Midichlorians vs. armored thongs

We all know that few things rival a full-on nerdgasm for sheer, frothy power, the kind of perfect storm achieved while watching Captain America and Iron Man go at it in “The Avengers” or waxing poetic about why “Lord of the Rings” is the greatest thing ever.

One of those rival feelings, however, is a full-on nerd rage. Talk about sheer frothy power! I sometimes think we like tearing things down more than we do building them up, which is a shame because it makes us like the rest of humanity. And that’s a downer.

Two geek films in particular have, over the years, taken up a pre-eminent position in the pantheon of nerd anger: “The Phantom Menace” and “Batman and Robin”. What I’m interested in is not so much bashing either of these movies (that’s been done to death), but rather why these two in particular are such hot buttons. I mean, there are plenty of other “franchise destroying” films out there, from “Superman III” to “X-Men 3″. They come in for their share of revilement, sure, but nowhere near the level of the other two.

And it’s not even like either of these actually destroyed their franchises. The last time I checked, both Batman movies and Star Wars projects were doing just fine, thank you very much.

So my question for you is really two-fold. First, which of these two did the most damage to their franchise in your eyes. And second, WHY? Why do you take it personally in a way you haven’t for other wretched geek movies?

Also, let me apologize in advance to frequent commenter Nick. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, I’m honestly curious as to what elevates a film from not being just another bad movie, but to something almost personally offensive. It’s fascinating to me.

Let’s say instead of random aliens coming through the wormhole in the “Avengers” movie, it was actually the Galactic Empire, led by Darth Vader, fully-functional Death Star and all. In the same scenario as the movie — a fully prepared invasion in force trying to establish a beachhead in Manhattan, opposed by the Avengers — who do you think would come out on top?

Let’s say up front that Vader doesn’t have the same kind of personality quirks and psychological imperatives as Loki. Loki is a trickster, delighting in sowing dissent and discord, preferring to take the back-stabbing approach rather than a more confrontational stance. Mostly.

Vader is arguably more aggressive and willing to fight head-to-head. He’s led massive military efforts before, better fitting the role of general. Plus, while Loki has a mind-control stick, Vader has a light saber.

In terms of the armies at their disposal, it seems like both the Empire and the Chitauri have about the same level of pilot skill. Namely, they can mostly avoid flying directly into solid objects as long as they’re not too distracted. We’re not exactly talking the Red Baron here in either case.

Regardless, you have to admit it would be pretty awesome to see Hawkeye shooting TIE fighters out of the sky, massive AT-ATs wading down Wall Street while the Hulk smashes them to bits, Iron Man dodging blaster fire through skyscrapers, Thor calling lightning down on Star Destroyers, Black Widow firing widows’ bites at Vader while he blocks them with his light saber, and Captain America wading through waves of Stormtroopers.

I’d still go with the Avengers over the Empire, largely playing out the same way it did against the Chitauri. Except for the ending, which would have Iron Man zipping along the Death Star trench to fire at the portal with his repulsor beams, Thor picking off TIE fighters as he advances. Because apparently the Empire and the Chitauri both buy their giant space ships from the same supplier.

Enough with the sci-fi technobabble, people, let’s get back to what makes super-hero comics the biggest entertainment force on the planet — horned up nerds and impossibly-constructed female forms in tight-fitting black leather. That’s right, our Versus poll for this week is “Black Widow vs. The Baroness”!

Have at it, fellow geeks! Lay out your case for which of these beautiful but deadly femmes fatale would triumph in an all-out battle.

Our matchup this week pits two titans of sci-fi fiction against each other. Your task is simple — choose who would win in an all-out war between the Borg and the Cylons (from the new BSG):

Take it to the comments to persuade us that your choice is right. Will the human/robot hybrids of the Cylon Empire overcome the soulless collective of the Borg?

I present, you decide!

Our “Versus” question today comes to us from the nice folks at FactPile, but it was so juicy I couldn’t pass it up:

In their framing, you have 10,000 Wookiees and 10,000 Na’vi going into battle on a neutral jungle planet. But let’s be honest, the Wookiees would crush them if the Na’vi didn’t have their magic internet trees or whatever the hell that living planet concept was.

So let’s switch it around and posit an invasion of the Na’vi home world by Wookiees, mostly because the idea of parachuting Wookiees makes me laugh like a hyena. Let’s say they want some Unobtanium for the rebellion, and they fly there in their ships powered by Doesnotexisteum with their Fansofmyshowareidiotsandihatethem model blasters.

In this scenario, basically you’ve got a somewhat higher tech level than the humans displayed in “Avatar”. But, that same tech level couldn’t beat a planet full of the dwarven Wookiee cousins, the Ewoks. So take that for what it’s worth. Granted, on Endor the Angry Teddy Bears were up against Storm Troopers, who we all know now were clones of what is apparently the Worst Soldier In the World, judging by their poor aim and general lack of combat effectiveness. I mean, you’ve got an entire galaxy (granted, it’s far far away, but still) from which to choose your warrior template, and the result was the storm troopers.

