Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.
It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
I had just finished the new Luke Cage season and wanted a bit more superhero fix so when Bio posted I went and re-watched it (as well as the other two and am now on the Norton Hulk movie).
It's not a bad story but the focus isn't the Extremis serum, it's focus is Tony working through his issues, so they don't really go into details about Extremis. Extremis is given the full plot device (as in it exists only to push the plot forward) treatment in the movie and the only consistent is that it causes people/plants to blow up.
There isn't a point where they state or imply percentages, the closest you get is Maya trying to convince Tony that 'Extremis is practically stable' and failing. This is just before she threatens to kill herself warning Killian that he might get 'too hot'.
The movie also implies that Extremis is addictive, that continued dosages are required and that you can overdose. But they never outright explain these things fully either.
OMG! Have to say! Luke Cage S2 BETTER THAN S1!!!
And Danny! OMG! AWESOME!
[b]SPOLIERS FOR SEASON 1 of LUKE CAGE[/b]
I agree completely.
Getting rid of the angry cry baby of Iron Fist season 1 and Defenders and using a more cinematic martial art style for Rand has given me new hope for season 2 of Iron Fist.
I felt season 1 of Luke Cage really suffered when they Killed Cottonmouth because they didn't have a compelling foe to replace the amazing writing and fantastic performance that Mahershala Ali gave. Season 2 managed to round our Mariah's character and give the actor something to work with unlike season 1. Season 2 also gave us the amazing reimagined Bushmaster, interesting sub-plots involving Shades and Che, the near perfect Gabrielle Dennis as Tilda and improved upon the great performance of Simone Missick as Misty (Would love to see her and Wing open the detective agency in their own series). I loved how season 2 felt more transitional as well. Like it's only the opening chapter of a bigger story. I am very interested to see a third season and how things play out.
I wasn't one of the ones who hated Iron Fist. However, he did come off more awesome. :)
I liked Iron Fist. I thought it was the weakest of the Defenders lineup but only because the others are so good. I enjoyed watching it and liked the character. If he’s improved so much the better. :)
Iron Fist bored me but that is mainly due to his powers just being kinda meh. I know some people were angry at the live-action series because they felt it whitewashed the character but I have never cared enough about him to get that angry about it.
As someone whom was a big fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender and whom saw how horrid The Last Airbender was (with a very clear cut example of whitewashing) I can see where they are coming from though.
In regards to Poison Ivy. Poison Ivy has always been kind of a horrible person. She could easily make herself one of the richest people in the world with her powers, perhaps even revitalize areas that used to be desolate dirtholes and grow enough food to feed the world but she just chooses not too because she's an misanthrope.
Iron Fist does have really “meh” powers. Basically he’s a really good but normal human martial artist who can do one really strong punch that can hurt even the toughest enemy (knocked Luke Cage flat) but then he’s spent for a while. That’s definitely not very compelling.
I want an Gambit live action series. I'd watch that in a heartbeat
Well, you can't white wash a character who was always white to begin with, so Iron Fist was less about white washing and more about people just thinking white people shouldn't be a martial artist character. :p However, there is no reason he couldn't be a compelling character. He's a martial artist! That can be fun times!
They just need to either improve the actors martial arts abilities or do better with a stunt double.
Huh, never actually knew the original one was white.
Goes to show you how much I know about Iron Fist or more specific comic book stuff in general. And my personal thing is I just never found martial artists compelling. The only exception to this was Avatar The Last Airbender which turned martial art forms into some kind of channel for the powers/bending. I thought that was really creative.
Yeah, it's more of the fact that he's another in a long line of fictional white men who go to another culture then become the best at something they're traditionally good at, or at the very least goes and saves those people instead of one of their own doing it.
With how little most people know about iron fist and the little most of those others care about iron fist, they could have made some pretty big changes to his character.
