Dr. Strange


Movies

101 to 150 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hama wrote:
Casket ow Winters isn't an infinity stone.
It is now. in terms of the movie franchise it's discussed as one of the items of power in the infinity set. It's just simply currently in the shape of a mystic casket. Kind of how like each segment of Dr. Who's Key of Time took on other forms.
That....doesn't make a lick of sense. The casket was being kept in the Asgardian Vault. They then acquired the Tesseract, which is also (presumably) kept in the vault. At the end of Dark World, when Sif and Volstagg bring the Aether to the Collector, they say they can't keep it in Asgard because it isn't wise to have two Infinity Stones in the same place. So why would they have kept the Tesseract if the casket was one of the stones?

Where else were you going to keep it? Entrust it to the Humans?

Sometimes the only choices you have are between two bad ones.

And you need a point of failure to set up the plot for the next movie.

But they specifically said "We shouldn't keep this one so we don't have 2 in the same place." Which makes no sense if they already had 2.

Why do you think the Casket is a Stone? Which one do you think it is? Do you think everyone else has just missed the clues you picked up on?

Because Thanos is involved. And that's the only set of items he's interested in. I'm also fairly sure that the movie's interpretation of the Infinity stones is going to differ vastly from the classic story. No Adam Warlock for instance.

But why the Casket? Has Thanos shown any interest in it specifically?

I think Mjolnir is an Infinity Stone. It's a powerful artifact and it's in a story where Thanos is involved and that's all he's interested in.
Makes just as much sense.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hama wrote:
Casket ow Winters isn't an infinity stone.
It is now. in terms of the movie franchise it's discussed as one of the items of power in the infinity set. It's just simply currently in the shape of a mystic casket. Kind of how like each segment of Dr. Who's Key of Time took on other forms.
That....doesn't make a lick of sense. The casket was being kept in the Asgardian Vault. They then acquired the Tesseract, which is also (presumably) kept in the vault. At the end of Dark World, when Sif and Volstagg bring the Aether to the Collector, they say they can't keep it in Asgard because it isn't wise to have two Infinity Stones in the same place. So why would they have kept the Tesseract if the casket was one of the stones?

Where else were you going to keep it? Entrust it to the Humans?

Sometimes the only choices you have are between two bad ones.

And you need a point of failure to set up the plot for the next movie.

But they specifically said "We shouldn't keep this one so we don't have 2 in the same place." Which makes no sense if they already had 2.

Why do you think the Casket is a Stone? Which one do you think it is? Do you think everyone else has just missed the clues you picked up on?

Because Thanos is involved. And that's the only set of items he's interested in. I'm also fairly sure that the movie's interpretation of the Infinity stones is going to differ vastly from the classic story. No Adam Warlock for instance.

But why the Casket? Has Thanos shown any interest in it specifically?

I think Mjolnir is an Infinity Stone. It's a powerful artifact and it's in a story where Thanos is involved and that's all he's interested in.
Makes just as much sense.

Unlike Mjolnir, the Casket is a world-ending device. which puts it on the same level as the Power Stone.


sunbeam wrote:

So how did it happen? I mean he became adored in Nepal?

And looking at his filmography... well I dunno. Cant' say I have insight into the heart of Nepal, but it seems a stretch to me that movies about Charles Darwin's dark night of the soul, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28film%29, are going to lead to this:

"there were girls that were crying and hugging each other when they saw him go by. It was really remarkable.”

Maybe I don't get Nepal, but this seems like a wee bit of a stretch. So how did it happen? Is it because he has already had a number of roles in movies? Roles which someone else could had, and gotten notoriety for?

really? you have no idea how big a phenomenon Sherlock is worldwide? You don't know about the Chinese obsession for Curly Fu and Peanut*? Cumberbatch - rightfully, I might add - is one of the biggest stars worldwide at the moment, even though Hollywood only slowly notices that.

*google it, but be warned

Also, to add to the general confusion to why British actors get more roles in US productions: because almost all of them are classical trained actors, that spend as much time on stage in great ensemble productions with high class stage directors as they do on their TV/film work. that brings a completely different quality to the usual 'I played Peter Pan in high school once and then decided to sleep with Bryan Singer to become a movie star' mindset up and coming American actors very often bring to the table


Misroi wrote:

I really don't understand what the main issue here is with Cumberbatch playing Stephen Strange, sunbeam, other than "He's a limey!" I'm actually hard pressed to come up with an actor better suited to play Earth's Sorcerer Supreme than Cumberbatch. I won't argue that Benedict wasn't on a short list, but I'm sure there were other names. We just won't hear about them because they got the person they wanted.

But, I'll let you make an alternative casting here. Which American actor would you prefer seeing in the title role instead?

Not a game I've played often.

Will say George Clooney would be a dead ringer for Strange if he grew the right kind of moustache.

Other than that, it doesn't seem to be his kind of thing though.

Johnny Depp (the skinny version) has the right kind of look as well. Take the moustache he wore in Ed Wood, and call it a day (along with some white above the ears).

Actually though, I'm going to turn this question on you. The first thought that goes through your head is that it must be an actor... you've already seen in something else.

So why do you think that? You could say something about them having shown their skills and being a known quantity.

But how did they get to that point? Someone cast them.

See this is the point where our world views differ. I think I could peruse a list of people who graduated from oh, say Yale's Drama program. I'll say five years worth. Then I'll prune it to those who have stuck to chasing the dream, working stock theater, community theater, going to auditions...

And I'll find a number of people with the right look (cause that is important to the fanboys if no one else), who can pull off the role.

Of course my world view also explains why so many Hollywood types are related to other Hollywood types. And how Tori Spelling got picked for 90210. Not that her acting was any worse than anyone else's in that show. She just wasn't as classically attractive as the other ones on that show. If she was Spelling's daughter, no way she gets that role over any of the endless series of hot wannabees.


Hythlodeus wrote:


really? you have no idea how big a phenomenon Sherlock is worldwide? You don't know about the Chinese obsession for Curly Fu and Peanut*? Cumberbatch - rightfully, I might add - is one of the biggest stars worldwide at the moment, even though Hollywood only slowly notices that.

*google it, but be warned

Nope. I have never heard of Curly Fu and/or Peanut. And if Sherlock is a big thing worldwide I missed it.

Is this the version where he has flashbacks to some kind of 19th century docket, even though it is apparently set in the modern period?

I vaguely remember this version having someone with black hair. That one Cumberbatch?


sunbeam wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:


really? you have no idea how big a phenomenon Sherlock is worldwide? You don't know about the Chinese obsession for Curly Fu and Peanut*? Cumberbatch - rightfully, I might add - is one of the biggest stars worldwide at the moment, even though Hollywood only slowly notices that.

