Explore our other sites
  • kotaku
  • quartz
  • theroot
  • theinventory
    gillianandersoncooper
    GAC
    gillianandersoncooper

    All that I remember is seeing a commercial for “The Banana Splits Meltdown!” which was going to air soon on whatever channel I was watching. Could’ve been the late 80s or early 90s, and I could’ve been watching a VHS recording of something else. I had no idea that it was from the 60s, though, until the previous

    Back in 2000, I was a fan of the relatively grounded approach to the first X-Men film, and I think that the series has usually been at its best when it prioritizes character over spectacle. But if there was ever a time to embrace the spectacle (and also put a lot more effort into lead-up characterization, but that’s

    If only he’d stopped at the eyebrows...

    I’m reminded of the Star Trek: TNG films, which in addition to Picard, tried to wring a subplot out of Data every single time. I thought that it worked best in First Contact, but I wish that those movies had trusted the ensemble a little bit more. Same with the X-Men.

    This alien culture stuff intrigues me, and almost makes me want to go and see Dark Phoenix. Unfortunately, my interest in the X-Men side of things just isn’t there, in this case. Too bad, really.

    I was just watching a Star Trek convention interview with Alice Krige, and she mentioned that the Borg Queen initially had eyebrows, before it was decided to do away with them. So, maybe it’s a space-villainess thing.

    Just in terms of box office, the ‘young reboot’ part of the X-Men film series is going to look really weird. First Class made pretty modest money, then DOFP made like twice as much. Apocalypse lost about half of that gain, and Dark Phoenix might not even match First Class.

    Days of Future Past would’ve been a pretty decent finale (with Logan as an added Coda) if the studio had been willing to end it right there.

    The Marvel Cinematic Universe has few memorable villains—recent DC films as well—but superhero films in general have given lots of actors good material to work with (and/or scenery to chew) in villainous roles.

    I think that I absorbed the general consensus and went along with it, without really trying to understand how it works.

    My take on Larson is that she’s hit and miss, or maybe just has a hard time finding her characters in big action films. She was charming as heck on Community, but seemed lost in Kong: Skull Island and I think chose the wrong acting strategy in Captain Marvel. I’ve found myself puzzled by both those performances,

    Yeah, I think that’s what Sanderson said, that he’d (unintentionally) been writing the character in-line with the earlier books.

    I have a feeling that this might play for me like Blade Runner 2049; I respect the incredible craft of the original, but it’s not something I rewatch often for fun. Villeneuve’s sequel is a bit more enjoyable, in addition to being interesting.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but Cinderella, The Jungle Book and Dumbo are all remakes of pre-80s animated films. Maleficent doesn’t count as literally, but if one treats it as a Sleeping Beauty remake, that’s another.

    One of the characters in the books (and I remember because I just listened through this on the audiobook) actually points out that very contradiction of there being fish and birds that fly and swim. Conventional wisdom being questioned happens a fair bit.

    I didn’t mind Sanderson’s writing of Mat, but I believe that he (Sanderson) himself admitted that he didn’t seamlessly pick up on where Jordan left the character.

    Yeah, ‘colorful’ is a description that I have in my mind for WoT, too. I see it as a messy, vibrant world, full of beautifully-dyed skirts to smooth, etc.

    For what it’s worth, that linked TOR piece is making reference to New Spring, the prequel novel. It’s later in the series from a publishing standpoint, but the story/events themselves aren’t.

    I think that my original comment has been (almost) completely misinterpreted.

    I’m not usually this blunt because we’re trafficking in opinions here, but in this case: no. My phrasing is not as grandiose, and frankly in an unscientific environment such as this, I’m not sure that you can prove that my words were lame.