1

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It depends, really. In a weird way, Harley kidnapping Dr. Phil sounds like something that the old cartoon Harley would do.


As with everything having to do with these movies, I'm just going to have to wait and see. Who knows what's going on at this point? The Joker movie could be interesting, but I wonder if they'll even tie it to the DC world/characters, or just use the Joker as inspiration for some crazy 1980's serial killer story.

2

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

They've said repeatedly, they're working on the next Man of Steel movie. They have nothing to move forward with because they're trying to put the project together. There are about a hundred movies in the same position, which you'll be sitting down to watch in a couple of years.

And yeah, it's gossip. But it was sloppy gossip that shouldn't have been picked up by nearly as many of the media outlets as it was. Especially the geekier sites, which reported it despite the obvious flaws in the story. I can never understand why people will believe whatever they're told, regardless of how credible those reports are. If I could look at that report and tell that it was fake, the Hollywood Reporter, and all of the other people who make a living at this crap, have no reason not to do the same. Which mean, they reported it despite knowing that it stank.

3

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think they just mean that, like Wonder Woman or Suicide Squad, the movie is its own thing, while existing in that universe. Whereas Marvel will bring Spider-Man into Civil War and then his whole movie has to revolve around that Peter/Tony angle, Aquaman won't be feeding into any larger DCEU stories, or following up on any from before, which makes sense. It's very much in keeping with the comic books, whereas the Marvel approach is to create one large painting with all of these characters in different corners of the same canvas.

I don't think non-comic book people are going to follow the DCEU. I think that well probably dried up a while ago (at least for Batman and Superman), so they have to take those characters who have already been in a ton of movies, and try to play a different angle. This is another reason why the Aquaman/Shazam/Wonder Woman movies would be handled differently than the Batman/Superman movies.

It would be nice to have someone officially representing the franchise. I thought Geoff Johns was supposed to be doing that, but he doesn't seem to be.

That said, letting the press go crazy is sometimes a smart tactic. Warner can release all of these rumors about Cavill being fired, which will bring more support to Cavill (because people like him as an actor). Then the next Superman movie, which non-DCEU fans would probably not care about, suddenly becomes a rallying point... all while Warner Bros gets to shrug and ask what all of the fuss was about, because they never fired anyone. They have no movie in production, but they still have headlines.

Knowing how to manipulate the swarm of hack reporters is a talent that people underestimate.


TMZ is reporting that the whole thing is fake:
http://www.tmz.com/2018/09/13/henry-cav … ch_Results


Negotiating in the press? Maybe. I love how they're keeping open the possibility that someone else would come in to play him. At face value, it seems like Warner Bros is trying to keep Cavill on his toes during negotiations. However, I'm inclined to believe that they're keeping the rumor mill spinning. Cavill has another movie on his contract (probably with a big pay raise over his previous movies). The Shazam movie would have been a new negotiation, and it (apparently) fell through (thought there has been some interaction between Cavill and Zachary Levi on social media). Cavill loves playing with the minds of the fans (as he did while teasing Green Lantern stuff before Justice League came out), so he knows what he's doing here.

People (and by this, I mostly mean entertainment reporters) need to spot BS. There were a lot of tells in that original report, which anyone with a passing knowledge of DC characters, or Cavill's position on the DCEU should have picked up on.

4

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The Joker movie is a different thing. I have no idea what it is, or how to judge it just yet. Sometimes it sounds cool, and like it could be disconnected from the Batman character entirely. It could just be a crime story, based on the character. But at other times, the movie sounds like a disaster, filled with poorly-conceived political commentary and horrible casting.

I guess we'll see.

Aquaman does connect to the DCEU. It features at least two characters/actors from Justice League. I don't see how that's viewed as any sort of step away from the established continuity. The movie is about Aquaman, and will be its own thing, but it's the same universe, the same characters, the same mythology created as a backstory in Justice League.

And the Batman movie... we know nothing about. There's talk that it's a whole new thing, with a whole new cast... but these rumors are born from not having any actual information. We have to separate out the wild speculation and sloppy ponderings from the actual reality of the situation.


Is it me, or could we just swap out comic book themes for politics and just as easily be talking about any other story in the news right now? smile

5

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think you're looking for the wrong things from DC. So far, the movies have felt like the same universe to me, but more than that, they've felt like the comic books. Yes, different stories have different tones or even styles, but they still fit into the same world. Suicide Squad felt like BvS to me. Wonder Woman feels like Man of Steel (in terms of universes, not overall story).

But if you're looking for "Where is this going", I think you'll be waiting for a while. The DC universe isn't about where we'll be ten years from now. It's about the movie we're watching right now. This probably makes it look more chaotic than it is, in the press, because they're looking for "In six years, we'll have Darkseid show up, but we have to set up Jason Todd and Booster Gold first", and that's just not happening.

Shazam is in the DCEU. As is Aquaman. They might not have a ton of crossovers, but that's not any sort of correction. It's been the plan all along.




Anyway, does anyone follow Henry Cavill on Instagram? He is either trolling all of the people who are upset at his leaving (which would be out of character for him), or he is making fun of the needless chaos.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnpPIrmFN9n … snwxs5vqh4

6

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The problem is, they already killed him off... and brought him back.
They already made him bad... and turned him good (though, very quickly)

They spent Suicide Squad and Justice League showing us a world without Superman. It wasn't good. So if they then turn around and boot Superman from the DCEU, they undermine everything that they've built.

I have no problem with them deciding to bring in some other characters, no matter how obscure. But they need to leave Superman alone.

It just doesn't make sense, which is why I have a hard time buying these rumors. If Warner is doing this to try to appease all of those people who whined about "Not my Superman" when they saw Man of Steel, why would they choose to make an even bigger move away from Superman, right as they've positioned Clark to become the person that everyone wanted him to become in the first place?

And again, why does a "teenage Supergirl" concept mean that Cavill is too old? Is there a continuity where she becomes Supergirl while he is still a baby? None of this makes any sort of logical sense, even from a panicked, reactionary position. Bringing in a new director to make a Man of Steel sequel, with Clark as he is now, seems to be the answer to everyone's problems. And it's what Cavill was talking about a little while ago... which is the only legitimate information we have on any sort of talks that have taken place.


I never believe news just because people tell me to. Every major news outlet is referring back to The Hollywood Reporter, which is itself basing its story on an anonymous source, who doesn't seem to know anything about the source material, or the contracts that are in place. They play down the comments from Warner Bros, but that is the only legitimate part of the whole story.

7

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I have nothing against Michael B. Jordan, and I'm sure that there are many characters that he'd be great for. But no. If these rumors were true (and I don't believe them), I'd probably just walk away. They have a good thing going in the movies, so if they choose to much that up for some silly reason, I'm out. The DC tv shows crumbled (at least a couple of them because of their over-politicization) and I find this whole environment exhausting.

8

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I do agree that they need to have a dedicated DC person/department. I don't think it would solve all of the problems, but it would probably help with a bunch of them.

The problem is that people expect Marvel-type news. They want a schedule 200 years in advance, and they want to know every detail of every decision made about those movies. The fact is, DC isn't doing that. They can't give us details on when Man of Steel 2 is coming out because they won't know until they have a solid idea of what that movie is going to be. It doesn't mean that it's not happening. It just means that nothing is set right now.

That's great in terms of quality of their products, but it's not great for the news outlets, who will then go on to publish any random crap they hear, because there's no news otherwise.



