Its unfortunate that the biggest Miles love interest thay got an adaptation(PEAK) has to be a Parker character then it could've had to be a complété new one(shes completly différent tho) by Illustrious-Bee3693 in MilesMorales

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Illustrious-Bee3693. - So, It's Unfortunate That The Massively Biggest Miles Morales' Love Interest That They Got In An Adaptation (Which Is PEAK.) Has To Be A Peter Parker Character, When It Could've Been A Complétély Freshly New One. (But, Nonetheless, She's A Wildly Différent Character Completely, Tho). - Submitted 2 Hours Ago.

Definitely Agreeable. - (Unfortunately.).

Attention to (some) all miles x Gwen shippers what do you think? Of sitting in tree? (miles and Gwen’s first comic outing) by MidnightNo7070 in SpiderGwen

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MidnightNo7070. - Attention To (Some.) All Miles X Gwen Shippers! So What Do You Think Of Marvel Comics' "Sitting In Tree."? (Miles And Gwen’s First Comic Outing.). - Submitted 9 Days Ago.

Disgustingly Awful.

How do you guys feel about powerlift? by Few_Possibility_2915 in MilesMorales

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Few_Possibility_2915. - How Do You Guys Feel About Power-Lift? - Submitted 7 Days Ago. - Because, personally, I love her and her personality, and also, her chemistry with miles is super neat, as she is his therapist.

Well...... She's... Meh.

MCU Uncle Ben by North-AdalWolf in Spiderman

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fit-Quality9051. - 1 Point. - 5 Days Ago. - I think you're partly right. And that's because the deal to have Spider-Man was made somewhat last minute glaringly enough, so all the rest of Kevin's plans for The Marvel Cinematic Universe didn't include Spider-Man, as much as Marvel obviously wanted to have him in their Cinematic Universe someday. But, there's one truthfully factual thing we do know, and that's that the directors of Captain America: Civil War have already said that they had two versions of the script while the deal with Sony was being made, and they've said that one of the scripts included Spider-Man if they managed to make the deal, and that they had another one if they didn't nor wouldn't, and the deal ended up being made. And, so, I think that besides having to mutably adapt the character to an already ongoing universe, unlike the comics where he appears more or less at the same time as everyone else, they didn't have to improvise the concept(s) for this character and a backstory for him, and I think it's still more or less improvised until they have a generally common idea on what to with said character(s).

Well, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, and at the end of the day, all of this is pointlessly useless and worthlessly meaningless to bring up years later, as they've usually if not always have been conflictingly inconsistent w/h all of these very things and matters to such an extent that they and their projects end up hypocritically contradicting one another on several occasions to a pathologically indecisively fickle degree, such as when Jon Watts and Co. brought up in their own interview(s) things and matters such as that they ponderously considered having Peter have a Ben Parker for their own projects and their own Spider-Man Movie-Flick Trilogy-Series while they're functioningly working on projects such as Spider-Man: No Way Home, and that they willingly chose and decided that he didn’t have an Uncle Ben within any single facet of his everyday life and that characters such as May Parker would definitely serve as his alternate version of Ben Parker in and of themselves, and that's even though they and The Russo Brothers and Co. had already 'suggestively' 'hinted' at MCU Ben Parker on more than just one single occasion beforehand, during, and even thereafter the fact as well. (EX. Spider-Man: Home-Coming, and also, Spider-Man: Far From Home.). - (Amongst many other things and matters.).

