Your video, Black Panther — Creating an Empathetic Villain, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 182 Badge!

Wait, so... Optimus Prime was also Monterey Jack? And the shitty villain from Strawberry Shortcake? I'm not entirely comfortable with this.

I think you misunderstand my opinion of TLJ here.

Had this video been used to build a script for TLJ, it would have been better than TLJ because ANYTHING would have been better.

As evidence, we can compare TLJ to a two-hour video of a garbage fire, and indeed, the garbage fire would have had better writing.

The movie was terrible.

If they were going to have vaudevillian humour in the opening scenes with Poe prank-calling Hux---while dozens of star destroyers with hundreds (thousands?) of fighters sit there idle----they may as well have gone full 'Snakes on a Plane' B-movie fan service and let Ackbar do the same thing with an "it's a trap" gag. But that wouldn't do, because that would involve some kind of consistency. And one thing I can't stand is scripts and characters in stories that contradict their own being.

e.g. Luke "I see good in the most evil villain of movie history" Skywalker considering killing his own nephew, because maybe he's too far gone. Darth Vader wasn't too far gone, but somehow the son of Leia and Han was? See how that kinda goes against Luke's character? There are a million ways they could have written the fall of Ben Solo into the dark side that didn't involve violating the essence of existing characters.

A garbage fire wouldn't have done that. A garbage fire would have known better.

TLJ was terrible movie that just happened to have the massive budget for some cool special-effects scenes and some A-list actors wasted on an awful script with a thin, scattered plot.

Now maybe TLJ is your favourite movie, and if so, whatevs. We just have different taste I guess. I'm not going to get into a flame war over a garbage-fire.

So, when Sony made their deal to hand over the film rights to Spider-Man, they retained the villains? Heh, I guess they nearly have enough to make a Sinister Six movie and try to reproduce the magic of Suicide Squad.

Woah. . . I just did some googling and not only was Sony planning a Sinister Six movie, but Suicide Squad was profitable. fml

he would go from hero to villain so fast.

So, I understand the bid hit $100k before ebay pulled it; and now they are trying the auction again.

The USSR is gone. No one is trying to guard western industry against communist overthrow anymore. That time is long gone.




Imagine person A pushing person B, and person B pushes back, and the news runs around screaming that B pushed A. That's basically our simplistic news coverage about Ukraine.

Feel free to read about the 2014 coup : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution
I take no issue with Ukrainians giving their old government a swift kick out the door (and for understandable reason - such as corruption). However, with that comes the usual scapegoating of the undesirables. Would it have been better that Russia let groups like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Sector ravage ethnic Russians just across their border?

Crimea has been Russia from 1779 till ~1990, when it happened to end up under Ukrainian control after the USSR broke up. People living there are also Russian citizens, born either while it was still Russia, or to Russian parents.
Take a look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea
Then ask yourself, considering the right wing neo nazi anti-ethnic-Russian shitstorm in Ukraine, where would the Crimeans rather be?

Russia isn't a saint. It's acting in self interest. It's also not a villain. Things happen for reasons.

The treaty you refer to is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances
The link explains how it can be read to fault either the U.S. (for coup involvement) or Russia (for subsequent conflict involvement).

Just to put things in perspective :
Imagine Russia getting involved in a coup in Mexico or Canada. Or imagine Russia placing missile launchers in Cuba. Do you think that we would be as cordial to Russia as Russia has been to us?
So Russia tries to help a candidate who prefers friendly relations, that's hardly the sign of a committed adversary.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I shouldn't think and analyze the situation from multiple perspectives with consideration for circumstance and motivation, and instead I should just accept what the news has on 24/7 repeat. /s





Collusion is not a crime because /literally/ it is not a crime. You will not find the word "collusion" mentioned as an offense in any criminal code. It's only on TV because people started using that phrase to assert that the campaign and Russia were acting independently (which is irrelevant, they don't need to coordinate to break the law).


-scheherazde

Ahem, Wanda Maximoff aka Scarlet Witch. Just as an example, although not seen (yet) in the MCU, both Dr. Strange and Charles Xavier together could not totally defeat her.

Quicksilver could probably take him down as well, but he is no longer available in the Avengers movie canon.

While not shown in the MCU, and therefore up to speculation, Thor's hammer can actually absorb Magneto's magnetic manipulation and cannot be controlled by Magneto. There is an alternate universe comic that shows Thor with multiple versions of the hammer, but only one is the actual Mjolnir. At one point, Magneto captures one of the non-Mjolnir hammers because it has a base of Iron instead of Uru (the metal used to forge Mjolnir).

So, pretty funny, but far from accurate. Obviously, Hulk doesn't seem to care who he smashes (if they are heroes or villains), so I don't think he would back down either.

Your video, Tiny Super Villain in training, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I understand, and "pollution per capita" is a logical argument. But from my point of view there are some critical problems and many flaws with following such reasoning. For example:

The US isn't the greatest emitter of Co2 per capita, but when that's brought up...the argument falls back to emissions in absolute terms. Many would say that that's hypocritical.

Wealth inequality is particularly bad in the US, with the top 20% of the population holding upwards of 88% of all wealth (while the total wealth of individuals isn't GDP, it does correlate with income flow). Doesn't this skew GDP per capita, holding the poor in the US to an unfair standard, vis a vis emissions? If it doesn't, then how is it unfair to poor, rural Chinese?

No international organizations agree on the definition of a "developing" country. Without this, aren't these types of arguments extremely subjective and open to abuse? The point being that there are very, very few "apples-to-apples" comparisons available. For example, would it be a fair comparison if I told you that China's per capita Co2 emissions exceeded the per capita emissions of the EU starting back in 2014?

But you're right...in that the US has polluted the most in absolute terms historically (with China catching up pretty fast). We didn't have a "God-given" right to do it; for most of it, we didn't even know that "it" (Co2) was a pollutant.

You're also right that as individual Americans we have more power to demand change. I understand and accept the dangers of climate change, and I very much want to do something about it. This is why I'm so frustrated with our current administration.

I just want you to understand that I'm not strictly pro-US and/or anti-China. In my opinion, climate change is giving us one resource to either take advantage of or to squander. That resource is time. And time isn't going to make accommodations for any nation, big or small, rich or poor.

This is why I'm troubled by a government like the CCP, that has plans to accelerate their emissions. We know better now (re. Co2), and so such actions on their part are unreasonably selfish. They know their actions will likely hurt or kill all of us, and yet they continue...with the hope that other nations will sacrifice so much as to be properly weakened while they themselves are strengthened.

I understand that in a perfect world, we'd have an equality of outcome. Wouldn't that be great? But we don't have the time left to make most of South America, much of Asia and virtually all of Africa economic equals. What we can do is get our own emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and help these nations build up an infrastructure using green energy. In this way, maybe we can try to foster at least an equality of opportunity energy-wise. The Chinese government has the funds to not only fully transform their own nation, but also to help to some degree in the aforementioned global initiative. But instead of being honestly proactive, they're creating a new cold-war mindset. This is not only wasting time, but also resources (both their own and those of the US in seeking to maintain their strategic edge militarily) that could be better used to help the less fortunate.

So what do we do? Well, I'm not entirely sure. But I can tell you that having other countries paint the US as a villain in this issue, and China as a saint certainly isn't helping.

The first trailer for Ep. 7 did such a better job of grabbing my interest than this one did. The title is intriguing though, as is Luke's last line. Honestly, I had kind of hoped for it to go in this direction back in Ep. 7--that the Knights of Ren were a group of Force users that had determined the biggest cause of strife in the galaxy was the constant battling between Jedi and Sith and therefore sought to eradicate both groups in order to restore the balance. Would have made Kylo Ren a waaaaaaay more interesting villain. Instead, though, they made about as generic of a Star Wars film as they could have by just copy-pasting plot points from previous films. So I'm pretty skeptical about Ep. 8 being any better.

Wow, absolutely the opposite reaction to me.

I thought Rogue One was a travesty of film making. The characters were bland and underdeveloped, the plot made little sense and the dialogue was awful. The only redeeming aspect were the special / practical effects and art.

I would criticise Force Awakens for treading safe in replicating the plot of A New Hope to a ridiculous degree but the characters had a sense of identity, purpose and relatability. Most of the set pieces (Han Solo, Jakku, Falcon escape) were memorable.

The lightsaber battle definitely suffered from FX over-use. What made the one in Empire Strikes Back compelling is the austere focus of it as a battle of wills. At least this one was less ridiculous than the lava clusterfuck of Revenge of the Sith.

For Kylo Ren, a lot will depend on whether he remains a bland, corrupted villain or develops into a repentant anti-hero. Hopefully they won't follow the Vader/Emperor arc too closely. In any case, he's certainly going to take back seat to Snoke as primary villain.

This teaser/trailer is weak. Yeah there's a little bit of intrigue, but it isn't giving me any sense of excitement. Gee, even the Transformers teaser/trailer is better than this.

I hope SW8 will be better than SW7. SW7 was a minor disappointment. Kylo Ren was laughable as a main villain and the ending duel set-piece was the weakest of all lightsaber duels, it's garbage non-sense.

I enjoyed Rogue 1 more than SW7 for some reason. Although I like Rey more than Jyn.

Data Center Looks Like a Villain's Lair Out of James Bond has been added as a related post - related requested by Payback on that post.

White Mountain Data Center - Fit for a James Bond villain has been added as a related post - related requested by Payback.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/White-Mountain-Data-Center-Fit-for-a-James-Bond-villain