But no, they cast some scruffy white guy with no martial arts background. Chalk Mr. Rand up there with the bunch of other rich white Superheroes, that trope ain't old as heck.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Enough know about his character, who read his comic. I wouldn't have made that big of change to the character, but I would've picked an actor who could do better martial arts. We know they're out there!
Sorry, but you're wrong. It was illegal.
"After years dodging the President's ban on "immoral biotech research", my think tank now has a little something in the pipeline. It's an idea we like to call Extremis."
―Aldrich Killian
Direct quote from the movie.
And none of the other options were available to those people, so to them, those options may as well not exist.
Edit: Furthermore, Maya started her research before Ellis was president. If Ellis made it illegal, that means the scene where she was first asking Stark for funding was BEFORE it was illegal. It became illegal after that. This is the only reason she was working for Killian, because she knew the research, if perfected, could help a lot of people, but it was made illegal, and she thought that was wrong.
As others have said, Iron Fist was not really a white washed character. He is a [url=https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey]Mighty Whitey[/url] trope.
Basically it's the concept that a white man not only joins another culture but becomes that cultures chosen one/leader/saviour ect (there is more to it of course).
It's not always a bad trope and Iron Fist is hardly the worst example of this type of writing.
The complaints about the casting of Iron Fist were because at the time there were a few instances of traditional white washing in major Hollywood releases. This sparked an outcry over race portrayals in Hollywood films and Iron Fist got dragged into the fervor.
The Iron Fist and Defenders series didn't really convey exactly what Iron fist is capable of. In the show his powers are he is good at martial arts and can punch hard and only hint at other skills he has. Whereas the original character has a lot of mystical martial arts powers as well. He can use Chi to heal himself or others of some pretty serious injuries, to give himself an almost precognitive danger sense, to raise his agility and strength to above peak levels, to sense others feelings/motives, to calm angry crowds, to cloud the minds of others so they forget him, to focus his senses and on and on.
I can certainly understand not finding martial arts as a power interesting. But to me the powers of a character are a lot less important to me than the character him/her self. That was my biggest problem with the netflix Iron Fist series. I never found Rand that interesting and most of the time I found him quite annoying. The saving grace of the series for me was the supporting characters, Colleen Wing and Madame Gao in particular. A calmer and more casual iron Fist portrayal in Luke Cage season 2 has renewed my excitement for season 2 of Iron Fist.
While I hope the series doesn't get overzealous in giving Rand more powers, I do think netflix is starting to show he isn't just a one fist wonder with his appearance in season 2 of Luke Cage.
Yeah Colleen was probably my favorite character in Iron Fist, she seemed like the real hero. Overcoming her background to become a mentor to kids, being loyal to her friends even when they didn’t trust her.
I also, oddly enough, liked Ward Meacham a lot. I know he was the “snooty rich bully” character but I got the impression he was basically tortured into being that way from his psychotic and abusive father. At times you saw flashes of the humanity buried inside under the trauma and drug abuse, and to me it made him a really complex, deep character. I felt like he was the best-written character on the show and I was really rooting for him toward the end.
Fair point. I tend to find some superhero stuff tends to be liked for not the hero themselves but the supporting characters and the antagonists that play off them. I mentioned Batman in another thread as a perfect example of this. The man himself is honestly pretty boring most of the time and writers tend to go a bit too crazy with him. It's usually his relationship with his sidekicks, fellow heroes, and antagonists that keep him together other than some annoyingly edgy fan support.
Although Poison Ivy I find is one of his more boring villains as is the Joker and Harley whom are overused to hell. I like how they have been using Deadshot more in recent times like in the Suicide Squad animated films.
On Luke Cage S2... I did think it was a little slow. I don't know why they have to stick with 13 episodes. Shave it down to 11 and it'd be tight. Other than that, I liked it.
Of course, I like biopunk stories, and Netflix turned both Luke Cage and Jessica Jones into that. They're both officially gene-mods on Netflix. And Hellcat (Trish) turned herself into one on purpose. I only wish she hadn't been such an impulsive a-hole in the way she went about it... made a lot of people hate her character. I understand she thought she'd never get another chance, but there were better ways to go about it.
