Thanks. I'm trying to stay positive. It's been an incredibly sucky summer, but there were many great summers before this and I truly am thankful for that.
I've seen suggestions of behavioral problems with Charisma in the past, but I've never seen anyone who actually knew what they were talking about. It all seemed like people making wild guesses based on the fact that she was fired. If you have a more legit version of that story, I'd be really interested in seeing it.
However, the story from Charisma is that she had been dealing with her own personal stuff (there may have been more than one miscarriage) which probably contributed to the stress, but Joss actually got mad at her when she revealed that she was pregnant, because it ruined his plans for the season. Not only did he fire her... he didn't actually tell her that he fired her. She found out about it in the press, and she found out about it after she'd missed pilot season, which was a sh*tty move on the part of the Angel producers. Especially since they'd been working with her for seven seasons by that point.
So the next year, they asked her to return to the show. She was hesitant, because she didn't want to come back if she was just going to be killed off. They swore that they weren't going to kill her off, and eventually, they talked her into signing. After she signed, they told her that she was going to be killed off.
Charisma tells the story in a joking manner, saying that she actually liked the approach once they told her, but the fact is, they lied to her and manipulated her into coming back.
That story is relevant to me because it reminds me of what they did with Robia LaMorte. After season 2 of Buffy, Robia had a life changing experience where she became a born-again Christian (she is now a minister, so it was a huge deal for her, not some subtle event). She signed on to appear on season 3 of Buffy, believing that she would be playing some form of Jenny Calendar. Instead, she found out (after signing) that she was going to be playing the Buffyverse equivalent of Satan. It was something that she was very uncomfortable with. It was another example of the bait and switch that Joss and his team used, which I find distasteful (it's Hollywood, so I'm not shocked by it. I just think it's in poor taste to sign someone under false pretenses when you know they will be uncomfortable).
To be clear, I don't care if Joss isn't a feminist. I'm not a feminist. I don't like the militant feminists that Joss has always pretended to be, so that's not what bothers me about him. It's the con he pulls with it. He used feminism to sell his work and to turn himself into some sort of feminist icon, and I have always found it frustrating because I've always seen right through it. I've always seen the "hot girl on girl" vibe in his work while other people were going on about "empowering lesbian relationships". I've always seen the flaw in his presenting his work as feminist, while depicting abuse toward women in a strangely positive light. Buffy went from one very abusive relationship to the next, and it was played as romance. Echo was a mindless sex slave who didn't even develop a personality until somewhere in season 2 (by which point they were just falling back on old apocalypse stories on Dollhouse, because they had no original stories to play). Cordelia was impregnated by demons something like three times on Angel! And in one early idea for Firefly, Joss wanted to show us a syringe that Inara kept on hand in case of an attack. Essentially, she would inject herself and whoever sexually assaulted her would die. In the early episode pitch, Joss suggested that Inara would be captured by reavers and taken to their ship. When Mal found her, every reaver on the ship would be dead, suggesting that they had all raped Inara... and only at this point would Mal begin to treat Inara as a woman, rather than a whore.
Again, I'm not saying that it's not valid to put women through crap in stories. I'm just saying that it always seemed strange to me that Joss was going on about being a feminist activist while telling these stories. The feminist angle was BS from the start. Anyone who reads his tweets will see him comparing women to dogs, or criticizing the appearance of teenage girls who survived cancer (!!!!!). So when he gets jobs like Batgirl because of his feminist street creds, I get annoyed. Not even because the feminist stuff is an act, but because Joss hasn't produced anything worthwhile since Firefly was on TV. His Avengers movies are crap. Dollhouse was crap. Most of Angel was crap. Even Serenity fell far, far below the level of writing found on the Firefly series. Joss has taken to fluffing his ego rather than telling stories, as I've been saying for years.
I don't really care about Justice League. I think people are probably blowing his role as stand-in director way out of proportion. What he's filming was probably approved of and planned by Snyder before he left (which is probably why he was working with Joss in the first place), and it's actually not that unusual for someone else to direct bits and pieces of movies that are officially directed by someone else. I think the media is running with it because it feeds into the narrative of the DCEU being a flop, but in reality, it's just someone filling in after something truly horrible happened. And if the rumors are true that Joss is taking this opportunity to change the tone and purpose of the movie without Snyder's blessing, it just confirms that he is a douchebag on a truly massive level. And we will be able to tell, because Joss' writing style is pretty distinctive (meaning that he doesn't really write different characters and styles. They all just talk like Joss). We'll have to comment on Justice League after we see it and know how it turns out.
