Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 2774
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:38

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Jake » 22 Jul 2019, 15:41

JD wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 13:50
I saw a FB post addressed to people who are bent out of shape about there being a female Thor; it featured (I guess; I don't really follow the comics universe) female-Thor talking to male-Thor and had the added caption "Cool thine tits".

I was very tempted to ask where the place was for people who weren't bothered by female Thor but are extremely peeved by Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe. Also it was doubly nonsensical since Thor (at least in the few movies I've seen) doesn't really talk like that.
No kidding! It'd be "Cool thy tits"... in which case, the tits that were cooled would be thine.

Some people.
"Facebook is like a locker room with all the players screaming at each other how much they have to win and then forgetting they have to take the field and actually play the gawddamn game." -- D.A. Ridgely

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17527
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by lunchstealer » 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

The flying rabbit is correct. </LebowskiThor>
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19023
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 22 Jul 2019, 17:44

Well, Caitlyn Jenner was too old, so....

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4186
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Painboy » 22 Jul 2019, 19:26

I have no objection to a female Thor...but Natalie Portman?

Not only is she a physical pipsqueak but she's taking her boyfriend's job? Does she just start calling herself Thor? Thor's his actual name not a title. That just seems like a weird progression.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27368
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Warren » 22 Jul 2019, 19:32

Painboy wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 19:26
I have no objection to a female Thor...but Natalie Portman?

Not only is she a physical pipsqueak but she's taking her boyfriend's job? Does she just start calling herself Thor? Thor's his actual name not a title. That just seems like a weird progression.
*nods*
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 14040
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Kolohe » 22 Jul 2019, 19:35

Painboy wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 19:26
I have no objection to a female Thor...but Natalie Portman?

Not only is she a physical pipsqueak but she's taking her boyfriend's job? Does she just start calling herself Thor? Thor's his actual name not a title. That just seems like a weird progression.
Come to think of it, this is pretty much how we got Donald Trump.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13823
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Eric the .5b » 22 Jul 2019, 20:18

JD wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 13:50
I saw a FB post addressed to people who are bent out of shape about there being a female Thor; it featured (I guess; I don't really follow the comics universe) female-Thor talking to male-Thor and had the added caption "Cool thine tits".

I was very tempted to ask where the place was for people who weren't bothered by female Thor but are extremely peeved by Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe. Also it was doubly nonsensical since Thor (at least in the few movies I've seen) doesn't really talk like that.
He does in the comics, though, where this fooferaw was fought a few years back.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13823
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Eric the .5b » 22 Jul 2019, 20:19

Kolohe wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 19:35
Painboy wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 19:26
I have no objection to a female Thor...but Natalie Portman?

Not only is she a physical pipsqueak but she's taking her boyfriend's job? Does she just start calling herself Thor? Thor's his actual name not a title. That just seems like a weird progression.
Come to think of it, this is pretty much how we got Donald Trump.
Eh, people actually like Natalie Portman, and I'm certain she can devise sounder electoral college strategies than Clinton.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 19023
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 22 Jul 2019, 20:22

I, for one, look forward to Jim Parsons staring in Wonder Man.

User avatar
Kwix
Posts: 1653
Joined: 17 May 2010, 22:07
Location: Great White North

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Kwix » 24 Jul 2019, 14:38

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 20:22
I, for one, look forward to Jim Parsons staring in Wonder Man.
And Dar wins the thread.
"People are sometimes the answer, but they are ALWAYS the problem." -- Ellie
"pedialyte is like planned parenthood for hangovers. it costs you a bit, but it makes your little problem go away until the next time you drink too much."-- dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28484
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by thoreau » 14 Aug 2019, 11:59

I didn't like a lot of stuff in Avengers: Endgame, so I came up with my own way to undo the snap with time travel. To wit, I didn't like the MCU Clip Show aspect, and I didn't like the fact that Captain Marvel was too powerful to really use in the story. So, here's my fix:

Infinity War is the same up until the very end of Nick Fury's scene. He pages...someone. Call her Dr. MacGuffin, because I don't know which comic book character would be best for the role that follows.

Endgame still opens with Hawkeye's family disappearing. Then the view zooms out to some omniscient narrator eye that flits across the landscape, witnessing many other people turn to dust, before zooming in on a hospital and through the window. We see many staff and patients turning to dust. And we see a woman wake up from a coma. Her chart reads "Jane Doe" and her date of admission is in the mid-1990's (so that Marvel can still do a "Nick Fury in the 90's" movie).

We go to the spaceship with Iron Man and Gamora. We skip the whole "OMG! Will they live?!?!?!?" thing and just have a short character moment.

They land on earth. They discuss how they found the energy signature of Thanos using the stones again. They fly to that planet. They find Thanos. He's destroyed 5 of the 6 stones. He still has the Time Stone. There's a fight. Not drawn-out, but not as abrupt as Thor decapitating him. Thanos dies. With his dying breath he uses the Time Stone.

