Best Origin Story
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
screen, which one was best able to tell the hero/heroine's origin story
and woven it straight into the movie itself?
--
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
Barely functional, partially reasonable and totally lazy.
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits. -- Albert Einstein
Madness is rare in individuals -- but in groups, parties, nations, and
ages it is the rule. -- Nietzsche
Ken from Chicago
"rwa2play, The Northern Lariat" <rwa2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c9e2dc6$0$20155$607e...@cv.net...
SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "All those powers, And I couldn't even save him."--Jeff East, 'Clark
Kent', SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.
iarwain
smoothly inserted into the story. That may not be a fair choice
though since it follows the comic so closely, and it was already laid
out for them.
For Marvel, probably Spider-Man, that whole series was extremely well
done IMO.
I even liked the third one, although it was admittedly flawed. The
usual mistake of trying to fit too many villains in, and the retcon of
having Sandman shoot Uncle Ben was horrible. I could have done
without Venom, although that was very central to the story. Sandman
was cool, and James Franco was great as Harry.
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
>
>
> "rwa2play, The Northern Lariat" <rwa2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4c9e2dc6$0$20155$607e...@cv.net...
>> Of all of the movies that Marvel and DC have brought to the big
>> screen, which one was best able to tell the hero/heroine's origin
>> story and woven it straight into the movie itself?
>>
>>
>> --
>> rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
>> Barely functional, partially reasonable and totally lazy.
>>
>> The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
>> limits. -- Albert Einstein
>> Madness is rare in individuals -- but in groups, parties, nations,
>> and ages it is the rule. -- Nietzsche
>
> SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE
>
It's just me I guess, but I feel like that movie was really two movies
in one. I was thinking more in line of "Iron Man;" or maybe not.
--
rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
Knockouts rule, Divas drool.
"You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead." -- John Lennon, Revolution 1.
grinningdemon
<rwa2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/2010 4:07 PM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>
>> "rwa2play, The Northern Lariat" <rwa2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c9e2dc6$0$20155$607e...@cv.net...
>>> Of all of the movies that Marvel and DC have brought to the big
>>> screen, which one was best able to tell the hero/heroine's origin
>>> story and woven it straight into the movie itself?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
>>> Barely functional, partially reasonable and totally lazy.
>>>
>>> The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
>>> limits. -- Albert Einstein
>>> Madness is rare in individuals -- but in groups, parties, nations,
>>> and ages it is the rule. -- Nietzsche
>>
>> SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE
>>
>
>
>It's just me I guess, but I feel like that movie was really two movies
>in one. I was thinking more in line of "Iron Man;" or maybe not.
I'll second Iron Man...although I thought Batman Begins did a great
job too...though, in that case, the origin WAS the story.
grinningdemon
<iarw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The one that pops into my head is Watchmen with Dr. Manhatten's origin
>smoothly inserted into the story. That may not be a fair choice
>though since it follows the comic so closely, and it was already laid
>out for them.
>
>For Marvel, probably Spider-Man, that whole series was extremely well
>done IMO.
I like the first two well enough...but I always thought they could be
better...and I was never particularly happy with the casting.
>I even liked the third one, although it was admittedly flawed. The
>usual mistake of trying to fit too many villains in, and the retcon of
>having Sandman shoot Uncle Ben was horrible. I could have done
>without Venom, although that was very central to the story. Sandman
>was cool, and James Franco was great as Harry.
I hated the 3rd one...that god-awful dancing scene alone was just too
much to take...and inserting Sandman into Ben's death was
ridiculous...the only part I did like was the final fight when Harry
showed up to help...but, after he was mortally injured, Peter takes
the time to have a heart to heart with Sandman before even bothering
to check if his friend was still alive...it makes no sense at all.
Mike Hall
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:23:50 -0400, "rwa2play, The Northern Lariat"
>
>
>
>
>
> <rwa2p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/25/2010 4:07 PM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> >>news:4c9e2dc6$0$20155$607e...@cv.net...
> >>> Of all of the movies that Marvel and DC have brought to the big
> >>> screen, which one was best able to tell the hero/heroine's origin
> >>> story and woven it straight into the movie itself?
>
> >>> --
> >>> rwa2play, The Northern Lariat
> >>> Barely functional, partially reasonable and totally lazy.
>
> >>> The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
> >>> limits. -- Albert Einstein
> >>> Madness is rare in individuals -- but in groups, parties, nations,
> >>> and ages it is the rule. -- Nietzsche
>
> >> SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE
>
> >It's just me I guess, but I feel like that movie was really two movies
> >in one. I was thinking more in line of "Iron Man;" or maybe not.
>
> I'll second Iron Man...although I thought Batman Begins did a great
> job too...though, in that case, the origin WAS the story.
I'll third Iron Man. Batman Begins had great acting but the plot was
nothing like as good as the first part of Iron Man.
Mike Hall
Duggy
> I even liked the third one, although it was admittedly flawed. The
> usual mistake of trying to fit too many villains in, and the retcon of
> having Sandman shoot Uncle Ben was horrible. I could have done
> without Venom, although that was very central to the story. Sandman
> was cool, and James Franco was great as Harry.
3 needed to be 2 films. They need to wrap up Sandman and have Peter
dump the costume... and end the film with the suit merging with Eddie
Brock.
Make Venom the villain in 4.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I'll second Iron Man...although I thought Batman Begins did a great
> job too...though, in that case, the origin WAS the story.
It was three films, two origin stories... the Bruce story, the
Becoming Batman story, and a Batman film at the end.
The Dark Knight was only 2 films.
===
= DUG.
===
Anim8rFSK
grinningdemon <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:22:25 -0700 (PDT), iarwain
> <iarw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The one that pops into my head is Watchmen with Dr. Manhatten's origin
> >smoothly inserted into the story. That may not be a fair choice
> >though since it follows the comic so closely, and it was already laid
> >out for them.
> >
> >For Marvel, probably Spider-Man, that whole series was extremely well
> >done IMO.
