Search options (Page 3 of 35)

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.

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.

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 wholeheartedly agree. And it's sad that the old 90s costume actually looks better

https://www.instagram.com/p/BpQNyBEgOIV … 190uhalmrp

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Agreed. Growing up, I always loved film and television. I was always fascinated by the process of bringing world's to life. But learning about the absolute evil and corruption that the industry has always been rooted in was what made me look elsewhere for my creative outlets. I used to dream of working there, and now it's more of a nightmare. I don't think everyone there is necessarily evil, but I think the evil is like a cancer that keeps spreading.

Yeah, we will have to wait and see. I'd have expected Luke Cage to be the first to go, so this was a surprise. With Netflix and Disney parting ways soon, I'm just not sure how to read this one.

I wonder if they'd put it on the Disney service or put it somewhere like Hulu, which has some more mature shows.

I wouldn't mind that, as long as whoever ran Luke Cage stayed far, far away from any new show.

If Disney does pick up the show, I hope they allow crossovers with the other shows still. With Danny making a big deal of Matt's death in season 2 of Iron Fist, it seems like those two should probably interact again at some point.

That's cool. The crossovers usually don't feel like they're in-continuity anyway.

I haven't seen the show. I'm not even sure where to find it...

quick search...

Ah. Yeah, I don't watch much Bravo. But reading the description, it sounds a bit like The Grinder.

The question is, are they just looking for him to write a Guardians movie and swap out the names? Because while the movies had some similarities, they weren't exactly the same type of movies.

I just don't get why, with all of the talent out there in the world, Warner Bros keeps bringing in Marvel's table scraps. They're the home of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. They don't need to chase anyone, and yet they keep doing it. And that is what is ultimately doing them the most harm.

Disney fired Gunn because they didn't want their brand mentioned in the same articles as those horrible tweets and pictures. Warner Bros is actively pursuing those articles. Why?

I watched Three Billboards not too long ago. Honestly, it's one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Worse than Black Panther, if only because it was supposed to be a legit movie, not just a popcorn flick. It was a truly, truly horrible movie. Horrible characters. Horrible directing. Horrible dialog. It gives Benjamin Button a run for its money.

I was kinda disappointed by that, actually. I had heard that it was good, so I was looking forward to seeing it.

I agree completely.

I'd be careful, if anyone is considering a new iphone. I've seen some videos on YouTube where they're talking about the new phones not recognizing the charging cable when the screen is off, and therefore not charging when people think it's charging. Some even have issues with the phone not charging when the screen is on.

The selfie camera also apparently applies some sort of beauty filter automatically, without the option to turn it off.

There's also no reason why digital comics should be charging the same price as print versions, which account for paper, ink, shipping, etc.

I think that if the comic book publishers lowered their digital prices to something like $.99, they'd make up the difference with more sales (especially if they made a big press stink about it when they did it). That would be drawing in more readers, who are then more likely to try some of the other titles that they would never want to test at $3.99.

This is just common sense. Anyone who publishes across digital platforms and also in paper versions knows that the prices/profits are hugely different. And audiences don't like feeling like they're being conned.

I read about that! I'm curious to see if they turn out more like the Netflix shows, or more like the movies. Loki should have probably been retired a long time ago though...

Honestly, I don't know if I'll ever bother to try the Disney service. Disney quality isn't what it used to be.

I think that the future is in television. The old excuse was that tv was a cheap, shallow way to tell stories, but that isn't true anymore. The Netflix Marvel shows probably look better than the MCU movies. The Veronica Mars revival will be filming from October through March for eight episodes. So TV is no longer cheap, shallow crap that is produced in bulk, as quickly as possible. Is Man of Steel 2 were to become an 8 episode miniseries on a streaming platform, that might be cool. And Cavill might even be into it.

That said, nothing should ever he done in the fashion of the Arrowverse. That franchise has become such a huge mess, I've been considering dropping it entirely. The Arrow writers made a post on Twitter the other day, celebrating how diverse their writers room is, and it made me kinda mad. Not because I'm against diversity or whatever, but because they think their room is worth celebrating when nobody there knows how to do their job. This mentality is showing in all of the Arrowverse shows, and it is frustrating to me because it is so unnecessary. I used to really look forward to Arrow and The Flash, and now they're garbage, because the writers don't actually give a damn.

I hope that the DCU shows are better, but there is some crossover behind the scenes, so I don't know.

Anyway, a really solid series for Superman or Batman, or others from the DCEU would he cool. It just needs to be made by the right people, with the right motivation. If the DCU platform were the only place to find the continuation of the DCEU, I'd subscribe. As it is now... I will wait until Titans finishes their season and then do the free trial. We'll see how it goes from there.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Watched Black Panther.

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

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.