shroudofsorrow's forum posts

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#1 Posted by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

Probably Branden.

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#2 Posted by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

@ghostodoofus2: I disagree that Wonder Woman has no re-watch value. I think it's a fine film, and not just for one viewing. The surprise reveal of who Ares is obviously only applies for a first viewing, but other than that, I think the film is still enjoyable upon subsequent viewings.

Also, I never said Jackman was false to the character. I said Shazam was no less true. Same for RDJ as Iron Man and Gadot as Wonder Woman. Jackman is fantastic as Wolverine, especially in Logan, DoFP, and the first two X-Men movies, but I don't think WW, Shazam, and RDJ's Iron Man are any less faithful. That was my point.

@shroudofsorrow:

Disagree about your point that WW matches Logan.

I felt Logan was much more complex and emotionally rich. Better acted and scripted, too.

I don't think so. Gadot and Pine aren't any worse than Jackman or Keen, and certainly no worse than Donald Pierce's actor. Ares' actor is also far, far better than Logan's (but he's also a vastly better villain). I guess you could argue that Patrick Stewart gives a better performance, but that's about it.

I also disagree that it's better scripted, and I definitely disagree that it's much more emotionally rich. Upon what basis is that true? It's more downbeat and cynical, but I don't think that makes it more complex or emotionally rich. I think the scenes that highlight the horrors of World War I and Diana's exposure to the awful things humans are capable of are no worse than Logan's moments of brutality or tragedy. I also think Steve Trevor's death hits the right emotional beats.

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#3 Edited by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

@killbilly: I don't think it's a flawed comparison; I get that the villains in Logan are there to create a bad situation, but I would also argue that that is precisely why Shazam's villain is better; because he has more to him and is less of a living plot device. And yes, what happened with Xavier is sad, but so is the more down-to-Earth sadness of the scene between Billy and his mother. This is my point; both are sad, and both are emotionally earned. I never said Shazam was vastly superior to Logan, merely that it too has heart and depth and isn't just shallow fun. It's not as dark or bleak as Logan, but that doesn't make it less emotional.

As for Ares, I never said he was better than Magneto, and I don't claim that he is. But I do say he was better than Rice and his goons.

When did Iron Man wet himself? I don't remember that at all. In any case, I thought Iron Man 2 was very funny. I don't think the courtroom scene or the "prick" joke at the end fell flat at all. I also liked the humor with Happy Hogan. I guess it comes down to different tastes in humor, but I found IM 2 amusing enough. As for action, I think I based it mostly around my disdain for Barakapool. Plus, the IM/WM combo at the end was awesome, and I also like how the final fight with Whiplash didn't go on for too long.

When I said that RDJ in IM 2 was better than Jackman in Logan, that was a mistake. A typo. What I had meant to say was that he was better than Jackman in Origins, and he was. Logan is a different matter. So, yes, Jackman in Logan IS better than RDJ in IM 2 (even if I do think you undersell the latter), but not Jackman in Origins. Sorry. That was a typing error. I would put it like so:

RDJ in IM1, AIW, and AE=Jackman in Logan>RDJ in IM2, CACW, and SMH=Jackman in X1 and X2>RDJ in IM3>Jackman in X3 and TW>Jackman in XMOW

I don't think Whiplash was dull; his motives were no less sympathetic than villains who have gotten critical acclaim, I liked the actor's performance, and I can totally understand why he would resent the Starks after what they did to his family and seeing Tony's success and comparing it to his own squalid life. And yes, Hammer was a buffoon but that was the point. I actually really liked the weapons scene (the "Ex-wife" bit alone is hilarious). I would take Whiplash over several other MCU villains and definitely over most of the XMCU villains besides Magneto and Apocalypse (not all but most).

I really disagree regarding emotional weight; the deaths in Infinity War alone I think has plenty of emotional weight, so does Cap being separated from Peggy and BW and IM's deaths in Endgame. I don't think those are any worse or any less tragic than Logan.

I would say why I preferred T:TDW and JL to Origins, but this post is already pretty long. Suffice to say that Barakapool was a reason but not the only reason and leave it at that.

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#5 Edited by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

@emmafrostxmen said:

@shroudofsorrow: I said “skill”, that includes weapons, although I understand you were talking strictly about h2h, but “skill” includes weapons like her batons/staff

First you say "pure H2H skill" then you specify with weapons. She is not the best in pure H2H skill, and I don't even think she's the best with gadgets either (though that does put her higher up).

@emmafrostxmen said:

Hawkeye is factually one of SHEILD’s best agents through statements (and he restrained Black Panther), and Widow beat him without using gear at all, and Hawkeye was using gear through the fight. Also the directors said that Black Widow is a better fighter than Ronin in Endgame.

He held Black Panther for one second. One. And then Panther broke his bow and kicked him into submission. Getting his ass kicked by BP does not make him Iron Fist, Daredevil, or Nobu. And the director's comments do nothing to contradict what I said; Widow is better than Clint, but the difference is marginal, not exponential. Clint has given her a good fight all times they have fought. Widow never stomped him once. So yes, Widow is better, but marginally. And Clint being one of the best via statements doesn't mean much to me because 1) in-universe statements are often dubious and 2) most SHIELD agents are utter fodder anyway.

Getting hit a few times doesn't prove he has inferior skill, especially when your opponent took you by surprise and jumped you from behind. In any event, Batroc's feat is still better. He ALSO got hits on Captain America, and put up a much better fight, whereas Widow was fodder to Barnes both times she fought him. So yes, Batroc should be above Widow in skill based on that. He's definitely better in pain tolerance.

That is bad reasoning; Widow is on the team not just for her MA skills but her entire assortment of abilities that includes stealth, marksmanship, acrobatics, information extraction, and so on. Being on the Avengers doesn't prove she is the single best fighter any more than surviving battles does.

As for her "beating fodder faster", that's a weak argument as well; Widow has gadgets that make subduing enemy combatants easier. And actually, Daredevil before his peak easily took down corrupt SWAT in full gear with such ease as to suggest he could handle more. He's also handled Hand Ninjas fairly easily once he trained himself to hear their breathing. Also, I could just say that the fodder the others have plowed through are more impressive than the fodder Widow's beaten. But as I said, it's a weak argument, because the fact that not every grunt the others hit instantly went into a fetal position doesn't make them weaker. I could also point out that Widow has never hit someone like Luke Cage with enough force to stagger him and without breaking her hands and feet. Her hits on WS were utterly ineffective. So using Cage as a metric, the others are far more impressive. Similarly, May and Mockingbird and Daisy have faced off against genuine superhumans and giving performances no worse than Widow's pitiful displays against WS.

As for Ant-Man, kicking him once doesn't prove anything beyond good reflexes on her part. It doesn't prove she's the best fighter.

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#6 Edited by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

@killbilly: For one, Shazam has far more heart and depth then I think you're giving it credit it for. The fact that it builds it's villain around how awful the Wizard was when it came to picking a champion makes him a much better villain then the ones in Logan. Similarly, the scene where Billy confronts his mother is just as sad, human, and earned as anything in Logan. A more cynical or bleak tone, less color, and an angrier and bitterer lead doesn't make for a better movie. Besides, it wouldn't make sense for Shazam to be that.

Wonder Woman was way better than "by the numbers". It was a movie about a superhero who had been cheated out of a proper LA film for decades finally getting her due with a movie that balances humor with a dark story much more effectively than the worst of the MCU and certainly better than something like Green Lantern. And I don't think Ares is any worse of a villain the Sentinels in DoFP, or the villains in Logan.

Iron Man 2 is infinitely better than XMOW; funnier, better action, no Deadpool with a sewn mouth, etc. Also, I think RDJ's performance is better there than Jackman's in XMOW. I like Iron Man 2 a lot. More than the disappointing third film honestly.

Thor: The Dark World and Justice League are deeply flawed, but I still enjoyed them more than X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

And I definitely think you're overselling Logan and DoFP something fierce. They're both great, but the best of the MCU films are no worse. I also think the MCU has greater variety to it's movies, whereas there is a bit of a sameness to the majority of X-Men films (Logan and Deadpool aside).

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#8 Posted by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

@marvelanddcfan24: What about it looks bad though? I don't think it showcased anything that suggests it will be terrible.

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#9 Edited by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

@emmafrostxmen: Just about all of that was wrong:

-Nat never beat Corvus Glaive in H2H skill. As I recall she stabbed him and she and Cap beat him and Proxima together. Even if she had, that's inconsistent with Glaive doing well against Rogers and certainly Vision. Especially when Proxima Midnight could hold her own against Widow and Okoye at the same time.

-She has never beaten Ultron Sentries or Chitauri with pure H2H skill, but with various weapons and gadgets (and neither of those are skilled H2H fighters in any case).

-Surviving battles does not by itself prove you are an unbeatable or top tier martial artist.

-Her fights with Ant-Man were too brief to be conclusive, and the first one he was beating her before she used her suit to shock him. That's not H2H skill. He was also probably holding back, as he did tell her that he didn't want to hurt her.

-Beating Hawkeye once with difficulty and fighting evenly with him in all their other encounters proves she's slightly above him. That is not top-tier.

May, Daisy, Ward, Mockingbird, Iron Fist, Black Sky, Daredevil, Nobu, Murakami, Sowande, Steel Serpent, and Bullseye/Evil Daredevil have all impressed more. Hell I'd argue Batroc has too based on his fight with Captain America, which was more impressive than Widow getting stomped by WS twice.

So no, Widow is not the best in raw H2H skill. You tremendously exaggerate her fighting prowess.

Avatar image for shroudofsorrow
#10 Posted by shroudofsorrow (6002 posts) - - Show Bio

@marvelanddcfan24: I don't think I really equate having diversity with "being SJW". Diversity is not a bad thing. What matters is whether or not the stories and character work are good.