MovieChat Forums > ExTechOp > Replies
ExTechOp's Replies
Good catch - I forgot about the bridge and ghost line
That's also a good point -- it took the butler to tell Harry that Norman's wounds were from his glider.
I think, though, that Norman was already unmasked when Otto first saw him in the dungeon, so that at least is excusable
Beyond that, the only explanation is that they come from alternate universes close to the Raimi and Webb films, but not necessarily exactly.
It's weak and a cop-out, but it's consistent. It's also one of the problems with the multiverse as a plot device -- if anything's possible, where are the stakes?
Riiiiight
His own son didn’t know until he discovered his dad’s secret lab
Octavius died right after that
Marko was a common thug, unlikely to know or care about the identities of Green Goblin or Harry/Hobgoblin
MCU Strange is a lot like Tony Stark. He's brilliant and talented but cocky and reckless as well.
I'm told the comic version is the same: he's often just fixing problems that he created himself by messing around with magic.
Sadly I haven't followed his work closely, but now I'm very motivated to go back and "fix" that mistake
I thought the implication was that he'd married Dunst's MJ and possibly started a family (based on his dad clothes)
If nothing else, it showed Garfield's potential as an actor. I almost cried along with him after he saved MJ (and it sunk in that he'd "fixed" his worst mistake)
I thought the interplay was just fun to watch -- it hadn't occurred to me that she's lonely.
But that makes enormous sense considering that she JUST got her sister back and, less than a year later (from her point of view), has to cope with Natasha's death while still carving out a living for herself, free of the Red Room.
It's kind of a sad backstory now that you point it out. It also jives with how frantic she seemed upon learning she'd been dusted for five years. Her first priority was finding Natasha, who we know was dead by that point, and only just recently at that.
Also, after the "Black Widow" end credits, I'd been wondering how Val could possibly convince Yelena to kill her sister's best friend. And true to that issue, it's clear Yelena was testing Clint on that roof, not legitimately trying to kill him. From her conversation with Kate ("Kate Bishop"), seems like she's still trying to make her mind up.
I agree BIGLY with both Bercilak and ThrillerTalk
HOWEVER
I also DISagree with the OP that it's horrible messaging for one reason: improving yourself is NOT bad messaging
In fact, through my own experience and having read about it extensively, one of the proven ways of escaping the "friend zone" is to have your "friend" see you in a different light.
Often, it involves getting in shape and/or getting a makeover, but it can also result from showing off some new skill your "friend" didn't know you had. In other words, improving yourself.
Sometimes, it can actually result from "coming clean" about your true feelings, because doing so can ALSO force your "friend" to reevaluate your relationship.
Forgot to add ... Moriarty only appears in two stories and Irene Adler only appears in one
BUT
Sherlock Holmes in various media has taken on a much larger, broader persona and mythology than the Doyle stories. Safe to say that the "expanded universe" recognizes Moriarty as the "arch-enemy" and Adler as the "one great love"
I thought it was worth it, but I went into it KNOWING that (A) it only ran two seasons and (B) they had the foresight / ability to CONCLUDE the series with the finale.
I agree this would be a great idea for A time travel series, but this one didn't go that route.
I strongly suspect that the producers and other suits won't allow a time travel series to exist without a time jump in every episode, at least for the first few seasons.
And while I agree with the OP that the writers were making stuff up as they go (as all TV series are ultimately forced to do with production constraints and unprecedented access to viewer feedback), I thought the season 2 Rittenhouse conspiracy made sense -- this is a world where time travel can change history (instead just fulfilling it like the vast majority of time travel movies and TV shows). So the development of time travel allowed Rittenhouse to start messing with history until they became the behemoth that we saw.
Lastly, I think the OP's idea would serve well as a "season three" and beyond. Clearly, there were suggestions that Wyatt and Lucy brought the improved time machine from such an apocalyptic future.
All in all, interesting food for thought!
Good points, both, and novella-Red speculates about them himself.
But he also points out that, once Andy starts doing everyone's taxes, he starts getting special treatment. And once he helps Norton with his money-laundering, he's effectively untouchable.
Still, the stress might've driven any normal guy crazy, especially knowing about that "special rock" hiding, presumably, stuff Andy'd prepared in case of release. Andy would have to live knowing anyone could stumble across his cache while he's in prison, but he set it up anyway.