In general, I'm sick to death of the media. They report bullsh!t, knowing full-well that it's not true, but they also know that people will believe it, because they read it from a "reliable" source. And nobody goes back to check to see if those stories are altered later (official retractions don't happen as much as unadvertised rewrites these days).

I hate the media. Not just with entertainment, but in general. The big news outlets need to just go away.



And why is nobody else mentioning how stupid it is to say that Cavill's age would stand in the way of him appearing with a teenage Supergirl? Some of these geeky sites have to know Supergirl's story, and therefore know that this age issue is crap. Why aren't they saying it?



Now, all that said... if we have seen the last of his Superman, I think his arc plays well. It's not the complete arc that we were hoping for, but it does resolve his overall arc in a lot of ways. He went from being a lonely young man, scared of his own powers, to being a hero, surrounded by a team of friends and allies, celebrating his abilities. That's pretty solid.

9

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

If true, that's upsetting. Mostly because the biggest problem for the DC movies has been Warner Bros, not any of the actors or writers/directors. However... I don't know that I trust the report. It states that they want to shift the focus to a Supergirl movie, and that this would boot Superman because he'd be an infant when she's around. This isn't remotely true. In fact, you'd NEED an established Superman in order to tell a Supergirl story, and telling the story of her before that would mean telling the story of Krypton, without any superpowers at all.

And all of this is assuming that a Supergirl movie happens at all, which is unlikely since there is a Supergirl series, so this would cause the same issues that the Flash movie has had.


Cavill has never struck me as someone who wanted out of the role. His social media posts seem rather enthusiastic about the role, honestly. And his signing on to another project doesn't really impact the Superman productions at all. Especially since it's a Netflix series, so they're probably working around his prior commitments.

According to him, he's probably already contracted for one more movie at least:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-7Nvmd0178


This sounds like more bullsh*t news surrounding the DC movies. They've been unable to confirm that Affleck is leaving, and that rumor is nearly a year old. While I think that there are some major issues with the Warner Bros side of things (mostly, they have no idea what the f--- they're doing with comic book movies and they are constantly panicking and trying to adjust), I think that a lot, lot, lot of the news surrounding the DCEU has been crap. And it seems to be a constant cycle of the same rumors, over and over again, just swapping out names.

10

(32 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I wish they'd at least put up a notice that there is more to come. Some movies do it. Other movies don't. Some do one. Some do ten. Even after it should be safe to assume that there aren't any, some movies have them. It's not clever anymore, it's annoying.

11

(32 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think that I saw all of the end credits parts. I saw one, but I think that was it.

Crap.


I need to find that. Also, movies REALLY need to stop with this crap.

Watched Black Panther.


That leaves Infinity War and Ant Man 2 before I'm caught up.

13

(32 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Watched Deadpool 2. Solid sequel. I could probably nitpick some flaws, but I don't think the movie was meant to be taken too seriously, so I won't do that. It had me laughing. The last was solid. The directing was solid. It's a pretty good way to sit back and relax for the night.

Just make sure that you read the opening credits. I was watching with someone who wasn't paying attention to the credits, and he had no idea why I was laughing.

14

(32 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Legion is a pretty interesting show, but I don't think we can view it as being in the same universe as the X-Men movies.

If Disney is really going to own Fox properties, they should probably just retire the X-Men series as we know it and move on with a fresh start. The continuity is, as you pointed out, so twisted and convoluted that it's just nonsense at this point. Some of it has been so poorly done that it looks like a kid's show from the 90's. And while I don't think it's really fair that so many people are choosing to vent their frustration with the actress who now plays Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), most of the people I've seen talking about the Dark Phoenix movie just want it to be shelved, or released as some obscure bootleg in a few years.

Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart were the biggies for that franchise anyway. It might as well just be over now.

That leaves Deadpool, who already exists in that universe... and yet could just be plopped down in the MCU, blatantly commenting on what's happening, and nobody would think twice of it.

Maybe they can sprinkle X-Men characters in other MCU stories, both in movies and on TV, and then work around to an X-Men movie at some point down the line. But the Singer X-Men should just go away. They no longer fit into the comic book movie landscape.

15

(32 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Deadpool II! I need to see that before the MCU movies. smile

I think comic book movies are catching up to comic books. There are a ton of different branches, with a ton of different styles, some of which go together and some of which don't, which we're supposed to just accept.

DC is doing a Joker movie that doesn't take place in the DCEU, and probably doesn't feature Batman in any major role (though I suppose he could appear in some capacity). They also have TV shows, only some of which exist in the same universe, but all of which may potentially exist in the same multiverse.

Just pretend you're browsing a shelf of graphic novels. Pick and choose as you see fit.

17

(597 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Don't know. I've actually been considering taking down my someplacethatiselse.net site lately. I always say that I'm going to do something productive with it, but I'm too busy to actually do anything. Next time it's up for renewal, I may just archive it and let it go. Buffy Season 8 was a huge accomplishment for me. It was a great learning experience and it proved a lot for me, in terms of what I could accomplish, and what I could do on a strict deadline. But it was a stepping stone.


That's just me though.

It's not that I'm incapable of enjoying a Marvel movie, or even one of their big group movies. The problem that I have is that they've never actually put any effort into one of those movies. They coast on the thrill of the big event, but put very little thought or care into producing a good script. It's all about marketing and deadlines, and they hope that the audience will be too distracted by shiny objects to notice that the plots make no sense.

Believe it or not, the reason why I keep watching the Marvel movies is because I want to like them. It's just that they're so, so bad! smile

I'm even more behind than you. I haven't seen Black Panther or Infinity War. I guess if they're ending their deal with Netflix, I'll have to rent them at some point. I just haven't felt a big need to see them yet.

But that ranks them above the last couple of Star Wars movies, which I'm pretty sure I've just given up on. smile

Okay, I watched the Danny episode, and the fight scene that you linked.

The fight scene was cool, just because I like Colleen. The two work well together.

The episode with Danny was still boring. I didn't miss anything from previous episodes, because they are constantly explaining everything about every single scene... slowly... and with more melodrama than a reality show set in high school. I really can't do this show. The cast is okay, but the writing and directing are horrible. And does it have a lower budget than the other Netflix Marvel shows? It looks cheaper.

Sigh. But Iron Fist is coming back soon! It might not be super great, but it should be watchable at least. Plus... Colleen.

Has anyone watched season 2 of Luke Cage? If so, is there anything important that I need to know when going into the next season of Iron Fist? I know some characters are going back and forth between shows, but I just can't watch Luke Cage. I watched the first episode of season 2, and it was like watching a PBS documentary about paint drying. I don't know who writes that show, but it is insanely boring for a superhero series.

One of the things that I liked most about the first Guardians movie was the fact that it didn't really seem like an MCU movie. It just felt like its own thing, and not some commercial for another movie that would come out a couple of years later, like most MCU movies. I guess they can't go back to that, but it'd be nice if Marvel had some movies that weren't so interconnected. I don't mean to say that they can't exist in the same universe, but it feels like all of their movies are smothered by other movies.



On an unrelated note, did anyone watch Cloak and Dagger on Freeform? The series definitely feels more like one of the Netflix shows than it does AoS. Maybe not the same cinematic feel, but similar in terms of story. The politics of the show are about as subtle as a brick to the head, which can be irritating (even I would like to just enjoy a TV show without politics sometimes). There are some things about the state of "young people" TV in general that I don't love, but the show was still pretty watchable. I don't know how well it sticks to the comics, since I'd never heard of these characters before this show (though I do sometimes watch the 80's movie of the same name... good times).

