|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 6, 2017 20:35:19 GMT
It wasn't something that the movie spent a lot of time debating, like Civil War did, but it was still there.
It's revealed that Prof. X has killed innocents because of his age and how that is affected his ability to control his powers. This brings it back to the original movie and the "Mutant Registration Act" and all the issues that go along with discussing the ramifications of dealing with people who can literally kill you by thinking about it. This wasn't really an overreaction to something that might or could happen – something did actually happen.
I love Patrick Stewart portrayal of the character. He has always been warm and fatherly. I pity him in this movie. I'm sad that he ended up as a confused old man who was forced to live in an enclosed space because of the danger he puts others at. But I can't ignore the fact that he actually does put others in danger. I do understand why people wanted him dead – and it's kind of hard to disagree with them. Not to say that everyone who has the mutant gene should be punished for simply being immune, but at this point in his life Xavier is just too dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 7, 2017 2:08:52 GMT
It wasn't something that the movie spent a lot of time debating, like Civil War did, but it was still there. It's revealed that Prof. X has killed innocents because of his age and how that is affected his ability to control his powers. This brings it back to the original movie and the "Mutant Registration Act" and all the issues that go along with discussing the ramifications of dealing with people who can literally kill you by thinking about it. This wasn't really an overreaction to something that might or could happen – something did actually happen. I love Patrick Stewart portrayal of the character. He has always been warm and fatherly. I pity him in this movie. I'm sad that he ended up as a confused old man who was forced to live in an enclosed space because of the danger he puts others at. But I can't ignore the fact that he actually does put others in danger. I do understand why people wanted him dead – and it's kind of hard to disagree with them. Not to say that everyone who has the mutant gene should be punished for simply being immune, but at this point in his life Xavier is just too dangerous. Civil War didn't have an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Mar 7, 2017 4:25:36 GMT
It wasn't something that the movie spent a lot of time debating, like Civil War did, but it was still there. It's revealed that Prof. X has killed innocents because of his age and how that is affected his ability to control his powers. This brings it back to the original movie and the "Mutant Registration Act" and all the issues that go along with discussing the ramifications of dealing with people who can literally kill you by thinking about it. This wasn't really an overreaction to something that might or could happen – something did actually happen. I love Patrick Stewart portrayal of the character. He has always been warm and fatherly. I pity him in this movie. I'm sad that he ended up as a confused old man who was forced to live in an enclosed space because of the danger he puts others at. But I can't ignore the fact that he actually does put others in danger. I do understand why people wanted him dead – and it's kind of hard to disagree with them. Not to say that everyone who has the mutant gene should be punished for simply being immune, but at this point in his life Xavier is just too dangerous. Civil War didn't have an issue. The accords and Zemo's motives were.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 7, 2017 4:28:28 GMT
The accords and Zemo's motives were. Those were both great. What's the problem?
Zemo had his family killed and wanted to divide the Avengers. He found out about Winter Soldiers execution of Stark's parents and used that to spark infighting. Pretty awesome if you ask me.
The accords were a long time coming, from even as far back as the end of Avengers when you see a politician already lining up against the team. Again, pretty awesome to see that slow build if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Mar 7, 2017 5:13:48 GMT
The accords and Zemo's motives were. Those were both great. What's the problem?
Zemo had his family killed and wanted to divide the Avengers. He found out about Winter Soldiers execution of Stark's parents and used that to spark infighting. Pretty awesome if you ask me.
The accords were a long time coming, from even as far back as the end of Avengers when you see a politician already lining up against the team. Again, pretty awesome to see that slow build if you ask me.
Zemo wanted to divide the Avengers for saving humanity from extinction. The dude's family was going to die anyway if they didn't blow up that city. Same with accords, which has been called out for its BS by many people.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 7, 2017 12:51:01 GMT
Those were both great. What's the problem?
Zemo had his family killed and wanted to divide the Avengers. He found out about Winter Soldiers execution of Stark's parents and used that to spark infighting. Pretty awesome if you ask me.
The accords were a long time coming, from even as far back as the end of Avengers when you see a politician already lining up against the team. Again, pretty awesome to see that slow build if you ask me.
Zemo wanted to divide the Avengers for saving humanity from extinction. The dude's family was going to die anyway if they didn't blow up that city. Same with accords, which has been called out for its BS by many people. And that type of thing happens in real life all the time. You're saying it got called out as though you made a strong point. You didn't. These types of decisions get made in the real world all the time, and it's perfectly realistic to think they got made by the people in these situations.
