Regardless, I prefer not to make assumptions until someone has the disc in hand to confirm. Thanks.
Are we having a Josh vs. Josh argument brewing.
Whoever said anything about assumptions. I simply said precedent was on the side of it having shifting ratios. Maybe we’re misreading each other because it feels a little like there’s an argument brewing and I’m trying my best to avoid one.
Because that's the one they advertise on the main menu? I didn't know there was a fixed version until this morning.I don’t understand why this isn’t more widely known - lots of complaints from people in this thread about shifting aspect ratios and yet it seems no one bothers to choose the version that doesn’t feature them.
Making changes for the sake of diversity and inclusiveness, it seems. In the comics, the character is a white man whose hearing is just fine.Watched "The Eternals" last night. Oy. Vat a mess!
Am I crazy, or is there no logical reason for one of The Eternals to be deaf? They're some sort of hybrid robot--why would The Celestials create a deaf warrior? And if the Eternal was defective (deaf), why was it not destroyed and a robot that was perfect substituted? Because they're not robots in the comics, a deaf Eternal might occur. But they've changed it for the film, so how could it happen? Why would it happen? Someone help me understand what the film makers were doing.
I'm all for diversity and inclusiveness when it doesn't fly in the face of basic logic. That the Celestials would build a superpowered synthetic being that cannot hear simply makes no sense.People seem to accept all the changes to the characters without batting an eyelash (well, with the possible exception of The Mandarin), but when those changes are related to gender or ethnicity, then suddenly there's grumbling against diversity or inclusiveness.
Yet the whole reason they're on Earth is to foster the birth of a Celestial that would destroy the entire planet and everything on it. But really, trying to chase down too much logic in the typical superhero film is a bit of a fool's errand. Perhaps it's because the movie didn't really engage me, but for some reason, the flaws in Eternals stand out more than usual.For me, the biggest question brought up by the movie is why the Celestials wouldn't want the Eternals to help against Thanos. Sure, they bring up the point that the Eternals' one and only job is to fight the Deviants and not otherwise get involved with humanity and its affairs.
Most filmmakers don't care about logic, they're more concern about entertaining audiences. Obviously, that tactic didn't work for you with this movie.Yet the whole reason they're on Earth is to foster the birth of a Celestial that would destroy the entire planet and everything on it. But really, trying to chase down too much logic in the typical superhero film is a bit of a fool's errand. Perhaps it's because the movie didn't really engage me, but for some reason, the flaws in Eternals stand out more than usual.
I'm sure that deafness not being a considered a defect was part of it. The origin of both the Eternals and the Deviants is quite different in the movie than it was in the books, especially Kirby's. There, they live apart from mankind in Olympia and Lemuria, but the film makes the point at the beginning that these Eternals were created to live among men. Which is one reason why the diverse races and abilities makes sense in this incarnation....maybe, just maybe, the point is that her losing her hearing wasn't seen as a "defect" that required fixing.
For me, the biggest question brought up by the movie is why the Celestials wouldn't want the Eternals to help against Thanos.