>
> I like the first two well enough...but I always thought they could be
> better...and I was never particularly happy with the casting.
What he said. Peter certainly didn't need MORE grief about Ben heaped
on him, and, organic web shooters, ptui. And of course the Power Ranger
Goblin.
>
> >I even liked the third one, although it was admittedly flawed. The
> >usual mistake of trying to fit too many villains in, and the retcon of
> >having Sandman shoot Uncle Ben was horrible. I could have done
> >without Venom, although that was very central to the story. Sandman
> >was cool, and James Franco was great as Harry.
>
> I hated the 3rd one...that god-awful dancing scene alone was just too
> much to take...and inserting Sandman into Ben's death was
> ridiculous...the only part I did like was the final fight when Harry
> showed up to help...but, after he was mortally injured, Peter takes
> the time to have a heart to heart with Sandman before even bothering
> to check if his friend was still alive...it makes no sense at all.
So much of 3 doesn't make sense. Why the Hell are Gwen and her Dad at
the funeral at the end? They don't know anybody there but Peter, and
they hate him. Somebody just decided the cast had to be at the funeral,
not the characters - stupid stupid stupid.
--
Learn all about September 19
International Talk Like A Pirate Day!
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html
Open wide and say "Arrrrrrrrrrrr"
plausible prose man
<rwa2p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of all of the movies that Marvel and DC have brought to the big
> screen, which one was best able to tell the hero/heroine's origin story
> and woven it straight into the movie itself?
Spiderman's the one where you don't need to delay or stop the action
to tell your story. You can tell Spiderman's origin with him in
costume; indeed, you could have a pretty good movie and have no more
compelling supervillain than the mugger from the TV show.
Unknown
"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1aqs96tsgc13af4mb...@4ax.com...
Plus I hated Peter letting the Sandman go. Sure, he didn't intentionally
kill your uncle but he did just endanger your girlfriend in an attempt to
kill you (and Harry was killed as a result).
rwa2play, looking for Dogbert
> The one that pops into my head is Watchmen with Dr. Manhatten's origin
> smoothly inserted into the story. That may not be a fair choice
> though since it follows the comic so closely, and it was already laid
> out for them.
You really have to put "Watchmen" in a separate category b/'c of that.
>
> For Marvel, probably Spider-Man, that whole series was extremely well
> done IMO.
>
> I even liked the third one, although it was admittedly flawed. The
> usual mistake of trying to fit too many villains in, and the retcon of
> having Sandman shoot Uncle Ben was horrible. I could have done
> without Venom, although that was very central to the story. Sandman
> was cool, and James Franco was great as Harry.
Hated, HATED, HATED 3! Did Marvel not see how big a mess the
Schumaker (sp) Batman movies were? Him going emo was dumb; having 2
and a half (read: Harry being "bad" then helping Peter out) villians
was ludicrous...and going back the first movie: Kirsten Dunst as MJ
was a bad idea from the get go. You wanted an MJ that was innocently
sexy (if there's even a term like that).
--
rwa2play
Marvel shouldn't even consider rebooting SM btw.
Edward McArdle
<e9cef7ba-30b7-4d49...@q2g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
"rwa2play, looking for Dogbert" <rwa2...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>
>--
>rwa2play
>Marvel shouldn't even consider rebooting SM btw.
The problem is that actors keep getting older! I look forward to the day
when actors are motion-captured, then CGId* into an infinite number of
films in which they never age - just like the comics!
*CGIed? CGI'd?
--
Edward McArdle
Ken from Chicago
"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mcardle-2809...@time.asia.apple.com...
TDA (Total Digital Animation): The future of movies, tv, video games.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.current-films/msg/2b326e97cf7b4ba1?hl=en
Beyond just cgi or mocap but like the way cgi can extrapolate how a body
would move and look from the underlying muscles, bones and joints--and
overlying layers of fabrics ... extrapolating from years of recordings how
individual actors would move and act in a given situation, with a suggested
attitude, etc.
-- Ken from Chicago
Duggy
wrote:
> Beyond just cgi or mocap but like the way cgi can extrapolate how a body
> would move and look from the underlying muscles, bones and joints--and
> overlying layers of fabrics ... extrapolating from years of recordings how
> individual actors would move and act in a given situation, with a suggested
> attitude, etc.
Not sure that you can replicate "acting". You can guess, but you
can't be sure what an actor would have done.
===
= DUG.
===
Ken from Chicago
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1eedcc5c-a43b-4b8d...@s17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
That's where the years of recording comes in so that a computer could
replicate an actor's style of acting. Natch, it's not something that could
be learned over night, and possibly not in the next decade or two.
Meanwhile actors--and actresses--could continue working past Hollywood's
definition of their prime.
-- Ken from Chicago
grinningdemon
You have a point but I think it would be rather poor taste if, for
instance, a new John Wayne movie were to come out decades after his
death...which is the sort of logical step that could very well come
from that type of thing...just because you can do something doesn't
mean you should.
Ken from Chicago
"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vq25a65b42v5u24vk...@4ax.com...
How many decades after someone's death should one wait?
And what if the estate of said deceased actor signs off on it?
What if the actors sign off on it before their death?
-- Ken from Chicago
grinningdemon
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Personally, I don't think there's any GOOD time or way to do it...and,
even if there were, a computer generated model is never going to be
able to REALLY act...if all it is is a collection of past
performances, who would really want to see that anyway? The
possibility I would accept for something like this is an extraordinary
case like the actor dying during filming and using it to finish their
final movie.
Ken from Chicago
"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:82n6a69e1ejaju9u3...@4ax.com...
Extrapolating a new performance based on old performances--much like mimics
do. Some mimics don't just repeat past performances but extrapolate new
performances, e.g. John Wayne speaking in German or Captain Kirk giving the
Gettysburg address, Betty Boop speaking in Klingon, etc.
-- Ken from Chicago
Duggy
wrote:
> That's where the years of recording comes in so that a computer could
> replicate an actor's style of acting. Natch, it's not something that could
> be learned over night, and possibly not in the next decade or two.
