Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About mormont

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 05/10/1972

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

30,510 profile views
  1. I'll probably be up for the Suemonlinna tour too. Sounds fun.
  2. You're all over the place here. The odds come from names put forward in the media: so you're saying the media were promoting lots of male candidates at the same time as they were insisting that it absolutely had to be a woman? Really, just back down gracefully. You don't have to praise the BBC for the choice, but at least give them credit for making it freely.
  3. Vulture has time to pick up the phone. Shocker is in the area because of the earlier tracking.
  4. That was not my point. My point is that the fact that the odds on that particular candidate were equal with those of the person who was actually cast, shows that the media and the fans considered it just as likely that a bland male actor would be cast as a woman. This completely invalidates the idea that the BBC did this only because they were forced into it by the expectations of those same media and fans. The expectation of a male actor was about equal. There aren't articles arguing for it, of course: there don't need to be. But any assessment of the likely candidates (as opposed to articles explicitly arguing for a change) included several male candidates as serious contenders. Richard Ayoade, Luke Treadaway, David Harewood, Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear, Ben Daniels, all were short odds at one point or another. Clearly, the BBC did have a choice, and they cast a woman because they chose to. The idea that they were 'forced' into it is rubbish.
  5. Blethers. Everyone and their uncle expected Kris Whatsisname to be announced. He was joint favourite and had been extensively linked for weeks. Had he, or one of the many other male candidates, been announced, some people would have been disappointed, as they were last time, and the time before, and the time before, and so on. But the idea that the BBC had no choice simply does not remotely fit the facts. It's a narrative you've come up with after the fact so you can grumble about this even though you know it's a good decision. Nothing more.
  6. Very sad news. I was and am a big fan. So many good movies, and not one that's less than interesting, IMO. Very few people can say they definitively reimagined a classic monster in the way that Romero did for zombies. Almost everything you 'know' about zombies comes from his films. So his cultural impact is enormous. But his skill as a director is impressive too. His films are entertaining, but smart too. RIP George.
  7. Can I just say I'd forgotten how much I love Krystal. I mean, she's the comic relief, but she also takes absolutely zero shit. Tatiana must have an absolute ball playing her.
  8. Comics-wise, Spidey is stronger and more agile than Cap - but Cap's fighting skills are vastly superior, and he has a lot of experience fighting and defeating physically stronger opponents. I can't think of a time off-hand when the two have actually fought in the comics, and of course the answer to who wins? is always whichever option serves the story best. But in the MCU, yeah, Cap should be able to defeat Spidey IMO.
  9. That boat sailed a long time ago. If Appollo 13 qualifies, Hidden Figures certainly does too.
  10. It's certainly easily missed because the show doesn't explain it very well, but the people Bilquis absorbs aren't dead as such. We see a flash of the guy she absorbs in the first episode, who basically appears to be in some alternate dimension frozen in his ecstasy. This might be effectively the same as killing in some ways but in terms of a series focusing on religion and gods, it's a distinction that does seem to matter.
  11. From everything I've heard, it's the opposite of standing out: that's just what a high school in Queens would look like now.
  12. No, it doesn't: but the fact that not everyone finds something to be racist and offensive, doesn't mean that it is not in fact racist and offensive. There is no slur, however vile, that some asshole won't be willing to say isn't racist. Does that mean nothing is racist? No. It means those people are wrong.
  13. Well, everyone's entitled to their view but this is one of those cases where it doesn't really depend on whether you believe it. It's a fact that he has repeatedly used racist language and imagery, and printed the views of racists. His record on this is a disgrace. Not when that word was and is unambiguously racist, no. Again, if there's some relevant context here that excuses this, you seem unable to say what it might be, and I am completely unable to imagine what it might be, so let's assume that there isn't. The idea that this was 'accidental' we can also rule out as just ridiculous. That's very sad, but it doesn't make the things he said any less racist or offensive.
  14. I have a long record of pointing out that his gormless upper-class twit act doesn't mean he's harmless, but no, don't hate him. I just look at the facts. The facts speak for themselves here. No, they're not. Those words have nothing to do with his opinion of Blair. They're simply a backdrop image for the notion of Blair escaping his domestic troubles by visiting a place where the locals will be happy to see him. What relevance does it have to his opinion of Blair that his selected image is an appalling racist caricature? You are completely unable to say, because there is none. I note you have no response to the numerous other cited examples of Johnson expressing or condoning racist language. Of course they need to be offended. Archaic or not, the word is an appallingly racist term. Are you saying you're not offended by it? That seems to me to make my point very well: racism is accepted by Conservatives if you express it like you're a relic from the 1950s. (A similar point applies to Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has somehow been adopted as the new Johnson recently: he has that isn't-he-just-quaint cult following, ignoring the fact that his political views and voting record are callous and horrible. Giving your kids stupid Latin names doesn't make you harmless.) No idea where that comes from. Bizarre. No, I don't want people burned at the stake for being racist. I just want them to stop being racist.
  15. [mod] The General forum is for discussion of the books. It is not for discussion of other GRRM projects, whether you're happy about them or not. And to be clear: if you're not, that's your right, but take the grumbling elsewhere, by which I mean not on this board. [/mod]