bobby2889

May 30, 2011 11:47 am completely agree with the thing about the income of artists. I think the caller believed that their was some kind of innate inequality to the industry and you guys were just saying its different for everyone. Its a lifestyle thing so it therefore effects people differently based on how their own lives operate. I think the caller was expectinga discussion of how its unfair for this artist to make this much and maybe he misunderstood how it all works together and the end of the day you guys said 'look it is a job in reality and its freelance more or less and people do as much or as little as they like and generally the pay is representative of that. But really if you worry about the itnernal workings without knowing people's personal lives, which we dont need to, then you can forget to enjoy the comics'. Which I think was the right advice to help us all enjoy the medium and not worry about behind the scenes too much.

May 29, 2011 9:16 am This still showing? I've watched the whole think on youtube. And its not even showing here in the Uk lol

May 27, 2011 4:56 pm My girlfriend does not like pizza, pasta and does not like the taste of any alcoholic drinks. You quickly learn people are not wrong for having a ridiculous set of tastes (an evil glare helps the learning process along speedily). I know myself I judge certain people. I like comics as a literary art form and only spend money on stuff I think has great art and great story and often look down on those who thought the bad-assness of the 90s was the peak of the comic medium. Then i realise, hey these guys are my buddies and also...they aint always wrong. I think to an extent there comes a time in the right scenarios when we will agree at least in part with some of what people say that we consider to be the antithesis to 'our thing'.

There is nothing wrong with a slugfest issue or a bendis/immomen quiet reflective issue of New Avengers. It takes balls to say what you like but more to say you can also like what others like now and then.

On another note I love Cat-Beast (not by that artist Ill add) but for me non blue or cat beast are the best. just saying

May 24, 2011 3:35 pm to be honest I was expected Hal Jordan to be number one with Gordon at 2. And yeah i think George Stacy should be on there somewhere. Still nice list with some broad choices

May 20, 2011 5:59 pm lol yeah I did the dumb thing and commented before it was finished lol. we should have the option to delete stupid posts. Done it a couple times lately it seems lol

May 20, 2011 10:07 am they are still doing shorts btw guys. There will be a Catwoman one with Batman: Year One. Which I'm sooooooo excited about

May 18, 2011 6:22 pm See I do get the feeling I need to watch it again. For me I still never really felt like 'Oh Crap Thor is in trouble' or that anyone we'd met really really was. Destroyer was cool but it felt like the warm-up you know. I did think Jotunheim getting attacked did exactly what you said and showed clearly the change in Thor from the start where he would have done that himself. But it just felt like that final epic moment was sort of misconstrued by a battle with Loki. When I watch something like the BBC's series Sherlock (which I did today) the final face of between Sherlock and Moriarty in the final episode is just full of tension and threat and so on the edge. I think even if you put in a physical guy like Thor and just have this moment of tension and malice and threat then it would be brilliant. I just think having Loki jump about negated some of what made him great up until that point. I just wanted them to give him more bite. I know it was his origin but it feels like before that he was just 'the god of potential' and I would have liked a reveal at the end showing he had a long term plan-even if it wasn't outright evil just to show he is always up to something.

Maybe thats why I'm still wondering if Erik is Baldur. But I think thats just fan wishful thinking cos I like and miss Baldur

May 18, 2011 12:25 pm hmmm somehow I posted my comment on the wrong tab I had open. thats way too long for this reply section. meant to but it in a forum. Can someone remove it cos its just eating up space here and getting in people's way. probably lol

May 18, 2011 12:23 pm Before I start let me say this: HERE THERE BE SPOILERS. Many a time I catch myself reading something I know has spoilers hoping I'll manage to read the bits without spoilers and skip the rest. Don't do it to yourself. Its not worth spoiling the ride cos the unanswered questions about what happens next is really what holds the film together. Once you know the plot you've really spoilt the whole experience. Hence 'spoilers'. So don't read this til you've seen the film. Thats all.

So I went and saw Thor a few weeks ago but avoided posting my review until I'd had time to consider it more. It begins with the tale of a man and his girlfriend who has agreed to see Thor about 4 times with him but due to her coursework piling up had to cancel. He didn't mind but decided enough was enough and when he discovered she saw it with friends he made his move. And saw it alone! So, as you can guess, he had high expectations and had been waiting a long time for it. And the results of his cinematic excursion where....mixed.

All in all a fun film. Sadly that is more or less it. Now don't get me wrong there was emotion and there were stellar performances and some interesting aspects. But it felt very...80s. I enjoyed it. I love Thor, especially the more recent stuff since his rebirth that really took the Asgardian elements back to a tough, gritty warriors in the snow caked in blood type roots. The film did Asgard well. VERY well. Bifrost and Heimdal and the whole end of the Rainbow Bridge, physically and metaphorically, were genius. The interlinking of the worlds by that whole system was executed well. The Jotun and Jotunheim were spot on, the Frost Giants both intimidating but not wildly outlandish. Hemsworth nailed the young immature Thor (he wasnt the grown warrior we know it comics but in terms of Thor's 'origin' it was more or less how I wanted it to be). Odin was sublime as were Sif and the Warriors Three. The whole interaction with the earthlings and the four Asgardians was very cleverly done and genuinally funny and heartwarming. SHEILD were done well, Hawkeye was an interesting mystery for those who might not know to take away and ponder and for those who know it was a welcomed nod to what is still to come (though those sequences had flaws I'm focusing on the positives first). Sleipnir was there and had SIX LEGS! Well done guys that made me smile a heck of a lot. Some of the shots were beautifully cinematic and luxurious. The character relationships (Thor and Loki, Thor and Odin, Jane and her pals) were absolutley perfect and very touching. But...

