Interesting. The BBC has been kinda crazy lately, so I imagine that they're difficult to work for. I'm not sure whether or not to believe the report. It could be true, bit until there is more info, I will just consider it a rumer.
I haven't watched the season yet, and based on what I've heard, I'm not sure that I will bother. The press for the show has been good, but a lot of the fan reaction has been the same as what you've said. They think that the new Doctor could be fine with better writing, but I've heard that the new season is just boring and preachy. Again, this is based on comments I've seen from others and not my own personal opinion, but it sounds like they replaced stories and metaphors with lessons and monologues.
I don't know if I will watch. Honestly, I wasn't a huge fan of the Capaldi era, and there doesn't seem to be a big upswing here.
Jon Cryer has been cast as Lex Luthor. I haven't seen the show since season 2, so I barely know Lena. I know enough to remember that she isn't in her 50's, as her brother will now be. Also, Brenda Strong played his mother. She doesn't look like she could have a 50-something child.
The casting on Supergirl continues to baffle me.
So... Agents of Shield was renewed for another season, despite the current season not airing until this summer. That's weird. I know the season is probably mostly filmed at this point, but the show isn't a huge hit, and the summer slot might kill it.
The renewal cames at the same time that ABC's entertainment president announced that she is stepping down. Coincidence?
To be fair, DC has a number of shows coming. Titans was just the first, but we still have Doom Patrol, Swamp Thing, Stargirl and Metropolis coming up. Not huge names from the movies, but it's something.
I agree, Disney is great at marketing. Their marketing is better than their actual movie making... Which is kinda sad. DC probably makes more sense when you know what's actually happening, but we don't know anything at this point.
A lot of this is Warner Bros not knowing how to handle their properties. Another part is the media, not wanting to report when there is news, and constantly making up fake news to create a negative spin.
Warner Bros really should let DC be it's own company, and they should hire people to create buzz. Pop-up mini conventions where their stars appear to give updates would be cool. Drop the Snyder cut on their streaming service on Christmas Day without announcing it beforehand, or maybe just releasing hints and teases before. Stuff like that. Marvel uses sick kids to generate positive publicity for their movies (which is wrong on some level, but tye kids still get to meet superheroes, so it works out in the end).
DC really does need to step up their publicity game.
New theory: Iris blocked Nora's abilities because Nora would age rapidly without the blocker. Nora removed the blocker on her own and began age rapidly. She is actually only 17 years old.
Otherwise, she is out-millennialing the millennials with her childish behavior.
I prefer to think of Batman as someone who has kept himself aware of the Arrowverse and has decided that he doesn't want to be involved, due to creative differences.
I have always kind of imagined Gotham as taking place on Earth 2 though.
I've read that Birds of Prey is supposed to start filming in January. They cast Ewan McGregor as Black Mask, Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Black Canary, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Huntress... Or so I've read.
The real problem for the DCEU is that the studio doesn't make flashy announcements every time they serve lunch, like Marvel. Also, the media lives to hate the whole franchise, so they don't cover upcoming films as much. Until Zachary Levi posted pictures from the set of Shazam, I wasn't even sure it was happening.
Maybe it'd be better with just the butter, since that's kinda like putting cream in coffee. The oil and butter together was just too much for me. It could have been the brand that I was using, or something like that. Coconut oil would probably be nicer, with the coconut flavor (still present in unrefined oil, but not in the refined oil)
In theory, I can see how it would work. Like you said, it would be used for energy pretty easily. For me, it just didn't do much. I might be a difficult case though. I'm always tired and drained. I'd love a solution that gave me tons of energy and focus.
That sounded like I'm in the market for drugs. I'm not.
Grass-fed butter means that the cows were grass fed. They usually recommend Kerrygold, which is Irish, I think. It's available everywhere and it's pretty good butter (when I first tried it, I thought it tasted almost like cheese, but I could have been having an off day).
I will admit, I tried a version of the bulletproof coffee because Routh talked about it so glowingly. I didn't spend the billion dollars on the actual brand, or the expensive coffee, but I did some research and tried to figure out how much was legit science and how much was them trying to get people to buy their specific products. Then I tried it for a while...
For me, it was gross. Putting both butter and MCT oil in the coffee was disgusting. Then it became too frothy when I blended it up, so the texture was just greasy froth, and it made me gag. There's some legit science behind the oils and all of that, but I couldn't do it. And while I tried to gag it down for a while, to see if it would give me more energy over time, and make me feel like sunshine and rainbows, it didn't really do that for me.
Maybe there's something to the name brand that I couldn't get in my version. But spending that much money on coffee would probably only make me more depressed.