Batgirl is a different story. He got that job for one reason, and he doesn't deserve it. He was never the best choice for that job, and Kai Cole's essay just highlights that point.
So, Joss Whedon's ex wife has written an essay!
http://www.thewrap.com/joss-whedon-femi … cole-says/
It says nothing that we didn't know if we were paying attention to Joss' career. Basically, he's an asshole who uses feminism as a way of hiding his misdeeds.
As I said, I've known this stuff for a long time. Anyone who knew about how he treated Charisma Carpenter would know that he wasn't a feminist. Add to that, his many un-feminist themes (which seemed to celebrate abuse and rape at times, which made for great TV sometimes, but not a feminist angle at all). The man has been using the feminist act to build up his own career and ego for a long, long time. So I'm happy to see that it's finally being discussed openly.
The question is, what does this mean for Batgirl? He was obviously hired because "Feminist!", so what does the studio do with it now? Do they stand by the man who apparently drove his wife insane an, to some degree, did it on purpose? What would that look like, having him as the director of an iconic female superhero?
I lost another dog this weekend. The second since May and third in the last two years. This one, Rocky, was 15 years old, which is amazing for his breed (he was a lab) and he was an overwhelmingly awesome dog. I can't even put it into words right now, but if you've read Freedom/Hate, Ammo was based on Rocky.
This summer has sucked a whole lot.
And then there is the Supernatural fandom, which is made up of loudmouth psychopaths.
Doomsday didn't look great, but at least had an interesting story to with it.
That does sound like a mess, and I agree that the writers should have at least had the ability to be on set from time to time. I personally have always thought that the writers of a show should work where it is filmed, because the disconnect is too apparent most of the time. But Hollywood is stupid.
The solution to their problem: nix Lex entirely. Don't bother with him since Rosenbaum wasn't willing to commit. They tried to keep their eggs in a basket that they didn't have. They should have come up with a different end arc... But they felt they needed Lex because of the comics. Honestly, I was over him by that point. Seasons 8 and 9 were fine without him. The last season would have worked better if the writers accepted what they had, and the show they were writing, and stopped trying to end it on the comic book imagery.
Yeah, but that is the arc of the character. Everyone is acting as though this is a desperate reaction to BvS flopping, but it didn't and this isn't. I am as tired of the media coverage of the DC movies as I am their coverage of politics.
I think there is a disconnect between the show that Tom Welling describes and what the show actually wanted to be, and what the studio/network wanted the final season to be. The Darkseid plot was never going to work on Smallville. The Superman suit was never going to look or feel right for Smallville. What they should have had was a personal journey for Clark (possibly using the final season to tell a story that happens over the course of a couple of years) getting him to a point where he can step into the world as Superman and be that person. We didn't need Lionel Luthor. We didn't *need* Lex to come back, and we certainly didn't need for him to come back the way he did.
I like Tom's point about us not being able to go with Clark as he becomes Superman. That's a perfect mindset to have with ending that series. And I don't think we needed the Superman imagery at the end of it all. We didn't need the scene with the airplane, which was just there because "it's Superman!". The show wasn't about Superman. If we flash forward ten years, I'd really care less about seeing the suit than seeing where Clark, Chloe, Lois, Lana, etc all wound up.
It's one of my peeves with comic book characters, where people think that they need to hit specific notes and create specific imagery, rather than just tell the story the way it wants to be told. Ultimately, it weakens the story on screen because that story is an afterthought.
I agree with him. I wouldn't have been upset if the red leather jacket was Smallville's Superman costume. I think the tights and cape felt forced. It was more about "what we have to do" and less about the actual series.
Hopefully it will work better in the movie.
Ps- do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?
It is interesting that it's another well established actor who is talking about changing tones and all of that .
I think Snyder probably planned some changes in tone, which is why he was working with Whedon in the first place. However, I don't think it would be acceptable for Whedon to greatly alter the movie. I want the movie that Snyder intended to release.
I don't know if that Flash joke was Whedon, but it wasn't my favorite moment from the trailer. How can the Flash be in a position where everyone else speeds off without him noticing?
