Page 556 of 839 FirstFirst ... 56456506546552553554555556557558559560566606656 ... LastLast
Results 8,326 to 8,340 of 12575
  1. #8326
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Superman flips of the Authoritoes who tries to spy and control him. He is a vigilante. He doesn't seem to deny it. That pa kent scene where he tells him to hide his strength. It's from goldenage. Superman shows himself as vigilante from an urban myth to save lois. Superman is an urban myth. Superman breaking his limits.
    In one single scene, the rest of the movie he respects them and trusts them to do what's right. By B v S he's more rebellious except that's limited to pouting and not speaking to anyone because he lost what social graces he had in Man of Steel. Superman being a vigilante isn't that much of a game changer for Superman, it's not like he has to be deputised in every incarnation to be a super-hero. A random superhero is an urban myth, and a terrible one who Lois can track because he's an idiot who never learnt how to cover his tracks properly when he becomes Superman he does it openly.

    Superman trashing a truck of a guy harassing a woman.it's a parallel of how superman smashed the car after lois was being harrased by butch.
    Which makes him look unhinged, when he could have stood up for her without risking his identity because people are going to notice that guy's car getting trashed after that. He has two modes, being a passive coward as Kent and someone who overkills things and ruins lives. There's more options to him defending ladies from sexist jerks than doing nothing and destroying vehicles.

    Superman getting pissed and accidentally causing collateral.Also, the kents nor the els where the reason superman helps people and defends the defenceless .
    When did he do this in Man of Steel? We don't know why he becomes a super-hero in Man of Steel. Superman only becomes an active super-hero in the movie when Zod shows up and he still needs prodding to stand up to Zod.

    It's his instinct. Which he honed to be a choice.
    That talk about chance and choice.it presents the theme of personhood that exists through out goldenage comics.
    For someone who's supposed to defined by 'choices' he sure doesn't give us much insight into why he does the things he does. Snyder's Superman does more being passive and being reactive than actively choosing things to do. He's contradictory, at one point he can't decide whether to turn himself in so he has go to a priest while he overcame Pa Kent argument to not be a super-hero off-screen and didn't care when heavily armed criminals shot up Gotham under his nose.

    Incidentally, anything inspidered by goldenage superman comics like the irongiant or astroboy.He doesn't give long drawn speeches on how people should behave.
    Being inspired by something means nothing and he's more controversial than either of those characters. And Golden Age Superman did things like supporting miners when they were being taken advantage of by their bosses, this Superman did nothing like that in the movies.

  2. #8327
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steel Inquisitor View Post
    In one single scene, the rest of the movie he respects them and trusts them to do what's right. By B v S he's more rebellious except that's limited to pouting and not speaking to anyone because he lost what social graces he had in Man of Steel. Superman being a vigilante isn't that much of a game changer for Superman, it's not like he has to be deputised in every incarnation to be a super-hero. A random superhero is an urban myth, and a terrible one who Lois can track because he's an idiot who never learnt how to cover his tracks properly when he becomes Superman he does it openly.



    Which makes him look unhinged, when he could have stood up for her without risking his identity because people are going to notice that guy's car getting trashed after that. He has two modes, being a passive coward as Kent and someone who overkills things and ruins lives. There's more options to him defending ladies from sexist jerks than doing nothing and destroying vehicles.



    When did he do this in Man of Steel? We don't know why he becomes a super-hero in Man of Steel. Superman only becomes an active super-hero in the movie when Zod shows up and he still needs prodding to stand up to Zod.



    For someone who's supposed to defined by 'choices' he sure doesn't give us much insight into why he does the things he does. Snyder's Superman does more being passive and being reactive than actively choosing things to do. He's contradictory, at one point he can't decide whether to turn himself in so he has go to a priest while he overcame Pa Kent argument to not be a super-hero off-screen and didn't care when heavily armed criminals shot up Gotham under his nose.