If you want to try a super basic version of it, to get the idea, just put two tablespoons of Kerrygold butter and a couple tablespoons of unrefined coconut oil in your coffee, and blend it all together. The coconut oil isn't quite the same as pure MCT oil, but it's along the same lines.
Now I feel bad for not being able to watch Legends. Despite not liking Superman Returns, I have always gotten the impression that Routh was a good guy and there was no reason for him to not have more success (except he was tied to a horrible movie, which seems to have killed a few careers, especially since the director and one of the stars are tied to some gross sexual crime stuff). I just feel like Routh has been really let down by the writing. He came in on a weak season of Arrow, and then things got even worse with Legends. It's not his fault at all. Just like it's not Caity Lotz's fault that they ruined Sara.
As TF pointed out, Legends doesn't seem like a DC show at all. As I've said before, I get the impression that the Arrowverse writers, for the most part, have no interest in the source material, iconic characters or comic book history. Legends is the worst offender with that, aside from a few times when Arrow writers basically insulted any comic book fans who wanted to see more Green Arrow influence on Arrow.
It's frustrating when there are elements of a project that I really want to enjoy and support, but other elements that make it impossible.
This conversation has taken a weird turn.
The CW needs to stop rebooting shows.
I'm not sure that The 4400 needs a reboot. Networks do similar shows all the time, and they really never work out.
Hey, if they move Black Siren to Legends, there will be nothing left for me to be entertained by on Arrow. I could write numerous fanfic stories about the tiny nose ring that she feels a need to wear whenever she goes all Siren-y this season.
That would explain a lot. I figured that they were going for a 1980s sci-fi/horror movie vibe, but it just looked bad. It was never even a good idea in the 80s.
The Halloween episode was pretty fun, and reminded me why I still watch this show. The arc episodes are a chore to get through, but the monster of the week episodes are great.
It also looked better than other episodes lately. I don't understand why some episodes of Supernatural look and sound like they were filmed by a soap opera crew, on someone's iPhone (usually the arc/mythology episodes), and other episodes look like legit tv show episodes that people care about. Do they alternate crews or something?
Wait... I didn't have to watch season 5 in order to get my B5 street creds? Why didn't I know this before?!
I think that the show was a part of sci-fi television's evolution for sure. It, along with DS9 and The X-Files, showed that the longer arcs could succeed, and science fiction tv didn't need to be a shallow way to pass a lazy Saturday afternoon.
That said, I don't think that I would have considered the show great, even back in that time. While a lot of the show's ideas were interesting, the execution of those ideas was often sloppy. This isn't something that can be blamed on budgets or limitations of technology. It was about the decisions being made. Some of the show's huge weaknesses can he chalked up to uncertainty regarding its renewal. But many smaller cracks in the overall structure were just bad construction.
No show is perfect. Ultimately, it comes down to personal tastes and whether or not the good outweighs the bad. I don't feel like I wasted my time watching the show, but I don't think that I would feel a need to recommend the show to others, the way I would with shows that really inspire me or get me excited.
Maybe I'm just forgetting the backdoor pilot episode, but I have no memory of them being particularly flirty or sexual. Certainly not in any sort of real love. To me, it seemed like every time they referenced what happened in that episode, it was like a weird parallel universe version of what I saw.
I might not have been paying attention during that episode. Like I said, the Dabb era hasn't been drawing my attention as much.
I'm a bit behind on Supernatural. Just watched episode 3 of this season, and I'm confused. First of all, they played Kaia as being more important than she was. The emotion they expressed wasn't warranted for a one-off guest star.
They played Claire's connection to her as being something that really didn't come across at the time at all. And... Did they just gay up Claire in an episode where she didn't even appear?
It's like they kept referencing a totally different show than what I was watching last year.
Anyway, it took me a while to watch this episode and I realized that the excitement just wasn't there. I don't think the Dabb era is working for me. It feels more like Once Upon a Time than Supernatural at times.
I'll still watch, but I'm interested in seeing what the next show runner can do.
After 20+ years, I finally watched Babylon 5. Started it earlier in the summer and just finished it yesterday. I wanted to know where I stood with the whole DS9/B5 debate, even though I'm not a JMS fan at all.
The whole idea that DS9 ripped anything off is BS. The shows have some vague similarities, but nothing that looks as though anyone from DS9 had access to a B5 show bible and copied stuff. Some of the similarities wouldn't have even been in the early plans for B5 because they came about after major cast shakeups and changes in direction.
I think this scandal was probably great publicity for JMS and his show, so he ran with it. Ultimately, there isn't anything there.