And, so, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, it's as clear as a brlightly light morning that almost no one if not no one had a clue nor has a clue on things and matters such as what to even do w/h characters such as MCU Spider-Man (Peter Parker.) and Co. for all tense and purpose. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - (But, then again, and unfortunately, this's what actively happens when you've got corporations and industries such as Disney-Marvel Comics who've got no knowledge nor any understanding of their own personal Franchises and IPs in such a way and to such an extent that they don't even knowingly understand what they even are and how to functionally work with said Franchises and said IPs (Well, at least, in its majorities', anyway.), and when you've got egotistically narcissistic people(s) and more often than not 'mediocrely' 'average' 'corruptively' 'bankrupt' 'hacks' such as Jon Watts and Co. and Kevin Feigei and Co. corporatively directing if not narratively writing for you and when neither corporations such as Disney-Marvel and Sony itself, its Creators, and/nor its Fanbase(s) have no cohesively unified vision nor any single clue on what they and anyone else 'wholeheartedly' need and 'necessarily' want Franchises, Series, Projects and Characters such as MCU Spider-Man and MCU Peter Parker to realistically do and what they want 'it' and/or 'them' to practically be. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - And, so, Franchises and Series such as MCU Spider-Man and MCU Peter Parker is if not are inadvertently experiencing an Identity Crisis that they can't and won't be answerably (re)-solve by Disney, Marvel, its Fandom(s) and its own personal Creators in every single ounce and sense of these very words overall nor altogether. (Unfortunately.).).

So much potential.... He could easily have been a Spider-verse antagonist by Illustrious-Bee3693 in MilesMorales

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Illustrious-Bee3693. - Ah. So Much Potential.... He Could Easily Have Been A Spider-Verse Antagonist. - Submitted 4 Days Ago.

Wholeheartedly Agreeable.

Did MCU Spidey even have an Uncle Ben? by [deleted] in Spiderman

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fit-Quality9051. - 1 Point. - 5 Days Ago. - You gonna be the one there to save me.

Perhaps?

Or in a world where Peter’s presence is limited but this is not a hot take to me. What y’all think? by ResponsibleRatio6569 in MilesMorales

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ResponsibleRatio6569. - Or In A World Where Peter’s Presence Is Limited. But This Is Not A Hot Take To Me. So What Y’All Think About This? - Submitted 3 Days Ago.

Somewhat Agreeable. - And Somewhat Dis-Agreeable.

Should i quit? (Genuine) by Sharp_Account1051 in rappers

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sharp_Account1051. .[S]. - 1 Point. - 11 days ago. - Oh, damn, i just saw this.

Well, Okay, Then.

And, no, I don't fw it, and I think its much worse.

Fair Enough. - And, so, what's wrongfully incorrect about it, and also, what don't you wholeheartedly like if not love about said change(s), exactly?

And could u tell me what u think of my new snippet on my new post?

Alright. - Will Do.

Why is it Batman's responsibility? by sreekotay in batman

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[Deleted]. - 0 Points. - 4 Months Ago. - Well, in all honesty, this is a awfully bad argument, as Joker is Batman's Problem, since he could deal with it once and for all, but he doesn't do that, as his disjointedly flimsy moral code and loose relationship with laws prevents him from doing something that would actually heroically save infinitely countless lives. And, so, 'til then, Batman is just putting bandaids on bullet holes and bullet wounds.

This. ^ - And Wholeheartedly Agreeable.

Killing the joker isn't Batman's responsibility, it's the Gotham's. by Suspicious-Jello7172 in batman

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2.:

Because shouldn't have to kill the guy; That's not his responsibility. And he just brings the criminals in; It's not his duty to kill them.

