It's funny how they somehow made the villain likable and the flag smashers unnecessarily evil by killing innocent people for no reason

Warner Bros is the only reason DC is losing its goodwill to the general audience. us Comicbook readers are happy with Comics and animation.

Falcon and the winter soldier is probably some of the worst writing I have ever seen from Disney

The worst thing he does is kill a surrendered opponent. Gotta keep in mind though, this is a literal terrorist who’s helped in actions resulting in the deaths of numerous civilians. On top of this; as stated in the video, the terrorist refused to surrender. John’s friend dies in front of him. He kills a national criminal; and known terrorist. He does all of this with authority from the government. John Walker is a flawed hero.

We could be getting the best films ever adapted from DC comics history but instead of one step at a time and earning the lore they want the entire world set up in 2 movies and even Marvel Studios didn’t do something that shallow and just blindly expected superficial edge to sell iconic characters who have better qualities in the original medium.

The first Shazam was a fun watch, but they really had no clue what to do with the character. He's more of a side/support character. He should be interacting with the wider universe or meeting the younger heroes. 2nd movie should've been about him and Superman beating Black Adam. Or perhaps an adaptation of the JLU episode called "Clash" where Shazam and Superman fought. Or both stories combined would be fun.

The Flash is a great movie.

John Walker is what a realistic Captain AMERICA would look like.

The worst thing in The Flash movie is their BS explanation that changing one point in the past changes another point in the past, just so they wouldn't have to explain why Bruce Wayne's actors kept changing, why Clark Kent never made it to Earth, and why literally none of this time-traveling makes any sense. I mean, there's a suspension of disbelief, and then there's inventing nonsensical new rules of time travel just to explain your crappy multiverse.

I mean fans have been speaking up of what they want to see, but whooops, egotistic studio chose a villain movie that made him a hero, a marvel movie in dc, and a very, very veryyyyyyyy bad adaptation.

"We end this NOW." I usually like Lucy Liu, but who in casting thought SHE should be the main villain when you literally have Helen Mirren right there? Lucy CANNOT portray menace.

Homelander: I was watching an old Startrek episode, they said the population of children, were ageing one month after 100 years. Then Bones, the future doctor, says, these kids are over 300 years old.The children being 8-10 years in appearance. Not only is that bad math, its written, revised, rehearsed, then filmed, then edited. Ultimately people were in a rush for gains, because we designed money to cause action, by emergency. You wouldn't get involved other wise.

I always read as that the movie treats red hood's argument as being more reasonable and logical. They never tell what is right or wrong just present both views. It is Batman's character that holds the belief. It might be an example strawman viewpoint done right.

And this is why I lost faith in marvel

Rock also has a contract that says he cant lose. Hes insecure

A good example of a character with a no-kill rule that I genuinely think was done really well is daredevil. I haven’t read the comics, but the show does it very good, he and the punisher have an entire discussion about whether or not you should kill the bad guys and it’s great. His reasonings have a lot to do with his faith and the idea that anybody can be redeemed, and I think it makes for incredibly good moments in the show

@Loomar you *HAVE TO* cover the _Fallout_ show. The drama around it seems way too much like _Spiderman : NWM_ Good on the first watch, unless you think about it (Someone I've fallen for sadly)

It really puts the complete creative bankruptcy of the DCU on full display when comparing their last three titles. They managed to make 3 superhero movies (each with nearly the same power-sets, sans the flying), with each one possessing overdone/cliche plot lines that don't even have the deceny to be somewhat well made. Also, I'm glad to see your channel continuing to grow Loomar. It's very inspiring to see smaller content creators covering these discussions and pushing back on bigger studios thinking they can pull this shit over and over and over again.

i think for speedsters theres such a simple way to let them still be able to go so fast that they can time travel without completely breaking all continuity by making them crazy overpowered. all you need to do is make it so that they have to actually build up speed to go fast and percieve time slower. that way during fight scenes against normal people like captain cold he isnt so fast that they wouldnt even stand a chance, but still have it so he can run around the planet or do crazy time travel shit. it grounds the character much more during fight scenes and removes their ability to basically just freeze time, which is one of the most world breaking powers in any superhero movie.

We have to pray that James Gunns DCU is any good, but I have doubts

They kinda did the same for Soldier Boy in the Boys. They spend the whole season making you sympathize with him over his PTSD and trauma only to just randomly label him a racist in the end. Of course the character has many flaws but why did they bother making him so relatable just to generalize him as pure evil in the end.

The sympathetic strawman = aka you wrote the villians too good or the heroes too badly. All these examples you listed are the reason why I love media so much, especially videos that analyze media. It shows how truly vital a good writer is to a show or video game.

When I saw FatWS for the first time, I thought John Walker was MEANT to be likeable and you were MEANT to feel bad for him.

The Flash or as I call it, the Trash, pissed me off. The Flash is one of my favorite superheroes and it seems I will never get a good modern adaptation of him( JL/ JLU Wally you are unmatched). Flashpoint was done horribly. Ezra Miller sucked as Barry( heck he was more Wally than Barry) and the movie was like NWH but worse. It’s a sad movie. And sad because the Flash has one of the best rogues gallery in comics. You could have done anything but nope; they kept going to Reverse Flash. There are other villains.

i feel like this show has writers at war with eachother. One writer wants to make walker THE next captain america while some other writer vetos the script hijacks it and tries to undo the work.

The reason Batman can't kill the Joker in regular continuity is because you can't have any more Joker stories after that, and Judd Winick shouldn't have brought that to light.

Honestly that moment of walker killing a person, would make so much more sense if 1 - it was just a youth like teenager who was sympathetic to the cause and their only crime was trying to hide the flag smashers and Walkers kills a child in public in his rage state, which shows he is unstable to represent the captain, or 2 if the person Walker kills in his rage state was just a bystander, like they had nothing to do with anything and it was just wrong place and wrong time and Walker used excessive force which killed an innocent person. And second i think it is funny the officials are suppose to be shown unsympathetic or not trying to help the people who got snapped, but honestly, they aren't doing a poor job roughly 4billion people got snapped so jobs, property, and more would be a headache to sort out. 5 years is alot of time for many things to change

You know, the conflict between Batman and the likes of Jason Todd/Injustice Superman would be so much more interesting if the writers remembered the *actual* reason Batman doesn't kill. Said reason is that Batman, as a result of his backstory, values human life. *All* human life. That includes the criminals he battles on the daily. He doesn't want anyone to experience the pain he went through, and he also believes that anyone is capable of changing for the better. After all, he too has had One Bad Day. You know who else is a perfect example of a sympathetic strawman? *Adam from Hazbin Hotel.* Unlike John Walker, Adam is demonstrated to be morally reprehensible-vulgar, rude, self-serving, borderline psychotic, and uncaring about the lives of his victims. However, the writers of Hazbin Hotel, whether intentionally or not, exonerated Adam of much of his villainy in two distinct ways. 1. His backstory. As in the Bible, Adam was the first man ever created. Unlike the Bible, however, the first woman created to be his wife wasn't Eve, but Lilith-Adam's "first wife" from Jewish folklore. While the Demons' side of the story of the events that followed is that Lilith abandoned Adam due to Adam's desire for control (which, to be fair, would be in-line with the original tale), all we know for *certain* is that the two had a falling-out which led to Lilith running away and hooking up with the literal *Devil.* Adam's personality at the time is still pretty much up in the air, but I can't imagine that being rejected by his own wife in favor of *Satan* made Adam feel good about himself, not to mention the fact that without a wife Adam would be unable to sire children and the human race would end with him. To rectify this, Eve was created, and presumably made more submissive in order to reduce the odds of her running off as well. However, Old Scratch once again f@cked up EVERYTHING by tricking Eve into eating the Fruit of Knowledge, which corrupted not only humanity but *all of creation,* with this single act being the reason why Hell even exists in the first place. Again, there's no way of knowing for certain how much the events that follow line up with the Bible, but I think it's safe to assume that Adam was expelled from the Garden, forced to endure harsh conditions in order to survive day after day, and had to endure the pain of his son Cain killing his other son Abel-all of this because the Devil thought turning humanity evil was a swell idea. If that wasn't enough, mr Father of Evil outright *confirmed* that he had sexual intercourse with Eve as well! Had Lilith been willing to suck up her pride and accept Adam's authority-assuming that being in charge *was* what Adam wanted, since he takes orders from at least one female character throughout the show-Sin and Evil would not have entered the world, Hell would not exist, and the Exterminations would never have occurred. Speaking of which, 2. All of Adam's "victims" are *scum.* Regardless of the reasons behind the Exterminations-be it Hell's overpopulation problems or Heaven fearing Hell's growing power or some other reason-the fact remains that the Sinners that Adam and his posse of Exorcists gun down once every year are the absolute worst human beings imaginable, all of whom *clearly* deserve to be there. Angel Dust was a criminal, Alastor was a serial killer, and I am fairly certain that little miss sympathetic arms dealer Carmilla engaged in that same line of work when she was alive. The only one who arguably didn't "deserve" to be there was Vaggie, who's original backstory was that she was in Hell due to self-deletion, only for her to be retconned into being an Exorcist who-despite killing hundreds of Sinners in previous Exterminations-hesitated to kill one Sinner because it resembled a child. Everyone else had done at least *something* truly horrible in their lives before being cast into the burning pits, and instead of attempting to clean up their acts, they all choose to double, triple, and quadruple down on sinning. Before Charlie posited the idea of "rehabilitation", *no one* in Hell's population aside from her had even *tried* to be a good person. Yet we are expected to believe that not only do these literal monsters deserve to be let into Heaven, but that Adam and his Exorcists are "evil" for giving them their just and proper punishment? F@ck that! Adam was *absolutely* right when he said that the Sinners in Hell had their chance to be better already. If the Sinners weren't willing to repent of their deeds with the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, why should they be willing to do so now that any incentive to do so has been reduced to dozens of horribly mutilated corpses left to rot on Hell's blighted surface?

It's not that Batman wanted to kill all the time, it's that he is one kill away from going insane.

Marvel’s time travel wasn’t a different universe so much. It meant that if you went back to say 1965, the 2024 that you would return to wouldn’t be the same. For the brief period when the stones are all in 2024 that means that universe is now seperate. Tony’s whizzbang gadget allows for the timeline to maintain consistency for the period they need it to.

I think that zombie films are the human subconscious perception of dense societies. We all actually see cities and large gatherings as "evil" or bad and the solution always is to bunker up or settle in the far countryside to flee from it.

Bringing up Senator Kelly calling mutants dangerous reminds me of a short XMen story about this kid who just awakened his mutant powers. Unfortunately, his power is to disintegrate anyone who comes close to him with an unconscious barrage of radiation and toxic chemicals. So Professor X sends Wolverine as a hitman to murder this newly pubescent teenager to keep people from finding out about how dangerous mutants can be and avoid public backlash. But humans are IGNORANT for being worried about mutant powers. Also, I have a LOT of beef with Fable 3's morality system. Gameplay-wise, you can completely bypass the moral complexity by saving up enough personal wealth to make up the money you would have gotten from the Evil choices. STORY-wise, ALL you should have to do is publicly announce "Yo! Monsters are gonna attack us in exactly ONE year! So things are gonna be rough for a while, but THEN we can start working toward our collective happiness AFTER we all survive!"

I agree with nearly everything except the last one. 28 Weeks Later - after the beginning - was from the perspective of the two children and I think they reacted normally even though everything you said about the Father's actions up to that point was correct. I think the film wanted us to interpret his actions in our own views and wasn't pushing any specific viewpoint; mainly because, we are clearly meant to feel sympathetic and he is shown to feel extreme remorse before he becomes infected himself. He snuck in to meet his wife to apologize, was mentally breaking down, and accidentally got infected as a result.

Movie was garbage

you know it always makes me laugh when developers of those "masterpieces" are trying to adapt a book into movie, i mean GUYS you have the entire scenario ALREADY written for you, just freaking make it a on a big screen with live actors lol but no, they just pull totally idiotic movie scenes to move plot further/make MC alive etc etc or they never tried to read the books at all, in any ways developers did not try

When you brought up how many times Steve rogers killed people without letting them surrender it reinforced my problem with Steve. He’s literally killing people because he can’t live without a war. I don’t like the fact that steve kills people in the modern day when he’s supposed to be the symbol of right and wrong. I understand fighting in a war, and the fact that he is a soldier, but I feel like from winter soldier onwards he has no reason to be killing people. The whole Lagos scene in particular really shows Steve going out of his way to kill people when he could just relay his information to the authorities and not get anyone hurt. I like the fact that Batman has this rule because it grounds the character and adds a level of morality to the character that I can admire. Steve has no excuse.

