Movies you've seen recently

[Calax]

Not what I've seen recently.

 

Is that Rick Moranis? I don't think so, but it might be.

[Sarex]

Avengers 2, a good movie, on par with number one. Still I think it was a little too long.

[Rosbjerg]

"Is The Man Who Is Tall Happy", Michel Gondry interview Chomsky - It's a somewhat self indulgent piece of art trying as much to get it's points across through the media, as it has to since it's about language and understanding, but I did like it.. Especially when Chomsky makes a point on how physical representation is not how we perceive the world, but rather through psychological continuity.

[Raithe]

With all the controversy over Joss Whedon, Sexism, and the Black Widow going on, and Whedon being driven off twitter...

Here's a bit from Mark Ruffalo on Reddit over it.

 

 

 

I think it's sad. Because I know how Joss feels about women, and I know that he's made it a point to create strong female characters. I think part of the problem is that people are frustrated that they want to see more women, doing more things, in superhero movies, and because we don't have as many women as we should yet, they're very, very sensitive to every single storyline that comes up right now. But I think what's beautiful about what Joss did with Black Widow - I don't think he makes her any weaker, he just brings this idea of love to a superhero, and I think that's beautiful.

 

If anything, Black Widow is much stronger than Banner. She protects him. She does her job, and basically they begin to have a relationship as friends, and I think it's a misplaced anger. I think that what people might really be upset about is the fact that we need more superhuman women. The guys can do anything, they can have love affairs, they can be weak or strong and nobody raises an eyebrow. But when we do that with a woman, because there are so few storylines for women, we become hyper-critical of every single move that we make because there's not much else to compare it to

 

So I know Joss really well. I know what his values are. And I think it's sad, because in a lot of ways, there haven't been as many champions in this universe as Joss is and will continue to be. And I know it hurts him. I know it's heavy on him. And the guy's one of the sweetest, best guys, and I know him - as far as any man can be a champion for women, he is that.

So it's been a little disheartening.

 

But I also see how much people love that aspect of it. There's an equal amount of people who find the love interest between Banner and Black Widow to be a big standout. And it's very satisfying to people. So it's a movie. People are going to have their opinions. And that's actually a great thing. The fact that this is a debate that's coming out of this movie is probably a positive thing.

 

I just don't think that people should get personal with Joss, because he really is - of anyone - an advocate for women. He's a deeply committed feminist.

 

 

[Sarex]

^ And because **** like that we get female thor...

[sorophx]

what's wrong with a female Thor? that would be exciting. 

[Amentep]

Yeah!  What were they thinking with female Thor!  There's never been a lady Thor. Well except if you count Thor who was forced by Odin to be a woman as punishment in Earth X. 

 

Well then lets object because the role of Thor has never been passed on.  Except Beta Ray Bill. And Natasha Romonoff.  And Rogue. And the What If? story where Jane Foster got the hammer and became Thor. And Thunderstrike.

 

I haven't even mentioned Thor-GIrl and Thor's alternate universe daughter Thena have I...?

 

Seriously, the book - other than the fight with Crusher Creel - has actually been pretty good, IMO.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Amentep

[Gfted1]

I dunno....that boobplate looks pretty sexist. When do we storm DC studios?

[Blarghagh]

Fem-Thor is not a concept I have an issue with. I actually think she's really cool. I just have an issue with it being used for anvilicious reasons. Like that aforementioned fight, and how people pretend it's a great leap forward when what the message it's really giving is "popular female superheroes can only exist by piggybacking on the mileage of male ones". That doesn't seem to be an image worth striving for.

[Sarex]

Do you want to know whats wrong with it from the story/mythology stand point, or do you want me to tell you how pathetic it is that they can't push out an original female character that anyone would pay attention to? I mean even now they need the original Thor to appear in every issue to move the story. But hey they put out a safety net, that confirms that Thor will get his powers back eventually.

 

I wouldn't have minded if they made a clean break and said, hey we want a girl thor, we will make her interesting and independent, but you need big balls to do that kind of stuff, instead now we get original Thor going through every issue hunting down her identity and what not. Even all this would not have been bad in and of it self had they not made such a big PR deal out of the female thor and how she will be a strong and independent character. Well I got news for you, she ain't that...

