[Movie/TV/Comic] Marvel Cinematic Universe: A place to talk all things Marvel

[Munson85]

Yeah why would someone juice for a potential multi film franchise role that can pay in the tens of millions of dollars and make the whole process much easier? Steroids are so hard to find, especially for rich people with access to doctors at a whim, totally the rarest of drugs

It's 500 sit ups a day, only water to drink, cut out sugar and a protein shake with every meal, all natty just like The Rock and Arnie

[RobertoCarlos]

When theres this much discussion on how ripped the actor is thats when you know there isnt much to discuss about the actual film itself.

Like old Harrison Ford telling Mark Hamill who was stressing over his hair cut on the set of star wars "If people are looking at your hair then we're in real trouble kid"

[Syegfryed]

When theres this much discussion on how ripped the actor is thats when you know there isnt much to discuss about the actual film itself.

There isn't sadly, movie lack substance imo, it was a sandwich, first and last moments were memorable, with the actor tribute, but the middle is some contrived plot that doesn't go much anywhere, more spectacle than substance, with some good moments (M'baku). Feels like Ironheart was there just to build up her tv show, and i think that was a bad idea, she is just Shuri 2.0. People said the movie is 30 minutes too long

I also don't think Shuri have presence enough to carry the black panther's name, she is ok, but not charismatic or buffy enough, not recasting the actor was fucking stupid and seems like they just wanted to milk chads dead, other characters are getting re-cast just fine, like Ross, which the actor also died...

I think after the first impressions, the movie is decreasing in note for me, prob because it was after Thor, and everything after that seems like awesome.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

When theres this much discussion on how ripped the actor is thats when you know there isnt much to discuss about the actual film itself.

Like old Harrison Ford telling Mark Hamill who was stressing over his hair cut on the set of star wars "If people are looking at your hair then we're in real trouble kid"

The movie just all around solid and there's not much to talk about when something's just good so it's the people who see it negatively who are gonna push the discussion, If all they have to complain about is that a buff guy isn't doing tons of steroids then that says alot.

[Al Gorefiend]

This thread should be used as an example for why women aren't the only ones being body-shamed to unrealistic expectations in Hollywood

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This thread should be used as an example for why women aren't the only ones being body-shamed to unrealistic expectations in Hollywood

Absolutely, while I wouldn't say that body-shaming is equal between men and women...there are plenty of examples of men being shamed for their "dad bods" and what not.

Like when the "dad bod" photo of vin diesel was released and we got memes like this:

[RobertoCarlos]

This thread should be used as an example for why women aren't the only ones being body-shamed to unrealistic expectations in Hollywood

Its the comic book look.

Its not supposed to be "Realistic" just like woman do not have F cup sized firm titties with a waist the size of a human fist.

[Biomega]

Its the comic book look.

Its not supposed to be "Realistic" just like woman do not have F cup sized firm titties with a waist the size of a human fist.

But it doesn't HAVE to be that. They changed plenty of stuff from the comics - the tight spandex costumes in neon colors being the most-talked about, usually, but certainly not the only thing. We get to choose what to take and what to leave, and it's perhaps not the worst idea to not have women looking like blow-up dolls or men looking like balloon animals.

Body images shift in public perception over time, but that's not entirely an independent process beyond our control. Popular media in particular have a pretty central role in all of it.

[RobertoCarlos]

But it doesn't HAVE to be that. They changed plenty of stuff from the comics - the tight spandex costumes in neon colors being the most-talked about, usually, but certainly not the only thing. We get to choose what to take and what to leave, and it's perhaps not the worst idea to not have women looking like blow-up dolls or men looking like balloon animals.

Body images shift in public perception over time, but that's not entirely an independent process beyond our control. Popular media in particular have a pretty central role in all of it.

No certainly not but its a hard look to pull off the "superhero" look.

Most dudes are not gonna look like Chris Evans wearing Cap's helmet, they're gonna look like the guy that is playing him in the TV show cosplaying in his suit his mum made for him.

Thats why its impressive when someone DOES pull off the look and people get hyped. Most of the time its the opposite when you get a early set leak of the costume and people lose their shit because it looks like shit.

Its also why the superhero genre was seen as camp for the longest time before we started getting Tim burton's batman and even after that it wasnt until marvel's Ironman where suits started looking good and not adam west esque.

[Biomega]

No certainly not but its a hard look to pull off the "superhero" look.

Most dudes are not gonna look like Chris Evans wearing Cap's helmet, they're gonna look like the guy that is playing him in the TV show cosplaying in his suit his mum made for him.

There's a lot of degrees between "mum's cosplay" and "absolutely fucking shredded". No one is saying hey let's cast only Jane & Johnny Averages from now on, flabs and all. This isn't a binary; there's TONS of room to maneuver between the extremes.