There were two words I could use to describe what let the film down for me. They didnt ruin it but they let it down. These words are: cringeworthyness and lackofdepthitude. And, yes, these are both words. For me they really pulled me out of the experience and made me aware I was watching a film. Perhaps had I had lower expectations I wouldn't even have noticed but the fact is I really admire Branagh's work (Hamlet and Frankenstein are genius) and so for me I was shocked that he could remove me from being fully connected with the film.

To explain what I mean I shall start with my first by-no-means-madeup-word. Cringeworthyness: sometimes I felt it was, as I have experess, watching an old 80s action film. Or playing Streets or Rage. The noises made when combatants clash invoked those ridiculous overly-masculine tropes or, on the flip-side, women's tennis. The grunts were not butch, they were not the shouts of a warrior seen in something like Gladiator there were half-hearted groans the actors were seemingly forced to express. You could sense they had been given direction which you never want, you always want an organic experience. Poor Hiddleston is not a grunting action hero, nor should Loki be. I could understand cries of pain or chuckles or the odd yell as he thrusts but there were, I swear, squeeks and yelps that held no power or gravitas from both men. This was a pity. Similarly cringeworthyness was found, for me, after the breaking of the bridge. From the point that Jane looks up and the sky and gives her cliched line the music was so counter-evocotive (almost attempting to hold the immensity of the LotR score and come across as a cheap imitation) that I looked around the cinema to see if anyone was laughing. Oh, Kenneth. This said the idea to leave Thor in Asgard was not expected, very clever and very, very appreciated. Gave me some hope and the film was vindicated in that moment.

Now, to lackofdepthness: I was never afraid. I never got the sense that anything was really at stake. I never truly believed anything was threatened, not because I was aware Thor would come through but because nothing was ever really threatened. If we take Loki's actions, which are somewhat intergral, that is where I saw the big lack of depth. I appreciate we are fleshing out his character in this film and he is not yet the villian we all know but he really didn't seen up to an awful lot. yes he lied alot and when he did it he did it bloody well; convincing Thor to go to war and explaining why he couldn't renounce his throne to Thor for example were sensational bits of acting with no hints of wink-wink-nudge-nudge. However prior to these moments Loki had no context. We never knew why Sif and the Warriors Three were so scared of him in power. We'd never seen why he'd earnt the title god of mischeif. Fandral mentions he had always been one for mischief but we never saw it. We saw magic tricks but never the manipulation we know him for (save the scene mentioned above). Evil or not, even when simply for fun, Loki controls the players like chess peices. He doesn't learn it or fall into it it is simply his nature. And its not that that is missing as it is implied by people's reactions we just simply never see any examples of why he is so terribly scary. He just seems a tad whiny. Now I must say based on what he was given Hiddleston was fantastic. But I really wanted Loki to flex his scheming mind muscles. I never want to see the peices connecting in one of Loki's plans; he always needs to be smarter than me and for the revelation of what he's up to to take me by suprise. For now I'm happy to believe they are saving that for Avengers and I'll leave it at that.

Going back to threat: why didn't he point the bridge at Earth like he threatened. If we had seen that then I would feel like there was genuine threat and would have been totally enraptured. There is a scene where Thor regains his hammer and Loki is using the Bifrost to basically destroy Jotunheim. I suspected him to see Thor and when Heimdall summons him back I expected Loki to leave the bridge open to begin destroying Earth only for Thor to stop him. Instead we get a threat that is not follow through followed by the women's tennis tournament (admittedly with scary hammers and spears, which IS cool). I do think an opportunity was missed. They could have wiped out the town and the film could have concluded with Jane and the guys helping rebuild as Thor would have done. Destroyer was cool but not big enough to be the ultimate threat and Loki at the end just didn't pose one as they turned him into a physical threat which simply ought not to be his trump card.

Hawkeye needed to appear later on just to clarify he had a purpose rather than one scene. One scene is too forced, bring him back and given him some character even if only to wink and Jane or something. Or to try and take a shot at the Devastator before being knocked out with the other agents who weren't killed.

That said I have admitted the film vindicated itself somewhat in those final moments. Odin's return could have felt like a massive deus ex machina but didn't as it felt like a father rescuing his quarrelling sons from each other. Which was exactly what it should have been. Leaving Thor is Asgard I've said I liked. But this was the same time as the lousy music and second gratuitous shot of Asgard (wasn't sure if it was recycled from early) so I was still a tad removed. And after the credits was faultless and exciting.

All in all good but not nearly great and it certainly wasn't, as some say, as good as Iron-Man or Batman Begins. 7 out of 10. Maybe a 6. A bit more than average but alot less than I hoped or expected. It wasn't even that it didn't 'say' something, I CAN appreciate fun for fun's sake but bits of it were just cringeworthy and a tad lacking.

The worst part is the trailers for GL are giving off a similar sort of vibe and I'm not so keen. Thankfully Cap and First Class seem to have a bit more meat on there bones

May 17, 2011 2:31 pm I'm excited by hopefully getting this back to the quality of when it started however I do think these covers look like dated old 90s magazine covers