"Doctor Strange" - no spoilers

[Russell Watson]

I have stated before that with the MCU I'm in for a penny, in for a
pound: they probably won't release one as long as I'm alive that I won't
go see if I'm able. However, of the characters to have gotten a solo
movie so far, this is the one that was the smallest blip on my radar. I
do not recall ever reading more than one or two "Doctor Strange" comic
books as a kid and mostly encountered him in ensemble situations and I
did watch the couple of late '70s TV movies featuring the character but
don't really remember anything about them now. Having said all that, I
found the new movie to be very engaging and fun, and it has a climax
that will come as a surprise to those who see these movies as all
formulaic. Cumberbatch does a good job of portraying the titular
character as both a physician so smug he makes Greg House look like a
pussy and as a totally broken man who has to find a new way in life, and
manages to infuse humor into both. The supporting cast are all good, as
well, and the SFX are terrific. 3D lovers will certainly appreciate a
few sequences in that format. Not my favorite movie of the franchise but
definitely a worthy addition to the MCU stable. Oh, and of course stay
through the credits.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <nvkvtj$453$1...@dont-email.me>,

They did a good job on the visuals, and Cumberbatch definitely looks
the part. It's a bit disappointing that they had to tone down the
Stan Lee histrionics (otherwise you get Dr. Orpheus from The Venture
Brothers..).

I'm a little confused by the Mirror universe concept. I get that what
happens there can't affect the "real world", but we got a peek at
what appeared to be living inhabitants, maybe based on the "real world",
but having their own lives (Stan Lee, for instance..). Doesn't seem
altogether cricket to push the problem into their world and then call
it a win..

I thought Strange was a bit too much Tony Stark with an Md. at times,
and that the semi love-interest could have been more useful, but definitely
entertaining.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[trotsky]

When I looked at RT both the rating and the audience score were 90%.

[Russell Watson]

LOL Good point!

>
> I'm a little confused by the Mirror universe concept. I get that what
> happens there can't affect the "real world", but we got a peek at
> what appeared to be living inhabitants, maybe based on the "real world",
> but having their own lives (Stan Lee, for instance..). Doesn't seem
> altogether cricket to push the problem into their world and then call
> it a win..

Yeah, I was a bit puzzled by that too. Best answer I could could come up
with was that the apparent denizens of the mirror-verse weren't "real",
kind of like the holodeck people in non-TOS "Star Trek" 'verse. One
could suppose if a person were practicing sorcery it would help to have
what at least appeared to be real people to measure the effect on, so
that you might learn from having caused a virtual tragedy what NOT to do
out the real world.

[Arthur Lipscomb]

I'm pretty sure what we were seeing was the people in *our* universe who
were simply completely oblivious as to what was happening in the mirror
universe. It was just the other (our) side of the mirror.

One
> could suppose if a person were practicing sorcery it would help to have
> what at least appeared to be real people to measure the effect on, so
> that you might learn from having caused a virtual tragedy what NOT to do
> out the real world.
>
>>
>> I thought Strange was a bit too much Tony Stark with an Md. at times,
>> and that the semi love-interest could have been more useful, but
>> definitely
>> entertaining.
>>
>

Yeah, good movie but it failed the Bechdel test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

[Russell Watson]

If most women feel about its star the way my companion last night does
(her main reason for wanting to see it: she contacted me last weekend
and asked "Are you taking me to see 'Doctor Strange' Friday night?"
while our first date back in January was to see "Sherlock: The
Abominable Bride") I don't think that figures here. The only thing that
perked her up more was the mid-credits scene.

[Lewis]

In message <nvkvtj$453$1...@dont-email.me>

I thought the 3D in Doctor Strange was just about the best I'd ever seen,
and I am not a huge fan of 3D. I'd put it up against Avatar and Toy
Story 3. If it is not better than TS3 or Avatar, it is certainly more
impressive than in TS3 and the only reason Avatar would have been more
impressive was because no one had ever seen 3D in a movie like that.

When the buildings are rotating like large clock gears? That was very
impressive.


--
'The trouble with my friend here is that he doesn't know the difference
between a postulate and a metaphor of human existence. Or a hole in the
ground.' --Pyramids

[Lewis]

In message <nvmddj$jgo$1...@dont-email.me>

She knew the name of the movie? Impressive. My wife simply referred to
is as "the new Cumberbatch movie".

--
"Remember -- that which does not kill us can only make us stronger."
"And that which *does* kill us leaves us *dead*!"

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <slrno1tna0....@snow.local>,

Judging by the credits, it was post-converted too..