The Avengers find themselves in orbit around the planet where Farmer Thanos is hiding out. Again they fight him. Again he dies. Again he uses the Time Stone with his dying breath. This happens 1-2 more times.

The Avengers decide that instead of an all-out fight, Black Widow should interrogate him. They make it seem like their ship has crashed and she's the sole survivor. She lets Thanos "capture" her. She does her interrogation thing. He says that he destroyed 5 of the 6 stones so that nobody can undo his work, but he can't destroy the Time Stone. Dr. Strange sent the stone to the future and then summoned it back before handing it over, and if he destroys the Time Stone it will have no future and his past self won't be able to use it to do the snap.

"So I can't change the future. But I can change your past. My condolences on your loss." Then he kills himself before Black Widow can stop him.

The Avengers have the Time Stone but no idea how to use it. They return to earth. Thor is depressed that he didn't get revenge. Hulk is working on getting his mojo back. Hawkeye is killing bad guys who survived. Black Widow works on helping him have his redemption arc. There is no "Five Years Later." This all takes place over several months.

Meanwhile, Dr. MacGuffin is awake from her coma. She is given her belongings. There's an old pager. When she turns it on she discovers a distress signal from Nick Fury. She has amnesia. She recovers her strength, gets released from the hospital, and wanders aimlessly. She's homeless, but she discovers that she has powers. Eventually she meets the Avengers.

She's drawn to the Time Stone. She realizes she can use it. She takes the Avengers back to the events of Infinity War. They replace their old selves And We All Agree Not To Ask Any Questions. On Titan, Dr. Strange takes the Stone from her and gives her back her memories. We don't know what she remembers, but she understands everything. They fight Thanos. Strange still hands over the stone.

But Thanos lacks the Soul Stone. He doesn't know where it is. Gamora is still alive. Thanos has changed the past. Gamora tells them it's on Vormir. They come up with an elaborate plan to delay his efforts to find it. Somehow this plan involves everyone except Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Dr. MacGuffin. Those 3 will retrieve the Soul Stone and Dr. MacGuffin will use it to transfer Vision's soul to another body so that they can destroy the Mind Stone. (They can only destroy a stone if they have a being whose powers derive from the stone.)

On Vormir, Black Widow and Hawkeye fight, and Hawkeye dies (because it makes more sense that way, given his arc.) They get the stone. They go to earth and transfer Vision's soul to another body. They're about to destroy the Mind Stone when Thanos attacks with every single asset of his from across the entire galaxy. Way bigger fight than the original battle of Wakanda.

Thor, Cap, and Iron Man fight Thanos. Cap is the last one standing. Then Dr. Strange gathers together every super hero. Massive battle. All hope seems lost. Tony Snaps. There's a funeral.

At the end, Dr. MacGuffin announces that there's still one last deed to do...in the past. She says she needs help. Cap promises to accompany her, and she promises to send him back. "What about you?" he asks. She says "I've already returned to this time once. I don't need to return again."

But Cap doesn't come back. He instead shows up aged, explains that after accomplishing their mission in the 1990's (Cap was not in the Nick Fury Nineties movie, but his presence in the 90's explains a mystery from the movie) Dr. MacGuffin sent him to the 1940's instead, at his request. "What about her?" "She's in a hospital bed with a coma and amnesia. It's what had to be."

There. Everyone winds up where they were, and we get the awesome fight, but without the ridiculousness.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13823
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Eric the .5b » 08 Sep 2019, 09:19

Something struck me for the first time. You see, "slash" and "slashfic" was called that because people used the form "Kirk/Spock" to describe that original pairing and later pairings. But that notation isn't used as much, anymore—the thing since the early 2000s has been to make portmanteau names ("Spuffy" instead of "Spike/Buffy", say).

And then it struck me—with portmanteaus, the original fanfic pairing would have been called "Spirk" or "Kock". Ha!

Then, I paused a moment and googled...and "Spirk" is the dominant form, nowadays. (With "Kock" not being as big for obvious reasons.)
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27368
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Warren » 08 Sep 2019, 09:46

I just gained/lost (galost?) a whole new level of respect for you Eric.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13823
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Eric the .5b » 08 Sep 2019, 17:49

Warren wrote:
08 Sep 2019, 09:46
I just gained/lost (galost?) a whole new level of respect for you Eric.
Sounds like something moved sideways.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16137
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Aresen » 08 Sep 2019, 20:24

Eric the .5b wrote:
08 Sep 2019, 09:19
Then, I paused a moment and googled...and "Spirk" is the dominant form, nowadays. (With "Kock" not being as big for obvious reasons.)
Well, Shatner is 88 years old now...
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24841
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Mo » 09 Sep 2019, 07:23

Painboy wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 19:26
I have no objection to a female Thor...but Natalie Portman?

