MovieChat Forums > lasteven > Replies
lasteven's Replies
Thank you for your thoughts. I would agree that a superhero like Superman or Thor is definitely going to need to present a bulked up physique to match the traditional presentation of the character. Even Batman has appeared more muscular on screen (both Christian Bale and Ben Affleck).
For Bruce Banner, I think that his Hulk persona is always going to be very muscular--it's there in the name, the Hulk, ha ha--but his Bruce appearance works best as *not* overly muscular. And Iron Man's strength is in his suit, so he doesn't need to appear muscular, although Robert Downey Jr. is pretty ripped these days. Also, for Flash, it might seem visually odd if Barry Allen is zipping around like Arnold Schwarzenegger when the perception you might have of a fast zippy sprinter is very lithe and lean.
For Skylord, is that maybe Star Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy? I think that a lot of viewers still think of him as buff, although possibly that's a lot because of the transformation that Chris Pratt underwent from being a little schlubby and cuddly in his Parks and Rec days.
Personally, I think a strong female physique is very attractive and appropriate for these roles, but I still suspect that a lot of the *other* roles these actresses might audition for wouldn't suit that look, and so they tend to not work out super hard to pack on the muscle. Exceptions could be Hillary Swank in Million Dollar Baby or Emily Blunt in Live Die Repeat, although even that didn't seem to go to the degree that you see male actors in super hero roles.
All this makes me want to go rent some MCU movies! :-)
I think it can be difficult for an actress to be bulked up enough to match what we see in comic books and not face backlash from a public that mocks women who bodybuild and levels transgender insults. Also it could present issues when those women try to get cast for any other role than a superhero. I think Linda Hamilton was something of an exception because while she did get extremely fit for T:2, mostly she stripped fat--she didn't really add a ton of muscle. She got very lean--she lost size, not added bulk.
For men, when they get ripped it can open a lot of doors as action and even romantic leads (Chris Pratt). Neither is intrinsically good or bad, but I think it can be more complicated for women if they go "all in" and train as a bodybuilder for a superhero role.
I lived next door to a married couple from Minnesota. They had toned down their accents when they moved to the South, but they could turn it on at will. When they did, they sounded just like the actors in this movie. I have a lot of Canadian friends and have been to visit them, plus traveled through nearly every province. The accents in this movie don't match usual Canadian patterns. Canadian English has a very unified phonology without much in the way of varying dialects, excluding Newfoundland (which is just adorable). There's interesting stuff like the Canadian Shift (affecting vowels) and this thing called Canadian Raising, but still.
The accents in "Drop Dead Gorgeous" were a humorously exaggerated Minnesota/Midwestern like you would hear in "Fargo" and "Prairie Home Companion" sketches.
Also factor in that this was made in 1999. The portrayal of smoking on screen has been steadily decreasing over the years since then, so it probably seems more startling when seen now. (That's in addition to smoking being kind of a joke in the movie and a part of the overall landscape.)
Yes
The spouse and I watched it together--he's just turned 50--and he said he felt it was really great and he enjoyed it very much. A good story, good acting, good directing, good music all stand apart from gender.
Why does it bother you that kids swear?
Sleek and lithe, like a...panther. :-)
Back in the day, absolutely! We're watching right now on Netflix, and even some of BC's delivery reminds me of how Selleck played Thomas Magnum.
What differences from the leaked CF script are the ones you would most like to see in a different production?
I don't have any academic background in DNA or genetics, but as a casual watcher I took it that Joel Edgerton was Travis's father, and Travis was somewhat lighter skinned and he favored his mother.
It was reasonably faithful to the book, just covering the kid side of the plotline and leaving out the smokehole, turtle, and, ritual of Chud, and the major sex scene. The Wikipedia entry is fairly detailed and would do a better job than my patchy memory (which is kinda sad since it's only been a week since I saw it).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(novel)
That's certainly often the case, but I'm not certain that I'm thinking of the second installment as a sequel really. The material was all intertwined in the original source novel--the creative team isn't having to think of what to do next to top the original. It's all one story in the same way that something like The Lord of the Rings was one story even though it was released as three books (and then three movies).
Do you mean that she had already lost her virginity prior to the scene with the other Losers in the sewer? It's been ages since I read the book, but I remember a scene where Beverly's father checks her to make sure she hasn't lost her virginity yet (because she's friends with so many boys now), but I can't remember her having lost her virginity prior to the sewer scene. Do you remember which section that was in?
"Let Us Prey" is underrated. Or maybe just underseen/underdiscussed. I think I first noticed her there.
I remember reading the book and getting to that scene, and I understand it struck a lot of people really badly. For some reason it made sense to me at the time, or maybe I just drank the Kool-Aid of what King seemed to be trying to say -- they had a tight, unbreakable bond, and they were ka-tet (to use the term from his Dark Tower series). I'm not sure that six separate and sequential acts of consensual sexual intercourse counts as a group orgy, but I really do see why it strikes people as very weird and suspect for the age of the people involved.
I'll definitely keep that in mind! We were just so horribly bored by the first episode we watched (and honestly, we can take some quiet development to get a show started) that we never went back to it. I'm also generally not interested in plotlines with journalists or local politicians, so I've had my doubts if I would be interested in later seasons of The Wire (if I understood the structure correctly), but it's so very highly regarded that I know I'll have to come back to it. :-)
I was given the first few books in the series by a friend and devoted fan back in the late 90s. I tried. I really did. I love time travel stories, loved Scotland and highlanders, and it just didn't click for me. I flipped ahead and blundered into the rape/torture sections, and I decided that it wasn't for me. I don't mean that stories can't cover difficult subjects or that serious things shouldn't be written about, but it seemed that it was all being used as a device to milk emotion. True, I hadn't read the full context, but I was OK with leaving the first book unfinished. I was hoping that the series might approach it a little differently since my spouse has suffered significant sexual abuse, but this is one we won't be able to watch together.
I deeply love all those shows (except The Wire which I've only seen one ep of). Southland is severely underrated and we really enjoy Line of Duty a lot, too. I've argued that the final season/arc of The Shield actually surpasses the series finale of Breaking Bad in terms of how airtight it is, climaxing with a horrifying finality. Eventually I'll get back to The Wire. Someday, lol.
I very, very much want them to address It's origins, even if they can't use the smokehole method to learn them.