Edited May 7, 2015 by Sarex

[Amentep]

I dunno....that boobplate looks pretty sexist. When do we storm DC studios?

 

DC Comics has moved to California just to avoid being found at their old address during this crisis.  They would  have never allowed Marvel to create a female Thor if they were still at their 666 Fifth Avenue address.

 

Do you want to know whats wrong with it from the story/mythology stand point, or do you want me to tell you how pathetic it is that they can't push out an original female character that anyone would pay attention to? I mean even now they need the original Thor to appear in every issue to move the story. But hey they put out a safety net, that confirms that Thor will get his powers back eventually.

 

From a story and Marvel myth persepctive, the hammer says "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", which in practice has granted the power of Thor to whoever holds it (Beta Ray Bill, Natasha Romonov, etc). Its perfectly in keeping with the title to make a changeover.  Heck they did it for several years with Thunderstrike.

 

Unfortunately a reality of comic books is that new characters don't sell for Marvel and DC.  The best selling "new" comic book characters are iterations of existing characters.  Whether its the new Ms. Marvel, Thor, the new Blue Beetle, the new Dr. Fate, or whatever, comic companies are going to try to tie a character to the familiar - not try to build something never seen before.

 

As I recall the author has said that this was part of his plan with the title and the relaunch wasn't his idea; its a continuation of what he'd been doing and was originally intended to be held in the existing Thor title.  Marvel decided to make a big deal of it, but the story didn't change so...yeah Thor Odinson is in the book.  Its a bit of a moot point since Odinson is dead (as of the last couple of Avengers titles - where he was using the hammer of THORR, and then his axe again when he proved worthy and couldn't weild the hammer of THORR) and even further moot now that the Marvel Universe is destroyed and we're due to having a a plethera of Thors around in Battleworld.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Amentep

[Sarex]

From a story and Marvel myth persepctive, the hammer says "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", which in practice has granted the power of Thor to whoever holds it (Beta Ray Bill, Natasha Romonov, etc). Its perfectly in keeping with the title to make a changeover.  Heck they did it for several years with Thunderstrike.

 

Unfortunately a reality of comic books is that new characters don't sell for Marvel and DC.  The best selling "new" comic book characters are iterations of existing characters.  Whether its the new Ms. Marvel, Thor, the new Blue Beetle, the new Dr. Fate, or whatever, comic companies are going to try to tie a character to the familiar - not try to build something never seen before.

 

As I recall the author has said that this was part of his plan with the title and the relaunch wasn't his idea; its a continuation of what he'd been doing and was originally intended to be held in the existing Thor title.  Marvel decided to make a big deal of it, but the story didn't change so...yeah Thor Odinson is in the book.  Its a bit of a moot point since Odinson is dead (as of the last couple of Avengers titles - where he was using the hammer of THORR, and then his axe again when he proved worthy and couldn't weild the hammer of THORR) and even further moot now that the Marvel Universe is destroyed and we're due to having a a plethera of Thors around in Battleworld.

 

As far as I know Thor didn't get his name because of hammer, even in the comics. Thor is Thor, with or without the hammer. Though this is just me nitpicking, it isn't that important.

 

That is more of Marvels (DCs?) fault, then the readers. They need to give an actual **** to make a new character instead of just shoving it in to an existing comic as a cameo/spinoff.

 

I don't know if marvel shoved the words down his throat or what, but in the end it doesn't matter, he gave the interviews and said those things. As for the rest I don't really know what happens in the latest issues, so I can't really comment. I'll catch up on thor and get back to you.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Sarex

[Raithe]

io9 - The Marvel Cinematic Universe Has Been Cast
 

Disney announced the cast for what could be the most comic book character-loaded Marvel movie yet. Captain America: Civil War will have (as it stands now) up to 16 comic book characters in its cast. It’s almost the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe — well, besides Thor and Hulk.