That assumes that every acting role is based on the same traits...
I don't think you could create Heath Ledger's The Joker out of his
past roles.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
wrote:
> You have a point but I think it would be rather poor taste if, for
> instance, a new John Wayne movie were to come out decades after his
> death...which is the sort of logical step that could very well come
> from that type of thing...just because you can do something doesn't
> mean you should.
That horse has bolted.
Bogey appeared in an episode of Tales from The Crypt.
He and Louis Armstrong advertised Coke.
Nat King Cole sang with his daughter.
===
= DUG.
===
grinningdemon
Good point...setting aside any moral issues with this, it could only
work for the type of actor that is more of an onscreen personality and
essentially plays the same character from one movie to the next (like
my example of John Wayne, for instance)...it wouldn't work at all for
those actors who actually become their characters, so to speak.
grinningdemon
Yes, but those were relatively minor appearances...and the Nat King
Cole one was pretty much just her overlayed into one of his
performances...that kind of thing doesn't even really bother me so
much because it's more of an homage than anything...in my opinion,
it's a long way from something like that to creating entire new films
with these actors...I suppose it's just a matter of degree.
Edward McArdle
<9ff5bafd-131f-44a3...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 10:44=A0am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
My original comment was a joke, but the big advantage of recreating actors
is that you don't have to pay them. This means not only would films become
several million dollars cheaper, but the actors would not have to live in
protected gated communities, because they would have no money.
Those last few cases, however, do not count. I think they were all old
performances used in a sort of split screen way, not motion capture -
which we are not completely good at yet. But I suspect we soon will be.
(By the way, I like saying "we" in these cases where I personally would
not have a clue how to do it!)
--
Edward McArdle
grinningdemon
McArdle) wrote:
>In article
><9ff5bafd-131f-44a3...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
><Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 29, 10:44=A0am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>> You have a point but I think it would be rather poor taste if, for
>>> instance, a new John Wayne movie were to come out decades after his
>>> death...which is the sort of logical step that could very well come
>>> from that type of thing...just because you can do something doesn't
>>> mean you should.
>>
>>That horse has bolted.
>>
>>Bogey appeared in an episode of Tales from The Crypt.
>>
>>He and Louis Armstrong advertised Coke.
>>
>>Nat King Cole sang with his daughter.
>>
>My original comment was a joke, but the big advantage of recreating actors
>is that you don't have to pay them. This means not only would films become
>several million dollars cheaper, but the actors would not have to live in
>protected gated communities, because they would have no money.
Actually, you would still have to pay their respective estates...and,
depending on the various legal situations, it could be potentially
even MORE expensive.
Ken from Chicago
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:8e3c70f9-e7d6-401d...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Nor Johnny Depp's performance in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN--based on his
previous performances.
Tho you might based on Keith Richards' performance. The advantage of total
digital animation would be able to mix and match behaviors and styles from
actor to actor, so you have Wonder Woman acting like Bette Davis but looks
like Betty Grable.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mcardle-3009...@192.168.1.7...
Unless the actors sell the rights to mimic their performance just as they
can sell the rights to their likenesses for dolls, posters, merchandise,
Anim8rFSK
<8e3c70f9-e7d6-401d...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:39 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > That's where the years of recording comes in so that a computer could
> > replicate an actor's style of acting. Natch, it's not something that could
> > be learned over night, and possibly not in the next decade or two.
>
> That assumes that every acting role is based on the same traits...
>
> I don't think you could create Heath Ledger's The Joker out of his
> past roles.
Not that I'd want to.
But you're forgetting all sorts of outside influences, like different
directors. Watch something Jack Webb directed sometime, and see how
many of the actors talk JUST like Jack Webb.
Anim8rFSK
mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> In article
> <9ff5bafd-131f-44a3...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 29, 10:44=A0am, grinningdemon <grinningde...@austin.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >> You have a point but I think it would be rather poor taste if, for
> >> instance, a new John Wayne movie were to come out decades after his
> >> death...which is the sort of logical step that could very well come
> >> from that type of thing...just because you can do something doesn't
> >> mean you should.
> >
> >That horse has bolted.
> >
> >Bogey appeared in an episode of Tales from The Crypt.
> >
> >He and Louis Armstrong advertised Coke.
> >
> >Nat King Cole sang with his daughter.
> >
> My original comment was a joke, but the big advantage of recreating actors
> is that you don't have to pay them. This means not only would films become
> several million dollars cheaper, but the actors would not have to live in
> protected gated communities, because they would have no money.
Except you do have to pay recreated actors.
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:8e3c70f9-e7d6-401d...@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 29, 10:39 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> That's where the years of recording comes in so that a computer could
> >> replicate an actor's style of acting. Natch, it's not something that
> >> could
> >> be learned over night, and possibly not in the next decade or two.
> >
> > That assumes that every acting role is based on the same traits...
> >
> > I don't think you could create Heath Ledger's The Joker out of his
> > past roles.
> >
> > ===
> > = DUG.
> > ===
>
> Nor Johnny Depp's performance in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN--based on his
> previous performances.
>
> Tho you might based on Keith Richards' performance.
Or better still, Peter O'Toole from "My Favorite Year" which is where
Depp really stole the act from.
Duggy
wrote:
> Unless the actors sell the rights to mimic their performance just as they
> can sell the rights to their likenesses for dolls, posters, merchandise,
> etc.
Those rights are usually sold these days when you sign the cotract for
the acting gig. Every Star Wars prequel actor's contract would have
had a merchandising clause in it.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Good point...setting aside any moral issues with this, it could only
> work for the type of actor that is more of an onscreen personality and
> essentially plays the same character from one movie to the next (like
> my example of John Wayne, for instance)...
Even then it would only ever been an imitation. There's no way to
guess the choices the actors would make in a role.