The show itself was okay. Not great, not horrible. The writing could have benefitted from some more polishing most of the time. It wasn't horrible, but it didn't change my world at all. Season 1 was boring. Seasons 2 and 3 were the best. Season 4 was kind of a mess, and kept resolving the series prematurely (I understand why, but I'm just judging what's on screen now). Season 5 was a waste of my time, and the actual series finale (filmed a year before) felt like it could have remained a "lost episode" without much harm. The second to last episode actually felt more like the end (as did a few episodes in season 4, for that matter)
Overall, B5 is okay. I still like DS9 better, but that's to be expected, since I've been a DS9 fan for decades. But I just liked the vibe of DS9 more. I liked the cast and the interactions more. I liked the arcs more. But I acknowledge that DS9 had a huge Star Trek foundation to work with, and more money, etc. It had advantages going in.
I don't think it really has to be as either/or as fans have made this debate over the years. They're different shows. Nobody stole anything. There's no need for animosity of any kind. JMS is still not my favorite person or my favorite writer. I think he's highly overrated, but there's really not much to get worked up about here.
Just to make it clear, I didn't mean for that question to come across as snide in any way. I just want to make sure that I know what you're referring to before I respond. If there's some other example that I should be commenting on, I'd have to look into it before I could form an opinion either way.
Okay, I finally finished season 3 of Daredevil. I have to say, I was impressed with this show. If it is cancelled (which is probably likely, just because of the Disney situation), I will be disappointed. The show is so well written, produced, acted and even scored. It's the best of the superhero shows on TV, and the best of the Marvel universe as a whole.
While watching the show, I couldn't help but compare it to the Arrowverse in my head. The way Daredevil handled situations throughout the situation showed that they put story above politics. They cared about characters more than they cared about the writers. I hate selfish writing, and Daredevil avoided that, while Arrow seems to hit every rock on their way down the hill. (I don't think that metaphor worked as well in writing as it did in my head)
This season dealt with storylines that featured FBI corruption, media manipulation/fake news, political campaigns and even their normal religious themes. Throughout the season, they put their story above trying to comment on real world issues. In doing so, they could explore real world issues without the "uncanny valley" effect that so many shows struggle with today, because they're so concerned with making real-world points.
Yes, I hijacked the uncanny valley thing and used it wrong. I don't care. The point is still valid.
By *not* trying to comment on our real world issues withing their fantastical superhero universe, they were actually able to produce a story that felt more true and real, and explored themes in a way that didn't alienate the audience.
In the episode which flashed back to Karen's past, we saw Karen when she was a deeply troubled, scarred, broken young woman. They didn't do this by changing the color of her hair or making her goth (Felicity). They did this through... character. That's it. And while the story could have easily been about three men in her life who were trying to control her and make decisions for her, they didn't choose that path. They chose a path where yeah, those guys wanted different things for her, but she was also messed up and she was also responsible for her own mistakes. By not trying to make her a feminist icon, they made her a stronger character. She holds her own on the show, without it being about wokeness points.
With Arrow, look at how they handled Felicity's flashback, or her time in witness protection. It's about the hair and clothes. It's a very shallow way to build that story or sell that character. Why was Felicity's hair pink? It wasn't a disguise, but it also doesn't look to be a fashion choice, because she abandoned it ASAP. So really, it was just about the writer (or whoever) sitting there, trying to think of what Felicity would be wearing or how her hair would look, and they didn't really try to sell the situation or the character.
Karen was different in the past, but she wasn't just different for the sake of being different. She was a point along the way for *our* Karen.
Some of Daredevil's quality can be chalked up to more money. More extras. Better scoring. More locations. All of that is true, but even the scenes where two characters were talking on a regular set, the whole thing just felt more grounded and "real", even with the crazy superhero stuff happening.
It just makes so much difference when the people making a show actually care about the story. On Arrow, I feel like the writers are writing a superhero show in spite of what they actually want to be writing about. On Daredevil, I feel like the writers are exploring humanity through this comic book lens.
Anyway... I liked it.
Nora told Team Flash that Green Arrow couldn't defeat Cicada, so they decided not to go to Green Arrow. There was no discussion about him being in prison.
I think Nora is 25 years old-ish, from 30 years in the future, but she acts like she's 16. It's all messed up.
Team Flash didn't even seem to know that Oliver is in prison. They were wondering about getting his help with Cicada earlier this season.
I believe that Nora is from 30 years in the future, while William is 20. So it doesn't appear to be any sort of joint story.
With this week's Flash episode, I am starting to wonder what the deal is with stories being mirrored on The Flash and Arrow. Is it deliberate for some reason? But more importantly, is there a point in watching both shows if they keep doing the same things?
In the past year, we had Barry and Iris get married, only to have Oliver and Felicity highjack their wedding and get married themselves. We had both Barry and Oliver sent to prison. We have both of their adult children from the future (and I have to think that if grown William doesn't have some relevance to the current story, it's a HUGE waste of air time). Both of those adult kids are gay (or bi).
So is there some benefit to mirroring stories that I don't see? Do the writers just lack communication between shows and just happen to keep sharing plot points? Does sharing storylines remove the need to watch both shows?
I feel that I should clarify: I don't care much if a Nazi gets punched.
My issue is that the far left has decided to deem *everyone* who disagrees with them a "Nazi", and then they ran with the "punch a Nazi" catchphrase, which means that they're encouraging people to punch anyone who doesn't agree with them. This is wrong on many levels, and has resulted in severe violence against people in real life. So, to see superhero characters use that call to violence on a fantasy superhero series did not make me happy.
Actual Nazis are a thing. They are evil, and putting the "Nazi" label on people who are not actually Nazis not only puts the safety and lives of those people in danger, but it belittles the horrors inflicted upon the world by actual Nazis.
It disturbs me how many people are okay with seeing people being beaten in the streets, simply because those people have different political beliefs (not Nazi beliefs, mind you. Just different beliefs). That is a very dark path to go down.
I'll probably just let you guys enjoy it. If I watch, I'm bound to get frustrated and tear into it. More fun if I don't.
Turns out, Jesse L Martin suffered a back injury over the hiatus. He will be taking time off to recover at some point. I guess they thought it'd be too much of a downer to have a new father attacked and put into a coma or anything like that. But with Cecile a series regular now, they probably also can't have him take his family into hiding.
Cool. Glad to hear that they're trying to develop the character that you can sympathize with. I'm almost tempted to check it out for myself, but... Nah.
Are you talking specifically about the Access Hollywood recording?
See, I disagree. This is part of why I stopped watching the show. It didn't explore political issues in a thoughtful and interesting way. It preached one-sided opinions and absolutely demonized anyone who didn't fall into those same beliefs.
If the show truly was using this story to talk about our real world immigration issues (and again, I am only basing my comments on what's been discussed here, so I could be off the mark), the vast majority of people wouldn't be anti-alien, but most would still prefer some sort of process for alien immigrants coming in, rather than just allowing anyone and everyone. In real life, we're not talking about people who are pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant. That's not the discussion being had at all (aside from some really radical types, I suppose). So for the show to say that everyone good is 100% "open borders" and anyone else is open to the idea of killing alien children, because they're angry and scared and that makes them bad people... That sort of storytelling is reckless and potentially dangerous. (an issue we discussed last year, with a specific line of dialogue used in the crossover)
It'd be one thing if they were just making up fun stories, with comic book villains that don't really have to be super deep. But to project real world issues onto the story and then turn *everyone* who isn't in line with one viewpoint into the season's villain is just... it's bad writing. It's shallow, and shows a complete lack of thought. The real world is nuanced and these issues are heavily debated for a reason.
This is all completely unfounded opinions, based on second-hand tellings of the actual story. So I can't really judge. This is just an issue that plagued Supergirl from the start, and why I had to stop watching. The lack of care or thought just turned me off.
Question: are there any characters who oppose "open borders" on the show, who don't turn into hateful, angry murderers? Maybe characters who just want reasonable alien immigration policies enforced, without actually hating aliens?
Since I don't watch the show, I really don't have any opinions of the story. I'm just wondering what the spectrum of beliefs looks like with the central characters.
Again, I don't care who calls what whatever they want. Unless there is some sort of fuse or trigger, it's not a bomb.
I'm not saying that it's not there. They may very well have had detonators of some sort, but I haven't seen any listed. When Austin was being bombed, we had language like "trip wire" and "defused" in reports. So far, all I've seen in reports of these packages are some vaguely bombish materials. PVC pipe, a clock, some batteries, some wire and some unspecified material that could potentially react to some sort of outside force and cause harm... But none of the bombs exploded, which says a lot. A mass bomber with zero actual victims is kinda rare. Were they intended to go off? Were they designed to?
Again, thank God nobody was harmed. If these were truly bombs that miraculously didn't go off, that is amazing. The nut job behind this should pay for his actions either way. But, I don't even see attempted murder listed as one of the charges against him. There is a charge of mailing explosives, but fireworks would count as explosives, even without a triggering device.
I am not attempting to lessen the severity of the situation, but I think it's also dangerous for people to be misleading the public by claiming that these devices were similar to the Austin bombs, which caused very real fear and panic because they actually killed people. Right now, based on the information provided by the authorities, I don't feel comfortable concluding that these were actually bombs or that this man intended to murder people. A whole lot of blanks are being filled in by the press.
I was wrong before though. I did find a report saying that the Soros package was destroyed by authorities, so that did happen. It just doesn't answer all of my questions, and I'm a questions guy. I like details and information. It probably annoys people, but it's how my mind works.
I think he's guilty. I think he counts as a terrorist. I think he should be locked up (and probably medicated). I don't think this should be a political issue. We don't need to be divided about everything. There is clearly only one man responsible for this man's actions, and that is him. Thank God he was caught before anyone was hurt.
That said... I want more information. Because I do.
Unless they were capable of exploding (and not in some theoretical way), they're not bombs. They are said to contain some element that could explode if exposed to the right stimuli, but there's no indication that any trigger was present... That I've read about.
The guy clearly had some sort of political beliefs. I don't think that those beliefs are in any way mainstream, and there is no way that Trump is to blame for this, unless he sent this man private messages. This seems unlikely.
First, the Limbaugh's and whatnot claimed "false flag," and declared it all to be a fake stunt.
I don't follow Limbaugh, so I don't know what he actually said. But I will agree that anyone who jumped to any conclusion about guilt or motive was foolish. It's fine to ask questions and seek answers, but to outright conclude that someone is to blame without proof if stupid.
Second, Trump ignored criticism that those targeted are basically who he's been blasting for 2 years, and instead blamed the "fake media."
You're using the word "targeted" to put some of this blame on Trump. If you're going to do this, I'd like to see direct quotes and sources. Simply blasting your political opponents is not a call for violence. If we want to play this game, it will be a very long, dark rabbit hole that I'm not sure you're prepared for. Most politicians blast their opponents. Many of the people who received these packages are even guilty of calling for violence or physical intimidation of others.
The person who is guilty here is the man who sent the packages. That's it. Crazy people do crazy shit, and while I know that CNN is telling you to blame Trump for this, they're simply proving his "fake news" point by doing so. They blamed Palin when Giffords was shot. They do it whenever they can, while conveniently overlooking attacks on right-leaning targets, and failing to put blame on politicians for that (which they shouldn't, because those attacks are the fault of those actually committing them).
It's stupid. This is exactly what Trump talks about when referring to "fake news". The talking heads who stir up fear and paranoia, carefully controlling the information that their followers are given, all for the sake of manipulating the public. It's dangerous, and we see that very clearly right now, with CNN putting the blame for this squarely on Trump's shoulders, before they had an ounce of evidence to work with. They're more to blame for the current atmosphere than he is.
Assuming this is the prime guy responsible, I think law enforcement all around was excellent this week. No bombs went off and the guy was captured quickly.
From what I can gather (and I haven't read every article, so I may be missing something), none of them were actually bombs. I don't think that any of them were designed to go off, and if that's the case, they shouldn't be referred to as bombs. I think it was a fear tactic more than anything else... which is not to say that the man responsible is any less guilty of acts of terror. These were clearly meant to intimidate and threaten people for the sake of some sort of wacky political goal. I don't know enough about the man to judge how sane he is, or what his motives may have been, but he was clearly attempting to make people fear for their lives, and that is obviously something that he will have to pay for.
I have a lot of questions about the whole thing. Whoever did it should be prosecuted, of course. I don't think that should even be a political stance (though we've had other attacks that received far less media attention).
I think it's relevant to question why these people were targeted. Those who have had packages sent to them don't strike me as prime targets of the wacky right. Aside from Soros, they're mostly political has-beens.
Why are the stamps not cancelled/stamped over? Are those even enough stamps to send that package?
Why was the first reaction of someone opening a suspected bomb to grab their phone and take pics?
Are these even bombs? I've seen bomb experts online examining the pictures and saying that they don't look like actual bombs. So, is this a real threat, or a scare tactic? Or is it a means of stirring a political pot.
The motive here isn't clear. Nothing has exploded, and I haven't heard of packages being blown up either. As someone who lives down the street from an ISIS target, where police were blowing up backpacks just to be safe, this seems weird. We've had no notes or videos from the mastermind. That seems weird for a political terrorist. What is the plan? Who is supposed to be helped by this?
People are jumping to blame one political party or the other, and that part is just BS at this point. Whoever did it needs to be held accountable, and they clearly don't represent the average citizens of either side. We can theorize all we want, but until some of those questions are answered, we can't jump to conclusions.
I wholeheartedly agree. And it's sad that the old 90s costume actually looks better
The new costume looks even worse on Amell.
We haven't discussed the return of 90s Flash. I feel like it's cool to see, in some ways. But it also feels like someone is hammering an old joke. Having him play Barry's dad was a wink to the old show. Then having him be Jay was like "get it?! Do you get what we're doing here?!" And now it's removing any ounce of playing it cool.
But it's fun on some level. Kinda makes me wish they hadn't wasted Teri Hatcher and Dean Cain on Supergirl.
While I'm not opposed to the idea of exploring real world issues through fiction and metaphor, I think that the Supergirl team hit the politics way, way too hard. Especially considering their inability to really explore the issues. The show would have been way better if they'd just done a Supergirl series instead of the Supergirl propaganda videos. And ultimately, it does more for strong female characters in fiction if they're not treated like political pets. They always say that showing is better than telling in fiction writing, and that's usually true.
The real answer to all of the questions is, the Supergirl/Arrowverse writers didn't think about it. The writers don't care about it.
But generally speaking, the world is bigger in the DC universe. They have all of our cities, and then their own fictional cities
Okay... What does everyone think about the new Flash suit?
I forget exactly where I stopped watching (some point in season 2, I believe), but it seems to me that most of the series revolved around the idea of hostile aliens, trying to kill people and destroy cities. Season 1 was about an organized radical group of alien terrorists who wanted to wipe out humanity.
While I think that it makes perfect sense for the series to explore the whole "illegal aliens" issue through this kinda thin metaphor, I think it's absurd for the series to take a simplistic view of the situation and write off the humans as being racist. It seems like they have a legit reason to question the aliens and to want some sort of control over who comes onto the planet.
And this is a great chance to explore both sides of the very real issue without demonizing anyone or calling anyone racist. Except, Supergirl isn't interested in that. And they were never interested in telling Supergirl's story at all, really. They were interested in turning Superman into a woman and using that idea for a feminist series... which boggles my mind. Supergirl is a great character, with a story that isn't just a copy of Superman's. She has a personality which isn't Superman's. She has a life that isn't Superman's. There is no reason why a Supergirl series should have been a Superman series with a female lead, except that the people making the show don't care about the character or her story, any more than the Arrow writers care about Oliver Queen or his story. They wanted Batman, just like Supergirl wanted Superman. And because they had no interest in the story that they were actually supposed to be telling, they wound up with weak knock-off shows, rather than some original, layered stories that we haven't seen a million times before.
Imagine if Kara and Clark were on opposite sides of the alien immigration issue. Her experience is that of a scared teenager who lost everything, and who needed a new home and new people to care for her when she was absolutely shattered. His experience is of growing up with human parents, surrounded by humans, who are justifiably wary of aliens with strange powers--some of whom try to destroy the world on a regular basis.
Imagine if Green Arrow actually explored the Roy Harper addiction story, with Oliver punching him in the face.
There is so much history and story that has never been explored on any screen before, but the people making these shows have absolutely no interest in that. Instead, they focus on their selfish need to push their own politics and agendas, and the shows mean nothing to them outside of that.
Mind you, in both scenarios that I set out here, Kara and Oliver would be liberals. I'm not trying to make them conform to my politics (though exploring the issues with a little more depth would be nice, because I'm tired of being portrayed on TV as some mustache twirling villain, written by people who have never taken the time to actually understand my side of things). I just think that it'd be nice if the writers cared more about their stories and characters, and less about turning their shows into scripted twitter rants.
Sorry. I'm ranting a lot... about other people ranting. It's just irritating me. Like Sliders, I see so much potential that is being wasted by people who just don't care. There are thousands of writers who would love to have these jobs, and those writers are still starving because hacks keep getting work.
It's funny. A few days ago, I was like "I might stop watching Arrow. It's just not worth it when there are shows like Daredevil and the other Netflix shows that are just much better quality."
Then they started killing the Netflix shows. So we'll be stuck with the Arrowverse and Agents of SHIELD. Sigh.
I was trying to figure out if they could merge the Netflix shows with the Legion universe, but I'm not sure that would work.
I haven't watched Titans yet (I will get a free trial once it's all aired), so I can't comment on that. I do see a lot of people who are upset that it's not more like the cartoon. I'm not sure what to say to those people. Anyway, the series looks like it could be good, so I'm looking forward to seeing it.
As for the money issue in the Arrowverse... I think it's a problem. Not the money itself, because a lot of shows don't discuss how their "poor" characters still seem to wear new clothes every week, and eat out as though it's free. If that were the issue, I wouldn't really think it was that big of a problem. The thing is, they've made money a plot point on both shows, and then dropped it because it was boring or something. It might have been interesting to see Oliver live amongst the poor people for a while, but they just kept giving him massive penthouses. It might be interesting to see the Flash world expand a little bit with characters earning a living in different ways (Cisco would never need to get a real job. He could design tech and sell it for millions).
The issue is about how invested the writers are in their own stories. I've probably said it before in some thread, but writing fiction is about earning the trust of the audience. You make a deal with them, wherein they agree to buy into the false reality that you establish, with the understanding that there are still rules and there are still consequences. If you violate the trust of the audience by not buying into the reality of your own story, or by shattering that reality that you've created, it is incredibly hard to recover. If you don't buy into your story, why should anyone else?
That's a major issue with the Arrowverse right now. Introducing metahumans was a huge ask, after establishing the Arrowverse as a grounded "reality". But we went along with it. It was all good. But more and more often, the writers are violating the "reality" of their fictional universe, either because they don't care, or because they want to promote whatever cause they're pushing that week, and that makes it harder for the audience (or at least for me) to remain in that story. I don't buy Felicity holding her own in a fight with Diaz, because they've established that Felicity can't fight worth a damn. And the writers didn't buy that scene either, so they didn't pay it off. They didn't want to invest in paying off the money issues that they established. They didn't want to pay off Oliver falling off of a cliff after being stabbed through the chest with a sword.
I honestly don't think the writers have an interest in writing a Green Arrow series. And what's worrisome was that this started to happen on The Flash last year too. When the writers, for some unknown reason, decided to ignore the fact that Marlize was a villain who was equally responsible for numerous murders and for sending Barry to prison, and they started writing her as an ally of some sort... it violated the story quite a bit. And when the Wells alternates all became excuses for the actor and wardrobe people to show off their movie character impersonations, it was clear that the writers didn't even take their own show seriously.
The Flash can recover. It was never a show that was meant to be taken super seriously, but the writers still have to take it seriously. A weak season, or maybe even two, can be forgiven. But with Arrow... I just don't know. I find my patience to be very thin with that show. I want them to address the issues and fix them, but they don't seem to be doing that. They keep doubling down on some of them. So when they introduce this flash-forward thing, I'm not intrigued and I'm not on the edge of my seat. I'm rolling my eyes and wondering why they bothered to bring Roy back at all, after giving him and Thea a happy ending.
When I see Diggle fighting Diaz, I find myself wondering why he is having such a hard time. If Felicity can hold her own against him, surely a well trained, muscular dude can kick his ass pretty easily.
It's funny. I was watching Daredevil, and without giving too much away, there was a fight scene that took place in a weight room. One character picks up what must have been a 35 or 45 pound weight and almost uses it to bash someone's head in... but stops, because it would obviously kill the guy in a horrible and bloody way.
Whereas on Arrow, Oliver beat the crap out of someone with a very similar weight, and it was nothing.
This is the problem that I'm having right now. I will give Arrow a chance and see how the season goes, but I will probably stop watching soon if it doesn't pick up. I don't want to bother with a show that genuinely feels like the writers are just there for the paycheck and have zero interest in the actual story (or source material).
(for the record, I know that I complain about the Arrowverse a lot, but it's not just this show that I have problems with. Supernatural violated its own reality for the sake of a Trump joke, and it still bothers me to this day. On top of their soap opera lighting, the weak excuse to bring back nearly *every* dead character, and tired angel/demon storyline, even one of my favorite shows can get on my bad side)
I think the Loki and Scarlet Witch shows are definitely Disney streaming service material, but the company also owns a large chunk of Hulu. That is where the more mature shows would go.
I'm not really surprised. If Marvel creates tension, Netflix cancels their shows and Disney regains full control. That is what they normally like.
Luke Cage was horrible, so it could just be a case of not being able to fix the show, but I suspect that Disney wants all of them back. Netflix might fight harder for Daredevil, but if Marvel wants to tank it, they'll tank it.
Yeah, I noticed that while watching the episode. I just assumed that he had a broken foot or something. I hope it's nothing serious.
The Flash wasn't bad this week. I agree that Nora is being played far too young, and maybe they should have just had her come from 20 years in the future instead of 30. Maybe William could have hitched a ride with her and he's the new Green Arrow.
That said (and ignoring the fact that a major city's police department somehow decided to have no forensics department for months and months because their one lab guy was gone), it was a fun, light episode. Cicada is already less lame than the Thinker. I like Iris as a reporter, rather than commanding the team.
So far, so good. I do dread the new Wells next week though. He could be this year's shark jumping moment. I'd honestly just rather see how Harry is coping these days.
Same as my view of Wendy Davis and the national interest in her.
I'm not trying to gender anything. I'm talking about demographics, and I'm genuinely trying to figure out if I'm supposed to be criticizing this show as an action-based superhero story, or a relationship drama that's set against the backdrop of a superhero world. Arrow was definitely sold to us as gritty, action, superhero stuff (more of a male 18 to 45 demo), but that doesn't seem to be the priority anymore. The CW as a whole is aimed more toward women, so I'm wondering if they consciously decided to shift the tone in order to appeal to that audience.
I found the Felicity/Diaz thing genuinely puzzling. It's an action-based superhero series... yet, they seemed entirely uninterested in telling us how Felicity survived, when ARGUS broke in, or how Diaz got away. They seemed more interested in Felicity crying (which I hate, both because it's annoying as crap, and because season 1 Felicity wasn't this weak, crying mess that they constantly force her to be now). I just didn't get it. It was some of the worse decision-making I've seen on TV in a while, because that scene had to have been filmed, right? It had to have been cut for time... and someone had to have decided that *that* scene was the one that was expendable in the episode. Or else someone got away with writing a cliffhanger for one of the acts, and no resolution in the next.
I'm just baffled. That's all. I'm in awe of that particular decision, and it's making me question the motivation of the entire series.
I can see that. I think I was just hoping to see some acknowledgement of the comic book roots, and the stories that mean a lot to a lot of people. That could have been a lot of fun.
This story could work too, I'm sure. I guess we'll see.
I was hoping to see something more tied to the comics, really. I wanted to see a really fun story with *the* Green Arrow, Black Canary, etc.
Having them swap costumes... seems fitting, really. They've swapped plotlines a couple of times. But it feels less "cool" and more "cutesy".
I might just be down on the whole Arrowverse after the Arrow premiere. I'm considering dropping Arrow, but I'm holding on because I keep hoping that it will get better.
I was thinking about Arrow some more, going through comments sections and Twitter feeds, and I have to wonder what the target demographic for the show is at this point. When the show started, they were going for the male audience (broadly speaking. I'm not saying that women don't like comic books or action). The show was grittier and more grounded. The fights hit a bit harder. Relationship drama was present, but not overwhelming. It was a comic book show, about a fighter who is taking out bad guys on the streets of a corrupt city. Early casting was also very masculine. Stephen Amell is very muscular. David Ramsey is as well, and we also had Manu Bennett and Collin Donnell. All big, manly men. When Colton Haynes came onto the show, he was playing the younger, skinnier character, but even he was pretty muscular/athletic.
Looking at how the series developed over time, it seems like the tone quickly changed. I never really bought John Barrowman as Malcolm Merlyn, because he wasn't muscular or intimidating in the least. He looked like a stage actor playing a part. None of the new crop of heroes on the show really sell the part of "superhero". They don't train like Amell, so they're not able to be as physical on screen. Curtis is supposed to be an Olympic athlete, but they kinda play that down because he doesn't look that part at all.
I'm not saying that any of these actors are bad actors or bad people in any way, but I'm not sure that they're right for the parts of superheroes.
But... were they really cast to be superheroes at all? The stories have changed as well, and the show isn't really about the superheroics anymore. It's about drama. Relationship drama. Family drama. People standing in various lairs talking about how much they don't trust each other. Felicity crying, and crying, and crying, and crying.
The show doesn't even try to resemble the comic book source material. In fact, they seem to have gone out of their way to annoy comic book fans who wanted a Green Arrow series.
Looking through the comments and Twitter feeds, I can't claim to have a great view of the audience as a whole, but based on the samples that I saw, it seems like the female audience members were much more excited about the season premiere than the males, and a lot of those comments had the word "Olicity" in them.
Basically, I'm wondering if the mission of the series changed over time. Is the show even targeting the same demo that it was when it premiered? Is it wrong to keep hoping that it "gets back on track" when they might not even be looking to reach the same destination anymore? The action and superheroics don't seem like a priority to the writers, who simply forgot to resolve a major life-or-death fight scene between Felicity and Diaz... or they thought it wasn't important to resolve that scene. They could just mention that ARGUS saved her and that Diaz got away, because nobody needs to see that.
Either way, the episode says a lot about where the writers' heads are. And they're not focused on any mission to save the city. That's just a setting for the drama.
I can't really judge his actual ability to make a good Suicide Squad movie. He made one good movie with Guardians... but the sequel wasn't really good. And those were pretty much the cream of the crop from his filmography. So I honestly have no idea of what a James Gunn Suicide Squad movie would be. We could assume that it would be a lot like GotG, but as TF said, some of that style and flavor could have come from Marvel.
Agreed. I have no reason to believe that Gunn is anything like Singer. If he was abused as a child, I hope he gets whatever help is necessary to help him work through those issues. I can't begin to understand what that would be like.
From a publicity standpoint, I still don't understand why Warner Bros would put him on a DC project. The fact remains, his name is tied to some really disturbing tweets and images, and those things will be brought up in every article about the Suicide Squad sequel if he directs it. I just don't understand the logic behind inviting that sort of connection for a franchise like that. If they wanted to work with Gunn, maybe they could have allowed things to cool down by having him do some original work for a while before putting him on a big franchise.