Ultimately, novella-Red figures none of it matters. If Andy were to lose his tunnel, he'd find some other way to hold on to hope. That's how Andy kept himself from being broken while in prison, and it was an essential part of his character.
Actually it's funny but I thought the exact same thing when I saw "Full Metal Jacket" in the theater.
I.e., that structurally it's a lot like "Stripes" with a great first half in basic training and a tacked-on second half in the field.
It actually occurred to me that FMJ might've been Kubrik's idea of a twisted "Stripes" parody.
But take my opinion with a grain of salt, because I see the same parallel with Pixar; I feel like upcoming "Lightyear" is the FMJ version of "Toy Story"'s Buzz Lightyear.
I recall a number of big 80s comedies had tacked on "adult" content specifically to get an R rating.
PG was deemed too "tame" for the comedy demographic back before PG-13 was a thing.
I actually believe this film *IS* indeed PG material, at least as far as the plot and humor go. The shower scene would've been just as funny, possibly even funnier, if we'd never seen Stillman's telescope view.
I believe the same could be said of "The Blues Brothers," "Caddyshack," "Trading Places" and "Coming to America."
I'd make an exception though if the otherwise-PG film had a necessary scene that was R-material. I'd point to "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" as my prime example. It's a PG plot (not even PG-13) with a single, essential and arguably perfect scene that earns a hard "R."
<blockquote>sometimes victims of sexual abuse actually enjoy it while being repulsed by it at the ame time.</blockquote>
It's a poorly acknowledged fact that sex abuse victims OFTEN get physical pleasure from the abuse. It's just physiology. And it can mess them up worse, psychologically, because their bodies are telling them they're enjoying an act that their minds tell them is flat out evil and wrong.
One of the worst aspects of this type of abuse is the victims' resulting self-hatred.
That's why Nina's "confession" to Dot in the lunchroom was so angry and bitter. Truly a standout performance by Cuthbert.
On the post-secret website (where people send in "confessions" in postcard format), someone once posted a close-up of a face with multiple piercings.
The "confession" was: "You think I do this to make people look at me. I actually do it so they won't look too closely."
I couldn't help but think of that confession when I saw this thread.
But yeah, I agree with the other responses - it wasn't just a mohawk; Eli "flipped the script" on his whole self-image and became the person he wanted to me instead of letting others choose for him.
Yep that sounds about right.
I can easily imagine D’Onofrio’s Kingpin playing the victim should War Machine come crashing into his apartment (or prison cell).
In a way, he’s almost more vulnerable to “street level” people like the Netflix version of Karen Page, who was willing and able to goad him into losing control and killing her.
Much more interesting character than he seemed in the comics (when I was reading them over 30 years ago), and definitely way more intriguing than the Rhys Davies or a Clarke Duncan versions
I think this'd be awesome but I wonder, how does MCU's Kingpin stack up against Barton?
Barton's only human, and retired at that, but I'd assume with a single phone call he could bring the full weight of the remaining Avengers to bear. Rhodes, Bucky and Sam could wipe the floor with multiple Track Suit Mafia gangs. SHIELD may be extinct (we don't know for sure since the ABC show has severed ties with the MCU), but Fury's still active and apparently stronger than ever with the Skrulls behind him. Or Barton could just call his friends from that fishing village in Tønsberg, Norway.
These aren't the Netflix Defenders he'd be tussling with.
In the comics, How does someone like Fisk handle threats way out of his league? Would it be like that time Joker tried to use bombs to threaten Superman?
https://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/4619806.html?thread=148414750
Or is the Kingpin smart enough to put up a reasonable fight with Marvel's superbeings?
(Heck, maybe he uses the Sokovia Accords as a weapon against them).
I wouldn't want them to use Tim Allen or Tom Hanks. They're the voices of literal toys. If we're going to see "real" human versions of Buzz and Woody, I'd prefer they be different actors, because the characters are different.
Does that make sense? The fact that Allen's Buzz and Hanks's Woody are toys plays heavily into who they are as movie characters. Their whole reason to exist (to be played with by children) is inseparable from their existence as toys.
Anyways, that's why I'm glad they didn't use Tim Allen.