@robopat: You're critiquing this article for 'proper English' mistakes with the line 'this had to of gone through at least one editor;' that's your first mistake. Actor is a term used to described both male and female professionals. It isn't gender-specific. I keep hearing the argument that 'people have a right to free speech' and of course they do. She did. She does. But that doesn't mean you can go around saying whatever the hell you want all the time without consequences. Can you say anything at all at your workplace and bust out the Free Speech line when you get in trouble? Companies have a right to delineate lines of acceptable behavior from their employees.
So...what exactly do people do with this code? I'm not tech savvy enough to understand how development code is valuable in the hands of regular people.
@Wartotehlock: Do you have any recommendations? I've been meaning to start in on The Pale King forever now but it seems like such a commitment. And no, I don't watch CNN all day. Almost never in fact.
@bgrosz: I'm talking about the actual content of the comments, not the response. They received a different response because the comments themselves (not who made them) were inherently not equivalent.
@Wartotehlock: Where do you draw the line, though? Is it okay to have an opinion that white people are superior to black people? Or that Republicans are persecuted in the same way Jews were during the Holocaust? You are entitled to have that opinion, but that doesn't make it okay and it doesn't mean there aren't consequences for having it.
“Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views." There are so many things wrong with that statement I don't even know where to start. I mean, do we really have to answer that? Really?? How is it different???
@Dirty_Window: It's not the same 'offense.' Have you heard of something called a false equivalency? Just because they both made critical political comments does not automatically mean that those criticisms are equal in their levels of acceptability or veracity. Read what esqueejy wrote above.
Yeah, Marvel really does deserve a lot of credit for this. I think it probably helped that basically everything they churned out was a massive financial success; it may have been harder to resist the temptation of making Iron Man 4 if Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Spider Man (wait, did Sony get the Spider Man money?), et al weren't such massive hits. Still, though, credit where credit is due. Instead of milking their pillar franchises, they used their success to launch other, different titles (that also turned out to be amazing) within the same universe. Allowing Tony Stark and Steve Rogers to finish their journey and complete the character arcs started all the way back in Iron Man and Captain America: The First Avenger- to have their stories actually end- did indeed validate the whole MCU as well. I think ending their stories in such poignant fashion goes a long way to arguing the opposite of Scorsese's blatherings; the stakes were real, both Stark and Rogers grew as people and as 'heroes' and completed what turned out to be a really emotional journey in Endgame. Bravo, MCU, bravo.
"And you know, people forget really quickly, but when the first movie came out, they had the same problem. People were upset with the way these heroes looked."
What is Escayg talking about? From what I recall, the response to the look of the various Avengers in their first films was hugely positive; I don't recall any kind of backlash at how they looked at all. I suspect he's created this self-serving fiction just to soften the blow of the negative reaction to Crystal Dynamics' take on the Avengers aesthetic. Moreover, I have a feeling that Marvel's Avengers is going to be a very middling game, if that. They seem to be trying to have their cake and eat it too by simultaneously going for their own, unique take on and story of The Avengers while at the same time relying on the communal, shared knowledge and memory of who each of the individual Avengers are as characters so they can jump right into a scenario well past origins with all heroes already working together with an established history. They're basically skipping the part where you establish character motivation and focus on character development so they can get right to the meaty fully-established Avengers team bit, and yet they want it to be unique and original. I don't think it's going to work well.
HowlingFantod's comments