Even an actor who always/usually places themselves (and there are a
lot of them) has some range in that role.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Yes, but those were relatively minor appearances...and the Nat King
> Cole one was pretty much just her overlayed into one of his
> performances...that kind of thing doesn't even really bother me so
> much because it's more of an homage than anything...in my opinion,
> it's a long way from something like that to creating entire new films
> with these actors...I suppose it's just a matter of degree.
You were talking about poor taste. A lot of people thought that the
Coke ad was.
The Nat & Natalie thing is viewed as homage these days, but hitting
about the same time reaction went both ways.
The episode of Tales from the Crypt is just freaky.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> >> You have a point but I think it would be rather poor taste
> >Bogey appeared in an episode of Tales from The Crypt.
> >He and Louis Armstrong advertised Coke.
> >Nat King Cole sang with his daughter.
> Those last few cases, however, do not count.
I was addressing the issue of poor taste.
> I think they were all old
> performances used in a sort of split screen way, not motion capture -
> which we are not completely good at yet. But I suspect we soon will be.
OK:
Richard Burton "In Sight & Sound" for the stage production of War of
the Worlds.
===
= DUG.
===
> (By the way, I like saying "we" in these cases where I personally would
> not have a clue how to do it!)
>
> --
> Edward McArdle- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
grinningdemon
Agreed...it's just a bad idea all around.
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-E5FEC...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
Or whatshisname from ARTHUR.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-1FAEC...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
What's the going rate for recreactors?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:a6a8fff5-9644-4008...@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Choose:
1) A logical deduction as to how a role should be performed.
2) A random selection as to how to play a character.
Computers can do both follow logic or act at random.
-- Ken from Chicago
Duggy
wrote:
> Choose:
> 1) A logical deduction as to how a role should be performed.
> 2) A random selection as to how to play a character.
> Computers can do both follow logic or act at random.
Both give what a actor might do. Neither would show us what the actor
would have done.
There's a draw with 10 shirts and 10 pairs of pants. The computer has
been told what the person has worn the last 100 times. The computer
can randomly select a shirt and a pair of shorts.
Whichever pairing the computer chooses, you can't say that that is
what the person would have picked themselves.
===
= DUG.
===
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Whatever you negotiate; the best part of being dead is you're out of the
union.
Duggy
> Whatever you negotiate; the best part of being dead is you're out of the
> union.
Families and estates can be tougher negotiators than the actors
Ken from Chicago
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:f9bb49f8-7202-4980...@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
But the point of total digital animation wouldn't be about predicting what
new styles a given actor would have done with a new role. You could simply
replicate the likeness of an actor while ordering a radically different
style of performance. Have Clint Eastwood acting like John Wayne or Julia
Roberts act like Katherine Hepburne, Optimus Prime act like Bugs Bunny, etc.
For a character performance you have a director direct how a role should be
played and TDA would either recreate the performance of a previous actor or
create a new character from scratch depending on the instruction from the
director.
-- Ken from Chicago
Tim Turnip
Images of the deceased Lawrence Olivier were used to have him
posthumously portray the villain in "Sky Captain and the World of
Tomorrow".
Duggy
wrote:
> But the point of total digital animation wouldn't be about predicting what
> new styles a given actor would have done with a new role.
Could you have replied with that many posts ago when I posted:
"Not sure that you can replicate 'acting'. You can guess, but you
can't be sure what an actor would have done."
It would have saved a lot of wasted posts.
===
= DUG.
===
Ken from Chicago
"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:5dfef23d-d377-4c5e...@l25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Previously we were discussing mimicking how an actor has portrayed previous
roles.
Then it shifted to mimicking how a specific actor invents a new style of
performance for a new role (e.g. Johnny Depp's role PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN
which was radically different from his previous performances--as opposed to
Robert Downey Jr in IRON MAN or SHERLOCK HOLMES, which are similar to
previous performances of his).
I agree TDA wouldn't be able to do the latter. To do the latter, instead of
just analyzing decades of videos of a given actor, you need access to
decades of recordings of an actor on and off stage, and people in general,
to do some kind of massive statistical behavioral and psychological analysis
far beyond what humans can do but perhaps a massive network might do. IOW
something like some future uber version of Google or Comcast to crunch the
data on how people claim their act and had access to medical and
psychological records to be able to do some kind of predictions (ala Isaac
Asimov's psychohistory). Even then, that's more about predicting how an
actor *might* come up with a new style of performance than predicting what
*would* an actor might invent.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ubiquitous
><iarw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I even liked the third one, although it was admittedly flawed. The
>>usual mistake of trying to fit too many villains in, and the retcon of
>>having Sandman shoot Uncle Ben was horrible. I could have done
>>without Venom, although that was very central to the story. Sandman
>>was cool, and James Franco was great as Harry.
>
>I hated the 3rd one...that god-awful dancing scene alone was just too
>much to take...and inserting Sandman into Ben's death was
>ridiculous...the only part I did like was the final fight when Harry
>showed up to help...but, after he was mortally injured, Peter takes
>the time to have a heart to heart with Sandman before even bothering
>to check if his friend was still alive...it makes no sense at all.
Didn't they eventually reveal that, no, Sandman didn't _really_ kill Uncle
Ben after all? As for letting Sandman escape, Peter shuold have convinced
him to do the time for his crime.
But there was so much more to hate about that movie.,..
Ubiquitous
>S3 needed to be two films. They need to wrap up Sandman and have Peter
>dump the costume... and end the film with the suit merging with Eddie
>Brock.
>
>Make Venom the villain in S4.
That was the original plan but they couldn't think of a good transitional.
Ubiquitous
>Hated, HATED, HATED 3! Did Marvel not see how big a mess the
>Schumaker (sp) Batman movies were? Him going emo was dumb; having 2
>and a half (read: Harry being "bad" then helping Peter out) villians
>was ludicrous...and going back the first movie: Kirsten Dunst as MJ
>was a bad idea from the get go. You wanted an MJ that was innocently
>sexy (if there's even a term like that).
And just who was that slut muscling in on MJ from no where? Gwen Stacy
was totally redundant.
