Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* This and the below question could be answered by hypothesizing that the writers decided to [[MST3KMantra ignore continuity to tell an interesting story]] that would explore a concept that had previously been utilized in the Marvel Universe, just glossed over.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The funny thing is that both Tony and Carol have previously encountered people with prophetic visions and used them to avert bad futures without issue. Carol herself had precognition herself in the form of her Seventh Sense at one point and used it to change the future without issue. Despite this Tony is against making use of the visions even in extreme and clear-cut circumstances, such as when they show Thanos about to get a Cosmic Cube, making him seem totally unreasonable.
** When Ulysees's powers are revealed to a group of heroes it's treated as some shocking and world-changing event, even though future visions are hardly unusual in the Marvel universe. The level of shock expressed is especially funny because they're standing in the same room as Spiderman, who himself has a form of precognition itself in his Spider Sense (Caine, one of Peter's clones, had a stronger Spider Sense that let him see the future, confirming the prophetic nature of the ability).
** When Ulysees's powers are revealed to a group of heroes it's treated as some shocking and world-changing event, even though future visions are hardly unusual in the Marvel universe. The level of shock expressed is especially funny because they're standing in the same room as Spiderman, who himself has a form of precognition itself in his Spider Sense (Caine, one of Peter's clones, had a stronger Spider Sense that let him see the future, confirming the prophetic nature of the ability).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** As for Destiny, she's been dead for a long time now.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 45 (click to see context) from:
* Why does nobody remember the various time traveling/BadFuture avoiding adventures the various heroes have had and realized that, to quote Yoda, "Always in motion, the future is"? For example, the 'canon' future for 616 Marvel has changed about three times, not to mention Spider-Man's crossovers with the 2099 guy, X-Men's Days of Future Past, and Hulk battling the Maestro. Even after Iron Man points out that Ulysses can only make guesses at the future, people still treat Ulysses as gospel even as they themselves have seen multiple alternate futures and realized they're impossible to truly predict?
to:
* Why does nobody remember the various time traveling/BadFuture avoiding adventures the various heroes have had and realized that, to quote Yoda, "Always in motion, the future is"? For example, the 'canon' future for 616 Marvel has changed about three times, not to mention Spider-Man's crossovers with the 2099 guy, X-Men's Days of Future Past, and Hulk battling the Maestro. Even after Iron Man points out that Ulysses can only make guesses at the future, people still treat Ulysses as gospel even as they themselves have seen multiple alternate futures and realized they're impossible to truly predict?predict?
[[/folder]]
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 42 (click to see context) from:
[[/folder]]
to:
[[folder: "Almost in motion, the future is"]]
* Why does nobody remember the various time traveling/BadFuture avoiding adventures the various heroes have had and realized that, to quote Yoda, "Always in motion, the future is"? For example, the 'canon' future for 616 Marvel has changed about three times, not to mention Spider-Man's crossovers with the 2099 guy, X-Men's Days of Future Past, and Hulk battling the Maestro. Even after Iron Man points out that Ulysses can only make guesses at the future, people still treat Ulysses as gospel even as they themselves have seen multiple alternate futures and realized they're impossible to truly predict?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
to:
* To be fair Banner!Hulk and Cho!Hulk look different enough to tell the difference even from a vague description. It also seems that they hacked into his files before confronting him so they knew the experiments he was doing.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** That also is not a proper use of Occam's Razor, it's about removing irrelevant or meaningless assumptions not about getting rid of as many assumptions as possible. (For example Occam's Razor tells us that its more likely that "Spider-man will kill Captain America" than "Spider-man will kill Captain America AND eat a hotdog that morning" so we remove the irrelevant assumption.) Here the question here is whether it is more likely that Spider-man would murder Captain America for no good reason (which is what everyone seems to assume) or that some other sequence of events would cause that scene to occur. In a comic book universe there are thousands upon thousands of totally innocent explanations including the very obvious scenario where someone else kills Cap and Spider-Man is holding his body because he has gone to check on him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** In the previous X-men: Legacy series, featuring Legion and Blindfold, Blindfold had an end of the world prediction that Legion would somehow destroy everything, absorbing all mutants into himself and become a gigantic monster. Both Legion and Blindfold actively tried to fight this prediction, through their own methods, but in the end Legion had to reboot his own personal timeline to completely prevent anything from happening. He essentially wiped himself from existence, which is probably one reason why he hasn't been seen since. So as for the above, Blindfold did predict a world destroying event, but because Legion wiped himself from existence only after becoming the monster, its arguable if he changed his future or its how it was supposed to be. Another thing to note is Legion and Blindfold largely kept this event secret between themselves, which was why no other hero interfered until it was too late, and Blindfold hasn't really been used since anyway.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
Added DiffLines:
** Might be a scope thing? Perhaps it was also the set of circumstances: perhaps Blindfold didn't come into prominence after the death of someone as connected as Rhodey, nor the complications of the X-Men and Inhuman tensions.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Precognition isn't a new thing.]]
