Quora 2013-05-25T05:56:11-04:00 Quora http://www.news.moviefone.com/author/index.php?author=quora Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Quora Good old fashioned elbow grease. What Are the Major BBQ Styles and Regions in the US? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3329295 2013-05-23T21:29:04-04:00 2013-05-24T11:25:40-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-24-mkane.jpeg
Answer by Matthew Kane, Managing Partner, Morefield Partners


Although there are dozens of variations of BBQ throughout the US, as described in the map above, there are generally 4 main barbecue styles in the US. Here are the main differences (though they aren't set in stone, as bbq varies within each region and at different establishments):

Memphis
  • Meat of Choice: Pork
  • Wood of Choice: Hickory (Oak, Pecan, Apple, Cherry also used)
  • Famous Dish: Pork Ribs "Wet" (slathered with sauce after smoking) or "Dry" (no sauce, just dry rubbed with seasonings and smoked)
  • Sauce Style: Tomato & Vinegar Base

Texas
  • Meat of Choice: Beef
  • Wood of Choice: Oak
  • Famous Dish: Sliced Beef Brisket, Link Sausage
  • Sauce Style: Spicy & Tangy Tomato Based Sauce with Some Sweetness

Kansas City
  • Meat of Choice: Mix of All Meats (KC has influences from all other regions because of geographic location)
  • Wood of Choice: Mix
  • Famous Dish: BBQ Chicken, Ribs
  • Sauce Style: Sweet Tomato Based Sauce with Molasses

Carolinas
  • Meat of Choice: Pork
  • Wood of Choice: Hickory; Oak also used
  • Famous Dish: Pulled Pork, Whole Hog
  • Sauce Style: Vinegar Based in East; Tomato Based in West; Mustard Based also Served in Georgia & South Carolina
I have added a graphic courtesy of Joseph Boyle so as not to offend anyone as southerners take their bbq seriously.


More questions on Barbecue:]]> What Is So Great About Led Zeppelin? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3323216 2013-05-22T22:43:20-04:00 2013-05-23T11:15:14-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-23-jamescook.jpeg
Answer by James Cook, Startup Social Media Guy


Sure, The Rolling Stones had the swagger. And The Beatles had all the hit songs. But there was something about Led Zeppelin. Not just glamour, the other bands had that in equal measure. What Led Zeppelin had was force, power, mystery, that unknown factor that you don't know exists until you hear it for the first time.

Let me tell you a little story. Back in the summer, I traveled with a friend to London to see the Damien Hirst retrospective at the Tate Modern. On the way home, I decided I wanted to see Jimmy Page's house. It's just off Kensington High Street on a public footpath. [1] Anyone can walk past. And many Led Zeppelin fans do, unaware of the camouflaged CCTV cameras mounted on the exterior of the property.

Me outside Jimmy Page's house (Photo Credit: Laura J P Richardson Photography)

To put this in perspective, I love Led Zeppelin. So you'd think that when I saw Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page standing in his front garden, I'd say hello. I didn't. I stood across the road in reverential silence. Partly because I was in awe of seeing him, and partly because of that factor I mentioned before, that mystery.

To the uninitiated, Led Zeppelin are a rock group formed in late 1968 by four young British men. But once you listen to their albums, and read around the subject, you realize there is something else to Led Zeppelin. For a decade, this band ruled the music industry when it was in its golden age. They rampaged across continents, spreading mayhem and rumours as they traveled in their plane named 'The Starship'. Not even The Rolling Stones could make infamous clusters of groupies like The GTOs [2] gather to trade tales of the mysterious backstage antics that Led Zeppelin engaged in.

So, I return to the scene of me standing on a relatively quiet street in London looking at Jimmy Page. Why did I not say 'Hello' or scramble around for a leaf or something for him to autograph? I did not speak because, however big a Led Zeppelin fan I am, I'm scared of Jimmy Page.


Above is a photograph of Jimmy Page outside Boleskine House. This property sits on the banks of Loch Ness in Scotland. Legend has it that it was built on the site of a church that burnt down with its congregation inside. There are tales of an underground tunnel that leads to Boleskine Cemetery, an ancient graveyard that sits just over the tree-lined road nearby. Another Scottish legend tells the story of Lord Lovat, a Scottish hero decapitated in the Tower of London. Since Boleskine House was the nearest consecrated ground to the center of the Highlands, that is where his ghost resides. [3] Jimmy Page himself told a newspaper reporter of the severed head that haunts the corridors. Boleskine was owned by English occultist Aleister Crowley, and it was in this house that he attempted to perform one of the most powerful of occult rituals. Halfway through, energy spent, he gave up, leaving the house haunted with the unbanished demons of the netherworld. Or at least, that's how the story goes.

Aleister Crowley

The tale of Boleskine House is symptomatic of that unknown factor that makes Led Zeppelin great. No other band in history has this kind of mystery surrounding them. Perhaps only their largest influence, Robert Johnson, came close, with tales of him striking a deal with the devil in the depths of night at a crossroads in Mississippi.

One of only two known photographs of Robert Johnson

What drove the music of Led Zeppelin? Why, that would be the four English men who formed the band. And these men thrived on debauchery. One standout tale tells of a drunk, yet willing, groupie penetrated with a dead shark in a hotel room. Another more morbid tale has Jimmy Page carrying cases of whips with him on tour. It's widely known that he had relationships with underage groupies, making the existence of these cases far more sinister.

Perhaps there is one legend about Led Zeppelin that says more about their greatness than any other. For, as the whispered story goes, they all sold their soul to the devil. A blood contract, signed in exchange for instant success, mastery of the blues, and sudden fame. All of them but one: John Paul Jones. The reserved bass player eventually stopped traveling with the band, instead preferring to make his own way to each concert. In his fantasy sequence for the Led Zeppelin concert film The Song Remains The Same, he is shown at home with his wife and children. In contrast to this, John Bonham is seen drinking, raising hell in a variety of cars, motorbikes, and drag racers. Robert Plant travels to the far-flung reaches of a fantasy land to fight the hordes and rescue a maiden fair and true. Jimmy Page sits by the banks of a river in the Sussex countryside, playing an ancient English folk song. When he turns to the camera, his eyes glow a devilish red. Maybe there is some truth to the rumor after all. After John Bonham's death in 1980, the band fractured. The only member left with a semblance of normality was John Paul Jones, returning to session work as if Led Zeppelin was but a dream, perhaps a particularly bad one.



Jimmy Page's chilling sequence in The Song Remains The Same

Yet it was not only the backstage antics and occult mystery that made Led Zeppelin great. The music they created defined a genre, transforming rock music from a tired rehash of old blues standards into a whirling dervish of musical energy and primal force. Songs like Immigrant Song and Kashmir transport the listener to distant lands, while Since I've Been Loving You and Tea For One show the blues core that pervaded every recording the band made.

Led Zeppelin live was a ferocious experience, or so I've been told. John Bonham's thundering drum solos provided the counterpart to John Paul Jones's melodic keyboard pieces. Jimmy Page favored using a violin bow on his guitar, driving it across the lowest string to create deep, sonorous tones, or across the highest to generate screeching bursts of feedback. Robert Plant's voice could handle everything from the screaming introduction of Immigrant Song to the gentle enunciation of the start of Ramble On.

