<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for liamk</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/liamk/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/liamk/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:32:10 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Natalie Portman to slay zombies, flirt with Mr. Darcy</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/12/11/natalie-portman-to-slay-zombies-flirt-with-mr-darcy/#comment-25507866</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It upsets me how hot that video is. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:32:10 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &lt;i&gt;Venom&lt;/i&gt; movie may be antiheroic reboot and other tidbits</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/10/09/venom-movie-may-be-antiheroic-reboot-and-other-tidbits/#comment-19706772</link><description>&lt;p&gt;See, yes the possibilities with storytelling here are exciting - except they're not likely to be able to use much Spiderman here, which limits things for me. Not that Venom isn't a visually impressive and fairly badass character, but an hour and a half of pure Venom action doesn't sound all that appealing. Potential for continuity between this and Spiderman 4 promising, though.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:29:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Nikolaj Arcel jumps into &lt;i&gt;Deadman&lt;/i&gt;</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/09/01/nikolaj-arcel-jumps-into-deadman/#comment-15733386</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Wonderful. Really. A shame about the timing of the announcement, but this could be incredibly cool.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:35:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: A &lt;i&gt;Fantastic&lt;/i&gt; Fresh Start</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/08/31/a-fantastic-fresh-start/#comment-15706380</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hm. This feels a little like territory-marking, more than anything else.&lt;br&gt;It's been noted that most of Marvel's character rights were given out 'in perpetuity' - it'll be interesting to see exactly what the means against Disney in the months to follow.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:47:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Disney Is Buying Marvel</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/08/31/disney-is-buying-marvel/#comment-15699194</link><description>&lt;p&gt;On reflection - and assuming the 'hands off' delegation of Marvel stands - this makes sense both ways, fanboy bitchery notwithstanding. Disney has access to a larger audience, which their usual fare doesn't generally touch, and is primed to make the Marvel merchandise - action figures and beyond - available in every theme park and Disney Store on the planet. Marvel, of course, gets all the cash and coverage benefits mentioned above. &lt;br&gt;If there isn't interference in the storytelling - and why should there be? - this could work out sweetly.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:06:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Disney Is Buying Marvel</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/08/31/disney-is-buying-marvel/#comment-15650317</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm...conflicted. I mean, yes, awesome that Marvel Studios now has solid bankroll support, but surely the ties to Disney will have some impact on the sort of films that are going to get churned out?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:09:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: &lt;i&gt;Wolverine 2&lt;/i&gt; gets a screenwriter</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/08/16/wolverine-2-gets-a-screenwriter/#comment-15146358</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If the sequel has nothing to do with the prequel beyond Hugh Jackman, it could be pretty okay.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:56:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Jay Chou is Kato in &lt;i&gt;The Green Hornet&lt;/i&gt;</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/08/07/jay-chou-is-kato-in-the-green-hornet/#comment-14496200</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm going to watch this, and there will be things to commend it - but I'm honestly a little unsure about Seth Rogen. Diaz is a consistent, if less-than-stellar actress; I don't know that Rogen can be convincingly 'serious' beyond his capacity as the straight man in comedy. I'd imagine seeing 'Funny People' would inform this opinion better, but as of yet I'm a little sceptical.  &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:41:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Warren Ellis scripting Arthurian epic</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/07/28/warren-ellis-scripting-arthurian-epic/#comment-13775759</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'd rather hoped the 'epic' genre would remain in hibernation a little while longer - and with 'King Arthur' still relatively fresh in audience's minds, I wonder how this Arthurian foray is planning on being different. Steam punk Arthur? It is Ellis, after all. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:20:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Director Sam Raimi to delve into the world of &lt;i&gt;Warcraft&lt;/i&gt;</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/07/22/director-sam-raimi-to-delve-into-the-world-of-warcraft/#comment-13194128</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I think the bigger question here is how Raimi's going to work a Campbell cameo into this one.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:39:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Natalie Portman is Jane Foster in Branagh&amp;#8217;s &lt;i&gt;Thor&lt;/i&gt;</title><link>http://www.moviemake-out.com/2009/07/13/natalie-portman-is-jane-foster-in-branaghs-thor/#comment-12681656</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm okay with this. She can clearly play the more intimate roles, and she's fared well in the larger, more CGI-tacular type scenes - in fact, she might be the first credible female lead in a super-film since Pfeiffer (with respects to Maggie Gyllenhaal, but she was overwhelmed by better and bolder actors to the point of being forgettable).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It'd be fun to see some aesthetic contrast between Foster and the Sif/Valkyrie types.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">LiamK</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:49:48 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>