Jenkins will probably get more freedom, probably, but DCEU directors in general? No.

Yes, but that's because the MCU has a defined house style that they can plug any technically competent director into. The DC movies haven't been consistent about anything but being bleak.

Character-wise, it's the same schtick Paul Shaffer and Ed McMahon did. Jon's just…not good at it, which isn't surprising given that he's a musician and not a comedian.

The pass is limited to one movie per day, not 30/31 per month. I suppose you could get "transients" hanging out for one movie a day, but that's the danger of dealing with the general public.

You've experienced mid-grade American chain dining, so yeah, no great loss. They could merge into Chilbee's Tuesday and the food would barely change.

Oh, I know what that would look like. I just have no idea what it would look like in the 21st century.

I think Machu explicitly states she's 25
(maybe 26?) when talking to her father. Don't know if we ever get an age for Bash.

I think it was Hitchcock who said everyone can do one great movie where they play themselves. This is definitely Maron's, um, "movie".

It also means Doc leaving Earth is a logical conclusion to the events of the story, rather than just "bored now…bye".

I loved Crudup's Manhattan for being completely unlike my personal idea of the character, but ultimately convincing me that their interpretation was better.

I was always struck at how the biggest fans of 300's politics were completely blind to the parallels in the modern world. We've got a tiny, massively outnumbered and outgunned group of people working to keep the biggest power in the world from rolling into their country. And said superpower isn't out to annihilate…

No, but you have to dig *period*, which Verhoeven's other (American) films didn't really reward (beyond a plot-irrelevant mindfuck in Total Recall). And even given that, I haven't cared for the "it's OK it's awful because it know's it's awful" approach since the Corman Little Shop of Horrors, and this did nothing to…

DeNiro and Norton do good work, probably proving the limits of what a great actor can do with a mediocre script. Beyond that, I mostly remember Brando being *completely* unremarkable - he has maybe 15 minutes of screentime tops, and he does nothing in it that some other aging character actor couldn't have for 1/10th…

Audiences took it at face value because that's the level the rest of Verhoeven's films work at. 99% of the time, when you overanalyze very straightforward works you end up like the cinephiles arguing that Michael Bay's constant jump-cutting is just too *advanced* for most folks to follow.

I remember the Onion's review at the time saying "What would happen if you brought together the (arguably) best actors of three different generations to make a film so modest in it's ambitions it almost refuses to stick to the celluloid? This."

So much this. It's hard to blame people for not scrutinizing the work of the director of Showgirls for subtext.

In that you want to have one, or that you want to excise the concept from your brain?

What if I have a Kinja account with a different name because my Disqus name was already taken?

Probably a lifetime supply of something.

$83 per million in profits, profits from the previous Thor movie (assuming it's promotion budget equaled it's production budget) were $340 million, so assuming Ragnarok is as successful as the (general also-ran of the MCU) Thor: The Dark World, that'd be over $25,000.