They do name drop Misty from the Netflix shows, and I think they mentioned Stark and Rand as well, but I don't remember the exact quotes.

Maybe I've just heard too many stories about Hollywood, and have heard too many personal stories from victims of child molesters, but if I had a kid (or if it were my nephews or niece) and I saw those jokes and pictures, I would walk away. Not because I believe that Gunn is guilty of any crime, but because I just don't know, and those comments which make light of pedophilia would make me nervous about letting any of the kids in my family work closely with him. Hollywood has a long, long history of not only hiring pedophiles, but of covering up for them (many A-list celebrities still make excuses for Polanski and gave him a standing ovation when he won an Oscar... plus *they gave him an Oscar!*). Even the slightest hint would send me walking in the other direction.

But yeah, it's a personal call. He might have changed, or he might have stopped making those jokes once he was hired by Disney. I hope that he has grown as a person, I really do. If so, I wish him the best of luck. I'm not for any sort of boycott at this point.

It's just a really sensitive subject. We all know that I'm not a super-PC SJW. I make all sorts of inappropriate jokes (mostly around those who know my actual personality and know when I'm joking), but the thought of making a pedophilia joke or associating myself with NAMBLA would never even cross my mind, because the thought disgusts me so much. I don't know what it takes to get to a mental place where it wouldn't be disgusting.


Anyway, I guess it's over with. We'll see which of the actors walk away, if any. And if Disney pushes the third GotG movie back some, just to let it breathe. Though, that might cause their whole schedule to collapse, like dominoes. smile

Here is a question though: if you were the parent of a child actor, would your kid be working on a James Gunn movie?

There is no evidence to suggest that he ever did anything to a kid... And yet, he associated himself with those who do. So, if you're a parent and you see those comments, or the pictures, do you shrug it off and sign on, or do you walk away, just in case?

His comments were bound to become an issue at some point. It was just a matter of time. If it wasn't something political, it would have been some angry fan, upset over their favorite character being killed off, or whatever. The reason for this coming out now was political, sure. However, the political people didn't create the issue. They really only did it because Gunn was unforgiving toward others, and they wanted to turn the tables. The whole point of it was to prove that everyone could be ruined in this way... but the topic of his actions made him an especially easy target.

He'll be fine. He will work again. Just (probably) not for Disney. If he were working on the next Deadpool movie, this probably wouldn't have been an issue for the studio, but the MCU movies make their billions because they market toward kids and families. Having their movie title in the same article as some of those comments could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars, especially if they didn't fire the person who made those comments.


I think this is a situation of "It is what it is", just like the Roseanne thing. Agree or disagree, everyone involved was free to do what they did and there's not much more to say about it. When the Roseanne thing happened, nobody wanted to hear her explanation or her apology. She was cast out, and everyone danced on the grave of her career. James Gunn was one of those people.  Maybe he can use this as another growing opportunity.

I think that's all fair, but I don't think that Disney fired him because of his politics. Ultimately, it might have been people on the right who brought it up and made it an issue, but Gunn was fired because of his own actions. They didn't fabricate the pedophilia comments, or the pictures. Those were choices that he made, and Disney decided that they didn't want their company associated with those things.

He didn't take a hit for his politics, and liberals probably shouldn't adopt him as some sort of martyr for their cause. Not all liberals have pedophilia jokes in their Twitter history, or enjoyed pedophilia themed parties. Regardless of who brought these things into the recent conversation, I think that most liberals probably find them as disgusting as the conservatives do (though I can't claim to understand or speak for their side). I hope that he has changed. I hope that those things don't reflect who he is on the inside, and I pray that they don't reflect anything that he might have actually done to kids. However, if my nine-year-old nephew needs to learn that what you say and do on the internet will follow you for life, a 40+ year old man really has no choice but to accept the consequences of his actions, and own those consequences. Disney's actions have nothing to do with Gunn's politics.

James Gunn.


I'm not putting this in the political thread because it's not really political. I know those who brought it to light are political, so I'll address that, but the topic itself isn't political, so let's not pretend that it is. I am aware of how this issue became an issue but I honestly couldn't tell you who brought it up though. I know that they're reported as conservatives, but I don't know/remember who did it and therefore, I don't know if I agree with them or not.

My reaction to the James Gunn story has come in phases (much like the MCU!), so I'll explain those phases.


Phase One - I heard rumblings of a "conservative group" bringing up the James Gunn tweets and demanding that action be taken against him. At this point, I hadn't seen the tweets. I chuckled at the fact that James Gunn was now being forced to live by the standards that he set for others, but I didn't think much of the issue overall. I saw it as a way for whoever did this to highlight the hypocrisy of the liberal media, so the outrage over Gunn's firing was mildly amusing to me, but I had more important things to worry about, so I didn't really care one way or the other. If Roseanne got fired for being Roseanne, James Gunn can get fired for being James Gunn. I didn't care either way.


Phase Two - I saw the tweets. I found them repulsive. I understood why Disney fired him, but what I didn't understand was why they hired him in the first place. Surely, they must have looked over his social media history before they hired him, right? Again, I don't care that they fired him, because it's Disney and they have very strict guidelines for the people who work for them (I was actually watching a YouTube video about that subject just before the Gunn news broke, so it was fresh in my mind). What I didn't (and still don't) get was why they hired him at all. He clearly does not represent the image that Disney strives for.
There are reports of pedophiles working for Disney, and of course the whole Powder issue, but overall, they seem to at least try to look clean and family friendly.

It's important to note that while I understand why *Disney* fired him, I also wasn't interested in seeing Gunn blacklisted, or his career destroyed. Tweets aren't crimes. I am a strong supporter of free speech, even when it turns my stomach. Unless there is some evidence of him actually molesting kids, I don't need to see any pain inflicted. I just understood why Disney fired him, and I really don't know if I'd be interested in seeing his movies. I didn't even really like Guardians 2, so it's not like I was a huge fan to begin with. Honestly, seeing how many times he joked about pedophilia made me uneasy, so it was going to be a while before I sit down to watch Guardians of the Galaxy again either way. 

Still, the point of making this issue an issue was to show how differently a self-proclaimed liberal is treated, compared to a "conservative" (and I use quotes because Roseanne is not a conservative. That's more of a press label, because she supports Trump). So, the point was well made and kinda funny in an "I'll forget about this in five minutes" kind of way.

Now, the political joke is over, and we're still talking about Gunn, so I guess the issue is still an issue, regardless of where it comes from.

At this point, what was done was done. It all seemed to even out well enough, though I thought it was a mistake for the cast to tie their wagon to Gunn, because there's no way for them to know where the story was going. He was fired for good reason, and that should have been the end of it. He can go work on another movie, and they can go back to doing what they do.


Phase Three - The pictures. James Gunn attending what appears to be a "To Catch a Predator" themed party, where guests dressed as pedophiles and their child victims. This isn't just a random joke, or a poor decision made in the three seconds that it took to write a tweet. This was an organized event, with well considered themes and costumes. At the very least, it makes light of pedophilia, and at worst it shows a weird acceptance of it. Even the better of these two options is disgusting. This is a topic of entertainment not only for Gunn himself, but apparently for his circle of friends. And as I saw these pictures just after watching a documentary called "An Open Secret" about the issue of pedophilia in Hollywood, it didn't take much for me to move to the side of the people who think that Gunn needs to just go away. People need to stop defending him as though his actions are perfectly normal. People need to stop acting like Disney is out of line by firing him, or like this is all some big political conspiracy. He made those comments. He took those pictures. He is the one that is responsible for them, no matter who raised the topic.

Is he a criminal? I don't see evidence that he actually molested any kids, so I am not calling for him to go to prison or anything like that. He had every right to make these comments and go to that party. I have every right to find him disgusting because of it. Disney has every right to decide that he no longer fits their image. People have a right to defend him if they want. I won't. Whatever happens to his career now is his own doing. I feel no sympathy for him. It doesn't take a genius to know that pedophilia jokes won't go over well. It just takes an average amount of human decency.


The question is, with the cast supporting him (at least when they signed that letter) and making a fuss over his being fired, is there a point to making another Guardians movie? If they move forward without him, some cast members may not return and some of the audience might not support the movie. If they move forward with him, another part of the audience will stay away.

Would it be smarter to just use those characters in other movies, at least for a while?

28

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The good news is that I don't think that the action hero version of Picard is really an option at this point. Patrick Stewart is 78 years old now. Honestly, we'll be lucky if the Picard project ever makes it to screen.

I didn't really have a problem with Picard in the movies (not counting Nemesis, because I never count Nemesis). In Generations, they gave Picard a pretty compelling character arc, coming to terms with the fact that his family line (which he'd assumed would carry on through his brother's family) would come to an end with him. He's older and isn't likely to have a family of his own, and the reality of time and legacy really hit him. That's complimented by the nexus story, in which time and space mean nothing, but ultimately lose their value.

I think I like Generations more than most people do.


Yeah, First Contact was Die Hard in space. Picard was presented as an action hero, unlike we'd really seen him before (though to be fair, we saw some toned down TV-budget versions of this sort of thing in the past). However, I think it still managed to capture the PTSD element, and how Picard still has to deal with the fact that he was violated in a very brutal way. We also got some lighter elements mixed in there, with the other characters from the series.

Insurrection was probably the most like the TNG series out of all of the movies. It's a little funny that so many people dislike the movie. It could have provided Picard with the chance to follow up on his arc from Generations. If he'd settled down with Anij, he could have had the future that seemed so beyond his grasp in Generations. It would have proven that whatever you believe the future is, it isn't.

But Nemesis ruined that. Nemesis ruined EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111


Oh well. I guess we'll see how this all turns out. I wonder if the other TNG cast members are upset about him being invited back without them.

29

(926 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't have much to add to what Slider_Quinn21 said. It's true, of course. And a lot of people don't understand politics enough to know that what you're told isn't always the truth. There is a lot of flashy, razzle-dazzle type stuff going on that different people use to get their followers riled up, and you usually have to sort through the facts and look at the raw data before you can get an idea of what the truth is. But most people don't do that, so they're stuck in this sort of vague area that seems really scary and dramatic because fear and drama get politicans more votes, gets TV networks more viewers, gets articles more clicks, etc.

I think a large number of people are getting tired of the hatred. I don't know if it's a majority, but it's a significant number. Maybe there will be a place for rational conversation someday, even between people who disagree.

30

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, all of the Trek shows air reruns around me. I don't usually watch them (because I stream them when I want to watch), but they are still making Paramount some amount of money.

I think DS9 has probably built more of a fanbase since it aired than B5 has. Outside of geeky circles (and older ones at that), I don't really hear much about B5. However, I still see DS9 talked about and it seems like it's aged pretty well. People usually talk about it as the superior Trek, which is fun for all of us who remember DS9 as the forgotten Trek series that nobody cared about back in the day. smile

31

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think that DS9 and Voyager would be better long term investments for them, since they have a fan base that is still strong. But they'd probably require more work than Charmed or McGyver because of the visuals.

HD or no HD, DS9 still holds up pretty well. Their space battles were impressive. I'm watching B5 for the first time now, and it is visually very dated.

32

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oddly enough, my brother and I were discussing the Jonathan Kent death scene just a few days ago. We came to the conclusion that it was probably one of the more important scenes for Clark's overall arc, to get him from the life he needed to have as a child (protected, safe, secret) to the life that he has an adult (the hero).

It's a really layered scene, that people don't think about enough.

Jonathan and Martha needed to tell Clark to keep his abilities a secret growing up. They were his parents, and it was their job to protect him above all else. They were terrified of what would happen to him if anyone ever discovered his secret. So they hammered it into his head, over and over again, not to use his abilities.

As we see with the bus crash, that lesson goes against what his parents taught him about being a good person. It's not who they are, and it's not who he is. But they're parents and they're scared. Jonathan's reaction to Clark saving the bus was understandable, because at the moment when Jonathan is having that doubt, the only threat is to Clark, his son. Even Jonathan doesn't believe that Clark should have done nothing, but he's not sure what he should have done, because people saw it. Ultimately, saving the bus is what exposed Clark as an adult.


So, the tornado scene. Clark wants desperately to fight the lessons that he's been taught for as long as he could remember, but he's terrified. I've experienced moments of danger (when younger) that happened in such a way where my body and mind were at odds. I couldn't think or process, so I fell back on what I knew. When Clark does that, he falls back to doing what his father tells him to do (despite having been arguing with his father about this very subject only minutes earlier). Clark is still young, and scared, and his instinct isn't lined up with his teachings.

In that moment, Clark does what his father tells him to do. He plays it safe. He ignores his instinct and everything that he is as a person, and he follows orders. Because he does this, he loses his father. He loses everything that he had been taught, because it didn't matter. He played it safe, and he still lost. He let fear keep him from action that he knew was right, and his father died because of it.

But the scene is more than that. Because despite what Jonathan Kent taught his son out of fear of losing his son, Jonathan sacrificed himself for someone else. His actions and his words didn't line up. Jonathan, the man, was a hero. Jonathan, the father, was just scared. Every day. For decades.


The scream that Clark lets out when Jonathan dies mimics the scream that he lets out when he kills Zod. It's the loss of something vital to the core of who he is. Action or inaction, it didn't matter. He still lost. But without Jonathan's death teaching Clark that lesson, i'm not sure that he could become the hero that he was meant to be. Sure, Clark wanted to do something good, but that was a childish desire to act for his own sake. It was rebellion. At that point, he wasn't capable of being what he needed to become in order to use his powers responsibly and safely.



The scene can probably be discussed and perceived in different ways, if we really wanted to get into it. But I don't think that it was a scene that was ill-conceived or careless. I don't think that it was a scene that could easily be removed from the movie without removing something vital to the arc of Clark's character, as well as Jonathan's. It's easy to say that the scene could just be removed and that it was a bad scene, because most people don't need to character arc at all. A lot of people would be happy with the basic, cotton-candy version of the Superman origin that we've seen a hundred times before. But for this movie, and this Clark's development as a character, I think that losing that scene would do a lot of damage.

33

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The MCU movies have done a good job of marketing to everyone, while not really targeting any one specific audience. They're very accessible to non-comic book fans in the same way that cartoon series are, but they lose many of the layers that comic books build into the worlds and characters. Again, this is like we'd see in a cartoon.

And that's a very valid way to approach it. It has made it seem like everyone loves comic book stories, even though that's not really the case. The "cool kids" are into these movies now, but only as long as they don't get too geeky. The mountain went to Muhammed.

The problem is, Superman and Batman have been telling widely accessible stories on screen for 70+ years. If they release another scene of Clark hopping around in a corn field, the audience will scream. Yet at the same time, that's what the wider audience expects.