Ubiquitous
>> You have a point but I think it would be rather poor taste if, for
>> instance, a new John Wayne movie were to come out decades after his
>> death...which is the sort of logical step that could very well come
>> from that type of thing...just because you can do something doesn't
>> mean you should.
>
>That horse has bolted.
>
>Bogey appeared in an episode of Tales from The Crypt.
>
>He and Louis Armstrong advertised Coke.
>
>Nat King Cole sang with his daughter.
Fred Estaire dancing with a vacuum cleaner.
Orvel Reddenbacher shilling his popcorn.
grinningdemon
wrote:
I thought he did kill him but didn't MEAN to do it...I could be wrong,
I only ever bothered to watch that piece of shit once.
>But there was so much more to hate about that movie.,..
Agreed.
Anim8rFSK
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
Sigh, yes. And horribly cast, her and her little dad too.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article <wdqdnSYz5KUcxzbR...@giganews.com>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> rwa2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Hated, HATED, HATED 3! Did Marvel not see how big a mess the
>> >Schumaker (sp) Batman movies were? Him going emo was dumb; having 2
>> >and a half (read: Harry being "bad" then helping Peter out) villians
>> >was ludicrous...and going back the first movie: Kirsten Dunst as MJ
>> >was a bad idea from the get go. You wanted an MJ that was innocently
>> >sexy (if there's even a term like that).
>>
>> And just who was that slut muscling in on MJ from no where? Gwen Stacy
>> was totally redundant.
>
>Sigh, yes. And horribly cast, her and her little dad too.
I still find it funny that they cast a blonde to play MJ and made her
dye her hair and then cast a redhead as Gwen and made her dye her
hair.
Ken from Chicago
"grinningdemon" <grinni...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ukuma6td2v4olsmqr...@4ax.com...
Emma Stone cast as the new Gwen.
http://blastr.com/2010/10/gallery-18-pictures-of-me.php
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Uh, no, she's MJ.
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-3367B...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
That would be the logical choice, especially since she has the large round
eyes MJ has--that Kirstin Dunst lacked . . . but noooooo . . . .
> --
> "Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
> Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
The first reports said she was auditioning blind, as a love interest
that was unnamed but wasn't MJ. Then they said she'd been offered the
part of MJ. Now they're saying she's Ultimate Gwen. Just ... stupid.
Michael
So she's gonna become Carnage?! Cool!
Michael
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
Yeah, or turn into Hoffman, or both. :)
Michael
The new Spider-Man movie has "suck" written all over it. I hope Emma
Stone ends up not being in it because I really don't think it'll do
anything positive for her career.
Michael
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
Yeah, confidence is falling. I'm already not even watching Thor or Cap
for free. The new Spidey, maybe, for free on cable. Jury is still out
on the Avengers.
grinningdemon
wrote:
Suck or not...it's pretty much guaranteed to be a big movie so it
probably couldn't hurt her career...and I don't see how it could be
worse than the last one.
Michael
I think Thor's gonna be good. I'm gonna see Cap and the Avengers,
though I think they're gonna bomb (I'll be very pleased if I'm wrong,
they do well, and I like them). Dunno about 500 Days of Spider-Man.
Michael
Michael
If it tanks critically, with fans, and at the box office, that's not
gonna help. Though it might not hurt Stone's career.
Michael
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?) even
before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the Stone.
Tim Turnip
wrote:
The Marvel Asgardians are not and should not be constrained by the
specific beliefs of ancient Norsemen -- who, after all, envisoned the
their gods as Norsemen only because they felt the gods must physically
resemble their own particular ethnic selves, having no other context
to draw upon. Marvel's Asgard has grown beyond the notion that they
reflect specific people on the penninsula of Scandinavia. Hogun, for
his part, has always been portrayed as an Asiatic warrior more akin to
a samurai than someone from that region, and I welcome the expansion
of non-Norseness in other areas.
Michael
Kenneth Branagh has a habit of odd casting, so I'm willing to go with it.
I don't mind ditching Don Blake. It could be a bit much to explain in
the movie, since they seem to want to show pre-exiled Thor in Asgard.
I'm guessing that Thor goes on a roadie to find Mjolnir and gets it
first try.
Michael
Michael
Just to tip in on this.
I always thought of Hogun as a Mongolian a'la Ghengis Khan.
Michael
M1keB
>> Marvel's Asgard has grown beyond the notion that they reflect
>> specific people on the penninsula of Scandinavia. Hogun, for his
>> part, has always been portrayed as an Asiatic warrior more akin to
>> a samurai than someone from that region, and I welcome the
>> expansion of non-Norseness in other areas.
>
> Just to tip in on this.
>
> I always thought of Hogun as a Mongolian a'la Ghengis Khan.
You're spot on with that. I always thought of the trio as a Kirbyism,
since he did similar things with some New Gods: Hogun is like
a member of the Golden Horde, Fandral is like one of the Three
Musketeers, and Volstagg is like a comic opera German/Austrian
soldier.
--Mike B
Duggy
> I think Thor's gonna be good. I'm gonna see Cap
I think that Thor and Cap, by their very nature, are in massive danger
of coming of cheesy and the bad use of the word "comicbooky".
They'll have to be very careful to fight that (and what I've heard of
Cap, they've seen the dangers and sidestepped them into a cheesier
direction.)
> and the Avengers,
> though I think they're gonna bomb (I'll be very pleased if I'm wrong,
> they do well, and I like them).
I've said all along the biggest danger for The Avengers is how well
other films work. The Avengers will depend on how well they avoided
cheese in the other 2... then of course, how well the versions work
together. Plus the director isn't a great film director.
> Dunno about 500 Days of Spider-Man.
I think that the general public is ready for a Spider-man reboot.
Spidey 3 was bad, but it didn't run it into the ground.
===
= DUG.
===
Michael
> On Oct 8, 11:35 pm, Michael <thissp...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>>I think Thor's gonna be good. I'm gonna see Cap
>
>
> I think that Thor and Cap, by their very nature, are in massive danger
> of coming of cheesy and the bad use of the word "comicbooky".