In a press release, Marvel and Disney announced that principal photography has begun for Captain America’s third standalone movie. It’s got almost everybody, but first, here’s the official synopsis:

“Captain America: Civil War” picks up where “Avengers: Age of Ultron” left off, as Steve Rogers leads the new team of Avengers in their continued efforts to safeguard humanity. After another international incident involving the Avengers results in collateral damage, political pressure mounts to install a system of accountability and a governing body to determine when to enlist the services of the team. The new status quo fractures the Avengers while they try to protect the world from a new and nefarious villain."

The film will shoot in Atlanta, Georgia, Germany, Puerto Rico and Iceland (so there might be some plot clues in there, for you comics sleuths).
 
But now onto the massive cast. Here’s who’s returning, plus the new players, along with their rumored roles:

• Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America
• Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man
• Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow
• Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier
• Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/Falcon
• Paul Bettany as The Vision
• Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton/Hawkeye
• Don Cheadle as Jim Rhodes/War Machine
• Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff/Scarlet Witch
• Paul Rudd as Scott Lang/Ant-Man
• Chadwick Boseman as T’Challa/Black Panther
• Emily VanCamp as Sharon Carter/Agent 13
• Daniel Brühl who recently revealed he’ll be playing Baron Helmut Zemo (but Marvel does not confirm this in the press release)
• Frank Grillo as Brock Rumlow/Crossbones
• William Hurt as General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross
• Martin Freeman who is rumored to be playing Everett K. Ross

Good god, that’s a lot of people, and you know that’s not going to be the limit. Spider-Man has to show up at some point, too. Plus, there are newly created characters the movie will most likely stumble upon or reference, and many others that haven’t been announced yet.
It’s no big surprise that this movie is stuffed to the gills with comic stars. The premise of this movie will directly impact the lives of all supers, everywhere. But could this be the tipping point for comic book movie overload? Is Marvel actually putting out Avengers 3 just one year after Avengers 2? Does the public have room for even MORE comic characters on screen? The money has been saying yes — but it should be interesting to see what happens when this huge flick lines up against the relatively less overstuffed Batman v. Superman. Then again, some of us (myself included) who have been waiting for a Civil War movie forever. Only time will tell.

 

[Blarghagh]

As far as I know Thor didn't get his name because of hammer, even in the comics. Thor is Thor, with or without the hammer. Though this is just me nitpicking, it isn't that important.

 

Nein nein. Thor is a crippled nerd named Donald Blake before he picks up the hammer.

[Amentep]

As far as I know Thor didn't get his name because of hammer, even in the comics. Thor is Thor, with or without the hammer. Though this is just me nitpicking, it isn't that important.

Yeah, as True Neutral mentions, the original comic origin was that Thor was Donald Blake, a surgeon who found a staff that was actually Thor's hammer enchanted. Later this was retconned into Odin creating the Donald Blake human to house Thor's spirit to teach him humility.

 

The current Thor is actually post Ragnarok (which is cyclical in the Marvel U) where he re-incarnated or some jazz.

 

That is more of Marvels (DCs?) fault, then the readers. They need to give an actual **** to make a new character instead of just shoving it in to an existing comic as a cameo/spinoff.

 

Sorry, but past history shows - quite clearly - the superhero comic buyers aren't going to buy a new character.

 

BTW they relaunched Thor when the new Thor happened, so old Thor wasn't shoved out of an existing comic - the old comic was cancelled. Neither were the above examples which were all new series with new leads based on older characters.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Amentep

[LadyCrimson]

Antarctica: A Year on Ice (2013)

 

Documentary re: the "common workers" who keep things running/in shape year round for the scientist/other visitors, or something to that effect. The interview/ppl bits weren't terribly interesting to me (typical "why do we do this" human-interest stuff) but the cinematography was insane. Superlative. Gorgeous. Hypnotic. I could use almost every frame of every outdoor sequence as a desktop wallpaper.

[Oerwinde]

 

Do you want to know whats wrong with it from the story/mythology stand point, or do you want me to tell you how pathetic it is that they can't push out an original female character that anyone would pay attention to? I mean even now they need the original Thor to appear in every issue to move the story. But hey they put out a safety net, that confirms that Thor will get his powers back eventually.