Affleck was probably dealing with other things at the time, so I'm not surprised that he wouldn't want to take that on. However, they probably had a second unit director already, or someone who could step in and quietly do the job. It was weird to go with someone who was so high profile.
I was fine with Joss stepping in to help carry out Snyder's plan, but if this has turned into Joss and the studio taking advantage of a horrible situation and stabbing Snyder in the back, that would be pretty messed up.
"It’s an interesting product of two directors, both with kind of unique visions, both with really strong takes."
No, no, no, no, no...
We have tried different types of female characters on the show. Ellen and Jo were more like a mother and sister to them in season two, for example. But the fangirls screamed until they were written off. And the show is going into season 13, and we've had one long-term relationship on the show (which the fangirls rejected), with another multi-episode relationship that was over before we even saw how it played out. I don't think the show can be accused of reducing women to housewife cliches.
That said, there was nothing wrong with the Lisa character. They should have kept her around and allowed Dean to hold onto the maturity that his season 6 arc brought to his character.
In general, I think the plan for Supernatural fangirls has always been to be as whiny and bitchy as humanly possible.
So apparently there is a group of fans that believes that the upcoming spinoff, Wayward Sisters, is a ripoff of an idea that was created and developed by the fans.
I got into a conversation with a couple of these people, and as best I can figure, the facts are these:
1. In season 9, Supernatural introduced Alex. She's a girl who was victimized by vampires, and she was ultimately sent to live with Jody. Season 9 also introduced Donna Hanscum, another female sheriff who quickly befriended Jody.
2. Season 10 reintroduced Claire, who had been orphaned after Castiel took her father's body as his vessel and her mother disappeared (and later died). Ultimately, Claire was sent to live with Jody. As she left, she asked, "This is some sort of halfway house for wayward girls?"
3. The fans liked the idea of these characters interacting, so they came up with the idea of having these characters interact and have stories of their own. They called this Wayward Daughters. The actresses involved supported the idea and it became a whole thing.
4. Season 11, episode 12, "Don't You Forget About Me" was all about Jody, Claire and Alex. It was a very popular episode, which had many, many people calling for a spinoff (myself included)
5. Recently, the Supernatural producers announced that they would be creating a backdoor pilot for a series called Wayward Sisters, which follows this group (along with the granddaughter of a character that I won't spoil). The writers said that they'd been toying with the idea ever since they wrote Claire back onto the show, but the timing wasn't right until this season.
6. Fanrage! They stole the idea that the fans created! How dare they take credit for this?!!?!?
Okay, so... where to begin?
I will start in season 8, with Krissy Chambers. She is a girl who was orphaned after her hunter father was killed. Krissy goes to live in a house for wayward supernaturally orphaned kids. So, the idea was on the show long before the fans were pushing for Wayward Daughters. (also, I want Krissy on this new series!)
Next, the writers put Alex and Claire with Jody, not the fans. This isn't a case of the fans creating an idea, it's a case of them... watching the show and not being able to understand the line between their own thoughts and what's happening on the screen? The writers clearly had the idea for stories involving this group of characters, which is why they put them together in the first place.
I find it absolutely hilarious and outrageous that fans are claiming that this was their idea, to the point of accusing the writers of ripping it off. Is this some sort of mental illness?
I love Supernatural, but I've never liked the fandom. I have always hated the crazy fangirls, and I've never forgiven them for causing Jo and Ellen to be written off of the show. They claim to want more female representation on the show, but they've always thrown tantrums every time a woman got anywhere near a Winchester brother... unless the character was gay or maternal in some way that made her non-threatening to the fangirl delusion that the Winchesters would fall in love with them.
This claim that the writers stole a fan idea makes me even more mad. Maybe it's the writer in me, but it's infuriating.
I get what you're saying.
I think from a marketing/storytelling standpoint, keeping Superman out of the press for a year allowed the audience to relate with the idea that he was gone. We always knew that he was coming back, so it doesn't really trick us into believing that he did die, but we did have a "Where is Superman" vibe, which adds weight when we do see him. A lot of the images that we're seeing with him are for merchandise, not the movie itself. Merchandise always messes up the vibe that movies go for with this stuff.
As for how they could have handled it differently in the story, I don't think that it would work to send Clark into space. It's too much like Superman Returns, and it doesn't fit this character right now. He doesn't have a space ship, or contact with other aliens. He wouldn't know where to go even if he did go off into space. And again, I think it would work against this portrayal of the character. He is grounded and human in most ways, not the super alien Superman that we see in other versions. I kinda hope they never go there with him.