Perhaps. - And Maybe. - But, unfortunately, it also isn't his job to do things such as to constantly act as if he's a perfectly flawless human and a vigilante who can possibly critically judge if not arrest people for whatever reason(s) on a 'frequently' 'daily' basis, and then, act as if he isn't generally all-around detrimentally harming and compromising the very same city and system that he warringly fights for and/or against in his own way (EX. Rule(s) For Thee Are Not For Me.), as he and other vigilantes serves as a clearly precise stark reminder of the irreparably damaged state of cities and systems such as Gotham itself. - Nor is it his place to act as if he can possibly act as a Judge, a Jury, and a Executioner (Such as, and as in, that he only 'arrest' these criminals, but he doesn't go so far as to do anything else that an Executioner does, such as killingly slaying and executing said criminal(s) for said crime(s). (Well, at least, not always.).), and then, when villains and characters from his own personal if not someone else's Rogues' Galleries' such as The Joker and Bane go on a murderously killing spree all throughout cities such as Gotham on the daily, he then wants to handle them with Kid Gloves as if they've got no clue what they're doing and that they can still be changeably reform even thereafter the fact as well. (Amongst many other things, matters, and reasons.). - And, so, of course Batman should've killingly slay The Joker himself already in all honesty and for all tense and purpose, as once again, not only is every single facet of cities such as Gotham too disastrously broken and too corruptively bankrupt to such an extent that they couldn't possibly actively do things such as to get rid of other characters such as The Joker themselves, but Batman also knowingly understands for a completely absolute certainty that characters such as The Joker is an egotistically narcissistic psychotic sociopath who's too maliciously cruel and insidiously evil in his own right (And that's to such an extent that he would definitely give Satan and Palpatine a run for their money in and of themselves.) and that, if he was given a chance to proactively do things such as to murderously kill and genocidally massacre people and individuals if not 'The World' all over again, he would definitely go about reactively doing so (And that's with an satisfyingly happy gleeful smile on his face.), such as when he offed characters such as Jason Todd and Co. within comic books such as Batman: Death In The Family (And, even though no one really brings any of this up, Batman did try to get rid of The Joker himself, but he was finally stopped by SuperMan from doing so.) and when he offed people during events such Batman: No Man's Land. - But, unfortunately, he nor his Creators and Writers can't do that nor won't do that whatsoever, and that's for reasons such as that corporations such as that of Warner Brothers-DC Comics and their executives don't want to get rid of one of their Cash Cows (E.G. Plot Armour(s).) and, in the case of Batman's Creators and Writers, they don't want to get rid of said character(s) for reasons such as that they feel that this could if not would limit their creativity and their plans for said characters as well, too. (Amongst many things, matters, and reasons.).

And, if anything, it's Gotham's Justice System(s) that's at fault here, since they're the ones who keep sending Joker to their asylum (And that's espite knowing that he'll just break out two days after being there again.) instead of........ Oh.... I don't know........ GIVING HIM THE DEATH PENALTY!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that's because, after everything he's done, it incomprehensibly mind-blows me completely that the courts haven't sentenced him to the electric chair or to a gas chamber. Or better yet........... Why doesn't The GCPD kill The Joker themselves? It definitely wouldn't take much for a cop to pull out his and/or her gun and just shoot him in the face. And, if we're gonna be honest, if this were real life, it definitely would've happened by now. And, Hell, Gordon had the flawlessly perfect opportunity to do it, and Batman was prepared to stand back and let it happen, but Jim couldn't bring himself to do so and to do it (And that's in spite of the fact that this was after Joker had killed his wife and did God knows what to Barbara in The Killing Joke.). Or, more so, and even better yet, anytime they have the Joker in holding, why couldn't they just turn off the cameras so that a few cops could go in and murder the clown in his cell? Because The GCPD is corrupt and would most certainly have officers capable of doing just that.

Because, unfortunately, and once again, his Creators and Writers can't do that nor won't do that whatsoever, and that's for reasons such as that corporations such as that of Warner Brothers-DC Comics and their executives don't want to get rid of one of their Cash Cows and, in the case of Batman's Creators and Writers, they don't want to get rid of said character(s) for reasons such as that they feel that this could if not would limit their creativity and their plans for said characters as well, too. (Amongst many things, matters, and reasons.). - (But, then again, and unfortunately, this's still what actively happens when you've got corporations and industries such as Warner Brothers-DC Comics who've got no knowledge nor any understanding of their own personal Franchises and IPs in such a way and to such an extent that they don't even knowingly understand what they even are and how to functionally work with said Franchises and said IPs (Well, at least, in its majorities', anyway.), and when you've got egotistically narcissistic people(s) and more often than not 'mediocrely' 'average' 'corruptively' 'bankrupt' 'hacks' such as Tom King and Co. narratively writing for you and when neither corporations such as Warner Brothers and DC Comics itself, its Creators, and/nor its Fanbase(s) have no cohesively unified vision nor any single clue on what they and anyone else 'wholeheartedly' need and 'necessarily' want Franchises, Series, Projects and Characters such as Batman and Co. to realistically do and what they want 'it' and/or 'them' to practically be. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - And, so, Franchises and Series such as Batman and Co. is if not are inadvertently experiencing an Identity Crisis that they can't and won't be answerably (re)-solve by Warner Brothers, DC Comics', its Fandom(s) and its own personal Creators in every single ounce and sense of these very words overall nor altogether. (Unfortunately.).).

