Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - The Evasive 1

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 57
« on: June 11, 2014, 11:31:16 am »
From the article:

A new character in Khaleesi’s camp threw me somewhat. Actually it was an old character with a new face: Daario Naharis, the flirty commander, is now played by Michiel Huisman instead of Ed Skrein. The casting change was reported months ago, but I still found it jarring, in part because the Second Darrin effect is discombobulating even in the best of circumstances. But here it’s even more so because Mr. Huisman seems to be playing essentially the same rogue he’s been on “Nashville” for the past couple seasons. Even his thing for steely but softhearted blondes appears unchanged.


The different actor was the most noticeable change in the season premiere. The previous guy appeared very sexually aggressive than this new actor.  This new actor who plays Daario is a softer, lighter version; appears less inclined to nail Daenerys in bed.
But he does it anyway.  ;)

Black Panther / Re: New Storm Ongoing Title
« on: April 29, 2014, 02:47:55 pm »
Or, Marvel could just write Storm and Black Panther like professionals instead of acting like racist cock-blocking nincompoops when it comes to showing a regal black man and a regal black woman in love with each other.

I will forever call Marvel (and DC) out for their racist bullsh*t, and I'll keep doing it right in their faces, too, as I've been doing.
Cosign this.

Latest Flicks / Re: Guardians of the Galaxy (Now with WP Trailer)
« on: April 15, 2014, 11:53:28 am »
I was Rocket Raccoon fan too. I remember picking up the miniseries that came out years ago.

Latest Flicks / Re: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
« on: April 08, 2014, 12:43:41 pm »
Really enjoyed it. Right now Winter Soldier is my favorite Marvel movie to date. I didn't think Avengers would be surpassed, but it was for me. Let's see if Avengers 2 can up the ante.

Latest Flicks / Re: THE RAID: REDEMPTION
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:02:43 pm »
Good thing you finally caught it. I think RAID 2 is about to come out soon. Can't wait!  ;)

Latest Flicks / Re: AFTER EARTH
« on: March 31, 2014, 11:58:16 am »
Yeah, I finally saw this and actually liked. I didn't understand the negativity toward it either.

Latest Flicks / Re: 12 Years a Slave
« on: March 03, 2014, 01:57:24 pm »
I had my doubts it would win the Oscar, but I'm happy I was wrong. It won!
And kudos for Lupita Nyong'o for picking best supporting actress for the same movie.

Whenever I see this, I just keeping getting flashbacks of when I was a kid waking up early on Saturday to catch monster movies and watch his "Royal Green Badness" go to work on Japan. I can't wait for this to hit the theaters:

...and hopefully it won't be as bad as that Mathew Broderick adaption.

Latest Flicks / Re: Whites Suddenly Gripped By Black Dramas
« on: November 22, 2013, 02:06:13 pm »
Good list. Though I think "Miracle at St. Anna's" and "Love Jones" weren't really questionable IF whites were interested in seeing good movies about the Black experience. In fact, I wonder if enough blacks saw Miracle..." I don't remember it being promoted enough and when I saw it I was surprised because I actually thought it was a decent movie. As for "Love Jones", it always made me curious that the movie, which was beloved by ALOT of black folk, never caught the curiosity of white people before "Best Man" came out.  I remember the movie playing for weeks, back in Detroit. Even as time when on and theaters started to replace it with new releases you could always find it playing somewhere. You'd think that that would peek more white curiosity to the film. Interestingly enough though, I also remember that in the "white" neighborhoods, it never played at all or was only there for a week or two.

Oh, and as far as "Malcolm X", everyone (black) I knew felt Denzel should have got an Oscar from that flick, but we all know why the film industry and whites in general didn't want that.  Funny how years later, the reason I actually made it out to see a black film with harsh subject matter ("12 Years a Slave") was when a white woman in a class kept raving about it that I decided to stop waiting and go see it. I wonder if folks will want to go rent "Sankofa" now since it dealt with similar subject matter.

Latest Flicks / Re: 12 Years a Slave
« on: November 19, 2013, 02:38:53 pm »
Last I checked all the Black folks were running to see Best Man Holidays.

If anything the Black movie audience tends to be indifferent to movie where they see themselves in turmoil and strife. We will however run to see movies with a group of attractive relatively well off Black folk as the cast.

Which anybody with eyes could have told you.

Hollywood rediscovers this truism about every 10 years or so as if they couldn't figured it out just by looking at box office stats.

So the idea that any significant amount of Black folk are going to go to see 12 years to power up on rage or whatever,
isnt backed up by any kind of objective reality.

To say that a small, undefined number of people might do something isn't really meaningful. 

I mean, there also might be somebody out there who will see Gravity and use it to justify thier anti NASA agenda
but nobody is worried about that.

As we cheer for a perfection
Vicky V is spot on
As always
::) Sadly, I agree.

Latest Flicks / Re: 12 Years a Slave
« on: November 12, 2013, 03:16:17 pm »
Saw this film today. I thought it was a very good film, but something about it left me a little cold. Fruitvale Station, in comparison, was more emotionally affecting to me. The casting, the acting, the writing in 12 Years were all top notch. I could easily see this film doing well come Oscar time and it would be a shame if many of the cast, the director, and the screenplay don't get nominations.

As I was watching the film I couldn't help but compare it to Django. And while 12 Years used the n-word quite a bit it wasn't as excessive and cheeky as I felt it was in Django. And beyond the n-word there were other words or adjectives used to dehumanize blacks without over reliance on the n-word to appear hip, edgy, or renegade like I felt was done in Django. There were no winks or nods here, no over-the-top demonstrations of the cruelty of slavery. The cruelty was brutal, at times visceral, and there was often a palpable sense of fear for the slaves.
Funny. I had the reverse reaction between "12 Years A Slave" and "Fruitvale". I was more emotionally impacted by "12 years...". I think one of the reactions the audience is supposed to get is a sense of "coldness", if you will, in how the slave owners sometimes acted, but also the slaves in certain circumstances perhaps due to a sense of self preservation.

Latest Flicks / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« on: November 04, 2013, 04:06:01 pm »
You make some interesting points. However, #2 dealing with fighting in warp? Yes, actually in several epsiodes of TOS the Enterprise fought other starships in warp. I think I mentioned several examples in a previous post. Off the top of my head, there was "The Ultimate Computer", "The Doomsday Machine" and " the Balance of Terror" (actually the battle took place in both warp and sublight as the Romulan ship could not attain warp so the Enterprise tried to use warp as an advantage at certain points in the episode. Don't ask me to explain the logic of physics of all that though).

I would never question 23rd century fictional tech here in the 21st real world.  BUT, basic physics state that if an object, or anything having mass, is hurled from a moving object then that object is traveling at the same velocity as the vehicle from which it is thrown.  That is why we wear seatbelts.  In the car, you are a rest.  However, you are actually traveling over the road at the same speed with which the car is traveling.  That is why phasers (spelling?) and photon torpedoes should work in a warp battle.
Hmm, sounds plausible. That's the first time I've seen someone put a simple explanation why phasers can work in warp. Before, most folks I think were  just giving artistic and imaginary license to the show. Nice.  ;)

Latest Flicks / Re: Star Trek Into Darkness Review
« on: September 20, 2013, 02:34:23 pm »
Hey Scribe. Hope this isn't stepping on toes but I'm a Trek geek and I wanted to reply to your points.
1. Generally 23rd century medical science isn't quite as advanced as that, IMO. In Wrath of Khan, Kirk has to wear reading glasses because he's allergic to a treatment for astigmatism (?). Also, in Wrath of Khan, there was no medical procedure to resurrect Spock, though he sustained the same kind of damage. Being half-Vulcan he was stronger than Kirk and would've had a better chance of survival if the sick bay tech was all that.
2. I don't recall the Enterprise fighting their battles in warp. Most of the time they warped away to catch up to someone or to retreat. I think the fighting battles in warp thing is more of an Abrams innovation. It certainly looks good but I can't say with certainty that this is something that has been shown before on the original series.
3. As for Earth's defenses, or lack thereof, this is a common failing of Trek that has afflicted almost every series. Some of the most egregious were the lack of ships or protection against the second Xindi planet killer (on Enterprise), the Borg (The Next Generation: Best of Both Worlds and to some extent First Contact; though at least there was a big battle closer to Earth in First Contact), and the Breen attack on Earth (Deep Space Nine).
4. Good question. I'm wondering if the higher ups didn't take the tech away from Scotty and with Admiral Marcus being head of the Fleet, or whatever, he would have the authority to do with it as he wished. Plus Section 31 doesn't play by the rules anyway.
5. I've got mixed feelings about the Spock-Uhura relationship. It took me a minute to get used to it. I think it adds some needed character development for Uhura, it arguably puts Uhura into the movie's big three (Spock, Kirk, Uhura) and moves Bones to the side. That being said, too much of her new importance rests on being Spock's girlfriend. I got tired of the relationship talk in Into Darkness. As for her speaking Klingon, I think that was put in there as a rejoinder to the original Uhura not being able to effectively speak or translate Klingon in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.  You do make a good point about the universal translator. Due to the events of the show Enterprise, Starfleet should know more Klingon language and physiology, which would contradict the ignorance of both Uhura and Bones in Star Trek VI.
You make some interesting points. However, #2 dealing with fighting in warp? Yes, actually in several epsiodes of TOS the Enterprise fought other starships in warp. I think I mentioned several examples in a previous post. Off the top of my head, there was "The Ultimate Computer", "The Doomsday Machine" and " the Balance of Terror" (actually the battle took place in both warp and sublight as the Romulan ship could not attain warp so the Enterprise tried to use warp as an advantage at certain points in the episode. Don't ask me to explain the logic of physics of all that though).

Still not into the Uhura/Spock thing. I look at it less as giving character development for Uhuru than just making the character plaid by Zoe Saldana available as the "chocolate fantasy" love interest for one of the other  (white) main characters. That is pretty much what happens to most roles she plays in anyway.

