- Portal goes steampunk with gorgeous gun replica (oddonion.com)
- 25 Awesomely Nerdy Tattoos in Honor of Comic-Con (bellasugar.com)
- Portal Gun Replica 3D Printed From Game Files (tomshardware.com)
As Edgar says – what can it mean? And will it star Nathan Fillion, more to the point? In this post-“Avengers“ filmic world, the hot topic is how Marvel Studios intend to follow-up on the ludicrous, record-slaying success of the first movie.
We have a sequel to “Iron Man” and “Thor” due in 2013 and “Captain America“ in 2014 – the very earliest that we might expect to see an “Avengers” follow-up is 2015 and if Edgar’s cryptic Tweet is to be taken at absolute face value, his much-ballyhooed “Ant Man“ movie might be nearer to being green-lit than previously thought. Which would give us another suitable member of the “Avengers” squad to cheer on in a couple of years, all being well.
Who is Ant Man? Marvel Wiki is your friend…
He’s not a character devoid of controversy – but I would expect that kind of thing to be RetConned out of any filmic incarnation. It’s okay for Tony Stark to have some alcohol intake problems if they serve the plot – but nobody really wants to see the next “Iron Man” play like an indirect sequel to “Leaving Las Vegas“, do they? And I kind of doubt that Marvel are going to spend any of those “Avengers” takings on shooting a film where the lead character beats up his significant heroine other.
Edgar Wright? A script by Joe Cornish? Crazy special effects and visual imagination running riot from one of the most exciting filmmakers of his generation? Can I give you the ticket money now or do I have to wait on a list?
I read this story over at The Mary Sue today and did a momentary “WTF?” after finishing it – former NASA scientist disses “Star Trek”.
Bear in mind that I’m not the biggest Trekker in the world – when I was younger, classic “Trek” was something that I endured rather than enjoyed, and felt rather slow and staid next to the glitzier, more elaborate cinematic fantasies of the post-Lucas/“Star Wars“ era. I was too young to fully appreciate the pioneering role that it played and the influence that it had on a generation of nerds, which is why I like to take time to sit down with my wife and catch up on it now, as she’s always had the good sense to be a Trekker of the highest order.
I can understand why some members of the scientific community might hate on popular culture (or aspects of it) for making their job harder and for diminishing the hard work and graft which goes into achieving scientific success – but it also makes the idea of space travel, of investing in technologies which might make our world better, of valuing the importance of ideas over superstition more accessible to an audience whose scientific knowledge started and stopped with their school career.
I’m all for the odd bit of hard science to balance out the laser swords and wise cracking androids but to blame “Star Trek” and pop-sci for diminishing science is more than a bit churlish, I think. Shouldn’t we be pouring our scorn on things which genuinely deserve it? There’s a million more offensive science denying halfwits in positions of public influence who should be picked on and remonstrated with before you go about blaming a show/franchise which probably persuaded more than a few wide-eyed junior nerds that science was a discipline that they wanted to give their lives to.
“Star Trek” is most definitely not the problem here.