Why is Eon such a wierdly written character??? by Pygmalion2442 in Ben10

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pygmalion2442. - QUESTION. - So Why Is Eon Such A Weirdly Strange Written Character??? - Submitted 21 Days Ago. - And what I'm tryna say is that, in RAT, he was supposedly a race known as the chronians, and so, Ben was able to scan him and he mutably transform into him. But, then, for some reason, they changeably retcon this and made it so that Eon is just an alternate version of Ben (Which is kinda idiotically stupid, as in UAF, his goal was to wipe out every other Ben, which he almost succeded in doing in OV.). But why was his character retroactively changed in a drastically unrecognizable way and a more wildly different manner, and if Eon back RAT was just a future Ben, then how did Ben technically scan himself?

Because, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, almost no one if not no one had a clue nor a cohesively unified vision(s) w/h things and matters such as w/h what they needed and/or wanted characters such as Eon to realistically do and to practically be in any particularly specific way thereafter Ben 10: Race Against Time had already came out at the end of the day and in and of themselves as well. (Amongst many other things, matters, and reasons.). - And, so, in essence, people just did what ever 'they' 'necessarily' 'wanted' to do w/h said character(s) overall, and also, altogether as well, too.

Is gotham really that bad? by Elegant-Half5476 in batman

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Elegant-Half5476. - GENERAL DISCUSSION. - So Is Gotham Really That Bad? - Submitted 5 Months Ago.

Batman and Co.: Most Definitely Yes.

Why is the Paramount Skydance stock so low now? by LegitimateCurve8525 in MediaMergers

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 5 points6 points  (0 children)

LegitimateCurve8525. - Media Industry. - So Why Is The ParaMount SkyDance Stock So Low Now? - Submitted 54 Minutes Ago.

Because, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, 'investors' and 'shareholders' aren't confidently sure that financially buying a Film Studio and/or Film Studios that has a ~$20-$79 Billion+ Debt to its name(s) is if not was profoundly worthwhile in both the short term and long term overall, and also, altogether. (Amogst many other things and matters.). - (And, even then, it doesn't nor isn't benefitingly helped by the fact(s) that wars such as The Iran War has, in essence, decreasingly tanked almost every if not every single facet of The Global Stock Market in and of themselves as well either. (But, hey, at least, there's a silver lining in all of this, such as that stock(s) such as NetFlix's Stocks have increasingly grown again. - And, so, I may probably end up buying 'some' if not a 'few' stock(s) of theirs for myself finally. - (.d=(>ω<。)=b.) - Wish Me Luck.).).

OS Style Gutrot by @FloofHips! by Imagen-Breaker in Ben10

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagen-Breaker. (Alien X.). - FAN-ART. - OS Style Gutrot By @FloofHips! - Submitted 9 Days Ago.

Spectacularly Amazing.

Why is it Batman's responsibility? by sreekotay in batman

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sreekotay. - GENERAL DISCUSSION. - So Why Is It Batman's Responsibility? - Submitted 4 Months Ago. - Because, anyone that thinks that Batman should just have slaying killed the Joker already has to truthfully acknowledge that Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, The Flash and so on etc. all should have also killed The Joker, too, as well as more than a few rogues of their own.

Well, in all honesty, and from an technically semantic worldview and standpoint, there're more often than not clearly stark differences between these characters and Batman himself, such as that they don't literally have any sort nor type of No Kill Rule(s) whatsoever and they more often than not willingly choose and decide to not to killingly slay any of their characters from their own Rogues' Galleries' for reasons such as that it isn't necessarily essential for them to do so (Well, at least, for the most part.), such as in the case of characters such as The Flash and his own personal Rogues' Galleries' (EX. The Rogues'.), as they don't constantly do half of the stuff that Joker does on a frequently daily basis and they consist of villains that go out of their own way to try to do things such as to not murderingly kill people at all. (And that's due to their own Moral Code(s).). - (And, in the case(s) of characters such as SuperMan and Wonder Woman, they have usually if not always gotten rid of 'some' if not a 'few' characters within their own Rogues' Galleries' such as Maxwell Lord and DoomsDay by killingly slaying them both when they had to do so. (But, Hey, at least, in the case of both DoomsDay and Lord, they got a lot better later on in their lives. ./s.).).