[Steve L]

On 6 Nov 2016 10:32:55 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:

>>I thought the 3D in Doctor Strange was just about the best I'd ever seen,
>>and I am not a huge fan of 3D. I'd put it up against Avatar and Toy
>>Story 3. If it is not better than TS3 or Avatar, it is certainly more
>>impressive than in TS3 and the only reason Avatar would have been more
>>impressive was because no one had ever seen 3D in a movie like that.
>>
>>When the buildings are rotating like large clock gears? That was very
>>impressive.
>>
>>
>
>Judging by the credits, it was post-converted too..

Probably naive question: how is CGI post-converted in effects heavy
films? The same way as the live action elements, or is it re-rendered
to produce "true" 3D?

[moviePig]

Theoretically, the latter. It should be cheaper, actually.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[Obveeus]

I enjoyed this film, but I did find some of the 3D INCEPTION style
sequences to be nothing more than nonsense. If a person can control
such magic, then why would it not be aimed at the intended target rather
than being relatively widespread in its effect? Additionally, the
Rachel McAdams character was entirely underdeveloped / throw away in
this film...so I think she was simply added as female star power to
widen the potential audience for this film...and judging by the box
office it worked. Beyond that, though, this film was well acted and
well written and for the most part the characters were well developed
even if they were entirely too comfortable with the events going on
around them.

[Russell Watson]

Yeah, the girlfriend characters (actually any non-superhero characters)
in these movies sometimes get the short end. This one especially because
she was already an ex before the story even started. I'd say Gwyneth
Paltrow in the Iron Man flicks and Natalie Portman in the two Thor
movies have gotten the best deal of any of the female peripherals (and
her Kat Dennings sidekick along with her, as a comic relief character).
Evangeline Lily did OK in "Ant Man", but that was because beyond being
an origin story for the modern version of title character, the whole
thing was also a setup for her to become an Avenger in her own right.
Otherwise, any females not in the main plot are usually window little
more than window dressing. I'm sure we will see more of Rachel in the
next stand-alone Doctor Strange vehicle, but how major of a part she
will have remains to be seen.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <o0af4c$rjd$1...@dont-email.me>,

And the thing is, it doesn't have to be that way. To take opposite
companies, both DC's Lois Lane and Marvel's Mary Jane Watson are
(or have been) major characters in their own right in the comics
even though their initial purpose was to be "the girlfriend".

[Russell Watson]

I'd say that to begin with Lois Lane's only purpose was to be a victim
so that Superman had someone to go into action to rescue all the time,
but over the course the last 4 decades has become a character in her own
right. MJ, in the Spider-Man books, has had the best of all worlds: she
has actually almost had the evolution of a real person, having started
off as a friend of Parker's from school who dated more than one of his
friends (and a frenemy) before becoming Parker's girlfriend and eventual
wife. Meanwhile, Parker also went through a series of other girlfriends
and didn't spend the early days of the title pining in unrequited love
for the redhead who would eventually become "the one". That is where the
Silver Age Marvel really turned the tide in treating it's characters
like real people instead of cardboard cutouts.
But to be fair to the MCU, the comics have had 12 issues/year for
decades to play out those story arcs, while the movies only have up to
about 2.5 hours at a pop to introduce a villain, set up a plot, have
some action sequences, and resolve the story, and if part of that time
is also the title character's origin story then you run out of room to
develop peripheral characters pretty quickly. If these were TV series
like "Daredevil" they could breathe a little more life into the people
who fall into the titular superheroes' orbits, but the feature film
format doesn't offer much latitude for that.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <o0am9j$lup$1...@dont-email.me>,

Yes, I had that though after posting: decades of evolving continuity
(and retcons..) can certainly do more for a character than bit parts
in a two hour action movie. On the other hand, Lois Lane (and perhaps
*only* Lois Lane) is well known enough in pop culture that they could
just drop her in as a major character without any build up.

[Russell Watson]

I agree 100% with that. After nearly 80 years there's no need to explain
who she is or give her a new "origin" within the framework of the
endless reboots and/or retcons. Then again, who is she really, beyond
the spunky (though often hapless/helpless) ace female reporter for the
Daily Planet who either loves Superman and disdains Clark Kent, or who
knows they are the same person, depending on which version of the story
it is? She never really has had much of a back story or much more depth
to her than that. "Smallville" came the closest to giving her a "past"
of any version so far, but most of that was delivered via anecdotes
about her given to Kent by her cousin, Chloe, with only a little more
background given once she actually appeared on the show as a character.
Like Superman himself, she has become an iconic figure about whom little
else really needs to be known.