Killian said dodging a ban not defying it. He was able to keep researching despite meeting resistance. The file that Stark gets from Chad Davis's mother is a government file showing Chad's involvement as an AIM research subject. That's why Tony hacked the AIM computers, to find out what that research was.
EDIT-I had posted lost a long winded argument and decided to delete it because it is pointless to argue with conspiracy theories.
Yeah I read your comments there and for the most part agree. Batman is at his best when his relationship with others is explored. I still consider Batman a personal favorite of mine, especially from both BTAS and JL/JLU.
I also agree that Gotham is pretty good although I am just finishing season 2 and starting to find my appreciation lessening. I'm not sure exactly why yet. I took a break from it to watch Luke Cage and some movies so I will go back and try and figure out what is making me like it less.
Gotham is interesting. Young versions of Batman and his rouges gallery along with Gordon when he was a younger man was not an idea that was done before from what I know. Atleast not in any serious light.
Yeah, Bruce Wayne is a boring character.
I prefer both Dick Grayson Batman and Terry McGinnis Batman.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Just because AIM was doing it doesn't mean it was legal. AIM does illegal stuff all the time in the comics.
Even if it were, the way he said "Immoral biotech research" was mocking, as if most of the research banned wasn't immoral at all, but done purely for political reasons. The ban was clearly what started him down this path. He knew he couldn't get the research done under light of day, but needed for himself (he was sickly at the start of the movie). His solution was to use it in a large scale, high profile situation, thus forcing people all around the world to invest in it as a new arms race. War funding is the most reliable funding, and many countries would legalize it just so they don't lose the arms race. This would have the side effect of producing real cures. It's not a good plan, but there is clear rationality. This is where this story overlaps with the comic. The comic was just much more coherent and direct about it, compared to the movie, which was all over the place and forces you to do some guess-work. So maybe I'm mixing some of the comic info with the movie, like how I know it can be stabilized. <.<
But even though I'm guilty of that, it's still clear to me that the president created Killian. You make something effectively illegal that someone needs, you don't stop them from going for it. You just force them to get it in a much less safe, less ethical way.
Taken from the main MCU fan site:
The point was that the file showed the government knew AIM was doing research into Extremis. If it was illegal the government probably wouldn't have been working with AIM and Killian. The illegal part of this was that Killian and Maya were hiding the results of their testing which was killing people.
Killian was killing people for profit. His opinion on what is moral or not has no validity. His interpretation of what constitutes a ban is also suspect. Both of which are especially difficult to accept in the context of what he was doing when he made his 'ban on immoral' comment. Trying to manipulate Pepper and Stark industries into a partnership.
What started him down the path was being dismissed and marginalized by Tony. Also there is no indication he 'needed' this 'cure' and every indication that he was a selfish individual who was willing to go to any length to get what he wanted.
Nothing in the movie supports the idea that Killian was trying to start a war on terror in order to help people. Killian was not doing all this for the betterment of mankind. Maya on the other hand was the misguided scientist who does bad things because she thinks the end result is worth it.
There is almost no overlap between the movie and the comic storylines. They use the same names for people/organizations and Extremis gives people similar powers in both but that's where the similarity ends.
In the comic there isn't a need to 'stabilize' Extremis because people don't explode as a result of the serum. Extremis also wasn't designed to be used for it's medical applications, it was a super soldier program and it was funded by the government.
There was a later story where it was revealed that only about 2% of people can benefit from Extermis and the other 98% will die but there nothing was said about improving on these percentages.
I'm not sure what info you think you are mixing with the movie but it isn't the comic.
You keep saying 'need' but no one 'needed' the Extremis serum. They wanted it. Even if research into Extremis was illegal it would not be an excuse to murder others for it.
As I said before, I am not going to discuss your beliefs in the context of real world medical research.
Fan sites also say that Jar Jar was a Sith Lord and that Alfred is Batman's real father. Fan sites make crap up all the time and the MCU one is no exception.
Fan-fic is not fact.
You assume that because someone in the government knew about it, that it was legal. That's ridiculous. You even state later that the government itself was behind it in the comics. Dodging probably meant getting someone on the inside to look the other way.
The point went completely over your head. The ban wasn't on Extremis specifically or only. It was on all biotech research that the president didn't like, not a specific one. Heck, if we take Killian's quote literally, then Extremis was the response to the ban, not the subject of it, or possibly both the response and one of the many subjects, but the movie didn't make this clear. It is clear that it wasn't the sole or even main target, though.
If someone's going to go nuts from a single rooftop meeting getting missed, they would anyway. Tony's not at fault. The rooftop scene taught him that anonymity is useful, but the president's ban is what angered him into his destructive action.
Yeah, this part was mostly about Maya. For Killian it was personal, because he was using a cane and looked a day away from death at the start of the movie, and the president made it illegal for him to cure himself, but Maya was going along with it because she thought it was the only way to get her tech developed in a country that just didn't care. And when she realized Killian had completely and irrevocably lost sight of that goal, she turned on him.
Killian was clearly sickly at the start of the movie. It never told us what he had, but when he appeared years later, he was cured. The people missing limbs and paralyzed also needed something, and Killian was the only caller. I never said Killian was in the right and had good reason to murder. I said when you make something illegal, you force people to do unethical things to get what they need. It's not about right and wrong, so much as about reality. The president made things worse. You can fill up entire libraries with words on paper banning this and that, but people will still go for what they need. If you don't understand that, then you must have never needed anything.
The MCU site is a cronical, not a fan fic site, and your logic here is very broken. It's like me saying 3% of scientists don't think global warming is real, but water levels are rising, so that proves that any finding by any ecologist ever is always wrong. Utterly nonsensical.
There is nothing to be said that Tony skipping out, is the only meeting he's ever been skipped out on. It could've just as easily been, and more likely, that Tony was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
True, but I still think Tony blaming himself (in narration) is wrong. He's too hard on himself, here. Even if he was the last straw of a hundred, which I could see, that would still only make him 1% responsible, yet he seems to blame himself completely. I guess that's a down-side to a god complex. If he thinks he can fix everything, then whatever's broken is his fault.
Nine times out of ten in the MCU it is Tony's fault.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Haha, maybe that's why he blames himself... it's a learned habit!
I always thought Tony and others blamed Tony for way to much. :p
Everyone in the world is trying to make an AI. Tony does it first and it goes bad. It going bad isn't Tony's fault. That said, the MCU seems to have bad luck with AI. Look at AoS.
The son dying, that was mentioned in CW. I personally wanted someone to tell that mom, it wasn't Tony's fault. It was Ultrons.
I noticed that in the MCU AA always goes bad, but it's never "because AI", it's always because of an external factor.
In the case of Ultron, it was the mind stone. In the case of Ada, it was the Darkhold.
So the moral of the story is... don't let your AI have access to ultimate cosmic mind-altering artifacts?
Probably a good rule of thumb, actually.
And Ultron was Tony's fault.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
Vision turned out okay. AI isn’t always Skynet in the MCU. Maybe just 90% of the time.
No. Ultron was it's own fault. It was an AI, something all other inventors wanted to build, and Tony got it first.
The general public doesn't tend to blame the parents of evil people, though yes, I'm sure some would.
If you want to blame the person who created Ultron, it was a collaboration between Stark and Banner.
And in the comics, of course, he was created by Henry Pym.
The MCU wiki is about as much a chronicle as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was.
Sure they both reference the known aspects but then they just go and make up everything else. Much like you do.
The quote above [i]' Matthew Ellis was elected blah blah blah'[/i] is from a page on that site that details a history of Killian that isn't presented in the MCU. That's fan-fic.
You do this often. You read or just come up with something that supports your argument and don't check out if it's true.
You did this when you assumed Sauron wanted to make friends, when you assumed it was illegal to volunteer for a trial, when you assumed that scleral tattooing was illegal, when you stated that 'grinders' do cyber research, when you said small private research is making more breakthroughs than major institutes, when you made claims that cures were sitting on selves because the inventors didn't have a legal team, when you came up with the idea that not having funding means the research is illegal, when you confused the FDA's role in medical research, when you claimed that crowd funding for research projects was not feasible, when you claimed to know that Extremis could be stabilized in the comics and when you described the fabrications of the MCU wiki as chronicles.
And these are just the easily disproved [i]non-fact[/i] facts you presented in this thread.
This is why I ended the previous discussion. You come to your conclusions through confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. You will blindly accept anything that supports your belief and dismiss/pervert anything that doesn't.
I would have explained the legalities of medical research, what 'approval' means, how to get 'approval, who gives 'approval', what problems there are when you don't have 'approval', how the government [b] actually[/b] blocks research and any other misunderstandings you might have regarding medical research. I actually do this at least once a year for a bunch of different donators/investors.
But you continue to show that you are not interested in facts. You only want confirmation.
Ultron was a being that was made by Tony and Banner. Ultron didn't pop itself into being fully formed.
Tony pretty much bullied Banner into creating Ultron. And remember they used code they found in some alien rock to do it? A thing they barely understood?
Yeah, I'm fully blaming Stark for this one. It was his insecurities and wants that made Ultron happen. Ultron is his fault.
"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."
The MCU site is made by dedicated people who pour over every interview, every intersecting comic, every line of dialogue,every one-shot. They have access to information the casual fan does not. Yet you think you know better than them because what's there is inconvenient for your argument, and because it doesn't fit the first idea in your head. The logic you have on display here is that of someone who thinks the first idea in their head disproves thousands of collective hours of research. This is the same kind of logic behind flat earthers and the like. You assume you know better than people who obsessively delve into every last bit of data because their conclusions don't support your point. This is exactly what you accuse me of in this post.
Which I admitted I was wrong about.
I know it's not the volunteer that's attacked. How do I put this. Let's say a town charter says that sailing must be allowed in the local lake. A few generations later, the city council decides they don't want sailing, but they can't make it illegal. So, they fine the boats themselves, rather than the people, like with civil seizure/forfeiture. So any boat on the lake will be seized and taken. You would argue, in this case, that sailing is not illegal and that you can sail. I would argue that you can't, because... well, you can't. It's a difference between viewing the world as a series of steps and rules or the flat reality you're left with at the end of the day. Admittedly, you're right that it's a different party punished than what I made it out to be, but I wasn't thinking about punishment so much as what you can or can't actually do.
which I immediately admitted I was wrong about
They would argue they do. Admittedly, most of what they do is very basic, but all experimentation begins somewhere. They don't have the capacity of a large, well-funded institution, but a like-minded group of people dedicated to one thing will often produce results eventually. The point was that people are starting to do things themselves, either because they think what they want will never be made otherwise, or because they know they won't be able to afford it once it is.
Okay, reading back over that post, I did word that very poorly. I think I was being dramatic, which is on me. I meant to say that small private research is catching up. I also said directly after that that their research is very slow. If you're assuming, however, that just because someone isn't part of a major institution that they can't make a breakthrough, then I don't even know where to begin with that.
I stated that as a possible scenario. that's what "could be" means. I didn't state it as a certainty. And yes, it's a real possibility. Heck, if part of the treatment involves a new invention, it could even be kept on shelf out of spite. Ever hear of patent trolls? If you can't afford to fight them on day one, you need not apply.
Then we have the government secrecy orders on patents, which even a billionaire would have a hard time fighting. If you suspect your invention that could help people will be the target of that, then you're better off not patenting in the first place and keeping it for personal use. Either that, or dump it online for everyone all over the world to have at once. That's the avenue I'd prefer, because then there's no amount of laws that could prevent its use. But I'm rambling. Moving on.
It takes a lot of money to do research through proper channels, according to quotes from some companies that do it. If you push ahead, not through proper channels, would you call that legal?
because their role is confusing. I was going to ask about if new surgical techniques are under their purview. But, I'm mostly interested in things like adult stem cells and crispr. I know both of those are under the FDA's authority. Interestingly, in many countries adult stem cells taken from the person's body and put back in that same person's body are not considered drugs, but here they are.
I actually said that crowd funding could be the solution for future for research, but that it wasn't there yet. Both of these are true. You're straight-up straw-manning now. Here's what I said
Pepper is still alive. Stark cured her. But I guess that doesn't fit your argument, so we're just ignoring the ending of that movie and every movie she's been in after.
Ditto.
It’s true that Bruce was reluctant and Tony had to convince him. Whether or not he bullied him is a matter of opinion but I agree that Tony should carry more of the blame.
It's not about the amount of information. It about how it is applied.
Let me give you an example:
In Iron Man 3 Killian says 'You know what my old man used to say to me? One of his favorite of many sayings, 'The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.'
The only information this imparts is that Killian quoted his father this one time. But the MCU wiki sites this quote as evidence towards this conclusion:
Fan sites do this all the time. They take a small piece of information and obsessively draw a conclusion from it. They then take this conclusion and apply it to the next small piece of information. Eventually these conclusions are used to define things that are not expressly mentioned. The conclusion becomes the 'fact' they use to support their next conclusion. This type of writing is akin to 'speculative fallacy'.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of logical fallacies.
This is just a form of dismissal. When the evidence you use to support a claim is shown to be incorrect it has no impact on your belief. You just move on to the next argument.
Much like the rest of your counterpoints to my statements. You don't care about what evidence I have that contradicts your earlier statements, you just rationalize, adapt or outright change your statement as a response. You just move on unfettered by any evidence to the contrary.
Like here, you said:
I say that doesn't happen in the comics and you reply with this:
You said in the comics they could stabilize Extremis, I said Extremis did not need to be stabilized in the comics and you say well she is alive in the movies.'
You are not even consistent with your own arguments.
I don't think there is any point in continuing this discussion.
And yet the conclusion I put a quote to is taken from a quote by Killian that says the exact same thing. Yet you couldn't admit that either quote showed the president was at least in part responsible for setting things in motion. You ignored the evidence of the movie quote because it didn't support your stance, so I posted the MCU quote, which you immediately dismissed because "sometimes fans get things wrong."
As opposed to you, who can't admit you're wrong even when presented with direct evidence, pretty much anywhere on these forums. At least I can admit when I got something wrong. Just because I don't post a long paragraph after that explaining it doesn't mean it doesn't change an opinion. In the very same post where I admitted to getting the tattooing thing wrong, I later said that I'm relieved that things aren't outright banned yet. In the post where I admitted I was wrong about Sauron's motives, that admission didn't change my opinion overall because that was one example rather than a general rule, but I did say in that same post that if the person is "mad" then the logic of volunteers wouldn't apply. The fact that Killian benefited from using volunteers (war vets willing to help him lie kill steal) proves that it can work in some stories.
This point about Pepper I made in my first post about IM3 here, yet you ignored it completely and talked about how it couldn't be stabilized. You kept doing that in posts with Brand X trying to argue that it couldn't be stabilized so I posted it again here to show you were doing the same thing you're accusing me of.
Besides, if it was stable at the start of the comics, that means it was stabilized.
And let's not forget your argument that Killian wasn't justified in murdering people, as a response to a post by me labeling him as a villain, implying that I said the opposite of what I did. You do that a lot, I noticed, try to put arguments in the mouth of another person so you have something more convenient to respond to.
You are misusing the term direct evidence.
Direct evidence is something which does not need further evidence or inference to corroborate its conclusion. For example, The ground is wet.
Circumstantial evidence requires an inference to draw a conclusion. For example, The ground is wet so it must have rained.
The ground could be wet because of rain or it could be wet due to a fire hose, a broken water line or any of a multitude of reasons.
In the context of this discussion,the direct evidence is Killian said that he was able to dodge President Ellis's ban on immoral experiments.
We don't know if he is stating a fact as it could be his interpretation of things. We don't know what this ban entails so it could just as easily mean a ban on super soldier serums only. We don't know if dodging the ban means he legally or illegally dodged the ban.
You took this one statement and said that President Ellis was a villain, that he needed the votes that banning, not just the experiments but any research, would bring. You were very clear on that point. Furthermore you stated that this ban was not only in relation to Extremis but any type of life saving tech including the Cradle from Avengers 2.
I offered more direct evidence like Maya already researching her cure, Killian trying to get Pepper and Stark industries on board to continue Extremis research, and the file Tony gets from Chad's mother.
I didn't bring up comic book tie ins, novelizations, interviews or deleted scenes of the original shooting script. I didn't do that because none of those were actually a part of the story.
You have not given any direct evidence that contradicts my direct evidence and choose to rely on inference and conjecture as the basis for your arguments. Just as the fan site does for it's conclusions.
I tried to show your conjecture was not an absolute by providing some of my own but that proved futile as it only gave you more room to pass off inference as evidence.
Here is a fun fact you may not know. There was an extended scene in which Chad's mother explained to Tony that Chad stole the file from AIM as evidence of the Extremis virus killing people. That unreleased scene also explained that his mother was in the bar because she had a meeting with Killian's goons who were posing as Homeland security and threatening her for having government property. This scene explains her initial defiant reaction to Tony showing up, she assumed he was one of the people threatening her for the file. This scene would also retroactively explain why Chad's explosion was not claimed as an act of terrorism by the fake Mandarin, they didn't have the file which could expose them and so did not want that explosion to be a part of the terrorist investigations. If you want to read that extended scene in full, find and download an original script (not a transcript as that won't show it).
Also, presumably Maya was originally going to be the main villain but script rewrites due to projected toy sales had them turn the more tragic figure of Killian into a simple black and white villain.
You didn't make a point about Pepper in your first post. You made an inference which you used to suggest using Extremis to cure Rhode. I also didn't ignore it, I addressed that suggestion.
Brand X said all that needed to be said about the supposed cure for Pepper. X's explanation showed an understanding in that nothing was conclusively stated about Pepper being sorted out.
Furthermore, your use of Pepper as an example in your previous post did not address the fact that you were at best misleading when you said you knew that Extremis could be stabilized in the comics. Extremis, in the comics, did not require stabilizing as it did not cause people to explode. The major drawback of Extremis in the comics was it had an effect on the psyche of the user, making them more violent. This effect also was not able to be fixed as was shown by the fact Tony suffered from a shift in his psyche as a result of his taking a modified version of Extremis. The comics never bothered to continue showing Tony's modified psyche or give a reason why he was no longer affected by it.
The point I was making with pointing out the mistakes you have made is that you continually base your conjecture off of faulty, misleading or just plain incorrect evidence. Even when that evidence is proven incorrect you just bring up more incorrect or faulty evidence resulting in an endless cycle of having to fact check everything you say and then correcting you on your mistakes.
I am not going to continue this forum game of 'I know you are but what am I?' that you are now trying to play with me.
Good bye.
EDIT-I missed something I wanted to respond to.
First I am not dismissing fan sites as 'getting it wrong'. i dismiss them because they draw conclusions based on incomplete evidence. I also have not ignored this quote. Most of the past few posts has been pertaining to the reason why I don't accept the fan sites conclusion as to what this quote means. I have been very clear that it is because there is no evidence to support the conclusion and requires supposition or speculation as to interpret it in the way the fan site does.
Actually, I said this in my first post:
It's the same point. And despite this evidence, you reply with
Uh huh, that tracks, I'm sure, in some universe.
I was going to go back through your arguments in the IM3 posts looking for fallacies, but I found one in your very first line.
This is in response to me suggesting the president made it illegal, which would have happened long after the beginning of the movie because of how terms work. You know, because time exists? But I guess that's inconvenient to your point, so let's ignore it. Yet, despite the fact that I already pointed this out in the intervening posts, you make the same claim again in the post right before the one I'm typing now, outright ignoring/dismissing that there's a large time skip after that scene.
Let's see how far I have to look to find the next fallacy. Oh, here it is, the very next sentence.
All of which are arguments from other movies and other stories, most of which took place after this one. Oh, but I see you claim you didn't use anything that wasn't part of the story. Funny, that.
As for your arguments about the ban, they basically boil down to 1) there is no ban, despite a quote, and that 2) the opinion of dedicated fans who pour over every aspect of each movie is less valid than yours. The first is direct refusal of evidence. The second is, at best, god complex.
You replied before I could clarify my statement about Pepper. I was editing the post while you were replying so you did not see the amended part. Take that for what you will.
This is just another inference that assumes the illegality of the research. It is never stated in this or any other part of the MCU that Extremis was illegal. Well not until it was discovered to be a part of the Centipede Project from S.H.I.E.L.D. But even there it does not state when it became illegal.
The MCU is an interconnected storyline. Using evidence from another movie or show is still using a part of that story.
I didn't say there wasn't a ban. I said Extremis wasn't illegal. At best I questioned Killian's interpretation of what a 'ban on immoral' was.
The fans are not stating an opinion. They are drawing a conclusion based on incomplete information. There was a gap in the stories logic and they made a conclusion that cannot be proven. This is the logical fallacy know as a propositional fallacy. That is why I don't consider their conclusion valid (as in it's use in logic usage).
Also, I would think it pretty clear that I am one of those dedicated fans. My fandom does not, however, indicate the truth of my conclusion which is why I provide direct evidence to support it.
Just to have fun can you figure out which logical fallacy the following statement is guilty of?
Dedicated MCU fans always make valid conclusions about the MCU.
I am a dedicated fan of the MCU.
Therefore my conclusion about the MCU is always valid.
If you can't then there isn't a reason to continue because we are discussing things on very different levels. This, by the way, is another logical fallacy.
So, I point out clear evidence that your Maya example, which was your main point to claim it was legal, is flat out proof of nothing, due to the existence of time. Despite having already pointed this out before, you repeat the statement in your previous post and claim it's proof you presented evidence. And, after me pointing out again just in my previous post how it's not evidence, and pointing out how you keep using that example even though it's been shown false, you respond with essentially "but you're assuming it's illegal." Can you see the problem here? If this went on long enough, I'm sure you'd use the same example again. I was even willing to concede that extremis might have been a response to the ban rather than the subject of it (you'll see I did this if you read back through the posts), because that could fit the quote if taken completely literally. However, because this admission would ironically provide more support for the idea that the president's decisions set all this in motion, you decided to effectively ignore it and circle back to legality because you had more ground there.
But I see your tactic. A point comes up you can't respond to without admitting error, or you're backed into a corner on too many points, and you change the argument into arguing about arguing. Heck, you've done that several times in this thread alone. And like a dumby, I got baited and responded in kind. Nah, I think we're done here.
That would be for the best. When you understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence we can revisit things.
Here is a parting gift for you. At the end of this video (8:45) Gwyneth Paltrow talks about the possibility that she still has super powers in the upcoming Avengers movie. It's not definitive but it is interesting.
I don't suggest watching the rest of the video because it's mostly an ad for Goop.
[youtube]Fw2yFXSGXbw[/youtube]
Pages