Apparently good cloning can’t compensate for bad judgement.

But I digress. So you’ve got super tall howling dog-men up against super tall howling blue cat people. Who wins, and why? Lay it on us, Slicks!

I realize they’ve probably fought a dozen times over the years, but I am interested in what you think would happen, not the latest writer at Marvel. So consider this matchup:

On the one hand, Iron Man has, over the years, become one of the main powerhouses of the Marvel Universe, occasionally rivaling the power of Thor and Hulk. He wasn’t always that way, though. For many years Iron Man ran the risk of burning himself out at anything approaching maximum power and wasn’t anywhere close to god-like ability. I guess a vast fortune and a top-grossing movie franchise can really help a guy out.

Colossus has such a lower profile, I bet most people don’t even put them in the same league. But Peter’s incredibly strong and incredibly tough. He’s gone toe-to-toe with the heavyweights as well and come out looking pretty decent.

So the fundamental question here is, does organic armor trump manufactured armor? Is a guy in a suit better than a guy who IS the suit?

Sound off in the comments and let us know how you feel!

In the history of film, we have two great robot franchises to contend with. The first is the soulless living metal cyborg army of the Skynet future, Terminators rolling over the last tenuous threads of humanity. The other are the transforming alien Autobots known as the Transformers. Who would win an all-out struggle between these inorganic titans?

On the one hand you have alien technology and Optimus Prime’s astounding generalship, going against a sentient AI whose best plan ultimately was to send Arnold Schwarzenegger back in time repeatedly to kill one dude. One dude!

On the other hand, the liquid metal T-2000 not only resembled a gorgeous woman (take THAT, Bumblebee!) but was able to transform itself in limited ways as well.

I admit I’m a bit stumped on this one. So I turn it over to you to debate — cast your vote and persuade others to do the same!

With the advent of the “Avengers” movie next month, I thought I’d poll you all on who you think would win between the best of the Marvel Universe against the best of the DC Universe. Unlike last time, when we posited only the original team rosters, this go-around you get to decide which group of members would go against which other group.

I’d suggest that when you put your teams together, though, that you limit yourselves to only groups that actually served at the same time. In other words, if Red Tornado and Animal Man never served in the JLA at the same time, you couldn’t have them both on the list.

Of course, since every single character in the DCU has been on the Justice League at some point in some franchise, that could get out of hand pretty quickly. I don’t think the Avengers ever had quite the roster-bloat as the JLA. So maybe a second rule should be “equal numbers only”. In other words, no fair putting all 568 members who were in the League during the “Unlimited” animated series against twelve Avengers.

In general, I think the power level of the average Marvel character is a lot lower than the power level of their DCU counterparts. And you can always try to play the “Omnipotent Superman” card if you want, but I personally think that’s kind of a cop-out along with “Whoever the writers want to win”. I don’t want your opinion of what someone else might try to make happen, I want to know what you think. For the same reason, while I know they’ve fought in actual printed crossovers before, that’s again what those writers wanted to happen. And a lot has changed in both universes since then.

Now have at it! Give us your rosters, and then who you think would win in the massive slugfest to follow.

Two of the hottest archers in the history of film (and books!) square off in today’s (well, Tuesday’s, technically, but since I can’t keep my days straight it’s today) head-to-head “Versus”.

Katniss Everdeen of “The Hunger Games” has smarts and guts in spades. She cares deeply about those around her and is willing to fight for her beliefs. Other people trust her and want to support her, especially when she’s on fire. She’s clearly an excellent archer with ample woodcraft. Also, her movie is currently out while Legolas’, being more than a month old, has already been forgotten.

Legolas Greenleaf of “The Lord of the Rings“, however, is an elf. He’s thousands of years old, pale, lives in the perpetual gloom of a mighty forest, and … wait, if this guy sparkles in sunlight I’m out of here. No? Phew! He’s capable of astounding feats of agility, acrobatics, and courage. He can rapid-fire arrows while skateboarding on a shield and looking like solid hotness! He can scale and kill giant war-mammoths, he can use an arrow like a spear, and he has gloriously long blond hair. At the end of his story, unfortunately, he decides to give up on the planet and become a sailor. Or something, frankly the Silmarillion never made sense to me.

The point is, Legolas’ elfin ass is going to bail on us, while good ol’ human Katniss wants to save us all. For that alone, I go with Ms. Everdeen!

Make your case in the comments and cast your votes, folks!

Somehow my cinematic radar completely failed to register this film, which I feel certain is destined to be a classic:

Finally a movie that gets at some of the hard questions in life! If George Clooney had turned into either a ninja or a vampire in “Descendants” I could see how he’d be nominated for an Academy Award. After all, if movies can’t make us think, then what good are they?

Which is where you come in to help solve this epic dilemma that has stumped philosophers throughout the ages. Which is it, and why?