*google it, but be warned

Nope. I have never heard of Curly Fu and/or Peanut. And if Sherlock is a big thing worldwide I missed it.

Is this the version where he has flashbacks to some kind of 19th century docket, even though it is apparently set in the modern period?

I vaguely remember this version having someone with black hair. That one Cumberbatch?

there are no flashbacks in itandno 19th century stuff**, but other than that, yeah, we're probably talking about the same show-

** except for the episode this friday, but that's because it is a new year's special and will probably not be part of the show's main continuity

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Hythlodeus wrote:
Also, to add to the general confusion to why British actors get more roles in US productions: because almost all of them are classical trained actors, that spend as much time on stage in great ensemble productions with high class stage directors as they do on their TV/film work. that brings a completely different quality to the usual 'I played Peter Pan in high school once and then decided to sleep with Bryan Singer to become a movie star' mindset up and coming American actors very often bring to the table

Tangelntal, but Liz Sladden's biography offers some interesting insights into the acting world that was vs what it is now. My favorite anecdote is her going to a convention in California and the event organizers thinking she came to do an audition with Morris agency (no relation). Nope, just wanted to do the convention and see the states.

Scarab Sages

Misroi wrote:
....other than "He's a limey!"

G@*$!@ned Limeys!

Scarab Sages

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hama wrote:
Casket ow Winters isn't an infinity stone.
It is now. in terms of the movie franchise it's discussed as one of the items of power in the infinity set. It's just simply currently in the shape of a mystic casket. Kind of how like each segment of Dr. Who's Key of Time took on other forms.
That....doesn't make a lick of sense. The casket was being kept in the Asgardian Vault. They then acquired the Tesseract, which is also (presumably) kept in the vault. At the end of Dark World, when Sif and Volstagg bring the Aether to the Collector, they say they can't keep it in Asgard because it isn't wise to have two Infinity Stones in the same place. So why would they have kept the Tesseract if the casket was one of the stones?

Where else were you going to keep it? Entrust it to the Humans?

Sometimes the only choices you have are between two bad ones.

And you need a point of failure to set up the plot for the next movie.

But they specifically said "We shouldn't keep this one so we don't have 2 in the same place." Which makes no sense if they already had 2.

Why do you think the Casket is a Stone? Which one do you think it is? Do you think everyone else has just missed the clues you picked up on?

Because Thanos is involved. And that's the only set of items he's interested in. I'm also fairly sure that the movie's interpretation of the Infinity stones is going to differ vastly from the classic story. No Adam Warlock for instance.

But why the Casket? Has Thanos shown any interest in it specifically?

I think Mjolnir is an Infinity Stone. It's a powerful artifact and it's in a story where Thanos is involved and that's all he's interested in.
Makes just as much sense.

Unlike Mjolnir, the Casket is a world-ending device. which puts it on the same level as the Power Stone.

Per the Marvel Cinematic Universe Wiki, the Casket "...is capable of producing and projecting an infinite icy wind that can be used to freeze enemies and plunge a realm into an Ice Age."

I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of.

Not to mention, why did grasping the Casket cause half-Frost Giant Loki to show his true parentage, but proximity to none of the other stones does the same?

Lastly, who said there won't be an Adam Warlock? Especially when it's been confirmed by the Guardians of the Galaxy director that it was Warlock's cocoon shown in the Collector's gallery.


Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

"The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[2][3] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered questions exist, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.

The geological time frames under consideration come before the sudden appearance of multicellular life forms on Earth known as the Cambrian explosion, and the most recent snowball episode may have triggered the evolution of multi-cellular life on Earth. Another, much earlier and longer, snowball episode, the Huronian glaciation, which occurred 2400 to 2100 Mya may have been triggered by the first appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere, the "Great Oxygenation Event."

"The initiation of a snowball Earth event would involve some initial cooling mechanism, which would result in an increase in the Earth's coverage of snow and ice. The increase in Earth's coverage of snow and ice would in turn increase the Earth's albedo, which would result in positive feedback for cooling. If enough snow and ice accumulates, runaway cooling would result."

"Global temperature fell so low that the equator was as cold as modern-day Antarctica.[53] This low temperature was maintained by the high albedo of the ice sheets, which reflected most incoming solar energy into space. A lack of heat-retaining clouds, caused by water vapor freezing out of the atmosphere, amplified this effect."

"A tremendous glaciation would curtail photosynthetic life on Earth, thus letting the atmospheric oxygen be drastically depleted and perhaps even disappear, and thus allow non-oxidized iron-rich rocks to form.

Detractors argue that this kind of glaciation would have made life extinct entirely."

There's more in the link. I just picked parts to paste. But to make a long story short, if glaciers cover the entirety of the earth (with no free ocean at the equator), it's "Game over Man."

Well at least until volcanos pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere. With no way for rocks to weather, the CO2 will build up in the atmosphere with no way for the CO2 to be removed via the normal carbon cycle.

So it unfreezes one day, but Gaia has to start all over. Although the Casket might totally overweigh the Greenhouse effect...

Well from the link some speculate that some life (and it's usually the small stuff like plankton) would have been able to survive being frozen... for a long time, waiting only to be melted down and begin again.


sunbeam wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

"The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[2][3] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered questions exist, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.

The geological time frames under consideration come before the sudden appearance of multicellular life forms on Earth known as the Cambrian explosion, and the most recent snowball episode may have triggered the evolution of multi-cellular life on Earth. Another, much earlier and longer, snowball episode, the Huronian glaciation, which occurred 2400 to 2100 Mya may have been triggered by the first appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere, the "Great Oxygenation Event."

"The initiation of a snowball Earth event would involve some initial cooling mechanism, which would result in an increase in the Earth's coverage of snow and ice. The increase in Earth's coverage of snow and ice would in turn increase the Earth's albedo, which would result in positive feedback for cooling. If enough snow and ice accumulates, runaway cooling would result."

"Global temperature fell so low that the equator was as cold as modern-day Antarctica.[53] This low temperature was...

Well sure, but the Frost Giants would love it.

Scarab Sages

sunbeam wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

"The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago). Proponents of the hypothesis argue that it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes, and other otherwise enigmatic features in the geological record. Opponents of the hypothesis contest the implications of the geological evidence for global glaciation, the geophysical feasibility of an ice- or slush-covered ocean,[2][3] and the difficulty of escaping an all-frozen condition. A number of unanswered questions exist, including whether the Earth was a full snowball, or a "slushball" with a thin equatorial band of open (or seasonally open) water.

The geological time frames under consideration come before the sudden appearance of multicellular life forms on Earth known as the Cambrian explosion, and the most recent snowball episode may have triggered the evolution of multi-cellular life on Earth. Another, much earlier and longer, snowball episode, the Huronian glaciation, which occurred 2400 to 2100 Mya may have been triggered by the first appearance of oxygen in the atmosphere, the "Great Oxygenation Event."