Did you have something better?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 7, 2017 14:43:31 GMT
It wasn't something that the movie spent a lot of time debating, like Civil War did, but it was still there. It's revealed that Prof. X has killed innocents because of his age and how that is affected his ability to control his powers. This brings it back to the original movie and the "Mutant Registration Act" and all the issues that go along with discussing the ramifications of dealing with people who can literally kill you by thinking about it. This wasn't really an overreaction to something that might or could happen – something did actually happen. I love Patrick Stewart portrayal of the character. He has always been warm and fatherly. I pity him in this movie. I'm sad that he ended up as a confused old man who was forced to live in an enclosed space because of the danger he puts others at. But I can't ignore the fact that he actually does put others in danger. I do understand why people wanted him dead – and it's kind of hard to disagree with them. Not to say that everyone who has the mutant gene should be punished for simply being immune, but at this point in his life Xavier is just too dangerous. Civil War didn't have an issue. Boy, did my post go way over your head. The entire movie was about whether superheroes should be able to do whatever they want without repercussions or be treated like everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 7, 2017 14:45:27 GMT
Those were both great. What's the problem?
Zemo had his family killed and wanted to divide the Avengers. He found out about Winter Soldiers execution of Stark's parents and used that to spark infighting. Pretty awesome if you ask me.
The accords were a long time coming, from even as far back as the end of Avengers when you see a politician already lining up against the team. Again, pretty awesome to see that slow build if you ask me.
Zemo wanted to divide the Avengers for saving humanity from extinction. The dude's family was going to die anyway if they didn't blow up that city. Same with accords, which has been called out for its BS by many people.Holding everyone accountable for their actions – including vigilantes ahem, I mean superheroes – is pretty much the opposite of BS. Dislike the details and specifics of the records all you want, but the premise is far from flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Mar 7, 2017 15:07:27 GMT
Zemo wanted to divide the Avengers for saving humanity from extinction. The dude's family was going to die anyway if they didn't blow up that city. Same with accords, which has been called out for its BS by many people.Holding everyone accountable for their actions – including vigilantes ahem, I mean superheroes – is pretty much the opposite of BS. Dislike the details and specifics of the records all you want, but the premise is far from flawed. Oh I don't think the premise is bad. But you are seriously going to call them vigilantes during The Avengers and The Winter Soldier? Rogers was working for SHEILD.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 7, 2017 16:38:32 GMT
Holding everyone accountable for their actions – including vigilantes ahem, I mean superheroes – is pretty much the opposite of BS. Dislike the details and specifics of the records all you want, but the premise is far from flawed. Oh I don't think the premise is bad. But you are seriously going to call them vigilantes during The Avengers and The Winter Soldier? Rogers was working for SHEILD. And then SHIELD went away. And there was a time before The Avengers where most of them were not government agents. Hell, most of their time on screen is as non-Avengers (acting alone). But I don't want to talk about that on this thread just because the other guy seemed to completely mess what I was talking about. I created this thread because I want to talk about the dangers of a senile old man who could wipe out the population by thinking about it. I love the character and was sad at the way he spent his final years, but I can't say that I disagreed that he had to be put down.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 7, 2017 17:27:53 GMT
Oh I don't think the premise is bad. But you are seriously going to call them vigilantes during The Avengers and The Winter Soldier? Rogers was working for SHEILD. And then SHIELD went away. And there was a time before The Avengers where most of them were not government agents. Hell, most of their time on screen is as non-Avengers (acting alone). But I don't want to talk about that on this thread just because the other guy seemed to completely mess what I was talking about. I created this thread because I want to talk about the dangers of a senile old man who could wipe out the population by thinking about it. I love the character and was sad at the way he spent his final years, but I can't say that I disagreed that he had to be put down. Thing is, that sort of plot about how mutants are a danger has been there ever since the very first X-Men movie. But the movies have always dismissed that concern completely and made anyone who thought so into a bad guy. Ironically, here they prove that maybe those guy had a point. Sadly, it's only here at the end of the X-Men Timeline that it happens. Cowardly, really.