    Being inspired by something means nothing and he's more controversial than either of those characters. And Golden Age Superman did things like supporting miners when they were being taken advantage of by their bosses, this Superman did nothing like that in the movies.
    Nope! Mate he sets boundaries for those guys. They can't control him, they will never will(ofcourse, superman has been turned into pathetic boyscout saviour who gives into the fancies of guys in power later on. Smh! ) . That's all goldenage superman does. Dude, postcrisis version has actively tried to downplay being the vigilante. Riiight, the only reason lois was able to find him was because he saved her,therefore she knew exactly whqt she was looking for. Otherwise, he would be just a story like crocodiles in the sewers. Regardless, it's from goldenage.Also,that scene where lois and superman meet. Where gets scared of him. That's what her reaction was to goldenage superman as well.

    Riiight, that gal told him to not interfere. He supposed to do what?? Not consider her wishes?He provides her protection regardless aka as the guardian angel. That doesn't mean saint superman you are aware of is the goldenage guy. The goldenage guy got frustrated because he couldn't help lois as superman. So, he jumped in smashed the car to relieve himself of the frustration. Same thing happened here, he couldn't help as clark so he wrecked the truck with superman identity playing at the fore front. Superman bullys his bullies.If you tug his cape you are gonna get smacked.Well, finally you seem to understand how the real original superman used to work. He does have two modes, he plays the coward(clark) and the bully(superman) . This is'nt just sexism anymore. These guys are reprehensible people who try to physically and emotionally hurt women. superman used to give wedgies to guys like butch and the jackass that is lobo(i don't know his name in the movie) ???Don't like it too bad. Still entirely from goldenage comics. Heck! More tame than goldenage comics.

    If you are going by "we need exposition and needs to be explained", instead of whats shown. Well, goldenage superman becomes a criminal for nothing. Moreover, no an identity doesn't need the costume. He was always running around helping people. Superman isn't a personality. This is'nt the hulk. Supes has three identities and he is a man of two worlds. Kal L, clark kent and superman they all have specific domains with overlaps depending on function and the dominant identity on play. Why do overlaps exist? Because they aren't personalities but identities. I could act out as a father and a son at the same time.

    What would his own insights change about the character? Nothing. He is plain as paper and isn't that hard to get. He is simple. So, having a delima makes his choices not his? Mate, he is an alien strongman hiding on earth. He is as scared of you as you are of him . Ofcourse, he needs reassurance to trust people. The guy would still go to help lois, regardless . That's just how the character is. He doesn't need a reason to help. But, his instinct to help compells him. You don't know what pa kents advice was. He didn't tell him to not be a hero. He told him to help when he is ready to bear the burden and responsibility. When he is sure there would be minimal damage done to world structures by the mere existence of being that renders power structures irrelevant. The guy who took both hitler and stalin by there belts to have negotiations.



    Well mate, that's the idea. Superman is contriversial. Astroboy is hated and not even considered a boy. Iron giant and goku were sent here to conquer humanity. Superman was always meant to be a controversial figure. These guys save the people that either hate them, don't know of their existence or betray them. Superman literally was taken out in bvs by the government with nukes. Its just that historically, He just became a brand later on due to popularity.So,they chose to make him "boyscout" naive farmboy savior flying brick pushover later on. Why? Because character wasn't "safe" . Especially, after comics code. But, even then superman remained contriversial. People always complained about the character regarding is too powrrful or too good or boring or whatever. That's the irony.He was actually doing fishing work. He helped those oil rig guys. This guys feels like the working class champion superman was meant to be more than the mainstream postcrisis guy and donner guy who lives like bruce wayne and is actually royalty. House of el can go to hell. Superman's father being royalty, rather than a simple scientist is a travesty. That amalgamation has unfortunately carried over to dceu superman as well. This superman takes inspiration from most eras.

    Again, you didn't provide anything to prove these things weren't taken from goldenage. You just pointed out faults in goldenage superman. Which is already acknowledged fact.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 07-05-2020 at 12:42 AM.

  3. #8328
    DC Comics Forum Mod The Darknight Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    This is something i will never be able to understand. Superman existed before chris reeve donned the cape. His portrayal is just one among many versions of the character. At the end of the day superman is created by siegel and shuster. There is plenty of goldenage in man of steel superman.
    Okay, but the Christopher Reeve Superman was still the most popular of those versions, so that's the one that would be ingrained in people's consciences the most.
    A bat! That's it! It's an omen.. I'll shall become a bat!

