Andrew_A

I have never seen the original Die Hard. I saw and barely remember the second and fourth movies.
I've never understood the hype surrounding the Fifth Element. There are better movies people.
 
Here are the rest:
I hate Marvel. Passionately. I won't touch a Marvel Comic unless my life depends on it (and maybe not even then). I like the movies. The movies are f--king brilliant (with two exceptions). Just keep the comics away from me. And no, Ike, making Captain America a black guy won't work on me. You're still Marvel. Stop being Marvel and I will buy some of your comics. Nuff said.
 
I hate Wolverine and Spider-Man. Peter Parker is comic's most annoying whiner. Wolverine has boring powers and is a child's idea of what a tough guy is like.
 
I hated the first Iron Man movie. Seriously people, what was so special about it?
 
I hated the first Captain America movie (First Avenger, not the direct to video one, the made for TV one from the 70s, or the movie serial. Those were competent.) Cap should be punching Hitler dammit! Winter Soldier and Civil War were amazing. I'm going to miss Chris Evans when he retires. He's the best embodiment of God, Mom, and apple pie since Christopher Reeve.
 
I hate Batman. It took me several years and much soul searching to figure out why. I think it comes down to the fact that the post-Dark Knight Returns Batman is the most juvenile character ever created. He's like a teenage boy's view of himself. He's humourless, he has to be the best at everything, and he's in an eternal d--k measuring contest with the entire Justice League (cause no one's explained Wonder Woman to him yet). Does anybody remember when Batman was friends with his fellow superheroes? Does anybody remember when he wasn't being eternally emo about his dead parents? I do. I remember when Bruce was serious, but not grim and wangsty. He didn't smile, but good God, he could at least crack a deadpan joke!
 
In my opinion, Superman is the greatest superhero ever created. There. I said it.
I hate "classic" Battlestar Galactica and I've never seen enough of the new one to form an opinion.
I'm yet another person who's never gotten very far with Tolkien. The Hobbit was better than Fellowship, but I've never finished either. I might try again at some point.
I like Voyager.
I hate Arrow.
As much as I like David Tennant, I still think Christopher Eccleston was the best of the nuWho Doctors.
I think Stephen Moffat has done an amazing job and I'm going to miss him when he's gone.
Jar Jar Binks was horrible, but he wasn't the worst thing in the Star Wars prequels. The worst thing in the Star Wars prequels was Hayden Christiansen's emo psychopath.
I like Final Crisis.
I've never played Vampire in any version. I've never played D&D for more than a night,
I've never played WoW or City of Heroes. I've never owned any Playstations. In fact, I've never gotten into video games.
I think Jim Lee is overrated. I can see why people like him, but I can also see that he's a terrible storyteller who makes his writers look the same.
I think comics fans need to find a better target than Rob Liefeld. Yeah he can't draw, but at this point, every time someone mentions it it feels like beating up on the nice, developmentally delayed kid. There are lots of reasons to hate Rob Liefeld. Could we go after his character and give the art thing a rest?
I like classic Star Trek, but I don't worship Gene Roddenbury. The guy was kind of weird and not in a good way. All the best stuff in Trek was invented by Gene L. Coon among others. Let's give them some of the credit. Okay?
I don't worship George Lucas either. Star Wars was fun when I was a kid, but let's not turn this into something it isn't. You want great Sci-fi? Dune. 1984. Farenheit 451, Brave New World. Slaughterhouse Five. The Star Wars movies are fun. That's all.
I've never cosplayed. I want to, but I can't think of anyone I wouldn't look stupid as.
I've never played Warhammer or any other miniatures game.
I own 2 decks of Magic cards. Never touched 'em.
 
That's all for now. If I think of any more I'll add them.

I don't like David Tennant, or more specifically, consider him a character actor of no particular note.
 
Can't stand Heinlien's juvenile fiction(meaning, the stuff written for young boys).
 
Don't like Star Trek DS9.
 
Have yet to see a sequel to a comic book based movie that was not worse than the original, and always derivative of it.
 
I am only tolerating the very idea of something called a speed force because I'm enjoying the flash show.
 
Oh, yeah, the last time I liked Wolverine was in the 1980s.
 
And I don't have any particular opinion either way regarding the back to the future movies, which is apparently unheard of.
 
Finally, I can't stand Stan Lee.

Other than an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged for a Business class in college and various early Rush lyrics, I haven't read anything by Ayn Rand.

The thread is Destroy Your Geek Cred; not flay it alive, expose it to VX gas, throw it in a wood chipper, cremate it and then shoot the ashes into the sun.

I guess it's time for me to destroy my geek cred by jumping in and saying that I think The Fifth Element is one of the most overrated movies of all time.

That's kind of insulting to the nerf herders, isn't it?

Or he could play a university philosophy professor who knows f--k all about philosophy or university.

Or he could play a university philosophy professor who knows f--k all about philosophy or university.

The rumour I heard is that he's playing that guy who ruined Andromeda.

I would too.
 
I think a remake of the Passion of the Christ with a non-caucasian female lead would be the most boycotted movie in history.  I can easily imagine every major incendiary movement finding something to scream about.  It would be glorious.

CAN SHE ACT!!!!!
 
 
Jesus.

Especially since comic book "superhero" physique proportions are nearly impossible to find in the real world, particularly if you are also looking for acting talent and directability. Every casting choice is a compromise of one kind or another. Besides, we nerds need something to complain about no matter what, right?

I think the standard of less hip and breast than Linda Carter being 'waif-like' makes almost all the women in the world waifs.
 
Further, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the radical idea that the producers of the TV show were not looking at certain of Linda Carter's aspects and then looking at the costume and saying, "Man, this is totally going to sell, because of the fan sensibilities and the keen understanding by the viewer of Amazonian features based on classical sources that may or may not actually describe them this way." And the depiction in comics, not much different.
 
Where is the outcry over her not having one breast removed for more effective combat skills like the amazons were said to have done?
 
Honestly, Linda Carter never, in a million years, could pull off the physical aspects needed to actually do the action that wasn't done in the old show ONLY because special effects were limited back then. If they could have, they would have. We all know that for decades, super hero shows and movies simply could not capture the comic book fights.
 
This is not anything against Linda Carter, but Gadot can pull off the action. Linda Carter has never given the impression of someone who could look threatening with sword, spear, or shield. I'm pretty sure she'd agree with this statement. Gadot did just fine doing so. Summarizing them as both having skinny limbs is meaningless. Not all skinny is the same. Some skinny is athletic. And some athleticism has more carryover to actually pulling off the warrior thing.
 
There is no way that MOST beauty queens, Linda Carter included, could pull off the role of a modern action hero for film. And that depiction, as far as the action, is far closer to the source material, comic books, than it ever was before, whatever our opinions of where the movies digress from the source material.
 
Not to mention she's a gorgeous woman who looks Greek. And looks like a grown woman.
 
Now, Michael Keaton, totally wrong casting. I always pictured Beetlejuice as taller.

Oh I get it. (And I do get that you're defending someone else's position, not arguing your own.)
 
Nothing wrong with having a preference, nor with expressing one. And if that's the most important thing in a Wonder Woman movie for you, ok fine. But then be up front about that being about your tastes, rather than pretending it has anything to do with age or some deficiency on the part of the actress or filmmakers.
 
To put it another way, if an athletic 30-year-old woman looks to you like she "still has some physical maturing to do," the problem is yours not hers. Don't find her attractive? Fine - no one says you have to. But that doesn't make her a child or childlike or immature or any other BS euphemism.

Just a radical thought here: Could we judge the movie after it comes out? It probably will suck (it was made way too late for Warner's to accurately judge the backlash against BvS), but we won't know for sure until the movie's released. Right now it exists in a state of quantum uncertainty.
 
(Apologies to all the physicists on the board. High school physics bored the sh** out of me.)
 
Also, why are people picking on Gal Gadot because of her figure? Has anyone gone after Hugh Jackman for not being short or Christopher Reeve for not looking like a '60s Curt Swan drawing?

Just a radical thought here: Could we judge the movie after it comes out? It probably will suck (it was made way too late for Warner's to accurately judge the backlash against BvS), but we won't know for sure until the movie's released. Right now it exists in a state of quantum uncertainty.
 
(Apologies to all the physicists on the board. High school physics bored the sh** out of me.)
 
Also, why are people picking on Gal Gadot because of her figure? Has anyone gone after Hugh Jackman for not being short or Christopher Reeve for not looking like a '60s Curt Swan drawing?

Just a radical thought here: Could we judge the movie after it comes out? It probably will suck (it was made way too late for Warner's to accurately judge the backlash against BvS), but we won't know for sure until the movie's released. Right now it exists in a state of quantum uncertainty.
 
(Apologies to all the physicists on the board. High school physics bored the sh** out of me.)
 
Also, why are people picking on Gal Gadot because of her figure? Has anyone gone after Hugh Jackman for not being short or Christopher Reeve for not looking like a '60s Curt Swan drawing?

Just a radical thought here: Could we judge the movie after it comes out? It probably will suck (it was made way too late for Warner's to accurately judge the backlash against BvS), but we won't know for sure until the movie's released. Right now it exists in a state of quantum uncertainty.
 
(Apologies to all the physicists on the board. High school physics bored the sh** out of me.)
 
Also, why are people picking on Gal Gadot because of her figure? Has anyone gone after Hugh Jackman for not being short or Christopher Reeve for not looking like a '60s Curt Swan drawing?

I think it's not just cup size but hips as well. It's all part and parcel of that robust, earthy goddess notion of womanhood. When you look at early press photos of Lynda Carter in the Wonder Woman costume, her limbs are just as long and thin as Gadot's. But she has ample hips and chest to give her something of an hourglass figure. Contrast with Gadot who is a string bean with nice muscle tone. To men who like their women curvy, Gadot looks to them like she still has some physical maturing to do, even if that isn't actually the case.
 
Don't get me wrong, I think Gadot is an amazing specimen of a woman myself, but I've been to plenty of places around the world where the men--usually older men--share Bazza's point of view rather than mine.

Lynda Carter was 24 when she first put on the tiara, 6 years younger than Gadot in BvS. Of all the things we can blame DC/Warner for - and they are Legion - "too young" doesn't seem like a valid one.
 
Honestly I don't even thing we can compare the two. Lynda Carter was the definitive Silver Age Wonder Woman, much like Christopher Reeves was the definitive Silver Age Superman. It was the 70s; that was all we were allowed. Lynda's biggest strength was her ability to keep a straight face amidst all the campy silliness and always take the character seriously even when the writers didn't. Certainly Gadot is more athletic, now that women are actually allowed to have muscle tone outside of martial arts movies. And it goes without saying the stunt/fight choreography is going to be way better now even without allowing for movie-vs-TV budgets. But I don't really feel like we've seen enough of Gadot to say based on her minimal screen time in BvS. I liked her in BvS, but let's face it she also looked better just in comparison to everyone else in that awful festering turd of a movie. And yeah the WW trailer looks good, but trailers lie. Ask me again in June and I'll have an actual opinion.
 
I suspect which version you prefer will come down to Silver Age vs Iron/Modern Age more than anything to do with the actresses themselves.

Our leading actors and actresses have been skewing younger and younger with every passing year. It is the way of things.
 
It seems to me, Bazza, that your problem isn't really with Gal Gadot per se, but with DC's decision to make Wonder Woman younger in appearance and general demeanor than in the comics (or past depictions). You want a mature matriarch of justice rather than a young gazelle of justice. Well, I wanted a mature, earthy Queen Ororo in the X-Men movies, but I didn't get that either. We all have to live with disappointment now and then, eh?

Nope, not the only one. They're going to get what they voted for. Let 'em deal with it. But I have much sympathy for all the non-Trump folks who will be getting screwed at the same time.

Am I the only one who has an immense feeling of schadenfreude?
 
I am a very evil person.

That's probably a little too strong.  The EC is a holdover from when it was "the United States are" and not "the United States is".  Once upon a time it made sense for states to vote on the presidency rather than individuals.  But that probably hasn't been the case for a century now, which is why I advocate for the abolishment of the EC.

Then American elections have not know, nor have they ever been Democratic.  If the vote that determines the will of the people is secondary to the process, if it doesn't actually count, then the American system is built on a big fat lie.