What is so great about Led Zeppelin? When you listen to a Led Zeppelin song, you're listening to something other than four men in a cramped studio. You're listening to fifty years of blues music driven into a frenzy by Jimmy Page's studious years of listening to every release by the American blues masters. You're listening to all the folkish tradition of the English countryside in Robert Plant's vocals. You're listening to the musical theory and melodical genius of John Paul Jones. You're listening to John Bonham, whose drumming style once lead Jimi Hendrix to comment 'Boy, you've got a right foot like a rabbit!' When you're listening to a Led Zeppelin song, you're listening to the combined output of four of the most talented musicians who ever lived, along, of course, with that unknown factor.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...
[3] Led Zeppelin: Chapter Nine: So Mote it Be

More questions on Rock Music:]]> Why Doesn't Hollywood Make Ambitious Films for Adults Anymore? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3315051 2013-05-21T17:31:16-04:00 2013-05-22T11:07:15-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.

Question Details:
Movies like The Last Emperor, The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Spartacus, and Gone With The Wind for example. Films where you see casts of thousands, epic landscapes, true vision, big romances, and lifetime stories.

Where are the executives and producers like Dino De Laurentiis and Francis Ford Coppola who had vision and made great movies?

2013-05-21-kmiyamoto.jpeg
Answer by Ken Miyamoto, Screenwriter,


I'm going to answer this within the context of the emotion I felt when I read this question, and other questions like in the past. If you'd like to get a feeling of my initial delivery, a sense of my reactionary emotion, then watch this clip from Adaptation and picture me in the Brian Cox role of Robert McKee while the questioner is Nic Cage as Charlie Kaufman. 

 

Now that you have a point of reference, here's my initial reaction (and note that this is all in good fun ... it's a great question) ...

Questioner: Why doesn't Hollywood make ambitious films for adults anymore?

Ken: They don't make ambitious films for adults anymore? Are you out of your ****ing mind? People are making great films every year. There's Zero Dark Thirty, There Will Be Blood, Life of Pi. Every ****ing year, somewhere in the world, somebody is pushing the envelope and risking their careers to bring ambitious films to you. Every ****ing day, someone, somewhere is making the next Avatar, Titanic, Troy, or Inception. People take risks, like with The Master, and lose because audiences aren't showing up. For Christ's sake, a director makes the epic The Impossible and barely anyone goes to see it. Someone produces Silver Linings Playbook or Beasts of the Southern Wild, and yet people still say that great films aren't being made. Steven Spielberg makes Lincoln! If you can't find that stuff in the cinemas, then you, my friend, don't know crap about films! And why the **** are you wasting my two precious minutes with your question? I don't have any use for it! I don't have any bloody use for it!

Okay, now that I've got that out of my system, allow me to elaborate without the tongue-in-cheek. 

First off, one could answer your question in two different ways because there's the initial question of lack of ambitious films. Then in the details, you seem to be pointing to epic films. Then you end with asking where the great producers are that have vision and make great movies. 

On The Epics

Original epics are costly, and in this day and age, it's a huge gamble to create an original epic. Huge gamble because audiences are moreso choosing the comforts of their own homes and Home Entertainment systems and Big Screens as opposed to seeing films where they should be seen, the theater.

So why should all major studios and producers spend what now costs upwards of $200-$300 million on original (i.e. non sequel, non superhero movies) epics when no one is going to go see them? Or if just one or two out of a dozen are a success.

And for the record, Hollywood IS still making these films. I've mentioned some above, and we have epic movies in the making right now with big names, including a new Moses film, new Noah film, etc.

And again, we had Lincoln last year. War Horse the year before (Which I hated ... and he's my favorite director).

On the Specialty Films that ARE Original and Great
  • Silver Lining Playbook
  • Beasts of the Southern Wild
  • Amour
  • The Master
  • Django Unchained
  • Argo
  • Seven Psychopaths
  • The Sessions
  • Looper

Those are just a few ... from last year. You can add almost every original Pixar film made. And add multiple films not mentioned here and the film representatives of the last 40 some years, since those days where Hollywood only made great films (That's what many think, but it just isn't so).

In fact, there are more great films being made today than there were in the sixties and seventies. And about those decades, as I mentioned above and likely in many other Quora answers over the years, they made some pretty terrible films back then as well. Hindsight is 20/20, so we remember all of these now classic films and look at the decades they debuted in within the context of those great films. 

More films are being made today. More great ones, and yes, more bad ones. Studios are often working more as distributors for many of the greats, sure, but that's just the current business module. The studios develop the tent pole pictures like sequels, remakes, reboots, superhero flicks, big adaptations, etc. Anything with almost guaranteed large grosses, especially in the international markets. This keeps the studio owners (corporations ... shareholders) happy, keeps the money flowing, and allows studios to take some risks (Inception) and handle their own specialty divisions as well as co-finance and distribute specialty films that they may acquire. 

My point?

Besides the differing business modules, cinema as a whole is much the same as it was back in the "glory days&qu,ot; only more people are getting a chance to make great films (and yes, bad ones too). 

What cynics see are the multiplexes. They see television marketing. They see posters and magazine covers. All focused on the big ticket event films that audiences go to see in droves.

There are great producers out there. I don't even need to name them. Go find them yourself. They are out there. And go see them in the theater because every time the audience doesn't show up, it makes it all the more harder for such great producers and filmmakers to make great original films.

And don't worry, the epics are out there and they are being developed and made as we speak. Take a look at the time spans between the great films you mentioned, and the many more you didn't. Such films take time. Some fail. Some succeed. Others are lightning captured in a bottle, groundbreaking, amazing, and decade defining.

Oh, and Dino De Laurentiis' last film credit as producer? Virgin Territory, starring Hayden Christensen.

More questions on Movie Business:]]> In Titanic, Why Didn't Jack Climb Onto the Plank With Rose When There Was Clearly Room for Two? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3310229 2013-05-21T00:33:58-04:00 2013-05-21T11:08:52-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-21-srai.jpeg
Answer by Sharad Rai,


There are multiple explanations I can give for this, but let me start with the simplest one.

James Cameron wanted Jack to die - in fact, it was essential for the success of the movie that Jack dies in the end. You see, happy endings don't really sell well; so, Jack had to die for James to win all those Oscars he received for the movie.

Secondly, I think James Cameron is a perfectionist of perfectionists, and he would have thought of this problem too; he isn't stupid after all, and the most relevant explanation I am sure he could have come up is given by physics: and it's called Buoyancy. It's not about how much room there is on the plank, it's about how much weight it can take.

Buoyancy is an upward force exerted by a fluid, that opposes the weight of an immersed object.
 
Now, Buoyant Force = Volume of fluid Displaced x Gravitational Acceleration x Density of the Fluid

In layman terms, if buoyant force exerted by the fluid on you is equal to the force you exert on the fluid - which is basically your weight (mass * gravitational acceleration) - then, you float; else you sink.

Let's go over it once more :



Buoyant force = weight => float, good.
Buoyant force < weight => sink, bad.

As depicted in the picture, the length of the plank exceeds Kate Winslet's by, say, half a meter, Wikipedia tells me that Kate Winslet stands tall at 169 cm (Kate Winslet); add to that another 50 cm and round it off to about 220 cm or 2.2 m. Breadth of the plank can be assumed to be a meter (give or take a few cm); a standard door as I can see from the measurements of my door is about 5 cm thick. Since it is the Titanic we are talking about here, I'll add a couple of cms to that thickness.

So as we have it:

Volume of water displaced by the plank(assuming it is fully submerged) = the volume of the plank = 2.2 x 1 x .07 = 0.154 m³.

Density of ocean water(salt water) = 1020 Kg/m³ (Seawater)

Gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s2

=> Buoyant force = 2.2 x 1 x .07 x 9.8 x 1020 = 1539.384 ~ 1540 N

now they will float if the total force exerted by the three bodies(Jack, Rose, and the door/plank) is less than this buoyant force.

Force exerted by the plank(weight) = Density of the plank(wood) x Gravitational acceleration x Volume of the plank

*density of wood = 650 Kg/m³ (What is the density of wood?)

=> Force exerted by the plank(weight) = 650 x 9.8 x 0.154 = 980.89 ~ 980 N

=> 1540 - 980 =  560 N

Now, 560/9.8 = 57.142 Kg

This means that in addition to its own weight, the plank could only support another 57.142 Kg and I am fairly certain that Rose must have at least weighed 45-50 Kg - she was a healthy girl after all, if you know what I mean.

So there you have it, it's not about the room on the plank, its about how much weight it could support. Think physics, people.

More questions on Movie Story and Plot Themes:]]> Is Sandor Clegane a Hero or Villain? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3306378 2013-05-20T10:08:00-04:00 2013-05-20T10:10:00-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-16-dschroeder.jpeg
Answer by Danielle Schroeder, College Student


This question could be asked of almost any ASOIAF character. Tyrion, Littlefinger, Varys, Jaime, etc. Some characters have more admirable qualities than others, but each responds to his or her own agenda. The Hound is no different.
 
The Starks are the primary protagonists. This would make the Lannisters the bad guys. Sandor Clegane serves the Lannisters. More specifically, he serves Joffrey -- the worst of the Lannisters. Clegan carries out horrible deeds of violence at Joffrey's bidding, like a good faithful hound.
 
Sandor Clegane relishes violence. He's a born killer. He's fueled by hatred -- hatred for his brother and for the fire that destroyed half his face. But he's also a coward. His actions at the end of A Clash of Kings were performed for reasons of self-preservation. He didn't do it for Sansa, he didn't do it because it was right, he did it to save his own hide.
 
Yes, Sandor possesses some rather despicable traits, and I wouldn't call him a hero. Nor is he entirely a villain. Like all ASOIAF characters, Sandor does what is necessary for survival. He obeys his master because he must, otherwise his head would end up decorating a spike outside the Red Keep.
 
But Sandor's behavior towards Sansa shows us that he may have some moral conscience after all. He is protective towards her. He cares about her preservation almost as much as he cares about his own; he discreetly acts as a shield between her and Joffrey.
 
The majority of Westeros worships seven gods: Father, Smith, Warrior, Mother, Maid, Crone, and Stranger. Of these, the Stranger is the most mysterious--an androgynous god of duality. Sandor is the human embodiment of the Stranger. Just like Ned Stark is the Father, Daenarys or Catelyn is the the Mother, Sansa is the Maid, etc. Like the Stranger, Sandor (literally) has two faces. He is neither good nor evil, neither hero nor villain.
 
Oh and fun fact: Sandor Clegan's horse is named Stranger.

More questions on A Song of Ice and Fire (book series):]]> Which Sport Has More Athletic Players: the NFL or the NBA? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3290301 2013-05-17T01:25:46-04:00 2013-05-17T11:15:50-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-16-jdemarchi.jpeg
Answer by John DeMarchi,


It's the NFL, and it isn't even close.

I know what you are about to say: What about LeBron?

TWO WORDS: SHAWN BRADLEY.

TWO MORE WORDS: MANUTE BOL.

You think Larry Bird can block Lawrence Taylor?

Do I really have to go on?

OK, let's cede that LeBron is the most athletic player in either sport -- more than Megatron, Adrian Peterson, J.J. Watt, JPP, Patrick Willis, Aldon Smith, Von Miller, etc.

How many LeBrons are there?

Exactly.

Get past LeBron, Kobe, and Durant, and the NFL has got ten Chris Johnsons, RG3s, and Adrian Petersons for every one of the NBA's Chris Paul types.

You are really telling me if we are picking teams for any sport besides basketball you are taking tubby Carmelo Anthony over say, Patrick Willis?

Really?

You're selling me that Brook Lopez -- and that guy is an NBA all-star for heaven's sake -- is a better athlete than say, Russell Wilson, or A.J. Green, or Darrelle Revis, or Julio Jones, or Gronk, or Jason Peters, or DeMarcus Ware, or Cam Newton, or Colin Kaepernick?

Can I have a few minutes to stop laughing?

The NBA has maybe 50 great athletes. The NFL has about 1000.

The 12th man on an NBA bench is nowhere near the athlete the 12th man on a 53 man NFL roster is.

My Lord, Kwame Brown is still in the league, people! Steve Novak gets real minutes for a top playoff team in the NBA, people!

Rasheed Wallace is like 174 years old and he's still playing (until a few weeks ago). Dikembe Mutombo was like 4,000 years old and still playing big minutes at the end. The average age of players in the just-completed Knicks-Celtics playoff series was around 65 1/2 years old.

You keep Pablo Prigioni, OK? I'll keep Ed Reed and Ray Lewis.

Stop it. This is a total slam dunk - for the NFL.

The other argument I always hear is the "so and so couldn't make the NBA, but was a great NFL player."

Flip that -- how many current NBA All-Stars would make it in the NFL?

How many are strong, physical, and tough enough? LeBron, Kobe, maybe Chris Paul as a DB, maybe Dwight Howard as a DE ... anyone else?

BTW, didn't the greatest NBA star ever, Michael Jordan, sort of suck at baseball? 

Does that mean baseball players are better athletes than NBA guys? Hell no.

So stop it.

The NBA has 40 year old guards -- like Jason Kidd. It has fat all-star point guards -- like Deron Williams!

AND THOSE GUYS START FOR PLAYOFF TEAMS.

And I'll even go back at LeBron. He's a ridiculous athlete, but he wasn't a better all-around athlete than Bo Jackson, or even Deion Sanders, and maybe wasn't even the athlete BARRY Sanders was. (But to be fair: I'll give him a *slight* edge over Ricky Sanders, and a big edge over Col. Sanders.)

My point?

NFL athletes would eat NBA athletes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Then spike the ball.

More questions on Great Sports Debates:]]> What Are the Positive Aspects of the Women in Game Of Thrones? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3283166 2013-05-15T22:38:23-04:00 2013-05-16T11:28:52-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-16-fwang2.jpeg
Answer by Faye Wang,


First of all, I don't think GRRM wrote the book and its many characters to be role models to anyone. They're extremely flawed people struggling under extraordinary circumstances. All of them make stupid horrible decisions and suffer the consequences. I don't think you can put any of them on a pedestal and make them a "role model" for kids. I can't imagine children say: When I grow up I want to be like Dany, who gets married at 14 and is obsessed with ruling a continent she last saw as an infant. Or "I want to be like Arya," a violent girl full of rage, thinking about her assassination list every night. Or Catelyn, who made some really really bad choices, resulting directly or indirectly to all of her children's suffering and death?

No ... None of them is Hermione or Buffy, not even Katniss. Few of them had any grand ideals, none of them care much about "the innocent" (not even Dany, who's probably the most idealistic of the bunch). They're more than willing to hurt other people for their own gain. But how can we blame them when they're trying to hard to survive, to look after their loved ones the best they could?

If there's anything we could learn from these characters, I think it is their resolve and grit. They NEVER gave up the fight. All of GRRM's characters fought on against incredible odds, even the "craven" Sam. They made bad choices, they suffered defeat, but none of them gave up. They grasp that one hope, and they keep on fighting. Dany want to rule the land that's rightfully hers, Catlyn want to save and avenge her children, Arya want to survive and kill all those who wronged her and her family ... Even Cersei, the unrelenting Cersei, never gave up her (very unwise) coveting for power.

