Cobalt Stargazer
-
Posts
7.5k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Cobalt Stargazer
-
-
3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:
I think that's what gets the pushback: "an [insert changed race/gender]-version of [existing character]". It's boring, pandering, & lazy, plus it justifiably alienates "that's my favorite character!" people. Whereas a whole new character (Supergirl, Gwen, Miles Morales for example) doesn't get that pushback, because they are new characters in their own right.
Would you not say there's a different flavor to the pushback female characters get, though? Take Supergirl and Sasha Calle out of the equation, even though she was the best thing about the mess that is The Flash. We can look to what happened when Brie Larson and to some extent Julia Garner were cast for evidence; the only reason Captain Marvel was review bombed almost before it hit theaters was because Larson hurt the delicate feelings of the fanboys, who couldn't stand hearing that they don't always have to be the target audience. I remain convinced that the positive reaction to The Marvels now that it's on the streaming service means it was a decent movie to begin with, but the pre-existing dislike of Larson gave that portion of the fandom reason (read: excuse) to badmouth it.
Now we have Julia Garner, whose movie won't even begin filming for some time. So she'll be playing an obscure version of the character. So what? You would think that the comics crowd would be happy to see this iteration of a familiar character, since allegedly they're all about digging into the lore of the source material, so why are there complaints? If this is going to turn into another "I only watched She Hulk and/or Echo so I could see Dardevil", then that just underlines my point, since there seems to be a lot of interest in Norrin Radd, the dude Shalla Bal was in love with. I would like not to interpret this as "maybe if she smiled more often", and yet.-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:
That's all I said: He suspected, maybe? Steve replies to Tony: "I didn't know it was him."
Unless you think Steve was lying? Otherwise, I think we have assessed the situation the same.
I don't know if I would say 'lie', although Steve himself says on a number of occasions that a lie of omission is still a lie. But that is perhaps a different conversation.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ICantDoThatDave said:
It's not until Civil War that even Cap starts to sorta suspect it was Bucky that killed the Starks, & that was due to
Zemo'sZola's (EDIT: duh) plan. When confronted by Tony, he even says "I didn't know it was him" (& it's Cap, you know he wouldn't lie).He knew Hydra killed the Starks, but didn't know it was Bucky. Also clearly didn't know *why*? So I guess my take is: it was not supposed to be obvious. We, the audience, were "supposed" to be as... unsure, as Steve was.
Except when Tony presses him - "Don't bullshit me, Rogers, did you know?!" - Steve finally admits that he did, and that 'yes' is the catalyst for the fight that breaks out right afterwards.
Even if we were supposed to be unsure, Natasha informed Steve in an earlier movie that the Winter Soldier shot her, and that he was credited for something like two dozen other assassinations over the span of half a century. He also finds out that the Starks were murdered just before the recording of Zola tries to have him and Nat blown up, something about accidents being "arranged" in order to allow Hydra to flourish like the parasite that it was. Maybe he never consciously connected the dots, but he's not dumb, so he must have at least suspect before Civil War takes place. How or where he finally has it confirmed isn't clear (something lost in editing? I don't know), but it wouldn't have turned into a brawl if he hadn't admitted he knew and just never said.-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, Mabinogia said:
Sadly, the damage done to her when she was young will continue to affect her the rest of her life and the family that used her all those years are, in part, to blame for her being so unable to function in the real world.
I do wonder, just in general, what the difference is between Britney's case and someone like Zendaya, who is a decade younger. Zendaya was fourteen when she first appeared in Disney's Shake It Up, and while she wasn't overtly sexualized the way Britney was, she has made statements regarding her complicated feelings about being the family's breadwinner. I doubt that in ten years she'll be the one everyone is staring at, asking why she can't get it together, since she only plays a wreck on TV, but either she lucked out in having much better parents or.....some other factors.
-
6
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Blergh said:
Yes, it's sad that there's a good probability Miss Spears could go broker than broke in the near future but OTOH, at least it would be HER call to blow it on useless stuff
Except it won't be Jamie's fault if/when that happens. Because there's a line here, or there should be, where Britney should be expected to take responsibility for herself, which was why she wanted out from under the conservatorship so badly. I wouldn't go so far as to say she needs a minder, but we can't go on blaming Jamie, scuzz though he is, if she does end up with no money left.
-
7
-
5
-
-
8 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:
That costs extra, and I'm not going to say anymore.
