Old Man Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 defreind your ignorant ass What you did there, I see it. 薔薇語 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 I heartily agree that language is in a constant state of evolution, and that this is natural and desirable. However, I see a problem in people simply disregarding standardized norms of language use in an age of ever-increasing global communication, with various forms of information being one of the most valuable "commodities" being traded today. Without a set of mutually-agreed-upon linguistic standards, there's enormous potential for misinterpretation, which depending on the stakes involved could have consequences from the annoying to the disastrous. Bazza 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Anyway, if it isn't written in the Book of Vishanti it's not germaine to this topic. Bazza 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Wyrd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 No, I think you missed Fry's point by a mile. It isn't about giving license to poets and the like but to everyone. Language is ever evolving. It doesn't need approval in order to evolve and snotty arrogance in the face of its evolution is no more enlightened or centered than creationist denials of biological evolution. I would hope that speakers of the ever interesting English language - even more so US speakers - would have an inherent appreciation for that fact but alas we are just as prone to biased and misplaced angst towards our fellows. It is the wonders of language change that brought us this language we call English from its Germatic roots and its Prot-Indo-European roots before that. It is language change that has allowed us to have a language that is lush with foreign snippets that we hold so dear. Be it the elegance in the tongue curling flow of the world 'ballet', the emotionally evocation of such words as scar, the clicking clutter that is the word tatami, and many more. Thank goodness for the Saxons and their disdain of the irritating enormity of English irregular plurals in opt for the mass adoption of the noun final s. Sure, the elitist of the day probably clamored against the ludicrous masses that thought going from Book to Books made more sense than book to beek*. But while their victories numerous grammarians of the worst kind - the prescriptive kind, have manage to martial up a moot defense of mice to mouses, and octopi to octopuses despite the erroneous flaw inherent in that defense. Language is a construct of man like no other by being simultaneously hyper personal and yet wholly social. The feelings and thoughts that spring from our inner core and are tied together with the bodily and animalistic grunts, howls and hisses we let slip our lips are truly unique to us. Their full impact can only really be know by the one who uttered them yet seemingly convey coherent communication to those who would give it an ear. For them we hope they grasp our feelings and thoughts but know that ultimately we know they only grasp the feelings and thoughts they already had associate with those rhythmic vibrations spewing from our mouths. While we have touched our listeners in the most personal of ways we still do not know the nature of that intercourse. The interplay of speaker and listener is the crucial component of human civilization. Few things contribute so much to the culture, nay, the survival of us as a species as our ability to converse. Thus the need to assign meaning to the arbitrary utterance we let loose. Yet to deny the person nature of language is to deny ourselves. We grow and change with every breathe and with every generation. To lock our language in an unchanging box is to enslave ourselves to the mantras and dogma of the past - but not just ourselves, our children and their children. No loving parent has ever looked down upon the fruit of their loins and desired anything less than the freedoms and joys they've enjoyed being passed on to that ever growing beautiful bundle of joy. So why here, why now, why for language do we seek to shackle them? Some argue that they are protecting language, but as Stepher Fry uttered in his reading of so-in-so, they are not guardians and there is no degradation occurring. It is merely moralistic nonsense that should be discarded like a used Kleenex. To explain why once more but in the terms of the modern world: because language, biatch. ^^ All that said, if anyone ever texts me "cu l8r" I will defreind your ignorant ass in a New York minute. ^^ *it has been a long time since I needed to know any of the irregular conjugations that were standardized following the Saxon incorporation into the English speaking world so I just reach for one that I hoped would make sense even if not actually accurate. Soar. What an astonishing bit of melliflous gobbledygook. 薔薇語 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 Hermit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted December 30, 2015 Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 http://www.superherohype.com/news/361711-kevin-feige-offers-a-marvel-phase-three-update-talks-thanos-black-panther-and-more#/slide/1 Kevin Feige updates on GOTG, Thanos, Spider-Man, Thor, and Black Panther. The Panther story sounds exactly like what I would want from his movie! Bazza 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 And the next Thor sounds like what I and quite a few other fans I've heard/read have been asking for: get Thor away from Earth for a while, and adventuring out among the Nine Realms, in a cosmos big enough for such epic characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted December 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 All of them sound super. It sounds like there is a definite plan leading into the first Infinity War film. Hope they don't loose momentum with a dud film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 I'm pretty optimistic. Marvel hasn't really let us down yet, though I realize there is a first time for everything. Especially given the shifts in Marvel's org chart not long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slikmar Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 And the next Thor sounds like what I and quite a few other fans I've heard/read have been asking for: get Thor away from Earth for a while, and adventuring out among the Nine Realms, in a cosmos big enough for such epic characters. And allows them to not have Natalie Portman be in it, who I am sure doesn't want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Yeah, I doubt even the offer to have her become (Lady) Thor for a movie or two would entice her to return to the franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 Yeah, I doubt even the offer to have her become (Lady) Thor for a movie or two would entice her to return to the franchise. Please don't mention female Thor...it hurts my head and makes it harder to deny her existence. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 After Ragnarok, the next movie will have Thor being played by a frog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted January 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 And allows them to not have Natalie Portman be in it, who I am sure doesn't want to. Yeah, I doubt even the offer to have her become (Lady) Thor for a movie or two would entice her to return to the franchise. ACTORS WHO HATE BEING PART OF THE MARVEL FRANCHISE http://www.looper.com/2992/actors-hate-part-marvel-franchise/ Some different people here. 8 People Who Hated Working For Marvel Studios http://whatculture.com/film/8-people-who-hated-working-for-marvel-studios.php Surprising that Kenneth Branagh is not mentioned as he also "dropped out" from the MCU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slikmar Posted January 1, 2016 Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 Most of those were known. My problem, and I get that execs involving can be bad, is that all of them should have known what they were getting into. Marvel has a plan and established characters. What has made their movies successful is that, for the most part, they are using their source material (see Fantastic Four and Catwoman as examples when studios don't and what can go wrong). The person being misrepresented really is Elba, he was annoyed at having to get in costume for extra scenes as his star was rising during the second Thor movie. He even says he has a good relationship with Marvel. 2 of those were known for being problems if you didn't kowtow to their vision (Rourke and Norton). The one that bothers me most, strangely, is Whedon. Given the job he did on the first Avengers movie, and his respect in the Marvel Comic side, I am surprised they interfered as much as they did. I feel bad for the Ant Man director who got taken out. Portman has entirely to do with the female director they split with when she apparently didn't want to stick to the overall plan they had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 Well, Marvel corporate wants to eat its cake and have it too. They say, "Hey, we want your unique vision to drive the picture you direct," while muttering, "But we'll oversee everything you do and make sure you stay on the straight and narrow of our overall strategic plan," out the sides of their mouths. I'm sure every director and actor who signs on to these films hopes that they'll get to flex their artistic muscles and not just play the dutiful corporate marionette collecting a paycheck. Some are better at playing along than others, I guess. And some got juicier roles than others, which helped ease their discontent, I'm sure. Aside from Marvel itself, the biggest winners in all this have to be Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, and Clark Gregg (who must feel like he won the lottery). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 I keep thinking of Iron Man III. Even Kevin Feige publicly acknowledged that where the director wanted to take that movie, in terms of you-know-who, made him nervous. But the studio let him do it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 I'm sure all that Chinese financing helped ease Feige's nerves considerably. Once the Chinese were on board to the tune of $30 million (or whatever it was), what was there to be nervous about? I think he just wanted to appear post-facto courageous to a fanbase not entirely sold on Shane Black's vision for you-know-who. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rails Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 After Ragnarok, the next movie will have Thor being played by a frog. Well, Disney has the Muppets. Kermit Thor Frog, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 http://www.superherohype.com/news/361953-rachel-keller-cast-as-female-lead-in-fxs-x-men-spin-off-legion A TV series about Prof X's son, Legion? Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbywolfe Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 http://www.superherohype.com/news/361953-rachel-keller-cast-as-female-lead-in-fxs-x-men-spin-off-legion A TV series about Prof X's son, Legion? Ok. That's not MCU though, it's one of 2 shows Fox has planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 That's not MCU though, it's one of 2 shows Fox has planned. In association with Marvel television...I didn't think it deserved its own thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 http://www.superherohype.com/news/362345-how-many-characters-will-appear-in-avengers-infinity-war#/slide/1 Care to guess the 67 possible characters appearing in Infinity War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 I think it bears mentioning that the "board" Russo referred to is a planning board where things change a lot during pre-production. I doubt the number will remain 67 for long (it will probably, ultimately, go down), and the names on the list will be constantly changing between now and 2018. Many sequences will be blocked out with animation for all-CG background characters, and they don't even have to know who those characters will be during principle photography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.