> They'll have to be very careful to fight that (and what I've heard of
> Cap, they've seen the dangers and sidestepped them into a cheesier
> direction.)
I'm hoping that Branagh's Shakespearean background will counter the
cheesy stuff.
As for Cap, the biggest problem Joe Johnston seemed to have was the
reasoning in putting Cap in a superhero outfit. The problem is that the
answer they came up with is sillier. I've said it before, but I'll say
it again because I feel like it. You've got one super-soldier. You
can't make any more. Are you really gonna put him near the front line
to entertain the troops?!
It didn't take me that much time to come up with what I thought worked
better: Make him a bodyguard. It'd explain why they trained him so
well, give him access to lots of people in the military (the people he's
guarding), could put him within spitting distance of "the Front", and
give a reason to put him in a costume/uniform/mask: To make him
anonymous (and they could put non-superpeople under the same outfit to
create the illusion that there's more than one). If you really need a
Bucky he could either be Cap's assistant or someone in the entourage of
a VIP Cap guards quite often.
>>and the Avengers,
>>though I think they're gonna bomb (I'll be very pleased if I'm wrong,
>>they do well, and I like them).
>
>
> I've said all along the biggest danger for The Avengers is how well
> other films work. The Avengers will depend on how well they avoided
> cheese in the other 2... then of course, how well the versions work
> together. Plus the director isn't a great film director.
Or writer. And it's not that Whedon does stuff that The Masses love and
I don't. Aside from, and after Buffy, the mainstream isn't all that
crazed about him once you get past the seething cultists.
>> Dunno about 500 Days of Spider-Man.
>
>
> I think that the general public is ready for a Spider-man reboot.
> Spidey 3 was bad, but it didn't run it into the ground.
Not doing a full-out origin would help it out. In fact I don't think
i'd do more than mention it if that.
Michael
Duggy
> I'm hoping that Branagh's Shakespearean background will counter the
> cheesy stuff.
Possibly. We'll see, I guess.
> As for Cap, the biggest problem Joe Johnston seemed to have was the
> reasoning in putting Cap in a superhero outfit. The problem is that the
> answer they came up with is sillier. I've said it before, but I'll say
> it again because I feel like it. You've got one super-soldier. You
> can't make any more. Are you really gonna put him near the front line
> to entertain the troops?!
"they've seen the dangers and sidestepped them into a cheesier
direction."
> > I've said all along the biggest danger for The Avengers is how well
> > other films work. The Avengers will depend on how well they avoided
> > cheese in the other 2... then of course, how well the versions work
> > together. Plus the director isn't a great film director.
> Or writer. And it's not that Whedon does stuff that The Masses love and
> I don't. Aside from, and after Buffy, the mainstream isn't all that
> crazed about him once you get past the seething cultists.
That's true. We won't mention the F-show and how wrong fans are about
the treatment of it.
> Not doing a full-out origin would help it out. In fact I don't think
> i'd do more than mention it if that.
By not doing it the general public will get all confused "is it a
sequel or a prequel". Then again, that already happened with Batman
Begins & Incredible Hulk.
As I say, the previous series wasn't tapped out yet and it's too soon
to restart without reason.
It just gets so annoying with these film series that you never get
past beginnings into real development...
That's why I understand why Singer went for making Superman Returns
"Superman 3" and adding a child... for some development... but... it
was too long after, it was the wrong development to make and it was
all based on a version of Superman II that only exists in Singer's
head.
===
= DUG.
===
Tim Turnip
wrote:
I see the three of them together as being a take on the Three
Musketeers, and to me Volstagg is Falstaff, the cowardly, boastful and
typically rotund knight of Shakespeare's plays. (The name even fits,
now that I think about it.) I've also seen Fandral interpreted as
Robin Hood (indeed there was even a specific Thor tale casting him in
that role once).
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
<snip>
> Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
> really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?) even
> before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the Stone.
>
> --
> "Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
> Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
What gender is Loki?
Why should the movie keep Don Blake, considering the comic ditched him years
ago?
-- Ken from Chicago
YKW
news:AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com:
He's been back since before the revival series started (appearing in
JMS' FANTASTIC FOUR run).
--
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
|| E-mail: ykw2006 ||"The mystery of government is not how Washington||
|| -at-gmail-dot-com ||works but how to make it stop." -- P.J. O'Rourke||
|| ----------- || ------------------------------------ ||
||Replace "-at-" with|| Keeping Usenet Trouble-Free ||
|| "@" to respond. || Since 1998 ||
------------------- ------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I want to punish your success. [...]I think
when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
-- The One, 14 Oct 08
Ken from Chicago
"YKW" <Y...@YKW.YKW> wrote in message
news:Xns9E0C352F777B...@69.16.186.8...
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>>
>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
>>> really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?)
>>> even before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the
>>> Stone.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
>>> Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
>>
>> What gender is Loki?
>>
>> Why should the movie keep Don Blake, considering the comic ditched him
>> years ago?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>>
>
> He's been back since before the revival series started (appearing in
> JMS' FANTASTIC FOUR run).
And how long was he gone before then?
-- Ken from Chicago
Tim Turnip
>"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>>
>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
>>> really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?)
>>> even before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the
>>> Stone.
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
>>> Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
>>
>> What gender is Loki?
>>
>> Why should the movie keep Don Blake, considering the comic ditched him
>> years ago?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>>
>
>He's been back since before the revival series started (appearing in
>JMS' FANTASTIC FOUR run).
Wasn't that just as a the precursor to his return in Thor? As far as
I can tell, Blake has been in absentia from the Thor continuity from
the end of 1984 all the way through to that FF appearance you mention.
That's over 21 years, a long time for such a central character to be
absent; but then Blake often seemed ephemeral to the book even during
the Lee/Kirby years, and most writers saw him as a flaw in the book's
premise, one that needed marginalizing or (as Simonson did)
eradicating.