With Batman and Superman (and to a lesser extent the Flash), there isn't much chance of pleasing the wide, broad audience in the same way that Marvel does. Some people want a shot-for-shot remake of the Donner movie. Some want to see obscure comic arcs on screen. Most wouldn't recognize the comic book characters and want the cartoon characters. Some loved Bale, while others want Keaton.

DC has a ton of baggage that Marvel doesn't. Marvel can play it safe, but DC needs to change things up. Wonder Woman probably performed the best because most people know the character while not really having any expectations of the movie.

All I know is that when I get into conversations about the DC movies, people usually hate the movies because "that's not my Superman." He emotes, so he's too emo. He has doubts, so he's cold. He isn't Reeves, because Reeves would never kill Zod (an actual conversation I had, despite my linking to the scene where he kills Zod in Superman II)

It's probably more fair to compare DC movies to Godzilla or Dracula at this point. Or James Bond. Especially with Superman and Batman.

34

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I obviously disagree, but I won't rehash the entire conversation that we've had a million times. I think the only thing plaguing the DC movies is that Disney made the Marvel movies to kinda-sorta appeal to everyone in some way, to make as much money as they can (it's the Disney way), while DC played to a narrower audience. Yet they're being compared as the same thing, because they're both "comic book" franchises.

I don't view the DC movies through the lens of how it compares to Marvel or how Marvel approached their movies. There are a million ways in which we can't compare the two franchises.

I think Warner Bros was probably looking at the MCU more than the people actually making the DC movies were. The problem is that there seems to be a constant tug of war within Warner. They're not battling Marvel, they're battling themselves. Justice League under performed because someone at Warner Bros didn't get it, and panicked. This isn't unique to comic book movies. Most horror movies today aren't remotely scary, because studios believe that we need to see big spectacles in order to be scared. The opposite is actually true.

Hollywood isn't about art or artists. Ultimately, this is why so many (the majority, really) of their movies fail to connect with the audience in any significant way. Even when we see a movie that we like, we usually forget about it an hour later.



As for Snyder, I think there are a lot of people who think that they know more than they do, because of all of the things that they've read in clearly-biased articles. I do think that there was probably tension between Snyder and the studio, for the reasons that I gave above, but actual news articles have no business taking their own opinions and internet gossip, and publishing it as news.

If Snyder was in a constant battle with the studio to make the movie that he wanted to make, there is a very, very good chance that he just stopped caring about that fight once his daughter died. That fight with the studio isn't uncommon. Every director probably does it. We don't know what that struggle looked like with Justice League, and it's unfair to speculate about something that we don't really know.

If Snyder was fired before his daughter died, I think we would have known about it before his daughter died (unless the studio somehow knew that they'd have this huge excuse to use). If he was fired after his daughter died, it was most likely because he just didn't care enough to fight them anymore.

35

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I picture it as the winding down of someone who led this amazing, action-packed sort of life. I could see Picard coming closer to the end of his life, with no ship and all of his friends still out there doing what they do. Maybe Q comes to visit Picard and really sees the sadness and beauty of the human experience as he watches his closest friend move toward death.

But that sounds more like a two man play than it does a Star Trek series, so it probably isn't that.


New pitch: Picard and Q start a YouTube channel where they review movies.

36

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/star-t … 1202895410

At least they're finally moving forward again. However, Discovery has been a huge disappointment and I'm not sure that these people know how to tell a thoughtful story.


I want it to be good though. However, the rest of the cast probably won't appear. How would they handle Worf after the mess they've made out of the Klingons?

37

(826 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The "Unite the Seven" thing... I feel like that was meant to be part of a different plan at the time, but Warner Bros keeps meddling and throwing off the plan, so now it means Aquaman. Which is fine. I don't dislike the Warner/DC movies. I just think that there are people at Warner who see something like Rotten Tomatoes and panic, feeling like they need to change something, when they really just need to let the plan play out the way it was intended. They don't get that comic book fans will usually be divided one way or the other, and the more memorable comic book stories are the ones that fans tend to argue about the most.

It's frustrating to me, even just from a writing perspective. It stresses me out to have a story changed midway through its release (Snyder had an arc planned and it was approved... and then altered)

It hasn't been a complete disaster, but Warner Bros needs to back off and let the DC movie people run themselves. Create a separate studio for them or something.


The Batman movie -
I guess it is what it is. It feels chaotic and troubled to people because we honestly have no idea what's going on behind the scenes or what the product is supposed to look like. Whereas Marvel tells us what their plan is ten years in advance and rarely changes a release date, the DC movies seem to depend on how they develop. It's probably the right way to go about it, but it means that movies feel like they're dangling out in limbo much more than they actually are.



I am looking forward to Aquaman too, but I don't have super high hopes. The character has never been the best DC character, so if they can make a good movie, that will be awesome. However, it's hard to really get into the world of Aquaman from the trailer alone, because it's so alien and so out of context.
What I do know is that a lot of people are still complaining about Jason Momoa playing the part, and how they've changed the style of the character. I really don't care about that.


Shazam's trailer looked a lot better than I expected, actually. It looks fun, in a "Big" sort of way, without looking like a total ripoff. The characters seem to work well. The costume looks pretty good. We didn't get much in regards to the actual plot/threat, but what we did see was pretty nice.




Changing topics back to an old classic...


With updates on all of the DC movies, the press has been talking about the franchise again. What I find annoying is how they're retconning history in ways that the press always seems to do with everything. They just drop little comments in matter-of-fact ways, as though they're common facts that we all know, and then base their whole opinion around those "facts" which aren't really facts.

Two examples that you can keep your eyes peeled for:

1. I saw one article casually refer to Justice League as an "even bigger bomb than Suicide Squad", followed by some comment like "Yeesh" or something like that.

Except, Suicide Squad wasn't a bomb. At all. It actually performed better than most people (or, at least myself) expected. To compare, Guardians of the Galaxy had a similar budget and came out around the same time. Guardians of the Galaxy (a much more kid-friendly movie with talking animals, etc) made  $333,176,600    in the US and $440,152,029 internationally. It totaled  $773,328,629, which is indeed more than Suicide Squad made.

Suicide Squad made $325,100,054 in the US, and  $421,746,840 internationally. It totaled $746,846,894.

All things considered (I don't think many parents took their kids to see Suicide Squad. Even talking about the title of the movie with my nephews made me feel like I needed to have a "Thirteen Reasons Why" type disclaimer before our chat), Suicide Squad is pretty well domestically. Internationally, that number is more impressive than Guardians though. Suicide Squad wasn't released in one of the biggest markets: China.

In China, Guardians made $86,346,366. Had Suicide Squad competed in that market, their overall profits would most likely be higher than Guardians.

I'm not putting the movies in competition with each other. Obviously, they are for different audiences. What I'm saying is, Suicide Squad was not a bomb by any measure. Justice League under-performed. It wasn't totally surprising with the chaos behind the scenes, the press attacking the movie before it even finished production and the studio apparently having no idea what to do with their properties. But still, I wouldn't call it a "bomb". A bomb doesn't make hundred of millions of dollars in profits. A bomb loses money.



2. I've noticed that most articles have stopped mentioning why Zack Snyder left Justice League. A lot of articles simply say that Snyder left the movie. A lot say that the studio replaced Snyder. Most articles make it sound like Snyder was fired because the studio didn't like him. It's become pretty rare to see an article acknowledge that Snyder left because of a seriously horrible tragedy within his family. This is just dishonest reporting, and it's a symptom of a much larger problem with big media outlets.



The one upside to all of this is that we probably won't see the Carrie Kelly Robin on screen. I'm not a fan, and we haven't even gotten a proper normal Robin on screen yet. I see no reason to skip over Dick, Jason, Tim and Damian.

38

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Can we not make this another political thread?

39

(30 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm happy for the fans to get closure, but I have to say that I'm not torn up over the show being canceled. They kept hitting historical moments, but it all seemed like shallow, uninteresting takes on history. Sometimes entirely fabricated. As a result, the thrust of the series seemed shallow and uninteresting to me.


I'd love to see a time travel show that really dug into history and explored the different layers and complexities involved.

40

(32 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I hope Sabrina is good. Riverdale has turned into a mess, so it'd be nice to have a good show to replace it with. smile

41

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

This was posted on the GoFundMe page 8 days ago:

The past month has been busy for Indigo. She hasn’t had any strokes or seizures, which is such a blessing. She spends every weekday in therapy, going back and forth between speech, physical and occupational therapies. She is also seeing a therapist to help manage her PTSD, which was caused by the confusion and terror she experienced while hospitalized before and after her brain surgery.

While she is making progress, her speech pathologist has concluded that Indigo developed a speech processing disorder from the strokes. On her good days, she sounds almost as clear as she did before her disease manifested. On her bad days, she can’t put sentences together or pronounce consonant sounds.

Physically, she is getting strong again after having to spend a month on bedrest. She falls more often than she used to because she is still rebuilding her coordination.

Megan and Rob’s hospital bills are starting to come in, and they are worrisomely high already. The total hospital bill for this first surgery is $270,000. Their insurance is refusing to pay for her daily hospital stay and a doctor that they consider to be “out of network.” So far, Megan and Rob owe the hospital $180,000 out of their own money. They have to be in good standing with the medical center before the doctors will schedule Indigo’s second brain surgery.

So many of you have already helped so much. We appreciate all of you. Please share Indigo’s story, and please keep sending her love and prayers.


#indigostrong


It sounds like she is recovering, but it's a long, hard road. When my father had a severe stroke, we were fortunate to be working with a good hospital, which helped us to navigate all of the billing issues that popped up. He also had pretty good insurance when it first happened, so that helped. It's incredibly daunting, and to have it happen to a kid on top of all of that is horrible.

42

(4 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

In 2013, I was working on Freedom/Hate, which was a whole future universe, with an alternate history that was filled with complicated characters and in-world politics. That series was not following the path that I originally planned, and was becoming something new that I was trying very hard to keep a handle on. At the same time, I was working on writing another book (which I still haven't released, but hope to soon, when I have time to edit it). So quite simply, I had to put my own original work ahead of group fanfic. As it was, my head was about to explode.


But another reason is, The X-Files. We all have ideas for how Sliders should be remade at some point, and we could all probably create a version of the show that would be interesting in our own ways. However, a series needs one driving voice and a bunch of other people falling in line to make that voice as good as it can be. I'm not sure that all of our ideas worked well together as one single voice. I really don't remember much about the ideas that I had for Sliders, but if they were political, I can see frustration being an issue for everyone involved.

43

(202 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That's fair enough. But I wonder what your wife would think of the show upon a second viewing (which may never happen). When you finish the series and then go back to the plane crash and the smoke monster, it all makes a different type of sense. And when you see how the weird island stuff relates to the character stuff, it comes together a bit more (at least for me).

It is interesting to hear how the show plays for someone who isn't into sci-fi/fantasy and who isn't caught up in the pop culture frenzy that surrounded the show (and wanted it to be something that it was never going to be). She has no choice but to let it be what it is, without writing online messages to the creators to try and change the show. That is cool. It is a more pure form of viewing.

I'm currently watching Rectify on Netflix (assuming that I keep Netflix. I have to look into this kiddie porn story a bit more). I knew little about tye show going in. No cast interviews or spoilers. No writer or cast tweets. It just is what it is. Like reading a book that's already been written and published and you just have to take it for what it is, rather than what you want it to be. It's cool.

44

(926 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Tell you what... I'll give you tips on building the kid cages and you can tell me the best method of ripping an unborn baby's limbs off and sucking it's brain out. Because that's the side you're on. Literally worse than Hitler, by the way. Just sayin'.

45

(926 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think we need disclaimers to say that the views expressed by us represent our own views. That's how the brain generally works. smile


Okay, here's a new one for all of you liberal types. What do you do when a Mexican presidential candidate declares it a human right to cross into the US and claim it for their home? This is the case with Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who declared that he will make this a priority once he wins (if he wins). http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/eleccione … -migrantes

So we have a potential leader of a neighboring country openly stating that they will not respect our border (which they never really have) and will not only encourage, but aid those who want to violate our border.


This isn't an illegal immigration question. This is a diplomatic question. How do we address a Mexican government that openly defies our border and our nation? It seems far fetched (and kinda adorable in a way) for this to become an actual issue but we've had issues with Mexico for a long time now, with their helicopters firing our Border Patrol within our border ( http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27 … er-agents/ ), or their military crossing our border and drawing weapons on our Border Patrol ( http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bor … story.html ) so let's say that things escalate to the point where their leader declares that they will openly defy our border as policy.

What is your response to that? Is there a difference between Americans fighting for open borders, and other nations pushing at our borders? Or do you view those as the same thing?

46

(926 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Before I get into replies, I will say that rather than one big issue, this conversation really breaks down into different issues:

1. What do we do about the flow of illegal immigrants that continue to come into our country?

2. What do we do about those illegal immigrants who are already here?

3. What do we do about the children who had no say in the matter?

4. What do we do about the people who had no choice but to be brought here illegally, but have grown up here and know no other life?

All valid questions. Hopefully we can work on resolving these issues as a nation once the fake outrage over the photogenic children has passed.


Grizzlor:

The entire Trump/Miller/Kelly/Sessions approach is heavy handed and flat out un-American verging on heinous.

In what way?

Was it also heinous when Obama did it?

If so, why didn't you care then?



1.  The current system has been broken for decades.  Trump administration is now deporting people who have been here for decades.  Some are even DOCTORS.  These are people who are contributing to society, but have no good way to rectify their situation.  Right wing Republicans have refused EVERY attempt at remedies for the immigration system, because solving this problem would take away their dog whistle.

Even when the the Dreamer option was on the table, many of these people chose to remain undocumented. So, I don't necessarily buy the idea that they're trapped, with no good way to remedy the situation.

However, this is one of the problems that I listed above, and it needs to be addressed. I was never moved to another country as a child, but I did move from one state/culture to another state/culture and I definitely have no desire to be shipped back to my native state. Fine place to visit, but... no.

We do need a solution to this, but I honestly don't think that the politicians want to "solve" this issue any more than they want to "solve" healthcare or gun violence. These issues are their bread and butter, so it works out better for them if people are mad and fighting with each other.

What solution can there be? I don't know. It probably wouldn't work out 100% for either side. Even if we gave those people who really did grow up here (not those who made the trip on their own as teenagers) a chance to stay and become citizens, there would be a cost to them. The parents/relatives who brought them here illegally would have to face the consequences of their actions, and that would probably mean being shipped back to their native country. We would also have to define a clear cutoff point for this solution, because we'd be inviting more illegal aliens to try the same thing forever if we didn't.

But yeah. It's a discussion that needs to be had, and it needs to be had rationally.


2.  Family separation is 100% the cause of Trump's team's zero tolerance policy, begun only months ago.  Rather than simply deport the families, they have sought to PUNISH them.  Repeat, PUNISH them.  Again, this is draconian and unnecessary.

