Search Results

Allow me to share with you a particular association. In the Slavic tongues, "Volshebnik" means Wizard. It sounds very much like Bolshevik. Ergo, Volshebnik Bolshevik. Now you understand the foundation behind the red scare. Communists are actually wizards.

Now I want to create a bunch of pro-communist slogans therefrom, if it hasn't already been done.

Harry Potter was probably a commie.

FYI, don't swallow pills without water. It's a health hazard.

As for me, I like to meow to my cat vis-à-vis. But that's probably not so strange.

One of the strange things about living in the world is that it is only now and then one is quite sure one is going to live forever and ever.

Castiel is Constantine if the writers supervising the character didn't bait their audience with queer subtext, and went the full mile with the implications present within the media, making him canonically bisexual, etc.

Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch was once a rumour too. Alas, she was cast, despite neither physically looking the part (Wanda and Pietro are Jewish-Romani) nor possessing even rudimentary knowledge pertaining to the character (aside from the impression that Wanda is "totally crazy"). After Joss Whedon's casting for the twins, I should no longer be surprised by any cast-making decision on Marvel's part. Mister Benzene Cumbersome was also cast as Khan for Abrams' Star Trek reboot, despite the fact the original Khan was portrayed by a Spanish actor. Case in point: directors are very keen on casting Buttercup Cockadoo in roles which hardly suit him, this in itself is nothing new; directors are counting on the actor's fanbase to support the film. It's sad, but Hollywood has a habit of rotating through the same established actors/actresses in lieu of granting actors/actresses of relative unknown status opportunities...

In other words Bendict Cumberbatch is that actor directors cast when they're too lazy to sit down and evaluate other actors whom may suit the character in question better. Benedict is the casting director's easy way out of the responsibility inherent to their position. [DOUBLEPOST=1414521355][/DOUBLEPOST]

Nova has already appeared in videogames, e.g. Marvel vs Capcom 3 and Marvel Heroes. Nova also had a cult following before the GOTG film was released; Nova was more popular than Star Lord by far. I am loathe to crush anyone's hopes or dreams, but I doubt that Nova shall appear in any of Gunn's GOTG installments because James Gunn personally does not like the character. And that's all it takes, one director who is unsympathetic toward the inclinations of the overarching fanbase-- for our dreams not to be met. I'd love to see Nova too. :-(

I understand how you mean here, but I feel you have misinterpreted the concept of sexuality. It is a means of personal identification, and the modern definition thereof exists in order to communicate the individual's interests: if someone who identifies as bisexual expresses interest in someone of the same sex who identifies as heterosexual, then it is safe to assume that the latter won't reciprocate the former's interest. Of course, sexuality is a spectrum, à la the Kinsey scale-- which, interestingly, disregards the existence of asexuality just as you are doing here now. Sexuality is not rigid, and humans cannot be perfectly separated into Skinnerian boxes, etc. I also believe there are gay individuals out there that that feel approx. 0% for their opposite sex.

Are our definitions infallible? No, but they get the meaning across and as I see it that's all that matters in the end. You have the foundation of an argument here, but it would have been more relevant to, instead of focusing on the inefficiency of our definitions concerning "sexuality," endorse a more detached method of viewing sexual interactions-- that is, go the way of the ancient Greeks and categorize sexual acts as "heterosexual" or "homosexual" in nature rather than form private identities to explain the same events. Empirical evidence is a lot less murky to define.

We are missing the higher question at work here, implied yet unanswered as of this post. Does the mirror self feel attraction toward its recipient? Are there fantasies hidden behind the sharp, obscure reflection. It's Somatic Interpretation 101, gentlemen, which you would learn in any basic Psych class. There is a reason why you can't follow their gaze--! The spouse that has been caught sleazing will evade his SO's gaze at every opportunity. Be weary of your reflections, my friends, at least the shadows are cloaked to the extent where you can't read their expressions anyways. Physiognomy is a dead science.

