u/StonksandBongss

I've been reading through an old thread from r/explainlikeimfive on false vacuum decay and it's potential effects on matter throughout the known universe should it occur. If it's possible that this decay has occurred before, we live in the resulting state in matter. It's something that could theoretically occur again at any given moment and would be instantaneous. While reading this stuff, I'm constantly wondering if this potentially has any connection to the big bang?

A huge release of energy from a single particle, resulting in a chain reaction between any other particles in the proximity sounds a lot like the big bang to my non-physicist brain.

Firstly, It's not my intention to shame the folks that enjoyed the movie. If you felt it was entertaining, don't let me rain on your parade, this is just my opinion. Anyway, I was honestly shocked at how horrible the movie was. Going in, I had no expectations of the movie whatsoever. But it was so much worse than I ever could've anticipated. I felt almost insulted as an audience member and long-time fan of the series. As bad as the ending was for Game of Thrones, I never felt as offended by the writing decisions as I did with The Immortal Man.

Season 6

I understand Helen McCrory's death had a major impact on the initial plans for the series ending. While I believe it's a valid explanation for underwhelming parts of season 6, it holds no weight as an excuse for why the movie sucked so much. I have certain gripes with season 6 as well, but it was still a far better product than the movie.

Season 6 was ultimately about grief/mourning, I thought it was a beautiful illustration of how much the show lost with Helen's passing. Seeing Tommy be fundamentally changed by Polly's death, it truly felt like part of him died when she did.

Why are we going back to the self-isolating melodrama?

I know the reasons Tommy is back to being a hermit in the beginning of the movie is due to what happened between him and Arthur. I'll get into that blunder later. Regardless of the justification the movie has, this depressed melodrama is something the show has done a couple times before and it just feels super overdone at this point.

Tommy's growing political power was one of the fundamental story elements of the show in later seasons. Yet, for some reason, it's completely absent in the movie which should arguably be the MOST politically involved considering it takes place on the cusp of WWII.

By this point, Tommy should essentially be the (red) right hand of Churchill himself. Instead, the writers decided the story would be more entertaining if Tommy was an agoraphobic shut-in and his previous involvement intelligence gathering/sabotage of the fascist movement is totally forgotten.

Where are any of the fascist characters from Season 6? Mosley was one of the most interesting antagonists in the series, but barely even gets a mention in the movie at all. If he was killed by this point, wouldn’t that be something at least worth mentioning? That entire Jack Nelson/Mosley plot line was abandoned in the movie, as well as every other plot line from Season 6 except for Duke.

Since when does Duke have an Aunt?

So IIRC Esme never explicitly states that Duke doesn't have any immediate family left, it's heavily implied in the conversation with Tommy. Especially given that she proceeds to sell Duke to Tommy in that same conversation. An argument could be made that she didn't know about Duke's Aunt or that she withheld the info to sway Tommy into taking Duke with him. But that seems like a lot of "just make it up" the audience has to do with very little info or evidence to go on. It seems more like an obvious retcon than anything else.

So Arthur isn't in the movie at all?

I know there might have been issues with Paul Anderson during production of Season 6 which probably led to his character being killed off in the movie. However, there were about 20 different ways they could've went about Arthur's absence/death. Unfortunately they chose just about the worst possible option IMO. His death as a plot device was fine, but revealing that Tommy killed Arthur in a fit of rage was so laughably unbelievable and contrived.

The only plausible reason I could ever see Tommy killing Arthur would be if Arthur completely turned against him and posed an existential threat to the company. Even that feels like a big stretch but it would further push the "I have no limitations" narrative from S6. Ultimately, I don't believe it is within Tommy's character to ever murder his brother. It just falls flat for me.

Arthur & Tommy are more than brothers at this point, they fought in the first World War together, even if they weren't in the same units, they share many of the same lived experiences from the war, they made the "Bleak Midwinter" pact together. They were both closest in age among the 4 Shelby brothers, they fought with each other in childhood and as adults. As far as similarities go, they're both equally prone to suicidal tendencies /s. I mean Tommy has even referred to Arthur and himself as the same person.

I feel that if Tommy was ever capable of killing Arthur for selfish reasons like wanting to "be rid of him", it would've happened in the earlier seasons. For the writers to do that now, off-screen, it feels like a cheap disservice to the depth of both characters. If they simply needed to write Arthur out of the movie, they could've easily justified it with him succumbing to his long battle with depression/PTSD and simply committed suicide.

I've been playing since the beta/slam and I've been witness to all of it. I knew this genre was an acquired taste/not for everyone and I can certainly see this game hasn't retained a lot of players. I also understand with Bungie announcing they wouldn't be continuing support for Destiny 2, it ignited an entire community of haters bc their favorite game was dying for a niche extraction shooter.

But that genuinely doesn't seem like a reasonable justification for the size of communities that just outright seethe at the thought of this game continuing to exist. I can only equate the level of negativity and contempt to snark communities at this point. There are several anti-marathon subs at this point.

The game is treated like a Highguard, Concord, or Anthem. Except people had good reasons to be angry with the developer or dislike each of these titles. Marathon was never a rug pull, the game had plenty of content at launch for a vast majority of players, and it's a high quality product in general. My only gripe with the game is the performance at launch for high-end PCs.

Overall, I just find it really hard to believe the game gets such a disproportionate amount of hate solely because Destiny 2 players are upset. Did the game just become something to laugh at because Bungie/Sony took such heavy losses on the high budget? I feel like the total size of the anti-marathon crowd is twice the size of the total number of people that have even touched the game.