* So, what about other precogs like Blindfold? Destiny? Are we ignoring them? Why hasn't Blindfold caused an event like this to happen?
[[folder: Precognition isn't a new thing.]]
* So, what about other precogs like Blindfold? Destiny? Are we ignoring them? Why hasn't Blindfold caused an event like this to happen?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** That's actually quite likely, as it's been a comic book plot almost since their inception.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 30,31 (click to see context) from:
Let's say you have a vision of Spider-man killing another Marvel hero. How do they know that the Spider-man in the vision isn't a clone, shapeshifter, or the Chameleon in disguise? Let's not forget counterparts from other alternate universes.
to:
* Let's say you have a vision of Spider-man killing another Marvel hero. How do they know that the Spider-man in the vision isn't a clone, shapeshifter, or the Chameleon in disguise? Let's not forget counterparts from other alternate universes.
** There's some subtle implication that when the visions occur, anyone who experiences the vision and is also ''present'' in that vision is experiencing it from thier own point of view, not like an outside camera viewing the scene.
** Also, Occam's Razor comes into play a bit. Which scenario requires the least number of assumptions: that a vision showing Spider-Man is actually showing the ''real'' one, or that the Spider-Man in the vision is an imposter?
** There's some subtle implication that when the visions occur, anyone who experiences the vision and is also ''present'' in that vision is experiencing it from thier own point of view, not like an outside camera viewing the scene.
** Also, Occam's Razor comes into play a bit. Which scenario requires the least number of assumptions: that a vision showing Spider-Man is actually showing the ''real'' one, or that the Spider-Man in the vision is an imposter?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
[[folder: Shapeshifters, clones, and imposters live in their universe]]
to:
[[folder: Shapeshifters, clones, robot doubles, and imposters live in their universe]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Deleted line(s) 29,30 (click to see context) :
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[/folder]]
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Shapeshifters, clones, and imposters live in their universe]]
Let's say you have a vision of Spider-man killing another Marvel hero. How do they know that the Spider-man in the vision isn't a clone, shapeshifter, or the Chameleon in disguise? Let's not forget counterparts from other alternate universes.
[[/folder]]
[[folder: Shapeshifters, clones, and imposters live in their universe]]
Let's say you have a vision of Spider-man killing another Marvel hero. How do they know that the Spider-man in the vision isn't a clone, shapeshifter, or the Chameleon in disguise? Let's not forget counterparts from other alternate universes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25,26 (click to see context) from:
** It wouldn't be the first time the Banner has stopped being the Hulk. They might have gotten enough of a description off-panel to identify it as Banner-Hulk and not Cho-Hulk
to:
** It wouldn't be the first time the Banner has stopped being the Hulk. They might have gotten enough of a description off-panel to identify it as Banner-Hulk and not Cho-Hulk
Cho-Hulk.
** Except, Totally Awesome Hulk #9 shows that Carol then proceeded to bring a crapton of people with guns to Cho's residence in the aftermath while he was grieving for his friend. With the way that Carol is approaching the situation, it feels almost like she was trying to escalate things.