"The initiation of a snowball Earth event would involve some initial cooling mechanism, which would result in an increase in the Earth's coverage of snow and ice. The increase in Earth's coverage of snow and ice would in turn increase the Earth's albedo, which would result in positive feedback for cooling. If enough snow and ice accumulates, runaway cooling would result."

"Global temperature fell so low that the equator was as cold as modern-day Antarctica.[53] This low temperature was...

Aaaaannndd....Still a far cry from the near-instant global extinction the Power Stone was shown to be capable of. Not to mention, I'm pretty sure they also showed it shattering the planet (or at least the surface). And a frozen surface doesn't necessarily mean the end of all life - you could have a subterranean region rendered temperate due to the heat from the planet's core versus the aforementioned frozen surface. Life could thrive in such a region.

Or, s&&& could evolve and grow fur. I've known some dudes like that.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
Well sure, but the Frost Giants would love it.

Just imagine the snowmen and snow ball fights. Not to mention, the terrific skiing (or snow boarding, if that's your thing) opportunities.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
sunbeam wrote:
Misroi wrote:

I really don't understand what the main issue here is with Cumberbatch playing Stephen Strange, sunbeam, other than "He's a limey!" I'm actually hard pressed to come up with an actor better suited to play Earth's Sorcerer Supreme than Cumberbatch. I won't argue that Benedict wasn't on a short list, but I'm sure there were other names. We just won't hear about them because they got the person they wanted.

But, I'll let you make an alternative casting here. Which American actor would you prefer seeing in the title role instead?

Not a game I've played often.

Will say George Clooney would be a dead ringer for Strange if he grew the right kind of moustache.

Other than that, it doesn't seem to be his kind of thing though.

Johnny Depp (the skinny version) has the right kind of look as well. Take the moustache he wore in Ed Wood, and call it a day (along with some white above the ears).

Actually though, I'm going to turn this question on you. The first thought that goes through your head is that it must be an actor... you've already seen in something else.

So why do you think that? You could say something about them having shown their skills and being a known quantity.

But how did they get to that point? Someone cast them.

See this is the point where our world views differ. I think I could peruse a list of people who graduated from oh, say Yale's Drama program. I'll say five years worth. Then I'll prune it to those who have stuck to chasing the dream, working stock theater, community theater, going to auditions...

And I'll find a number of people with the right look (cause that is important to the fanboys if no one else), who can pull off the role.

Of course my world view also explains why so many Hollywood types are related to other Hollywood types. And how Tori Spelling got picked for 90210. Not that her acting was any worse than anyone else's in that show. She just wasn't as classically attractive as the other ones on that show. If she was...

It has to be someone we've seen in stuff before in the lead role because that's how AAA movies work. There are literally hundreds of millions of dollars riding on all of these movies, so the idea that Disney would chance them on an unknown actor who has only done Shakespeare in the Park and summer stock is, putting it mildly, idealistic. I'm not saying they're not good actors, but they don't have the track record that the stars that Disney has chosen to play their roles.

Of the Phase 1 stars, I think the most unproven actor was Chris Hemsworth, with his only film credits being 2009's Star Trek and A Perfect Getaway, and 2010's Ca$h, only one of which I've seen, and didn't realize that Chris played young Kirk's dad in that film. His TV cred is better, but it doesn't change the fact that he was the dark horse of the Phase 1 group. Hell, I think Thor was more important for giving us Tom Hiddleston than Chris Hemsworth. Who else could be considered unproven? Chris Pratt, certainly, but he nailed Starlord (and has an impressive TV list). Possibly Paul Rudd as Ant-Man, but he's been in plenty of movies before this one.

And here's the final thing I'll mention. You said that you could peruse a list of people who graduated from five years of Yale's drama program, then only look at people who have kept at the dream. Well...what do you think the people who have managed to clinch one of these roles have been doing? Every one of those actors - American, British, Canadian, whatever - has put in their time. They'd gone to casting calls when they were nobodies. They'd gone to acting schools to learn the craft. They'd been in movies and shows and plays that nobody remembers. And yes, they got lucky. One of those performances was really, really good, and it got them noticed, which gave them an opportunity that wasn't available before. That's how it goes.

OK, one final, final thing. How about this actor to play Doctor Strange? I'll spoilerize the portion of his C.V. that I'm posting, as it's rather long.

Play Credits:

(2002) He acted in the New Shakespeare Company production of Paterson's play, "Merlin the Magnificent," at the Open Air Theatre in Regents Park, London, England with Alan Westaway, Laura Main, John Hodgkinson, Carol Macready, Liza Sadovy, Michael Medwin, Timothy Kightley, Michael Sadler, Rebecca Johnson, Caitlin, Mottram, John Conroy, Christopher Godwin, Abigail Langham, Adam Levy, and Tam Mutu in the cast. Dominic Hill, Rachel Kavanagh, Ian Talbot, and Tony Graham were directors.

(2002) He acted in the New Shakespeare Company production of Joan Littlewood's play, "Oh! What a Lovely War!," at the Open Air Theatre in Regents Park, London, England with Alan Westaway, Laura Main, John Hodgkinson, Carol Macready, Liza Sadovy, Michael Medwin, Timothy Kightley, Michael Sadler, Rebecca Johnson, Caitlin, Mottram, John Conroy, Christopher Godwin, Abigail Langham, Adam Levy, and Tam Mutu in the cast. Dominic Hill, Rachel Kavanagh, Ian Talbot, and Tony Graham were directors.

(2002) He acted in the New Shakespeare Company production of William Shakespeare's plays, "Romeo & Juliet," and "As You Like It," at the Open Air Theatre in Regents Park, London, England with Alan Westaway, Laura Main, John Hodgkinson, Carol Macready, Liza Sadovy, Michael Medwin, Timothy Kightley, Michael Sadler, Rebecca Johnson, Caitlin, Mottram, John Conroy, Christopher Godwin, Abigail Langham, Adam Levy, and Tam Mutu in the cast. Dominic Hill, Rachel Kavanagh, Ian Talbot, and Tony Graham were directors.

(2001) He acted in the play, "Pinocchio in the Park," at the Open Air Theatre in Regents Park, London, England with Martin Turner, Rebecca Johnson, Gary Wilmot, Rebecca Callard, Gideon Turner, Candida Benson, Timothy Kightley, Richard Frame, Adam Schiller, Christopher Godwin, Cameron Blakely, Alistair Robins, Karen Evans, Lottie Mayor, Philip York, Mary Lincoln, Joshua Dallas, Giles Taylor, Sara Hillier, and Catrin Darnell in the cast. Alan Strachan, Rachel Kavanagh, and Ian Talbot were directors.

