nakahara wrote:

So even if his stand-alone movie is not confirmed, that doesn´t mean he can´t appear in other Marvel works. 

Well, if he won't have a stand-alone movie, I don't care much about his appearing in other Marvel works. Much as I enjoyed his stunt in Avengers, the film is your typical-blockbuster-popcorn-entertainment and he has been reduced to some kind of action figure here, just like all other characters. Of course, there is the question of visibility, he has been under the radar for more than a year, so it is a good thing the audience is reminded of his existence 

Kittyhawk wrote:

I love the idea of Khan as the movie's tragic hero! Now I really must get hold of it again! 

One of the critics called Khan "shakepearean" villain and I really see him as a kind of tragic hero - or antihero, if you want.

TBH I must confess I feel very uncomfortable with STiD ending, because it seems after all Khan WAS right: the Starfleet is the enemy". It is not only Marcus: we can see that supposedly "good guys" let Khan's people rot in hibernation indefinitely, which is if fact death sentence.
Also, if Kirk's crew was taken hostage (which did happen in Star Trek beyond, but the irony was evidently lost to the producers) he still would be a "good guy" fighting for the justice, no matter what measures taken. Something about this is troubling me deeply.
The history is written by the winners...

Kittyhawk wrote:

. To me "Are you paying attention? Good. If you're not listening carefully you will miss things. Important things. I will not pause, I will not repeat myself, and you will not interrupt me. ..." sounds arrogant.

Well, if there is one thing that bothers me about TIG, it is this monologue. It doesn't make any sense in the context of the movie, because when we finally see Touring telling his story, he is "not in control" and he is very much already broken man.

Maybe I should feel offended by inaccuracies of the film - after all, my aunt's godfather worked on Enigma in the 1930s - I am always willing to make allowances when we are talking about a feature film. It is FICTION, after all. It is worse with documentaries because they pretend to be a "document" and they so often offer a very subjective version of facts.

As for arrogant: I think the film makes it clear AT is not "arrogant" but "different": once his colleagues understand it, they actually accept him and befriend him - it is another message of the film I liked very much: you can be different and still find people who will accept you as you are.

 

B. himself said he would love to do a comedy, but it is not really easy to find a good script.

I agree with many remarks above, but still, in my opinion, a biopic, even if based on real events/ characters is a feature film. If the people don't distinguish between facts and fiction it's a pity, but to require the filmmakers to adhere strictly to facts would be denying them the artistic creativity. TBH I couldn't mention a single biopic which doesn't take some liberties with the story. 
The main point, I think, is not to do a disservice to the characters the film talks about. 
From that point of view, I had strong objections against "Argo", for example, not because they made the escape of American hostages from Iran more dramatic than it was in fact, but because they minimized the role of the Canadians.
So there are many liberties in TIG, but not nearly as many as in "Enigma", for example, and I think the film scored well, because 1) it made familiar Turing's achievements to many people who knew nothing/ very little of him before  2) made it clear just how important the work of the people in Bletchley park was (how many average viewers were even aware of its existence)? 3) made a very poignant point about how devastating and horrible the anti-gay law in GB was  and how it ruined people's lives.

You are right, of course, the last we see dr Strange is credit scene, but TBH I don't consider it a part of the man movie: it is a teaser for Ragnarok, which is a completely different tale, a light comedy, and dr Strange there is not really "the same" as in Derrickson's movie. Different aesthetic, different - even if apparently the same - character. 

Kittyhawk wrote:

I think events just got away from Dr. Stephen Strange (and by the way, what's that about him no longer being a Doctor? Are academic titles not part of the name in the U.S.?)

I mean, there he was training in Kamar Taj, just experimenting (for fun, for his personal education) with the spell from the Book of Cagliostro and the Eye of Agamotto and suddenly he gets pushed into the New York Sanctum by Kaecilius, must fight for his life against K and his zealots, gets saved by a sentient cloak and his ex-girlfriend, fights some more, tries to save The Ancient One and hop, discovers that Hongkong is destroyed.

The way I see it Dr. Strange  was just scrambling, desperately trying to make the best of a bad situation in each instant. There was never a spare moment when he could have healed his hands - actually, I wouldn't be surprised if his experiment with turning back time was done with a view to going back to before the accicent. But there wasn't time for that either... (not to mention that I personally think Mordor and Wong are right and messing with time is a very bad idea)

Sorry to hear about your handicap and you are absolutely right about texting while driving - from that point of view I think the film gives a very effective warning, one is not likely to forget.

I don't think anyone ever suggested the incident has anything to do with the sacrifice: it simply put the things in motion. It is a very long journey from the hubris to the humility, and when Strange begins his training in Kamar-Taj, he is still focused on himself, only thinking about magic as an "instrument" to get back what he lost he isn't ready for being a hero, he even says so when Mordo and Wong tell him about Dormammu etc. and then he fights to save his life, not for some noble purpose - yet again Mordo tells him, rightly that "he lacks the spine".
 
So it is only in the hospital when he realizes that he could, in fact, use the magic to heal his hands, that he needs to take

Looking forward to a further discussion, although it should be probably carried on in the threads dedicated to single films.
B. said in one of the intereviews that after STiD he was being offered a lot of "villains" parts and he turned them down, because they were all alike. I guess he found Sherlock - Assange - Turing different enough to be interesting to him.
In any case, Hawking is not really arrogant, IMO. His professor was wrong in his calculations and he wanted to "show off" (now, I don't know you, but isn't it a fund to show your professor they are wrong, lol?), true, but in the end it was a lesson in humility: his mentor told him quite clearly that he should invent something himself, not just find errors in the work of other people.
 

I don't resent it, either. but the series was really very disappointing, apart from fantastic opening titles.

Ben Winshaw did get Bafta for his Richard II, but while his interpretation was excellent, it was less complex than Benedict's Richard growing up from adolescent to the monster and the production itself was, IMO, less inspired.

Well, of course we are a bit biased in a sense that we want him to win.
But... 7 nominations and no wins are really quite a lot. And let's say it: there were people who won for far less impressive performances than his.
IMO
he should have won for
Hawking
Sherlock 1 or 2
Parade's End
Imitation Game
Richard III

But he wasn't even nominated for Parade's End, lol.