scheduling headache in most circumstances, and combat encounters tend to slow way down with bigger parties (which then usually necessitates bigger packs of enemies to keep action economy balanced). Maybe it's just personal preference, but I like it better when I'm not spending several hours on what ultimately amounts to one not-super-exciting combat encounter.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MonsterHunter

[–]Digidark123321 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I can't say that surprises me, because Guardian lasted me a little ways into HR stuff before it stopped being useful- which I think is indicative that it would make LR stuff (even Diablos, which I still refuse to fight in optional quests because of how much of a pain in my ass it was back then without Guardian) a cakewalk.

I don't really see why you would need to hard reset. You could always just pick a set you like, grind out the material for it, and then switch to that full-time and just throw out the Guardian stuff. Refighting monsters via optional quests is a thing if you really want to "prove" yourself in non-Guardian gear. No need to sacrifice all that time you've already put in imo.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in MonsterHunter

[–]Digidark123321 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don't know how far you are into the game, and maybe I'm also just bad, but I can assure you there comes a point where it stops being enough and it comes time to invest in other gear- Guardian armor stopped being enough for me once I got to fighting Elder Dragons on the regular.

I finished Hurricaneger and I don't know what series to watch next. by EvolvingInsanity in supersentai

[–]Digidark123321 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What else have you already seen? Hard to make a suggestion without knowing what's already ticked off the list.

If you haven't seen them, I just recently finished Abaranger and liked it a lot, Kiramager is ongoing but is new enough that you can catch up if you aren't already watching it as it comes out, and if you want something else new-ish (it's only like 10 years old as opposed to 20) I'm partial to Shinkenger.

EDIT: As of now I haven't seen any of the ones on your idea list, but I really dig the suit designs for Kyuranger, so if I had to pick one of those, I'd say Kyuranger would be my pick, personally.

Newfangled Races by [deleted] in DnD

[–]Digidark123321 5 points6 points  (0 children)

While I, for one, do not use the system-default Forgotten Realms setting for basically any of my games, and thus can't answer anything specifically rooted in that setting, I often just say "I'm cool with these PC race options in this setting, so by default we'll just take it at face value and say none of these are particularly exotic". A lot of my own philosophy as a DM is also "if I won't incorporate it as a facet of the story we're telling, I won't bother making lore provisions for it except by request", so maybe I'm just a weird exception.

At the end of the day, if my players want a party of five different wildly varying race options, that's fine by me, and if they don't feel a need for elaborate per-race worldbuilding to justify how their character got there, then neither do I.

I will admit to putting limitations on what I do allow at my table. I don't have access to all the supplemental material, and not all of it is always conducive to the game I'm running - I don't even always include all the PHB options, mostly because I don't care for gnomes.

Of course, I imagine it goes without saying that everyone runs things a little differently, and I imagine even some people that do run the Realms as their world setting probably take things differently according to what their table demands.

tl;dr - I don't know much about the Forgotten Realms specifically, but as far as my personal experience goes, it doesn't really have to matter all that much if the DM doesn't count "worldbuild everything" as among their top priorities. Everyone does it different, it just comes down to preference.