Culture (was Is Larry a time traveler/Dimension hopper?)

[Rath Darkblade]

I agree, to some extent. Because for me, it's people telling a spin of (let's say a historical event) where they change a person's color/gender - and to me, that's all it is. Their spin on some historical thing.
Like if they made a movie called "Christina Columbus" - and made it a woman who led the the Spanish Monarchs and did the great big sailing across the ocean, it wouldn't bug me. Even if they changed it up, where she lands, and helps the Indians in some fashion, to make it politically correct. To me - it'd be just a movie.

OK, Tawm. If a film is just entertainment, then how would it be if this so-called "Christina Columbus" showed up in America in a Viper F-16, or in a Dreadnought? She might as well show up on the back of a giant unicorn and be done with it.

Sure, it's not realistic. But hey -- that's entertainment!

I watch PLENTY of shows (one of my favorites, VIKINGS) that are NOWHERE near historically accurate. Whether it's the story being told or the color of people's hair, or how they show specific characters.

The colour of people's hair has nothing to do with historical accuracy. (Well, it does, but it's only a tiny part of it).

For the record, "Vikings" is a blend of history and Norse myth. Most of the things they show in "Vikings" (e.g. the siege of Paris) actually happened. Of course they take some dramatic license with the negotiation scenes, or when the king of Northumbria (or wherever) is talking to Ragnar Lodbrok. But since we don't know who said what and when, all we can do is estimate.

Hell, most of the records we have of the Viking period in English comes from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This is a yearly record of what happened in England, year by year. But:

a) The monks who created it were extremely biased (i.e. anti-Viking); and
b) The Chronicle was created by several monks, working and living independently of each other.
c) So, there are going to be conflicting reports, missing years, and so on. Why? Because monks didn't care about what some political figures said, they only cared about which monastery (or which kingdom) got sacked by the Vikings.

It's fair enough that you watch "Vikings" for entertainment. I've watched it before, after and during reading about the real Vikings; so my reading enhanced my enjoyment of the show. I certainly never paused the show to start screaming "Gah! They got it wrong!! That guy's moustache shouldn't be blonde!!" and so on.

TL:DR -- education and entertainment are not, and should not be, mutually exclusive. i think the more you know (from your reading), the more entertaining a show or film becomes.

For instance, lots of people think knights in full plate armor existed during the Dark Ages, but that's nowhere even close to accurate. The full plate we associate with knights didn't come into effect until the latter half of the late Medieval period, which ended in 1500 CE.

While we're on knights, people think their armor was so heavy they were slow and needed help getting up on a horse, and if they were knocked down or off a horse, they couldn't get back up. None of that is correct.

Knights, in full plate, were extremely fast and maneuverable. You could literally do cartwheels and run an obstacle course in full plate.

Full plate only weighed about 35 to 55 lbs, which sounds like a lot until you realize it was distributed all over their body (so it didn't feel particularly heavy) and knights began their training when they were seven years old, so they were used to it! For reference, the average infantry soldier in 2021 carries more weight than that (about 100 lbs, but some Marines have claimed as much as 200 lbs) on his back and waist.

Now why does the public believe that BS about knights? Because they've seen that crap in media.

Sigh. I wish I could disagree, but you're absolutely right, DPX. Knights in the Dark Ages -- well, let's start again. Knights didn't even exist in the Dark Ages (although it depends on which part of Europe you're talking about, and what period!)

Regardless, knights as we imagine them - i.e. "heavy" warriors who use their weight, and the weight of their horses, to punch a hole through the enemy lines - simply did not exist in the Dark Ages until the reign of Charlemagne (late 8th century to start of 9th). Before that, warriors used horses to get to the battlefield, but dismounted to fight on foot. (Even as late as the Battle of Tours, when the Umayyad Caliphate invaded Europe through Spain and into France, the French warrior Charles Martel's army was mostly infantry).

Why did things change? Because of the invention (or adoption) of the stirrup in Europe, at some point in the 9th century. The stirrup, plus bridles and bits, allowed a mounted warrior to control his steed and deliver a much harder blow. The mounted knight was the tank of his period, but even tanks have weaknesses.

As for why people believe that heavy armour slowed knights down ... I blame RPGs (sorry, Tawm) -- in particular, the Elder Scrolls series. In this series, "heavy" armour is much, much heavier than "light" armour. It gets to the point where if you carry enough of it, you either can't move at all or you move slower. What a bunch of crap!

