Well, first of all- which is it? Was Qui Gon the wry POV character, or does TPM demonstrate that you don't need one? It can be somewhere in between, too ("Qui Gon was an ATTEMPT at a wry POV character"), but then you can't draw too much of a conclusion from it.

"Actually, I always thought that Qui-Gon was the more outsider-y of the two."

Yeah, that's exactly my point. If you're arguing that "most mainstream audiences" didn't need a Han Solo type by the time of the prequels, I assume your evidence is that a lot of people went to see the prequels even though they didn't have a Han Solo type. But that's kinda specious, because it's not like people going…

I don't know if I buy your point about the prequels- yeah, you didn't need Han Solo to get meat in the seats, but it's not like you did for the OT, either (where nobody knew what a "Han Solo" was). On the whole, I don't have a problem with elements designed to make a work "more mainstream", insofar as "more…

Yeah, I dunno, it all depends on the execution, but complaining that an action movie's climax has a lot of action seems to be missing the point a bit. I'm sure there's ways to do that wrong (some of the 90s Bond movies seems to just do the UHF explosion-sans-context thing), and maybe GOTG's is particularly…

I think the "Han Solo type" the review references is a character with an amiably detached POV- he doesn't buy in to all the dense mythology, but smirks at it rather than shits on it. I think that's actually a valuable role to have in space opera.

IIRC, the entire relationship with April was created by Pratt, too. I believe the story was that in the hunting episode (when they were left in the office together) he decided he was going to play every scene to try to make Aubrey Plaza smile, and the chemistry just popped from there.

I actually think Clooney could play a good Bruce Wayne, at least one that soft-pedals the madness.

Yeah. And I kinda understand that, because the moments of humor are kinda underplayed (the funniest moment in TDK wasn't planned at all). But for me, that makes them funnier because they arise from a more organic place.

I think that's the key. Most people understand that "realistic" is a relative term when discussing movies about a super-hero. But the Nolan-verse lays down its rules, plays fair, and takes its subject seriously, with just enough lighter moments to avoid the dour-ness of MoS.

"Why not make both of them black? God forbid. "

It really wouldn't change much. I'm adopted, and you'd never know it in talking to my family.

I think the "new Thor" thing needs to be a wait-and-see kinda thing. For all we know, calling her "Thor" is going to be some smartass thing Loki does.

Yeah, I can't say there's any real reason Rhodey needs to be black, besides the fact that a white Rhodey is basically Hal Jordan. At least when he's black, you have the POSSIBILITY- even if it's never been acted on- of telling some different stories.

"All the female-lead books will be canceled within a year or two"

It's not just a representation argument, though; there's legit thematic and narrative reasons that Luke Cage's story kinda falls apart- or at least becomes MUCH less compelling- if he's white. It's not as clear a case as Black Panther's, but the blaxploitation angle, the "people's super-hero" role, the marriage to…

I'm VERY comfortable separating them out, just as I'm comfortable saying racism, in kind and degree, is a different problem than heightism.

"It's probably because it's not racism. It's probably people being stubborn and having an aversion to change"

That's the trick of a lot of these conversations: how much were the creators thinking about the elements they were putting into characters? And then- how much does that matter? If an element resonates, isn't it kinda important to determine why, even if the creator's intention was pretty shallow?

Well, of course, the "anyone can put on the ring" thing was helped by the GL mythos and the fact that there'd already been another GL carrying a title. But yeah, I agree with you, just go for it.