(2001) He acted in Gilbert and Sullivan's operetta, "The Pirates of Penzance," at the Open Air Theatre in Regents Park, London, England with Martin Turner, Rebecca Johnson, Gary Wilmot, Rebecca Callard, Gideon Turner, Candida Benson, Timothy Kightley, Richard Frame, Adam Schiller, Christopher Godwin, Cameron Blakely, Alistair Robins, Karen Evans, Lottie Mayor, Philip York, Mary Lincoln, Joshua Dallas, Giles Taylor, Sara Hillier, and Catrin Darnell in the cast. Alan Strachan, Rachel Kavanagh, and Ian Talbot were directors.

(2001) He acted in Frank Loesser's musical, "Where's Charley?", at the Open Air Theatre in Regents Park, London, England with Martin Turner, Rebecca Johnson, Gary Wilmot, Rebecca Callard, Gideon Turner, Candida Benson, Timothy Kightley, Richard Frame, Adam Schiller, Christopher Godwin, Cameron Blakely, Alistair Robins, Karen Evans, Lottie Mayor, Philip York, Mary Lincoln, Josh Dallas, Giles Taylor, Sarah Hillier and Catrin Darnell in the cast. Alan Strachan, Rachel Kavanagh and Ian Talbot were the directors.

(2001) He acted in William Shakespeare's plays, "A Midsummer's Night Dream," and "Love's Labours Lost," at the Open Air Theatre in Regents Park, London, England with Martin Turner, Rebecca Johnson, Gary Wilmot, Rebecca Callard, Gideon Turner, Candida Benson, Timothy Kightley, Richard Frame, Adam Schiller, Christopher Godwin, Cameron Blakely, Alistair Robins, Karen Evans, Lottie Mayor, Philip York, Mary Lincoln, Joshua Dallas, Giles Taylor, Sara Hillier, and Catrin Darnell in the cast. Alan Strachan, Rachel Kavanagh, and Ian Talbot were directors.

(2003) He acted in Pam Gems' translation of Henrik Ibsen's play, "The Lady from the Sea", at the Almeida Theatre in London, England with Natasha Richardson, Eoin McCarthy, Geoffrey Hutchings, Tim McInnerny, Claudie Blakley and John Bowe in the cast. Trevor Nunn was the director.

Wow, impressive history, isn't it? Shakespeare, Ibsen, Gilbert and Sullivan, and more. Sounds like your ideal candidate, based on your criteria, doesn't it?

The Actor?:

Benedict Cumberbatch.


Aberzombie wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well sure, but the Frost Giants would love it.
Just imagine the snowmen and snow ball fights. Not to mention, the terrific skiing (or snow boarding, if that's your thing) opportunities.

That explains it. The Frost Giants aren't evil, they're just extreme sports enthusiasts. :)

Scarab Sages

MeanDM wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well sure, but the Frost Giants would love it.
Just imagine the snowmen and snow ball fights. Not to mention, the terrific skiing (or snow boarding, if that's your thing) opportunities.
That explains it. The Frost Giants aren't evil, they're just extreme sports enthusiasts. :)

I hear they've been lobbying Disney for their own ESPN channel.


Misroi wrote:
And here's the final thing I'll mention. You said that you could peruse a list of people who graduated from five years of Yale's drama program, then only look at people who have kept at the dream. Well...what do you think the people who have managed to clinch one of these roles have been doing? Every one of those actors - American, British, Canadian, whatever - has put in their time. They'd gone to casting calls when they were nobodies. They'd gone to acting schools to learn the craft. They'd been in movies and shows and plays that nobody remembers. And yes, they got lucky. One of those performances was really, really good, and it got them noticed, which gave them an opportunity that wasn't available before. That's how it goes.

Have you ever interviewed someone for a job? What I'm going to mention is common to all of them, though more common for "professional" jobs.

It's pretty rare to have a job that only a few people can fill. What happens is you get a bunch of resumes with people who could all pretty much do the job.

So what do you do? If you are like most people, you hire the one you like the best. Or the one that has an "in" of some sort. Or the one with the least objectionable personal habits, whatever.

Skilled tradespeople are a little different. It's more common to find things like only a couple of the guys you are looking at can do something like weld pressure vessels, or something else that takes a real knack. Though a lot of this type of thing can be done by just about anyone with training and experience.

I've got a friend who owned and operated a couple of convenience stores for a while. Pretty much the only thing he looked for was showing up on time, not using drugs, and not stealing. The actual job could be performed by anyone who would actually try at all (and some of the ones who met his other criteria didn't).

Now you might say that acting is like one of the skilled trades I mentioned. I tend to think it isn't. It's more like finding someone who can write SQL queries or read and understand the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (and who checked the educational boxes necessary for our regulatory system to say "Hey, that's ok.").

Misroi wrote:

OK, one final, final thing. How about this actor to play Doctor Strange? I'll spoilerize the portion of his C.V. that I'm posting, as it's rather long.

Play Credits:

Wow, impressive history, isn't it? Shakespeare, Ibsen, Gilbert and Sullivan, and more. Sounds like your ideal candidate, based on your criteria, doesn't it?

The Actor?:

Once again, I'll say I think there are a lot of people who could pull it off.

Plus for Pete's Sake, this is a comic book movie. Hamming it up and chewing scenery (like my favorite Enterprise captain) is probably a better play than mixing a delicate bouquet of angst and pathos.

I mean do you need to go to Oxford to utter "By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!" or any of Stan Lee's cosmic whining?

See my way, we keep the money in the family as it were. Our new star buys his coke, pays his taxes, and hires his lawyers here, and keeps the economy going. And one day my prospective guy has some screen cred, then he and Ol' Cumberbatch compete for a role (well assuming the person hiring for that hasn't embraced my nationalistic, mercantile agenda). Then maybe our boy has some more entries on that body of work.

And he is our boy. Cumberbatch isn't.

And don't be misled by the pronouns. My agenda works for women as well, though from reading on this matter, it affects them less than men.

And then one halcyon day we have something like Game of Thrones, where the producers don't feel compelled to hire people because they have accents minted in the UK.


Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of..

It might not rank for you, but I consider wiping out 80 percent of all land and aquatic species on the planet world-ending enough to count for me.

Snowball Earth was not just an Ice Age, it was the great-great-great grandparent of all Ice Ages.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of..

It might not rank for you, but I consider wiping out 80 percent of all land and aquatic species on the planet world-ending enough to count for me.

Snowball Earth was not just an Ice Age, it was the great-great-great grandparent of all Ice Ages.

So the basic argument here is that the Casket of Winters is an Infinity Gem because it's a really powerful destructive artifact? Despite no one acknowledging it on screen and there being at least one strong statement that it isn't one (It wasn't counted when deciding the Asgardians shouldn't keep 2 Stones) and despite it not having any other hints in the movies that it was one, like all the other known stones have had.