Alicent, is that you?
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Annber03 said:
Will he sleep on his right or left side? Or his back? Will he snore? Tune in to find out!
Nah, he sleeps hanging upside down, like a bat.
-
8
-
-
4 hours ago, rmontro said:
Well hey, all the more reason to tell the fans to go take a flying leap, right? That is the message that Disney seems to be sending out. But since Disney has moved toward caring about the fans less, the success of their movies has decreased also, and in a big way. So it may be the comic book fans are more valuable than you or they think.
Now it looks like they are looking to the Fox franchises (Deadpool and Wolverine) to set the MCU on the right path. Something that was once unthinkable. Ryan Reynolds is definitely looking to please the fan. Isn't that a refreshing attitude?
If you don't want to do these franchises justice, why buy them? It just becomes a big money grab.
No one said the fans should be told to take a flying leap. There is some argument in there that Deadpool & Wolverine is a cash grab all on its own, since Logan Howlett took his final bow in 2017, but either no one cares about that, or.....no one cares about that. I care, because I would rather they not screw with the tragic poetry of the ending of Logan, backtrack to something that might be inferior, but maybe I'm not one of the fans Ryan Reynolds is trying to please, so.....
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, rmontro said:
I've been saying this all along, but a lot of people disagree. IMO, you have to please the core comic book fans, you have to please the fans of the source material, because then you create a positive foundation from which to sell the product to a larger audience. Displease the core fans, and you create negativity and bad word of mouth around your movie, that simply isn't necessary.
And maybe, just maybe, it's a good thing to respect the source material, because maybe, just maybe, there was something good there that attracted people to it in the first place.
This is main difference between the earlier MCU movies (up through say, Endgame), and the ones we've received since. And it's clear a lot of this is because Disney is more interested in pushing their agenda than in pleasing the fans.
All of this is interesting, but I would point out that no one can decide (or tell me, if they can decide) what a 'core comic book fan' is. I've said this before, but the source material is loaded with "agenda", and that was way before Disney acquired the rights to make these movies. Is the idea that we should respect the comics, but also remove anything that might smack of politics? Because that's not respecting the material, it's turning it into something it isn't and never was. I'm treading lightly so the mods don't get annoyed, but even you have said you're okay with them changing some things, so I'm not sure why it keeps coming back to the idea that changes are inherently bad and disrespectful.
-
4
-
-
Quote
It's always been hard to buy into Sonny as a mob boss, because he's situated in upstate New York, not exactly a bastion of mob activity.
So, suppose Sonny is brought down and sent away, to a place from which he cannot escape, and where no one can visit him. What will GH be about?
Thoughts?
The hospital? How shocking would that be, since it's only in the title of the show?
Less snarkily, they could do some (legitimate) business stories. ELQ still exists, right? There's been enough talk about who the shareholders are that it should, so there could be some focus there. Make law enforcement competent again, which would mean no more weepy Anna. Writing Sonny out for good would also mean either getting rid of Jason and Carly or tearing them down and building them back up,since he's the infant they've dedicated their entire lives to in one way or another. I'm sure there's lots of options I can't think of right now.
-
6
-
-
11 hours ago, SVNBob said:
Steve Harvey?
Vanna White.
-
3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:
Everyone has gone around PC for years winking about what Sonny and Jason really do. I don't understand what the show is trying to do here.
Except it's just winking, really. Supposedly Sonny is a coffee importer, but the show has never been explicit about what his illegal activities involve. Again supposedly, he doesn't run drugs or deal in prostitution, right? I know we've made jokes for a long time about him bringing in gummi bears, but the show has always tried to have it both ways - establish that Sonny and Jason are criminals, but without making them too dirty, if that makes sense.
-
6
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Zella said:
from what I've seen, the overriding reason she was hired was because the production was so cheap
7 hours ago, roamyn said:And that is on Alec Baldwin.
Maybe, but at the same time I'm not a professional armorer, and even I know not to leave guns lying in the dirt and/or carry them around under my arms, much less pose with them so I can look like a badass. It's been said repeatedly, but Guitterez was supposed to be in charge of making sure the weapons were safe for use, regardless of what else she was doing on the set. Don't you have to have some kind of training or a qualification certificate to do that kind of work? I don't know enough about that part of the industry to be certain, but her father has been in the business for years.
