Actually, out of context, that image could easily be a blue boy and a monster.
Spoilers X-Men: Apocalypse - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
Actually, out of context, that image could easily be a blue boy and a monster.
No but it's not everyone else's job to shelter them. People that are easily offended shouldn't automatically have the right to to tell everyone else what can and can't be shown in public.
<<Even simpler answer: They're mimicking the comics, where few people care that most characters now look identical to 20, 40, or 60 years ago.>>
Comic book time doesn't work like that. One issue only takes place over 2 days or less. And they end on a cliffhanger resolved in the next issue. And issues take a month to come out. So an entire year's of comic books only takes place over a month or so of their time. So, Spider-Man has been doing his thing for approximately 54 months or 4.5 years. Roughly.
Comic book time doesn't work like that. One issue only takes place over 2 days or less. And they end on a cliffhanger resolved in the next issue. And issues take a month to come out. So an entire year's of comic books only takes place over a month or so of their time. So, Spider-Man has been doing his thing for approximately 54 months or 4.5 years. Roughly.
Plus it's not like it's the first time this happened, or did nobody notice how the original cast in the future scenes of Days of Futures Past looked good for 20 years after X3.
Comic book time doesn't work like that. One issue only takes place over 2 days or less. And they end on a cliffhanger resolved in the next issue. And issues take a month to come out. So an entire year's of comic books only takes place over a month or so of their time. So, Spider-Man has been doing his thing for approximately 54 months or 4.5 years. Roughly.
It does both. Or are you sayin 4.5 years ago new Yorkers drove nothing but 67 Chevys and the like while women wore hairstyles and clothing inspired by Jackie Kennedy as well?
Comic books work on an elastic timeline. Spider-Man's first appearance in 1962 didn't take place in 1962, it took place @5 years ago. The events of that comic are canon but we're supposed to retroactively ignore the anachronisms and pretend it took place in 2011. It's one of those things we're not supposed to look at too closely 
Sliding and compressed timelines. I wonder though, just how long has Franklin Richards been a 5 year old boy? Haha
Kitty Pryde certainly is too young to have seen Star Wars ROTJ in theaters. And Ben and Reed are too young to have served in WW II. Hehe
Idl why Marvel still insists that their entire universe has happened on one timeline. At least with DC you get wibbly, wobbly resets/fresh starts every 20 years or so.
Kitty Pryde certainly is too young to have seen Star Wars ROTJ in theaters. And Ben and Reed are too young to have served in WW II. Hehe
Idl why Marvel still insists that their entire universe has happened on one timeline. At least with DC you get wibbly, wobbly resets/fresh starts every 20 years or so.
But why are the movies forbidden from a compressed timeline? I say why not do it. Have fun and embrace the source material. It only opens up possibilities and something different.
The difference, though, is that Marvel does retcon things as time goes on. Ben Grimm never fought in WW2, Iron Man didn't become Iron Man because of the events of the Cold War, etc. I prefer little retcons of the small details to make events fit over wholesale reboot.
I would say similar (but not necessarily the exact same) frustrations are equally demonstrated with both the Iraqi and Afghan wars, which is why changing Tony Stark's origin works perfectly fine.
Vietnam.
It does show a lack of effort, though.
Even weirder than that, Wolverine is the only one who was aged for DoFP.
Comic books work on an elastic timeline. Spider-Man's first appearance in 1962 didn't take place in 1962, it took place @5 years ago. The events of that comic are canon but we're supposed to retroactively ignore the anachronisms and pretend it took place in 2011. It's one of those things we're not supposed to look at too closely
Actually it's more like 15 years.
*Sigh* Yeah, pretty much. I thought I at least made some half-decent points that would at least merit a more thoughtful response. Instead, all I got was a condescending meme attempting to shut down the debate.
Your points basically boil down to "I don't see anything wrong with this poster, so nobody else should." Total lack of insight or empathy.
I'm against (most) censorship in an actual film, where people have the freedom to choose whether or not to part with their money and go to a screen to see it. Different situation to putting up a potentially frightening or upsetting poster slap bang at the side of a road where people will be confronted with it without their consent.