It can never be too soon.

That's terrible. I had this one vocal instructor who changed the pronouns within a love song (Scarborough Fair) without my asking for it, although at least I was allowed to sing... Do you know why she wouldn't allow you to? I suspect she could have just as simply altered the pitch, so it cannot reasonably be an issue of vocal range.

Being a pleb of plebeian entertainments, the likes of which are susceptible to change status depending on the era or time, continental location, circumstances, etc. Sitcoms are considered a plebeian form of entertainment, but the point I was making above concludes with the speculation that that might change eventually (historians value all artifacts from the past). Although, I think it is unlikely that sitcoms or any other form of "plebeian entertainment" will achieve the same height of success as Shakespeare's stories for the simple reason that nowadays media is curated and accessible globally more than ever; the dearth of surviving texts from periodic authors is what makes them valuable to modern audiences. So, let me introduce an unlikely hypothesis: if [in the future] media is collectively maintained so that there is a plethora available from the 20th century and onward, then viewers will undervalue those products and the media may fall into obscurity consequently. Thus, plebeian entertainment will remain plebeian because they are no longer of historical importance because so much (in this case sitcoms) are available for public viewing. This is an elaborate hypothesis which does not take into consideration censorship, global catastrophes that might occur in the long future, etc.

So that was a tangent on the concept of "plebeianism" from a historical perspective. Someone else can talk about ranking plebeian entertainments, i.e. sitcoms and soap operas, in order of artistic merit. I've watched a few episodes of Cheers, thus I will vouch for its merit by citing a certain episode which was relevant to the plights of people during that time: The Boys in the Bar, episode 16 of season one (aired 01/27/87). Sitcoms can have some gold material, I guess, though I think it's the individual episodes we should be judging as opposed to the series on the whole (which shuffle through a variety of writers/directors).

I don't know if this at all answered your initial question.

D'you think it's possible to be a "sitcom pleb" ? This is the strangest designation I've ever been granted. On the surface it seems like an overt contradiction, but what's to say it doesn't hold merit when the works of Shakespeare were once marketed toward the lower class masses as second-rate entertainment. Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist was serialized in monthly installments, which is kind of reminiscent of soap operas (and indeed a lot of his works relied on soap operatic twists à la inheriting long-lost family fortunes). For goodness' sake, one of the side characters in Dickens' David Copperfield is named Mealy Potatoes. Really. Virginia Woolf wrote Orlando whilst on vacation, and it garnered more than twice as much in sales than her previous novel.

Perhaps it is possible.

I posted this already. Physically: I am flat-chested, relatively cute (I can do boyish though), and petite. Brown, curly hair. Hazel eyes. 163 cm. I think Nova'd be a bit more developed as a woman, but y'know whatever. I can cosplay him in his newbie years. He was pretty cute then! Actually, by the time I assemble this cosplay I shall probably be quite a ways older than now so perhaps there will be time for me to mature into the role. I could cut/straighten my hair for this.

Oh my goodness, I had almost forgotten the Nolan verse. I suppose "Dick" was too suggestive for today's impressionable audiences. They still could have gone with Richard. Pfft, he's ROBIN just in case you're not familiar with the DC universe and/or the OBVIOUS REFERENCE flew over your head!

Can you imagine how pissed fans would be in this modern age, if Mark Ruffalo was cast as "David" Banner in an upcoming Hulk live-action series like in the 1978 TV series. Or if they released a live-action series feat. Captain Marvel, with significant changes to the source material (this occurred in the '70s as well). Adam West and Burt Ward portrayed Batman and Robin once. The standards for superhero productions have risen considerably in the past half-century.

This is one aspect of the film I didn't particularly care for, at all. I am tired of supporting characters' deaths fueling the actions of heroes. They did not have to adhere to what happened in 616 canon continuity. I would find the franchise redeemable however if Gwen Stacy was brought back as a Carnage Symbiote clone as in the Ultimate universe. That was rad.