I actually really like that JMS has brought Don Blake back now (and
made him a realistically grounded man and caregiver), but I'd argue
that his long absence from the book's mythology makes him less than
essential to a movie -- especially since the Simonson run showed how
well Thor would work without any mortal alter ego whatsoever. (not
withstanding his for-laughs ID as "Sigurd Jarson")
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Uh, you mean the Don Blake that's in the comics this month, that's been
in them from the start, that's been in the current reboot from the
beginning? That Don Blake?
Anim8rFSK
Tim Turnip <timt...@gmail.com> wrote:
You do realize that JMS has been off the book for some time? Beyond
that ... I can't decide if you're a troll, or just that stupid, but
since everything you say is idiotic, plonk.
Michael
> In article <AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
>>>really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?) even
>>>before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the Stone.
>>>
>>>--
>>>"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
>>>Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
>>
>>What gender is Loki?
Currently a male in both the comics and movie. Actually, I think he's
dead in the MU proper, but I could be wrong. And I guess Loki was never
a woman techically, as he'd been using Sif's new body.
>>Why should the movie keep Don Blake, considering the comic ditched him years
>>ago?
>
>
> Uh, you mean the Don Blake that's in the comics this month, that's been
> in them from the start, that's been in the current reboot from the
> beginning? That Don Blake?
That be him. Simonson gave Thor a secret identity of Sigurd Jarlson,
where it was Thor pulling a Clark Kent, though Sigurd wasn't a reporter.
Michael
Tim Turnip
wrote:
Of course (with "for some time" still meaning only a year or so). Nor
did I say otherwise... just that JMS was the writer who brought back
Don Blake. As far as I can tell, none of the subsequent writers have
dispatched him.
>Beyond
>that ... I can't decide if you're a troll, or just that stupid, but
>since everything you say is idiotic, plonk.
Wow, you must be a REALLY big Don Blake fan.
Nonetheless, I'm honored to receive my first ever public plonking in
18 years of using Usenet (although I never thought I'd get it for the
sin of not being clear enough that last year's Thor writer is no
longer on the book).
Anim8rFSK
Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com>,
> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
> >>>really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?) even
> >>>before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the Stone.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
> >>>Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
> >>
> >>What gender is Loki?
>
> Currently a male in both the comics and movie. Actually, I think he's
> dead in the MU proper, but I could be wrong. And I guess Loki was never
> a woman techically, as he'd been using Sif's new body.
Sigh. I have no idea if Loki is alive or dead. The end of that issue
of Thor was so badly presented, I don't know what happened. I don't
know if Loki is alive or dead, I don't know if the girl god he was using
is alive or dead ... I haven't got a clew. However, Doom has a clone of
Loki growing, and those horns in his helmet turn out to be bone growing
out of his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
William George Ferguson
Fred, be honest, your confidence can't fall. Well, not unless you play the
'I'm confident it's going to suck' card and then proceeded to 'hey, this
might be good' :)
--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies
William George Ferguson
>In article <Ns0so.817$OB2...@newsfe02.iad>,
> Michael <this...@for.rent> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> > In article <AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com>,
>> > "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>> >>
>> >><snip>
>> >>
>> >>>Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
>> >>>really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?) even
>> >>>before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the Stone.
>> >>>
>> >>>--
>> >>>"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
>> >>>Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
>> >>
>> >>What gender is Loki?
>>
>> Currently a male in both the comics and movie. Actually, I think he's
>> dead in the MU proper, but I could be wrong. And I guess Loki was never
>> a woman techically, as he'd been using Sif's new body.
>
>Sigh. I have no idea if Loki is alive or dead.
Well, Thor thinks he's dead, for what that's worth.
>The end of that issue
>of Thor was so badly presented, I don't know what happened.
Which issue, the one where Loki was (apparently) killed) or the one where
Loki was attempting resurrection, or the one where...
>I don't
>know if Loki is alive or dead, I don't know if the girl god he was using
>is alive or dead ... I haven't got a clew.
Sif or Kelda? Sif's got her body back, and in the issue where Thor was
mourning Loki's death, was shown basically evincing interest in the
opportunity to dance on Loki's grave. As for Kelda, she was last seen
moping around about Bill, who is now in Valhalla, and there was some
intimation that Loki's soul may be using her as a piggyback.
>However, Doom has a clone of
>Loki growing, and those horns in his helmet turn out to be bone growing
>out of his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Ah, so there are bone horns under the metal? Snikt!
Anim8rFSK
<b58f3261-ebb5-4198...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:38 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > However, Doom has a clone of
> > Loki growing, and those horns in his helmet turn out to be bone growing
> > out of his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
> There is some mythological background to that. In Britian there are
> some depiction of him with horns, usually in a post Christianisation
> lucification of Loki... but it exists.
Still, we've seen Loki without the helmet ...
Anim8rFSK
No, I was talking about the new Spider-Man movie. I agree my confidence
already bottomed out on Thor and Cap, but I didn't know enough about
Spidey to say one way or the other.
Anim8rFSK
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
The one where Kelda's heart turned out to be a red herring and Thor did
something nasty with his sword.
>
> >I don't
> >know if Loki is alive or dead, I don't know if the girl god he was using
> >is alive or dead ... I haven't got a clew.
>
> Sif or Kelda? Sif's got her body back, and in the issue where Thor was
> mourning Loki's death, was shown basically evincing interest in the
> opportunity to dance on Loki's grave. As for Kelda, she was last seen
> moping around about Bill, who is now in Valhalla, and there was some
> intimation that Loki's soul may be using her as a piggyback.
The last I saw of Kelda was the end of 614, where Thor ran her through
the heart with a sword 'cause there was some Loki in there, trying to
poison Balder.
>
> >However, Doom has a clone of
> >Loki growing, and those horns in his helmet turn out to be bone growing
> >out of his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
> Ah, so there are bone horns under the metal? Snikt!
Yeah, I was thinking about Wolverine's claws being in the gloves. :)
grinningdemon
wrote:
>In article
><b58f3261-ebb5-4198...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 4:38 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>> > However, Doom has a clone of
>> > Loki growing, and those horns in his helmet turn out to be bone growing
>> > out of his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>>
>> There is some mythological background to that. In Britian there are
>> some depiction of him with horns, usually in a post Christianisation
>> lucification of Loki... but it exists.
