Well, the comic it comes from (The Dark Knight Strikes Back) is widely regarded as a bit of a mess (the art is pretty terrible and the story is all over the place). Shame, since it's a sequel to one of the most important graphic novels ever (The Dark Knight Returns).

And then there's the Goddamn Batman.

Basically, Miller is insane.

That seems a bit much for comic books but i have no clue "how real" comic books get as i don't read them.

I don't see that as someone being raped. I think it's more someone who wants to feel dominated. There is quite a market for very powerful people paying good money to be dominated. I've had a friend or two (strong females) who have talked about wanting/enjoying being dominated by lovers. In the real world people don't enjoy being raped but many powerful people get off on being dominated/controlled so i tend to see it from that perspective as it seems more realistic. Although I can see how it could be seen as rape. Hard to know for sure without more background info.

However still seems odd for a comic book.

Curious if Miller has said anything regarding this? I did a quick google and didn't find anything on the implication that Superman raped Wonder Woman.
"In Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again, which also takes place in the future, Clark and Diana had a superpowered daughter called Lara, after Superman’s Kryptonian mother, whom they protected from the government. In typical Miller style, the relationship was memorably… intense:" http://comicsalliance.com/the-many-loves-of-wonder-woman-steve-trevor-nemesis-batman-superman-romance/

Anyway just my two cents

And then there was the time that Frank Miller implied Superman raped Wonder Woman.... and she was ok with it.

"Where is the HERO who threw me to the GROUND and TOOK me as his rightful PRIZE?" (Miller's emphasis, not mine).

Ugggh, fucking really? I know she was into bondage and all, but I think that's taking it a bit far

The first trailer for Ep. 7 did such a better job of grabbing my interest than this one did. The title is intriguing though, as is Luke's last line. Honestly, I had kind of hoped for it to go in this direction back in Ep. 7--that the Knights of Ren were a group of Force users that had determined the biggest cause of strife in the galaxy was the constant battling between Jedi and Sith and therefore sought to eradicate both groups in order to restore the balance. Would have made Kylo Ren a waaaaaaay more interesting villain. Instead, though, they made about as generic of a Star Wars film as they could have by just copy-pasting plot points from previous films. So I'm pretty skeptical about Ep. 8 being any better.

It's always funny when something with a long comic history comes into the mainstream and everyone debates it like it's something new that only exists because of other shows that exist in recent pop culture.

The real question is: Why are the Defenders -- who are basically Dr. Strange's "Avengers" -- comprised of the 2000s Marvel Knights minus Moonknight?

Why not Moonknight instead of Iron Fist?

It's not as simple as "punch-em-up" versus the graphic novel, artsy Alias side of Marvel. The Netflix version of The Defenders is weird and I'm just hoping they tie in Cumberbatch (Dr. Strange) and the "Matrixesque" side of Marvel with what is the "Lovecraftian" side of Marvel. The Defenders are more this dark horror magick side who fought against the Nameless One and his legions.

Of course he's right lol -- just like it's right saying that people who had more money than Charles Manson made him jealous enough to direct his cult to murder Sharon and friends, even though he was mad at the prior rich fucks at the same residence.

Great,It's so brilliant how Bob Knight describes why idiots do what a psychopath tells them about their own insecurities. Jesus. When was the media NOT a shithole?

I knew of the Tacoma Narrows and Citicorp tower, but the others were new and interesting.

Sir Thomas Bouch got to keep his knighthood (is it even possible to un-knight someone?), but he died 18 months after the Tay bridge disaster.

Man, I'm suuuper late to this party....
Anyways, Die Hard is and is not a Christmas movie at the same time. And it depends on your definition what makes a Christmas movie.
I'm gonna take an insane detour here that'll make sense.
Is Star Wars Episode 4 a science fiction movie?
That setting is futuristic, sure, must be sci-fi then. Lasers, Spaceships, Robots, the works. The checklist is done. Sci-Fi.
But what are the themes it touches upon, what is the story?
A young farmer's boy (naturally an adoptred orphan) named Luke is dragged into a rebellion against an evil king (Palpatine) by accident. When the boy get's hold of a pretty princess' (RIP Carrie Fisher) message to an old ally and menthor (Obi) through the fault of her two comic-relief servants (Robot-slaves), he decides to seek the adventure he's yearning for. He finds the old man (by fucking up) and both seek the next harbor to board a ship to join the resistance. The hire smuggler/pirate/bandit/nerfherder Han and his foreign friend Chewie and cross paths with the black knight Lord Vader, the evil kings enforcer. Hijinks ensue, princess rescued, the magic castle/ship/train of the evil king get's destroyed and everyone gets a medal.
What's exactly sci-fi here?
That could play out in medieval times. Or ancient greece. Or the wild west. Or on Christmas.
The setting and the genre are two different things and both determine what you'll label a story with.
Alien is a horror movie, a slasher. Aliens is a war movie. Alien³ is a horror movie of the animal-gone-maneater kind. Alien: Resurrection is a disaster movie (hihi).
They're all sci-fi, like Star Wars. Because of the setting.
Now look at Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 2 Episode 9 'The Measure Of A Man'.
Lasers, spaceships, robots, the usual. What is it about?
A Robot who's so sophisticated that he has to go to trial to prove he's not property but a real boy. Sure, you'll say, I've seen Pinocchio and I can see african men argue the same stuff in the 18th century. The point of the story is not only that is humanity is questioned, the point is he's an artificial lifeform. The question is not only 'What makes you a person?' but also 'When does artificial intelligence become an artificial person?'
That shit won't work in a setting without spaceships and robots. That's sci-fi because of its story.
So, setting and story are both what makes you label a movie a certain way but they're not the same.
Die Hard. Happens on Christmas. Could be Thanksgiving too. Setting interchangeable.
Story? Doesn't contain any christmas-related themes beyond two estranged family members become closer again. That could happen at a funeral as well.
I'm in my mid-thirties and I love Die Hard. It's one of the best 80's action movies. I can watch it anytime and I've seen it at least 20 times (noit joking here). But mostly in the summer. But I understand the question and its diverse answers perfectly well.
Die Hard is a christmas movie if it feels like one to you. For me, Lord of the Rings (especially Fellowship) feels like a Christmas movie to me. I've seen them all in theatres in December, I watched them on VHS and Blu-Ray only in December so far. They have fuck all to do with the occasion but this year was the first one I didn't watch any of them in December. And I feel I missed something this year. I'm not sure I can watch them at this time of the year.

@Januari I mean think about it, the real Bob Knight (the coach) is a ...nice...person... So this videosift guy is just a caricature of that.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*ban2.0
Asif Mushtaq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lx1iWo3kAw

*related= http://videosift.com/video/TRANSFORMERS-5-The-Last-Knight-IMAX-Featurette-2017-HD
*ban1.0
Asif Mushtaq
http://videosift.com/video/TRANSFORMERS-5-The-Last-Knight-IMAX-Featurette-2017-HD

@gorillaman

The only thing I see failing completely is your absurd attempt at rationalizing your bigotry--more aptly labelled in this case by its proper name: Islamophobia. I don't for a second believe what I'm about to post will change your mind about Islam or Muslims in general but I do believe that this kind of bigotry needs to be called out when it rears its ugly head. And my, you went full ugly there, didn't you... comparing Muslims to rats and seriel killers? Classy.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, there are in fact Muslims who do not believe in God but for a variety of reasons (keeping peace with religious family members, maintaining a connection to their cultural heritage, networking, etc.) continue to attend services and identify as Muslims. This is true of many believers in all the major religions, including Christianity and Judaism.

You see, as much as you'd like Muslims to all be boogeymen coming to bring Sharia law down on the rest of world, anyone who has actually met and talked with a Muslim (and god-forbid actually visited one of the countries StukaFox listed) realizes that Muslims, like all people, are extremely diverse (again, despite your protestations to the contrary).

Indeed there are Sharia zealots. But there are also moderates and reformers and even liberal radicals. Mostly, though its just a lot of people trying to get on with their lives the best way they know how.

Now, I find most religious beliefs to be repugnant. However, I don't find the ideas expressed in the Koran to be much more repugnant than, say, the Bible. In fact, I'm less concerned about what is written in supposedly holy books and more concerned with how believers attempt to implement those ideas in reality. I do indeed find particular forms of this implementation, such as forcing women to wear a bhurka, disturbing (just as I find Christians' attacks on LGBT rights disturbing). It's important to note, though, that such practices are NOT universal. For example, in some Islamic countries like Malaysia it's enough to simply cover your hair with a colorful scarf.

On the other hand, other practices that you mentioned such as Female Genital Mutilation and virginity tests ARE NOT Islamic. FGM predates Islam and is still practiced in the locales where it originated (places such as Mali, for instance) that now happen to be Islamic majority areas. The Indonesian virginity tests as well do not stem from some universal commandment in Islam but from Indonesian culture which sees women as "the symbol of the nations moral guardians".

Again, I don't suppose any of this makes any difference to you. You want to see the world in black and white, us versus them, "rats" and "serial killers" versus you, the white knight who is just trying to save us all from our cultural relativistic blindness. And so the shades of grey I am describing to you will likely go overlooked. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but I suspect the reality is I'll receive some lengthy reply that can be distilled down to, "Islam bad, hur." Or perhaps, "All religions bad, but Islam worst, hur." To which I can only reply, that demonizing the practitioners of any particular religion is unlikely to bring about the reforms you seek.

I really hope DC can turn this one into a good film for a change.
The last decent DC movie was Dark Knight Rises and even that has huge story problems.
Their TV stuff is much above what they do on the big screen.