[Obveeus]

Along those lines, Gwyneth Paltrow's character should be getting boosted
screentime as a super hero in her own right, but instead they shipped
her off into oblivion...apparently to hang out with Natalie Portman's
THOR series character and the TV version of Cobie Smulder's AVENGERS
persona. :-(

[Russell Watson]

I think Pepper's Extremis-augmented powers were only supposed to be
temporary, but yeah, the old "We broke up and she's gone..." dismissal
of the character was a bit too trite. At least Portman's Jane Foster is
in theory still around, she just doesn't get onscreen in every movie.
Not sure if she's slated for "Ragnarok" or not, as I haven't heard much
about that movie yet beyond that it will have Thor, Hulk and another
main character from the series so far. And what about Banner's
girlfriend Betsy Ross, as played by either Jennifer Connelly or Liv
Tyler? Never existed, apparently, as they make no mention of her,
despite her Pop turning up in the latest movie in the series.

[Obveeus]

On 11/13/2016 11:18 PM, Russell Watson wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 10:52 PM, Obveeus wrote:

>> Along those lines, Gwyneth Paltrow's character should be getting boosted
>> screentime as a super hero in her own right, but instead they shipped
>> her off into oblivion...apparently to hang out with Natalie Portman's
>> THOR series character and the TV version of Cobie Smulder's AVENGERS
>> persona. :-(
>
> I think Pepper's Extremis-augmented powers were only supposed to be
> temporary,

I think that idea was added after the fact when they couldn't get her
back for the followup films.

> but yeah, the old "We broke up and she's gone..." dismissal
> of the character was a bit too trite. At least Portman's Jane Foster is
> in theory still around, she just doesn't get onscreen in every movie.
> Not sure if she's slated for "Ragnarok" or not,

I think the answer is 'not' because she got bored with playing the
damsel in distress.

> as I haven't heard much
> about that movie yet beyond that it will have Thor, Hulk and another
> main character from the series so far.

The clip in the mid-credits for DOCTOR STRANGE hinted at more of the
content for the upcoming THOR film.

> And what about Banner's
> girlfriend Betsy Ross, as played by either Jennifer Connelly or Liv
> Tyler? Never existed, apparently, as they make no mention of her,
> despite her Pop turning up in the latest movie in the series.

The film series seems to have Romanov as David Banner's girlfriend.

[Russell Watson]

On 11/14/2016 7:57 AM, Obveeus wrote:
> On 11/13/2016 11:18 PM, Russell Watson wrote:
>> On 11/13/2016 10:52 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>
>>> Along those lines, Gwyneth Paltrow's character should be getting boosted
>>> screentime as a super hero in her own right, but instead they shipped
>>> her off into oblivion...apparently to hang out with Natalie Portman's
>>> THOR series character and the TV version of Cobie Smulder's AVENGERS
>>> persona. :-(
>>
>> I think Pepper's Extremis-augmented powers were only supposed to be
>> temporary,
>
> I think that idea was added after the fact when they couldn't get her
> back for the followup films.
>
>> but yeah, the old "We broke up and she's gone..." dismissal
>> of the character was a bit too trite. At least Portman's Jane Foster is
>> in theory still around, she just doesn't get onscreen in every movie.
>> Not sure if she's slated for "Ragnarok" or not,
>
> I think the answer is 'not' because she got bored with playing the
> damsel in distress.
>
>> as I haven't heard much
>> about that movie yet beyond that it will have Thor, Hulk and another
>> main character from the series so far.
>
> The clip in the mid-credits for DOCTOR STRANGE hinted at more of the
> content for the upcoming THOR film.

Yeah, I was kind of trying to not go there lest it be perceived as a
spoiler by some.

>
>> And what about Banner's
>> girlfriend Betsy Ross, as played by either Jennifer Connelly or Liv
>> Tyler? Never existed, apparently, as they make no mention of her,
>> despite her Pop turning up in the latest movie in the series.
>
> The film series seems to have Romanov as David Banner's girlfriend.

Exactly so, with no mention that Betsy ever existed. They could at least
have given Thunderbolt a toss-off line in "Civil War" acknowledging that
he has a daughter and that she used to be Banner's girlfriend. When he
asked them if they knew where Thor and Hulk were he could have said
something like, "At least not with my daughter, thank God..." or
something like that to close that loop.

[Obveeus]

On 11/14/2016 12:47 PM, Russell Watson wrote:
> On 11/14/2016 7:57 AM, Obveeus wrote:

>> The clip in the mid-credits for DOCTOR STRANGE hinted at more of the
>> content for the upcoming THOR film.
>
> Yeah, I was kind of trying to not go there lest it be perceived as a
> spoiler by some.

I know some people really loathe spoilers. We should ask one of them.
Hey, moviePig, do you duck out of the Marvel films as soon as the
credits start to role so that you aren't accidentally exposed to the
promo for an upcoming Marvel film (something they almost always do in
those end credits)?