Thor cheats!

For Asgard! Its Sunday, February 20, 2011, I'm ready for ale and wenches, and this is The Side. I don't drink nearly as much as I used to, but just last night I dreamed I was drinking a MGD and it was good. Things must be bad when my subconscious is telling me to go have a cold one.

As for the wenches, well, someone needs to clean up around this joint.


New Thor movie trailer hit the web this week. Looks great. I was already looking forward to this flick, and this just makes me more excited for it.

There's is a few things that strike me as odd. I already discussed having a black guy running around Asgard. They're also changing things up a bit in having Jane Foster (Played here by Natalie Portman) be an astro-physicist and not a nurse. That's not too big a deal. What does seem odd to me is this movie's take on Asgard itself.

According to this movie Asgard is so technically advanced that their technology takes on the trappings of magic. I just seems odd that the concept of magic is getting explained away in this manner. Its interesting as hell, but its just such an odd shift for a set of characters based of Norse Gods. Maybe they wanted to take this direction to distinguish themselves from the slew of other movies that have magical characters. It could be that they have a lot of really cool ideas to put up on the screen that they've based on this concept. Its not a deal breaker change, and its not even a dumb one, but its just so striking to me. I think that comes from Thor being the part of the Marvel Trinity that represents magic and mythology, and this shift sort of removes him from that spot and places him more in the science fiction slot.

But yes I am definitely looking forward to this movie. The guy playing Thor looks absolutely spot on. I spotted the Warriors Three in the new trailer, and I'm a fan of them. Really the only thing that's a drawback is the 3D thing, but I'm sure I'll be able to find showings that aren't 3D. Bottom line: the new trailer is cool, and I'm very excited for the movie.


There's a lot of people concerned with things being "fair". Sure, things being fair is fine and dandy, but its easy to go overboard. How can you go overboard on being fair? Isn't fairness a good thing? If something is good then there should be no such thing as too much of it, right? Wrong.

Let's look at a very old game. By old I mean a few thousand years. Its called Go, and its still very popular. It originated in Asia and the premise of it is pretty simple, but the game itself is very complex. Its played on a board with a grid on it and two players take turns placing stones where the lines intersect to gain territory. You get points by successfully surrounding space on the board. You can also take your opponents stones if you surround them and cut them off from any openings. It takes little time to learn but a lifetime to master.

Its a very simple game but when you have someone who is very good at it playing someone not as skilled they can receive a handicap. There's 9 key positions on a Go board and depending on the handicap a player can allow his opponent to start the game with stones in these locations. In a game where one well placed stone can turn the tide of a game this is a huge advantage which can sufficiently counter gaps in skill between players.

Over time it was determined that even going first was a huge advantage so the concept of komi was developed. Black always goes first, so in a match between evenly skilled opponents where there is no handicap, the player with the white stones receives 2 1/2 points to off set the disadvantage.

These rules have been in place for a very long time. They weren't just created on a whim. The game was analyzed and proper ways of keeping the matches even were developed. But what if someone still doesn't think that's enough to make things even? I knew a kid who cheated in pretty much every game I ever saw him play. When I attempted to teach him Go he would blatantly attempt to place more than one stone during his turn. The game had been explained and he understood how it worked. Still he attempted to place multiple stones even after I told him it was against the rules. In truth there is a rule about placing multiple stones in one turn and I enforced it the very next turn when he tried to do it again.

"You lose."


"You just lost this game. If you place more than one stone during your turn then you automatically lose."

Thus ended his playing the game. Once he found out he could not manipulate the game to his liking he had no interest in playing anymore. This mindset isn't limited to children. In life you cannot expect everything to work out your way. Fairness means everybody has the same opportunity to be successful in their ventures. It doesn't mean you can change the rules just try to stick it to someone you don't like. Its like the movement to up the Capital Gains Taxes. Some people want this don't because they say that wealthier people aren't paying their fair share even though wealthier people pay the majority of the taxes taken in by the government. Its been proven that upping this tax actually decreases the amount of revenue taken in by the government, but still they push for it in the name of "fairness".

We play games as children, but what we learn is how to deal with life. Some people are winners. Some people don't win quite so much. I'm still waiting on my ship to come in, but unfortunately I think its off the coast of Somalia. So you shouldn't get all butt-hurt when you think of successful people. They just happen to be winning out a bit more. If you're smart you should look at them as you would a person you beats you at Go, Chess, or anything competitive. When I put the gloves on and get my ass kicked, its a learning experience, and I look to the person who beat me and ask "How can I do this better?"

When the world stops being a level playing field because whiny little pansies claim "its not fair", look at them as the children they're acting like and do what I do when a student gripes about something not being fair. Laugh right at them, and then get back in the game.


Today's post is brought to you by The American Budget. For the best in high quality, low price items, its The American Budget. Call now.

That's the shooting match for today. I'm going to see if my sinuses will actually explode with the temperature bouncing up and down over the next few days. If they do explode hopefully a hippy will get caught in the blast. Nothing says "TAKE THAT!" like a snotty sinus detonation, except for Phoenix Wright. ASK NOZZ DAY #2 will be this Wednesday! So, if you have any questions about anything you'd like me to answer you can leave a comment here or e-mail it too me at and I'll have the answers up next time around. See y'all then.


Paul said...

Kirby wanted everything to be science instead of magic, and sometimes the Asgardians were shown to be an alien race with advanced science that was mistaken for gods, a little like the Eternals, and sometimes they were just called gods. It depended on the writer. There's a black dude and an asian dude in Asgard. I honestly don't see the big deal with changing the race of fictional characters. Heimdall wasn't even shown in Thor that often.

Having Foster be a scientist instead of a nurse is a much better change. In the recent Thor: Mighty Avenger, Jane Foster was an archeologist working at a museum. Anything that will take her from being a very typical 40s nurse and cast her in a more intelligent character gets my vote.

Marty Nozz said...

I'm pretty much cool with all the changes although some of them are kinda weird. Changing the ethnicity of characters in this case is a little odd considering the nature of the source material, but really not a big deal. I do like what they're doing with Jane Foster. Great upgrade. The science thing does bug me a bit since Thor is like the mythical anchor in the Marvel Universe. Its not a deal breaker for me, but it does sit a little off with me.