You have to admire their courage, these brave yet flawed women. I think if there's anything we can learn from them, this is it.

...

2013-05-16-kdonahue.jpeg
Answer by Katy Donahue, Game of Thrones fan


Daenerys - Her narrative of coming into her own as a leader after the shadow and guidance of two men in her life (Viserys and Khal Drogo) is inspiring because she has managed to become a relatively ethical and just leader, as well as a clever one.

Arya - Arya shows girls they can break gender roles, be a fighter, etc.

Cersei - This is going to be controversial but I actually think Cersei has positive lessons to take away. in a way, she went against her strong and powerful husband, the King, and slept with whoever she wanted (the fact that it's her brother needs to be glossed over for this one to work). Additionally, she is very powerful and manipulative in the game of thrones that seems to be otherwise dominated by men. She is fiercely protective of her children, which isn't necessarily a bad trait, and she also talks at length in the books about how it is unfair that she and Jaime were treated differently just because of what is "between their legs." Since she was born first, she often resents the fact that if Westerosi inheritance law was like Dornish inheritance law, she'd be the heir to Casterly Rock. I think her discussion of this brings up important issues in gender in the series. Her Snow White complex surrounding Margaery (younger, more beautiful woman threatening to take power) also brings up the issue of how women are valued for their beauty and youth.

Catelyn - Catelyn Stark, to me, is motivated by the fierce desire to protect her children, but she is less complex than Cersei, so I think that's covered.

Margaery - This girl knows what she wants (to be queen!) and is going after it in her own way. You go, girl.

Brienne - Brienne is a great role model for girls. Like Arya, everything about traditional gender roles and being a fighter. Brienne is loyal and a good person, and like Cersei, Margaery, Catelyn, and Daenerys, if she wants something (to bring Jaime back to King's Landing, for example), the girl's gonna fight to get it.

SUMMARY - The common qualities of many Westerosi women (breaking gender roles, determination to get what they want) make them appropriate, if not the best, role models for women.

More discussion on Game of Thrones (TV series):]]> Who Is the Most Admirable (by Modern Standards) Female Character in Game of Thrones? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3269542 2013-05-13T21:48:18-04:00 2013-05-14T11:49:21-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Sunil Kumar Gopal,


I am going to go with Brienne of Tarth.

What stands out is her loyalty, and her unfailing sense of duty, not to mention her prowess with a sword -- Westeros is a man's world after all, and Brienne throws that out the window. Also, she's one of the few major female characters without a powerful family (read Great House) backing.

My second choice would probably be Meera Reed. I feel that there's much more exploration required before we can fully assess Meera, but she's definitely very resourceful, loyal, and without any hidden agendas.

There's a long list of strong female characters in the series - Daenerys, Catelyn, Cersei, Arya, Sansa, Asha, Arianne, Melisandre, Margaery, to some extent Olenna, Ygritte, etc. But when it comes to admirable, it's hard to look past the ruthlessness and the selfishness that's prevalent in the characters. There's always an agenda, or a self-righteous reason for their actions.

I am probably oversimplifying, but Dany just wants to win back her kingdom at any cost, Catelyn's actions were all motivated by family, Cersei wants the crown, many of Sansa's earlier decisions are based on infatuation, Arya is just plain wild (still my favorite character in the series, though), Asha wants the Seastone Chair, Arianne is again just looking for power, R'hllor only knows why Melisandre is doing what she's doing, Margaery and Olenna are also playing the game for power, Ygritte is well, Ygritte. Selyse and Val aren't portrayed enough in my opinion. Selyse probably is devoted to Stannis and R'hllor, all she wants is her husband to come to power. Then there are the Mormont women - Maege, Dacey, and Alysanne - again under-portrayed. And Wylla Manderly was delightful, though she had only like one dialogue.

More questions on Game of Thrones (TV series):]]> What Are Some Great Vegetables I Could Grow on My Balcony? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3263729 2013-05-12T18:37:43-04:00 2013-05-13T13:51:16-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-12-ikurnia.jpeg
Answer by Ilham Kurnia, Part time balcony gardener, part time programmer


Question details:
The balcony is facing a (large) courtyard, so while the light supply is limited, in summer it's probably maximally from around 11 a.m. till 8 p.m. or so. It's a small balcony, so a limited footprint would be great as well - I doubt there's enough space for tomatos, for example. I want to plant herbs for sure, but am thinking about what vegetables would fit as well. I have decently large pots available.

I'm in a similar situation as yours, getting direct sunlight only from 7 a.m. - 2 p.m. in summer. In the past, I've grown peas, chinese greens, bush beans, tomatoes, carrots, chilies, spring onions and all kinds of herbs rather well. Now, I'm also growing cucumbers,

There are a number of tricks you can use if you want to plant vegetables on a balcony.
  1. Get containers that are deep but not wide. I find this a tall order to get such containers from garden centers. However, there are plenty of alternatives, if you don't mind much about the cosmetics of the garden. One that I've been using successfully is a Tetrapak and plastic meat pack combo. When you finish drinking a pack of juice or milk, chop off the top and wash the inside using the usual dishwashing soap. Let it dry, and then punch small holes on the bottom of the pack. Then throw in your favorite potting mixture into the pack. As the saucer, use a clean plastic meat pack. Below is an example how things went for me last year using this technique.
    This technique is applicable to other recyclable items such as plastic bottles. Just remember to chop the top off, wash them, and put drainage holes on the bottom.

    I find this technique helpful not only because of the small footprint it produces, but also when the season finishes, you can easily dispose them.
  2. Pick plants that suit the size of your garden. Almost all greens can be grown anywhere with some light. But when it comes to fruiting vegetables, like tomatoes, you should try picking the ones that won't grow huge.

    Specifically for tomatoes, you might want to start with determinate varieties, such as Balconi Red, Tumbling Tom, and Patio Tomato. This ensures that the tomatoes grow only to a fixed height and helps you gauge how much you can handle in the following season. Additionally, you don't need to pinch anything off.
  3. Grow vertically. I haven't got any experience in this particular area, but some time ago, I saw a youtube video on phytopods (http://www.verticalhomegardens.com). These are basically coffee bean bags put inside a steel cage on a roller.

In addition to veggies, you might want to consider alpine strawberries. They appreciate some shade, unlike the kinds you find in supermarkets. Despite having smaller fruits (usually the size of a finger nail), the smell and the taste are considered superior to the big ones.

For more ideas, grab a copy of a book by McGee and Stuckey (http://www.amazon.com/McGee-Stuc...). It helps me a lot in determining what kind of handling particular veggies need when one grows them in containers.

More questions on Gardening:]]> What Is the Best Advice Your Mother Ever Gave You? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3263684 2013-05-12T18:06:56-04:00 2013-05-12T18:08:20-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-12-mzaslove.jpeg
Answer by Mira Zaslove, expectant first time Mother


"You don't marry a man, you marry a lifestyle."

Who you marry has the largest impact not just on your emotional life, but also on your lifestyle.

Both the large and small things in your daily life and long term plans will be impacted by your significant other's likes, dislikes, habits, schedule, health, personality, moods, job stresses, financial security, family, and situation. 

For instance, how often will you go on vacations, and where will you go? What type of food will you eat, and who will cook it? Where will you live, and how clean will the house be? What TV shows and movies will you watch, and how often? When the toothpaste or toilet paper runs out will your partner get more or expect you to? How much sleep will you get? How many children will you have and how will they be raised? How many cars will you have, and will you lease or buy? Will you be in debt or have a large savings?

