I’m very interested in that era, and the artists/music she’s homaging here. But as opposed to her last rollouts, what I’ve seen so far seems so surface level, more like cosplay.

The last three since 2014's self titled have had a new look/persona that was more pronounced than just the regular differences in look/theme that occur naturally from the passage of time. For self titled she had that striking grey spiked hair and sang about tech/identity, for Masseduction she wore that skin tight suit…

I’ve been a long time St. Vincent fan, too, so I’m not sure why I’m not feeling it yet for her new album. I’ve always liked her reinventions, but this time it feels really contrived. Maybe I’ll get more into it when I hear the full album.

If it was the starting point they probably had to for proper crediting reasons.  I’ve not read the comic (as I try to stay away from Millar’s stuff), but I liked the movie very much for what it was. 

Totally granted.  

I mostly hear negative stuff about Stan from his Silver Age peers (Kirby and Ditko especially), who he was directly working with to make comics. Once he sort of removed himself from the day to day operations of Marvel and became more of a spokesperson for the company(ie around the late 70s), the criticisms sort of…

Did I miss a development in this ongoing joke, because I thought the premise was that Ryan wanted Jackman to come back for Deadpool 3 and Jackman was resisting? (So exactly the opposite of this headline and article’s description of Jackman’s motivation)

See basically most Mark Millar stories. Wanted, Civil War, OML- all adapted into movies, all taking the admittedly cool premises and getting rid of the absolute shock garbage Millar piles on top.

I don’t think the Toy Story movies are really about toy nostalgia. The toy stuff is a metaphor for parenting. But unlike most movies about parenting, that are about the trials of raising kids and providing for them, the Toy Story films are laser focused on a relatively untapped part of the parenting experience, the…

Lots of people display toys, figures, or silly things in their homes or at their desks. I see Funko Pops littered all over the cubicles of my co-workers. It didn’t strike me as too unusual that he’d opt to take it, especially when considered as a moment of sentimentality while going through lots of emotions about…

I totally agree that thinking too hard about this stuff is annoying when taken to extremes, the way so much clickbait does it.

Why on earth would Sam try to fight the same way Steve would? It’s a name, it’s not a mandate on what you’re supposed to do on the battlefield.

Ebert has always been my favorite movie critic. He certainly appreciated craft, but he wasn’t so up his ass or seemingly trying to protect his bonafides to not admit when a piece of trash entertained him. I also liked when he frankly admitted when and how otherwise popular films didn’t work for him.

The MCU Steve Rogers is definitely more superhuman than the comics version. I remember questioning it in his first few MCU appearances, based on his feats that seemed to go beyond what his comics counterpart was capable of, but I figured it was the standard action movie heightened reality. 

Sam will continue to be a hero the same way he’s already been doing, the same way other non-powered Avengers have been handling the scenarios you mentioned. I expect, as we saw in the finale, that he will be using the shield in different ways to Steve because he’s not a super-soldier. How does that take away from him…

I expect we shouldn’t stack him against Steve. He is his own Captain America, and will continue to be a hero how he has already been. It’s been fun to see him incorporate the shield into usual “Falcon” feats of athleticism.

If you are equating the Captain America persona as national propaganda, I don’t think you fully understand what Steve Rogers or Sam Wilson bring to the role. National propaganda is what most people who’ve never experienced a Captain America story would expect it to be, based just on the character’s name and his…

I feel like the writers, in trying to avoid a reason for why the Avengers can’t just pull a Back to the Future and stop Thanos in the past, created a really weird version of time travel that doesn’t make perfect sense, mostly because they themselves contradict themselves. 

Until they deal with the idea that they were wrong, I have to accept their explanation as being true, since the logic of the movie’s many time travel plot twists depended on their explanation.

This explanation directly contradicts Hulk’s (and later The Ancient One’s) explanation of how time travel works. Everything they said specifically revolves around the idea that you can’t change what’s happened, and that any changes cause a branch.   It’s the whole reason why Cap had to return the stones to begin with.