    Pre-CBR Reboot Join Date: 10-17-2010

    Pre-CBR Reboot Posts: 4,362

    THE CBR COMMUNITY STANDARDS & RULES ~ So... what's your excuse now?

  4. #8329
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,660

    Default

    Are we still stuck on talking about Man of Steel in 2020?

  5. #8330
    DC Comics Forum Mod The Darknight Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    13,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Are we still stuck on talking about Man of Steel in 2020?
    I believe we (well, not us) will still be talking about it in 2120.
    A bat! That's it! It's an omen.. I'll shall become a bat!

    Pre-CBR Reboot Join Date: 10-17-2010

    Pre-CBR Reboot Posts: 4,362

    THE CBR COMMUNITY STANDARDS & RULES ~ So... what's your excuse now?

  6. #8331
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    By which metric. You say that as if you have some data to back it up. it didn't get any laugh. It was a shitty scene and it trivialised trauma.
    In your opinion.
    Anyway there are folks that did not like what was done to hulk in the last two avengers movies and there are folks like robert meyer burnett for example that loved what was done to the hulk in those last two avengers movies.

    The complainers are the minority from i see and read so far about those scenes.
    From i would see and read so far(reviews etc..) most people did not have a problem with those scenes and most would disagree with what you said here.



    Hulk jobbed to everyone from a tincan to thanos. Nothing in there is "the strongest one there is".
    Thanos beat hulk fair and square so him losing to thanos is not jobbing since thanos beats him in comics as well.
    If thanos lost to hulk that would be jobbing.

    Ironman has beaten hulk in the comics.
    Iron man and Hulkbuster ironman are really powerful by the way in the comics.

    Anyway there is a reason why hulk lost to hulkbuster ironman in the end(you did not pay attention to that scene clearly).
    I will not go into details here and i would say he did not jobbed.
    Last edited by mace11; 07-05-2020 at 04:08 AM.

  7. #8332
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,283

    Default

    Comparing Whedon to Snyder on terms of directorial skills is a bit misleading.

    Whedon is not particularly valued for his works as a director, but rather as his creations and his concepts. Buffy and Firefly have been among the most important and influential works in the field of pop culture since the 1990s, and even minor works, like the Dollhouse flop, are somehow interesting. He has been very clever and talented at basically forging a specific type of fandom.
    That said, both Avengers and The Age of Ultron could have been made without Whedon's involvement and not much would have changed. People generally don't watch MCU movies because of the directors, but because of the characters, the actors, and the formula. I'd say that people watch MCU movies because of Kevin Feige. Even if he hasn't directed any MCU movie, his hands are everywhere - his role as a producer is comparable to Walt Disney's (after he stopped making movies, of course). Directors with a slightly more unique vision, like Edgar Wright, can be replaced without serious consequences. I don't think that it is possible to find many original visions in the MCU (even if there are a couple of cool twists here and there), but rather some interesting "flavors". However, if you want to really appreciate Branagh and what he is able to do at his best, Thor is not the movie you should watch.

    Snyder is different, because he has always been seen as a man with original and fascinating concepts in mind and his plans for JL make no exception. The problem with Snyder has always been the execution, not the concepts. Batman V Superman won't become a better movie because Snyder was mistreated - for lack of a better term and IF it has really happened - while filming JL. There are too many moments in BvS which are astoundingly dumb (not in the good way, just dumb). I am talking about the longer version, too.

    It's not that people will watch his JL because all of a sudden he is seen as some kind of misunderstood genius. I'd say that what really motivates viewers now is curiosity for an unprecedented experiment. Just to be clear, I would have never thought in one million years that something like Snyder's JL would become true, and I also think that Snyder himself had serious doubts about it - it's happening because of a series of incredibly lucky circumstances. Heck, I am curious to watch it myself even if I don't have much faith in Snyder (I find him somehow sympathetic though). Also - they are selling the entire operation very well, also by using Whedon as some kind of scapegoat.