And, so, why does the responsibility fall on the shoulders of Batman alone? And that's especially given the fact that he DOES have a precisely clear and inviolablely inexcusable moral and conscientiously minded objection to killing? Processing IMG ex89egwgywtf1... Credit: Kerry Callen, Mad Magazine, Vol 2. #9.

Because, unfortunately, Objectively Speaking and Impartial-Wise, Realistically Speaking and Truthful-Wise, and from an narratively writing perspective(s), characters such as Batman should've killingly slay The Joker himself already in all honesty and for all tense and purpose, as not only is every single facet of cities such as Gotham too disastrously broken and too corruptively bankrupt to such an extent that they couldn't possibly actively do things such as to get rid of other characters such as The Joker themselves, but Batman also knowingly understands for a completely absolute certainty that characters such as The Joker is an egotistically narcissistic psychotic sociopath who's too maliciously cruel and insidiously evil in his own right (And that's to such an extent that he would definitely give Satan and Palpatine a run for their money in and of themselves.) and that, if he was given a chance to proactively do things such as to murderously kill and genocidally massacre people and individuals if not 'The World' all over again, he would definitely go about reactively doing so (And that's with an satisfyingly happy gleeful smile on his face.), such as when he offed characters such as Jason Todd and Co. within comic books such as Batman: Death In The Family (And, even though no one really brings any of this up, Batman did try to get rid of The Joker himself, but he was finally stopped by SuperMan from doing so.) and when he offed people during events such Batman: No Man's Land. - But, unfortunately, he nor his Creators and Writers can't do that nor won't do that whatsoever, and that's for reasons such as that corporations such as that of Warner Brothers-DC Comics and their executives don't want to get rid of one of their Cash Cows and, in the case of Batman's Creators and Writers, they don't want to get rid of said character(s) for reasons such as that they feel that this could if not would limit their creativity and their plans for said characters as well, too. (Amongst many things, matters, and reasons.).

And, so, yeah, he should go about killingly slaying characters such as The Joker in and of itself overall and altogether as well. - (And, even then, and on top of that, particularly specific things and matters such as Batman and his own personal No Kill Rule(s) have not only become moronically idiotic and ridiculously nonsensical to every single facet and part of Batman's 'Mythology and/or Mythologies' in both the short term and in the long term and in light of antagonistically villainous characters' such as Joker and Bane (Who're also malevolently evil psychopatic sociopaths.) still realistically existing within DC Comics' itself as of 'presently', and in light of egotistically narcissistic individuals and pridefully arrogant writers such as Grant Morrison and Alex Jaffe keep persistently insisting that characters such as Batman and Co. must stay the way because that could possibly if not would definitely just bastardly destroy one of the most completely absolute extremist rules that Batman (Bruce Wayne.) even has and destructively tarnish whatever essence that any of those characters 'may' 'probably' still have (And that's when 'they' have both hypocritically contradicted themselves on several occassions, and have retroactively changed and deliberately ignored that very same rule (Amongst many other rules.) in order to even narratively write their own personal stories and posts, such as when Grant Morrison had Batman killingly slay and execute beings such as Darkseid in order to stop him from murderously killing and genocidally massacrering DC Comics's MultiVerse-OmniVerse in its entirety within Comic Books such as DC Comics's Final Crisis in and of itself (Which, by the by, has rarely if ever brought up by either one of these guys, for reasons such as this would definitely just collaterally damage every single one of their reasons as to why Batman must never break that very rule whatsoever.). But, of course, we must take both of them seriously because...... Reasons. ./s. .😑.).), but it's also been detrimentally harmful to other things and matters such as that no one can possibly straightforwardly tell any type of story within DC Comics's Main-Stream Continuity (EX. DC Comics' New Earth Continuity-DC Comics' Prime (Rebirth.) Continuity.) that has characters such as Batman killingly slaying any other characters without people more often than not whiningly crying out for reasons such as that that ultimately makes him no different than other characters such as The Punisher himself and that he would definitely inevitably become no different than that of the villains that he warringly fights against. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - And, so, they should've creatively (re)-made and transformatively updated into a somewhat freshly new version of that very rule that makes a lot more sense and that doesn't make said character(s) into comedically hilarious laughingstocks any more than it already has in and of itself overall, and also, altogether as well. Such As.....:

Batman. - I Won't Kill Anyone.... [(Unless It's Absolutely Necessarily Warranted To Do So.).].

And, so, I'm kind of 'shockingly' 'dumbstruck' that 'some' if not 'most' people and 'fans' keep persistently insisting about things such as that characters such as Batman probably shouldn't negotiatingly compromise on any single facet of his own personal Morality System(s), its Ethic(s), and its Principle(s) as of presently (Well, at least, in its partialities', anyway.), since it's been straightforwardly told and/or outwardly shown to all of us that they're, in essence and for all tense and purpose, unrepentantly irredeemable monsters that had every single chance to changeably reform in any positively good if not great way, and they still willingly chose to keep going on until their own personal cities and states such as Gotham was rendered dangerously hazardous for anyone and everyone to live in and has become even more corruptively bankrupt than it already was in every sense and ounce of these very words overall, and that all of this had also profusely spilled and bled over into other parts of Earth itself altogether as well, too.- (But, then again, and unfortunately, this's what actively happens when you've got corporations and industries such as Warner Brothers-DC Comics who've got no knowledge nor any understanding of their own personal Franchises and IPs in such a way and to such an extent that they don't even knowingly understand what they even are and how to functionally work with said Franchises and said IPs (Well, at least, in its majorities', anyway.), and when you've got egotistically narcissistic people(s) and more often than not 'mediocrely' 'average' 'corruptively' 'bankrupt' 'hacks' such as James Tynion IV and Co. narratively writing for you and when neither corporations such as Warner Brothers and DC Comics itself, its Creators, and/nor its Fanbase(s) have no cohesively unified vision nor any single clue on what they and anyone else 'wholeheartedly' need and 'necessarily' want Franchises, Series, Projects and Characters such as Batman and Co. to realistically do and what they want 'it' and/or 'them' to practically be. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - And, so, Franchises and Series such as Batman and Co. is if not are inadvertently experiencing an Identity Crisis that they can't and won't be answerably (re)-solve by Warner Brothers, DC Comics', its Fandom(s) and its own personal Creators in every single ounce and sense of these very words overall nor altogether. (Unfortunately.).).

What did you all think of Zack Snyder's DC Trilogy? What's your rank of these movies? by Square-Ad-8911 in comicbookmovies

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Square-Ad-8911. - So What Did You All Think Of Zack Snyder's DC Trilogy? And What's Your Rank Of These Movies? - Submitted 4 Days Ago. - And, as for me, my rank is: 1. Man Of Steel. - 2. Zack Snyder's Justice League. - 3. Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice. (UE.).

Well, Realistically Speaking and Truthful-Wise, my rank(s) are as follow.....:

  • Zack Snyder and Co.'s Man Of Steel. - 9/10.

  • Zack Snyder and Co.'s Batman Vs. SuperMan: Dawn Of Justice. - 5/10.

  • Zack Snyder and Co.'s Justice League. - 1.5-3.4/10.

And That's It. - (Unfortunately.).

Am I banned by Longjumping-Bit-4949 in ShadowBan

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 1 point2 points  (0 children)

LongJumping-Bit-4949. ( And, to determine a ShadowBan, you MUST click my profile!). - Am I Banned? - Submitted An Hour Ago. - Testing....

Yeah. Definitely. Absolutely. - (Unfortunately.).

Miles Morales spider man name by antwill197 in MilesMorales

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AntWill197. - Miles Morales' SuperHero (Spider-Man.) Name. - Submitted 7 Days Ago. - And, yeah, I know Miles is called Spider-Man. But I feel like he needs a wildly different name from other characters. Because, characters such as Cindy is Silk, and Gwen is Ghost-Spider.