I'm very skeptical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kevin Feige has practically out and out confirmed the already existing Infinity Stones. The only ones unaccounted for our Time and Soul IIRC, and I am pretty sure Time will be in Dr Strange, and Soul will probably pop up in Guardians volume 2. and how does "Making things really cold" fit in with the themes of time or soul? The mind stone controlled minds and gave birth to artificial intelligence; The reality stone...rewrites reality; The space stone creates portals; and the power stone is basically raw uncontrollable power that vaporizes the user or anything its directed against.

FYI Johnny Depp was rumored to be in negotiations for Strange. No idea if he was formerly offered and turned down, or they went with someone else and never offered the role (or it was just complete rumor). Kind of glad he didn't get it given how much of a parody he has become in most of his roles, and I think he would have probably been cheesy as hell as Dr. Strange.

Post Marvel phase one, you are just not going to see an unknown cast as a major character, unless its a property where the main characters are children or young teens.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
sunbeam wrote:


a lot of stuff that won't fit in this box any longer

Let's turn this argument around. Here's a list of the heroes from each of the movies, and the nationality of the actor playing them.

Iron Man series - Robert Downey, Jr. (American), Gwyneth Paltrow (American), Scarlett Johansson (American), Terrence Howard (American), Don Cheadle (American), Samuel Muthaf**kin' Jackson (American)

The Incredible Hulk - Eric Bana (Australian), Ed Norton (American), Mark Ruffalo (American)

Thor - Chris Hemsworth (Australian), Jeremy Renner (American)

Captain America series - Chris Evans (American), Hayley Atwell (UK), Sebastian Stan (Romanian), Anthony Mackie (American), Emily VanCamp (Canadian)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Chris Pratt (American), Zoe Saldana (American), Dave Bautista (American), Bradley Cooper (American), Vin Diesel (American)

Avengers - Cobie Smulders (Canadian)

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Aaron Taylor-Johnson (UK), Elizabeth Olson (American), Paul Bettany (UK)

Ant-Man - Michael Douglas (American), Paul Rudd (American), Evangeline Lilly (Canadian)

28 main characters across 12 films, and only eight are played by non-American actors. Any agenda you see is one you're creating.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:

Kevin Feige has practically out and out confirmed the already existing Infinity Stones. The only ones unaccounted for our Time and Soul IIRC, and I am pretty sure Time will be in Dr Strange, and Soul will probably pop up in Guardians volume 2. and how does "Making things really cold" fit in with the themes of time or soul? The mind stone controlled minds and gave birth to artificial intelligence; The reality stone...rewrites reality; The space stone creates portals; and the power stone is basically raw uncontrollable power that vaporizes the user or anything its directed against.

FYI Johnny Depp was rumored to be in negotiations for Strange. No idea if he was formerly offered and turned down, or they went with someone else and never offered the role (or it was just complete rumor). Kind of glad he didn't get it given how much of a parody he has become in most of his roles, and I think he would have probably been cheesy as hell as Dr. Strange.

Post Marvel phase one, you are just not going to see an unknown cast as a major character, unless its a property where the main characters are children or young teens.

Agreed, Jawa. A Johnny Depp that hadn't yet played Jack Sparrow might have been interesting, but I really feel like the man stepped into that character in the first Pirates film, and has not been able to break character since.

Also, wasn't Adam Warlock the custodian of the Soul Gem? Sure would make sense for him to have it in Guardians 2.


Misroi wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Kevin Feige has practically out and out confirmed the already existing Infinity Stones. The only ones unaccounted for our Time and Soul IIRC, and I am pretty sure Time will be in Dr Strange, and Soul will probably pop up in Guardians volume 2. and how does "Making things really cold" fit in with the themes of time or soul? The mind stone controlled minds and gave birth to artificial intelligence; The reality stone...rewrites reality; The space stone creates portals; and the power stone is basically raw uncontrollable power that vaporizes the user or anything its directed against.

FYI Johnny Depp was rumored to be in negotiations for Strange. No idea if he was formerly offered and turned down, or they went with someone else and never offered the role (or it was just complete rumor). Kind of glad he didn't get it given how much of a parody he has become in most of his roles, and I think he would have probably been cheesy as hell as Dr. Strange.

Post Marvel phase one, you are just not going to see an unknown cast as a major character, unless its a property where the main characters are children or young teens.

Agreed, Jawa. A Johnny Depp that hadn't yet played Jack Sparrow might have been interesting, but I really feel like the man stepped into that character in the first Pirates film, and has not been able to break character since.

Also, wasn't Adam Warlock the custodian of the Soul Gem? Sure would make sense for him to have it in Guardians 2.

For that matter, Gammora was the guardian of the Time Gem. The Orb of Agamatto was essentially a divination device that would pierce illusions and more importanly reveal the corruption of the forces of Chaos as represented by Dormmamu and the N'garri.

The Soul Gem was given to Adam Warlock by the High Evolutinary who does not seem to have had any particular awareness of it's true nature. I highly suspect that the Gem itself manipulated the Evolutionary to give it to someone that would make a pliable host.

Sovereign Court

Misroi wrote:
sunbeam wrote:


a lot of stuff that won't fit in this box any longer

Let's turn this argument around. Here's a list of the heroes from each of the movies, and the nationality of the actor playing them.

Iron Man series - Robert Downey, Jr. (American), Gwyneth Paltrow (American), Scarlett Johansson (American), Terrence Howard (American), Don Cheadle (American), Samuel Muthaf**kin' Jackson (American)

The Incredible Hulk - Eric Bana (Australian), Ed Norton (American), Mark Ruffalo (American)

Thor - Chris Hemsworth (Australian), Jeremy Renner (American)

Captain America series - Chris Evans (American), Hayley Atwell (UK), Sebastian Stan (Romanian), Anthony Mackie (American), Emily VanCamp (Canadian)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Chris Pratt (American), Zoe Saldana (American), Dave Bautista (American), Bradley Cooper (American), Vin Diesel (American)

Avengers - Cobie Smulders (Canadian)

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Aaron Taylor-Johnson (UK), Elizabeth Olson (American), Paul Bettany (UK)

Ant-Man - Michael Douglas (American), Paul Rudd (American), Evangeline Lilly (Canadian)

28 main characters across 12 films, and only eight are played by non-American actors. Any agenda you see is one you're creating.

Eric Bana doesn't count.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I included him for the sake of completeness. The first MCU Hulk appearance is a loose sequel to Ang Lee's film, so I felt excluding him was a greater sin. If I had done the same to the Netflix and TV shows, then I would not have counted the Daredevil film, as they're not considered to take place in the same universe at all.