    I really don't think that there is some kind of reevaluation of Snyder at work here. I'd say that only two of his movies are remembered as successful or at least interesting, that is 300 and Dawn of the Dead. No one is talking about Ga'Hoole or Sucker Punch or even Watchmen. As for his superhero works, again - some people (but virtually no one outside the comic book fandom) are still talking about MOS, but mostly because of how unresolved Snyder's vision is. IMHO Snyder is not remotely close to becoming a cult director. George Miller's Fury Road IS a cult movie - it has been incredibly influential on a lot of works, people and critics still talk about it. MOS or BvS aren't. I'd say that if JL is successful and if Snyder will finally learn how to make movies with interesting ideas and without the mistakes of his previous works he will become something close to Robert Rodriguez, that is a cult-ish director with his own style. But he will always be very far from people like Ridley Scott before the 2000s or Tim Burton (again... before 2000s). And please let's be serious and let's not talk about Citizen Kane.
    Last edited by Myskin; 07-05-2020 at 06:26 AM.
    Educational town, Rolemodel city and Moralofthestory land are the places where good comics go to die.

    DC writers and editors looked up and shouted "Save us!"
    And Alan Moore looked down and whispered "No."

    I'm kinda surprised Snyder didn't want Superman to watch Lois and Bruce conceive their love child. All the while singing the "Na na na na na na Batman!" theme song - Robotman, 03/06/2021

  8. #8333
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,906

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mace11 View Post
    In your opinion.
    Anyway there are folks that did not like what was done to hulk in the last two avengers movies and there are folks like robert meyer burnett for example that loved what was done to the hulk in those last two avengers movies.

    The complainers are the minority from i see and read so far about those scenes.
    From i would see and read so far(reviews etc..) most people did not have a problem with those scenes and most would disagree with what you said here.





    Thanos beat hulk fair and square so him losing to thanos is not jobbing since thanos beats him in comics as well.
    If thanos lost to hulk that would be jobbing.

    Ironman has beaten hulk in the comics.
    Iron man and Hulkbuster ironman are really powerful by the way in the comics.

    Anyway there is a reason why hulk lost to hulkbuster ironman in the end(you did not pay attention to that scene clearly).
    I will not go into details here and i would say he did not jobbed.
    Ironman would get his asswhooped to planet scar against the weakest version of the hulk. That tincan is'nt much of threat.That and spare me the minority crap.Ask any hulk fans if they like the shitty portrayal. Even, that thanos fight was really bad. Hulk could go toe to toe with that guy.The movie had thanos bulldoze him. These don't do any justice to the character. Who the heck is robert? Why should i care for his opinion?i barely saw anyone laughing at the theatre. If you think these movies portrayed hulk as anything close to good or from the comics. Then you and i must have been reading different comics.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 07-05-2020 at 10:56 PM.

  9. #8334
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Darknight Detective View Post
    I believe we (well, not us) will still be talking about it in 2120.
    You are so right about that.

  10. #8335
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    67,230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Of course it was - I just didn't like the fact that's what the producers wanted and envisioned and wish that they had rethought it and had it be a different Batman from that series.

    Ultimately though it was still a fun movie that I enjoyed and my main gripe is largely a minor one. And hopefully next time Scooby and the Gang meet Batman it'll be a different version made for the film.
    I was happy to see the Brave and the Bold-verse back and I thought they played off the Gang and their style of stories well, but to each their own .

    I guess the "Scooby-Doo and Guess Who" take was more to what you were expecting, even though the Batman was voiced by Kevin Conroy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Robotman View Post
    Yeah, no doubt that Vic was angry about his lot in life in the NTT but at least he was allowed to grow a bit as a character. It seemed like Johns and Didio just wanted him to stay at square one. For the first 5 years or so of Cyborg’s promotion he had little character development. Really not until Forever Evil.
    He had small moments leading up to that arc though, with Flash and in Thrones of Atlantis.
    So you’re right that Johns and Didio didn’t create the character trait, it’s just that they made him being a “tragic freak” the main focus. Vic on the Doom Patrol is someone who still struggles with the changes but had embraced the idea of being a more well rounded hero (that is until Mr. Nobody got a hold of him). Plus he’s not just a half of a face and some ribs like Johns made him. Which is the version that Snyder went with.
    I think they focused on that aspect as much as Wolfman did initially.