Lucky for me, I married my best friend and someone who fits my lifestyle. Jay Wacker, who loves to travel, cook, watch Game of Thrones, take pictures, and who can be silly and serious.



More questions on Mothers:]]> What Are Some Really Good Mother's Day Gift Ideas? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3262629 2013-05-12T10:51:12-04:00 2013-05-12T10:53:33-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.

Answer by Nan Waldman, Parent x2


I had the best Mother's Day EVER in 2011. The day was particularly special because, in addition to regular and wonderful gifts which were purchased for me by my family and friend with my needs and tastes in mind, they all spent the whole day with me. I am the mother of two twentysomethings (and I 'Mom' their friends who need and respond to 'Momming' too, and house one of them, and feed them all when I manage to cook a homemade meal or bake banana bread, so there are usually at least three twentysomethings in my home, with others visiting daily).

We walked around, mingled with crowds in Santa Monica's outdoor malls, and enjoyed the day. At night, we went out to eat in a local Greek restaurant. It's not even what we did that was so special. It was the fact that everybody was consciously thinking of their mother (me!) with love -- and showed it. Normally I don't like the commercialism of Hallmark Holidays. But this Mother's Day was very different.

They showed their love by doing many little things unexpectedly. For example, I put a glass of water down on the counter, moved to the couch, and forgot my water. Before I could get up, one of them had brought it over to me (a nice, thoughtful, and caring gesture, no?!).

Another example: I was unable to walk more because I am often in pain with a disability -- and they helped me to find a seat. They helped one another and they helped me all day long. They worked together harmoniously. They were charming, fun, intelligent, and kind. The dishwasher was emptied without me saying a thing. I feel very lucky that they are in my life, and I am grateful to be alive to cherish them, even now. People say they love babies, but I have to say that every minute with each member of my family is one I deeply appreciate. I love each more now than when they were babies. We have all had frightening medical incursions into our lives and cherish every happy moment as a result. We have a basis for comparison. This Mother's Day, we all have our health.

Gifts this Mother's Day were great because they were exactly what I didn't have and they saw a need and tried to fill it -- which is so considerate and thoughtful it put tears in my eyes: a purse that is exactly the same shape as the sport luggage I carry around, but prettier, so I can wear it with professional type clothing (it's my job...); a nightgown because my favorite is getting old; and a MacBook Air because my only computer is a jerry-rigged, ancient, and slower-than-cold-molasses desktop from the early 1990's, and I can't carry a heavier laptop to meet with parents due to weight considerations. The laptop was configured, ordered, and chosen by one of my kids, but either could have done it. They will also be teaching me to use it, as I haven't been on a Mac since the SE, back when they were babies.

So the best thing to do for a Mother's Day gift is to pay a lot of attention to your mother, value her, and find out by listening what it is she needs. Try and provide as much of it as you comfortably can.

I know I gave my family the best that was in me to give while we were all young. It is a relief to know that now, when I can no longer take care of them, that they are thinking of and creating new ways to help me in my life. You cannot imagine how grateful I am for their hearts, and their problem-solving skills.

They also made their own Mother's Day card and told me they love me because I have so much grace.

That clinched the deal, whether it is always true -- or not (but I hope it is!).

Here's a 2012 Mother's Day update/edit: a week before Mother's Day, my family surprised me with an unexpected visit from one, who flew in from other parts in a friend's plane, spent a full day including a nice brunch -- and we spent the evening with the rest of my little family talking into the wee hours of the morning about Life; and then the next afternoon I watched as a plane landed with two friends already inside. They touched down to pick up my family member, then flew back to home and work elsewhere.

The door closed, engines fired. I watched as the plane and its engine roar turned into a tiny silent speck, quickly disappearing into the low cloudbank. I stood on the tarmac, waved, and watched this 4 seater plane that looked like a toy. It vanished into thin air!

Upon arrival and subsequent phone call assuring me of a safe landing, I felt much better. Mother that I am, I had asked if the plane had flotation devices and parachutes (answer: no).

A week later (today) was a smaller, cozier Mother's Day -- out to a flea market, which was fun and unexpected. I love time together with the now grown children. Family ... warms my heart. I was glad this Mother's Day was not about things, but about the loves of my life.

More questions on Motherhood:]]> Reviews Of BioShock Infinite - "The Reason Why I'm Proud To Be A Gamer" tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3249819 2013-05-09T23:39:42-04:00 2013-05-10T11:00:21-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This review originally appeared on Quora.
2013-05-10-ceckstein.jpeg
Answer by Connor Eckstein,


★★★★★

There is a lot of good stuff here.

The characterizations of Booker DeWitt, whom you control, and Elizabeth, your sidekick, have a depth you rarely see in games. You learn about both of them through very natural means, namely without a single cutscene. I can guarantee the voice acting, facial expressions, and body language of Elizabeth will suspend your disbelief in a way no game has done before. You're able to internalize Booker without him having to be a silent protagonist and pushing you through a sea of dialogue choice. You really get invested in both of these characters.

Aesthetically, Columbia is a worthy successor to Rapture. You see the facade and the innards of this floating city, its ideals, and the sacrifices it makes to uphold them. You want to explore and linger over these places that tell a story just as effectively as conversation. The real joy playing Bioshock is not in murdering waves of enemies, but in observing the architecture, paintings, etc of the place you just fought in.

The story is what enraptures most people for the above reasons and more. It is able to tell a very personal human story while also tacking politics and religion. I love that people are getting offended at this game for a reason other than the depiction of violence, which seems to be the only thing many games care to do. Bioshock is provoking thought and conversation, and it is purposeful. There is a great deal of replay value. The story is meant to be held up under scrutiny, to be replayed, and unveil previously insignificant details.

With all of this being said, the meat of the gameplay is not my favorite. Combat is the weakest link of this game. I actually liked the combat fairly well, and the Vigors were very creative, but the quality just does not match that of the other game elements. It feels like a shoot out in a crowded mall all the time where everyone is armed. You might say it is my favorite beat em' up of all time. You burn through a wave of enemies and then savor the walk to the next wave.

I would still give Infinite a 5 because everything it does well is raising the bar for the entire medium. Combat is something video games pretty much have down, I don't think there's contention there. I didn't mind that it wasn't spectacular because I wasn't playing it for the guns. I played it for Columbia, Elizabeth, and wanting to know what would happen to them. And I found that out!

...

2013-05-10-vsarathy.jpeg
Answer by Vijay Sarathy,


★★★★★

I haven't played a game like this.

You won't play a game like this.

If you relate yourself, even slightly, to the notion of the term 'gamer' and you haven't played this game yet, you are doing yourself a serious disservice.

Barring a very few things that I found didn't sit very well within the amazing universe this game is set in, I'd say that overall, Bioshock Infinite is exactly the reason why I'm proud to be a gamer.

Let's dissect this masterpiece.

Story

At the core of Infinite's heart lies its fantastically woven narrative. You play as Booker Dewitt, a Pinkerton agent weighed down by debts due to some trysts with gambling gone wrong. You are given a mysterious task; you are promised that if you find a certain girl within Columbia, all your debts will be wiped away. And so you set off, arriving at a lighthouse and ascending to Columbia - a steampunk city set in the clouds.

Welcome to Columbia - Land of Awesome Beards

The first (and last) 30 minutes of the game are mind-blowing in every sense of the word. The scene that greets your eyes when you arrive at Columbia is, frankly, indescribable. In the good way, mind you.

However, the illusion is quickly broken as you find out that Columbia is, in fact, a dystopia, pervaded by racism and ruled by a slightly lunatic person - called Comstock - who imposes his ideals upon the citizens of Columbia and who proclaims himself as a 'Prophet.'

