On Fury.

Maybe we're supposed to like him, in the same way we kinda like that one special kid in school who just kinda sits in the back of the class.

Cause I mean really, you gotta wonder about a guy who sees a plane with an armed nuke taking off and decides that the best plan of action will be to shoot at it with a rocket launcher. Oh yeah, that's totally not something that can destroy an entire alien base ship, hovering about 3 meters off the flight deck, while you shoot at it with a high explosive.

Also...this makes me happy.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2012-05-10 16:55:26)

Matt as Commander of DIF would probably say something like this:
[video (unkown provider)]

On to the Avengers and the chat:
First of all, great chat and I enjoyed everyone's perspectives about the various milieu that Whedon had to wade through in order to somehow bring this together. It gives a whole new appreciation for the amount of craziness that goes in to movie making. As Teague said, sit down and make Avengers-Go! Its pure insanity, I tell you, yet the movie worked.

I am surprised that no one commented on the music though. Personally, I though the score was amazing, enjoyed the main theme, and overall sound of the movie. Though, besides the main theme, the song going with the first half of the credits is probably my favorite

Soundgarden - Live to Rise

iTunes link

Where is my Allstate Mayhem tie-in commercial?

There have been a few great scores that you're bound to have remembered, but for the most part they are pretty forgetable in 90% of movies. Star Wars (Williams) and Lord of the Rings (Shore) have been scores I've noticed and remembered the most, as well as Alexander (Vangelis), which is one of the best things about that movie. The main scores of Superman and Indiana Jones (Williams) are really great and powerful (and hard to forget) as well. And I find I remember fondly the Star Trek orchestral openings (DS9 and Voyager especially) or the Band of Brothers opening.

But otherwise they do tend to blur together for me. I couldn't really tell you what the scores for Iron Man, Captain America and Thor were for instance, or Clash of the Titans, Transformers etc.

I really don't understand that image. Are we supposed to believe that the way the male Avengers are posed is completely unsexual?

Hulk looks like he's talking through his ass like Ace Ventura.....

'Hulk ass smash!'

Noooooooo. Really?

I never would have guessed that men and women are sexualized differently. When did this happen?

The primary function of their poses are not to "look sexy." Their poses actually make some form of combat sense, as opposed to Black Widow, who is more concerned with twisting her spine to show us her butt than with actually preparing for a fight.

EDIT: Alright, their poses don't really make "combat sense" (why would Captain America put his shield above him instead of between him and the enemy?), but no, they're not actively sexualized in the same way Black Widow is, as that image is meant to demonstrate. They're at least FACING the enemy.

Last edited by Dorkman (2012-05-11 17:42:05)

Ya know, I don't get this either. Yes, Scarlett Johansson is a beautiful woman and that fact is well and prominently displayed. But there is a knee jerk feminism implied in that cartoon that's kind of ridiculous. Are we objectifying Scarlett Johansson and putting her in outfits and poses that make it easier for us to fantasize having sex with her? Yeeesss.

Are we somehow not doing that with the guys? Cause we kinda are. It's just that the way men sexualize women and the way women sexualize men are different, thus different emphases and different poses. And are we really going to make an argument about there being some sexist double standard when there are FIVE different flavors of beefcake for the ladies to drool over versus Johansson's sumptuous ass?