  11. #8336
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    It isn't insignificant when you remember Shazam was in between two billion dollar Marvel films. No movie was ever going to be that successful in that time slot with that competition, and treating it's BO like that without acknowledging that fact is rather unfair. Sure it made less money - but the fact that it is a critic darling, the fact it made profit while sadly sandwiched between two obvious MCU juggernauts, the fact that it did well enough that it is going to get a sequel when we never got a MoS 2 should tell you something about what the studio and public really think about this movie. You don't have to like it, but most people do. And it isn't divisive and doesn't cause long drawn out debates. And frankly, all the angry arguing just makes people want to move on from MoS even more.
    I can give you that Marvel flicks probably took some of its money, but I don't really believe it would manage another 100 million even if it didn't.
    Are we still pretending BvS wasn't MoS 2? Clearly Superman's journey was meant to be explored in those Extended Universe movies instead of a classic, solo journeys. And we already saw how well this studio manages what people actually want, in the end Justice League and Suicide Squad were essentially the studio's, in its most blatant form, movies. Maybe, just maybe, there's still a wrong narrative going on since we already covered what the public really thinks of the movie (MoS), something I guess you're having a really hard time to accept.
    You want to move on from MoS, well, I don't. It's a much more inspired take on superhero mythos than Shazams and co. could ever dream to be. And without arguing, what good are these forums even? It brings in some additional flavor AFAIC Unless it's venomous and disrespectful. And being argumentative isn't the same.

  12. #8337
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Ironman would get his asswhooped to planet scar against the weakest version of the hulk. That tincan is'nt much of threat spear me.That and spare me the minority crap.Ask any hulk fans if they like the shitty portrayal. Even, that thanos fight wasn't didn't was really bad. Hulk could go toe to toe with that guy.The movie had thanos bulldoze him. These don't do any justice to the character. Who the heck is robert? Why should i care for his opinion?i barely saw anyone laughing at the theatre. If you think these movies portrayed hulk as anything close to good or from the comics. Then you and i must have been reading different comics.
    I absolutely agree with you that both Thor and Banner/Hulk were devolved into some unrecognizable atrocities, but Hulk getting smashed by Thanos is hardly jobbing. In the comics he's a tier above both him and Thor. Problem is, a team of street levelers and mid tiers gave him hell on Titan when he had 3 or 4 damn Infinity Gems. I'm not even talking about how Captain America actually managed to stop Thanos' motion when he appeared in Wakanda. Now that's an absolute drivel.
    Snyder's action makes MCU look like amateurs. James Wan came really close after Aquaman.

  13. #8338
    Ultimate Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    10,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    I can give you that Marvel flicks probably took some of its money, but I don't really believe it would manage another 100 million even if it didn't.
    Are we still pretending BvS wasn't MoS 2? Clearly Superman's journey was meant to be explored in those Extended Universe movies instead of a classic, solo journeys. And we already saw how well this studio manages what people actually want, in the end Justice League and Suicide Squad were essentially the studio's, in its most blatant form, movies. Maybe, just maybe, there's still a wrong narrative going on since we already covered what the public really thinks of the movie (MoS), something I guess you're having a really hard time to accept.
    You want to move on from MoS, well, I don't. It's a much more inspired take on superhero mythos than Shazams and co. could ever dream to be. And without arguing, what good are these forums even? It brings in some additional flavor AFAIC Unless it's venomous and disrespectful. And being argumentative isn't the same.
    Lmao Supes was absent for over half of Snyder’s JL, it’s time for Snyder fans to stop pretending that Supes was the focus when Batman had the lion’s share of focus in BvS, JL, and was the one who was planned to save everyone at the end of the “arc”. Snyder has no interest in Superman’s “journey” at all, his Superman still felt underdeveloped, boring, and wooden by the end of two movies.