** Except, Totally Awesome Hulk #9 shows that Carol then proceeded to bring a crapton of people with guns to Cho's residence in the aftermath while he was grieving for his friend. With the way that Carol is approaching the situation, it feels almost like she was trying to escalate things.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 25 (click to see context) from:
to:
** It wouldn't be the first time the Banner has stopped being the Hulk. They might have gotten enough of a description off-panel to identify it as Banner-Hulk and not Cho-Hulk
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Yeah Stark is against using him pretty quickly, but note that all of his fears were soon realised. For starters Team Carol was taking it as gospel that Ulysses' visions were completely accurate without any kind of verification or attempt to understand how his visions worked, and the big conflict starts once Carol starts detaining people and detaining them indefinitely based solely on his visions. Tony basically looked at the worst possible outcome from blindly trusting in his visions and it all came true; the visions aren't of the future but rather just an incredibly detailed guess of it and Carol started sliding down the slippery slope and doubled down rather than admit she has made a mistake.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
From the get-go, as soon as they find out what his power is Tony is instantly against the idea of using him, on the ''possibility'' that it could be abused to punish people for crimes they ''might'' commit. Now that would be legitimate reason to oppose it, but they completely jump to that conclusion; Carol isn't looking at Ulysses as a way to prevent any ordinary crime, she's specifically looking to prevent large-scale, end-of-the-world [[RedSkyCrossover Red Sky]] CrisisCrossover events, and never even ''suggests'' using it to arrest badguys. ''Tony'' is the one who brings up the possibility of doing that with it, but even there, the hypothetical he uses, 'arresting Hulk so he doesn't have a baby with Ultron that becomes Hitler' was, besides being idiotically ridiculous, ignored that there's ''far'' more options to prevent such from happening without arresting the would-be perpetrator[[note]]in his case, just telling Hulk not to have a child with Ultron, or, you know, stopping ''Ultron'', an already established threat and so with plenty of cause[[/note]].
to:
From the get-go, as soon as they find out what his power is Tony is instantly against the idea of using him, on the ''possibility'' that it could be abused to punish people for crimes they ''might'' commit. Now that would be legitimate reason to oppose it, but they completely jump to that conclusion; Carol isn't looking at Ulysses as a way to prevent any ordinary crime, she's specifically looking to prevent large-scale, end-of-the-world [[RedSkyCrossover Red Sky]] Sky CrisisCrossover events, and never even ''suggests'' using it to arrest badguys. ''Tony'' is the one who brings up the possibility of doing that with it, but even there, the hypothetical he uses, 'arresting Hulk so he doesn't have a baby with Ultron that becomes Hitler' was, besides being idiotically ridiculous, ignored that there's ''far'' more options to prevent such from happening without arresting the would-be perpetrator[[note]]in his case, just telling Hulk not to have a child with Ultron, or, you know, stopping ''Ultron'', an already established threat and so with plenty of cause[[/note]].cause[[/note]].
Added DiffLines:
Added DiffLines:
Added DiffLines:
** Except they are using it to arrest ordinary people, and people who haven't committed a crime yet. Arguably, using it as a means of preventing horrible incidents isn't wrong (i.e. Thanos), but aside from putting that much pressure on one person (Ulysses), they've shown that he can be wrong. In addition, Tony has shown that he's willing to confer with Captain America so the stupidity of the previous Civil War where he committed equally horrible acts and resulted in a crapload of issues, doesn't happen again. Don't get me wrong, he shouldn't have kidnapped the boy, but they should have studied his powers ahead of time before throwing their faith behind it. As a result Carol has gone into it without actually doing the backup work instead and busting in headfirst, and its bitten her in the ass multiple time because it keeps turning out to be SelfFulfillingProphecy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 17 (click to see context) from:
When Ulysses predicts that Hulk is going to end the world, why do they go to Bruce Banner? Ok, even if Hulk is still in Banner, they know Cho is Hulk at the moment. So why don't they go to him as well. And if the goal is to avoid pissing Bruce off, why the random gun show, yelling about arresting him and general stupidity. That's going to piss him off.
to:
When Ulysses predicts that Hulk is going to end the world, why do they go to Bruce Banner? Ok, even if Hulk is still in Banner, they know Cho is Hulk at the moment. So why don't they go to him as well. And if the goal is to avoid pissing Bruce off, why the random gun show, yelling about arresting him and general stupidity. That's going to piss him off.off.
