Page 165 of 255 FirstFirst ... 65115155161162163164165166167168169175215 ... LastLast
Results 2,461 to 2,475 of 3815
  1. #2461
    Rookie Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Can anyone post a scan of the Beyonders? Haven't made it out to my LCS, and they never have any NA on the shelf anyway.

  2. #2462
    Astonishing Member vitruvian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    If there's literally only 2 universe left by the time of the next incursion, then I'm not sure they can really assume blowing up another planet will do them any good (and that's coming from a person that all along defending the use of the bombs). For whatever reason, it just doesn't seem to work if universe are dying regardless. I think Hickman is almost changing the rules of the game to create more of a "Cap was right all along" scenario. Of course that would only be looking at things in hindsight... so far I'd stull argue the bombs are the practical way to go in the position they were in given what they knew at the time.
    I have to agree with you that the game is rigged and the rules are being changed on them... but that doesn't really make Cap right all along, to my mind.

    After all, the rules hadn't changed yet from what Black Swan was telling them at the time Cap set his stance against even building the bombs, from anything they could tell; had they not built the bombs, even if the Incursion zone with the Mapmaker world would have been taken to Battleworld at that point, so the whole rest of the universe would still have been destroyed many months earlier than now seems slated to happen. Anyway just how right was he, when he wasn't arguing that blowing up other Earths wouldn't work, but rather that he was unwilling to consider doing it even if it was the only option they had left; nor was he contemplating saving just a tiny portion of the Earth, let alone the universe as a whole, but rather expressing faith that if they stayed right and true they'd surely figure out a way to save everything. So on the first issue (blowing Earths not working), I'm not sure you really get much credit for being right in the end if there was honestly no way for you to know that you were right, and in any case he wasn't even arguing that it wasn't going to work, only that it was wrong. On the second issue, having faith that they could save the day some other way... at least until they get to some big fixit at the end of Secret Wars (so we're certainly not there yet), wouldn't we have to say that he was more than 99% wrong on that, in that most everything isn't getting saved?

  3. #2463
    Astonishing Member Habis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    If there's literally only 2 universe left by the time of the next incursion, then I'm not sure they can really assume blowing up another planet will do them any good (and that's coming from a person that all along defending the use of the bombs). For whatever reason, it just doesn't seem to work if universe are dying regardless. I think Hickman is almost changing the rules of the game to create more of a "Cap was right all along" scenario. Of course that would only be looking at things in hindsight... so far I'd stull argue the bombs are the practical way to go in the position they were in given what they knew at the time.
    Pretty much. As I said, Hickman cheats. He gives us a situation with its own rules, makes the characters take decisions according to these rules, and the readers morally support one or other character, and close to the end he pulls a bunch of cards out of his sleeve that make Steve's "do nothing and let everybody die" stand to seem justified.

    Because the nș1 rule in the Marvel Universe is, "Steve Rogers is always right, even when he's wrong".

  4. #2464
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Habis View Post
    Pretty much. As I said, Hickman cheats. He gives us a situation with its own rules, makes the characters take decisions according to these rules, and the readers morally support one or other character, and close to the end he pulls a bunch of cards out of his sleeve that make Steve's "do nothing and let everybody die" stand to seem justified.

    Because the nș1 rule in the Marvel Universe is, "Steve Rogers is always right, even when he's wrong".
    You could make the arguement that that the story should lean in that direction though.

    For super hero fiction it's arguably not a bad idea to sell the idea of keeping the moral high ground. The idea of murdering billions of innocent people being the "right" thing to do is somewhat of a hard pill to swallow, regardess of how practical they want to try and make it sound. And again, this is coming from someone who has long argued that using the bombs is the practical way to go.

  5. #2465
    Astonishing Member vitruvian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,979

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    You could make the arguement that that the story should lean in that direction though.

    For super hero fiction it's arguably not a bad idea to sell the idea of keeping the moral high ground. The idea of murdering billions of innocent people being the "right" thing to do is somewhat of a hard pill to swallow, regardess of how practical they want to try and make it sound. And again, this is coming from someone who has long argued that using the bombs is the practical way to go.
    The way to do that, though, is to actually make a good argument that the (deontological) moral case for not killing the other Earths is wrong regardless of the consequences of not doing so, not to change the situation after the fact so that the choice you want to say is bad doesn't have any practical merits either.

    This is like quizzing people on the Trolley problem and then telling those who chose to pull the switch, or even throw the fat man on the tracks, "Ha! Fooled you! Actually, if you do that, the madman setting this situation up just detonates a big bomb that kills the larger number of people anyway, so doing what I think is the wrong thing in order to save lives didn't actually save anybody! The only saving grace is he does keep a couple of you safe, regardless, probably so he can torture you some more. Now do you see the futility of trying to judge right and wrong based on the consequences of your actions?"

  6. #2466

    Default

    Except Illuminati did not do nothing.

    Doctor Strange murdered Great society so he could obtain the black priest helmet and joined them.

    Stark and Reed created Avengers Machine so now with intelligence feed by Beast, Sunspot has obtained AIM technology base and sent out Multiversal Avengers.

    Reed and Stark took proactive measure and sent Pym into multiverse and now he had found Ivory Kings.

    All these happened because they have bought time with bombs.

    We will see what Captain Britain contribute soon.

  7. #2467
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robreedwrites View Post
    Avengers World has yet to touch any of this stuff beyond AIM being involved in that massive 14 issue story. However, starting with the next issue (#17), it will begin to fill in some of the info of the 8 month gap. The last two issues were AXIS tie-ins. Based off of the solicits, issue 17 will deal with Smasher and Cannonball (and the baby), issue 18 will deal with Sunspot's acquisition of AIM (as well as something to do with Starbrand and Nightmask), and then #19 and 20 will be a two-parter dealing with the Cabal, presumably the attack on Wakanda, and the break-up of the Avengers group. From what I gather, #20 will be the final issue.

    So 4 issues each remaining in Avengers, Avengers World, and New Avengers.
    But Avengers world does not have a special FINAL ISSUE solicit like the other two? That seems like it might be significant.

  8. #2468
    Astonishing Member Habis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    You could make the arguement that that the story should lean in that direction though.

    For super hero fiction it's arguably not a bad idea to sell the idea of keeping the moral high ground. The idea of murdering billions of innocent people being the "right" thing to do is somewhat of a hard pill to swallow, regardess of how practical they want to try and make it sound. And again, this is coming from someone who has long argued that using the bombs is the practical way to go.
    Yep, but if the writers want the readers to identify with the characters who take the moral high ground, maybe they shouldn't present a situation in which taking the moral high ground is useless and suicidal.

    Deadpool can say "we are characters in a comic, so the heroes will win if they keep true to their principles", but Steve doesn't know that he's a character in a comicbook. Steve's stand was "don't save anybody, let both universes die" vs "save both universes save a single planet". What we knew about the story made Steve look stupid or insane, not moral...until they swapped the board and stole the dice, and we are now playing a game in which Steve's position isn't madness anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    The way to do that, though, is to actually make a good argument that the (deontological) moral case for not killing the other Earths is wrong regardless of the consequences of not doing so, not to change the situation after the fact so that the choice you want to say is bad doesn't have any practical merits either.

    This is like quizzing people on the Trolley problem and then telling those who chose to pull the switch, or even throw the fat man on the tracks, "Ha! Fooled you! Actually, if you do that, the madman setting this situation up just detonates a big bomb that kills the larger number of people anyway, so doing what I think is the wrong thing in order to save lives didn't actually save anybody! The only saving grace is he does keep a couple of you safe, regardless, probably so he can torture you some more. Now do you see the futility of trying to judge right and wrong based on the consequences of your actions?"
    Pretty much yes. I said that in another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Habis View Post
    Yup.

    "90% of people in Manhattan are infected with the Zombie Virus! You must throw a nuke and blast the city to save the world, or the virus will spread like wildfire ending Humanity"

    "You did it?! HAH! Sucker! Chocolate is the secret cure for the Zombie Virus! You are a genocidal monster now! You murdered all those people without need!"
    Last edited by Habis; 01-29-2015 at 12:26 PM.

  9. #2469
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    The way to do that, though, is to actually make a good argument that the (deontological) moral case for not killing the other Earths is wrong regardless of the consequences of not doing so, not to change the situation after the fact so that the choice you want to say is bad doesn't have any practical merits either.