14:33 I like to believe that this isn't true but that Bruce believes it is. He's definitely self-loathing enough to think he's only one step above his rogues and arrogant enough to believe he'd be more dangerous than all of them but I also believe he's a much better person than he realises. Personally, I believe the real reason Batman shouldn't kill is because he's not just a vigilante, he's a symbol. Batman is the hope for Gotham, where he goes the city will follow. Because of the sorry state Gotham is in, Batman needs to be a symbol of rehabilitation, of the belief that everyone deserves a chance to do better, because, if the people of Gotham don't believe they can do better, they'll give up trying. If he starts killing his villains, if he decides that there's no hope for them, then he ceases to be that symbol. I think Batman shouldn't hold other people to his standards, that unaffiliated heroes should be allowed to do their own thing, but Batman can't be the one to kill someone or even to knowingly consign them to an accidental death. That's also the angle I like to approach the Red Hood from. He lost that hope, he no longer believed in what Batman stood for. He decided that crime couldn't be stopped, the city couldn't be healed, so instead he decided to control it, that way he could at least decide who gets hurt. What he didn't realise is that he literally just reinvented the mafia and we have over 100 years of evidence why that doesn't work.

13:18 Even more than Magneto, Cyclops is a great example why Senator Kelly has a point because Cyclops' powers are incredibly destructive and entirely out of his control. If there's a chance that a teenager might randomly develop the power to kill people by looking at them and not be able to turn it off then there definitely need to be some safeguards in place.

The only thing i can really say John did wrong, at least in my opinion, is using the shield to kill someone like that. The shield is supposed to be a symbol as well as a weapon, after all.

In another show, Sam amd Bucky would be the asshole tagalongs who refuse to accept their idols replacement because they’re stuck in the past

The moral positions in Fable 3 honestly remind me of the criticisms of The Prince. The Christian Idealists argued it was immoral for arguing that ruling as a sovereign cannot function through an idealist lens "Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence, a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires." Such a sentiment makes moralists clutch their pearls, but it is a blunt statement of political fact

A major issue with the Fable 3 Logan bit, is that there is a deliberate and out of nowhere timeskip while you're raising money. The first time I played I went with good because I figured that after the quick questing I would be able to run around and personally build funds, however the game then abruptly stole an entire year I could have used to productively raise all the resources I would have needed to fight off the darkness without warning. I mean seriously, what the fuck happened? Did my character fall into a coma and somehow the property taxes, standard taxes and such not get paid during a multiple month long period? That's cheap as hell, didn't I have a year or something? How is it, that this character can somehow move so efficiently and well for those few weeks when there motivation was mostly revenge, but then basically becomes useless for nine or so months with a much bigger motivation? Does this man not have literal magic on his side? Has he not shown himself as capable of doing so many incredible things in short order? This is the massive divide between gameplay and story. The story tries to give you this damned if you do, damned if you don't moment. But it had spent the hours before that saying that you have this handled. The dissonance is why the plot twist doesn't work.

Do one on Miguel O'Hara

I think the injustice allusion you used wasn't great the reason batman didn't kill was so Superman or any hero wouldn't become what he did batman was literally proven correct that superman devolved into a monster

The ending where sam was talking to the press and senators felt like a movie straight out of a vaught.

Hypocrites

I've completely lost interest in all spider Superheroes Spider-Man spider kid boy woman madam alternate universe pointless shit I don't even f****** know anymore.... Used to be a favorite but now I absolutly hate them all.

The problem with the Logan example is that A) he literally didnt tell anyone about the Crawler, so as far as they knew he just went off the deep end after becoming king, and B) he left Reaver in charge of industry, the same Reaver who murders people for getting painting of him wrong, commits countless sacrifces to live longer and who's only "good" compared to the literal monsters lurking outside Albion