"And since he was missing for so many episodes, it took me until now to remember his name was Tommy."

Buffy was made before HD TV so they didn't take that into account. I don't remember ever being able to tell the difference when it first aired. Not even with the Spike double and he practically glows with obviousness in HD.

Yes. He looked muscular whenever he wasn't actually moving.

Meh. The 90s version, even on low def TV looked like a Styrofoam padded suit whenever he moved. I prefer this version.

Actually, of all the generic teen dytopian movies that have been made so far, and I've read the book versions of all of them, this one seems the most original. There's a huge twist that I found to be fascinating and who doesn't like rats in a maze?

I don't need to look it up. I own it. You understand that it's absolutely NOT the same pose, right? Since his genitals aren't sticking up in the air like a horny baboon? He is shown in a pounce. She is shown in a sexual prowl.

Well, you've still got oddly unprotected cleavage for a swordswoman going for you.

At least he'll be able to use his real accent. He seems to act better when he doesn't have to concentrate on sounding American.

Huh. Interesting choice. I like him in the Leftovers, but he doesn't seem to have the gravitas for Strange. I admit, though, that I only know him (more truthful to say remember him) in the one role.

I do too. Amy Adams is adorable, but Cavill is a Greek god.

I'd rather have Phoenix than Hamm. I might be holding his Mad Men character against him, but I just don't see a lot of range there when he's not doing comedy. Plus he'd add a slickness to Strange that I'd never seen in the character before.

Huh. I think he's extremely attractive.

Nah. That is definitely a very London "Fookin' 'ell!"

Yes. There is. And if you don't understand what it is you are not equipped to have this conversation.

I know that. Key word there is 1930's. That's rapidly approaching a century ago and Supes is long due a make over.

There is a massive difference between sexualizing and objectifying and I'm not only old enough to know that, chances are I'm old enough to be your mother. It's pitiable that you *don't* know the difference. Here's the clue by four, on those covers you are talking about there are usually BOTH women and men in the same…

Eh. I kind of like it without the red briefs. I always wondered what the attraction was for wearing your underpants on the outside.

I have decided to live in hope. Arrow ended up being exactly the opposite of what I thought it would look like from the promos. I'm hoping that all the attention on Li'l Bruce is for the ad campaign to set up the backstory of the real hero, Detective Gordon.

How many times do we have to say this? Bulked up men in comics are that way because male readers want to *be* them. Female heroes are drawn the way they are so that male readers can sexualize them. Google "the male gaze" read up on it and learn something.

I've been putting up with demeaning bullshit like this for 42 years. If I were any looser I'd be water.