Something upset me today. /Film plugged an article on WhatCulture! that was a nerd rant about "The 10 Golden Rules of Superhero Movies". The guy who wrote the list has no idea what he's talking about. He starts off with valid points, but misses the mark because of a lack of knowledge. Normally, I wouldn't want to enable the Streisand Effect, but rather than copy his content, I'll just post my response here.

10. Nerds have no wrath.

9. Reboots are going to happen. Studios want to make money. Put your man pants on and get over it.

8. Canon must change to fit into a movie. The film *adaptation* becomes its own canon. They exist in their own universe. Also, Doctor Doom was inspired by Ultimate Doom (see Nick Fury)

7. Realism vs willing suspense of disbelief. This guy understands (or pretends) to understand story telling, but can't let a movie lie to him. But he has a point with the Superman baby.

6. He's more right than wrong on this one, so I'll let it go.

5. Casting is a business decision, not an art decision. Man pants. On.

4. He's clearly never read The Ultimates. While Marvel had no obligation to live up to the joke, they didn't just make things up by casting SLJ. Just because a white character becomes black or anything else in an *adaptation*, that doesn't make it affirmative action. If it's a good fit, it's a good fit. I agree somewhat with Idris Elba as a Norse god, but he's rarely on screen anyway, so who cares? Crazy people.

3. Costumes do have to be *adapted* in something much more function than spandex. He knows this. He just doesn't like how the costumes look. Because he's a certified costume critic. Daredevil's costume wasn't that bad compared to others, and his caption joke was actually in Frank Miller's story. Also, this guy mixes up eyeliner and eye black. Never played sports. Figures.

2. Deadpool was a disaster. No argument here. But Bullseye's scar was inspired by Bendis and Maleev's DD series. Again, this nerd doesn't actually read comics.

1. This is where he knows nothing about movies. There won't ever be a Fantastic Four / Avengers crossover in the forseeable future because the film rights to FF (plus DD/Elektra, X-Men et al.) are owned by FOX. The Avengers characters' film rights are owned by Marvel/Disney. Spider-Man and Ghost Rider are owned by Sony. Of course all of DC's film rights are owned by parent WB. Film companies aren't going to let their film rights get infringed (and they won't license them) to make the fans happy (or angry) with a crossover. It doesn't work that way. Someone made this mistake at Hall H at SDCC 2010. He asked if Wolverine would be in Captain America during WWII. Impossible. FOX won't license the rights to their property to be in someone else's movie. This guy doesn't understand that. He's concerned that Chris Evans has a conflict of interest because he plays two Marvel characters. Not an issue. Less of an issue for Halle Berry to play Storm and Catwoman. The list goes on forever of actors who have played multiple comic characters in films. The world moves on, the "angry nerd with a wrath" just doesn't.

I was hoping to save this for later, but we ought to save the more Christmas-oriented movies for closer to the big day. For now, we've got Die Hard.

NYPD officer John McClane is visiting his estranged wife in LA for Christmas, but her work's office party is interrupted by German terrorists. It's up to McClane to sneak through ducts and offices to take out those dirty Krauts - all without his shoes. This movie catapulted Bruce Willis's career into the action genre and spawn a film franchise for Die Hard. This movie doesn't have too much to do with Christmas, but it takes place during Christmas. That makes it a pretty strong theme. McClane is Santa and the terrorists were bad this year - so they get bullets in the head.

Say what you want to about Die Hard not being a "Christmas movie", it's one of the first things that comes to my mind. Even not as a Christmas movie, this is a great reminder of '80s action cinema. It's a reminder of a simpler time when you could take guns on airplanes and drink at work. If you plan on celebrating Christmas with a bang, this is a must watch movie.

Buy the Die Hard Collection and support Falling Debris!

Billy receives a mysterious pet from his father for Christmas, known as a mogwai (voiced by Howie Mandell). Billy disobeys the only two rules that come with mogwais: don't feed them after midnight, and don't get them wet. One mogwai becomes many, and after they feast, they transform into gremlins, legendary creatures of mischief. Billy must save the town from the small troublemakers and win the girl of his dreams.

A fantastic start to a Christmas marathon, since it only vaguely has to do with Christmas. This is wholesome family fun, with only some slapstick violence... until the Gremlins get melted into puddles of ooze. Something about old Spielberg movies having suprisingly gross effects, it really takes me back. It's got a little something for everyone: wacky humor, dangerous monsters, and a racist old man. It takes more than a few shots at '80s pop culture references before a tragic Christmas death story. I rarely remember to put this on my marathon list, but I did this year, so make sure you revisit Gremlins this Christmas.

Of course, Gremlins 2 was made shortly after and takes place on New Year's Eve in the big city, so I might have to revisit that when the time comes.

 Side note: Imagine if Weta remade this. Mind. Blown.

Trivia

Two movies on the theater marquee:

• A Boy's Life - draft name for E.T. The Extraterrestrial
• Watch the Skies - draft name for Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Billy greets a Dr. Moreau on the street.

Buy Gremlins and support Falling Debris!

Thursday is typically video game day, but I can't deny Thor his big day to review Marvel's film... Thor.

Along with Captain America later this year, Thor is Marvel's next big installment in the franchise leading up to The Avengers (see: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk). In hindsight, Thor serves more as a plot point in The Avengers than a standalone story. The god of thunder himself is portrayed by Chris Hemsworth, described as an Australian "hunk of beef" who hasn't seen much of the US limelight until now (see: George Kirk in Star Trek). He certainly fits the bill physically and brings the brash nature of a young god who knows how powerful he is. His brazen nature is what gets himself exiled to Earth by his father, Odin. His experience on Earth as a mortal teaches him the value of a real hero - one that fights with his heart instead of his sword hammer. By defeating his evil brother, Thor saves Earth, regains his powers, and wins the heart of a young maiden. Sound pretty typical?

Asgard restored in recent comicsFollowing his exile after instigating hostility between the Asgard and Frost Giants, Thor immediately encounters Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist (nurse in the comics) seeking evidence of wormholes. She immediately falls for the god of muscle thunder, but given the circumstances and Natalie Portman's sincere oggling of Hemsworth, it's hard to believe that it's anything more than physical attraction. I think we're lucky that director Brannon Braga is sophisticated enough to spare us the nude Terminator type of transportation. Unfortunately, in the comics, Jane Foster is only useful when interacting with Donald Blake and in the film, her goals of understanding the "science" behind Asgard inter-world transportation is irrelevant. Her research gives SHIELD something to steal from her, which in turn gives Thor a reason to help her, but the whole concept doesn't survive the "5 Why" approach. The writers obviously wanted to make Jane Foster more than just a simple damsel in distress and give her a reason for being, but their execution was ultimately a failure. Portman, as talented as she has been in Star Wars and V For Vendetta, doesn't exceed, let alone meet, expectations for a strong female lead. Aside from her amount of screentime, I could easily compare her significance on the plot to that of Sif or Frigga.

Odin? Or Satanic Iron Man?As a Norse mythology enthusiast and reader of Thor comics, my biggest problem is the depiction of Asgard. While Jotunheim is beautifully visualized as a desolate kingdom in a barren ice wasteland, Asgard is a beaming, advanced civilization mixed with mystics and technology. It's a bit too advanced for a race of people who originally fit into our civilization at a time when we were still wearing leather pelts and chainmail. In this, the Asgard (I don't say "Asgardians", it's stupid) wear solid armor, plated in gold and silver to the extent that they look like car parts or refrigerator doors. To some extent it's functional, but it just seems excessive to make Asgard look like a futuristic city we might imagine Atlantis (whether it be the Disney or Stargate variety) looks like. The costume design could have benefited from a leather and buckle base under all that metal accent to give the armor a more functional and less decorative look. The city structures could have been made from polished stone instead of precious metals. It's postulated that advanced humanoids would seem like magic to viking-era humans, but this over the top. The Bifrost entrance is a strange dome fitted with what can only be described as a spinning cannon that "shoots" travelers to their destination. I can't give you a much better alternative, but putting that much "technology" into something that should be mystic is superfluous.

My other problem, while understandably difficult to execute, is the occasional appearance of Thor's human alter-ego(s). In the film, Thor is 100% god, which creates room for a culture shock when he is banished to Midgard (you humans know it as Earth). In the comics, Thor occasionally shares his existence with a human alter-ego, whether it be Dr. Donald Blake (mentioned in the film) and Jake Olsen. The beauty of having an alter-ego is that it introduces a flaw and vulnerability in Thor's character, but also perspective to understand the suffering of the mortal realm. It's a great dichotomy that you don't even see in traditional superheroes like Spider-Man and Superman who just have one consciousness. I know that it would have been difficult to pull off in a single film and would likely be as successful in execution as Venom in Spider-Man 3, but hopefully they try to introduce it the future, whether that be in The Avengers or any Thor sequel.

Thor saw some controversy when it was revealed that black actor Idris Elba would be playing Heimdall, the guardian of the Bifrost Bridge. Conservative Christians (wait for it) were outraged that a black actor was playing a fictional adaptation of a Norse god in a comic book movie. Obviously, everyone is allowed to be mad at anything, but given how little significance Heimall has in the film, there's really nothing to worry about. He's obviously an important character, but this film makes a clear distinction between major characters and everyone else; Heimdall doesn't fit into that first list.

Tom Hiddleston gave us a fairly good Loki, playing it surprisingly straight as a god of mischief that doesn't laugh or barely crack a smile. I was curious if they were going to explore his origins and they did fairly well. He definitely has the most conflict of any of the characters, which almost begins to make us more sympathetic towards him than Thor. It's clear that he wants to manipulate his way to power, but it's hard to tell how far he's though his plan through. I would have loved to see him get absolutely hysterical during his transformations, but his calm demeanor puts in the Doctor Doom category of villain.

As a narrative, there are a lot of missing opportunities to explain characters and setting to the audience. Ancillary characters are often not referred to by name and other Norse words are even mocked by the film's token dumb character Darcy ("meow meow?"). Knowing that many of the proper nouns in the film are in a foreign language that is hard for English speakers, it's going to rank high on the "description instead of actual name" scale. I hate it when people describe a character as "the bad guy" or "Thor's brother" and even though there are difficult names, the creative team could have found ways of making names stick in the audience's head. The only real hard word is "Mjolnir" and even that doesn't need to be mentioned. Assuming that The Avengers won't involve much of Asgard and its inhabitants short of Thor and Loki, it's not a loss that we don't have time to connect to the Warriors Three, Sif, or even Odin.

From a cinematic perspective, I found that many of the scenes were shot at a slight disorienting angle and Asgard scenes often exhibited a noticeable amount of lens flare (we'll measure that as 0.4 Abrams). It was inconsistent and only felt as only a way to increase suspense during unsuspenseful moments. The CGI seemed lacking in some cases, particularly weather/particle effects where there was a lot of swirling dust. The effects just seemed unfinished and unrefined compared to the overall polish of the film. Of course, it wouldn't be a summer blockbuster if it weren't in 3D. Unfortunately, it's a post-production conversion that succeeds and fails in various regards. I saw it in 2D because I'm a traditionalist who appreciates the film more than the gimmicks. Luckily, the folks at Cinemablend have put some effort into helping you decide if 3D is right for you in this case as well as reviewing both versions independently. I don't feel like I missed out on anything.

Thor and Donald BlakeDoes Thor live up to the hype and pave the way for a successful Avengers film? Between the goofy dialogue and clunky structure, Thor felt like a bad sci-fi movie mixed with Power Rangers action. It's certainly entertaining and established several plot connections to not only The Avengers, but Captain America as well. It's structured well, but Kenneth Branagh isn't a master of sci-fi/fantasy blockbusters. However, Thor won't have the support of the Asgard environment in The Avengers to contextually fit him in on his own, so hopefully bringing him back to Earth will mean assimilating him into human culture. Although much of the Avengers-themed films have shown more references to the Ultimate Universe than Mainstream, it looks like we're getting a traditional Thor, full of hubris and hormones. It's definitely got something for all audiences (except old people) and is even more suited towards non-nerds. I've gotten a lot of "I'm not really into Thor or comics in general" responses from people who are neglecting that even though most people don't read comics, Spider-Man, Iron Man and Batman films have been some of the most successful films of the past decade. If anything, these films are getting more people into comics, albeit as a fad. The less you know about Thor, the better. You won't nitpick things like I do and you'll probably enjoy the Hollywood-ness more. It's worth seeing, but with rising theater costs, maybe a matinée.