Not only is she a physical pipsqueak but she's taking her boyfriend's job? Does she just start calling herself Thor? Thor's his actual name not a title. That just seems like a weird progression.
I mean Jane Foster becoming Thor is canon. And while she's a physical pipsqueak, doesn't Foster get the power of Thor via Mjolnir. Making Thor both a person and a title?
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 18211
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Hugh Akston » 09 Sep 2019, 11:13

Jane-Thor in the comics was referred to as Thor. It says it right there on the thing: "Whoseover wields this hammer, if xe be worthy. shall have the power of THOR".
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24378
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by JasonL » 09 Sep 2019, 15:27

I’m pretty much out on all “blah blah gets to be known hero now”. Most especially in the case of Cap, where being a time displaced Nazi puncher is just super important to the essence of the idea, but in the general case as well.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 27368
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Warren » 09 Sep 2019, 16:17

I might get up for GotG III. Or I might not. I'd have to be sold on anyhero else though. I feel like the MCU has gotten tired.
Still pissed off about the Fantastic Four.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13823
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Eric the .5b » 09 Sep 2019, 16:35

Hugh Akston wrote:
09 Sep 2019, 11:13
Jane-Thor in the comics was referred to as Thor. It says it right there on the thing: "Whoseover wields this hammer, if xe be worthy. shall have the power of THOR".
Which, weirdly enough, was consistent with an old What If where Storm became Thor.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4186
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Painboy » 09 Sep 2019, 17:33

I was more concerned with the casting than the idea. Portman just doesn't really exude badass thunder goddess. Also after Captain Marvel overdid "she's totally a badass" a bit I hope they can keep things a little less self-conscious this time.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28484
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by thoreau » 09 Sep 2019, 17:34

I just think Tessa Thompson has already demonstrated that she can play an Asgardian bad-ass, AND she's ruler of Asgard. So she would seem like the logical person to get the power of Thor.

But, whatever.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4186
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Painboy » 09 Sep 2019, 17:54

thoreau wrote:
09 Sep 2019, 17:34
I just think Tessa Thompson has already demonstrated that she can play an Asgardian bad-ass, AND she's ruler of Asgard. So she would seem like the logical person to get the power of Thor.

But, whatever.
Exactly. That would make more sense.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16137
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Aresen » 09 Sep 2019, 18:15

Reading the above posts makes me glad I'm not informed on current 'culture'. I go to movies for the explosions and the popcorn.

Otherwise, "Hey, you Gods! Get off my lawn!"
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24500
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Horrible, Offensive Geekery

Post by Jennifer » 10 Sep 2019, 18:43

Jennifer wrote:
06 Jun 2019, 21:24
Eric the .5b wrote:
06 Jun 2019, 21:12
Jennifer wrote:
06 Jun 2019, 21:00
Eric the .5b wrote:
06 Jun 2019, 20:51
Jennifer wrote:
06 Jun 2019, 19:58
In fact, for that species, they can "naturally" have a form of communication not too different from what we have now with this-here internet thingy: you and I are hundreds of miles apart yet communicating with each other, almost in realtime, for hardly any effort or cost.
Well, that's assuming they have powerful enough biological transmitters, sensitive enough receivers, and use a frequency that bounces off the ionosphere like shortwave does. (Or one person is on a very high mountain, maybe, so as to have line-of-sight.) A ham radio setup's power level of 1500 watts would require constant electrical output much higher than a electric eel's 600w, which it can only produce in pulses of a couple of millisecond in length.

I suspect any living creature with such a communication method would have a much shorter range. That would give plenty of utility for things like telegraph or radio. They might never have devised semaphore-like techniques, though, if they can communicate at least as far as they can see each other with the naked eye.
Question regarding radio waves, though: is the wattage necessary for the ham radio to emit those waves an inherent or engineering limit? ("We can't go faster than lightspeed" = inherent limit, according to modern scientific knowledge. "We can't make planes break the sound barrier" = former engineering limit, resolved well before I was born.) So is it "X watts are inherently necessary to generate these radio waves," or is it "We only know how to generate these waves with devices requiring at least X watts to run."
The first, all other things being equal. (Anyone's welcome to correct me with better specifics.) Unless these guys are brontosaurus-sized, they're going to have rather small antenna apertures, which makes things even harder on the power front. It's basically the same inverse-square law as light—it gets dimmer the further away the source is.

Of course, if they are brontosaurs with giant antenna dishes on their backs, they miiiiiight be able to produce the electricity needed. Their developing tool use at that size might be harder to arrange, though.
Well, speculating a planet of brontosaur-sized intelligent aliens is easy (especially if you imagine a planet with lower gravity than earth). And instead of evolving from a four-limbed species or phylums or whatever the term is, the way most large earth animals are (mammals, birds and reptiles, off the top of my head), they can be a six-limbed species: basically, brontosaurs with arms, hands and opposable thumbs.
I was re-reading this part of the thread, and felt compelled to add: these intelligent six-limbed brontosaurs could be dubbed "brontocentaurs."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kolohe and 7 guests