Jump to content


Board Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mormont

  1. 4 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

    But it would be difficult to hold new elections during the war.


    Genuine question. It is certainly difficult for Ukraine to hold elections due to the war, for example. But here, I don't see the problem. The only real reason it would be difficult that I can see if the belief that it would be difficult, which politically has become a truism, but I can't see that other than the political belief, there is an actual practical reason.

  2. 6 hours ago, Altherion said:

    This is a fair point, but on the other hand, is there evidence that disease or any of the other typical non-combat causes of civilian deaths are about to take hold in Gaza? There is a fairly heavy UN presence there and trucks of aid just a few kilometers away.



    "Eventually we will see more people dying from disease than we are even seeing from the bombardment if we are not able to put back (together) this health system," the WHO's Margaret Harris said at a U.N. briefing in Geneva.

    She repeated concerns about a rise in infectious diseases, particularly diarrhoea in infants and children, with cases for those aged five and older surging to more than 100 times normal levels by early November.

    "Everybody everywhere has dire health needs now because they're starving because they lack clean water and (they’re) crowded together," she said.


  3. I'd have two points to make that I think everyone should bear in mind:

    - first, as I've said before, please try not to make negative inferences from others' posts. Instead try to give them the benefit of the doubt. Not because they personally necessarily deserve it, but because it helps to avoid unnecessary arguments. React to, and argue with, the bare content of the post, insofar as possible, instead of attacking an inference that might be incorrect and in any case can't be tackled directly. There's no down side to doing things this way, I assure you.

    - second, if you find yourself sick and tired of this thread at any time, there's also no down side to taking a break from reading it. Good for your mental health, good for calming the discussion down. I do it. I encourage others to do it too.

  4. 12 hours ago, Werthead said:

    That was - very easily - the corniest and cheesiest ending anyone has ever written for Doctor Who, ever. Breaking through the wall of cringe into a new dimension where the upper limit of arrrgh has not yet been defined.

    I think you're being too harsh on it, and I say that as a noted Donna hater. (Weirdly, I really like all of Donna's family, including those introduced in this episode. It's just Donna herself I can't get on with.)

    Nice to see Pat Mills finally getting some of that Disney cheddar. And Dave Gibbons, of course, but he got paid for Watchmen.

  5. 4 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

    The hell are you talking about? One kidnapping victim being worse does not make another kidnapping victim not a kidnapping victim, which is all I said.

    Kidnapping, to me, implies taking someone for exchange - money, concessions, whatever. That's not what Israel is doing.

    What Israel is doing is abhorrent, don't get me wrong. And you're right, getting into a 'which atrocity is worse' contest is usually unproductive. But equally, the comparison invites equivalence here, and that offers nothing of value to the argument.

  6. 14 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

    Yeah, hundred, thousands, are being held on indefinite detention with no conviction or obviously nonsense convictions. These are as much kidnapping victims as the victims of Hamas.

    That’s going too far. You’re not wrong that these kids are detained without trial or even in many cases knowing what they are charged with: you’re also not wrong that ther is substantial evidence that they, like adult Palestinian detainees and prisoners, have been subjected to abuse that has increased in intensity since October 7. Their detention is likely illegal and certainly wrong, and Israel should be ashamed of it. I would expect any person with a genuine interest in justice to condemn it.

    But the Hamas kidnappings were not the same. Israel should be ashamed of these detentions but they are not being carried out on four year olds. The comparison weakens, rather than strengthening, the valid criticism of Israel here.

  7. 4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

    Surely both can be true, for some its a massive pisstake and a way of trying to impose their 'wants' on others.  For others its a very real and necessary help. 

    Of course, but as expressed (and thank you Darzin for acknowledging that) there's an implication that in general, they are a grift. I mean, it can be true both that some people get benefits they're not entitled to and that most genuinely need them, but a casual reference to 'benefit scroungers', on its own, would carry certain connotations, right?

    There's a lot of such casual talk about disability aids, so it's worth pointing out.

  8. 1 hour ago, Darryk said:

    Funny you say that cause the kind of left-wing journalists (ie. Max Blumenthal, Glenn Greenwald) who regularly criticise Israel were defending China when they invaded Taiwan, and defend Russia whenever they invade someone. I can't stand these kind of double standards. 

    When did China invade Taiwan?

  9. 4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

    A lot of them do. They end and get canceled or are a limited series or they get reset and retold.

    Limited series are part of continuity (or they aren't, but then get retconned into continuity). Same with resets: even DC's hard resets didn't affect Batman continuity, for example, and a lot of the other hard reset stuff with New52 got retconned. In fact, retcons basically mean that no, none of these stories ended. If they're not in continuity now, they will be the moment an author decides they are. It's all one big story, and that's the point of the big two shared universes.