  14. #8339
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Lmao Supes was absent for over half of Snyder’s JL, it’s time for Snyder fans to stop pretending that Supes was the focus when Batman had the lion’s share of focus in BvS, JL, and was the one who was planned to save everyone at the end of the “arc”. Snyder has no interest in Superman’s “journey” at all, his Superman still felt underdeveloped, boring, and wooden by the end of two movies.
    In Ultimate Cut, there's just as much of Supes as there's Batman. Guess whose idea was to cut off most of Superman lines and scenes to have more Batman in the theatrical cut instead? Rhetorical stuff that we both know the answer to without actually knowing it from a confirmed source.
    This JL isn't even worth discussing, I'm sorry. I was talking about the original 5 movie plan. I agree his Superman, as a character, lacked something, but the mythos around him was really inspired.
    Last edited by adamTPTK; 07-06-2020 at 12:27 AM. Reason: clarification

  15. #8340
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I was happy to see the Brave and the Bold-verse back and I thought they played off the Gang and their style of stories well, but to each their own .

    I guess the "Scooby-Doo and Guess Who" take was more to what you were expecting, even though the Batman was voiced by Kevin Conroy.
    I'll be honest, while I don't dislike the Brave and the Bold-verse by any stretch, I also not enamored of it like so many others. It was just a fun but kind of disposable Batman team up series to me. I like it, but I don't need more of it. And even if they managed to play off Scooby's and the Gang's style well, you can make other versions work just as well.

    I missed that series when it aired so didn't catch that episode, but sounds like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by adamTPTK View Post
    I can give you that Marvel flicks probably took some of its money, but I don't really believe it would manage another 100 million even if it didn't.
    So? Who knows how much it could have made, and more importantly who cares? It made enough that a sequel has been greenlighted, which is all that profit should really matter to us. It gets a sequel, but there's no talk of us ever seeing a MoS 2 despite making more money. That says something. Personally I freaking hate the trend these last few years about people's need to talk about the box office as their hill to die on about the quality of movies.

    Are we still pretending BvS wasn't MoS 2?
    Are you pretending it was? Because it really wasn't. It was a "We're rushing to get our own Avengers no matter the cost: the movie!"

    Clearly Superman's journey was meant to be explored in those Extended Universe movies instead of a classic, solo journeys. And we already saw how well this studio manages what people actually want, in the end Justice League and Suicide Squad were essentially the studio's, in its most blatant form, movies. Maybe, just maybe, there's still a wrong narrative going on since we already covered what the public really thinks of the movie (MoS), something I guess you're having a really hard time to accept.
    Not as hard a time as you are that the film is controversial, most of us don't care any more, and the world is moving on. Why the need to prove that the "public" really liked the film and the general fan consensus or whatever is some weird rumor or illusion? What is the point? Let's say I care enough to continue on this discussion until you somehow "win" the debate, in what way will it matter? Most of us on this site will continue to have the view of this film's "success" that you disagree with, and you can never convince most of them.

    You want to move on from MoS, well, I don't. It's a much more inspired take on superhero mythos than Shazams and co. could ever dream to be.
    In your opinion, and that's fine, we all have them. You think it's more inspired than Shazam and other superhero movies and I disagree, and neither of us is wrong or right because who the heck is the arbiter or gatekeeper of what is inspired anyway? Just don't act like your opinion is fact. I just don't see a quarter of the inspiration in MoS as I do Shazam, but that's just me.

    And without arguing, what good are these forums even? It brings in some additional flavor AFAIC Unless it's venomous and disrespectful. And being argumentative isn't the same.
    Agreed about being argumentative is not the same as being disrespectful. I admit I've been worried about arguing on this site lately because I've been told I come across a bit, belligerent I guess? Which isn't my intent. So I'm often double thinking my words on this site these days and worrying about if I'm coming across too strong or not. Been hampering my enjoyment of the site the last few months now that I think about it.

    As for what good are these forums without arguing? Well, sharing news, rumors, opinions, saying how much you loved something, or what you wished that they did different, spreading excitement and awareness, etc. It isn't just arguing here, and sometimes I think we forget that.

    Anyways, I don't really have anything to say about MoS that I haven't said already, so even if I wanted to keep the argument going I frankly would just be going in circles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •