Jump to content

Uncle Mike

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Uncle Mike

  1. Thor 2 isn't very good, in fairness. But then neither was Thor 1. And at least Iron Man 2 had Sam Rockwell and a terribly-served Mickey Rourke. Iron Man 3 has that short bit with SIR Ben Kingsley and then nothing.
  2. We'll see, I guess. I don't imagine the writers know yet. Your theory certainly holds some sense
  3. It seems fairly covered on the web that this never happened, but I agree it feels like he did. Was it in a trailer clip or something? That there Mandela effect is weird.
  4. I just think it's better paced than last time, which felt really strung out, despite only being one episode longer. Or maybe too much of a retread, with Will being attacked and the rest of them running around. By the time it got to the urban punks gang, I was done last time around. This season, with its actually separate strands, with its amazing Steve/Robin/Dustin portions, and so on, feels a bit more zippy.
  5. The kids and Spidey are in quite different places by that point. I assume @sofasurfer's issue is that he recognised some of the coastline Spidey flies over as being Dorset as opposed to East Anglia.
  6. Just finished the series now. Really thought this was a great return to form, after a pretty lacklustre season 2. I was 100% on board for the whole thing, pretty much.
  7. I don't think we were supposed to know that it did work as specifically as it could by the end of this movie. We've not seen him use it anywhere else in the MCU. Just the arm hairs raising when Infinity War kicked off, right? I was taken aback by it also - it did feel sudden.
  8. I do agree with her to an extent. In making the (smart) decision not to give this Spider-Man an origin setup, they've (I think) left him morally unmoored as a character to an extent. His one driving force is essentially "don't let Tony down." While that does make sense for a lot of readings of Spider-Man, (who I've definitely read before being disappointed by surrogate father figures in the wake of Uncle Ben) the Spider-Man I read was also much more self-driven to need to do good. He's absolutely a hero for today - punching up at people abusing power - and the Spider-Man from the comics would not have been so in thrall to Tony (whose lack of care for actual people he's directly seen in Homecoming, in the Vulture.) There's a lot of stuff in the general sense and in this movie that I think they get bang on. But I did think myself that there's something not quite gelling, and it's in that area. But I totally agree with this. Even though I liked Garfield, I think the current version is by far the best we've had.
  9. I hope they don't go down the route of bigger peril (or at least, not immediately.) I think they need to give their remaining and/or new Avengers some time to settle in. We don't really know anything about most of the remaining people. Falcon and Bucky and just soldiers, with no lives or personality. I'm sure the Disney+ series aims to look at that, they don't have a lot going on. And the other expansionary stuff we already know are dead-ends - a Black Widow movie now she's dead (maybe they'll find a way to have another one from the programme alive and likable and bring the name back, maybe that would be awful), WandaVision prequel series, and what else? And they've killed pretty much everyone we actually knew and liked. Thor and the Guardians have a pretty decent setup that more or less writes itself at this point (go find Gamora, presumably.) Spidey has some good threads to build on. But who else? Captain Marvel has nothing going on as yet, no-one likes Hawkeye, etc. I think they need to give everyone (and the Earth) a little breather. One of the few weaknesses, it seems to me, with the state of the MCU today is that in building up to Infinity War/Endgame, the characters themselves have been a little too subsumed into their office work. If they start straight with Galactus or something, no-one gets anything to build on or have stakes in.
  10. I think @Jammy's take is how you're supposed to take it, for sure.
  11. Just got back, really enjoyed it. I had a few quibbles, I think (spoilers below) but overall I thought it was a banging success. But overall, I thought it was great. Funny, didn't overstay its welcome, had heart. MJ, Ned, Peter all were great, Happy and May were great, Beck was excellent.
  12. We were watching the first few episodes of Season 1 tonight, and even back then the "banter" section is deliberately disjointed and disdainful.
  13. I think they like each other fine. I think Greg quite often doesn't find his jokes funny. They've got different senses of humour. I think they lean into that as part of the show setup. I get the impression Alex takes pride in trying to actually annoy Greg.
  14. The thing with the Alex/Greg dynamic is that, actually, it's Alex's show. He's essentially paying Greg to front it and abuse him. And seemingly gone out of his way to find someone who just genuinely doesn't find Alex funny at all. The actual disgust you see on Greg's face at some of Alex's tortured jokes is real, I think. When you remember Alex is in charge, it feels different. Having said that, I went to some charity comedy night recently, where one the spots was Greg. He was absolutely rubbish and had no material. I do think he's just riding the character now.
  15. I thought you said not to say anything you couldn't take back? I'm just bitter anyway, because I was actually looking forwards to having PES.
  16. The irony of pages and pages telling them it won't/can't work and will be shit anyway, and then the breathless anticipation of it being an hour or two late (when you're at work anyway) is surely not lost on you?
  17. This was from the article you put in the OP. And if you click through to some of the articles he's quoting, it goes on from there. I guarantee if I spent 5 minutes trawling SkippUp's archive or The Jimquisition or any number of other clickbait providers, I'll find tons of people pretending that singleplayer is under threat. There was a clear narrative being pushed for a while that singleplayer was under threat, and no longer economically viable. Which then prompted quite a pushback from lots of gamers that GaaS were evil, and you see that all over here. But, it turns out (unsurprisingly) that it wasn't true. And now, we have the realisation that it isn't true. I'm just saying I don't think it was ever true, is all. And it's inherent in even the title of this thread that the perception was that we'd be overrun by GaaS and that this has somehow changed. I don't think it has.
  18. I feel like I'm just going to end up needlessly berating people by accident here, but I don't even know if this is remarkable. They're GaaS - you'd not expect new releases all the time as the point of the genre, by definition, is to keep people playing an old one. Destiny content is still coming this year (and was presumably announced at E3), Warframe is still being actively worked on, I don't know about The Division (but I assume it's active), even Anthem is supposedly still being worked on, Fortnite, Apex etc are all doing seasons. SkillUp is hardly an intelligent commentator anyway, and sort of backs up my impression that this whole "singleplayer is under threat" narrative is being shilled for clicks. I really don't see the evidence, other than people saying it, that singleplayer games were under threat.
  19. This is a great game.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.