SPOILERS

One cameo I didn't expect was SHIELD sharpshooter Clint Barton preparing to take out Thor during his attempt to reclaim Mjolnir. It was slowly and effectively revealed who he was, giving nerds an opportunity to be pleasantly surprised when the then-unidentified agent was passing up firearms for a compound bow. Coulson later refers to him by his given name, so no confirmation that he's already part of the Avengers Initiative. Aside from that, you have to love Stan Lee making his token appearance, this time as a local accidentally destroying a pickup truck while trying to pull the hammer from its place. One of my favorite writers, J. Michael Stracyznski, who carried Amazing Spider-Man for almost 8 years and successfully revived Thor from Ragnarok, made an appearance, but I missed it.

As with all the Avengers-themed films, there is a post-credits scene, this time showing Erik Selvig (actor Stellan Skarsgård) navigating a secret lab and encountering Nick Fury (awesome how Sam Jackson is getting paid to show up in 5 minute scenes that most people will never see). I honestly don't know why Selvig is in this other than his in-film knowledge of SHIELD and it's either him or Darcy, but Fury shows him a relic they've found - the Cosmic Cube, following which we see a reflection of Loki in a mirror influencing Selvig's dialogue. I'm sorry, nerdy man-couple behind us in the theater, it's not the Infinity Gauntlet. A clear cube does not a glove make. However, you're probably wondering how the Cosmic Cube fits into this. Last year at Comic Con, we saw footage from Captain America showing Red Skull raiding a Norse tomb specifically seeking the Cube, only to find a fake. Obviously Thor and Captain America are coming in as a pair to further develop the upcoming Avengers film, presumably with Loki and the Cosmic Cube factoring in. There's already been one confirmed script leak from The Avengers, which is resulting in re-writes and claims that someone has details on some major spoilers.

Some might say that I only review things that I gush over, so I thought it was time for a bona fide turd anchor. Jay Roach, the mind behind the Austin Powers and Meet the Fockers series, probably had to pay some bills and directed Movie Dinner For Schmucks.

An adaptation of 1998 French film (and originally a play), Dinner For Schmucks is an awkwardly bad comedy poking fun of the stupid people that unfortunately share this planet with us. Tim Conrad is fighting for a promotion, but the boss uses a specific method to weed out dedicated applicants - a dinner, a competition in which each guest brings along complete imbecile and they watch the madness unfold. Whoever brings the stupidest, craziest person wins. Tim runs into Barry Speck (literally), and discovers that Barry has the (hopefully) uncommon hobby of taxiderming mice and creating artistic diaroamas with them. Tim sees it as a message from God (or a chicken, depending on the metaphor) and immediately invites him to the dinner, against the wishes of his fiancee. With the help of Barry, Tim saves his relationship and makes the most unusual friend.

The film asks the question of how far you would go for a promotion, while enjoying the "pleasure to laugh at the misfortune of others." Unbeknownst to the characters in the film, the misfortune is actually ours. Too bad they can't enjoy our misery. I'd like to say that the one redeeming quality is Zach Galifianakis, but his performance as a crazy person is surprisingly underwhelming. Compared to The Hangover and Due Date, his character Therman leaves much to be desired. Additional guest stars include Jemaine Clement and Ron Livingston, but even the intentional outrageousness of their characters fails to impress.

To be fair, Paul Rudd is a great straight man. In a world of buffoons, he keeps us holding onto the world as it spins out of control. In contrast to his seriousness, the comedic performances certainly are funny

As uncommon as this type of dinner probably is, I'd like to think that if I was in Tim's position, I'd certainly exploit a group of eccentrics for the dinner entertainment, let alone the promotion. I feel like I should have learned some crucial moral lesson here about respecting others, but it's just not there.

Dinner For Schmucks? More like Movie For Schmucks.