I don't think the point of Superman's "death" was to make us think that he was dead. I think they needed to show the world within the DC movie universe that he wasn't just doing what he did because nothing could hurt him. He did it because he was a hero, who really was willing to sacrifice himself for a greater good. We saw this with the line from Batman about Superman not being a hero. I think their world needed to see that Superman would fight for them, and save them, and sacrifice himself for them because they are his people, and they don't have to fear his motives. When he comes back, the world's view of him will probably be pretty different.
If they had just sent him off into space, I think that would have had the exact opposite message.
If China is just going to completely sit this out, then leader of the free world Angela Merkel could step in. Or Theresa May. Everyone seems to love Justin Trudeau - maybe he can help.
... So many responses. Can't pick one.
I'm mostly just observing this conversation, but damn that paragraph almost gave me a stroke.
Reagan didn't have Alzheimer's until after he was out of office. Though it's become popular to suggest otherwise, there is no evidence to support claims that he was sick in office.
Rest in peace Charlie Gard.
Yeah, Legion was awesome
Is Agents of SHIELD written by nine year olds? I'm trying to get through this season, but they keep bending over backwards to cram political catchphrases where they don't belong. They're putting more effort into these petty jabs than they are their writing. They don't care about plot holes, poor characterization or world building, but they *need* those damn catchphrases.
I hate summer. I need to find better shows to watch.
Yeah, but that was the whole Batman arc for BvS. He hit his low point and was manipulated into fighting another good guy. *Batman* was manipulated! He allowed himself to be blinded by anger and pain and hatred. Then he reached a turning point and Superman was humanized within a matter of seconds.
Batman had to hit rock bottom, but he never really hated Superman or what Superman stood for. He hated what Superman represented to him and the monster that he created in his own head (and that Lex helped to create).
I don't know that it fully flipped. We're seeing the official take on Superman, and the media's coverage of Superman. But we all know that the media's take isn't exactly the full picture. If you listen to the media, Barack Obama was one of the best presidents in US history, with absolutely no scandals during his time in office, and he gave healthcare to the masses.
I think there would still be plenty of people who doubt or dislike Superman, and probably all of the Justice League members once they come out of their closet. We just saw a trailer that was framing a very specific angle of the story.
Michael Jackson liked to share beds with little boys, and people still celebrate him.
I think that by dying, Superman changed a lot of minds. If people were like Batman and saw him as someone who wasn't brave or a hero because he was indestructible and didn't have anything to lose, they now know that he was willing to die for humanity.
Look at Chris Kyle. He is loved and hated. His memorial was a national event, where people lined highways to pay respect. Superman was kinda like that... Except the world now realizes that they have nobody to take his place and protect them from a universe of threats that even nuclear bombs can't stop.
Death has a way of cleansing reputations. That may have happened with Superman, and when he returns, people might look at him the way they do in the comics. I do hope that they keep a more layered reaction to him though.
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens *Here be spoilers!* (126 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
The problem was, she had no character to play. She was a simulation of a character, moving through randomly generated scenes that mimicked powerful moments from other films, while never forming a plot or character arc of its own. The concept of the movie was interesting, and I had hope because this was supposed to be better than The Force Awakens, but the movie was a disaster.
My brother showed me video from when he and his wife took the kids to Disney World. It seems like Star Wars has taken over the place, and it makes me sad. Walt Disney built something great and creative and fun. Now we have his work being torn down so that they can replace it with hollow, soulless marketing opportunities that are just pretending to be movies.
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens *Here be spoilers!* (126 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I was laughing through the entire third act. It was so cliche and ridiculous that it was just hysterical.
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens *Here be spoilers!* (126 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Just watched Rogue One. Holy crap, that movie was horrible. Like, truly horrible. It's like the script was produced by an app of some sort, not a writer.
And the CG people were very distracting. The Uncanny Valley has not yet been crossed.
That wouldn't happen. Nobody is going to be turned away. The problem is that before Obamacare, it was easier to work with hospitals, negotiating prices and payments (costs are wildly inflated because of insurance companies).
No business is a business like any other. The key to any of them is finding a way to make the business work. That needs to happen on much more local scale, and the federal government really doesn't have a large role to play. The more they get involved, the more expensive it will be, and the standards of care will drop. Obviously, there would be regulations on what can and can't be allowed, but the VA has proven that the government can't run healthcare.
After my father had his stroke in 2009, we did all kinds of negotiating for his care and rehab. He had insurance, but it didn't cover everything. The companies involved had programs for people whose insurance didn't cover the full cost of their equipment, so we ended up paying nothing. This is because the price of the equipment was inflated because the insurance companies paid a lot. The same thing happens with hospital fees. Once you get down to a patient talking to the hospital, costs go down.
The system was messed up for sure... But now the companies that we were working with don't have those programs anymore. They're out of business because they couldn't make the new system work. And these were well known, big companies.
The healthcare issue is a farce. Most of the people arguing over it don't really care either way, and just want to line their pockets while exempting themselves from anything that might happen. The few who do actually want to put some work into figuring out what works best are screaming into the wind.
Obamacare isn't an option. It never was. It will collapse, and it will do a lot of damage on its way down. Universal healthcare (sometimes called "free" by people who are slow) will be great if we want higher taxes, lower quality care, and the inability to make our own medical decisions. I don't view that as a good option either. Then again, the old system didn't work either. It drove the cost of healthcare up to ridiculous levels because of the negotiating methods of insurance companies.
The best solution is to lessen the government's role (when do they ever help anything?) and create a competitive market for healthcare. There are places now that don't accept insurance and just perform surgeries with up-front payments, with prices clearly listed on their websites. Those prices are much lower than what you get through normal methods, there is less bullsh-t to deal with, and some people choose that option because they end up spending less than they would if they went through their Obamacare insurance.
Supply and demand. Healthcare isn't a right, it is a business. The problem is, too many people who aren't in that business are trying to control the market. This never works out well and as long as insurance companies are paying politicians to make sure that every citizen must buy a crappy version of their product, this problem isn't going anywhere.
Yeah, it's from Comic Con, I think. Haven't we had official word on Superman already? I thought we did.
The new footage looks great too.
DC has the best posters.
The issue isn't being discussed in the media in any real way. It's democrats win, republicans lose, and moving on to the latest baseball scores. The truth is, we're all losing. Obamacare shouldn't have passed to begin with. It was never debated or discussed, or revised or even really planned for. It did a lot of damage to a lot of people, and there is no way that it can survive. It will collapse, because it was a house built without a foundation. It was a show that was put on for the public.
Repealing Obamacare is difficult, because there are only so many times that you can change the entire system in one decade. Repealing anything is always harder than passing it. But the truth is, most of the politicians don't want to repeal it. They don't have to live by it, and it doesn't hurt anyone they love, but it serves their political purposes. Republicans who ran on grand promises to repeal Obamcare are now showing that they have no desire to touch the damn thing. They're cowards and liars, and shouldn't be in office.
However, this isn't a win for democrats. The general public still wants it gone. So while this crop of republicans may lose their jobs, that doesn't mean that the democrats will take them over. Obamacare is still failing. People are still hurting.
Liberals tend to think that the more a government controls something and hands things out to the people, the more stable the world will be and the more people will be provided for. I obviously disagree with this philosophy, and I think that you can observe it failing all over the world.
The truth is that, as with most things, a more competitive market with less government involvement would probably help more than anything that the government would do. It would drive down prices for insurance. It would drive down prices for treatment and medication. Opening the market would force competition, and when companies are competing for our business, the consumer usually benefits.
But the politicians are politicians. It would be a mistake to think that they're debating the best course of action for the American people. The truth is, they're doing what's best for them and the careers that should have been over decades ago for most of them. This isn't even about healthcare for most of them, it's about putting on a show about healthcare.
I think I see more people concerned over the motive for this move than the move itself.
If the driving force behind this decision is that the writers have story ideas that they want to explore, which are best served with a female Doctor, then I don't think most people would mind. However, if this is more along the lines of recent trends which want to tell us that gender is meaningless and men and women are all the same, and we must accept the female Doctor because #equality or whatever... that is just not a good way to approach any character.
Yeah, we've been told over the past few years that this is possible for Time Lords. However, a lot of people have a lot of issues with what's been done with the series, and it would be a mistake to assume that having them oppose this move would automatically make them sexist or whatever. The Doctor has always been a man, and the idea of gender swapping is relatively new in the grand scheme of things. Those who are purists might reject the concept, because it hadn't been established in the show's first half-century of existence.
