Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Togusa wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Doesn't anyone ever get tired of the constant barrage of all these superheros? 9/10ths of these films were bad, really, really bad. Cringy even.

I thought this would have died out by now.

Oh well, the genocide of science fiction will continue I guess...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
If they go the angle of Jane Foster with Cancer turned into Lady Thor, why does her petite frame make her unsuited for the role? I'm confused because that sounds exactly how she should look.

-

My friend just told me about this story this morning. I've never laughed so hard in my life.

I have Cancer! Give me Chemo!
Okay, It's helping.

Now I'm Thor, the Chemo is nullified.
And so is the Cancer!

Nope. Cancer stays.


It sounds abysmal. Is this what Comic fans consider as good?

Chemo is an unnatural, external poison in her body. Cancer is her body unwittingly destroying itself.

Personal experience made the series too hard for me to get through, but its definitely not poorly written.

You're telling me the Asgardians can't cure cancer?

If the answer is yes, that's absurd and bad writing.

I mean, they've never shown the ability to do so. I don't think they've shown that Asgardians get cancer either, so...

Indeed.

Cancer is an odd thing. At the end of the day, it’s cells replicating uncontrollably. The genome gone haywire.

Hence, things which damage the cells, and force early replacement, increase the chance of that mutation kicking in, and it all going horribly, horribly wrong.

And interestingly, I understand it’s not the chemo that causes people to lose their hair, but the drugs that accompany it.

For those interested, Gunther Von Hagens did a really simple visual example of the difference between a benign and malignant tumour on Channel 4 several years ago. He had a Dolls house, a plastic bag, and some expanding cavity foam.

First, he attached the bag to the dolls house chimney, then squirted the foam down the chimney. The bag of course contained the foam. Thus, it could be removed relatively cleanly. That was the benign tumour. Next, the bag was removed, and the foam simply squirted down the chimney. It of course went everywhere, and got into everything. That was the malignant tumour. Removable, but not without causing far more damage, possibly life threatening.

Yes indeed. I've paid to see Venom and Deadpools. Nothing else in several years.

Quite enjoyed Venom - not a bad little film, I'd pay money not to have to watch anyhting related to Deadpool though.

Looking forward to Thor 4 and Natalie's return.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Yes indeed. I've paid to see Venom and Deadpools. Nothing else in several years.

Quite enjoyed Venom - not a bad little film, I'd pay money not to have to watch anyhting related to Deadpool though.

Looking forward to Thor 4 and Natalie's return.

They need to hurry up and make a sequel to Venom with Woody Harrelson as Carnage.

Nobody does crazy psychopathic mass murderer like woody does!

Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

Dudes- do none of you remember Chris Pratt before he became Star Lord? He didn't look like he'd be capable of saving anything except room for seconds.



But after their marvel workout he looked superhuman. I'm sure they can do the same thing to Portman if the role requires it- but as far as I'm aware, Jane Foster is supposed to look really frail, then well, She-Ra into an Asgardian heroine. Especially given the director, this may be handled like Shazaam, with Portman doing the non-super stuff, and some stunt double doing the heroing.

Frankly, after how many years Disney's been doing this, I'm guessing their personal trainers just get sketches of what their charges are supposed to look like and then they deliver actors in similar shape.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Dudes- do none of you remember Chris Pratt before he became Star Lord? He didn't look like he'd be capable of saving anything except room for seconds.

As Star Lord he's just a guy in a fairly bulky coat. It doesn't matter much how 'fit' the actor is.

Are you suggesting they put Natalie Portman into a bulky coat? And give her a fedora? And maybe the hammer becomes a cane? And make her talk all old-timey, like saying "m'lady" and stuff?

I'd watch that.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

If that's true I did not know that! It explains a thing or two lol

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you suggesting they put Natalie Portman into a bulky coat? And give her a fedora? And maybe the hammer becomes a cane? And make her talk all old-timey, like saying "m'lady" and stuff?

I'd watch that.

I would too! She could have a sidekick, Kiera Knightley, they could solve crimes. They could live on 221b Ba.... I mean 42 Walloughby Way!

Yeah, that's the stuff!

 Argive wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

If that's true I did not know that! It explains a thing or two lol

Yep. Its true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson

 nels1031 wrote:

 Argive wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well his dad really was a crazy hitman, so not that hard???

If that's true I did not know that! It explains a thing or two lol

Yep. Its true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Harrelson

"occupation: Hitman"
Daaaaaaaaaang! That's insane..
I never knew that.

Cheers.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you suggesting they put Natalie Portman into a bulky coat? And give her a fedora? And maybe the hammer becomes a cane? And make her talk all old-timey, like saying "m'lady" and stuff?

I'd watch that.

Not really, no. I'm just saying the physique of an actor is pretty trivial once costuming and inevitable CGI is done.

Though obviously the hammer should be disguised as a walking stick.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Dudes- do none of you remember Chris Pratt before he became Star Lord? He didn't look like he'd be capable of saving anything except room for seconds.

Spoiler:

But after their marvel workout he looked superhuman. I'm sure they can do the same thing to Portman if the role requires it- but as far as I'm aware, Jane Foster is supposed to look really frail, then well, She-Ra into an Asgardian heroine. Especially given the director, this may be handled like Shazaam, with Portman doing the non-super stuff, and some stunt double doing the heroing.

Frankly, after how many years Disney's been doing this, I'm guessing their personal trainers just get sketches of what their charges are supposed to look like and then they deliver actors in similar shape.

It'll be interesting to see what the trainers can do with Portman, Chris Pratt is famous for his transformation, but he was still a dude in his late 20's or early 30's when he did that, and if he was reasonably fit under the fat he had during his parks and rec days it probably wasn't as hard for him as it will be for Portman, a woman in her late 30's. The older you get the harder it is and women are going to have a harder time than healthy men.

Christian Bale had an amazing transformation from The Machinist to Batman, but he was pretty buff before that and it's easier to go buff -> skinny -> buff than it is to go skinny -> buff. Also again a dude in his late 20's/early 30's. Also genetics plays a part.

io9 wrote up a good primer for which comics to read, if you want to get up to speed.

I am finished Secret Wars, so I guess I am at the midpoint, and they have been really good so far. The god killing stuff at the beginning of this was much darker than I expected.

Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

Mjolnir as an actual hammer made of steel would weigh over 500 lbs. No one is capable of picking it up and swinging it around as a weapon.

How bulky someone is means exactly nothing.

Right? That weedy little Pendragon kid would never have been strong enough to pull a sword out of a stone.

Fake news.

I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

You are the one focused on appearance Canadian. I said health as in is she physically capable of handling the role.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

You are the one focused on appearance Canadian. I said health as in is she physically capable of handling the role.

To be fair, you said that you thought she wasn't physically capable entirely on the basis of her appearance.

" no, you r".

Sterling.

I'm not Canadian, nor would it be relevant if I were.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
" no, you r".

Sterling.

I'm not Canadian, nor would it be relevant if I were.

Your flag is Canadian. I am sorry, I thought you were one of the Chosen ones eh!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nfe wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Again, Christopher Reeves can't really fly. Geoff Wode couldn't pick up Thor's hammer, no matter how much he tosses his orb about.

You're seriously that stuck-on someone's appearance discounting them from appearing in a movie that doesn't even pay lip-service to reality?

Wonder why.

You are the one focused on appearance Canadian. I said health as in is she physically capable of handling the role.

To be fair, you said that you thought she wasn't physically capable entirely on the basis of her appearance.

Physical appearance of health not looks.
No biggie, I didn't exactly have any intention of watching the movie.

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

She was great - different strokes I guess. I also recall many comic fans were SURE that Hugh Jackamn could never embody Wolverine in a physical sense.....

Whatever they do with Ms Portman they can't ruin the character more than they did with Lex Luthor in Bats Vs Sups. Marvel have made very few misteps so far and I donlt think they will repeat that kind of franchise killing mistake

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

She did fine in the parts of the movie that had interaction (particularly the fish out of water cliche). It was only when the film degenerated into a half hour of slo-mo CGI crap that it fell apart, and I don't know what you'd expect her to do when left standing and directionless in front of a green shower curtain.

Yeah, I think criticizing her acting is something the smarmy interwebz kidz do, but basically every critical review I read thought she was solid in the role. I thought her chemistry with Chris Pine was quite good, actually. It was during the CGI-fest ending where things break down. And hers isn't even the worst performance in that battle. Thewlis -- who is a better actor -- chews every piece of digital scenery on the hard drive.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I remember everyone bashing Gal Godot's weight, and saying that they'd been better off casting muscle women like Gina Carano and other MMA/pro wrasslin'/bodybuilder types. (Even though the character hasn't been portrayed as a hulk for most of her history.)

Then Gadot puts just a little meat on her bones, gets a great costume, and suddenly...

If only she’d taken acting lessons.

She was great - different strokes I guess. I also recall many comic fans were SURE that Hugh Jackamn could never embody Wolverine in a physical sense.....

I don't think he did, until Logan.. He always seemed way too small and not hairy enough to me personaly, I never liked him as wolverine. Maybe its because he wasn't allowed to be mean and brutal enough which wouldn't be his fault as an actor but what the studio wanted delivered. So I didnt like that particular depiction of wolverine rather than jackman..
In Logan he was playing an old man so it worked much better as I imagine he wouldn't be as jacked by that point. Not sure who would make a good wolverine tbh. Hard to picture all of those actor dudes with sideburns and chest hair

I don't think Portman is a good fit for the role. I just cant imagine her getting angry and show a mean face and be taken seriously. A hero needs to get angry and "Unleash fury" especially someone like Thor.
I just cant picture Portman pulling it off. Time will tell.

 Argive wrote:
I don't think he did, until Logan.. He always seemed way too small

This is the first time I've ever seen the complaint of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine being to small and, frankly, it has me questioning the world.

Same. If anything Jackman was too average to be Wolverine- too normal size, wrong posture, too clean-shaven and lacking in some of his more bestial mannerisms and traits (though that varies a fair bit by artist). But Wolverine was _short_ and also tended to hunch and crouch, and was often pictured with his arms posed in a fairly simian fashion


And I mostly remember Wolverine from Comics Code days, and his occasional violent killings were always off panel (and often retconed to actually not end in death), so his brutality in the films was relatively high in comparison.