Too old?

No. Too rich? Yes.

I mean that's just wrong but ok.

I'd take as many seasons as I can get if the 3 part arcs stay this solid.

I haven't played it yet so can't comment but it seems like needlessly edgy and pseudo-deep from my outside view....which I get why a bunch of teens would think it's a masterpiece. I'll have to wait till I play it to weigh in.

I think that's partly the case but at the same time hamstringing the plot into this overarching narrative has been the main issue I've had with Phase 5. You have to stop the drama to go and introduce this new hero and give them an origin or talk about it.

It's just lame because it undermines the new character and the media they are in.

They did that before but we lived to see it come to fruition in later phases.

Imo, just introing another Thanos wouldn't keep people watching...been there done that.

If Kang is bigger than just Quantumania then maybe they can pull it off but Kang is a deep cut villain mostly as a bit in the animated media.

They can still space content to be regularly available.

The problem is that there were periods that 2-3 shows were going at a time from both.

And 2 of the 3 were bad.

Clone Wars writing was like 60% terrible so idk how it can be that much worse.

Which sucks because half their problem is the built relationship fans have with the core saga.

If they moved on past it in the timeline the ability to undermine desire would be a lot less.

I'm hoping Andor gets renewed and maintained as a passion project because it's the only prestige thing to come out of Star Wars since the Disney acquisition. It's the only meaningful fuckin thing come out of Star Wars since TLJ....only less controversial because it doesn't involve the franchises favorite Marty Stu.

I thought we got like....2 good ones and 1 meh one out of this phase.

I just think standards are higher because that's about my opinion of every phase but like...3 and 4.

I trust James Gunn on Guardians....the problem is I just don't trust Marvel as a machine to do much of anything with their movies except cut half of it out to plug a new character.

What happened to solo movies?

All these new heroes are getting these forced origin stories in the middle of a plot that has nothing to do with them...which undermines their character and origin AND the movie they are in.

Honestly TLJ is the second best thing Disney has made besides Andor...so maybe they need more of that and less of the childish nostalgia bait low brain garbage being peddled through the TV shows. Favreau made 2 good episodes in the Mando pilot and got praised and now entire quality of all the shows has nosedived until Andor somehow pulled a miracle and ended up the best Star wars media since Empire.

It's not about quantity it's about the lack of quality control.

If all the shows were like Andor nobody would have a problem...but half of Mando is unwatchable. Most of Boba was unwatchable nostalgia bait and both shows have a specific need to recreate western tropes with zero twist.

Marvel is pretty much the same problem only more concentrated on the specific problem of story fatigue.

And it's not that I don't like superhero movies anymore...the formula is pretty universal. I don't like how modern marvel still needs to push plots and new characters in the middle of movies that have nothing to do with them...massively constraining the creative heights allowed in the very wacky setting.

Did I like Riri Williams in Wakanda Forever? Sure. Did I need her or Ross to be in the movie? No. Could the movie have improved with more time dedicated to the villain? Yes. Not to mention the plot was rather identical in structure to the first one with an early movie car chase into an action standoff during a pitched medieval style open area battle...aka...its not allowed to be fully creative.

Pretty much all my issues with 90% of marvel content stems from these side elements being placed into the movie arbitrary to the core dilemma and story. The moments where my brain has to switch off became I guess X character is being plugged because they are going to be in a new movie or tv show soon.

The only ones I've genuinely enjoyed did very little of this or were just so strong storytelling wise I got over it. Wandavision, Thor: Love and Thunder, Shang Chi, etc.

I disagree...I think it's about class. Not because there are not women like Elizabeth. To phrase it shortly...there weren't women like Elizabeth...in the same class as Darcy, they were not taught to be educated and independent minded. They were taught to agree with their husband, play music, be beautiful, and be docile but competitive to their own sex to defend the reputation of their husbands. Lizzy knows this, she knows why she is a fish out of water, and she points this out to Darcy in a veiled demeaning statement about his "friends".

That the circumstance of womenhood that I imagine Austen was critiquing in her own life was just something predictably not Lizzy. I don't think she saw herself as anything but another middle income girl who read a lot of books probably at the end of her families wealth climb and her sister hopefully marrying someone rich so she can be prosperous. She likely does not feel she has value outside her intelligence due to the shadow of her sister and the way society sees them. I don't think she thinks she is "not like other girls" but she knows Darcy doesn't have the chance to be around other girls....and her breed in general IS RARE...because of the state of opinion at the time around women and education.

Whereas I think the modern context of "not like other girls" is just different. It's not about class, it's about narcissism and lack of awareness, in a time period where MOST GIRLS in the context these women are "othering" themselves...are very much just like them, only aesthetically chose something else. IE: Anime instead of Reality tv, books instead of social skills, etc. Generally superficial things that don't denote intelligence or substance of person.

I think she merely mentions women in the context of courting not as if other women are different. She's specifically assuming he's only courted other rich women from established families who were groomed in a manner as objects to be used as currency in familial exchanges and made to be desirable in obtuse ways...flattery and charisma over intelligence, wit, and tact.

Elizabeth is from a minor family...her parents didn't intend or teach her to flatter and kowtow to men because they have a different context and she wouldn't gain much of it and they really didn't NEED her to be anything, they had MANY daughters. Hence, she assumes Darcy likely has never interacted with a women like her because he likely doesn't talk to lower class people AND CERTAINLY would not ever be assumed to be courted by anyone but someone close to his class and stature...let alone a women who was allowed into her fathers study to educate herself.

She was born in a house of women and not the eldest of middle income (possibly lower-middle even though the middle class barely existed and wealth disparity and lifestyle between "upper" and "lower" was an insurmountable chasm). Their family didn't raise her in that way and allowed her the rights of a man (to read and enjoy education fully) because the rules of society really didn't much apply to them in the same way with the same weight. So to meet a girl like her was likely exceedingly rare for Darcy and hence his general distaste and distrust in their initial encounters. He's jaded. She knows it.

The TikTok body count is rising y'all

Honestly, sometimes, I think authors just want characters to have fixations that they can derive character out of if they are obsessive and the obsession probably has more to do with the Authors actual brand of personal knowledge.

Like, William Gibson made his character in Pattern Recognition know clothing dramatically well....but I just think he personally had that specific obsession and used it because it didn't cost him time for research.

This is some creeper shit. Burn it with fire. We have sexualization of Jessica Alba likely against her desire but was pressured into it. Then you have a minor in the mix? What the fuck was wrong with Hollywood. Fuckin barbarians.

I really don't see anything here but a label that still applies.

New agents. New children. New ai...AI is still Intelligence.

Given one instance applies to any function that fits it I don't see how something that works for civil rights in the ,60s doesn't work for general systems in many situations.

It was in theaters for DECADES

This seems like a lot of complex words to say something you could say in a sentence that everyone already agrees with. Young people are agents of change because they do not adopt the privileges of the system. Working into a system inherently asks you to question it. This is a recurring basic element of any system.