I do disagree with the idea that the Doctor's flirting was all just a show. The Doctor had a thing for Rose, and a version of the Doctor eventually ended up going off to be with her. We also have the issue of River Song, whom the Doctor clearly loves in a romantic (though not necessarily sexual) way. Of course, having feelings for women (and no men that I can remember) isn't necessarily just a man thing, but it's always gone hand in hand with his being a male. So, will the new Doctor suddenly start developing similar feelings for men? Will she still be drawn to women?
The whole thing is a political minefield, but if they just keep their heads down and tell good stories rather than preach about gender fluidity or whatever, it probably won't matter much.
My someplacethatiselse.net site is up for renewal. Do I keep it up, or let it go? Hmm...
Pretty much. The actress made a comment about people being afraid of her gender, and it just strikes me as an excuse. Now anyone who doesn't like her is sexist. But what about the people who didn't like Capaldi?
This is why I don't like gender/race swapping characters. The people doing it are obviously doing it to make a statement about being progressive or whatever, and they point fingers at anyone who doesn't fall in line. If she is a great Doctor, people will forget that they ever had doubts. If she's not, it's on the people making the show, not on the fans. The actress should have just said "I know this is a big, weird move. I understand people having doubts. If I do my job right, I will prove them wrong."
I don't really know (or care much since GoT isn't exactly tv at its best) but I imagine that it could feel like something that serves friendships and egos more than story. If it doesn't serve the story, it shouldn't be there
As it was... Like I said, I don't care. I don't know if the scene really added anything to the episode, and within the scene, the song seemed a bit awkward. However, I don't think that it was so distracting that it requires a lot of outrage.
It's okay. The Man of Steel comment was completely wrong, so it does more damage to Landis than the movie
Still haven't seen Homecoming. I considered going, because there was a Fandango coupon, but my back has been killing me and I don't think a theater is a good idea right now. That said, the issues that Max Landis had with the movie sound pretty standard for the MCU. They don't put work into character or plot, they put it I to cool scene ideas. It makes them a lot of money and people seem to like the movies well enough, but they don't really produce good, high quality movies.
So, it's summer. With nothing else to watch, I've been giving Agents of SHIELD a chance. It is still bad, but it reached a new line point for me, as two characters tried to be geeky by referencing movies where robots go evil. One makes a comment about making someone watch all of the Terminator movies, and the other says "Really? Even Salvation?"
The comment is a huge fail. In no universe was Salvation the low point of the franchise. It actually wasn't bad for a Terminator movie that didn't follow the normal structure, and had some good character stuff. It was certainly a better movie than T3 or Genisys. Purely talking about writing and character quality, I may put it above the first Terminator... And T2, but they're more fun, so it wasn't really "better" all around.
None were as good as TSSC.
And THAT is how the geeky Terminator conversation really goes (followed by disagreement and arguing)
I've been reading all of the rumors about the Samsung Galaxy Note 8, and also the IPhone 8. They've been running a race for fingerprint scanning built into the display, and I was curious to see who would win. Short answer, probably neither. The Note will have it built into the back of the phone.
But the more interesting updates have been for the iPhone.
They don't seem to have any fingerprint scanner at this point, since they failed to put it into the screen. They could put it on back, but they haven't ordered the parts yet and time is running out.
No fingerprint scanner means that they will be relying on facial recognition. This poses some problems, including the fact that it isn't yet reliable enough to be used for highly secure features, such as Apple Pay. So, no Apple Pay at launch?
Still no headphone jack.
Wireless charging is a big new addition, but new rumors suggest that it may not actually work at launch.
The rumor is that the screen will cover the entire front of the phone, but there will be a notch on the top of the screen, for the camera, sensors, etc. So while it will technically have a lot of screen space, I don't think that space will all be usable for games, videos, pictures, etc. It will mostly be status bar stuff.
Rumors are also saying that parts may be in short supply, so the number of available phones may be lower than normal, resulting in a delay in availability.
Rumors also suggest that Apple may be asking as much as $1200 for the basic iPhone 8, and possibly up to $1500 for the better one, because they're going for a "pro" crowd.
I'm not an Apple person, so I'm curious how this sounds to their customers. I'm sure that it will have better screen resolution and processing, and all of that. But can Apple charge that much money for a phone that seems to be cutting some features that people either rely on or were expecting to be added?