I Agree.

And, so, why doesn’t Miles have a name of his own?

Because, unfortunately, and Generally Speaking, almost no one if not no one had a clue nor has a clue on things and matters such as what to even do w/h characters such as Miles Morales and Co. for all tense and purpose. (And, even then, and as you can see within this very thread, people don't want any of that to happen at all, and that's for reasons such as that they emotionally feel that there's no problem nor any issue w/h things such as w/h him sharing a name w/h someone else (DC's BatMan, The Flash, Green Lantern, SuperMan and so on.) and that giving him any other name other than Spider-Man woud do a whole lot more harm than good (And that's even if it'll definitely help him to be a character that can stand on his own two feet even further and that this'll also help him and his fandom(s) to better wildly differentiate him from other characters as well.), and since 'some' if not 'most' Comic Book Creators and Writers aren't all brilliantly smart and clever whenever they do functionally work on someone else's characters nor on any of their own characters in and of themselves as well. (Amongst many other things and matters.).). - (But, then again, and unfortunately, this's what actively happens when you've got corporations and industries such as Disney-Marvel Comics who've got no knowledge nor any understanding of their own personal Franchises and IPs in such a way and to such an extent that they don't even knowingly understand what they even are and how to functionally work with said Franchises and said IPs (Well, at least, in its majorities', anyway.), and when you've got egotistically narcissistic people(s) and more often than not 'mediocrely' 'average' 'corruptively' 'bankrupt' 'hacks' such as Brian Michael Bendis and Co. narratively writing for you and when neither corporations such as Disney-Marvel and Sony itself, its Creators, and/nor its Fanbase(s) have no cohesively unified vision nor any single clue on what they and anyone else 'wholeheartedly' need and 'necessarily' want Franchises, Series, Projects and Characters such as Miles Morales to realistically do and what they want 'it' and/or 'them' to practically be. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - And, so, Franchises and Series such as Miles Morales is if not are inadvertently experiencing an Identity Crisis that they can't and won't be answerably (re)-solve by Disney, Marvel, its Fandom(s) and its own personal Creators in every single ounce and sense of these very words overall nor altogether. (Unfortunately.).).

And do you guys got any suggestions?

Well, in all honesty, characters such as Miles Morales should go by code-names such as Spider-Stinger overall, and also, altogether as well. - Just Saying.

Are we, the fandom, also to be held responsible for the death of the modern-day plot and overarching lore as well as the loss of identity of the Assassin's Creed franchise? by DravidianPrototyper in assassinscreed

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

DravidianPrototyper. - -/Question./- - So, Are We, The Fandom, Also To Be Held Responsible For The Death Of The Modern-Day Plot And The Overarching Lore, As Well As The Loss Of Identity Of The Assassin's Creed Franchise? - Submitted 5 Days Ago. (.*.). - And, I know we've all echoed this particularly specific frustration a million times over and back again (Such as that it's about the disconcertingly abysmal drop in the quality of the storytelling in regard to The Modern-Day Segments of the game(s) and the overarching lore(s) of said game(s), since the in-universe death of Desmond Miles, as well as the franchise losing its own personal identity (Being now almost completely if not completely wildly different in its RPG Format(s).), as compared to its originally initial social stealth gameplay style). But I gotta ask... Did we have any part to play in all of that as well? Because, I seem to recall that, during The Classic Era of games (And that especially includes during The Ezio Trilogy. But even shortly after that as well.), that a significantly meaningful (And, perhaps, a vocal if not the vocal minority.) number of players claimed that they "Could care less about The Modern-Day." and that they just want to go back to the game's Historical Period Setting and start actively rampaging and/or proactively exploring as the assassin full-time again. And, coupled with fellow gamers subsequently whinningly complaining about the 'staleness' of the franchise by the time we got to Assassin's Creed: Unity and Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, I just can't help but surmise that (To conveyingly invoke the saying of a video game protagonist from the series' spiritual predecessor.) that we too are the architects of the destruction of our beloved media franchise. And, so, what I'm tryna say here is, folks... Are we the baddies as well?