For the record, I tried wearing some "heavy" armour. For instance, I visited the Household Cavalry Museum in London, where you can try on the breastplate and helmet of a cavalryman in the Household Cavalry. (Pictures at the site). The cuirass and helmet were a little heavy to start with, but even I - not a trained warrior at all - could walk around in them etc., and after a while they felt very comfortable. Of course, that's nowhere near like being a horseman, and I don't pretend to be one. But it's a start!

And it's more than that!

On social media, there are people who're insisting that Cleopatra VII was black because Egypt is in Africa. This completely ignores historical and geographical details that are important to the time period, person and place, not the least of which is that Cleopatra was not Egyptian, she was Greek. Cleopatra was part of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which was created by Ptolemy, one of the generals who served under Alexander the Great.

According to these nutcases, do you know who's also black? Mozart! Yeah... Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was born on January 27, 1756 in Salzburg in the Holy Roman Empire. I can't even begin to imagine the mental gymnastics that one required to think up.

So given enough time and general lack of education (especially when it comes to history), how long do you think it'll be before we have a generation of people who would seriously think "Christina Columbus" is a real person or that Henry VIII was a black man?

Sigh! of course Cleopatra VII was not black. She was the descendant of Greeks; it's on her coins, for heaven's sake. Here is one, from Macquarie University (Brisbane, Australia):



She looks more like my grandma! Cleopatra was no famous beauty, either. Her critics - influential Roman writers and politicians - accused her of "using her beauty" to "cast a spell" on Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, but that's rubbish.

On the other hand, Cleopatra was a shrewd and ruthless politician, and a tough negotiator. She may have been Greek, but as the ruler of a multi-ethnic kingdom that included Greeks, Egyptians, Jews and Armenians, she knew the value of good PR. So she dressed up as an Egyptian Queen to appeal to her Egyptian subjects, and as a Greek matriarch to appeal to the Greeks. Common sense, really.

These simple truths make her a much more complicated - and more interesting - person than the simplistic "BUT SHE WAS BLACK!!!" argument. :rolleyes:

As for Mozart being black ... ow! I almost broke my brain trying to figure out how that can be true. This argument may have come about because of Joseph Boulogne and his so-called nickname, The Black Mozart. But Mozart himself had distinctly German and Austrian ancestors. He most definitely was not black!

[Tawmis]

The difference is fanfic is meant to be a creative exercise, not a commercial endeavor. Doing whatever the author wants is something to fun to do, but not something to produce as an actual product.

Well if I had the means, I'd produce some of the things I'd written that belonged to other properties (such as He-Man, for example).

I'd agree with you IF people weren't stupid, but they are and they see media that was meant purely as entertainment and believe it's historically accurate.
People do this ALL the time with all sorts of historical information simply because they show something in a movie or a show.

If the argument is about the stupidity of people (and I lump myself in there for a lot of categories!), I certainly would never argue against it.
I completely understand how people can see something and accept that it's how it went down. Without a doubt.

So given enough time and general lack of education (especially when it comes to history), how long do you think it'll be before we have a generation of people who would seriously think "Christina Columbus" is a real person or that Henry VIII was a black man?

There's always going to be a (wide) collection of people, who will be on the side of ignorance.
Whether it's about history or science.
That's why I was saying I'd never argue about the ignorance of people.

We're talking about a universe where people have all sorts of fantastical powers and abilities, time travel, alien invasions and so forth, and age is the unrealistic part? Seriously?
As a comics fan, I'm sure you're aware that Magneto has been de-aged before in the comics, so they could do something similar in the movies. Compared to all the other crazy stuff that goes in the Marvel universe, reducing someone's age doesn't seem that weird or unrealistic to me.
They could even blame it on the Infinity Stones and make up some BS about what happened between the Avengers and Thanos and how that did something and reverted Magneto to a young man. Why not? Apparently the Infinity Stones didn't just kill 50% of the population, they also brought them all back, so who's to say everything worked perfectly?