The girl you are tasked with rescuing is Elizabeth. She accompanies you throughout the game, and her AI is hands down one of the best out there. She never comes across as a hindrance, but always adds to the story in subtle touches. Her relationship with Booker is very believable and it's no mean feat that these fleshed out characters manage to make the gamer connect with the story.

Meet Elizabeth.

As for the ending: Put simply, it blew me away. It took me a while to 'get' it, but when it did ..."Oh wait, it just blew me away again."
Revealing anything more would just spoil the game. This is a game that needs to be experienced for its true impact to be felt. So, if you are looking to buy a game for its story more than anything else, would you kindly buy this one?

Visuals/Art:

Columbia is a beautifully realized city, brought to life by amazing artwork. Even though this game may not look as technically proficient as other games of this time, the art design - which is nothing short of a few dozen 'Woah!'s - that runs through the whole game more than makes up for it.




Columbia is beautiful.

I found myself gasping in awe every time I entered or exited a place. The interiors are as well done as the exteriors - something which cannot be said for most other games today. And the light shafts.

OH, the light shafts.

Even running on a modest PC at medium-high settings, I was enraptured (ahem) by Columbia.

Sound

I thought this deserved a section of its own because it is so well done in the game.

Voice acting is superb (ARGH, I'm running out of adjectives to use). They bring the characters of Infinite to life - more so than animation. Other game developers, do take note.

Voxophones - which are audio logs scattered throughout the game - also sound great to the ears. Although their contents may sound like mumbo-jumbo at first, revisiting them on the second playthrough (this is a must!) is quite the revelatory experience.

The music never feels overwhelming, but like the other things in the game, it adds to the overall experience. And is there good music in Infinite.

The song "Will the Circle Be Unbroken" is one of my favorites. It also helps that the song takes on a whole new meaning after you complete the game.

AND, it is responsible for this evocative scene in the game.

*Possible spoilers below*



Gameplay

Now we arrive at the most contriving aspect of the game - the gameplay itself.

Bioshock Infinite is a first-person-shooter. It involves guns, colorful executions, and, of course, summoning crows from your hand to attack enemies. The in-your-face videogamey-ness of Bioshock at some points are, according to me, the things that detract from the otherwise otherworldly experience.

Murder with a murder of crows.

Picture this: Elizabeth has just witnessed you murdering people for the first time. She's visibly distressed and thinks you are a monster. She runs away. You are supposed to follow her, aren't you? But wait! What about the shotgun ammo that your enemies must have in their pockets!? And the money that you are sure is in the trash bins nearby! And the vending machines in the room that offer you gun upgrades! So you make a decision. A crying Elizabeth can wait, money-in-trash-bins can't. (Also see [1])

Such things happening can periodically break the immersion that this game so painstakingly tries to sustain, but it's difficult to blame Infinite for that. Because hey, it's a videogame. You signed up for all the videogamey-ness in the first place.

Pictured: Videogamey-ness.

However, when looked at from a standalone perspective, the gameplay is actually quite good.

Combat is made refreshing by Columbia's air-transport system, called Skylines. You can jump on one, go on a roller-coaster ride (literally!), then awesomely give your enemy a neck massage. While flying. With a spinning hook. Oops, the massage went too far. The enemy doesn't have a neck now.

The guns pack quite the punch; the shotgun and the carbine are especially great to handle. You also get to wreck havoc with Vigors, powers that you wield on your non-gun hand. You obtain them by drinking from custom bottles, and the sequence that plays out after drinking each one is amazing. And shocking.

Even though some people questioned whether Infinite even needed combat [2], I thought that it existing is actually for the better. It nicely brought out the contrast between the beautiful environment and the ugly underbelly of Columbia.

Besides, it's a Bioshock game.

BUT, I did feel that combat was a chore at times. At some places, it felt like mindless slaughtering, which didn't move the story, Infinite's strongest point, any forward.

_____________________

In the end, though, what I'm doing is the equivalent of nitpicking. Because Bioshock Infinite gets right everything it needs to get right.

If you play games for the visuals, you are going to like this game.

If you play games for the gameplay and just want to have some fun pumping enemies' faces with lead, you are going to like this game.

If you play games for the story, you are going to LOVE this game.

5/5. Easily.
______________________

* MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW * - Visit this section AFTER you complete the game.

At this point, your brain is probably in little pieces - after being pummeled by the mindf*ck that is Bioshock Infinite's ending. That, or it is completely whole, confused as to what the whole fuss was about.

Reading this should help. It did for me!


References:

[1]: An Effin' AI In BioShock Infinite Is More Of A Human Than I Am
[2]: The Problem With BioShock Infinite's Combat
[3]: Screenshots: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?222521-Bishock-Infinite-Screenshot-Thread-(possible-spoilers!)

More discussion on BioShock Infinite:]]> What Influence Did The Great Gatsby Have on American Literature? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3246083 2013-05-09T11:53:27-04:00 2013-05-09T12:54:27-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.
Answer by Quentin Hardy,


You have to look at the novel in total, particularly the last chapters. It's important to move beyond the flappers and parties, even the two murders. The backstory that Nick (quite impossibly, in the level of detail) discovers about Jimmy Gatz, aka Jay Gatsby, is critical to feeling both the glory and the tragedy of the story.

Gatsby, it turns out, is an unmade child of the Midwest, ashamed of what he is, and schooled in the most banal kind of mail-order self reinvention, who is then elevated and corrupted by Dan Cody and his lover. These two influences are fused in the pursuit of Daisy, and much else he does. (There is a later echo of this Midwest/East motif when Nick talks about taking the train East in college, as well. We can tell it's a pretty big deal in the book's artistic intention.)

Much of American Literature is a consideration of our ability to head to the frontier, reinvent ourselves, make a shining city on a hill, be the last best hope for mankind, free ourselves of the shackles of the past, the tragic fate of birth in a particular place ... you get the picture. It is shot through our attitudes to class, politics, the immigrant experience, and much else. That is why it is such an important theme in our national art -- you don't find it in the same way in the literature of England or Japan, say. This is rather uniquely explored in The Great Gatsby.

Fitzgerald, who was a very great artist and an admirer of John Keats (think the romance of impermanence, beauty that must die to have meaning, etc), added to our discourse on self-invention a deep expression of the romantic yearning inside this dream. In addition, he noticed the way in which we love the promise of the glittering and the shiny and the powerful, but how even to dream of it, let alone to seek it, also corrupts us and destroys us. And yet, we need it and live by it.

Art notices and points at previously little-noticed things in our experience, and helps us experience life more fully -- sometimes even more wisely. Fitzgerald added deeper meaning to understanding the problematic, often tragic, dimensions of pursuing the American dream, or experience.

He did this at a time when America was becoming even more powerful, and its promises of power, fame, and adoration even more extreme. That created a whole new dimension to our understanding of our culture and ourselves.

More questions on The Great Gatsby (1925 book):]]> Reviews of Iron Man 3 - "Head and Shoulders Above Iron Man 2" tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3230735 2013-05-07T12:51:57-04:00 2013-05-07T13:10:17-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ These reviews originally appeared on Quora.

***Spoilers Ahead***




2013-05-07-dmaurer.jpeg
Review by Danielle Maurer, Writer & SciFi Fan


★★★★☆
This movie was head and shoulders above Iron Man 2, and on par with the first Iron Man film.

