I'm glad someone said it.
Gods, I will never stop missing that show.
Just today over lunch I watched the "Rascals" episode of TNG for the first time (I had a haphazard viewing of TNG as a kid, so now I'm watching the whole series in order). In that episode, some Ferengi board the Enterprise and almost succeed at enslaving the crew of the Enterprise, only to be stopped by children.
"Mosasaurus Feeding Show" translates to "incredibly terrifying underwater sequence." Whatever else does or doesn't happen in this film, I think we're going to get along just fine for that bit.
Seriously, though, let's talk about how much Hannibal makes me say, "Anthony who?" on a weekly basis. It is ridiculous and brilliant that Mikkelsen managed to upstage one of the finest performances of villainy in any film, and I hope he gets the credit he deserves for it.
The fact that I can't say First Class was at all a bad movie despite their butchering one of the best written, easiest-to-play-up villains/antiheroes/heroes in the Marvel Universe is a credit to the fact that that movie had some incredible flaws, and yet rose above most of them.
Yep, it's in Deadly Genesis, which was a post-House of M retcon fest in preparation for Ed Brubaker's run on Uncanny X-Men. To recap, basically between the original run and Giant Size X-Men #1 (or something), Xavier sent a group of ill-prepared mutants to the living island Krakoa to rescue the original five X-Men.…
See other responses about how the symbol underscores some totally wacky, incoherent semiotic stuff; that was actually my only point, but folks seemed to have latched on to the LGBT thing.
I'm gay; I patently teach LGBT Studies; I in no way called anything offensive, or claimed anyone would take it as such; in follow-up comments I clarified that finding it offensive would be pretty silly for a lot of reasons. You're projecting, in addition to being pretty all-around angry for no reason. Yell at me (if…
I'm certainly getting the "none-too-happy" part, yes.
So if he gets the Nike swoosh then will he have general athletic prowess or something?
I'm not being anal-retentive about the symbol itself, I'm pointing out that the symbol underscores some pretty poor character design choices (and they're only seeming worse to me as folks fill in the blanks).
See above (or below) for my response about why having culturally-derived mutant powers gets wacky.
So, then, has the tattoo artist patently seen the Silver Age covers (are there analogous "lighting bolts mean psychic powers!" Silver Age comics in the Marvel U?), or does he simply "decide" which symbol connotes what, and in which context? If the symbol is basically arbitrary, then why not just give Ink a tribal…
That makes slightly more sense, but still leaves us with the whole "this power requires a cultural/technological apparatus" to work issue—unless Nunez has some sort of magical tattoo power unto himself, rather than using a tattoo gun?
I get all that, and I was mostly finding problems with the original conception of the character in the comics, but that just makes everything else more complicated. My point overall is that good character design should be more interesting and more nuanced the more you think about it; Ink's powers just kind of fall…
The problem is that it underscores how wacky or poorly-conceived his powers are. Not only do they depend on his having body modifications—and so his living in a culture that has them—but also on whatever vague logic decides which symbol has what meaning and for whom. So, if Ink were told what the biohazard symbol…
Yeah, see that's the thing I still don't get—is it what Ink thought it meant? If so, then why or how does the graphical referent really matter, if it's ultimately subjective?
I don't think it's remotely offensive (and I don't generally care when things are "offensive"), I just think it means an editor somewhere fell asleep on the watch.