-
10
-
-
Honestly, this is where they could take a page from Margot's version of Harley. Spoiler tagging for those who haven't seen The Suicide Squad
"I made myself a promise that the next time I got a boyfriend, I'd be on the lookout for any red flags, and if I saw any, I would do the healthy thing, and I would murder him. And killin' kids.....kind of a red flag."
I don't believe this is going to be that, though. I didn't see the first movie with Phoenix, but I know it's not supposed to be comedic, not even darkly so. More's the pity.-
1
-
-
"I'm sorry about what's gonna happen to you."
-
4 hours ago, MadyGirl1987 said:
Did we even know about TBI and the consequences to football players back then? I feel like that understanding has come around fairly recently.
A quick Google search tells me that traumatic brain injuries were known about and recorded since at least 1650 BC, that the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians wrote about head injuries and their aftereffects based on presentation and tractability. So yes, the condition has been around for quite some time and has been documented extensively.
I don't believe, however, that it was commonly known that TBIs can occur during sporting events, at least not at the time Simpson was on trial, which I endured most of back in the day. Because @Spartan Girl is correct, Johnnie Cochran and O.J.'s other lawyers did their best to convince the jury that someone else did it, turning it into a non-existent conspiracy that ended in an acquittal. The only thing I can say is that Fred Goldman should be able to find some peace now, even if its years after the fact.-
8
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, mariah23 said:
OJ Simpson is dead.
I am not your strongest soldier, Lord.
-
2
-
5
-
-
*dies*
-
1
-
-
I have a genuine question, because I don't know enough about the industry - why does GH have such a large cast? Even outside of wild cards like Easton and Howarth being given umpteen characters each, they do have a pretty deep bench when it comes to people who can or do have story. I'm sure it has a lot to do with the insistence on Carly/Sonny/Jason being the sun around which everything else revolves, and yet.
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Bringonthedrama said:
Not just went back to him - had surgery after she got shot from being close to him, so she could get pregnant by him. Unlike Jason and Elizabeth's night of the defective condom that resulted in the Jake pregnancy, Sam very much wanted to have a baby with Jason and believed he would be a devoted father.
Now, when their son is a high school freshman, she says his dad is too dangerous to be around. GMAB.
Except it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Because Jason is no more a father to Jake than he is to Danny, and IMO Liz was not as clear-eyed about who Jason is at the time the boy was conceived. She turned to him because
of bad writingshe'd been hurt by Lucky, and like Sam she decided to go ahead and have the hitman's kid. Him being an absentee father isn't anyone's fault but his, since he could always choose to dial it back on cleaning up Carly's messes and he won't, but aren't Jake and Danny close enough in age that this outcome is totally predictable? I have no idea of how old the current crop of kids is supposed to be.-
3
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Raja said:
So once again, as with The Mighty Thor, Ironheart, and Kate Bishop the question is it the power set that gets a character over or the characterization?
Yes?
Since I'm not a comics person, I don't know enough about Silver Surfer to speak to his power set, but IMO casting is just as important, and for the most part the MCU has done very well in that area. As @benteen says, Garner has been consistently good in everything she's done, even if she's not hugely famous. If anything, casting a lesser-known actress might help with characterization, give her some leeway when it comes to bringing the character to life onscreen. The power set is the easy part, even if it's important; it's what behind the powers that makes the characters relatable. -
7 hours ago, BetterButter said:
Bonus points if she uses her Ruth Langmore accent.
-
-
5 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:
And at that point it will be really hard to convince people that it hasn't been years within the MCU since we last saw these characters.
Maybe? Because there are always questions about "Where is Whoever?" The remaining Avengers while Wanda was having her crackup. Bucky during the time Erik Killmonger was trying to usurp the throne of Wakanda. Ghost after the Snap, because Scott being stuck in the Quantum Realm is because he went there to help her and I don't believe it was made clear if she was also lost. Suspending disbelief also requires knowing that the missing characters aren't put into a box and set aside until it's time to utilize them again, that we should know they're doing stuff offscreen, including Kate, who must have been coming home from patrol or a stakeout since she had her bow with her and it must have been very late. I would even argue that Kamala's apparently self-appointed duties as recruiter means she's fresh off of meeting her hero in The Marvels, and despite being significantly younger than Kate she's being trusted to handle it by Fury, even if he's keeping tabs on developments. So I could see it the other way too.
-
1
-
X-Men'97
in X-Men
Yeet.
