Oh, it's from "It's a Wonderful Life," when George is running around seeing the town as if he'd never lived. He asks where the Building and Loan building went and someone in the crowd says, "It went out of business 20 years ago!"

So there you go.

That'd be funny if it were Gervais and Merchant.

Clarity
Specificity
Brevity

This conversation has gotten so far afield as to be pretty meaningless at this point.

Let me explain. No there is too much, let me sum up.

Dorkman et al believe because male characters aren't generally posed in the same overtly sexualized positions as female characters (ie said Avengers artwork), that men aren't sexualized [as much?]. I et al believe that men are sexualized as well (if not necessarily as much), but in a way that reflects the underlying attributes that (generally) define attraction for women, which are more about confidence, social status, and a certain kind of dominance, than physical looks alone. Getting upset that men are not sexualized/idealized/objectified in exactly the same way as women strikes me as slightly ridiculous.

This does not mean that sexism, objectification, or other cultural inequality don't exist in comics or culture at large. It's just that the cited example is a terrible way to make the point. Doubly so when it's coming from a movie written and directed by noted empowered female character creator Joss Whedon (even if we're talking marketing and not the actual movie).

K?

I remember reading an X-Men comic somewhere along the way where even his legs are impossibly muscular and well defined, but the above image was the closest I could find in a web search.

Anyway, my point remains the same. Men are sexualized right along with women in how they're portrayed in comics and movies, it's just that men are sexualized in different ways from women. And what's wrong with being sexy anyway? Last time I checked none of us were Puritans.

What we're actually arguing over is something different, we're really arguing over objectification. The question is, "Is Scarlett Johannson being objectified as a sexual object and not being considered a person in her depiction in the movie or in that poster?" Is she treated or depicted in a manner in which she is nothing more than an inanimate object, without personality, dignity, self agency, or respect, and solely for men's sexual gratification? And the answer is obviously no. She's a character with a personality that passes the Plinkett Test and everything.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of examples of women characters being objectified all over media, including comics. But objectification and sexualizaton are different things and we needn't clutch our pearls over ScarJo showing some curve in the same frame as three guys with biceps the size of your thigh. And let's be honest, knee jerking about sexism in a movie written and directed by Joss Whedon is a little bit ridiculous.

I clicked "Random Article" and got my own page.

So they used Apple Maps?

What the hell, I'll wax poetic.

This movie started off with one of my least favorite tropes and went off the rails from there.

Oh and Jesus was a spaceman! (Interview with Ridley Scott and many spoilers)

Two years ago I went to a film festival that showed Alien and Blade Runner with a Q&A with Ridley Scott, wherein he tried to describe what he was trying to do with Prometheus. In the process, he went off on this cockamamy description of Relativity and time dilation that made no goddamn sense. It was at that point that I feared for this movie. Somehow it's managed to make even less sense than whatever he was on about at that festival.

And if his revisiting of Alien is this much of a nonsensical self-indulgent metaphoric circle jerk, then truly all hope is lost for the new Blade Runner.

I'm seeing a lot of pecs and arms, which is what I'm seeing in the Avengers promo. Am I wrong?

Sure, the various Avengers aren't shirtless (besides Hulk, and I wouldn't even really count him in this discussion, though I guess some people are probably into that), but neither is Johansson for that matter, and it's not a detail in the marketer's control anyhow.