You're attributing a motive here, and you need to understand that the image that you're paining comes from your own head and not reality. Donald Trump isn't sitting in the Oval Office, laughing maniacally and getting off to the thought of suffering children. Real life is really never that cartoonish... or... it's rarely that cartoonish.

The fact is, if an American citizen committed a federal crime and was arrested, they would be separated from their children. We don't lock children up for the crimes of their parents. However, in the case of illegal immigrants, that situation is made more difficult by the fact that the kids coming over have nowhere to go once their parents are arrested.

Trump signed an executive order, to end the separation of families. He did exactly what was being asked of him. Yet this action is still being waved around as proof of how evil he is. This is an example of how fake the outrage really is. If Obama put an end to abortion when he was President, pro-lifers would have been dancing in the streets. That's normally what happens when you achieve a goal that you really care about. But the little kids were never the goal here, so there is no celebration.


But you know, gotta keep the base of racist crazies happy.


You have the potential to be better than this comment.



3.  The incarceration is seemingly undefined, as there is a major lack of immigration attorneys and judges.  Another remedy that Trump could fix, but HIRING more of them.  He has steadfastly refused.


One of the many problems that have to be addressed in a system that no politician has felt a need to fix for decades.


And so here we are, a President who despises poor immigrants,


(the ones that he doesn't marry)


the ones who come and do work we don't want to do.


Wait. Americans don't want to be doctors?

The fact is, that the "they do the work that we don't want to do" line is a slogan, not a fact. What it really translates into is that the people who hire them want to hire people who will work for less than minimum wage, who won't expect benefits, and who will be less likely to report abusive working environments.

This is relevant to the conversation that we're having about the migrant children, because some of the people doing the work that we don't want to do are actually children, who are brought here and forced into labor by people who pretend to be their loving parents.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … ckers.html

And the "work that we don't want to do" issue also includes handing our children over to child molesters.



The one's who often flee peril, only to find more of it here.

The world sucks. In Canada or the UK, you can be jailed and fined for saying the wrong thing, all because they don't actually have freedom of speech. In many cases, we do what we can to help the people from places where they face true systemic oppression and violence. However, even in those cases, there is a proper channel to go through.

He wants merit based...  Okay, so on the application for visa, should we simply be asking how good you are at cleaning plates, picking apples, mowing lawns, or painting houses?

It's a valid question, to ask what they will bring to the table and how they will contribute to our nation. We're not a homeless shelter (though we have many of those, and even many in other countries,  because we're a nation that gives back). Other countries do the same thing. Why is this only a problem when it's the US, and when the president has an R next to his name?

I live in an area with lots of immigrants.

I live in an area that used to be Mexico!

He's complicit with a Republican party that  has no real interest in fixing the system, because it would take away a major issue they need to scream about to get people to vote for them.  Because beyond that, their platform is decidedly anti-working class.


First of all, if you can show me the numbers on how the working class is suffering under Trump, I'm all ears.

Second, if you can tell me what the democrat president or congress did to fix the system, I'm all ears. In fact, when Nancy Pelosi toured one of the facilities housing migrant children back in 2014, she urged people not to politicize those kids. (she also raised the good point about many of the kids coming over with health issues that pose a threat to others)

So again I ask the very simple question: if this situation is such an outrage and such a crime against humanity, why didn't any of you give a f--- four years ago?






pilight:

"Open Borders" doesn't mean abandoning all border policy.  It means we don't require visas.  Show your Mexican driver's license for an instant background check and you can enter.  The same thing we do for people coming from Canada, or Western Europe, or Japan, or Australia, or any of our other allied nations.

Not exactly. They don't just show up with their driver's licence and get into the country. In order to enter the US, visitors with a foreign passport need to obtain a visa. There are a lot of different types of visas, so it's pretty specific and the government wants to know what they're doing here.

You are correct that we do have a special arrangement with some countries where citizens can get a visa waiver. However, they do still need to apply for that waiver and get approved. Which I guess is different than getting a visa, but it's not exactly showing up with a driver's license and getting in.

Why isn't Mexico a part of this program? Don't know. Could be because they have a corrupt government, or all of the violence and abuse that people talk about when discussing reasons for people to come to the US illegally.

That said, Mexicans can still obtain a visa and visit the country.



There's no evidence to suggest more people would try to come if we made entry visa-less.  The people who want to come are coming anyway.

The same could be said for most laws and regulations, I suspect. Would more people commit murder if it weren't illegal? Would more people shoplift? Do people not do those things because they respect the law or fear punishment, or because they're just good people?

Food for thought. I'll skip the experimentation process though.



People are sneaking over because we've made it too difficult and expensive to come legally.  We created the problem with laws that only apply to one ethnic group of people.

In what way does it only apply to one ethnic group?


My brother has a friend who is Canadian. Despite living in different countries, they're not too far from each other, so when she was leaving her country to go overseas for a few months, she was going to store some stuff at his house and get a new place to live when she returned.

She was turned away at the border, because it looked like the was planning to move here.

On a more "facts and numbers" level, in July of 2017, the AP released an article all about the panic now felt by Europeans who were in the US illegally. While they'd been skating by for years, the crackdown on illegal immigrants was being felt in their circles.

http://fox2now.com/2017/07/11/us-deport … scal-year/

So rest assured, Trump's evil extends to everyone. The numbers of deported europeans is still lower than those who come over our southern border, naturally. But they do exist.



There are plenty of people here now who don't respect our nation or our laws or our citizens.  Look how many we have proudly carrying a flag that represented an outright rebellion against the United States.

Are you suggesting that Trump deport everyone who doesn't seem American enough, even if they're citizens?!

But seriously, actual citizens are a problem that we have to deal with. There are plenty of bad ones, but at least they're our problem to deal with. We probably don't need to borrow any more from our neighbors.



It's not our responsibility?  Tell Jeff Sessions to put away the Bible he's never read, because the Parable of the Faithful Servant says just the opposite.  It says to whom much is given, much is required.  President Bush used that quote in his 2007 State of the Union.  It's easy to say screw those poor Hispanic people running away from violence, I got mine.  But it's not a Christian sentiment and until very recently it wasn't an American sentiment.

 

I'm not debating religion. I'm debating politics.

There are plenty of situations whereby you would not be so quick to apply that philosophy. It's great to feed the hungry, but do you want the hungry to break into your home and take what they want? I don't think so.

Charity and theft are not the same thing. It's not our duty as Christians to ignore laws.



We didn't turn away the Jews escaping Germany during the depression.  What makes things so different now when we have the "greatest economy in the history of America"?


Are you seriously asking what the difference is between Jews escaping Nazi Germany and Mexicans sneaking into our country? Do you seriously have no concept of "hard life" versus "genocide"?

Anyone is free to apply for asylum. There are a number of places where they can do this in Mexico and other countries, but asylum is granted for very specific reasons. If they go through the process formally and legally, I don't think anyone has a real problem with them. If they come into our country, demanding that they have the right to take what's not theirs to take, people tend to have a problem.


And to answer your question about the economy of America... that economy will collapse if we let in anyone and everyone who wants to come into the country. No nation should do that!

47

(926 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

America is still a relatively young country, so it's easy to go back not-too-far and point out how things used to be as an example of the way things could be. However, the world has changed a lot sine the 1920's, the 1960's, and even the 1980's. Saying that everyone should be allowed into the country is like saying that Google should have to hire everyone who wants a job there. It would be chaos. It would destroy the economy.

Do you honestly, truly believe that we should just abandon all border policy? We should have absolutely no system for checking who comes into the country? Everyone should just come as they please? I'd say "Come and go", but let's face it... not many people are looking to rush into Mexico.

I'm all for legal immigration. I don't know that any significant number of people are opposed to it. But I absolutely do not believe that we can let everyone in, especially when they've proven that they're more than willing to ignore our laws whenever they don't feel like following them. Especially when they march through my area, waving a Mexican flag and insisting that they have a right to take what isn't theirs. In the old days, that was just called "invasion".



Larger population = more people rushing the border and sneaking over. This requires a different approach to patrolling that border. We've tried catch and release on the Mexican border. It's resulted in illegals not showing up for their court dates and disappearing into the country. Sorry, but I'd rather ship them home and let in the people who respect our nation, our laws, and our citizens enough to enter the country in the proper way. And this goes for anyone who enters our country illegally. Mexican, Canadian, or whatever. I don't care. People work their asses off, spending years and a lot of money to enter this country the right way. Why should other people get to just cut in line and take something that they didn't earn?

And if they're coming to the US to escape MS-13, I'm very sorry, but we have a problem with MS-13 as well, so maybe they should look somewhere else. It's not our responsibility to take in every sad story. It's one of the sad, but true things about life. People want to ignore the hard parts of life because it makes them feel icky, but sometimes there's no fun answer. It's unrealistic to suggest that the United States could, in this day and age, swing our gates wide open without doing incredible amounts of damage, to our healthcare system, to our education system, to our economy, to our national security... There is no area in which this would be beneficial to the American people. And sorry if it sounds cold, but the first priority of the American government should be the American people. Just like the first priority of the Canadian government should be the Canadian people. Just like with every other country in the world.

Great. Supergirl tackling a vast Russian conspiracy. Isn't that concept sooooo 2017?

I shall continue to pass on this show.

49

(926 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Agreed. We should process them and ship them home ASAP. Which is what usually happens, the first time. It's only after repeated crossings that they get more severely punished. However, when a child is involved, the issue becomes more complicated. Is the adult that they're with really their parent? That's assuming that they are travelling with an adult at all. Most of the minors being detained are not with an adult, which means that we have nobody to place them with. Even if they are the parent, are they abusive in some way? Believe it or not, children are often used as tools for crossing the border.

After all of that's done, they're all still going to need to be held someplace until they can be shipped home, or face whatever punishment they are going to face for repeated crossings, smuggling, etc. So, do we house children with adults in jails? That's not something that we'd ever even consider in a normal prison, so why would we consider it in this case?


There are many reasons why the southern border is patrolled differently than the northern border. We've discussed population numbers, the cultures that they're trying to get away from, criminal interests... The Canadian border simply isn't the same as the Mexican border, and I think it's absurd when celebrities tweet about how racist it is to treat them differently.

I also think that some of those outraged celebrities have been showing their true colors and proving my point recently. Peter Fonda calling for Barron Trump to be kidnapped and raped shows how much BS he is spewing when he talks about caring about children. No sane, rational person has that thought about a child. Ever. And they certainly wouldn't think of it if they really cared about kids. I think that abortion is murder, but you'd never see me talking about doing anything to anyone's child in revenge. It's disgusting.


The press and various people on social media have turned this into another blind-outrage issue, in order to keep people from actually discussing the issues at hand and resolving the problem. Resolving the problem does nothing to help the cause of the people who are generating this story (and they are, because as I've said before, this isn't breaking news. It's repurposed news).
We've all seen hundreds of people talking about how outrageous this is, and how wrong this is. Celebrities are telling their followers to stop following them if they don't agree. "Journalists" are comparing the situation to Nazi concentration camps (which I find disgusting on so many levels).

What isn't happening in all of this is simple conversation. We have issues: Illegal immigration, involving minors. What do we do with these minors? What do we do with the illegal immigrants?

Of course, the solution that the media is pushing people toward is just to let them all go. They're for open borders, which is insane. America cannot have open borders. Yet the politicians and the media will tell you that these people need asylum (for which there are many places in Mexico and other countries where they can go to apply, with their children) and if we don't let 100% of them in, we're monsters.

I don't see that as a viable solution, for many reasons. This is the United States. If we open our borders, we will have literally billions of people pouring in from all over the world. The United States will collapse, without question.


At the same time, I'm not a fan of kids suffering. I don't want them abused or raped, which happens often in the business of bringing kids into the country illegally. I want a good solution to this. So, what is it?


Addressing issues like MS-13 would be entirely different conversations. Let's do what the White Stripes tell us to to, and take all of our problems and break them apart. If we can agree that we have problems on the border and will illegal immigration, maybe we can start to discuss how to approach that problem. Where is that conversation in all of this outrage over the issue that people supposedly care so much about? If people cared, they'd have actual thoughts on the subject.

50

(926 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The flow across the Canadian border is slower because there are many, many more people south of the US than north of it.  Mexico alone as almost four times Canada's population and a substantial percentage of the people trying to cross into the US come from further down in Central and South America.

True, population is an issue. But as I stated earlier, culture is another major issue. Mexico, and other countries beyond our southern border, are not as developed as the US or Canada (I'm not sure that developed is the word that I'm looking for, but I'll go with it). They have more motivation to leave their homes and try to come to America. Even those of us who oppose illegal immigration acknowledge and understand their desire to leave that life behind. Unfortunately, we can't take everyone in the world who wants to come to America for a better life. We take who we can.


Unaccompanied minors are a red herring.  According to the Chief of the Border Patrol, 0.02% of them are suspected or confirmed to have ties to gangs (meaning 99.8% are not).


I'm lost. When did we start talking about MS-13 in regards to the unaccompanied minors? The comment that I made was was a large number of the under-aged illegal immigrants who are being detained are unaccompanied minors. This means that the facilities for minors have to exist, because we can't just let them go because they're minors. They broke the law. How is that a red herring? I think that bringing MS-13 into this conversation is a red herring, because that is a whole separate issue. Nobody stated that all illegal immigrants were gang members.


MS-13 is also a red herring.  Jeff Sessions says they have 10,000 members in the US, which is supposedly a large increase.  In 2006, when nobody was talking about illegal immigration or this gang, they had....10,000 members in the US

Sessions says 10k is an increase: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4666617/sessions-ms-13

2006 FBI estimates MS-13 at 10,000 US members https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/ … rrus041906


Again, I'm not sure why we're talking about MS-13 here. It's a very violent gang, and it is absolutely a concern. But it's not what we're talking about here.



Crime is a red herring.  Crime rates are lower along the border.

https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/112/c … he-border/


Okay. I don't really have time to research crime statistics, so sure. Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with our conversation. Illegal immigration is a crime. 100% of illegal immigrants are criminals. This is why they're being detained. The question is, what do we do when they bring their children with them? It's against the law to house children with parents who are in jail (obviously), so this isn't exactly specific to illegal immigrants.


And really, nothing we do is going to stop trafficking as long as we allow the cartels to infiltrate the CBP

"what good are more boots on the ground if the men and women wearing them also work for the cartels? What benefit is an 18-foot wall when criminals can bribe their way through the gate?"

https://www.texasobserver.org/homeland- … er-patrol/


This conversation has gotten really random.

I am opposed to US agents working with cartels... even if crime on the border is down. I'm also opposed to the US government helping cartels traffic guns. But again, that's a different topic.