* Not only that, but the Totally Awesome Hulk book showed that Banner was completely cured. Banner even stressed tested by doing several dangerous and borderline suicidal stunts. In the end, it proved he couldn't Hulk out.
[[/folder]]
* Not only that, but the Totally Awesome Hulk book showed that Banner was completely cured. Banner even stressed tested by doing several dangerous and borderline suicidal stunts. In the end, it proved he couldn't Hulk out.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
[[/folder]]
to:
[[folder: Hulk]]
When Ulysses predicts that Hulk is going to end the world, why do they go to Bruce Banner? Ok, even if Hulk is still in Banner, they know Cho is Hulk at the moment. So why don't they go to him as well. And if the goal is to avoid pissing Bruce off, why the random gun show, yelling about arresting him and general stupidity. That's going to piss him off.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
[[foldercontrol]]
----
[[folder:Tony's stance]]
(Warning, huge-ass rant)
So, prior to release the series looked like it'd probably be better off handling the premise and the two sides sounded like they had equal basis. But, now that the first issue is out, I can't help but think: Is Tony a bloody idiot?
From the get-go, as soon as they find out what his power is Tony is instantly against the idea of using him, on the ''possibility'' that it could be abused to punish people for crimes they ''might'' commit. Now that would be legitimate reason to oppose it, but they completely jump to that conclusion; Carol isn't looking at Ulysses as a way to prevent any ordinary crime, she's specifically looking to prevent large-scale, end-of-the-world [[RedSkyCrossover Red Sky]] CrisisCrossover events, and never even ''suggests'' using it to arrest badguys. ''Tony'' is the one who brings up the possibility of doing that with it, but even there, the hypothetical he uses, 'arresting Hulk so he doesn't have a baby with Ultron that becomes Hitler' was, besides being idiotically ridiculous, ignored that there's ''far'' more options to prevent such from happening without arresting the would-be perpetrator[[note]]in his case, just telling Hulk not to have a child with Ultron, or, you know, stopping ''Ultron'', an already established threat and so with plenty of cause[[/note]].
There's also his argument that its only a 'possible future', rationalising that, as they stopped it, it didn't happen and so wasn't the definite future. Except the reason it didn't happen was ''because of Ulysses' power'' and his prediction; if not for that, it ''would'' have happened. His power isn't 'possible futures' its 'exact future based on the way events are currently unfolding', which is perfectly reasonable to take action to prevent. This isn't really any different than any time they've gotten a warning about a BadFuture that's still preventable; by Tony's logic, the X-Men should have ignored Kate Pryde's warning from the future about Mystique killing Senator Kelly, or any other occasion where time travellers have done the same.
Basically, Tony's entire argument falls completely flat, and any worry he has could have been settled by just establishing a set of guidelines for how to operate with Ulysses (IE, no one is 'punished for crime they didn't commit yet', only use it to ''prevent'' disasters, if someone ''is'' going to cause a crisis ''tell them they're going to do so in order to make them not'', etc). Instead though, he just shuts down the suggestion and walks away, which, fine, would be at least in-character for Tony to be so self-absorbed...
...except previews indicate that he's ''going to kidnap Ulysses to prevent them from using him'', which is just balls-to-the-wall '''stupid'''. Even if he ''did'' think its a bad idea to use Ulysses' power, the actions he's apparently taking to prevent is just childishly stupid. I get that he's probably not thinking rationally given [[spoiler:Rhodey's death]], but the kind of thing he's doing is ''actively breaking the law'' (after all, Ulysses doesn't ''want'' to be kidnapped, and actually seems OK with helping Carol, if terrified at what he sees, meaning he's ignoring Ulysses' consent in this whole debacle rather than letting ''him'' decide if he wants to use his powers or not).