Misroi wrote:


28 main characters across 12 films, and only eight are played by non-American actors. Any agenda you see is one you're creating.

I think that makes a point, only not the one you think you are making.

Also Gwyneth Paltrow bats for Team UK (actually she is playing cricket). She ought to go through the immigration process and make it official. We are too schlubby or something for her refined tastes.

But ignoring any quibbles about whether the Ang Lee Hulk movie should count, that's 8/28 or 28.5% of leading roles going to non-US actors.

Actually I'd play with the numbers some, Canada may have it's own nationalistic tendencies but they have employed our actors on occasion. So they don't bug me.

But taking your numbers at face value, you don't see anything absurd about that 28.5% number for roles that are as American as it gets? (Except for the folks like Red Skull, Arnim Zola, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver.)

As for the rest of it... Other people have noticed the same effect, so I'm not creating the agenda.

But I'd be proud to have created it. And proud to own it.


Matthew Morris wrote:

ooooh....

If Strange does well enough a Netflix/ABC series similar to The Darkhold Redeemers maybe with Frank mixed in from the Nightstalkers/Tomb of Dracula thown is possible.

isn't he already dead?


Misroi wrote:
I included him for the sake of completeness. The first MCU Hulk appearance is a loose sequel to Ang Lee's film, so I felt excluding him was a greater sin. If I had done the same to the Netflix and TV shows, then I would not have counted the Daredevil film, as they're not considered to take place in the same universe at all.

My understanding is Daredevil is set in the same continuity as the Marvel films. They reference the events of Avengers, and Hell's Kitchen is being rebuilt from the destruction the invasion caused.


sunbeam wrote:
Misroi wrote:


28 main characters across 12 films, and only eight are played by non-American actors. Any agenda you see is one you're creating.

I think that makes a point, only not the one you think you are making.

Also Gwyneth Paltrow bats for Team UK (actually she is playing cricket). She ought to go through the immigration process and make it official. We are too schlubby or something for her refined tastes.

But ignoring any quibbles about whether the Ang Lee Hulk movie should count, that's 8/28 or 28.5% of leading roles going to non-US actors.

Actually I'd play with the numbers some, Canada may have it's own nationalistic tendencies but they have employed our actors on occasion. So they don't bug me.

But taking your numbers at face value, you don't see anything absurd about that 28.5% number for roles that are as American as it gets? (Except for the folks like Red Skull, Arnim Zola, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver.)

As for the rest of it... Other people have noticed the same effect, so I'm not creating the agenda.

But I'd be proud to have created it. And proud to own it.

Well, the obvious thing to do is to avoid seeing movies with British actors. And seek out British movies with American ones, if you actually care to encourage that.

You can of course continue to talk about it here, in the hopes others will join you, but I doubt you'll have much success.


sunbeam wrote:
Misroi wrote:
I included him for the sake of completeness. The first MCU Hulk appearance is a loose sequel to Ang Lee's film, so I felt excluding him was a greater sin. If I had done the same to the Netflix and TV shows, then I would not have counted the Daredevil film, as they're not considered to take place in the same universe at all.
My understanding is Daredevil is set in the same continuity as the Marvel films. They reference the events of Avengers, and Hell's Kitchen is being rebuilt from the destruction the invasion caused.

The old Daredevil movie however is not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls

You know wrong.


thejeff wrote:
Well, the obvious thing to do is to avoid seeing movies with British actors.

Well that pretty much rules out most modern movies doesn't it? They are all over the place now, from Brokeback Mountain to our Hood.

thejeff wrote:
And seek out British movies with American ones, if you actually care to encourage that.

That's interesting. Can you name one? Wait, I think I saw a few in some of the James Bond films.

thejeff wrote:
You can of course continue to talk about it here, in the hopes others will join you, but I doubt you'll have much success.

Doesn't matter. I'm making a point.


sunbeam wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Well, the obvious thing to do is to avoid seeing movies with British actors.

Well that pretty much rules out most modern movies doesn't it? They are all over the place now, from Brokeback Mountain to our Hood.

thejeff wrote:
And seek out British movies with American ones, if you actually care to encourage that.

That's interesting. Can you name one? Wait, I think I saw a few in some of the James Bond films.

thejeff wrote:
You can of course continue to talk about it here, in the hopes others will join you, but I doubt you'll have much success.
Doesn't matter. I'm making a point.

Have fun with it. I suspect it'd be better made to the studios, but do as you please.

And no, I can't name one. But then I'm not obsessing about it and I can barely remember actor's names at all, much less what country they're from.

Scarab Sages

Freehold DM wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls
You know wrong.

I did originally have a sort of disclaimer with your name attached, but I decided against it for some reason.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
I know winter sucks balls, but an Ice Age is still a far cry from being able to wipe out ALL life on a planet, as the Power Stone was shown to be capable of..

It might not rank for you, but I consider wiping out 80 percent of all land and aquatic species on the planet world-ending enough to count for me.

Snowball Earth was not just an Ice Age, it was the great-great-great grandparent of all Ice Ages.

So the basic argument here is that the Casket of Winters is an Infinity Gem because it's a really powerful destructive artifact? Despite no one acknowledging it on screen and there being at least one strong statement that it isn't one (It wasn't counted when deciding the Asgardians shouldn't keep 2 Stones) and despite it not having any other hints in the movies that it was one, like all the other known stones have had.

I'm very skeptical.

Yeah, I'm going to join you in skepticism.


sunbeam wrote:
Misroi wrote:
And here's the final thing I'll mention. You said that you could peruse a list of people who graduated from five years of Yale's drama program, then only look at people who have kept at the dream. Well...what do you think the people who have managed to clinch one of these roles have been doing? Every one of those actors - American, British, Canadian, whatever - has put in their time. They'd gone to casting calls when they were nobodies. They'd gone to acting schools to learn the craft. They'd been in movies and shows and plays that nobody remembers. And yes, they got lucky. One of those performances was really, really good, and it got them noticed, which gave them an opportunity that wasn't available before. That's how it goes.

Have you ever interviewed someone for a job? What I'm going to mention is common to all of them, though more common for "professional" jobs.

It's pretty rare to have a job that only a few people can fill. What happens is you get a bunch of resumes with people who could all pretty much do the job.

So what do you do? If you are like most people, you hire the one you like the best. Or the one that has an "in" of some sort. Or the one with the least objectionable personal habits, whatever.

Skilled tradespeople are a little different. It's more common to find things like only a couple of the guys you are looking at can do something like weld pressure vessels, or something else that takes a real knack. Though a lot of this type of thing can be done by just about anyone with training and experience.

I've got a friend who owned and operated a couple of convenience stores for a while. Pretty much the only thing he looked for was showing up on time, not using drugs, and not stealing. The actual job could be performed by anyone who would actually try at all (and some of the ones who met his other criteria didn't).