What I found the most compelling about Iron Man 3 was that they took a simple line from Avengers - the question of who Tony Stark was without his suit - and ran with it. Tony is deprived of his home and a fully functioning suit for the majority of the movie. He has to make do with what he has and who he is and at the end is able to realize that the suit doesn't make him Iron Man. He is always Iron Man, suit or no. I found one of the highlights to be his infiltration of the compound in the middle of the movie, with all the gadgets he built out of a hardware store.

Tony's also a lot more emotionally vulnerable in this film. The events at the end of Avengers have affected him deeply, and he has a lot of inner turmoil around them.

There are some impeccable fight scenes in this movie. I found the fight choreography to be especially dramatic during the scenes where Tony only had two or three pieces of the suit on at a time (his "escape" scene in the compound in Florida stands out).

Pepper has also come a long way. No spoilers, but I was not at all shocked by the ending, and I was proud that she had her moment. She complements and completes Tony much more in this movie than the others.

Where the movie fell a bit more flat for me was in the villains. The "twist," if you can call it that, was rather predictable and I had it figured out about 20 minutes in. On top of that, it was never entirely clear exactly what the Mandarin wanted. It wasn't just terrorism, that was apparent. I have a feeling there may have been some deleted scenes that explained his motivation better, but as it was, I was a bit confused as to why they were being so ruthless. Though admittedly, the Extremis-powered soldiers were very very cool to watch.

And I found the dialogue to be clever and very solid. It was witty and sharp and kept my attention. My mind never wandered away from the film.

All things considered, for a threequel, this was pretty damn good.

...

2012-07-13-mhughes.jpeg
Review by Mark Hughes, Screenwriter, Forbes Blogger


★★★★★
The best of the Iron Man franchise, and the best of Marvel-Disney's solo superhero films so far. Continue reading for more detailed review, with mild spoilerish elements but nothing major (most you've seen in commercials and read about in reviews, probably). I included a final section (well-labeled) of spoiler discussion, so skip that if you haven't seen the film yet!

It's easy enough to make superhero movies that feature a person in a suit flying around and smashing villains, with lots of CGI and popcorn-fun action. It's another thing to trust your characters so much that you are willing to take your superhero out of his suit and say "the most interesting thing about our character is who he really is OUTSIDE of his costume." Marvel had enough faith in Tony Stark and the creative team to let them prove that point, and they proved it beautifully with this film.

Tony Stark is indeed more interesting than his Iron man persona, and a great point this film makes is that he's actually also stronger than his armor. The film explores the weaknesses in both the man and his machines, and demonstrates that both are impressive while also both being vulnerable, but at the end of the day the armor is just a shell that can be cracked while Tony is the core that won't break.

He is a man who now realizes that the world is full of threats bigger than he ever imagined, that his own life will be in constant danger, and worst of all that the love of his life -- Pepper Potts -- will always be at risk and the dangers will keep getting worse. Not many superhero movies take time to consider the long-term effects on the psyche of the heroes, and only two films have explored in depth the notion of PTSD in superheroes -- Iron Man 3 and The Dark Knight Rises. We see Tony Stark unable to sleep, having anxiety attacks, and obsessively building armor in preparation of every doomsday scenario his scarred mind can envision that might threaten him and Pepper.

Tony is afraid that all of his self-certainty and abilities won't really be enough, he fears failure when it will matter most, and yet he doesn't recognize the true threat when it's coming right toward him. He in fact challenges it, his hubris conflicting with his attempts at preparation, blinding him to the danger. And does he ever pay the price for that mistake. Torn down, stripped of everything he had, left for dead and lost, Tony has to find out who he really is nowadays without the Iron Man armor -- is he anyone at all, or has he been consumed by the alter ego in some way? Earlier in the movie, we see him injecting mechanics into his own body to merge himself more to his armor, a mirror of the film's villains and the themes about losing our humanity amid our surrender to dehumanizing technologies, and Tony's choice to take the machines inside himself prove -- like much in this narrative -- to be both a blessing and a curse, a case of the hero having to discover that what he thought gave him strength might also be his greatest weakness after all.

Tony has to return to his beginnings, a mechanic in a humble little garage trying to get a single Iron Man suit up and running using relatively primitive methods. This mirrors the first film and the original creation of the Iron Man armor, notice. It's a return to basics, Tony revisiting what made him into Iron Man and rebuilding the armor and his own psyche, but this time the lessons will be quite different. He needed the armor to survive and find purpose, but ultimately he needs to eschew the armor to survive and find purpose. He comes to trust himself without the armor, to test his own mettle instead of metal so to speak.

I was very happy that Pepper got a stronger arc this time around, and that she gets some cool time in the armor as well as avoiding just having to be rescued (more on that below, in the spoiler section!). She's firmly in charge of the company now, doesn't need to consult Tony about decisions, puts him on notice that his behavior has to change, and has plenty of important scenes that drive the plot. The film also happens to have multiple female characters, some of whom talk to one another about lots of stuff entirely unrelated to the male characters, by the way, so it passes the Bechdel Test. The nature of Pepper's overall arc in fact goes a long way past just "passing" the test, in fact.

The villainous plot was pretty unique and surprising when it's all revealed. I'll say more about this in the spoiler section below, but Guy Pierce does a great job as Killian while Ben Kingsley is awesome as Mandarin. Whatever you think they're up to, you're mistaken, I guarantee it.

The action was fun and avoided being a glut of CGI, using CGI only when necessary and then to great effect. There are a few big action set pieces involving the armor, and they are doozies -- the "plane" sequence in the trailer is so great and looks totally real. But most of the action involves Tony out of his armor, more classic action-hero stuff of which director/co-writer Shane Black is a master.

I'm already a big fan of Shane Black's movies (I love Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Lethal Weapon, The Long Kiss Goodnight, and other of his films), so seeing him take on a superhero movie and deliver so well -- with his friend Robert Downey, Jr. in perfect form -- was a real treat. The tradmark humor is there as well, taking the constant good sense of humor from The Avengers and running with it. I think the mix of classic action-adventure, lots of hilarious jokes, RDJ's unmatchable charm and charisma, and superheroism with such exceptional VFX is going to appeal to most audiences, for sure.

I loved this movie, and it'll frankly be hard for any other films to give me the same level of sheer enjoyment I got watching it. I'm looking forward to Man of Steel a LOT, but it's got its work cut out for it if it wants to match the overall entertainment level and character development of Iron Man 3.

Now, some spoiler discussion real quick...


1. Pepper's arc is already pretty damn good, but she actually saves Tony not once but TWICE, first at the beginning while donning the Iron Man armor, and then at the very end she is the one who actually defeats the villain and rescues Tony. Oh, and notice, she saves the day at the end after Tony's attempt to save her fails! Think about that a moment -- Tony has to confront his greatest fear after all, he actually fails to save Pepper's life and she appears to fall to her death. But then she returns, reverses the situation and comes to his rescue.

2. Mandarin's shocking revelation is a direct commentary about the war on terror and the racism inherent in the character's actual depiction in comics. Look closely -- there's actually no real "terrorism" in the film after all, those explosions were all accidents and the villains merely exploited America's obsessive fear of terrorism to cover up the accidents. Killian invented the fake Mandarin persona based on racist, simplistic perceptions about foreigners and non-whites. Which is in fact a direct reflection of the comic book character, who was invented during the Cold War as a caricature representing American perceptions and fears of the Chinese. Do you see what Shane Black did? He adapted a racially insensitive comic book villain by having him be an actual intentionally racist caricature invented by the movie's real villain. And Killian turns out to be the REAL Mandarin, complete with a big tattoo of a dragon on his chest and advanced technology probably (I bet it'll be revealed in the next film) based in part on alien technology (in the comics, A.I.M. gets its technology and weapons from Hydra, and remember in the films Hydra's alien-based tech has been co-opted by the government for weapons development). This is similar to the way Batman Begins took the white minor character Henri Ducard and merged him into the non-white villain Ra's al Ghul, but he used a decoy person who pretended to be Ra's.