>
>
>Still, we've seen Loki without the helmet ...
We've also seen him change his form at his convenience...who knows
what his natural form is? I don't find this one too much of a
stretch.
Duggy
> In article
> <b58f3261-ebb5-4198-bac9-5d85ca377...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 4:38 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > However, Doom has a clone of
> > > Loki growing, and those horns in his helmet turn out to be bone growing
> > > out of his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
>
> > There is some mythological background to that. In Britian there are
> > some depiction of him with horns, usually in a post Christianisation
> > lucification of Loki... but it exists.
>
> Still, we've seen Loki without the helmet ...
Maybe he grinds them off, like Hellboy.
===
= DUG.
===
And yet another meeting of the Nazi Party was cut short when someone
envoked Godwin's Law.
===
Ken from Chicago
"Tim Turnip" <timt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v0m0b619ar1ae5qff...@4ax.com...
Exactly. It's like getting upset Dr. Leslie Thompkins was eliminated from
BATMAN BEGINS or that Peter David removed the silly hour-limit out of water
for Aquaman. It may have been tradition, but is not necessary. Plus with a
2-hour movie, about Thor, Loki, Odin, Jane Foster, how much time is there
really to devote to Don Blake?
That said, he could have a cameo as a doctor consulting with Dr. Jane Foster
(she's being bumped up from nurse to doctor in the movie, right?) when Thor
visits the hospital as a mortal when he's banished from Asgard.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-E4396...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
Yeah, the same Don Blake who was absent from the comic how many decades?
My favorite childhood superhero is the Silver Age Flash, but you can do
Flash stories and movies without Barry Allen.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Oh so NOW you're all for JMS because he written Don Blake back in.
Ken from Chicago
"Michael" <this...@for.rent> wrote in message
news:Ns0so.817$OB2...@newsfe02.iad...
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article <AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com>,
>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
>>>>really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?) even
>>>>before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the Stone.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
>>>>Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
>>>
>>>What gender is Loki?
>
> Currently a male in both the comics and movie. Actually, I think he's
> dead in the MU proper, but I could be wrong. And I guess Loki was never a
> woman techically, as he'd been using Sif's new body.
Is this the first time Loki has changed forms?
>>>Why should the movie keep Don Blake, considering the comic ditched him
>>>years ago?
>>
>>
>> Uh, you mean the Don Blake that's in the comics this month, that's been
>> in them from the start, that's been in the current reboot from the
>> beginning? That Don Blake?
>
> That be him. Simonson gave Thor a secret identity of Sigurd Jarlson,
> where it was Thor pulling a Clark Kent, though Sigurd wasn't a reporter.
>
> Michael
So during the great Simonson run, there were Thor stories without Don Blake?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-6F96C...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
Would you rather they be retractible adamantium implants?
Maybe he could go incognito by sawing them down and wearing red face paint.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-6ACFF...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
Cheer up, Anim. Could it possibly be worse than emo-Peter Parker?
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
<523cd852-8636-4070...@c28g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 11:34 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b58f3261-ebb5-4198-bac9-5d85ca377...@x20g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Oct 10, 4:38 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > However, Doom has a clone of
> > > > Loki growing, and those horns in his helmet turn out to be bone growing
> > > > out of his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> >
> > > There is some mythological background to that. In Britian there are
> > > some depiction of him with horns, usually in a post Christianisation
> > > lucification of Loki... but it exists.
> >
> > Still, we've seen Loki without the helmet ...
>
> Maybe he grinds them off, like Hellboy.
I actually like that!
Michael
>
>
> "Michael" <this...@for.rent> wrote in message
> news:Ns0so.817$OB2...@newsfe02.iad...
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> In article <AvKdndjJD9HUkS3R...@giganews.com>,
>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-671B5...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Thor lost me at the casting stage (black and japanese norse gods?
>>>>> really? a black norse god that's brother to a white norse goddess?)
>>>>> even
>>>>> before they ditched Don Blake and tossed in The Sword in the Stone.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> "Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
>>>>> Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What gender is Loki?
>>
>>
>> Currently a male in both the comics and movie. Actually, I think he's
>> dead in the MU proper, but I could be wrong. And I guess Loki was
>> never a woman techically, as he'd been using Sif's new body.
>
>
> Is this the first time Loki has changed forms?
It was my impression that this wasn't Loki changing forms so much as
possessing another person's body.
>>>> Why should the movie keep Don Blake, considering the comic ditched
>>>> him years ago?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, you mean the Don Blake that's in the comics this month, that's
>>> been in them from the start, that's been in the current reboot from
>>> the beginning? That Don Blake?
>>
>>
>> That be him. Simonson gave Thor a secret identity of Sigurd Jarlson,
>> where it was Thor pulling a Clark Kent, though Sigurd wasn't a reporter.
>>
>> Michael
>
>
> So during the great Simonson run, there were Thor stories without Don
> Blake?
Yes.
Michael
Michael
Good guy emo-Petey for an entire movie rather than an Evil emo-Pete for
part of a movie?
Michael
Duggy
wrote:
> That said, he could have a cameo as a doctor consulting with Dr. Jane Foster
> (she's being bumped up from nurse to doctor in the movie, right?) when Thor
> visits the hospital as a mortal when he's banished from Asgard.
I'm of two minds with that sort of thing...
Cameos are cute for fans, but dangerous for film series.
What if they have "Dr Don Blake" with a name badge and everything...
and they want to introduce him as a med student in any sequel? Plus,
cameos usually have not-much more then extras for actors.
Think Billy Dee Williams as Dent in Batman.
Maybe have someone who *could* be Blake appear but not name him.
Like the daughter in The Dark Knight. Could be Barbara Gordon. Could
be her little sister. If they called her Barbara at any point it
could have affected any future Batgirl appearance.
====