Latest Flicks / Re: The Dark Knight Rises
« on: August 29, 2013, 11:39:39 am »
I don't think TDKR was any dumber than Avengers,Iron-Man or every other Marvel movie.I get it you didn't like it but that doesn't make the movie dumb.It just means you like bad movies.:P
I wouldn't go as far as to say the movie was dumb but TDKR actually wasn't all that great a flick. It was..."eehhh". A good bookend to the series, but it had alot of illogical things throughout. As a Batman fan I was disappointed with it, but found it entertaining.

Latest Flicks / Re: MAN OF STEEL
« on: August 28, 2013, 04:46:33 pm »
I think it was Watch Men which signaled the begining of the dark age of comics. DKR signaled the begining of A-hole Batman. Batman at least in comics was alwys a dark character (for most part at least)Miller's DKR was supposed to be a look into a possible future yet a lot of much less talented writers decided it would be cool to have present day Batman behaving like his 60 years old future self from another dimension.
The Dark age of comics has hurt more than help Batman, Superman and the industry in general. That's the reason most readers are old guys instead of children and teenagers.
Then again Superman was not hurt by his power level but by poorly written stories.
Even those who think he's too powerful didn't like how he was depicted in the first season of Justice League. Superman is supposed to be Superman. The strongest toughest guy around. And when that's not the case I call it Bs.
I repeat Superman is not an street level character. If the writers insist in having him facing street level threats of course the public will thinks he's too powerful. Bad writing it can hurt a lot any character even one as great as Superman. The nonsense of Clark been just a farm boy from Kansas. He's a supergenius alien demigod from space who just happen to have grown up among humans. He's good natured but no naive. He isn't a dumb jock. He doesn't say jee golly gosh darn a lot.
WB and DC did mishandle the Superman property a lot. Are you kidding me? Superman IV? Lois and Clark. I did enjoy that show but let's face it wasn't centered really around Superman. The same can be said about Smallvile. A show that was so ashamed of Superman that the main character never wore the suit till the end when it was digitally added to the actor. The cartoons pretty much were all about how way cooler is Batman when compared to Superman. Bruce Timm pretty much went out of his way to make sure everyone knew how way cooler than Superman, Batman is.
Only in the last 5 years have WB and DC shown actual insterest in pushing Superman back into the forefront. I'm hoping they don't screw up by having Batman humilliate Superman in his own sequel. Time will tell.

I wrote that DKR helped signal the start of the Dark Age, not that it alone started it. I think questioning the quality of the writers or the interpretations they bring to characters is always up to debate. I've heard the argument before that a bunch of hacks merely emulated Alan Moore and Frank Miller as the Dark Age took flight.

I don't think that criticism is totally off base, but I would argue that Batman fared better than many of his contemporaries during that period. And there were some classic Batman stories written that were very true to the character. It is also debatable that the Dark Age has hurt the industry. I am inclined to say that that's partially true. However, as I noted previously, readership was dropping before the Dark Age. Though I will concede that the Dark Age made comics even more insular while perhaps providing some sophisticated stories and writing even as some other stories/characters reached for the gutters.

Regarding Superman's power level being a liability...Could the poor writing have been a result of struggling to find ways to address or challenge Superman because he is so powerful? Sure there have been some great writing and stories where that hasn't been a problem, but I do think it has to be a continual challenge to find actual challenges for Superman. One thing that I think could perhaps be better is if they spent more time adding to and developing his supporting cast and putting them more in harm's way to compensate for Superman's near invulnerability. Always putting that on Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen gets boring after a few decades. Also the public perception-irregardless of the writing-is that Superman is too powerful, which makes him boring.

I would argue that Superman, despite his cosmic origins, started out far more as a street-level character than how you describe him. I don't know what your beef is against street-level characters anyway.

As for how Superman has been handled, Lois & Clark lasted about four seasons and at least started out doing well in the ratings. Superman IV was a disaster-that happens-but WB spent nearly twenty years afterward trying to make another movie. They didn't just abandon him. And Smallville ran for 10 seasons and arguably provided a springboard for Green Arrow and a blueprint for how to do a Justice League film.

I think Smallville did a great job of honoring Superman's legacy. It showed that he was super without the suit. Some of that was due to the demands of TV. The producers rightly looked at the audiences they were trying to appeal to as well as the abysmal track record of live-action TV shows about costumed superheroes. And they focused more on Clark, his angst, his girl problems, etc. and that made him more relatable. If they had done another Superboy show it's likely that it wouldn't have had the crossover appeal. Smallville came out just as the comic book movie cycle was in its infancy and people weren't ready for all that. And arguably they still aren't, as Arrow's first season (at least) ban on superpowers and fanciful costumes can attest to.

Batman wasn't on every episode of Superman's own cartoon series so I'm not sure how you can make this assertion about Timm. Further, Batman also didn't show up on the Legion of Superheroes show, but Superman did and even a grittier, bad ass Superman clone. Batman also doesn't show up in every Superman animated film. Now you might can argue that Batman was built up on the Justice League, but that had to do with his relative weakness compared to everyone else, not just Superman.
Speaking of the "Dark Age", Watchmen and DKR, with regards to Batman and Superman, has anybody read Kingdom Come?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 57