[RobertoCarlos]

There's a lot of degrees between "mum's cosplay" and "absolutely fucking shredded". No one is saying hey let's cast only Jane & Johnny Averages from now on, flabs and all. This isn't a binary; there's TONS of room to maneuver between the extremes.

It just depends on how committed you are to the roll and what it looks like on film.

Look at Ben Afleck for example, He was what? Late 40's when cast as Batman. All bright eye'd before the studio's beat him into a depression he got fucking buff for batman, pulling chains in shit.

Comes back for Batman vs superman jaded and wears a muscle shirt.

Is it healthy to dehydrate the evening and day of shooting to look even more ripped? No, but its gonna look great on film which is forever.

And is it much different to working out before a shoot to look even bigger? Not really.

[Biomega]

Is it healthy to dehydrate the evening and day of shooting to look even more ripped? No, but its gonna look great on film which is forever.

And is it much different to working out before a shoot to look even bigger? Not really.

That's missing the core issue, though, which is the creation of body images in media. You say it's "gonna look great" as if that was a self-evident truth, and as if that was to the exclusion of alternatives - that's simply not the case. Value judgements like "this looks great" (as opposed to something else looking great) are part of the problem, and are the kind of feedback loop that's in play here. The question is, WHY do we think this looks great? And the answer is in part, because popular media have taught us that's what we should consider great-looking. That's the whole point people are trying to make: that you can intervene in this cycle, and offer alternatives.

This is well documented in the history of body aesthetics. Wasn't even too long ago that thin bodies for women were not at all the beauty ideal; in fact it was seen as a fault, and women were desperate to put on weight. You can see this e.g. in advertisement for meat extracts etc. that played on those fashions in the late 19th/early 20th century. And of course there's plenty of art over the centuries that helps us with what people considered to be the standard of beauty; or just the last few decades, if you want a more granulated look.

We as a society need to be more proactive in these matters. We've come a long way - we understand these things so much better than people did even just 50 or 100 years ago, it's time we tried more actively to get better at being better.

[Witchblade77]

It just depends on how committed you are to the roll and what it looks like on film.

Look at Ben Afleck for example, He was what? Late 40's when cast as Batman. All bright eye'd before the studio's beat him into a depression he got fucking buff for batman, pulling chains in shit.

Comes back for Batman vs superman jaded and wears a muscle shirt.

Is it healthy to dehydrate the evening and day of shooting to look even more ripped? No, but its gonna look great on film which is forever.

And is it much different to working out before a shoot to look even bigger? Not really.

did you seriously just say this? YES its very much different because one just gives you a pump, while the other one is actualy genuinely dangerous for the health, and can create long lasting damage.


also... comic book characters in live action are played by HUMAN beings. so yes, realism is kinda important there, and its ironic when people bitch about CGI looking unrealistic, but also expect humans to look like exaggerated unrealistic comic book extremes.

incidentally Tenoch Huerta is 41.

P.S. for people who talk about looking like gods... I would suggest visiting a museum. online if you can't go in person. and look at how greeks and romans depicted gods and consider that their versions were ALSO extremely idealized for their time. just you know... something to ponder.

[RobertoCarlos]

That's missing the core issue, though, which is the creation of body images in media. You say it's "gonna look great" as if that was a self-evident truth, and as if that was to the exclusion of alternatives - that's simply not the case. Value judgements like "this looks great" (as opposed to something else looking great) are part of the problem, and are the kind of feedback loop that's in play here. The question is, WHY do we think this looks great? And the answer is in part, because popular media have taught us that's what we should consider great-looking. That's the whole point people are trying to make: that you can intervene in this cycle, and offer alternatives.

This is well documented in the history of body aesthetics. Wasn't even too long ago that thin bodies for women were not at all the beauty ideal; in fact it was seen as a fault, and women were desperate to put on weight. You can see this e.g. in advertisement for meat extracts etc. that played on those fashions in the late 19th/early 20th century. And of course there's plenty of art over the centuries that helps us with what people considered to be the standard of beauty; or just the last few decades, if you want a more granulated look.

We as a society need to be more proactive in these matters. We've come a long way - we understand these things so much better than people did even just 50 or 100 years ago, it's time we tried more actively to get better at being better.

We're talking about escapist fun. I dont look to actors as a moral compass, similar to how I dont look to multi milion dollar athletes as my moral compass as they preach human rights while competing at world cups that are the height of corruption and abusers of human rights.

Theres a reason arnold schwarzenegger was cast as Conan and not Adam Sandler. Likewise in the remake theres a reason Jason Momoa was chosen over timothee chalamet. Body type and image can help sell the story you are trying to tell as much as you want to do a fat issue of sports illustrated to prove a point.