|
|
flasuss
Sophomore
@flasuss
Posts: 323
Likes: 147
|
Post by flasuss on Mar 7, 2017 17:42:43 GMT
And then SHIELD went away. And there was a time before The Avengers where most of them were not government agents. Hell, most of their time on screen is as non-Avengers (acting alone). But I don't want to talk about that on this thread just because the other guy seemed to completely mess what I was talking about. I created this thread because I want to talk about the dangers of a senile old man who could wipe out the population by thinking about it. I love the character and was sad at the way he spent his final years, but I can't say that I disagreed that he had to be put down. Thing is, that sort of plot about how mutants are a danger has been there ever since the very first X-Men movie. But the movies have always dismissed that concern completely and made anyone who thought so into a bad guy. Ironically, here they prove that maybe those guy had a point. Sadly, it's only here at the end of the X-Men Timeline that it happens. Cowardly, really. The fact there was a guy with magnetism powers that killed people since the first movie makes your point that the movies didn't show that mutants can be dangerous complete non-sense.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 7, 2017 19:05:30 GMT
And then SHIELD went away. And there was a time before The Avengers where most of them were not government agents. Hell, most of their time on screen is as non-Avengers (acting alone). But I don't want to talk about that on this thread just because the other guy seemed to completely mess what I was talking about. I created this thread because I want to talk about the dangers of a senile old man who could wipe out the population by thinking about it. I love the character and was sad at the way he spent his final years, but I can't say that I disagreed that he had to be put down. Thing is, that sort of plot about how mutants are a danger has been there ever since the very first X-Men movie. But the movies have always dismissed that concern completely and made anyone who thought so into a bad guy. Ironically, here they prove that maybe those guy had a point. Sadly, it's only here at the end of the X-Men Timeline that it happens. Cowardly, really. Well Sen. Kelly (pre-mutation) and Stryker weren't exactly good people, so presenting anything more gray than a straight-forward good versus evil wasn't really an option. And to be fair, the X-Men comics don't really examine that either. It's always simply been an allegory for discrimination. These types of questions really weren't asked until the Civil War comic came out. I think that a part of that was that it was a different time. We were given anything more complicated than that and most of the time we didn't want it. But if we are being objective and honest, Xavier is a danger to innocent lives in this movie.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 7, 2017 19:06:15 GMT
Thing is, that sort of plot about how mutants are a danger has been there ever since the very first X-Men movie. But the movies have always dismissed that concern completely and made anyone who thought so into a bad guy. Ironically, here they prove that maybe those guy had a point. Sadly, it's only here at the end of the X-Men Timeline that it happens. Cowardly, really. Well Sen. Kelly (pre-mutation) and Stryker weren't exactly good people, so presenting anything more gray than a straight-forward good versus evil wasn't really an option. And to be fair, the X-Men comics don't really examine that either. It's always simply been an allegory for discrimination. These types of questions really weren't asked until the Civil War comic came out. I think that a part of that was that it was a different time. We were given anything more complicated than that and most of the time we didn't want it. But if we are being objective and honest, Xavier is a danger to innocent lives in this movie. I don't think you really understood what he said. He is saying that the conversation never happens. That anyone who shows any kind of problem with humans is automatically painted a bad guy.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 7, 2017 21:17:12 GMT
Thing is, that sort of plot about how mutants are a danger has been there ever since the very first X-Men movie. But the movies have always dismissed that concern completely and made anyone who thought so into a bad guy. Ironically, here they prove that maybe those guy had a point. Sadly, it's only here at the end of the X-Men Timeline that it happens. Cowardly, really. The fact there was a guy with magnetism powers that killed people since the first movie makes your point that the movies didn't show that mutants can be dangerous complete non-sense. The movies refuse to have us see Magneto as anything but some noble anti-hero type. Even when he tried to wipe out all Humanity in X2, no one held it against him in X3.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 7, 2017 21:46:31 GMT
The entire movie was about whether superheroes should be able to do whatever they want without repercussions or be treated like everyone else. Correct. Nothing went over my head, your post just wasn't all that interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 8, 2017 8:25:05 GMT
The entire movie was about whether superheroes should be able to do whatever they want without repercussions or be treated like everyone else. Correct. Nothing went over my head, your post just wasn't all that interesting. Lol, you clearly misconstrued what he meant by issue and now you wont admit it. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are mistaken. But I bet you never will. If his post wasn't that interesting you wouldn't have responded in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 8, 2017 14:06:30 GMT
Correct. Nothing went over my head, your post just wasn't all that interesting. Lol, you clearly misconstrued what he meant by issue and now you wont admit it. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are mistaken. But I bet you never will. If his post wasn't that interesting you wouldn't have responded in the first place. I don't have any memorable previous (bad) interactions with ArArArchStanton, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am going to assume that he still doesn't understand what I'm saying (and isn't all that bright), which is clearly better than being the stubborn a-hole.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 8, 2017 14:32:22 GMT
Correct. Nothing went over my head, your post just wasn't all that interesting. Lol, you clearly misconstrued what he meant by issue and now you wont admit it. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are mistaken. But I bet you never will. If his post wasn't that interesting you wouldn't have responded in the first place. What did I misconstrue? I think you have misconstrued my understanding of the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Mar 8, 2017 15:01:10 GMT
Civil War didn't spend anytime debating about anything. The main story of superhero registration was forgotten after the first 15 minutes.
|
|