|
Post by humanbelly on May 31, 2011 16:23:16 GMT -5
Hmm. Weaker cases certainly have been made where, nevertheless, a seemingly bonifide death has been, er, overturned. It's usually villains, granted, but the point is still sound.
And Wikipedia's entry wastes no effort in pointing out that Bill's continuity is wildly inconsistent and riddled with paradox and loose ends.
And I'd really like to see him come back. Always had a warm spot in my heart. Liked his costume, too-- it was just unapologetically "superhero-y". Heh.
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 30, 2011 5:26:46 GMT -5
HB--I hear ya, but disagree completely. There have been many, many GREAT "Christian villains"--the first that pops into mind is the Mother in the old movie Carrie--which is being re-made right now from what I understand.If they take out the part where Carrie's mother is a foaming at the mouth religious crazy it will destroy the movie, and I will not spend my money on it. That being said, I am quite vocal on the issue that some anti-religious types have become every bit as obnoxious as the meanest right wing crazies. I work with guys who viciously attack anyone with any kind of religious beliefs and I am reading (right now) a book about Madalyn Murray O'Haire, who considered herself "The Athiest." I don't need to be protected from either side, and being an independent, critical thinker, I can come to my own conclusions. Boy, we're managing to engage in a discussion about politics (1st Amendment, more or less), religion, and artistic freedom, where there are some fundamental differences of opinion. . . and yet we haven't gotten around to tearing each others' throats out or resorting to questioning the legitimacy of anyone's ancestry. Are we. . . are we even ON the internet?? What's ironic here is that the theater I work for FREQUENTLY gets into hot water with its audience base AND its governing entity for thoughtfully pursuing its own artistic/political agenda, which trends leftwards. Ultimately, art can't and shouldn't be censored, of course-- but it probably behooves the artist to accept the fact that folks that don't like a particular work have every right to say why it offends them, as well. Same constitutional amendment, yes? I am happy to agree to disagree, though. "It takes neither bread from my mouth, nor coin from my purse" (paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson, I think. . . ). There is a sort of weak "out" for this dilemma: In the Marvel Universe, these gods weren't, in fact, created by the Norse people. They already existed, and the Norse just "identified" them as best they could. Assuming that detailed info about the Asgardians was sketchy, at best, it's easy to also assume that they wouldn't account for any unknown racial differences amongst the Asgardians themselves. Of course, one would still expect those differences to manifest themselves in less Earth-specific racial forms. . . but what can ya do? HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 29, 2011 13:34:35 GMT -5
Drew--that is infuriating. I am so tired of political correctness. We have somehow, over the past 50 years, allowed the most neurotic crybabies to dictate what can or cannot be seen, read, said, etc. This whole idea that someone, somewhere (if such a person actually exists in the first place) might be offended that a Star of David is used in a game is just sick. You CANNOT write interesting stories if you are shackled by PC bullsmit. You can't be funny, either, if you live in constant fear of offending the most neurotic amongst us. People like Chris Rock and David Chapelle are FUNNY because they are honest and say things other people wouldn't dare. I really, really despise what political correctness is doing to the world of art. Politics should NEVER intrude upon art. I see this in my field all the time. Great, interesting storylines for games being absolutely crippled because layers of corporate hacks, who need to justify their own uselessness while at the same time morally preening in front of those of us who actually create content, who wring their hands over offending a handful of cry babies. What they fail to grasp is that their incessant interference blands out the story, taking it from fascinating to mediocre, and hence nobody buys the game because it is BORING. I am sorry for the rant, but as an artist, this is a very sore subject for me. It is depressing as hell to me to watch movies from the 70's that were funny, movies like "Airplane," which would never be made today due to political correctness. Remember the scene where Barbra Billingsley talks jive to the two black guys? My black friends ROARED with laughter when they saw that scene, but today self-appointed spokesmen for blacks would have shut that movie down. Remember on "Living Color" the skit "Men on Film" featuring the flaming gay characters? It was hilarious. The gay people I knew would actually stay home on Sunday nights, hoping "Men on Film" would come on. But then I start reading in the press about how that skit might offend gay people, it was stereotypical, all gay men don't act that way, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, gay people LOVED IT. I work with a twenty something guy who informed me that he refused to watch "King of the Hill" because it was "stereotypical" about Texans. I couldn't believe how stunted the thinking there was. Extremes are FUNNY. What do you have if you take the extremes out of art? How would "King of the Hill" be funny if it didn't highlight some of the absurdities of living in Texas? ugh. Shir--you are right, the Star of David is an ancient symbol that has meant many things over the centuries. The swastika is another ancient symbol, which meant virility to early pagan Europeans, and it was just that connotation that made the Nazis adopt it. But of course nobody knows about these things, they are ignorant of history, and yet these same ignorant people will disallow artists from using these symbols--imposing their dogmas on creative people. 