    2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

    See, this is the thing. I'm not actually one who believes a goody-two-shoes character is a bad thing- Superman is my favourite superhero after all- but Reed Richards is not really like that at all. Sure, he's a good guy overall (most of the time), but he's also an egomaniac on at least the level of Tony and Strange, with Xavier-like levels of tending to manipulate or talk down to friends and family.

    OTOH stories that lean into this aspect of Reed too hard are generally quite dull. (Same with Charles.) Reed needs to be basically a good guy who learns his lessons about family (but then unlearns them because comics - same as Johnny has to always be growing up, Ben comes to terms with his appearance and then goes back to being maudlin about it, and so on).

  10. Momentum is certainly an issue. There are two problems: one, as I said, there hasn't been an Avengers film in a while and there's been no sense of building momentum towards one. In theory there's the Kang stuff but it has been spread too thin and is too vague and inchoate. There's no feeling that the Kang in Quantumania and the Kang in Loki connect, and there has been no Kang at all in most of the releases.

    But the second momentum problem is, well... everyone talks about the Celestial in the Indian Ocean, but remember how Eternals introduced the Black Knight? When will we see that character again? Will we see that character again? I don't know. The Marvels came out this month and left a dangling plot thread. When will I find out what happened with that? Not before 2025, probably. There are a lot of characters and plotlines now, is my point, and that contributes to a loss of any feeling of momentum. If you have a favourite, you're going to have to wait for a bit to follow their story. 

    I'm unconvinced that casual film-goers really avoid these films because they feel like they 'have to' have seen other films of TV to understand them. But I do believe that they struggle to feel any sense of momentum or connection between the films and that means the motivation to go isn't as strong. 

  11. 2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

    The two cases are also different given that Depp was suing the Sun, not Heard. It was about whether the Sun should be able to use the term ‘wifebeater’.

    However that judge also wasn’t interested in whether Heard was abusing Depp or questioned her honesty (which appears to not exist)

    You haven't read the judgement.

    1 hour ago, sifth said:

    Sorry, this is info I'm not familiar with. James Gunn losing his job is another example of Disney jumping the gun. No doubt another wise move by them according to you, lol

    Gunn is quite a different situation, to be fair. In fact, other than that he was fired for PR reasons, the situation is different in almost every way (including the fact that Gunn fully admitted to doing what he was accused of, so the original point you were making doesn't apply).

    But anyway, getting back to the topic more directly, one of the strong arguments for Marvel reconsidering Majors' role is that he will likely be wrapped up in defending the charges during a key period... and it does let them reset things somewhat. The argument against is that the best thing Marvel could do to stimulate interest is release an Avengers movie, and ditching Majors is bound to lead to delays in doing that.

  12. 50 minutes ago, sifth said:

    Well a lot of their audience isn’t showing up for the stuff they are creating, so it make’s logical sense to try something new. Both Ant Man 3 and The Marvels bombed this year. They better hope audiences turn up for Deadpool 3, but even that film is riding the nostalgia band wagon, similar to No Way Home.

    Don’t get me wrong; GoTG 3 did really well this year and was a great film as well, but James Gunn is no longer part of the MCU and the new blood aren’t bring their A game. 

    As I noted above, what you're advising is exactly what's killing DC and Marvel in the comics business - a panicky overreaction leading to a pivot towards an inherently unsustainable customer base. It's not a strategy, it's short-termism. At least in the comics, this can be explained by the comfortable familiarity of the target audience. Here, it's basically you saying 'they should make only the stuff I like, that's a great strategy for success'. 

    I do think there's a sensible place for R-rated stuff in a wider MCU offering. I'm fairly sure I'm going to like Echo as much as I liked The Marvels. But pivoting to 'edgy' as the main approach is just not a sensible strategy.

  13. 2 hours ago, sifth said:

    At least they're starting to see the way the tides are shifting and creating rated R movies and possibly tv shows. They're seeing how popular shows like The Boys, Gen V and Invincible are becoming and are starting to realize they can no longer afford to play it safe. I hope they actually commit to making their shows as violent, over the top and funny, like the ones I listed.

    As a strategy for Marvel that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why would they pivot to making films a substantial part of their target audience can't get in to see? 

    The problem Marvel (and DC) have had in the comics industry is that they are in a death spiral because they make comics that only appeal to people who already read comics, who are getting older and older. So they try to appeal to more diverse, younger audiences, but then chicken out when this doesn't produce instant success and go back to making 'edgy' comics for the existing audience, dooming themselves to irrelevance. 

    Why repeat that for the MCU?

    Aping The Boys in the MCU would be as stupid as trying to imitate Image was in the '90s, except that the Image comics outsold Marvel whereas The Boys is much less successful than the MCU, so it makes even less sense. 

  • Create New...