Oh, I am aware how Magneto's been de-aged, once down to an infant even.
But I am not saying those were good stories, or good ideas either.
But what I am saying is - I don't see too much concern to making a "less complicated" by introducing some wild de-aged story, just to keep it "comic accurate."
There has not been a single movie - a single movie - super hero wise - that is even CLOSE to how the comics go, story wise.
The Avengers movie - yes, Loki was responsible inadvertently - for creating the Avengers. But in the comics? Totally different story. Cap wasn't even in the Marvel Comics yet!
So them making changes, as long as it fits, it's entertaining, has not bothered me.

For Nick Fury, he was also African American in the ULTIMATES universe of comics, which had met with considerable success back then - which is why, they made "616" (Normal Marvel Comics) Nick Fury, "fake his death" (then really died, then faked again?) - and brought in the other Nick Fury who is Fury's son (introduced in a series called "Battle Scars" where his son would go on to lose an eye as well - how convenient!)
For Photon, it's jarring - but if you make it through Captain Marvel, she starts as a kid, but the movie also goes through phrases of time (you see her at age of 5 when it's in the 1980's) - so she's in her early 30's which sits about right with how she appeared in WandaVision.
And the Fantastic Four movie, you can't count that in the list - it's not MCU. It's like including the X-Men movies!

I didn't say MCU, I said "Marvel movies and TV shows." That includes ALL of the Marvel properties, including those that were originally owned by other entities. And ever since Disney bought 20th Century Fox, they own the X-Men as well, so it's only a matter of time before they get absorbed into the MCU itself anyway.

Well, then that would include the X-Men movies where most of the cast was white. Except for Storm.

Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?

Same thing as everything else.

Worse. Line. Ever.

As for the Fantastic Four, that version will not be absorbed into MCU. New FF movie, all new cast, is coming from MCU proper.

OK, Tawm. If a film is just entertainment, then how would it be if this so-called "Christina Columbus" showed up in America in a Viper F-16, or in a Dreadnought? She might as well show up on the back of a giant unicorn and be done with it.
Sure, it's not realistic. But hey -- that's entertainment!

I, myself, don't see gender swapping the same as the extreme of a Viper F-16 or Dreadnaught or a giant unicorn....
However, that said, I did enjoy Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, so who knows!

TL:DR -- education and entertainment are not, and should not be, mutually exclusive. i think the more you know (from your reading), the more entertaining a show or film becomes.

I've probably not read anything NEAR as much as you've read - you seem very, very, very educated and very well read.
However, not having read all the history about VIKINGS didn't prevent me from immensely enjoying the show. (To this day, probably still my favoritest show ever)
My wife has never read The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings - but she enjoyed Lord of the Rings. I'd never read Harry Potter, and immensely enjoyed those.
So yes, folks should educate themselves on historical stuff to make sure they're not misguided by what's on TV/Movies; but I wouldn't say it's required to enjoy a show.
(Not to say Harry Potter or Hobbit/Lord of the Rings are historical - only that they were enjoyed without reading the books behind it)

As for why people believe that heavy armour slowed knights down ... I blame RPGs (sorry, Tawm) -- in particular, the Elder Scrolls series. In this series, "heavy" armour is much, much heavier than "light" armour. It gets to the point where if you carry enough of it, you either can't move at all or you move slower. What a bunch of crap!

Pfft, no need to say sorry!
In D&D heavy armor just means a negative to stealth checks.

And it's more than that!
On social media, there are people who're insisting that Cleopatra VII was black because Egypt is in Africa. This completely ignores historical and geographical details that are important to the time period, person and place, not the least of which is that Cleopatra was not Egyptian, she was Greek. Cleopatra was part of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which was created by Ptolemy, one of the generals who served under Alexander the Great.
According to these nutcases, do you know who's also black? Mozart! Yeah... Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was born on January 27, 1756 in Salzburg in the Holy Roman Empire. I can't even begin to imagine the mental gymnastics that one required to think up.
So given enough time and general lack of education (especially when it comes to history), how long do you think it'll be before we have a generation of people who would seriously think "Christina Columbus" is a real person or that Henry VIII was a black man?

Sigh! of course Cleopatra VII was not black. She was the descendant of Greeks; it's on her coins, for heaven's sake. Here is one, from Macquarie University (Brisbane, Australia):

She looks more like my grandma!

She looks like George Washington on the Quarter to me.

[DeadPoolX]

As for why people believe that heavy armour slowed knights down ... I blame RPGs (sorry, Tawm) -- in particular, the Elder Scrolls series. In this series, "heavy" armour is much, much heavier than "light" armour. It gets to the point where if you carry enough of it, you either can't move at all or you move slower. What a bunch of crap!

I think it actually stems from Laurence Olivier's Henry V, where it was depicted as "fact" that armored knights required cranes to get onto their horses. The funny thing is they actually had historians as consultants on the movie and they objected to the idea that "armor was so heavy it required a crane to mount a horse." Naturally, the director and lead actor ignored the historians, which makes me wonder why they were even there in the first place.

Anyway... it's just one example of the "if I see it in media, it must be true!" mentality many people have about all sorts of things, past and present.

As an example: If I had a dollar for all the times I had to debunk the firearm usage and details relating to firearms to people who obviously know little-to-nothing about guns whatsoever, I'd be a wealthy person.

Oh, I am aware how Magneto's been de-aged, once down to an infant even.
But I am not saying those were good stories, or good ideas either.
But what I am saying is - I don't see too much concern to making a "less complicated" by introducing some wild de-aged story, just to keep it "comic accurate."
There has not been a single movie - a single movie - super hero wise - that is even CLOSE to how the comics go, story wise.
The Avengers movie - yes, Loki was responsible inadvertently - for creating the Avengers. But in the comics? Totally different story. Cap wasn't even in the Marvel Comics yet!
So them making changes, as long as it fits, it's entertaining, has not bothered me.

My point is that I find it offensive (borderline anti-Semitic, actually) on multiple levels that some people see nothing wrong with erasing the single instance of a Jewish person in a comic book-related film series, especially when there are multiple instances of black characters.

That said... the ONLY way I could ever tolerate Magneto being of any other background (but in this case we'll go with a black man since that's where the push is coming from) is if the film started out with an older Magneto in the 1980s who then either has a kid with a black woman OR adopts a black kid (maybe he found him in a warzone after his parents were killed or after some race riot or something).

Whatever the case, Magneto teaches this kid his views on mutant/human relations and raises the kid Jewish (there have been black Jews before; most converted, but some were still born into it). At puberty the kid begins showing signs of magnetic mutant powers.

The kid doesn't want to be a mutant, though, so he hides it and joins the military. He serves and comes back with PTSD, and while recovering, there's a big anti-mutant event that occurs and culminates with the original Magneto's death. This is the final straw for the kid who then, in anger at the world and the death of his father, takes up the role of Magneto.

Obviously, that's at best a rough draft and there are many details to hash out, BUT... it shows respect to the original character, it includes Magneto's ideology, his Jewish roots and that culture being passed down to his son (blood-related or adopted), and passes the baton to a new person who happens to be an African American man.

Unfortunately, I doubt they'd ever do anything close to that and instead just give a big middle finger to the original character.

[Rath Darkblade]

TL:DR -- education and entertainment are not, and should not be, mutually exclusive. i think the more you know (from your reading), the more entertaining a show or film becomes.

I've probably not read anything NEAR as much as you've read - you seem very, very, very educated and very well read.
However, not having read all the history about VIKINGS didn't prevent me from immensely enjoying the show. (To this day, probably still my favoritest show ever)
My wife has never read The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings - but she enjoyed Lord of the Rings. I'd never read Harry Potter, and immensely enjoyed those.
So yes, folks should educate themselves on historical stuff to make sure they're not misguided by what's on TV/Movies; but I wouldn't say it's required to enjoy a show.
(Not to say Harry Potter or Hobbit/Lord of the Rings are historical - only that they were enjoyed without reading the books behind it)

Fair enough. I haven't read anywhere near all about the Vikings when I watched the show, but I did read about their invasions of England, and about Norse mythology. So I enjoyed the show, because it was pretty obvious they'd done their research.

I hadn't read LOTR when I watched the movies, but they inspired me to read the books in the first place.

You're right -- of course people don't HAVE to educate themselves on historical stuff, just to enjoy a show. I just think you can enjoy it more when you can watch a show and say "Good on them! They know what they're talking about", or "Pfft, they don't know jack."

As for why people believe that heavy armour slowed knights down ... I blame RPGs (sorry, Tawm) -- in particular, the Elder Scrolls series. In this series, "heavy" armour is much, much heavier than "light" armour. It gets to the point where if you carry enough of it, you either can't move at all or you move slower. What a bunch of crap!