All of this is based on rumors and anonymous sources, so while it would pass CNN standards, it is really just hypothetical right now, for the sake of discussion. I'm just curious to know how these rumors look to anyone who might actually consider an iPhone.
Remember how I mentioned that I was playing around with a Supergirl pilot script because there were times when I was sitting around and I was bored? It started on my phone, but moved to my computer as I was working on other stuff. I dropped it for a while, because I had other life stuff going on, but I picked it back up within the past week or two because I had some free time.
My little dinky pilot project that was just for fun is now at 86 pages (and counting). I think I've taken this too far.
As much as I hate the writing on the show, part of me would love to see Erica's Lois Lane sparring with Calista Flockhart's Cat Grant.
The problem that I'm having with this news is that the audience today is a lot more advanced than they were 40 years ago. On the one hand, this means that people will generally understand that these are TV shows and they'll roll with some punches (Superman appearing on TV and in films, played by two different actors, in stories that are completely unrelated to each other). On the other hand, it means that you really can't pull off a recasting without it being a brutal and jarring transition.
Casting Erica Durance on Supergirl at all is a nice way to show respect to what came before, but it will also have people thinking about Smallville and her Lois Lane nonstop. It would be hard for her to disappear into any role on that show, but it could probably happen over time. In theory. Personally, I think she's still a little too close to the Superman world right now, but that's just me.
Now, using Erica Durance for such a major recast is like a four car pileup of distractions that can't possibly help sell the story. It's like the producers created a diagram of just how rough they could make the transition for this character, and made sure to hit each point.
The thing is, they don't need Alura or Astra. I know that it was probably their ideal situation, but it couldn't work out, and no matter what they were planning, they could have gone another way. Focus on Kara's father this year. Or bring in Lara instead of Astra. Or have Clark convey the story. Or... whatever. This isn't a train that had already left the station and couldn't be rerouted. It was a train that they knew was heading for incomplete tracks, but they decided to go with it anyway. And this is a symptom of a much larger problem with the series, which is why I can't watch it anymore. They don't care about building a world or telling a story. They're not taking any of it seriously. They're delivering some half-assed garbage week after week, which has more in common with a bad Saturday morning superhero series from the late 80's than it does with a primetime superhero series today.
They have access to great, iconic characters that most writers would kill to work with, and they don't even give a damn. It's irritating.
But I'm already done with the show. There's an alternate version in my head, which I hear is going to cross over with The Flash for a musical. It's going to be epic... but still in my head.
Yeah, it's probably best if they don't highlight the things that are getting away from them.
I guess this is where my comments on Homecoming will end until I've actually seen it. So... see ya in 2019!
I'm not sure if there are any direct references to the year. I'm sure there is at least a visible date at some point, but I don't know for sure. I think they want to keep Peter in high school for the sequels, so maybe that justifies a jump to 2020? But does that jive with seeing him in Civil War?
That sort of stuff, I guess we have to expect and just live with. Comic books always fudge the date. But if the review I saw was correct and they were saying that it was one day of the week in one scene, and another day of the week in another (while remaining the same day within the story), that is something different. That would be pretty bad.
I had a really hard time with Spider-Man appearing in Civil War, but that whole movie was a mess. I'm just not sure where I stand with the MCU right now. I liked GotG, but even MCU fans suggest that the sequel was trying so hard that it failed, which killed my excitement for it. Then I saw positive reviews of Homecoming in which the reviewers addressed continuity errors (both in terms of the whole universe and just within the movie) but shrugged them off and said that it didn't matter since the movie was so fun.
I get that continuity errors happen and can't be helped, but some of the stuff they described we're basic filmmaking mistakes (like forgetting which day it was at any given point in the movie) that really can't be excused if they did happen in the movie. One of my big issues with the MCU is that they don't really seem concerned with making movies, and those comments that I saw in the Homecoming reviews just irritated me.
I will let you know what I think of Homecoming... But probably not until December or whenever I get around to seeing it. There have been so many bad MCU movies with such little concern for quality that I've lost all sense of urgency, even with Spider-Man, a character that I normally like.
I'm not even avoiding spoilers, which is also weird for me. I feel like having something good spoiled will at least let me know that there is something good at all.
Looking forward to The Defenders though. That one I will see ASAP.