Now you might say that acting is like one of the skilled trades I mentioned. I tend to think it isn't. It's more like finding someone...

Yep. Welding industry and convenience stores are exactly like movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And all actors are interchangeable. And it's super easy. And no one is capable of giving bad performances. You've nailed it. I would send my resume' to all the major studios if I were you. I'm sure there will be a bidding war over who will fire their studio head to hire you.


MeanDM wrote:
Yep. Welding industry and convenience stores are exactly like movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And all actors are interchangeable. And it's super easy. And no one is capable of giving bad performances. You've nailed it. I would send my resume' to all the major studios if I were you. I'm sure there will be a bidding war over who will fire their studio head to hire you.

If you are going to use sarcasm, you need to do it effectively.

My point was that there are lots of people who have the ability to play these roles and could do well at them.

So why do they seem to hire people who cost a lot of money? Mainly because they have already been in other movies, and people recognize them. It's part of the attraction of a movie... the "brand" of the actor you are employing.

And while you can't just pick someone randomly off the street and stick them in front of a camera, you don't have to. THEY COME TO YOU, and they have already filtered themselves.

And yeah, you can pick one of these hard working people from a casting call ... and build a new brand. Not to mention that Hollywood types have done it many times over the years with their relatives.

Interestingly enough while reading various articles during the course of responding to individuals such as yourself in this thread, I came across a figure. And that figure was that the US film industry only averaged about 9 billion in profit per year.

That's a big figure to a private individual. But for something that has inspired so much effort to rise to the top of that field for such an extended period of time, well that's just not a lot of money.

So yeah, maybe Hollywood could use new blood. Actually it's kind of surprising it doesn't have more competition, even from within the US, let alone the emerging entertainment centers across the globe.

And in the not so long run, I think technology is going to reduce the cost of production, and enable private individuals and groups to do things you needed teams of experts to accomplish before.

And as a personal opinion, and I think it is a good one: Hollywood scripts suck from a storytelling viewpoint. Not to mention an overall lack of cleverness.

Undoubtedly most of us have spent time looking at Youtube videos made by ... well lots of people. Some of them are very clever. Very clever. And yes, I can imagine a day when clever people, alone or as part of a group, are going to be able to complete works that can compete with Hollywood.

Heck the amateurs are taking it to the porn industry (and I bet the profit margins on that beat Hollywood up until the past decade or so).

But as long as you are mocking, yes I think the premise, plot, and dialogue of most movies and tv isn't very good. And yes, I think I could do better than most of it. And I think lots of other people could do that as well, or probably better than I could.

Though I'm not sure I would want that life, and frankly the thought of it doesn't seem very interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The porn industry is dying. The only reason it has moderately continued to be successful is because the company that owns Pornhub owns a significant number of the major production studios. It, in essence, pirates itself and survives on ad revinue. Actors have seen their pay plummet.

One of the reasons that film companies have seen blockbuster flops happen more frequently in the last few years is because they took the exact approach you suggest with directors. For decades, directors were expected to prove themselves on smaller projects prior to being given the reigns of a large, costly project. When that paradigm shifted you ended up with large productions that were over budget and lower quality. There was an article about this in Variety just the other day.

Being able to make a 2 minute YouTube video is absolutely nothing like major film production. You insist on making absolutely horrible analogies. That's why the mockery. Frankly, though, your point boils down to nationalistic chest pounding, combined with an unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities.


MeanDM wrote:

The porn industry is dying. The only reason it has moderately continued to be successful is because the company that owns Pornhub owns a significant number of the major production studios. It, in essence, pirates itself and survives on ad revinue. Actors have seen their pay plummet.

One of the reasons that film companies have seen blockbuster flops happen more frequently in the last few years is because they took the exact approach you suggest with directors. For decades, directors were expected to prove themselves on smaller projects prior to being given the reigns of a large, costly project. When that paradigm shifted you ended up with large productions that were over budget and lower quality. There was an article about this in Variety just the other day.

Being able to make a 2 minute YouTube video is absolutely nothing like major film production. You insist on making absolutely horrible analogies. That's why the mockery. Frankly, though, your point boils down to nationalistic chest pounding, combined with an unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities.

"One of the reasons that film companies have seen blockbuster flops happen more frequently in the last few years is because they took the exact approach you suggest with directors."

Right, and managing the whole thing is exactly the same thing as being an actor. That is not a very good example.

"Being able to make a 2 minute YouTube video is absolutely nothing like major film production."

I'd say it is a LOT like a movie if all you are interested in is the end product. The difference is the length it runs, and what technology makes possible. Although technology is going to have to go a long way before some of what I can imagine happening does.

There is another difference. What I am thinking of doesn't have the long logistics train that even a minor picture has. What I am thinking of are renderings that are animated as actors. One person, or a small group, and a whole lot of computer power.

If you are comfortable, as I am, with cartoon renderings, instead of photorealistic ones we are just about there.

I have no problem imagining that it will be possible to do the same with photorealistic ... agents? whatever you want to call them. Not sure of how long it will take before it reaches the mass market stage (note that some organizations can do this already). A decade? Two (probably not)? Not sure, Moore's law is reaching the end at least as regards miniaturizing things. But more computing power is coming. And one day a geeky dude sitting in his apartment will be able to generate a movie.

It might take him two years. Three years. But it will be doable. And no actors, no payroll, no key grips, no hardware like cameras...

And by definition special effects won't be an issue at that point.

Heck I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere hasn't done a soap opera or something with a Sims hack.

"Frankly, though, your point boils down to nationalistic chest pounding, combined with an unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities."

And lastly, I think you misunderstand the phrase "chest pounding." I haven't pounded my chest at all. I'd invite you to go back and read my posts, but I imagine you won't.

So if someone makes an issue of how it seems to be a raw deal for American actors to lose roles to UK ones, while there never seems to be any corresponding employment of American actors by UK concerns...

That's chest pounding.

No it isn't.

And as regards the "unsurprising positive self-appraisal of your own opinions and abilities"...

Well I have a very regard for my own opinion. BECAUSE IF I DIDN'T I WOULD HAVE ANOTHER ONE.

And as regards abilities? Nah. More accurate to say I have contempt for most of what I see on television and in movies. Sometimes something comes along that is good.

But most of it is crap. Junk. Garbage. Not very good. Do I need to get a thesaurus?


"Heck I wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere hasn't done a soap opera or something with a Sims hack."

Hah! Had to look on youtube for that one. We are already there.

None of them I checked out were very good though. But someone is sure to hit a home run doing this at some point.


Misroi wrote:

Let's turn this argument around. Here's a list of the heroes from each of the movies, and the nationality of the actor playing them.

