I just mean, he's very much present in the comics — but the Thor movie makes no mention of him at all. And he seems like a very important character in the comics — easily on par with Sif and the Warrior Three, who are in the movie.

Agreed. Though it might be nice if the MCU could work Liam in as Balder, somewhere down the line... (Assuming they have a plan for addressing the Balder issue.)

He and big brother Chris were also both in contention for the role of Thor — at one point it looked like Liam was closer to getting it.

I'm surprised that their booth was kind of meh, but on the other hand... last year they did have Odin's throne, but really, what have they got comparable from The Avengers? The Helicarrier is it, so... hmm. Since rumors of their non-participation started, it sounded like they knew they couldn't top last year, and…

I don't see it as a binary between damsel-in-distress and warrior-woman, either. And if all you're saying is "warrior women are great, but let's show a greater range of ways that women can be kickass", then fine. But what I'm trying to say is that the warrior-woman figure serves a purpose for some in the audience. …

Not yet, it's not. Despite the HP books' and films' popularity, that particular word is not one of the things that has migrated from the works out into the wider culture. Quidditch, possibly. "Accio (something)!", perhaps. Post by owls, maybe. But "alohomora" is for fans of the HP works. Whereas, "open sesame"…

Yes, I was including all types of movies in my initial statement, because I think if you include ALL types of movies released during a year, you get a better overall picture of "what female roles are being offered". I can understanding wanting to limit it only to the action/fantasy genre, but my larger point was that…

But it seems like we've gone so far into the "Girl Powah" (to quote the Spice Girls) thing that you can't have a main female character who's not a warrior princess.

He looks like he's gone to the Viggo Mortensen/Aragorn school of grooming.

What, are you trying to be condescending for the sake of it, or are you really just feeling THAT contrarian?

I can't remember TLJ being the "leading man" in much in the 90s except Cobb, although maybe my memory is playing tricks on me? My more vivid memories of him are in prominent but supporting roles — in which category I include Men in Black, as Will Smith was the "leading man" (by Hollywood standards) in that one.

I'm not sure that there are that many "flavor of the month" actors who wind up with 4 major-role movies coming out within a year (3 of them within 3 months). That's over and above what usually happens even with "newly hot" actors, and that's all I'm saying — that the last time I really remember a "hot actor" having…

Tommy Lee Jones is also a "character actor", and for various reasons (which I think are interesting, although I don't think I have a good sense of what all those reasons may be), actors in that category are generally regarded differently than those who are cast as "leading men". They aren't generally regarded as the…

Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman are what Hollywood used to call "character actors", and they tend to be judged differently from "leading men". (Fairly or unfairly.) The point I was making about Jude Law was that, at the time, he was in a bunch of leading-man type roles. You could as well point out that neither the…

True, although Hanks generally plays a different kind of role. And, Hanks only achieved that status after a fairly long career. He didn't jump from "never heard of in the U.S." to "is in 3 or 4 movies this year" within the space of 3 years.

Okay, look — I really like Chris Hemsworth. I loved the hell out of Thor, and I am really pleased that he's getting other roles along with that one (since we will likely be seeing him in that one in at least several more movies).

Well, from the trailer, we know of at least one. So it looks like Cap and Thor will be about equal on the Shirtless front.

Although, you have to distinguish between XM:FC, which was actually made by FOX, and the two movies made by Marvel Studios (what the article means by "in-house"), Thor and Captain America.

Since I had never read the books, of course it didn't bother me at all. And — no disparagement of your own enjoyment of them — I think a more hardcore adaptation of them would have interested me less. (After watching the show, I read some of the first book, and there was WAY too much of the author's Id on display…

Well, to be fair — in TDIR sequence, Will (hero of that book) *is* called the Seeker (of the Six Signs), and the book was written in the 70s. But... it wouldn't at all surprise me if the reasoning of the studio execs who gave the movie that title was the Potter connection.