    This is like quizzing people on the Trolley problem and then telling those who chose to pull the switch, or even throw the fat man on the tracks, "Ha! Fooled you! Actually, if you do that, the madman setting this situation up just detonates a big bomb that kills the larger number of people anyway, so doing what I think is the wrong thing in order to save lives didn't actually save anybody! The only saving grace is he does keep a couple of you safe, regardless, probably so he can torture you some more. Now do you see the futility of trying to judge right and wrong based on the consequences of your actions?"
    You can argue though that the story was telling characters and readers for that matter that there was no solution. Course, this is what heroes hear everyday and it's never stopped them before. But the point being that's SORT OF a clue that maybe there's no way around the incursions killing everyone.

    I still agree that it's a "cheat" to say the unverses which blow up earths end up dying anyways. But they also didn't go out of their way to sell the idea that everything was coming to an "end." It could have and perhaps should have been handled better, but I don't think too many people are entirely blind sided over the direction things are going either.

  10. #2470
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vitruvian View Post
    The way to do that, though, is to actually make a good argument that the (deontological) moral case for not killing the other Earths is wrong regardless of the consequences of not doing so, not to change the situation after the fact so that the choice you want to say is bad doesn't have any practical merits either.

    This is like quizzing people on the Trolley problem and then telling those who chose to pull the switch, or even throw the fat man on the tracks, "Ha! Fooled you! Actually, if you do that, the madman setting this situation up just detonates a big bomb that kills the larger number of people anyway, so doing what I think is the wrong thing in order to save lives didn't actually save anybody! The only saving grace is he does keep a couple of you safe, regardless, probably so he can torture you some more. Now do you see the futility of trying to judge right and wrong based on the consequences of your actions?"
    Funny you should say that ....

    http://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com...-new-avengers/

  11. #2471
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Habis View Post
    Yep, but if the writers want the readers to identify with the characters who take the moral high ground, maybe they shouldn't present a situation in which taking the moral high ground is useless and suicidal.

    Deadpool can say "we are characters in a comic, so the heroes will win if the keep true to their principles", but Steve doesn't know that he's a character in a comicbook. Steve's stand was "don't save anybody, let both universes die" vs "save both universes save a single planet". What we knew about the story made Steve look stupid or insane, not moral...until they swapped the board and stole the dice, and we are now playing a game in which Steve's position isn't madness anymore.
    Steve doesn't say: "Don't save anybody." Rather Steve says save EVERYBODY. That may not be possible in this instance at least, which is why his stance may be naive... but I don't believe it's suicidal. I think Steve GENUINELY believes that they can find another way. And in his defense they USUALLY do, so you can even argue it's not THAT naive.

    This may sound stupid, but I do sort of respect Steve's stance even though I don't agree with it.

  12. #2472
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XPac View Post
    If there's literally only 2 universe left by the time of the next incursion, then I'm not sure they can really assume blowing up another planet will do them any good (and that's coming from a person that all along defending the use of the bombs). For whatever reason, it just doesn't seem to work if universe are dying regardless. I think Hickman is almost changing the rules of the game to create more of a "Cap was right all along" scenario. Of course that would only be looking at things in hindsight... so far I'd stull argue the bombs are the practical way to go in the position they were in given what they knew at the time.
    Not really it was stated from the start. Black Swan called it "Shading the Apocalypse" not "Stopping the Apocalypse" moving buys u time. The Stars still decided F it I am out no matter what.

  13. #2473
    Invincible Member XPac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    27,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaggedFel View Post
    Not really it was stated from the start. Black Swan called it "Shading the Apocalypse" not "Stopping the Apocalypse" moving buys u time. The Stars still decided F it I am out no matter what.
    True, but there's usually a bad guy in every apocalyptic event trying to sell that idea. Heroes hear that doom and gloom enough times, I think it just goes in one ear and out another. For guys like Reed and Strange, saving the universe is probably a yearly thing.

  14. #2474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeah yeah View Post
    Can anyone post a scan of the Beyonders? Haven't made it out to my LCS, and they never have any NA on the shelf anyway.
    image.jpg

    Here you go. This might be a little small. Haven't figured out how to make these bigger.
    Mark Allen Chi

  15. #2475

    Default

    Compared to this from the Doom Universe (granted, artist drawing is always a factor when comparing images). Most people think the Black Swan looks like Val, but that could just be how the artist draw her.

    Ivory Kings?
    image.jpg
    Mark Allen Chi

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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