3. Killian's actual motives were complicated. He originally suffered from physical impairment and part of his motive in pursuing the technology was related to his own condition. But then he saw the power it truly entailed, and the technology led to weaponization. Killian started building his own army, using government and other funding to support his endeavors, and the entire time notice something important -- he didn't target Tony Stark, he actually at first went to propose that Tony's company invest with him. Yes, he flirted with Pepper and wanted to rub it in her face that he's now strong and healthy and successful, but his main goal was always to gain further funding and access to additional technology for his real pursuits. He didn't target Tony for attack until Tony publicly stated his intention to hunt down and kill the Mandarin. As events unfolded, Killian's grudge against Stark arose again and became more important, especially after Tony came after Killian again. But Killian's primary focus was growing his organization and his power, and even trying to be the power behind a new president -- another example of his important lesson that it's better to be the person pulling strings behind the scenes than the public face of power. This is a lesson relevant to Tony's situation, obviously, and plays into Tony's choice at the end to destroy his Iron Man persona.

...

2013-05-07-dholliday.jpeg
Review by Dan Holliday,


★★☆☆☆
Note: I've never liked the Iron Man movies. I feel like I'm the only one. Iron Man just never had an appeal to me. Somehow, though, as a supporting character in a large cast ("Avengers"), I liked him. Maybe that's because that's all he ever was in the Marvel Universe, and putting him back into a supporting role is where he works best [for me].

Note, Note: ***SPOILERZ***

Anyhoo. I hated Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and I really didn't like Iron Man 3 all that much. And my biggest quibble is one that I cannot even support well, but either way, it's one I have.

In all the iterations of Iron Man, the enemies were sort of realistic, science[y] based this or that. The enemies in this one seemed to have magical powers. And I guess after Avengers and Thor, the "magic" has been let out of the bag (as it were), so it was only a matter of time before we got comic-booky magic type things. But whatever, it bugged me, and that's that.

The story was incredibly poorly written. Tell me again why the world's richest man and one of the greatest geniuses of all time doesn't anticipate (a) an earthquake destroying his home and/or (b) his many dozens of enemies attacking and destroying his home and therefore building several dozen Iron Man suits and storing them at dispersed facilities around the country/world? I could have predicted that.

And I mean, it's not like his home is inconspicuous and that announcing his address should have been that big a deal (for Christ's sake, I can find any celebrity home right now). So, giving out his address (a) should not have been that big a deal and/or (b) should have also been an impetus to store several suits elsewhere because he knew that the fight would eventually come to him and his home perched precariously on the edge of a cliff.

And, let me get this straight, his sundry suit parts, on their own little rocket thingies flew from Tennessee all the way to Florida . . . um. Mm-kay. 

Also, yeah, I knew what was going to happen to Potts the moment she fell. Like, oh, how surprising. You already told us what was happening to her just six seconds before that. And, um, that plot device was completely stupid. Hated it.

The ONLY creative thing about this was the Mandarin and how he was a puppet to those behind the throne. That was a poignant commentary on scapegoats and distraction tactics in politics today and was almost a genius move. I loved that. 

All in all . . . a severely lackluster movie. It's bad when the Hulk and Thor movies are more entertaining than this "hugely popular" type movie. And, while I wanted to give this one star, I was nonetheless, somewhat entertained by the movie and wasn't totally bored through the whole thing.


More questions on Iron Man 3:]]> In The Great Gatsby, What Makes Gatsby Great? tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3225644 2013-05-06T18:31:24-04:00 2013-05-08T12:25:18-04:00 Quora http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/ This question originally appeared on Quora.

2013-05-07-chartmann.jpeg
Answer by Cristina Hartmann, Writer


Jay Gatsby is so great, so compelling because he's one of the 20th century's best tragic figures. I don't know about you, but I'm a sucker for those.

When we meet Gatsby, we see his luxurious, ostentatious veneer: the grand mansion, lavish parties, and faux Britishness. Nothing we see is real. Every bit of his persona is ill-gotten and fabricated.

Despite Gatsby's profligate lifestyle, he wins us (and Nick) over with his overweening optimism and passion. It's so purely American and innocent that we have to smile.
"Can't repeat the past?" [Gatsby] cried incredulously, "Why of course you can."
- F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (p. 116)

All his pretenses aside, Jay Gatsby is a nervous boy in love. It is only when Daisy returns to his arms when his dreams come true. In a strange way, Gatsby isn't evil or greedy, he's just like the rest of us: yearning for love and his perfect lover.

Gatsby's love for Daisy is the only pure and authentic thing about him. And what a thing it is! Gatsby goes all in for his love. He risks everything for her.

Fraudster Gatsby may be, but he was still far more real and authentic than everyone else in the bunch (Nick excepted). It was Tom's and Daisy's lies and misdeeds that led to Gatsby's demise, not his own. It was Daisy who drove the car and Tom who had the affair. Gatsby was an relative innocent.

It is the ultimate irony that Gatsby -- a criminal, a living facade -- was the most real person in that degenerate affair. That terrible irony is what makes Gatsby a great tragic figure. His authentic love led to his death, a love that proved to be illusory.

At the end, just like Nick, we all mourn Gatsby, real name or not.

...

2013-05-06-mpetrucci.jpeg
Answer by Matthew Petrucci,


Fitzgerald is said to have agonized over the title of his novel. Among the contenders, Fitzgerald considered titles such as Gatsby; Among Ash-Heaps and Millionaires; Trimalchio; Trimalchio in West Egg; On the Road to West Egg; Under the Red, White, and Blue; Gold-Hatted Gatsby and The High-Bouncing Lover.

But what makes Jay Gatsby so great that his name should be lent to the title?

He is 'great' because no other person in his position, in his day in age, loved Daisy in the way he did or felt quite the right hideous contempt of Tom, experienced the dolorous fear of being somebody 'ordinary' or felt the same horrible hollowness amid the drinking and partying.

James Gatz is no mere mortal in the eyes of Fitzgerald, the reader, and the characters within the novel itself. Among other reasons, this is perhaps why Fitzgerald felt that the title should deliberately understate his "alter-ego" Jay Gatsby; perhaps in the hopes that we, as a reader, may feel fascinated by the irony.

Jay Gatsby is, for lack of a more fitting categorization, the Batman of the 1920's; an enormously ill-fated anti-hero, ceaselessly striving for ideals that are painfully out of reach. Yet unlike Batman, no ordinary man can pick up the mask and suit and continue the legacy. Gatsby is no freedom fighter in the traditional sense. There is and can only ever be one Jay Gatsby, a persona born of a "Platonic conception" of the seventeen-year-old man striving for the fulfillment of intensely personal dreams, for fantastical things.

He is considered 'great' in a paradoxical sense. Gatsby is considered 'great' by the measurement of dreams, his wealth, his larger-than-life personality, the festivities and joviality that, to others in the novel, mark him as a man of high stature and almost god-like in personal proportions.

By the same token, in a seemingly contradictory shift, his greatness is marked by our awe of him, as we watch his tireless pursuit for the realization of his obscure values and the ambitions of love and wealth that come so close to fruition, yet remain, painfully, just out of reach.

More questions on The Great Gatsby (1925 book):]]>