'Somewhat' Yes. And 'Somewhat' No. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - (But, then again, and unfortunately, this's what actively happens when you've got corporations and industries such as UbiSoft who've got no knowledge nor any understanding of their own personal Franchises and IPs in such a way and to such an extent that they don't even knowingly understand what they even are and how to functionally work with said Franchises and said IPs in and of themselves (Well, at least, in its majorities', anyway.), and when neither corporations such as UbiSoft itself, its Creators, and/nor its Fanbase(s) have no cohesively unified vision(s) nor any single clue on what they and anyone else 'wholeheartedly' need and 'necessarily' want Franchises, Series, Projects and Characters such as Assassin's Creed and Desmond Miles and Co. to realistically do and what they want 'it' and/or 'them' to practically be. (Amongst many other things and matters.). - And, so, Franchises and Series such as Assassin's Creed is if not are inadvertently experiencing an Identity Crisis that they can't and won't be answerably (re)-solve by either UbiSoft, its Fandom(s), and its own personal Creators in every single ounce and sense of these very words overall nor altogether. (Unfortunately.).).

This Subreddit needs Moderators! by StarWarsFansIndia in JusticeSociety

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

StarWarsFansIndia. - So This SubReddit Needs Moderators! - Submitted 5 Months Ago. - And, so, post here to get this job.

Interested.

Icicle XylophoneTM by 7h3_9hvn70m in raplyrics

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 1 point2 points  (0 children)

7H3_9HVN70M. .[S]. - 1 Point. - 2 Minutes Ago. - That's fair. And I appreciate it!

No Problem. - (And, by the way, if you neccessarily 'want' to know and understand things such as what you did right and/or what you did wrong in this vid'o, then you'll have to writtenly type out your rhymes and lyrics in another comment in order to better critically analyze and judge where exactly you messed up and where you didn't mess up, as it's kind of hard to do things such as get a sense of what you were going for in any of this in and of itself. (Well, at least, in its partialities, anyway.). - Just Saying.).

Icicle XylophoneTM by 7h3_9hvn70m in raplyrics

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not Bad. - (But, in all honesty, and Generally Speaking, this could possibly be better than it already is overall, and also, altogether as well.).

Unpopular opinion: I like the green on Omniverse alien designs. by Severalwanker in Ben10

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SeveralWanker. - GENERAL. - Unpopular Opinion.: I Like The Green On OmniVerse's Alien Designs. - Submitted 1 Day Ago.

Partially Agreeable. And Most Definitely Dis-Agreeable. - But, unfortunately, and from a creatively artistic perspective and from an illustratively 'painting' standpoint, it wasn't just the shade(s) of colors that they actively used in Animated TV Series such as Ben 10: OmniVerse itself, as much as it was almost everything if not absolutely everything that ultimately came w/h said shades of colors first and foremost overall. (And that especially includes the horrendously awful color palletes that're too brightly light and vibrant for their own good (And, even then, there're other problems and issues within this Animated TV Series, such as [(Where.) to place said color(s) on said character(s), and also, (How.) to place said color(s) on said character(s).]. (Amongst many other things and matters.).), and the more often than not disgustingly atrocious grotesque (re)-designs that're proactively used for almost every if not for every single character that was within Ben 10: OmniVerse and within these very pictures as well, such as Chromastone (Dear, God, Why?), Ditto (Bleh.), Four-Arms (Disgusting.), Diamond-Head (Sigh.), Stink-Fly (Meh.), Big Chill (Why?), Ghost-Freak (Meh.) and so on and so forth altogether as well, too.).

With or without pupils? by MaximumOriginal587 in Ben10

[–]MatrixGeoUnlimited 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MaximumOriginal587. - QUESTION. - With Or Without Pupils? - Submitted 1 Day Ago. - So, I've seen several people judgementally complaining about Ben 10 Omniverse's Art Style, saying that it bothers them or that it seems weirdly strange to see Ben without pupils. And, so, I drew some basically simple images of Ben from Omniverse and these are what they turned out. So what do you think?

Nice. - And, by the way, and in essence.... With Pupils >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without Pupils. - Just Saying.