In comparison, look at the ''Civil War'' film in how they handle the controversial action: Cap isn't OK with the Accords, but he doesn't go out of his way to prevent them from being written or anything like that, he just ignores them and refuses to listen to them; he's still breaking the law, but he's not acting like he's unquestionably right about it and, while he disagrees, he doesn't stop Nat or Tony from signing. ''That'' is how adults handle something like this. Tony though, as depicted here? He's acting like he's unquestionably right and no one has the right to disagree, which doesn't make for a good BothSidesHaveAPoint side.
If Tony's ultimately meant to be the badguy here? OK, I accept that Tony's just in the wrong. But if he's actually meant to be the 'hero' here?
[[/folder]]
----
[[folder:Tony's stance]]
(Warning, huge-ass rant)
So, prior to release the series looked like it'd probably be better off handling the premise and the two sides sounded like they had equal basis. But, now that the first issue is out, I can't help but think: Is Tony a bloody idiot?
From the get-go, as soon as they find out what his power is Tony is instantly against the idea of using him, on the ''possibility'' that it could be abused to punish people for crimes they ''might'' commit. Now that would be legitimate reason to oppose it, but they completely jump to that conclusion; Carol isn't looking at Ulysses as a way to prevent any ordinary crime, she's specifically looking to prevent large-scale, end-of-the-world [[RedSkyCrossover Red Sky]] CrisisCrossover events, and never even ''suggests'' using it to arrest badguys. ''Tony'' is the one who brings up the possibility of doing that with it, but even there, the hypothetical he uses, 'arresting Hulk so he doesn't have a baby with Ultron that becomes Hitler' was, besides being idiotically ridiculous, ignored that there's ''far'' more options to prevent such from happening without arresting the would-be perpetrator[[note]]in his case, just telling Hulk not to have a child with Ultron, or, you know, stopping ''Ultron'', an already established threat and so with plenty of cause[[/note]].
There's also his argument that its only a 'possible future', rationalising that, as they stopped it, it didn't happen and so wasn't the definite future. Except the reason it didn't happen was ''because of Ulysses' power'' and his prediction; if not for that, it ''would'' have happened. His power isn't 'possible futures' its 'exact future based on the way events are currently unfolding', which is perfectly reasonable to take action to prevent. This isn't really any different than any time they've gotten a warning about a BadFuture that's still preventable; by Tony's logic, the X-Men should have ignored Kate Pryde's warning from the future about Mystique killing Senator Kelly, or any other occasion where time travellers have done the same.
Basically, Tony's entire argument falls completely flat, and any worry he has could have been settled by just establishing a set of guidelines for how to operate with Ulysses (IE, no one is 'punished for crime they didn't commit yet', only use it to ''prevent'' disasters, if someone ''is'' going to cause a crisis ''tell them they're going to do so in order to make them not'', etc). Instead though, he just shuts down the suggestion and walks away, which, fine, would be at least in-character for Tony to be so self-absorbed...
...except previews indicate that he's ''going to kidnap Ulysses to prevent them from using him'', which is just balls-to-the-wall '''stupid'''. Even if he ''did'' think its a bad idea to use Ulysses' power, the actions he's apparently taking to prevent is just childishly stupid. I get that he's probably not thinking rationally given [[spoiler:Rhodey's death]], but the kind of thing he's doing is ''actively breaking the law'' (after all, Ulysses doesn't ''want'' to be kidnapped, and actually seems OK with helping Carol, if terrified at what he sees, meaning he's ignoring Ulysses' consent in this whole debacle rather than letting ''him'' decide if he wants to use his powers or not).
In comparison, look at the ''Civil War'' film in how they handle the controversial action: Cap isn't OK with the Accords, but he doesn't go out of his way to prevent them from being written or anything like that, he just ignores them and refuses to listen to them; he's still breaking the law, but he's not acting like he's unquestionably right about it and, while he disagrees, he doesn't stop Nat or Tony from signing. ''That'' is how adults handle something like this. Tony though, as depicted here? He's acting like he's unquestionably right and no one has the right to disagree, which doesn't make for a good BothSidesHaveAPoint side.
If Tony's ultimately meant to be the badguy here? OK, I accept that Tony's just in the wrong. But if he's actually meant to be the 'hero' here?
[[/folder]]