 

From a story and Marvel myth persepctive, the hammer says "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor", which in practice has granted the power of Thor to whoever holds it (Beta Ray Bill, Natasha Romonov, etc). Its perfectly in keeping with the title to make a changeover.  Heck they did it for several years with Thunderstrike.

Thunderstrike was different. He originally took the name Thor because Thor was inhabiting his body. When Thor was expelled no one knew otherwise so he continued using the name, but he kept it secret that he wasn't really Thor. When it was revealed he wasn't Thor, he started going by Thunderstrike. Lady Thor is obviously not Thor Odinson, and the idea that Nick Fury can whisper something in his ear that makes him not only unworthy of Mjolnir, but also of his birth name is ridiculous. He's been named Thor for well over 1000 years in-universe. Last time I remember him being unworthy of Mjolnir he murdered an innocent and became the tyrant king of Earth, and was still worthy of his own damned birth name.

[Nonek]

In one of the mnemonic poems of the Skalds Odin names himself as Thor when in Valhalla, while reciting his hundred or so names.

 

Edit: There is some contentious debate that All of the Aesir were aspects of Allfather however, the Norse or Snorri really seemed to like their symbolism.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Nonek

[Luj1]

So I guess the crowd here regards Marvel movies very highly.... that's too bad, I wanted to talk about Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Bergman, Kurosawa, Herzog, Bresson  

 

 

 

 

 

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAYXCJXJCXCKDLDFKL

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

My understanding of Thor and Mjolnir is that whoever is worthy can hold the hammer and get powers, but they don't become Thor. Which is why I find the girl Thor a bit strange(in a lore sense) as it seems to go against the conventions of the Marvel Universe.

 

I understand that new characters rarely sell, but I do have to agree with Sarex's thrust that the Big2 these days fail to create new characters that last longer than a gimmick. As it is, I believe that female Thor will no longer be the titular character of Marvel's Thor comic and will likely fade into obscurity. YMMV, but I would have preferred a new superhero name instead of a legacy character.

[HoonDing]

Is there female Beta Ray Bill?

[Calax]

My understanding of Thor and Mjolnir is that whoever is worthy can hold the hammer and get powers, but they don't become Thor. Which is why I find the girl Thor a bit strange(in a lore sense) as it seems to go against the conventions of the Marvel Universe.

 

I understand that new characters rarely sell, but I do have to agree with Sarex's thrust that the Big2 these days fail to create new characters that last longer than a gimmick. As it is, I believe that female Thor will no longer be the titular character of Marvel's Thor comic and will likely fade into obscurity. YMMV, but I would have preferred a new superhero name instead of a legacy character.

Part of the problem is that the characters being created today are kinda "one story" if they're left open for future stories they can tend to be to generic, and if they're a one story character who's brought back, they can be brought back significantly different. Bane is probably the best example, his debut was literally breaking batman psycologically and physically, but since then he's become sort of a generic "Super Strength" hero in most other potrayals (admittedly I don't read batman that much).

 

Another part of the problem is having somebody who can go toe to toe with Superman/Thor, but still be vulnerable.

[Meshugger]

So I guess the crowd here regards Marvel movies very highly.... that's too bad, I wanted to talk about Tarkovsky, Bunuel, Bergman, Kurosawa, Herzog, Bresson

 

 

 

 

 

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAYXCJXJCXCKDLDFKL

 

Sadly Tarkovsky could never conway the same emotional intensity on his characters in Solyaris as the CGI facial expressions as the Hulk in the Avengers.

[Luj1]

Sadly the marvel movies are utter shiet for fat American kids. Nearly value-less

Edited May 8, 2015 by Luj1

[Meshugger]

Sadly the marvel movies are utter shiet for fat American kids. Nearly value-less

 

Don't you think it is quite preposterous of us to judge a succint HD quality of an explosion that never was compared to simple homemade colors thrown at a wall in Ran? (0:42 for the lazy)