Just so you can sleep tonight, it weren't me what downvoted you. This downvote thing is bringing grief and strife to our once happy world.

So, to sum up your rebuttal: If a certain segment of a film's potential audiences expect something then, dammit, that's what they must get. I don't agree. Some things, of course, may be more sacred than others, such as portraying Hamlet as a young, handsome, able bodied, intelligent, crafty, volatile, mercurial…

There's grittiness and self conscious machismo. But realism?! That's like saying there's genuine emotion on The Kardashians.

Redford? That hideous troll.

Well, to be tediously tangential, Michael Corleone, in the book, is an athletic, tall, strapping, intimidating specimen whose physically capabilities no one would question. But in the film Coppola used Al Pacino, a diminutive, almost runt of a guy, and this only worked to dramatize and enhance the drastic…

It worked for ChickenMan.

I applaud your plea for a return to a more cogent and sane approach in the field of absurd, fantastical, juvenile, nonsensical, preposterous, silly, tedious comic book based cinematic art.

Or your mom.

A Spaced reference?! What are you, some kind of comedy saying person?

And you are a fan of that overblown, self satisfied exercise in tedium, which goes by the name of The Avengers?

Dibs!

In my personal, very unpopular opinion, I prefer fewer well crafted, more critical characters than the current trend to stuff more and more less essential characters into the mix. That's why I infinitely prefer the Iron Man stand alone series to The Avengers. Watchmen at least faintly attempted to keep the central…

I guess Katy Perry wasn't available, because boobs.

Patton Oswald proposed this very thing in an episode of Anger Management.

But only The Dark Knight was really worth anything, culturally speaking, thanks almost entirely to Heath Ledger's masterful and sublime performance. The rest of the series is mostly corny and overwrought with flashes of brilliance in the clever, tight editing. This opinion in non negotiable.

If you're attempting humor or satire you need to more skillfully hint at your true sympathies. As it is, you just come off as ignorant and lazy. Is that what you're going for, to be seen as a cretinous dismal failure?

Hand to hand? More like wallet to wallet.

As an effective personal weapon wouldn't women in the military need only rely on their innate natural skill at mortally wounding a man's confidence by relentlessly hinting at his financial and sexual inadequacy?

The idea of people exploiting Kafka's noble legacy for their own personal enrichment really sticks in my carapace.

David Lynch is a figment of a demented cockroach's feverish mind.