'Tis a fine & impressive, heart-felt, well-expressed rant, bobc. Now, I can't say I'm fully on board with all you're saying here (overall, I think you may be painting the effects & consequences of the PC trend with far too broad a brush), but I don't want to be the eternal, annoying gadfly 'round here (look what it got Socrates. . . ). The one specific item I'd bring up, though, is that anime creature sporting the Star of David that Shiryu mentioned was, in fact, a monster/bad-guy, yes? Guarding the Wailing Wall-like entrance to the villain's lair? It's clearly portraying a malevolent, evil force that is clearly adorned with two well-known Jewish symbols. Intentional or not, this was going to be offensive to many, many folks, and the decision to change it was the right one. Had he been wearing a crucifix on his head, and the entrance he was guarding been called the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, it would have been equally offensive, I daresay. The argument that the Star of David and the Swastika (and others, I'm sure) have much, much older, unrelated roots doesn't really hold up in the context of whether they could or should be used anytime by anyone who feels like using them for whatever reason. These symbols don't exist in society as neutral, disassociated, geometric graphic entities. They are very specific symbols that carry a tremendous amount of associative power, memory, and emotion with them. For some (the crucifix, the Koran, the Star of David, the Confederate Flag) the symbol says, "That is ME!", and they profoundly identify with it; for others (the swastika, gang tags, the Confederate Flag) the symbol alone can bring great pain, cause great fear, or open the painful wounds of memory. They are powerful. And with that power comes- of course- responsibility. And that responsibility in this case, (from a PC perspective, at least) would be to make every effort to not cause any unnecessary, avoidable harm or pain to our fellow planet-dwellers. GRANTED, moderation and common sense do seem to exit the building a little too often in pursuit of this ideal-- but I'm sure the pendulum will manage to swing back a bit before too long. [Boy, and this was me just tackling ONE talking-point, bobc-- could the internet even support me expanding on many others??] HBcrates
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 29, 2011 8:27:53 GMT -5
Hey, it's the Birthday of our resident arachno-insect hybrid-- SpiderWasp! Is he a flying, octo-legged creature of venomous stinging AND fanged death?? Or is he simply a tormented man, trapped in a form not of his own making??? (Boy, if only the late Don LaFontaine were around to give that a proper voice-over treatment. . . or at least Dawes Butler. . . ) SW hasn't been around for a couple o' weeks. . . is age catchin' up with him? Sleeping in too late, hmm? Wait, isn't SW one of our contingent of Teachers? Perhaps we could ALL send him commemorative "Happy B-Day to the World's Greatest Teacher" mugs, eh? (Of course, if he's NOT a teacher after all. . . well, it wouldn't really be our problem at that point. . . ) Ha! Happy Birthday, SW-- hope you pop up soon to receive all appropriate greetings. . . ;D HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 29, 2011 5:59:48 GMT -5
I understand that. My point is that frankly, I don't really care. If it is a good movie, it is a good movie. Why would I define my enjoyment of the flick based on how the oversees crowd perceives it? A good movie is NOT a bomb. I enjoy Star Wars because I enjoy Star Wars, not because it has sold the second most tickets in movie history. Of course, quality and sales don't go hand in hand. The most recent Oscar winner, The King's Speech, didn't perform all that well from what I know. But in the case of superhero movies, the better the income the more the chances of a sequel, which could be even better than the original movie (I thought Spider-Man 2 and X-Men 2 were both better than the previous installments). Wasn't last summer's box office champ Transformers 2? The rarer example of a universally-panned movie that manages to be a huge financial success (HB-Son & a group of his pals saw it- the target demographic!- and they couldn't go on enough about what a bad film it was-- albeit disguised by relentless spectacle & special effects.) HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 28, 2011 5:30:49 GMT -5
HB I know what story you're talking about. Korvac attains god-like powers and is determined to make the Earth run with machine precision, making everybody essentially machine slaves to Korvac. Cap defies Korvac again and again, each time dying and being resurrected with memories intact to break his spirit. Eventually Cap rallies Korvac's #2 guy to believe in freedom, becoming the future Captain America while Steve Rogers returns to the 616 universe. It was actually quite a good story, and you are correct, that is exactly the type of Cap that should be (and I believe will be) portrayed in the movie. THAT'S the one-! Thanks, drew-- great job filling that faded memory out. We do agree on the spirit of the story, absolutely. And while the plot idea is sound, I would still be inclined to quibble on the execution-- the story idea is far too grand in scope to be properly contained in a filler issue (or two). It's sort of the opposite of decompression. That impression stuck with me even when the story details had long faded. Am I also remembering that the art was kinda "enh"-? (I suppose I could go downstairs and spend 20 minutes trying to track it down. . . or else I could go make breakfast. . . so hard to decide. . . It just seemed like such a deliberate poke in the Jews' collective eye-! I mean, really? The star of David and the Wailing Wall? A shred of sensitivity could rarely cause anyone harm. . . Except it would be using essentially the same motivational launchpad yet again. I wonder if Steve's flaw could in fact be at the opposite end of the spectrum, at least initially? Self-doubt. He simply wasn't physically good enough to serve his country, right? One assumes that such was the case for him throughout his childhood (as an aside-- has there ever been much of an exploration of Steve Rogers' Depression Era boyhood? I would think that'd be a story-telling goldmine. . . ). Could an initial inability to fully trust and believe in himself be the personal obstacle he must overcome? This would very much fit the Steve Rogers I feel I know. He's probably the most confident, competent, and capable human being on the planet-- and seems aware of it in a factual sense, and yet it never manifests itself with his ever, ever thinking he's better than anyone else. At all. He's the guy who often referred to unfamiliar adversaries as "sir" 'til he got to know them better. Although it's not mentioned, I think that quality is what draws the frequent comparisons to Superman. Ohhhh, talkin' too much this early morn---- HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 28, 2011 4:48:28 GMT -5
Dragsville. Witchcraftial's Youtube account has been deleted due to copyright infringement ARRRGH! And I was just gearing up to watch the whole series again!! But oh, how not surprising. . . I was wondering how in the world he was getting away with posting all of this copyrighted material. Turns out he wasn't! Hmmmm. Disney buys Marvel, and the Free Online Comics Library is shut down. Disney buys Marvel, and Witchcraftrial's site shuts down. Is there a connection?? (Okay, okay-- I'm being a curmudgeon. . . wctrial's site was CLEARLY in full violation, and the whistle could have been blown by any of the many, many other folks whose works he was posting illegitimately. Them's the breaks. . . ) Oh say, on another subject-- what's the take on Marvel's DVD animated films, Ultimate Avengers and Next Avengers? Both are on sale @ Target for $5, I see. Yay? Nay? HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 27, 2011 11:41:08 GMT -5
OMG-- the second costume shown in Shiryu's "Thor Art Challenge" link is, I believe, the awful one that I was trying to recall earlier in this thread! It's just. . . it's horrible. Metal skull-cap w/ big wings. Ridiculous, teeny, strip of cloth on the torso. THE ARMORED SHOULDER PADS!!! (looks like he's wearing the grill of 50's era automobile. . . ).
Oooh, not good.
Oh, and the leather-y trousers in the film just didn't really make it for me, visually. But, geeze, what would the alternative be? His traditional boots are wildly impractical for live-action sequences. And the spandex-ish legwear would probably be rather questionable, as well. . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 27, 2011 11:25:52 GMT -5
Interesting thoughts guys. I think part of the appeal of Cap is that WWII is the last war where our enemies are seen as truly evil. Of course movie Cap won't actually be fighting Nazis, but Hydra.. I think. I suspect Hydra will be a subset of the Nazi party. Something that will help immensely (and I'm sure they will address this) is that America didn't win the war, the Allies did. Even people in occupied territories formed resistance cells and battled the Axis, sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice. To me, Cap isn't a goody goody boyscout, he's the will of the people everywhere, the will to be free. Sometimes to earn or defend that freedom you must fight, and sometimes the cost is very hard to bear. That is why I think the more recent portrayal of Cap and Bucky as soldiers who are also considered superheroes works so well. I'm convinced a quality movie with good casting can be sucessful pretty much anywhere. Sometime in the mid/late 90's, there was a one or two issue filler story in Captain America (I'm pretty sure it was his own title-- or possibly the original run of Guardians of the Galaxy, of all things??) that was, well, pretty awful in many respects. It's also a continuity nightmare, because it had Cap living entire lifetimes on a series of different planets or alternate dimensions, or something, and perpetually fighting this tyrannical ruler, until Cap & his stalwart band of resistance finally succeeded in overthrowing him. Cap supposedly retained all of these scores and scores of years' worth of memories and experience (right. . . ). BUT- the reason it did stick with me is because it nicely summed up that what Cap stands for is indeed the rights, will, dignity, and worth of the common "being" when faced with a power that would deny those fundamental qualities. It was a reminder that what Cap stands for is something we'd like to think of as universal principle, not just "American". But he fights for that principle on behalf of a nation that also holds it to be true. It's pure idealism, yes, but it's an ideal that's much larger than just the borders of the USA or within the orbital diameter of Planet Earth. Cap gets that. And if that quality can somehow be conveyed in the film (w/out it resorting to overly jingo-istic "This is for AMERICA, you dirty, stinkin' Hydra-Nazi!!" bushwah), then I daresay the film could even strike a suprising chord with the overseas crowd-- particularly in the turbulent mid-east. Man, but it's all just speculation. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 27, 2011 11:00:54 GMT -5
I don't think the problem will be that people overseas hate America (that is absolute nonsense)--it's more like those of us who grew up on Marvel saw CA as just CA, not necessarily a symbol of a nation. People in other countries, who may not know the character from Adam, may see him as a symbol. In WW2, most of the world saw us as heroes for defeating Hitler, and CA was the comic book face of that heroism--so the character was very popular. decades later, America has been involved in several wars that aren't real popular with just about anybody, so that patriotic zeal has faded. I think Captain America will suffer for that dividedness, both here and abroad. Spiderman, the FF and others do not carry this baggage. . Well, "hate" may be too strong a word, in any case, and really, I was surrendering to a bit of hyperbole w/ the vegetable-throwing image (too good to pass up, I'm afraid). But depending on which overseas societies we're referencing, yes, there are absolutely ones where the United States, as an institution, is not viewed very favorably at all. The paradox (which was commented on frequently during the first Gulf War, as I recall) is that Americans as individuals seem to be highly regarded, accepted, and appreciated in some of those same places. Go figure. It's sort of the reverse of Linus van Pelt's "Sure I love humanity-- it's PEOPLE I can't stand!" Anyhoo-- in the cold, stark light of practical marketing-- any overseas societies or factions that might flat-out hate the US and the secularism it may be seen as representing probably would never be coming to see this film (or any films, for that matter) in the first place. No, probably not likely that anyone'll really be lining up to go "Boo America!!" at any overseas premieres, you're right-- HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 26, 2011 14:56:42 GMT -5
I am telling you--in Essential Thor 5 there are some HILARIOUS Volstagg quotes! I won't spoil it--but trust me, he is at his funniest in these stories! You know I have this crackpot theory that the character Volstagg was fashioned after Ignatius in "Confederacy of Dunces." Has anyone else read that? It had me rolling on the floor laughing! Anyway--I haven't seen many of the Marvel movies, mainly because Spiderman bored me to death, and the first FF movie was, IMO, just okay. Nothing real exciting. I never saw Ghost Rider or the Punisher. I just never cared much about either character. I loved all the X-Men movies, however--even the third which everyone else seemed to dislike. I have to say--I think the Captain America movie is going to be a disaster. I just have the gut feeling. I think it'll do well in the domestic market. The problem's gonna be the overseas market. In some places it won't even be called "Captain America" rather just "The First Avenger." I don't think that bodes well for worldwide numbers... Oh man, I think in the mid-east & North African countries they may well throw vegetables at the screen. I just can't see how a character with such a nationalist/US patriot identity can grab the hearts & minds, as it were, of even friendly, close allies-- let alone indifferent or vaguely hostile ones. Heck, whenever I read or see some old British character dedicating some act to the "glory of his/her majesty", I generally groan and roll my eyes with all due exaggeration. Hard to buy into the mind-set, y'know? (No disrespect intended, of course towards, let's see, Shiryu, I believe? And owene, sort of? Do we have any other associates of the British Empire active that I may be offending. . . ??) Daggone it-- now I'm startin' an international incident. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 26, 2011 14:45:29 GMT -5
In fact, since Tony's performance as a hero depended (for the most part) entirely on his armor suit, AND he was an inventor, multimillionaire playboy AND CEO as well, how come he was as physically fit as, say, Hawkeye or Daredevil...? ;D Yep, always wondered the same thing-- ESPECIALLY when you consider that for a significant portion of the Silver Age he had an incredibly debilitating heart injury (boy, you can picture him & Aunt May sitting in a couple of porch rockers, exchanging harrowing heart-attack yarns. . . ). There's certainly room to say that using the armor still required considerable effort and exertion on the wearer's part, even with the servo-motor assistance. But then---- he was able to use it just as well when he was paralyzed. It became a big ol' exo-skeleton. You know what I've noticed over the years, though? Tony may indeed be one of the physically toughest heroes out there--- really. He has regularly taken tremendous beatings, burnings, and lambastings where his armor gets pretty much destroyed with him inside it, taking the punishment as well. And yet, more than almost anyone else, he's the guy that fights through it regardless, as long as the armor's holding out somehow. He's certainly not the strongest, he has no superpowers at all, he doesn't have a "mutant healing factor" (you'll find that mentioned more than once in old issues of the X-men)-- he just regularly gets really badly hurt, and pushes past it until he's beaten his foe, and then he's laid up in the hospital. He and Jan may be the most hospitalized superheroes ever, in fact. HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 26, 2011 13:40:32 GMT -5
Well if you market it as Captain America the first Avenger overseas to places Russia and South Korea they won't like it. You know how those places are due to political sensitivities. The Invaders are going to be in the movie but Namor won't be in it since he's still with another company that might've wanted him to be in another Fantastic Four movie. I saw the trailer and I don't care what anyone say's about the trailer I'm going to see.......NO MATTER WHAT. Oh, I think it's pretty much a given that we'll all go and see it-- we'd be awfully appalling AVENGERS buffs if we didn't, eh? Ultimately, y'know, there's just no way to predict whether any of these films will ever be hits. The ones that do seem to adhere to a single, specific artistic vision with a committed, knowledgeable director that respects the material and genre do seem to fare pretty darned well (X-men, Spider-man, Iron Man), ESPECIALLY if they take the casting very, very seriously and pull in solid actors who do really flesh out the roles (Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Tobey Maguire, Robert Downey Jr, maybe Anthony Hopkins, etc, etc). Neither FF film had this, Ghost Rider REALLY didn't have it, and I've never seen Daredevil or Electra. My main concern- really- with the Cap film, is that I simply don't see Chris Evans as having the necessary charisma to carry off a role that requires it more than almost any other character in the Marvel U. Open, honest, idealistic, patriotic, sincere-- as well as mature, decisive, and level-headed--- and all without being even remotely ironic, or dark, or brooding. As I've been saying all along, this is a TOUGH CASTING CALL. But that's the one element that'll make or break the film for me. For the record, while I thought RD,Jr was an INSPIRED casting choice (apart from the fact that he's quite short, and Tony's about 6'4" tall), my gut feeling was that the Iron Man film was gonna bomb like scuttled helicarrier. Couldn't imagine there being a huge market for a slightly second-tier character (as far as public perception is concerned). But it was a well-cast, well-paced, and well-executed action film-- so there you go! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 25, 2011 13:52:57 GMT -5
I'll bet it's going to take Wonder Woman another 20 years to get back on the small screen. Since no one can't find an actress to play Wonder Woman. It's a tough role to cast, there's no doubt about it. And it kind of goes against what mainstream Hollywood seems to look for as a bankable "type". She clearly needs to be physically beautiful-- but not in the teeny, tiny Jessica Alba/Meagan Fox mold that seems to be the first (and only) consideration lately. Linda Carter was really dead-on physically-- tall, statuesque, full-bodied. BUT she also has to have an undeniable, commanding, alpha-dog presence and even a bit of gravitas. . . like. . . like Katherine Hepburn, maybe? Or. . . oh, wow. . . the actress who played Zoe in Firefly (blanking on her name). Man, getting past the racial question once again, I would TOTALLY buy her as Wonder Woman-! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 25, 2011 7:28:16 GMT -5
The one knock on Don is one that doesn't seem uncommon for some comic artists as they get into middle-age: their powers/talents seem to go into an inexplicable decline. Sadly (and somewhat unfairly, I have no doubt), one of Don Heck's more lasting impressions may be the truly, truly sub-standard work he did on Giant-Size Avengers #4-- which was the HUGE climax of the whole Mantis/Celestial Madonna arc as well as the wedding of Vision & Wanda (and Mantis & a tree, of course). Probably one of the most anticipated issues of my life, personally-- no kidding-- and the level of disappointment upon opening the cover is something I can still distinctly recall.
But even allowing for the fact that it was obviously a rushed job from a company that was about to hit a wall from unrealistic production expectations, it was clear that Don's artistic edge was not what it once was. He seemed to have lost touch with his muse, as it were. Like Herb Trimpe, or Don Perlin, or the very later Jack Kirby-- the artistic thing that made him "good" didn't seem to be in evidence any more. But in this case, that deficiency was amplified by how important that particular issue was.
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 25, 2011 7:14:01 GMT -5
FINALLY got a chance to catch it at the local cinema on Sunday w/ Daughter of HB. And, really, I do think it was just fine. Not a truly great film, by any measure, but certainly a good, entertaining, and imminently watchable one. It was a normal, engaging, "hero-coming-of-age" story-- which makes it almost unavoidably formulaic. The most intense criticism I personally have heard was from the NY Times (I think), saying that the film was utterly predictable, adhered to formula, and offered no surprises nor broke new ground. And even then, the (unnecessarily negative) review conceded that there weren't actually any elements that were, in fact, bad-- they just didn't care for it being. . . predictable. But- duh- the source material is pretty much set & anchored; the storyline, while malleable, MUST hit certain pre-determined check-points; and everyone KNOWS all of the main characters will survive for further films. Obviously, this movie is a prologue film (heh, a "prequel" that's actually released before its source film! THERE'S the novelty!)-- so certainly the best move is to embrace that old, worn formula, and commit to doin' it up fancy, eh? IMO, this film succeeds just fine in that regard. I do fault the big writer-team, however, for tying to cover too much ground in one film. The storyline does get 'way too diffuse for my taste. It's that darned siren-call of "let's add one more cool thing, eh?" that Hollywood is chronically unable to resist. Too much plot ultimately reduces the impact of any of the individual plot elements. Lose the Destroyer, or lose that last "battle" w/ Loki, or even reduce or eliminate the SHIELD aspect (I mean, it's a sacrifice, yes. . . ), or even something else-- but a much cleaner, direct storyline goes a long way toward increasing emotional impact here.
Heimdall was great-- no question. TERRIFIC minimalist power and presence. The racial question is silly, since these beings weren't "created" by the Norsemen anyhow. Was the same issue raised for Asian Hogun?? I mean, that's splitting hairs to the point where you'd have to ask why any of these being even look human at all? Why aren't they all blue octopi, or something?
The actor playing Loki was the most compelling cast member, w/out a doubt. Daught of HB liked him, as well. A complex, layered portrayal of a VERY conflicted individual. The scene in the treasure chamber between he & Odin was about as legitimately Shakespearean as I think I've seen a superhero movie get. It was the pivotal scene in Loki's story arc-- probably my favorite in the film.
Son of HB (who saw it a few days earlier) was HUGELY disappointed in how easily the Destroyer was defeated. Can't say I wholly disagree. It's the DESTROYER for Pete's sake! But still-- you gotta make some concessions to keep the film moving, eh?
Thumbs-up-- no question.
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 21, 2011 7:19:10 GMT -5
Strange Tales 108 The Painter of a Thousand Perils By Stan Lee with Robert Bernstein, Jack Kirby and Dick Ayers. Villains: The Painter of a Thousand Perils Guest Appearances: the Fantastic Four
O. M. G. Dear Stan, Bob, Jack, and Dick- Fellas. . . miss the deadline, already. Really. Take a cue from the ancient healer's credo and "Do No Harm". . . ! Man, owen, this comes across as being the worst clunker yet, and you've bravely introduced us to quite a few-! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 21, 2011 7:08:37 GMT -5
[ Isn't Marvel kind of taking the line that Thor isn't a "God" when it comes to other media? I haven't seen the movie yet (planned to, but the timing didn't work with my day off), but in the promo for the film doesn't he refer to Asgard as a place where magic and science are the same thing and that magic is just science that humans don't yet understand? And doesn't that sort of take the mysticism and mythology out of it? Marvel itself did set the precedent for this explanation- wow- quite a few years back, now (where does the time go?). I've never been a steady Thor reader, but it's always been my impression that they never really pushed it too hard or explored it very deeply, because I agree, it just clobbers the whole enjoyment of said mysticism/mythology element. On the other hand, it does ground pretty much all of the MU's elevated pantheons (the Asgardians, the Olympians, the Egyptian Gods, etc) in some semblance of a rational universe. They're simply an incredibly long-lived, extraordinarily powerful race of beings who have the technological capability to effortlessly manipulate most of the known natural laws of the universe. Aaaaaand have kind of collectively forgotten where that tech knowledge came from. Or that it IS in fact technological. Obviously, it doesn't hold up well under much scrutiny at all. But it does effectively make it clear that these folks are all "gods" with a small "g", which can be offered in rebuttal to the One True God with a capital "G" folks. The fact that this kind of problem can creep into superhero fiction always makes me squirmy, though. What if we had a Hindu or Buddhist-based superhero? Does he/she have to get tossed out? What about the Black Panther, whose power is spiritually and ceremonially connected directly to an animist Panther God? Man, I can't believe that hasn't raised a ruckus at some point. And, wow, where do things like "reality-altering powers" (ala Scarlet Witch or Korvac/Michael or the Elders of the Universe) fit into this kind of thinking? Still a prickly topic, though. Believe me, I'm definitely not wanting to start any outright arguments. . . ! HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 20, 2011 11:15:32 GMT -5
I got a real Howard Hughes vibe from that cameo, not sure if it is entirely down to the first name or not. Definitely a model for the personality of Tony Stark but I think visually both Starks are a little based on him as well. Yes. Yes, I daresay your observation does ring a bit truer to me-- especially when supported by the spiffy photo-comparison. That's good. Of course, there's the obvious Walt Disney comparison (his whole Disneyland/Disneyworld presentations were very, very similar to this)-- but that's more environmental & situational, as this actor doesn't really look a heck of a lot like ol' Uncle Walt. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 20, 2011 10:29:08 GMT -5
HB, for my money, a clean shaven face for Thor and a beard for Hercules. Do any of you guys care for the movie Thor's outfit? I'm having trouble finding any images that show the whole thing-- almost nothing includes a clear lower torso. (Although the early costume images from over a year ago picture some very unfortunate heavy-duty trousers--- not jiggy w/ those, I have to say.) I do kind of like Thor with a beard, honestly. It certainly lends him a godly gravitas. But, boy, it has to be drawn well. Doc, I'm givin' you a new exalt. You just. . . you somehow look naked w/out it, and it forces me to avert my gaze from your posts in embarrassment. . . Your fastidious pal, HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 20, 2011 8:08:01 GMT -5
[HB, in this case I've read the same stuff that you have--many resources over the years include the trivia that Heck modeled Tony on Flynn. And actually I've never read or seen an interview in which Heck himself states this. (On a related note I have read interviews where Heck states that he based his rendition of the Wasp on Heck's then-wife.) Heck can do handsome and beautiful; plus great character faces (his villains, his original versions of Happy and Pepper). But yeah, it's apparent this was Heck's template for the suave, handsome male, as seen here: Now this isn't Tony; this is the Swordsman, in Avengers #20, and with a hefty dose of Wally Wood inks. But I always think of Tony when I see this, at least at first glance! It's hard to convince myself that this isn't Tony, in fact-! Ol' Jacque (wasn't that Swordy's real name?) was indeed a handsome ol' rogue, wasn't he? Now, let me toss something out that struck me as a recent reversal of the model-the-character-on-a-real-star method. In Iron Man 2, was it me, or did the actor playing Howard Stark come across as nearly a dead-ringer for Heck's Tony Stark? Like, they took an image from an old Tales of Suspense or Iron Man, and said, "get me this face for Tony's dad"--? (That whole sequence was a multi-layered treat, in fact. The first thing that grabbed me was the Disney-esque theme music in the background, and I thought, "Wow, what a clever tribute to Disney's ubiquitous Sherman brothers!" And then the credit roll revealed that it wasn't a tribute at all---- that it actually WAS written by the surviving Richard Sherman-! Boy, Easter eggs inside of Easter eggs. . . !) HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 19, 2011 15:58:39 GMT -5
Didn't like the yellow-blue number Thor was wearing when Thunderstrike's title ended, nor the shirtless look, or the bondage look from the Marvel-DC crossover. Basically, a lot of the expermentation of the '90s didn't work. Actually, that's a General Rule for all of Marvel in the 1990s, isn't it? Yeah-- or for an awful lot of it, at least. I was reminded that Hercules suffered a similar "youthful" revamp, and looked it up. Yeesh-- a tiny brown strap-shouldered undershirt, fancied-up cargo pants, and shiny (metallic?) tall boots. And clean-shaven, w/ longer, flowing hair. His power had also been halved by Zeus, and he lost the usual Elizabethan idiom in his speech, and took up using contemporary speech patterns. And pretty much lost most of his swagger. Hercules who? To be fair, Marvel has never shied away from shoving what they perceive as the current (or next) "big thing" down the readers' throats, whether they(we) really wanted it or not. Remember the original run of NOVA? Heck, it was practically a traumatic experience, 'cause Marvel kept telling me that it was fantastic and that I would love it and had no choice in the matter. Period. And yet. . . I didn't really. . . like it. . . all that much. . . Something had to be wrong with ME, then, right. . . ? HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 19, 2011 8:13:27 GMT -5
The best is the classic version for me too. I also like the armour he had towards the end of Simonson's run, and I don't mind Coipel's version except for the helmet that looks a bit too big. The worse? Probably the outfit he wore in Marvel vs DC (which I think it's the same posted by Sharkar, but I don't have it at hand to confirm). Yep, did a quick double-check, and you're correct, that's the same outfit, alright. Without a doubt, that is the worst one ever. Not even remotely generated by the character's tastes or background or practicality or anything. In fact, with the ridiculously exposed mid-section, it strikes me as being an egregious beefcake version of all of the hopelessly inadequate cheesecake outfits that our female characters sport. (Am I the only one who found Red Sonja's tiny chain-mail bikini laughably absurd even as I maintained a relentless, adolescence-driven appreciation of it??) I have to confess that, while I'll always identify Thor w/ his classic outfit, it really did strike me as being kind of silly-looking even in my youth. But his re-designs have really been hit-&-miss over the years. Wasn't there another one introduced sometime around the "God Gone Mad" or the "Blood & Thunder" story-lines (decades ago, and I wasn't a regular reader), that was also particularly bad? Honestly, if Coipel's is that look he's sporting now-- with the UnderArmor chain mail, and the nifty heavy-leather doublet-- I'm thinking it may be objectively the best one he's ever had. The design looks "old", it looks practical, it exudes strength and the pragmatic needs of a warrior. It certainly speaks of nobility tempered with no-nonsense. The helmet's always tricky-- I think it's a good idea to maintain a side jaw/ear-guard at least to give it visual balance. (With the wings, it automatically looks awfully top-heavy & likely to fall off.). Hey, what about beard vs. no beard? HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 19, 2011 7:07:59 GMT -5
Ah, good. That's better. Alright, Teammates-- Come to PoppaBelly!
(*SQUISH*)
Oh, see? That was nice. . .
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 19, 2011 4:53:44 GMT -5
All: not to worry, I believe everyone is entitled to express his or her opinion. Shiryu, HB and Owen: I am very,very moved by your kind and generous words. *group hug* Uh-oh--- you guys are gonna want me to have a shower first. . . hang on. . . HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 18, 2011 16:28:43 GMT -5
I don't know if I can even pick a favorite anymore-- at least not for pencils. John Buscema, Neal Adams, George Perez, John Byrne, Alan Davis. Also Gene Colan for the few great issues he did in the 60's. And I shan't stand down for Steve Epting, either. Geeze, I love 'em all! Perhaps. . . favorite inker would be the more subtle decision to make? And even then it's tough. Tom Palmer would seem to be the obvious choice (spanning the decades with superb work), BUT-- I may still be inclined to go with Joe Sinnott for pretty much single-handedly saving the title during ol' Al Milgrom's long-ish run as penciller. And he was, of course, great overtop everyone else as well.
HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 18, 2011 5:12:44 GMT -5
Wow. "Prince of Thunder"? Really? If ever there was a question about whether Disney would find ways to exert its subtle influence. . .
I'm sure the official line is that being a "Prince" of Thunder gives him a stronger appeal to a younger demographic, razzarazzarazza and related nonesense. Clearly, when an established character who has been referred to as a god for nearly fifty years suddenly isn't partway through the first season of a (perceived) kids' animated series, I can't imagine any other reason than that a couple of letters or emails were received that were particularly vocal about there being only one God, and that their children would no longer be allowed to watch this show, and how could Disney betray their values, and what-not. Much the way Harry Potter was boycotted by a small faction of folks because, clearly, it's entirely about promoting the worship of Satan. (I say that, of course, w/ an ironic sneer.)
But I shall delicately stop there, as this obviously wades right into the religious and political realms that we do a darned good job of not beating each other up over in this forum. (Say, is draganta's little L Ron Hubbard/Scientology slide show still operating on his/her posts. . . ?)
HB
ps- heya Drew, I see that was your 100th post! Yer movin' right up the ranks-- good job!
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 17, 2011 13:50:15 GMT -5
Owene, on the subject of Bill Mantlo, I was rereading some old FFs last night and came across something interesting. Bill wrote a letter to the FF Letters Page to praise Roy Thomas (the then-writer). If that letter's any indication, Bill's a decent bloke. Also, in his letter he mentioned that he'd been collecting the FF since #1. It's a shortish letter but quite interesting. Robert I'm pretty sure I remember seeing Bill on some Hulk & Avengers letters pages, too. It's always kinda neat to see that someone was able to pursue a youthful passion into their adulthood. Boy, I just checked Bill out on Wikipedia, though, and had no idea that his life took an incredibly tragic turn at a relatively young age. He was the victim of a hit&run accident while he was roller blading nearly 20 years ago, and it effectively ended his life as a productive member of society. After recovering from a coma, he has since been completely debilitated by severe brain damage. He must have been just over 40 when the accident happened. Geeze. To me, of course, he was a long-time writer on the Hulk. He was not my favorite at first, by a long-shot, but as I've mentioned else-thread, my current re-read of the title revealed a much, much greater depth to his writing than I had initially given him credit for. The several-month lead-up to issue #300 (as Bruce Banner's idyllic life inexorably unravels) is just a heartbreak happening in slow-motion. And I still think that, at some point, some editorial staff is going to come back to the Dimensional Crossroads saga that immediately followed, and recognize it for the quiet, under-appreciated classic series of tales that it was (much of it including possibly the best artwork of Sal Buscema's career-- plus Mike Mignola later on). Liked the Micronauts a lot. Didn't care for Rom at all. But you know what? Like Al Milgrom, you had a sense that he was someone that his co-workers were glad to have around. I'm SURE there was a hefty dose of him being "the kid", as it were, and all of the endearments that went along with that. . . ! Yep, we need to get Sharkar back in here to weigh in-- she's always got the deep-background info and perceptive personal insights. HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 16, 2011 20:34:55 GMT -5
Well, the Leader once detonated a gamma bomb over a small town so, for my money, that's pretty hardcore as well. Has he ever fought the Avengers, though...? I'm not able to remember any such story. Am I just forgetting such confrontation...? I know Byrne has many detractors around here but, IMO, he handled the Mandarin exceedingly well while he was writing Iron Man, finally turning him into a worthy antagonist for Shellhead. In fact, I think he wrote the definitive Mandarin during his "Dragonseed Saga" storyline. I wholeheartedly recommend it. When it comes to Loki, one storyline sticks out for me and, again, I think not many will agree with me: I'm talking about "Acts of Vengeance", which has a terrible reputation, perhaps deservedly so, but I always thought the basic idea behind the story was great, even if the execution of it was poorly handled. I did like the final confrontation between Thor and his stepbrother, though, in the same Isle of Silence which appeared in Avengers #1, where Thor asks Loki if he has no honor, to which the trickster god replies that he's wasting his time talking to him about honor, just as he would talking to a deaf person about music. Holy Hoppin' Hormones, Bong--- you've started yourself over again?? Ha! There are, what, four clones of you installed on the board? Five, perhaps? This is yet another of your fiendish plots, eh? You're just going to entirely repopulate the board with. . . well. . . a whole bunch of you's, and then "democratically" seize control, eh? Eh? Why, I'll just bet that you are the ONE LONE FAN who honestly did follow and enjoy the enire Spidey Clone Saga. . . and this is how it's being manifested. Well, or maybe you are hailing from several alternate universes. "Council of Crosstime Bongs"-- or something similar to Reed's recent Reeds-Only Mens Club and Grill. I believe the Leader's utopian city under the arctic ice cap was at least a crossover into the Avengers (or maybe an Annual or something). I do seem to recall Avengers being involved in that storyline at some early point. But yeah-- he slaughtered an entire town of people, and that seems to have been largely forgotten in the intervening years. Much as Kang has apparently been forgiven/absolved/given a pass for enslaving the entire planet, including concentration camps where we WITNESSED people being killed to serve as an object lesson to others. But yeah-- the Leader is plenty bad--- just oddly interesting (even charming) and engaging. HB
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on May 15, 2011 15:53:26 GMT -5
You know what the telling distinction is, IMO? As VLW relates, GP thinks of the characters as his "children"-- which strongly suggests a sense of responsibility for their fate & well-being in general (regardless of the fact that they're fictional). He cares ABOUT them. That is something palpably missing for me in New A, Mighty A, and really, Secret A right now. The creative drivers seem highly interested in having CONTROL over these interesting, fun characters, and delight in doing whatever the heck amuses them--- but there is absolutely no sense of proper, personal, emotional investment at all. Many writers are brought to tears by what happens to their own characters in the process of writing their stories. I. . . I can't even remotely imagine that happening with the current crew, for the most part.
Mark Hammer gave us a terrific maxim in an acting class on how to ensure that you're dealing with your character with all due integrity: "Nothing else matters, because you have a life in your hands." If anything, it's even MORE applicable to writers, eh?
And boy, imagine how that resonated w/ an actor whose main literary influence included the phrase, "With great power comes great responsibility-."--!
HB
|
|