I think it actually stems from Laurence Olivier's Henry V, where it was depicted as "fact" that armored knights required cranes to get onto their horses. The funny thing is they actually had historians as consultants on the movie and they objected to the idea that "armor was so heavy it required a crane to mount a horse." Naturally, the director and lead actor ignored the historians, which makes me wonder why they were even there in the first place.

Anyway... it's just one example of the "if I see it in media, it must be true!" mentality many people have about all sorts of things, past and present.

As an example: If I had a dollar for all the times I had to debunk the firearm usage and details relating to firearms to people who obviously know little-to-nothing about guns whatsoever, I'd be a wealthy person.

Yikes. I'd never seen this film. But In Hollywood "swashbuckler" films of the Errol Flynn variety, the "hero" had no problem disarming and capering around castle guards, who are next to useless in their unwieldy armor. I also saw cartoon characters like Goofy and Bugs Bunny jousting against armoured opponents -- who are simply giant clanking furnaces. What a crock.

But you're right, DPX: just because it's in the media, doesn't mean it's true.

My point is that I find it offensive (borderline anti-Semitic, actually) on multiple levels that some people see nothing wrong with erasing the single instance of a Jewish person in a comic book-related film series, especially when there are multiple instances of black characters.

I'm sorry to have to ask this, but ... why is Magneto being changed to be black, again? What's the problem with him being a Jewish Holocaust survivor? I don't get it.

All right, I don't know much about his background in Marvel. But I googled him and looked him up -- apparently he'd been in Auschwitz (yikes!), and even after he escaped, people distrusted him to the point of beating him -- and worse, much worse. I don't blame him for becoming an antagonist (i.e. Lord of Genosha, etc.) It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for him to suddenly become black.

That said... the ONLY way I could ever tolerate Magneto being of any other background (but in this case we'll go with a black man since that's where the push is coming from) is if the film started out with an older Magneto in the 1980s who then either has a kid with a black woman OR adopts a black kid (maybe he found him in a warzone after his parents were killed or after some race riot or something).

Whatever the case, Magneto teaches this kid his views on mutant/human relations and raises the kid Jewish (there have been black Jews before; most converted, but some were still born into it). At puberty the kid begins showing signs of magnetic mutant powers.

The kid doesn't want to be a mutant, though, so he hides it and joins the military. He serves and comes back with PTSD, and while recovering, there's a big anti-mutant event that occurs and culminates with the original Magneto's death. This is the final straw for the kid who then, in anger at the world and the death of his father, takes up the role of Magneto.

Obviously, that's at best a rough draft and there are many details to hash out, BUT... it shows respect to the original character, it includes Magneto's ideology, his Jewish roots and that culture being passed down to his son (blood-related or adopted), and passes the baton to a new person who happens to be an African American man.

Unfortunately, I doubt they'd ever do anything close to that and instead just give a big middle finger to the original character.

Hmm, that actually makes sense. IIRC, the original Magneto was never in a relationship (although he loved a gypsy girl called Magda), but if it's possible to somehow justify the relationship and make it believable, then I'd buy it.

[Tawmis]

My point is that I find it offensive (borderline anti-Semitic, actually) on multiple levels that some people see nothing wrong with erasing the single instance of a Jewish person in a comic book-related film series, especially when there are multiple instances of black characters.

I'm sorry to have to ask this, but ... why is Magneto being changed to be black, again? What's the problem with him being a Jewish Holocaust survivor? I don't get it.
All right, I don't know much about his background in Marvel. But I googled him and looked him up -- apparently he'd been in Auschwitz (yikes!), and even after he escaped, people distrusted him to the point of beating him -- and worse, much worse. I don't blame him for becoming an antagonist (i.e. Lord of Genosha, etc.) It makes sense. It doesn't make sense for him to suddenly become black.

I said previously - if they stayed exact to his origin making him a Holocaust Survivor for the movies...

While I agree - you'd need to consider the age of the actor at that point. If they kept Magneto true to being Jewish and survivor of the Concentration Camps - if we say right at the tail end of Concentration Camps of WWII - was around, 1945. If Magneto was BORN in 1945 - he'd be 76 years old. In order to endure the Concentration camps - he'd need to have been a part of it, say for 5 years? So in there since 1940 - when he was born - released, 1945 - now, if the movie takes place in modern times, Magneto is now an 81 year old man.

So I can see why they would shift it to something else. Probably a black man who was in the Gulf War, who was a prisoner - so Gulf War is 1991, say he was 18 when he went in - now it's modern times - now the actor is 48 years old. Far more reasonable to think a 48 year old super villain is a threat, rather than an 81 year old.

So that was what I was imagining. I am not saying that's what they were doing (since we don't know anything about the upcoming movie - we may be debating Magneto being "black" for the movie for no reason... since zero information about the X-Men MCU movies has been released)

Oh, I am aware how Magneto's been de-aged, once down to an infant even.
But I am not saying those were good stories, or good ideas either.
But what I am saying is - I don't see too much concern to making a "less complicated" by introducing some wild de-aged story, just to keep it "comic accurate."
There has not been a single movie - a single movie - super hero wise - that is even CLOSE to how the comics go, story wise.
The Avengers movie - yes, Loki was responsible inadvertently - for creating the Avengers. But in the comics? Totally different story. Cap wasn't even in the Marvel Comics yet!
So them making changes, as long as it fits, it's entertaining, has not bothered me.

My point is that I find it offensive (borderline anti-Semitic, actually) on multiple levels that some people see nothing wrong with erasing the single instance of a Jewish person in a comic book-related film series, especially when there are multiple instances of black characters.
That said... the ONLY way I could ever tolerate Magneto being of any other background (but in this case we'll go with a black man since that's where the push is coming from) is if the film started out with an older Magneto in the 1980s who then either has a kid with a black woman OR adopts a black kid (maybe he found him in a warzone after his parents were killed or after some race riot or something).
Whatever the case, Magneto teaches this kid his views on mutant/human relations and raises the kid Jewish (there have been black Jews before; most converted, but some were still born into it). At puberty the kid begins showing signs of magnetic mutant powers.
The kid doesn't want to be a mutant, though, so he hides it and joins the military. He serves and comes back with PTSD, and while recovering, there's a big anti-mutant event that occurs and culminates with the original Magneto's death. This is the final straw for the kid who then, in anger at the world and the death of his father, takes up the role of Magneto.
Obviously, that's at best a rough draft and there are many details to hash out, BUT... it shows respect to the original character, it includes Magneto's ideology, his Jewish roots and that culture being passed down to his son (blood-related or adopted), and passes the baton to a new person who happens to be an African American man.
Unfortunately, I doubt they'd ever do anything close to that and instead just give a big middle finger to the original character.

If the concern is that removing Magneto from being Jewish is "borderline anti-semantic" - how would you feel, if the avoid the de-aging thing for the movies - if Magneto was just Jewish, no Concentration Camp story - but maybe his family before him was - and that's why he's the way that he is?

(Honestly, I wonder if most Jewish people don't want Magneto to be Jewish - because now Jewish are being seen as this villain/anti-human mutant).

[DeadPoolX]

Yikes. I'd never seen this film. But In Hollywood "swashbuckler" films of the Errol Flynn variety, the "hero" had no problem disarming and capering around castle guards, who are next to useless in their unwieldy armor. I also saw cartoon characters like Goofy and Bugs Bunny jousting against armoured opponents -- who are simply giant clanking furnaces. What a crock.

But you're right, DPX: just because it's in the media, doesn't mean it's true.

I've complained about the uselessness of armor in movies and TV shows to Maia many times. Why wear it if a single sword slice or stab will kill you just as easily as if you were wearing nothing at all?

I think armor in media is really just shorthand for a character's role and in this respect it has the same purpose as everyday clothing.

The one instance I've seen of armor actually acting like armor in modern media is, oddly enough, in The Mandalorian. For reference, I haven't actually SEEN the show, just clips on YouTube, although Maia and I are looking at subscribing to Disney+ to see it.

Anyway... in The Mandalorian, the main character wears a full suit of sci-fi armor and he's shot at close range by someone else holding a blaster. The shot makes him slightly stagger, but does nothing at all to his armor and leaves him completely unharmed. Within the Star Wars universe, this is how armor should work, as opposed to whatever that useless crap is that stormtroopers wear where a single blaster shot kills them.

If the concern is that removing Magneto from being Jewish is "borderline anti-semantic" - how would you feel, if the avoid the de-aging thing for the movies - if Magneto was just Jewish, no Concentration Camp story - but maybe his family before him was - and that's why he's the way that he is?

I guess that'd work, although honestly both this idea and the idea I wrote about before take a backseat to simply de-aging Magneto. There's something that just makes sense for him to be the way he is because of what he personally experienced, as opposed to being a generation or two removed.

For exmaple... my grandfather fought in World War 2 as I'm sure most of our grandfathers probably did. He was involved in the Ardennes Offensive (better known as the "Battle of the Bulge") and considering the war ended when he was just 21, I can't even imagine the horrors he witnessed and experienced. When I was 21, I barely counted as a human being capable of even pretending to act like an adult.

My point here is that I can listen to stories, read books, and watch documentaries all day and night long and while I can learn about the war and grasp it on an intellectual level, I could never understand it the way someone who actually fought in it did. I believe it'd be a similar situation for Magneto having experienced the concentration camps versus learning about them decades later.

(Honestly, I wonder if most Jewish people don't want Magneto to be Jewish - because now Jewish are being seen as this villain/anti-human mutant).

It never bothered me because Magneto is often presented as a tragic figure who's become a villain through circumstance and his efforts to prevent what happened to Jews in the 1940s also happening to mutants in "present day." He's one of those characters who can we read about or watch and think, "I disagree with his actions, but I can understand why he's doing them and where this fear is coming from."

Magneto, out of many anti-heroes/villains (because let's face it, he's been both and so have some other villains) at least has a good reason for his viewpoint and psychological trauma, as opposed to say... Doctor Doom who's entire shtick is "I performed an experiment that blew up in my face and gave me a tiny scar, but I'm so self-absorbed and arrogant it makes me hate myself and I'm going to blame Reed Richards because he's at least as smart as me, and maybe smarter, but there's no way my ego could handle recognizing that!"

This isn't to say that Magneto doesn't have an ego. He does and in fact, this is the primary reason why he seems to lose (other than plot armor tropes) against the X-Men because his power levels and complete control over the entire electro-magnetic spectrum makes him almost god-like in the comics. Granted, they drastically reduced his power levels in the movies (probably because it's easier for the audience to understand the concept of "magnetism equals moving metal" even though this isn't entirely accurate as not every form of metal is magnetic), but even so, he was still viewed as one of the most powerful mutants.

On that note, one thing I never understand about X-Men: The Last Stand is he brings Jean Grey (who's been taken over by the Phoenix entity at that point) to a forest to... I don't know, train her or monologue? Not sure, really. Regardless, he brings her to one of the very few places where his powers are virtually useless because in the movies he's limited to moving metal. This always struck me as a dumb move and not something Magneto would've normally done.

[Rath Darkblade]

Anyway... in The Mandalorian, the main character wears a full suit of sci-fi armor and he's shot at close range by someone else holding a blaster. The shot makes him slightly stagger, but does nothing at all to his armor and leaves him completely unharmed. Within the Star Wars universe, this is how armor should work, as opposed to whatever that useless crap is that stormtroopers wear where a single blaster shot kills them.

Sounds about right. By comparison, chain-mail would also stop sword swings from hurting you (though if you survive, the chains would need to be re-linked later). But chain-mail does bugger all against crushing weapons (like maces or war-hammers), or against piercing weapons (e.g. arrows/crossbow bolts).

On another topic, why are Star Wars Stormtroopers such lousy shots? They shoot at the hero all day long and always miss. The hero takes two shots back, and two Stormtroopers fall down.

It even happens if the fight happens in an underground cave or some-such. The Stormtroopers shoot at the ceiling ... and nothing happens. Sheesh! If you shoot at the ceiling, couldn't you dislodge some huge rock to fall and crush the hero to bits? I mean, it wouldn't happen unless the script says so, but ...

On that note, one thing I never understand about X-Men: The Last Stand is he brings Jean Grey (who's been taken over by the Phoenix entity at that point) to a forest to... I don't know, train her or monologue? Not sure, really. Regardless, he brings her to one of the very few places where his powers are virtually useless because in the movies he's limited to moving metal. This always struck me as a dumb move and not something Magneto would've normally done.

As above: it happens because the script says so. =\ Granted, if it was up to Magento, he'd probably say "Whaddayou crazy?! No way am I going someplace where all my powers are suddenly useless!"