Iron Man series - Robert Downey, Jr. (American), Gwyneth Paltrow (American), Scarlett Johansson (American), Terrence Howard (American), Don Cheadle (American), Samuel Muthaf**kin' Jackson (American)

The Incredible Hulk - Eric Bana (Australian), Ed Norton (American), Mark Ruffalo (American)

Thor - Chris Hemsworth (Australian), Jeremy Renner (American)

Captain America series - Chris Evans (American), Hayley Atwell (UK), Sebastian Stan (Romanian), Anthony Mackie (American), Emily VanCamp (Canadian)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Chris Pratt (American), Zoe Saldana (American), Dave Bautista (American), Bradley Cooper (American), Vin Diesel (American)

Avengers - Cobie Smulders (Canadian)

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Aaron Taylor-Johnson (UK), Elizabeth Olson (American), Paul Bettany (UK)

Ant-Man - Michael Douglas (American), Paul Rudd (American), Evangeline Lilly (Canadian)

28 main characters across 12 films, and only eight are played by non-American actors. Any agenda you see is one you're creating.

Sebastan Stan was born in Romania but emigrated to the US when he was 12 and is a US citizen. So I would count him as American

At any rate I agree with the point, and I would put it far lower. Loki and Thor are not played by American actors..but guess what! those characters ARE ASGARDIAN ALIENS. Dr. Strange is the first non-american headliner to play an American role. And given that one of the major MCU characters is a Russian played by an American, it's ludicrous to be offended that there are too many brits in MCU movies.

Dark Archive

Jeremy Renner was in Thor? Oh yeah, now I remember. He considered shooting an arrow, and then didn't. Ugh. I can't stand that guy. I want to live in an alternate universe where he died in Avengers 2 and Quicksilver lived.

As for Dr. Strange, I'm hoping for some gorgeous visuals, both in his moving through dimensions and in the magic zaps he throws, since the best-drawn Dr. Strange comics (IMO) often had him creating these intricate and colorful and probably over-complicated and energy-inefficient geometrically patterned light displays when he invoked magic. (Grr. I can't even find a good example on google. It's all stuff from the last decade or so with him throwing up the horns and tossing generic lightning/plasma-looking zaps.)


https://www.google.com/search?q=ditko+doctor+strange&biw=1600&bih=7 40&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigpuzw5Yj KAhWG2yYKHVx1DRMQsAQIGw

The keyword is Ditko. It's been close to 50 years since he worked on this title, but he is still considered the great artist on this character.

There have been some other artists who have done really neat things with the character over the years... and some who haven't done as good a job.

I don't remember his name, but in the early 70's there was an artist on the title that did the psychedelic illustrations pretty well himself. Only thing is his Strange was muscular (like all the other Marvel characters for the most part). I've always preferred the more slight Doctor Strange.


Wow. I was trying to do a google to find out who the early 70's artist was on Doctor Strange. Didn't find it, but found this quote on wikipedia from Roy Thomas:

"Thomas recalled in 2000 that he returned to work a day late from a weekend comic book convention to find that Marvel production manager Sol Brodsky had assigned Doctor Strange to writer Archie Goodwin, newly ensconced at Marvel and writing Iron Man. Thomas convinced Brodsky to allow him to continue writing the title. "I got very possessive about Doctor Strange," Thomas recalled. "It wasn't a huge seller, but [by the time it was canceled] we were selling the low 40 percent range of more than 400,000 print run, so it was actually selling a couple hundred thousand copies [but] at the time you needed to sell even more."[13]"

Times have changed.

Sorry if that bores anyone. I find these kinds of numbers very interesting. By the standards of the 1970's the kinds of sales figures that are considered runaway successes now would have led to immediate cancellation.

Not sure how viable the big two are without the movie ventures that have arisen in the past decade or so. There are independent publishers that are doing ok without movies being made from their stuff, but they are very different operations from DC and Marvel.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Freehold DM wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

ooooh....

If Strange does well enough a Netflix/ABC series similar to The Darkhold Redeemers maybe with Frank mixed in from the Nightstalkers/Tomb of Dracula thown is possible.

isn't he already dead?

Last I saw of him, Hannibal was telling Blade he was in a coma. Annoyed me, I liked the character


Misroi wrote:
sunbeam wrote:


a lot of stuff that won't fit in this box any longer

Let's turn this argument around. Here's a list of the heroes from each of the movies, and the nationality of the actor playing them.

Iron Man series - Robert Downey, Jr. (American), Gwyneth Paltrow (American), Scarlett Johansson (American), Terrence Howard (American), Don Cheadle (American), Samuel Muthaf**kin' Jackson (American)

The Incredible Hulk - Eric Bana (Australian), Ed Norton (American), Mark Ruffalo (American)

Thor - Chris Hemsworth (Australian), Jeremy Renner (American)

Captain America series - Chris Evans (American), Hayley Atwell (UK), Sebastian Stan (Romanian), Anthony Mackie (American), Emily VanCamp (Canadian)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Chris Pratt (American), Zoe Saldana (American), Dave Bautista (American), Bradley Cooper (American), Vin Diesel (American)

Avengers - Cobie Smulders (Canadian)

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Aaron Taylor-Johnson (UK), Elizabeth Olson (American), Paul Bettany (UK)

Ant-Man - Michael Douglas (American), Paul Rudd (American), Evangeline Lilly (Canadian)

28 main characters across 12 films, and only eight are played by non-American actors. Any agenda you see is one you're creating.

And to in full disclosure, Hayley Atwell has dual citizenship in the UK and the US. Her father is American. So Half Yank?


Robert Downey Jr. (an American last time I checked) was the lead in a VERY British movie with a VERY British Character. In fact TWO movies...

Maggie Gyllenhall starred last year in the critically acclaimed british mini-series THE HONORABLE WOMAN.

Robert Vaughn was in HUSTLE.

Jeremy Piven is the lead MR. SELFRIDGE.

GIllian Anderson is the lead in THE FALL.

There are American actors in british productions but being as the US Entertainment industry dwarfs the UK one considerably I'm not surprised that there are more of them working here than us working there.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

And honestly why would anyone even care about the nationality of the actor as long as they do a good job?

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sunbeam, apparently.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

ooooh....

If Strange does well enough a Netflix/ABC series similar to The Darkhold Redeemers maybe with Frank mixed in from the Nightstalkers/Tomb of Dracula thown is possible.

isn't he already dead?
Last I saw of him, Hannibal was telling Blade he was in a coma. Annoyed me, I liked the character

Hey, prior to that he and Hannibal were caught in a massive explosion and considered 'dead'.

As Blade was actually my LEAST favorite Nightstalker, I'll take 'in a coma' to Blown to bits any day :P

101 to 150 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Dr. Strange All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.