Maybe it's cause of the recent leaked news about Omni-Man and Homelander being DLCs in the upcoming Mortal Kombat game, but I am angry at how the Invincible cartoon wrote Omni-Man again.
In the comics, Omni-Man had so much warmth and humanity. He had an actual relationship with his wife and son. He truly was "what if Superman was your dad?"
In the cartoon, almost all of Nolan's conversations with his son was just him training him to be a superhero/conqueror. He wasn't a dad. He was a coach.
The comics had a scene where Mark and Nolan play catch and talking about their day. Nolan gives Mark some fatherly advice about superheroing, but otherwise they're just bonding. Like a family.
The cartoon took that moment and turned it into a "son embrace your destiny so you can find your destiny and embrace your destiny" scene. They don't even look like they're having fun.
The famous scene where Omni-Man kills the Guardians of the Globe happens on issue #7. It wasn't a gory 10-minute sequence, it was three quick pages. (tw mild gore)
The scene was shocking not because it had extravagant animated violence. It was shocking because, at this point, you've gotten to know Omni-Man as a good guy.
Plus, the briefness of the scene effectively demonstrates how powerful he is compared to the other heroes.
Unlike the cartoon, the comic didn't turn the murders into a season-long mystery. We just have moments of Nolan acting suspicious. The comic nudges us to be wary of him, but still lets us give him the benefit of a doubt.
The big reveal was more or less the same, but it hits different because it didn't come from "superman but evil." It came from "superman but he's your dad."
The big fight between Mark and Nolan caused massive collateral damage. But at no point did Nolan was shown deliberately kiling anyone. He's a being with immense power, but he's not a monster. That is important to his story.
They also had this line in the cartoon, but it doesn't work as well because it happened after we saw Nolan deliberately slaughter an entire subway train full of people.
You can argue that Mark is in severe denial during that moment. But in the comics, we the READERS were in as much denial as HE is. Because the comics made us love Omni-Man instead of making him edgy, scary Superman. We didn't WANT him to be a killer.
I watched a youtube reaction video of this moment. When Nolan flew away because he couldn't bear hurting his son, the youtubers were like "Oh no, Omni-Man is gonna smash into Mark from orbit!" And I don't blame them.
That's how much the show ruined his character.
Omni-Man's betrayal felt devastating because we saw how much he meant to the people around him. He was family.
*sigh* of course it fucking was
Anyway, I blame The Boys. Either Amazon or Kirkman saw how big The Boys was and said "we need to turn Omni-Man into Homelander."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People talks in that quippy dialogue way in Marvel movies because those movies couldn't help being reactions to their source material. It's the writers and directors of the film looking at stuff that comic book creators made and said "Really? That's what you're doing?"
But because they're officially branded by Marvel, they blur the lines between the people behind the source material and the people behind the adaptations. To the public, it's Marvel making fun of Marvel.
And the popularity and success of "Marvel making fun of Marvel" results in this trend where creators make fun of their own ideas. Because that's how people in movies talk now.
every time i hear anyone say "adventure games were dead in the 2000s" i think about how phoenix wright games became a global sensation in 2005 and how the only reason for the decline of adventure games was western developers not giving handheld consoles the respect it deserves
some of the replies to this are saying modern adventure games have forgotten what made the classic ones good. but i think the genre's attachment to the classics is WHY they struggled to grow for so long.
we didn't like adventure games because we liked picking up items and using it on other items. we liked them because we liked narrative puzzles. we like experiencing a story and then solving a problem based on what we've learned. that's what made those games fun.
ok i am definitely not here for "people like justin roiland is why we shouldnt put individual creative leads above others in a project" takes. that is what corporations want you to think.
no let's not examine why abuse cases like these tend to be perpetrated by white men and instead blame it on appreciating artists over brands.
"in order to prevent abusers like justin roiland from becoming successful, we need to consider artists to be interchangeable" should not be the takeaway here
ok i saw the first two episodes of velma. i didnt like it, but i also didnt like the first season of harley quinn or lower decks. and now i love those shows. so
if i hear it gets better, i'd give it another shot.
Velma's problem is the opposite of the problem with Star Trek: Lower Decks' first season.
Lower Decks was too excited to be a Star Trek show and had to calm down. Velma despises shows about teenagers and can't do anything that's a given for the genre without rolling its eyes.
It's only the first two episodes, so there's a chance for Velma to become the good version of itself, and I would love to watch that show.
i think one of the worst things you can do to your own mental health is consuming a piece of entertainment for no reason other than to form a hot take on it. anyway im gonna watch velma now.
okay so mindy kaling saw rick and morty and thought "oh, no one can criticize me if I criticize myself first!"
we need a way to ban TV showrunners from accessing tvtropes