- - - Updated - - -

did you seriously just say this? YES its very much different because one just gives you a pump, while the other one is actualy genuinely dangerous for the health, and can create long lasting damage.


also... comic book characters in live action are played by HUMAN beings. so yes, realism is kinda important there, and its ironic when people bitch about CGI looking unrealistic, but also expect humans to look like exaggerated unrealistic comic book extremes.

incidentally Tenoch Huerta is 41.

P.S. for people who talk about looking like gods... I would suggest visiting a museum. online if you can't go in person. and look at how greeks and romans depicted gods and consider that their versions were ALSO extremely idealized for their time. just you know... something to ponder.

If JK Simmons can get jacked in his 50's to play a reporter in a super hero movie it isnt a big ass to ask the shirtless Sea water demi god to get down to a low fat %

[Witchblade77]

he literally did though. its just not good enough for you all even though dude worked specifically for the body type he was requested to get, including DROPPING some of the bulky muscle mass he got for his role in Narcos. dude has visible abs, and all the other markings of a fit swimmer and all you all can focus on are a couple of shots where he is not flexing.

you all are ridiculous.

[Biomega]

We're talking about escapist fun. I dont look to actors as a moral compass

That's not what I'm saying. I'm neither saying "escapist fun" is wrong or bad, nor that this is about morals. It's about the way we construct collective ideas as a society. Morals is such an idea, but that's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about how we think about bodies, collectively. What our ideals and standards are, how concepts of beauty and attractiveness function, and so on.

And let's be clear: we are ALREADY taking certain lines, and promoting certain images. It's just that this happens too automatically still, much like it did 50 or 100 years ago. All I'm saying is that we've reached a point where our self-awareness about these things should become proactive, rather than just after-the-fact analysis like it has been in the history of aesthetics so far.

Theres a reason arnold schwarzenegger was cast as Conan and not Adam Sandler.

You're again jumping immediately into extremes. After I specifically talked about how it's not about exchanging the Schwarzeneggers for Sandlers. Did you just not read that part about false binaries, or are you simply ignoring it?

No one is talking about doing it like that. It's a misrepresentation of the argument, and completely misses the point.

[RobertoCarlos]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm neither saying "escapist fun" is wrong or bad, nor that this is about morals. It's about the way we construct collective ideas as a society. Morals is such an idea, but that's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about how we think about bodies, collectively. What our ideals and standards are, how concepts of beauty and attractiveness function, and so on.

And let's be clear: we are ALREADY taking certain lines, and promoting certain images. It's just that this happens too automatically still, much like it did 50 or 100 years ago. All I'm saying is that we've reached a point where our self-awareness about these things should become proactive, rather than just after-the-fact analysis like it has been in the history of aesthetics so far.


You're again jumping immediately into extremes. After I specifically talked about how it's not about exchanging the Schwarzeneggers for Sandlers. Did you just not read that part about false binaries, or are you simply ignoring it?

No one is talking about doing it like that. It's a misrepresentation of the argument, and completely misses the point.

Im not ignoring anything, the subject itself is rather simple even though there are complexities surrounding it.

Often the question is asked of is art going too far when in regards to the artists health.

Christain Bale for example is someone whos dramatic weight losses and gains have created a notoriety around him and is like a marker of his "commitment" but really he needed to do that as part of his process of creating a character. It wasnt until speaking with Gary Oldman who had recently played Winston Churchil in a fat suit that he realised it was possible to play these extreme characters without risking your personal health.

The actor playing Numor is coming into an environment where the likes of chris evans and chris hemsworth DID do sterioids AND had the genetics to back it up and hes competing against that. Is it fair? No. But when has hollywood and audiences ever been fair?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The Dave Bautista Bodyshaming is back in vogue again now that the Guardians Holiday Special is out.

People fucking suck.

[Biomega]

Often the question is asked of is art going too far when in regards to the artists health.

That's not the (main) point, though. Sure it sucks that artists sometimes feel pressured into endangering their health, but the larger issue at stake here isn't the artists - it's the society itself, and what problems can arise from a focus on certain aesthetics. If this was purely about a handful of actors maybe having to cut water for a bit that'd still suck, but it wouldn't nearly be as big a deal. But that's NOT what it's about.

Is it fair? No. But when has hollywood and audiences ever been fair?

Just as aside, this is a TERRIBLE way to argue. "Life's not fair, so let's keep doing what we're doing" is about the most vapid, inane position one can take. Can we change everything? No. Can we change the things we can change overnight? Also no. But is that a reason to just shrug and accept everything as it is? FUCK NO. In what world would that even be a consideration.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Just as aside, this is a TERRIBLE way to argue. "Life's not fair, so let's keep doing what we're doing" is about the most vapid, inane position one can take. Can we change everything? No. Can we change the things we can change overnight? Also no. But is that a reason to just shrug and accept everything as it is? FUCK NO. In what world would that even be a consideration.

Brings this to mind: