(225 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Haha, that's completely fair.  I assumed based on the way you spoke about her that you weren't going to say.  But when you said she was credited as "Woman Number Three" I immediately checked to see whether Allison was Number Three and she was.  So it was either a Freudian slip or a coincidence.

There also aren't a ton of women on the show, despite Ellen Page getting top billing.  So it'd be Ellen Page, Emmy Raver-Lampman, or Mary J. Blige if you're talking about main cast.  If it's a guest character, there's a handful of people it could be.  Four of the seven "recurring" characters (according to Wikipedia) are female.


(225 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ha, that's actually a pretty great story smile

But is your nemesis Emmy Raver-Lampman?  She literally plays "Number Three"

(As a fellow journalist, you don't have to answer that smile )


(225 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I started and finished "Umbrella Academy" from Netflix.  I thought it was pretty fun, and I'm looking forward to another season.  Has anyone else seen it?


(86 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't know why FOX scheduled Gotham the way they did.  It should've just been the 12 episodes in a row.  But it was finally back last night, and the finale is next week.

I'm not going to lie - I think the Gotham finale might be what I'm looking forward to the most this spring.  Maybe more than the Game of Thrones finale.  With the flashforward finale and the track record of the writers, it might be the most fun episode of TV we see all year.


(159 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I have a complicated relationship with the sequels, but I'm pretty happy with the revelation that Rey is no one.  I hope that doesn't get retconned because I think it creates a great symmetry.  Kylo believes he's royalty.  That his control of the universe is deserved because of his bloodline.  For the Force to choose a random person to rise up to meet him is a great narrative work.  Kylo and Rey are true opposites.  If they end up as cousins...I don't know.

I think you're right - it's a designation of some sort.

I was more intrigued by the Emperor's cackle.  Is he back?  Cloned?  Was he Snoke?


(914 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I haven't seen Aquaman or Captain Marvel yet.

I'll probably see Marvel before Aquaman, but that's probably just because I'll want to see it before I see Endgame.  I'm actually fairly excited to see both Aquaman and Shazam, but I just haven't had a chance to go to the movies.

So I watched the most recent episode which features a vision that Pike has of his eventual fate.  I thought they did a pretty great job of recreating the scene that we were told about in The Menagerie, and I thought they did a fairly faithful representation of Pike's life support chamber.

But then I started thinking about the Talos IV recreation.  How they updated the flowers and the Talosians.  How we need to imagine that everything looks the same as it did in the 60s TV show.  And while we usually do a better job of picking apart the aesthetics of TOS, should we be doing the same for TNG?  When we get angry about the technological inconsistencies in Discovery, should we, instead, be retroactively adding those technologies to TNG/DS9/VOY?

The holographic communication makes sense.  It would be a better way of communicating with someone, and it feels like a natural progression of our technology.  If there were truly any issues with it, it would've been fixed in the 100 years between Discovery and the Dominion War.  So when Picard and Sisko and Janeway communicate with viewscreens and PADDs, maybe they were actually communicating on even more advanced holographic communications.  Maybe the Enterprise D was flashier with advanced screens and flashier uniforms.

Maybe the Klingons always looked like this?  Nah...the Klingon stuff still doesn't make any sense.

If we need to look at the 60s episodes with updated 2019 eyes, maybe we should be doing the same with the later sequel series.  It actually kinda makes it exciting.  Each Trek series takes place with their own technology as their lens.  TOS, despite being 200 years in the future, has technology that is laughably behind some of our own technology.  In the same way, some of our technology puts TNG's technology to shame.  So if we're projecting another 30 years to the Trek mythos, how advanced would the Enterprise-D be with another 100 years of advancements?  It's the kind of thing that makes Trek great and how Trek has helped our own technology grow and advance.

At the same time, someone (I think TF) once said that the Trek timeline is a weird version of our own timeline.  The TOS era was the 60s.  The TNG era was the 80s.  If Discovery had been set 100 years after the Dominion War, it could've been our time.  But maybe a new projection makes just as much sense.


(220 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

With Lucifer confirmed to be in the Empty and nothing truly dead ever in this universe, I wonder if the final season is setting up to be some sort of final confrontation with Lucifer.  Trying to recreate season 5 in a way?


(914 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So now Idris Elba is playing someone else (Bronze Tiger?), Viola Davis is back as Waller, and Margot Robbie is back as Harley in "The Suicide Squad"

With Aquaman and Shazam critical successes, maybe an interconnected DCEU isn't actually over.

Potential SPOILERS


There's speculation that Control/Leland is an origin of the Borg.  Which....meh.

So it wasn't Michael but Michael's mom.  Pretty cool twist, and I thought Sonja Sohn (from the great series The Wire) was cast perfectly as Michael's mom. 

The time travel stuff is intriguing, and I sorta like the idea of a crazy AI taking over a too-computer-dependent Starfleet.  It might go towards explaining why there's so little AI in the universe, but since this is a prequel, it's hard to take the whole "destroying all sentient life" threat seriously.  The good and bad of doing a prequel, I guess.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah I had no idea the same sorta stuff happened with fans of the Flash, but apparently there are about 20 sects of fans inside the Arrowverse fandom.  And they all seem to hate each other.  I fell down the rabbit hole around the time that they announced that Arrow was done after season 8.  It was a trending topic on Twitter, and I looked at the top posts about it.  I clicked on one of those posts, and I saw some infighting.  Fans of the Flash were gloating because their show was finally going to the full stage.  Arrow fans said they'd never even have a show without Arrow.

Both sides (correctly in my opinion) complained about the drop in quality on both shows.  Both blamed the crossovers for ruining the other show.

As I clicked and read, I noticed some in-fighting with the Flash too.  How Candice Patton is going to quit because of racism and writing she doesn't like.  How Carlos Valdes is going to quit.  How Candice and Danielle hate each other.  How Danielle might quit and how great that'd be for Candice.  How Grant is phoning it in.  How dumb it was that Killer Frost was in all three parts of the crossover but Iris (the FEMALE LEAD) was only in one.  I didn't see any complaints about Wells or Tom Cavanaugh's acting like we talked about.  No one seemed to have any opinion on Ralph.

It all seemed so bizarre to me.  I like the Arrowverse as much as the next guy, but I've never felt the need to pick a side.  There are still devoted fans of Barry and Caitlin getting together, and that hasn't even been referenced since season one I don't think.  And even then, it was weak.  And as I was writing, I thought of how silly that is because Barry and Iris have been the definitive Barry Allen couple for decades, and it would be a big departure for him to end up with anyone else.  But then I remembered that we actually had that happen on Arrow with Oliver ending up with Felicity over Laurel.  So maybe the "Snowbarry" people have a case.  I don't know and don't really care smile


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm assuming she gave more advanced notice than yesterday because they're probably done shooting now, right?  Or, at the very least, done writing.  Again, with the flash-forwards, we know that Felicity stays in that cabin outside of town with her daughter.  If those flash forwards are canon, there's the reason for her to be gone.

One interesting question will be what time period an eighth season would take place / where season 7 ends.  Are we going to end a month or so from where we are now?  Flash forward to the cabin after Mia is born?  Or, as someone online suggested, maybe the 8th season takes place entirely in the future with the future Team Arrow.  Unless that storyline is resolved, it's something they could do.  I mean, it didn't work on Fringe, but maybe it can work here.


I don't know a ton about it because, frankly, it's all quite exhausting to follow all these sects of Arrowverse fandom.  Just like there were Felicity and Laurel sects, there are also Caitlin and Iris sects.  So whenever I tried to go down the rabbit hole, everything is tainted with some form of bias, and it's hard to tell what's true and what's rumor based on assumptions from a comment that may or may not have been innocuous.  So take all this with as much salt as you'd like.

Candice - As you might know, racist assholes have been bothering Candice for her entire run on the Flash.  Whether they don't like the race-swapping or the interracial aspect, she's had to deal with a bunch of crap in what was supposed to be a fairly big break.  While she's taken it in stride, some feel that she's bothered by Iris' lack of a clear role or lack of any storyline that she can identify with.  Caitlin fans say that she can't act, and that Caitlin (despite not being the romantic lead) is the female lead of the show.  There was also some drama with Danielle Panabaker behind the scenes that I don't know anything about.  She apparently made some sort of comment that made it seem like she was the only female in the show, but I couldn't find too much about it when I just scanned twitter. 

There's been rumors that one or both of the actresses are leaving the Flash.  And rumors that Carlos Valdes is leaving.  And accusations that Grant Gustin is phoning in his performances.

Katie - The only problems with her stem from her getting killed off originally.  I know she wasn't happy about that.  What's strange is that she had that contract that was supposed to let her appear on all the shows, but I'm not sure she ever appeared on Legends after that and only appeared on Flash once.  There's apparently rumors that she might go to Legends next season.

Emily - The only thing I know is the thing she mentioned that she didn't want to see a pregnancy storyline.  From a TV Guide interview:

"I don't know if I would be interested in exploring that storyline right now with Felicity," Rickards said at the time. "I feel like she deserves a little something more than that, and I don't want that to be taken the wrong way. I'd just be interested in seeing her, I don't know, like, deal with a villain face-to-face for a consistent number of episodes."

So maybe the writers were going to make her more of a "mom" character (or worse, someone who abandons her baby to do "more fun" stuff) and that's not what she wanted to do.  So she thought if that's what they want her to do, Felicity can be that offscreen.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

People seem to think she's gone gone.  I don't know if she has some sort of problem with the writing, but I've read that she was against the writers making Felicity pregnant because she didn't want to be defined by that.  If she's been unhappy on the show, she's been less vocal about it than Candice Patton or even someone like Katie Cassidy.

It could be pay.  Maybe she wanted to get paid for a full season even though it's a half season.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Apparently Emily Bett Richards isn't coming back for the 10-episode season 8.

If the flash-forwards are real, Felicity is in hiding while Oliver is...somewhere.  So he could be doing something while apart from Felicity and then potentially die in the crossover.

I know Informant will be happy, but I don't really know what Arrow looks like without Felicity.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm having trouble identifying with Jon Cryer's Lex Luthor.  I think he does a solid-enough job.  I'd like him to be more physically imposing, but I think he has a posture about him that's imposing enough.  I think he has the attitude right, and I think he plays it fairly well.

Am I just bothered by the goatee?


(914 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I've spent more time with the non-lethal sci-fi technology Batman of the comic books. Snyder's Batman is a legitimate interpretation and I take no issue with its existence, although Snyder should not be insulting other people's portrayals of the character.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I wanted to focus on this.  I think it's legitimate, but like a lot of the DCEU, I think there are too many inconsistencies.  Snyder definitely wanted to try and do this realistically, and some of the more realistic items are the more controversial.  Namely the Battle of Metropolis and Batman's killing.

Would a fight between Superman and Zod result in a city-destroying event?  Absolutely.  You have two gods fighting, and the evil god is the better trained one.  I think Superman did the best he could because I don't think Zod would've been drawn out of the city, and I don't think Superman could've made him if he wanted.  The fight was realistic.  My issue is with the aftermath.  The Battle of Metropolis would've been the biggest thing to ever happen, and it's, for the most part, written off.  Snyder wanted to do the realistic thing and then move on.  There's a disconnect between realistic Superman and the comic book Metropolis he wants.

Would Batman end up killing people?  Absolutely.  Not only would his strength and skill make him lethal for almost any human to fight, but Batman would need to use lethal force to quickly move in and out of dangerous situations.  To save Martha in time, Batman had to crush people quickly in the warehouse fight.  I honestly believe he used excessive force in the Batmobile chase prior to his first confrontation with Superman, but maybe he did what he needed to do.  Again, I don't have a problem with the realism - again, my problem is with the rest of it.  If Batman kills, that's fine.  But would Gordon be okay with a Batman that regularly kills?  Did Batman always regularly kill, and if so, when did he start?  Because Gordon seems pretty okay with Batman in Justice League - there isn't any sort of "as long as you've stopped killing, we're good again" stuff.  There's a disconnect between realistic Batman and the comic book Gordon he wants.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think it would be hilarious if they went back and re-examined their strategies with Cicada after finding out about Nora.  They know that she's working with Thawne, and by putting her in the Pipeline, Barry shows that he can't trust her.

Who was the one who said that Oliver couldn't beat Cicada?  Nora.  So wouldn't it be great if they decided to ignore that, sent in Oliver, and he took out Cicada rather easily?


Regarding lazy use of speed, I laughed as Cicada 2 showed up, and while all the other heroes fired energy blasts of one form or another, Barry just started circling the room.  There's a thousand other things he can do, but he decided to just do a boring lightning bolt.

That being said, I've always found their use of speed to be lazy when it comes to big bad villains.  All of the big "fights" between Flash and any of his speed-based villains always ended up being some sort of race followed by two seconds of punching.


(914 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So Zack Snyder has come out again in defense of a Batman that kills.  His argument is, essentially, that people that don't think Batman would kill need to grow up.  He's out there fighting and people are going to die as a result.

I think that's a fair statement, but then what separates Batman from the Punisher?  If Batman kills, what separates him from someone like Azrael?  Should there be a separation?

The biggest argument against Snyder-Batman's style of killing, in my opinion, is "if Batman is willing to kill for the greater good, why is the Joker still alive?"  I think Bruce knows in his heart that he's putting people in danger by letting the Joker live, in whatever version of the story you want to consider.  The Joker regularly breaks out, people end up dead, and Batman puts him back.  It's their character dynamic.

And yet you have a version of Batman in the DCEU that is willing to kill and there's a version of the Joker that's alive.  Those two things don't jive together.  If Batman is willing to kill a random thug who just happens to be working for the real bad guy, why wouldn't he kill the real bad guy?  To be fair to Snyder, we never see anyone else in the rogue's gallery.  Maybe the Riddler and Two-Face and the Penguin are all dead.  Maybe there's a psychological block to being able to kill the Joker.

But at the same time, he let Harley live.  He let Deadshot live.

I think I'm okay with a Batman that kills.  But then he's just high-tech Punisher.  And you have to explain what his code is, if he has one.

Grizzlor wrote:

I also think it's more than a little obvious the red angel is probably Ms. Burnham, ha ha ha.  Hope I'm wrong, but that's the most likely angle.

Correct.  Although, again, I'm not sure how it's possible to use time travel to save yourself.  Their little gambit in the last episode....maybe....because they're actively working to change the timeline.  But if Michael was going to die as a kid, how could she grow up to be the Red Angel and save herself as a child?


(220 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I kind of hope that there might be a revival (not a reboot) every 3 - 5 years with Sam and Dean in a six episode mini-series whenever the actors are available and willing. SUPERNATURAL conventions will likely continue for at least another ten years as 15 seasons gives actors lots of amusing on-set anecdotes.

Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman used to (they don't much anymore) talk about their version of Sherlock and how they'd love to come back and do a "series" of it every few years.  Their plan was, they used to say, to have Sherlock and Watson "grow old together."

I'd sorta love for that to be the case for Sam and Dean.  And while I do think it would've been cool to have Wayward Sisters (or even the other weirder spinoff) work, I think it's sorta appropriate in-universe to have these attempted (then failed) spinoffs.  Sam/Jared and Dean/Jensen would love to be able to retire - they've done the work/show for a lot longer than anyone thought they would, and they'd love to be able to pass it on to someone who could take it over.  Whether it be the Men of Letters/Bloodlines or the new hunters/Wayward Sisters.  But they realized no one could do it better than that.  So if anyone is going to hunt/do Supernatural, it needs to be them.

I know it wouldn't allow for a great wrapup if they left things open enough for Sam and Dean to return every few years, but maybe that's the best for this show.  Maybe Supernatural doesn't need Sam or Dean to die but just drive off into the sunset, allowing us to await the day they show back up.


(220 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought the way they announced it was pretty cool.  You can tell they felt terrible, like they were letting the fans down.  But I think Jensen and Jared are pretty fun actors, and I think it's time to let them do something else.

I have a feeling that they'll come back to this well at some point.  Maybe a TV movie or something.  I think they love the characters, but I don't think they should have to do the show forever.  And I think there's a chance the network was running out of eternal patience with them.

I'm glad they have a lot of time to plan the ending.  Because there's a lot of stuff I'd love for them to touch on.  Like, can we find a way to save Adam?


(48 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Funny enough, I think their best bet (movie or TV show) is to do it Ghostbusters (2016) style.  Full reboot.  New actors playing the four main actors with guest spots / cameos from the original actors. 

My reasoning is twofold:
- JRD is 74 years old and acknowledges that he couldn't do it for much longer.
- I think there's more nostalgia with the concept than the actors themselves.

If JOC is the driving force, he can either have a bigger role or he can play Arturo.  Sabrina could play Mrs. Mallory.  Cleavant could play Rembrandt's dad/uncle or maybe his manager.  Or some sort of bigger role on whatever Earth they slide to.  JRD could do the same.

For plot, don't overcomplicate things.  I'd essentially remake the Pilot.  Quinn finds sliding, recruits some friends, something bad happens, Rembrandt is taken along for the ride, and they get stuck somewhere.  Update the alt-world jokes, update the main world they go to, and that's it.  If it's a show, you end with the realization that they're not back home.  If it's a movie, maybe you just hint that something is wrong and end Inception-style.

That's, of course, if you're doing something mainstream.  If this is a Veronica Mars - style show with a targeted audience, I like the TF/ireactions stuff quite a bit.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Looks like my Earth 2 theory was wrong.

But if this is canon and Oliver is alive....I guess he won't die in the crossover?

One last thing on Section 31 before I retire this argument.

Did the writers on Discovery even watch the S31 episodes from Deep Space Nine?  Or did someone give them a brief summary, and they ran with it?  I don't know if the Enterprise episodes broke the organization like these episodes are, but this just seems completely lazy.  Just like with some of the other stuff, they could've easily created a separate dark ops department that they could've played around with.  But they wanted the buzzword.

Essentially, everyone on Deep Space Nine looks like an idiot for not knowing about Section 31.


(576 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh I agree that I don't think he's not a pedophile, and it was weird that he lost the job on Guardians 3 for comments that he apologized for during the production of Guardians 1.  But it seemed like things had been done, and he'd moved on to a rival company.

I think he's mentioned that Guardians was supposed to be 3 movies and then he'd move on.  So I imagine this is just to finish his job at Marvel before moving on to whatever's next, whether it be more Suicide Squad or something else entirely.


(576 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's a really weird story.  If it was just a "let's wait for this to blow over and we'll rehire you" then why did Gunn jump to DC to direct Suicide Squad?  It sounds like someone at Disney made the call unilaterally and everyone was able to wear that person down until they just relented.


(220 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So....what is this season about?  Is it about Michael creating a monster army?  Or Jack possibly going to the Dark Side?  Or Lucifer coming back somehow?  Or the void's deal with Castiel?

It sorta seems all over the place.  I'm enjoying individual episodes, but the overall season-wide storyline seems a lot less clear than it usually is at this point.

Yeah, that all makes sense.  I guess I just don't have much nostalgia for TOS or much of the old series.  I'm much more interested in going forward than continuing to stay in "the past." 

I'm the same way about Star Wars.  They seem obsessed with the same 90 or so years of history, when I'd be much more interested in seeing many other time periods.  In fact, part of the reason I didn't love The Force Awakens was it's seeming obsession with simply recreating the past in the future, when I saw much more possibilities for something new and different.

ireactions wrote:

I only watched TOS in the 90s and 2000s and seeing it alongside TNG, I didn’t see TOS as a documentary or a depiction of a future century that the show couldn’t even number consistently. I saw it as a vivid form of stage theatre adapted to the TV production model with the costumes, sets and effects as an artist’s impressionistic renderings rather than objective reality.

Yeah, I think this is sorta my point.  Is there really a hunger out there to see more TOS?  My first Trek was TNG as well.  I'd think most people in the key demographic are the same way.  This isn't hunger for more Luke and Han and Chewbacca, whose adventures carried on into the 80s.  I know the TOS movies went into the 90s, but all the aesthetics that they're dealing with are from the show, not the movies.  Otherwise, we'd have the Discovery crew in the red uniforms.

Come to think of it, that era is probably way more ripe for new stories than the one they're currently in.

Did a lot of kids in the 70s and 80s grow up watching TOS reruns?  Even as a Sci-Fi kid, I never really liked the old series - it didn't age particularly well, even during my childhood.  I get wanted to reboot and start over, but is there really a deep hunger from fans to see more adventures of Kirk and Spock?  Did the rebootquels do well because of Kirk and Spock, or were they successful because they told a fun, new Star Trek story?  If JJ and Co. had written the same sort of story about new characters, would those movies had bombed?

Grizzlor wrote:

I also think it's more than a little obvious the red angel is probably Ms. Burnham, ha ha ha.  Hope I'm wrong, but that's the most likely angle.

Would that work?  She was able to come back in time to save herself?  I feel like that would be a time anomaly and wouldn't work.

Maybe it's Culber.  It'd make as much sense as him being alive now.

And yeah, I understand that they're fictional characters and that they can be recast, but it's just sorta awkward and something they didn't really need to do.  So far, I haven't noticed any reason why Sarek has to be Sarek and Spock has to be Spock and Pike has to be Pike.  To me, they could've created original characters without having to tiptoe anything.  A friend of me was telling me that it seems like there are only about 5 Vulcans in the universe because Spock and Sarek seem to do so much.\

I mean even if they wanted to do a connection, they could've had it be a relative of Tuvok or even Vorik.  Or someone that isn't from Voyager haha.  Have it be a rival of Sarek's.  Maybe Burnham was a rival of Spock's instead of a sister.  If they want the "ooh, ahh" moments from TOS names, they could still name drop.  And any captain from any ship could've taken over the Discovery.  CBS wanted the name recognition that comes along with casting PIKE and SPOCK and SAREK.

What's strange to me is that they keep reaching back to the TOS era when the people who watched TOS in its original run are all senior citizens now.  You'd think in a time when 80s nostalgia is such a big deal that they'd be trying to connect to TNG more.  At least the people who watched that on its first run can figure out how to get CBS All Access big_smile

Grizzlor wrote:

I really don't have a problem with recasting, although I will admit Mount is a doppelganger for Hunter, while Peck/Nimoy and Melissa George/Susan Olliver look nothing alike, ha ha.  Peck's Spock is okay, but like Frain's Sarek, neither are very good at emulating who they are replacing.  However, Ms. Kirschner is very good at Amanda, looks and acts like Jane Wyatt.  That said, it's tough to "emulate" Nimoy or Mark Lenard, as they're sort of actors who were raised and trained in a bye-gone era.

I've given up being furious about continuity changes, although I still HATE the new alien makeup they use on this show.  My issue with the JJ Abrams stuff was that it was BAD.  This show is at least compelling with a TNG-level overload of science.

With the JJ stuff, and even with the earlier Discovery stuff....you can at least pretend this is a different continuity.  When you actually show the older actors and then tell me they're the same person, it ruins the illusion in a much more direct way.

Especially since we saw a "younger" Spock (Nimoy in "The Cage") and a ton of "older" Spock (Nimoy TOS and beyond). And we're supposed to believe that there was a time in between where Spock stopped looking like Leonard Nimoy and started looking like someone else.

This isn't even my main "This show shouldn't be set when it's set" argument.  They could've easily done a Rogue One - type story where they set something during a certain period but focus on (mostly) different characters.  They could've had Michael be raised by another Vulcan and simply reference people like Sarek and Spock and the Enterprise and Pike.  Even if this was simply a "Search for Spock" but never actually showed him (or showed him from afar as a CGI Leonard Nimoy), they could at least pretend that the 60s continuity is happening identically to how it was shown.

But now they've just steered right into it.  It wouldn't surprise me if we got younger versions of Kirk and Uhura and Sulu next season, all ending up working brief stints on the Discovery.

ireactions wrote:

Initially, I wondered if in the context of DISCOVERY, these clips are Pike's memory of "The Cage." Does he, over time, remember past adventures as though they're 60s pulp sci-fi adventures because he himself is a fan of twentieth century TV and science fiction?

In my opinion, this is now canon and the only explanation I will accept smile

I did think that was cool, but I also hated it from a continuity perspective.  It's hard enough to see Ethan Peck as Spock, but now they want us to see Ethan Peck as Spock while also showing Leonard Nimoy as Spock before the episode?  I think Anson Mount has done a good-enough job as the less famous Pike, and I think Peck's Spock is good enough to work.

Getting a follow-up to Talos IV was cool.  It would've been cooler if we didn't get recasted versions of the characters they showed in the episode.

This has been a Slider_Quinn21 Dead Horse Rant. All Rights Reserved.


(914 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

And it seems like Idris Elba might replace Will Smith in the role.  I love Idris Elba, but if they can't get Will Smith because of scheduling, could they not just have Elba play a different character?  And maybe in a future sequel have Will Smith show back up?

It seems like the beauty of the Suicide Squad is that you can do whatever lineup you want, and you can do pretty much any villain you want.  Couldn't Elba play someone like Mr. Freeze or the Riddler or some other villain that the movies certainly aren't going to use now?  They could even introduce someone like the Reverse Flash who could then show up in a Flash movie.


(576 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I finished the Punisher and read your reviews.  I generally agree - it was just fine.  I was actually really disappointed in the whole Jigsaw piece.  I thought that ended up being wholly unnecessary to the plot - so much so that the Punisher and Russo's only interaction in the finale is for Frank to execute a Billy that's already given up and dying.

I thought there were so many places they could've gone with the character, and like the way they did the makeup, I felt like they didn't really understand what they wanted to do with him.  It feels almost like what happened with Spider-Man 3, where the people in charge wanted John Pilgrim to be the bad guy, and the studio demanded that they tack on Jigsaw. 

At the end of the day, ireactions is right - the storylines are just too disjointed to really work.  There's really no connection between the villains and Frank.  Pilgrim wants the girl, and the only issue he has with Frank is that he won't let him get to her.  Frank knows that someone is after the girl and wants to protect her, but who that person is never really matters.  Frank learns his name in the final episode just as an afterthought.  Frank and Russo have history, but even at the end, Russo doesn't seem to fully understand their issues.  Frank kills him, but Russo's big fight was with Madani.

There was a way to pull this off.  Maybe Pilgrim was another former military buddy of Frank's who has been warped by his newfound religion.  Maybe Russo is faking everything and gets everyone over to his side.  And as the walls close in on Frank, he has to fight two of his old buddies while trying to keep this girl safe.

I don't know.  I feel like they sacrificed a lot of what makes the Punisher fun to focus on character, but most of the character work didn't really have anything to do with Frank.  Yes, he bonds with Amy as a surrogate daughter....but that's essentially all that happens.  He never learns or grows because of his problems with Pilgrim, and he doesn't really learn or grow because of his interactions with Russo.

I simply refuse to believe that it's too many episodes.  I'll fully acknowledge that it was "not enough story" for 13 episodes, but the simple part of that is simply to add more story.  Create more villains for Frank to kill.  Add another subplot.  There's decades of stories you can pull from - the material is there.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

And I'm interested in seeing what happens with Oliver.  We were teased with TF's thought in Part 3 - both Barry and Kara were supposed to die, and they're the ones who die in the original Crisis.  Obviously Oliver made some sort of deal with the Monitor to die in their place - but does that mean that Arrow won't get renewed?  Or would they really be able to kill off Oliver mid-season, possibly on an episode of a different series?  If they announce that Arrow is going to only be 11 episodes next season, won't that be a pretty big tip-off that something is going to happen?  Or would they actually try and do a final half-season of Arrow without Oliver on it?

Well, I sorta nailed this.  Stephen Amell came out on Twitter and announced that Arrow is only coming back for 10 episodes next season.  Would put their finale around the time of the crossover.

Would they really kill off Oliver in a crossover?  Would they really make a crossover the series finale of Arrow?  Or would he die in the crossover and then the finale is aftermath?  Or would it be the opposite - the actual end of Arrow is prior to the crossover, and the crossover would be the end of his character?

Or is it all built for hype to make people believe that Oliver is actually going to die?  They could never pull off "JUST KIDDING, we're actually back for a full 23 episodes" after the crossover, but it'd be incredible to see them try that.

I agree with all that.  It's also odd that the Union is allowing him to stay under the care of Mercer.  I know things have changed quite a bit since the Pilot, but it's been a year since they essentially gave him a ship because they were doing Grayson a favor.  And because they needed captains.

Now they're letting him hold on to one of the most dangerous "men" in the galaxy?  I get that they trust him more now (and he's earned that), but you gotta think Union command is a little worried that they're letting that guy hold a potential timebomb.

The Orville


Things actually went a little more traditionally than we were thinking.  Isaac did betray his people, but it wasn't as extreme as we were thinking.  It also didn't really seem like he was playing any sort of long game.  It seems like he was going along with it, possibly hoping to think of something when it was time.

At the same time, I don't know if Isaac can really be let off the hook.  Yeah, he acted when he needed to, and he was willing to sacrifice himself.  But he knew the whole time that his people could possibly decide to destroy them all.  If he ever got to the point where he was willing to sacrifice himself to protect them, he should've said something.  The fact that he didn't is pretty damning against him.  Even if he thought/calculated that he was providing enough evidence to protect the crew, he should've at least warned them of what could've happened.  He didn't even tell them that he'd be deactivated once he'd accumulated enough data.

The show didn't really even try to explain any of this.  They said that Isaac was activated after the builders were all killed, but that information wasn't kept from him.  He seemed to know what happened.  There didn't seem to be any indication that anything was kept from him to prevent him from making a logical leap or anything that would prevent him from telling the crew about it.

He knew.  He didn't say anything.  So unless he decided that he cared exactly when he acted, he's still largely responsible for all the people that died over the course of this incident.

It was very reminiscent of second parters on TNG or VOY.  Just a little too neat and tidy.  But I did think the Krill plan was a pretty creative idea, and I was still impressed at how serious everything was taken.

My question is this - they seemed to imply that the Kalon were much more advanced than the Union, but the Krill seemed to destroy them fairly easily.  How in the heck is the Union staying in a war with the Krill?


(914 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Sounds like Will Smith is out of Suicide Squad 2.  No Deadshot or Harley certainly makes me think that it's more of a "hard" reboot than a sequel.  I wonder if they'll get back Viola Davis back.


(576 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah.  I can't argue there.

The problem with the Marvel Netflix shows is consistently a refusal to write any sort of "case of the week" stories.  And I just don't understand why none of the shows ever did this.  Daredevil is a lawyer.  Luke Cage and Iron Fist are heroes for hire.  Jessica Jones is a friggin' PI.  There are built-in ways to tell a story that doesn't involve one guy fighting one guy for 13 episodes.  I know "freak of the week" stories got old on Smallville, but I think television has evolved since then.  The Arrowverse regularly pads seasons that are twice as long with stories like that.

They wouldn't have to forget about their primary villains.  While Frank was trying to bust up a gang of human traffickers, Russo could still be in therapy.  Pilgrim could be chasing down the girl.  They don't have to ignore their character building to busy up Frank in an engaging story for an episode.  We could see Kingpin's rise to power while Matt Murdock is trying to get a falsely-accused guy out of prison.  Kilgrave could be abusing his power while Jessica Jones tries to find a missing child.

Give the characters a season-long arc, but it doesn't have to be *only that*.  I mean, Hell, in the X-Files, they did so many case of the week episodes that people actually prefer them to the mythology episodes. smile

I feel like it almost has to be something from the higher ups at Marvel TV or Netflix.  Because there's no way that we'd have 12 seasons of this stuff and none of the writing rooms thought "Hmmm...what if we had Frank do something in this episode instead of having him hang out on a rooftop casing a joint for 40 minutes so we can do the 10 minute fight sequence that is the only reason we're doing this episode."


(576 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

About 9 episodes into the Punisher.

What's really odd about this season is the way it's structured.  I think they're trying to do one of those "blur the lines between hero and villain" things, but it's coming off sorta awkward to me.  Billy doesn't even know who the Punisher is until the very end of episode 7, and even then, Billy doesn't even know what's going on.  As of right now (with four episodes to go), it's clear that Billy wasn't faking it.  He was plotting to get his revenge.  He's still a killer and a monster, but he's essentially a new character.

And our hero, Frank, is the same guy, and his only goal is to find this guy and kill him.

It's a weird situation.  I find myself, at times, wondering how this narrative would work in reverse.  If Frank were beaten up at the end of season one and left for dead.  He wakes up from a coma and doesn't know that his wife and kids are dead.  And he's terrified by nightmares of this man with a jigsaw face.  And he's trying to find out who he is while this pyschopath keeps attacking him for reasons Frank can't possibly understand.

It just feels sorta disconnected because the hero and villain have this history that only the hero really remembers.  It makes for a complicated villain but a complicated story structure.  Then you have Pilgrim thrown in, and I don't have any idea where he's supposed to fit in.  Frank barely knows who he is at all, and I don't think anyone on the hero side knows his name.

Ha with the Culber stuff, I acknowledged it might just be me.

And I don't forgive all the Voyager stuff.  Voyager was very much a mess, but I just had fun with it for whatever reason.


But even without that, Section 31 is only being spoken of openly aboard a highly classified warship and Captain Pike knew of 31 not because he had worked for them, but because he was friends with one of their agents.

True, but Michael recognized their combadge.  Maybe she might know via Georgiou or Sarek or something, but I was more surprised that she knew than Pike. 

But just having their own combadges sorta takes the "secret" out of "secret agent" doesn't it? smile

And that's how I remembered Section 31 and why I was so surprised to hear it talked about so openly.  Even if it eventually gets phased out, people in the DS9 era should know about it.  Or, at least, react to it in some way.  "That was phased out hundreds of years ago."  It'd be like Homeland Security getting phased out and people refusing to believe it ever existed in 2200.

I know we've beaten this horse to death, but I think this could've been another example of the show being better in the 25th century.  What if, after DS9, Section 31 did go legit?  What if, because of the actions of Bashir and co., remnants of the organization decided to expose themselves to Starfleet and make a "tamer" version of the organization.  And then maybe the Georgiou show makes it clear that they're not tamer.  At least it's progress instead of writing something and then doing backflips to make it work in the existing continuity.

Then there's stuff like Saru.  There's all this stuff about him and his planet, but the problem is that we've never seen any other Kelpians.  They've never been mentioned again.  So while there certainly could be Kelpians on other starships, none have ever been prominent enough to be seen or mentioned ever again.  If their planet joined the Federation, we might never know.  Same with Denobulans.  I know we don't see many Tellarites (even though they're founding members of the Federation), but it makes me worry that these characters are the only ones who ever made it.  It'd be like if Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier but no other African Americans wanted to (or were allowed to) play.

In Saru's case, I worry that his fellow Kelpians destroyed their enemies, destroyed all the technology, and never became warp capable.

ireactions wrote:

I feel DISCOVERY has been pretty clear that the Red Angel phenomenon is not supernatural or metaphysical in nature?

The Red Angel, yes.  What I'm talking about mostly revolves around the Culber subplot.  They touched on it a bit last season too, where the spore network seemed to be some sort of afterlife.  Now they have someone's spirit existing and then being reformed into a human body?  I know Trek has dealt with stuff like this before, but it doesn't feel right for the series for whatever reason.  Could just be me.

Also, is Section 31 a secret?  It's been a while since I've seen the DS9 episodes (and I haven't seen the Enterprise ones), but I thought it was completely off the books and no one knew about it?  Now Georgiou is flashing her special combadge, and it's so recognizable that Burnham knows what it is immediately?

All interesting theories.  I do wonder how the series will continue with Isaac regardless of the outcome.


On Discovery, I'm having a hard time connecting with this season.  I don't know what it is, but there's a lot of non-science things going on.  They had a lot of spirituality on DS9, but I don't know if it works as well here.


(1,067 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think the Arrowverse could use a shakeup.  Who's the biggest death in the Arrowverse that wasn't written out?  Dr. Stein?

Interesting.  I was actually thinking something else, but that would've been pretty huge.

The Orville was great last night.  It's incredible that it's gotten to a place where they can have an episode with very little humor and make me feel terrified for the crew.

Other than to help us identify him, is there any particular reason why everyone else on Isaac's planet has red eyes and he has blue?


(323 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

However, I feel that any new showrunner would be crippled by this situation. With eleven seasons of three incompatible mythologies in the background, THE X-FILES would never be trusted to develop a new mythos no matter who's running it. The showrunners would be unable to open new arcs involving aliens or government conspiracies without getting entangled in the Colonization, the Conspiracy of Men and the Spartan Virus, none of which Carter had resolved or clarified.

Despite the bulk of THE X-FILES being monsters of the week, I think it is unreasonable to have new showrunners engage in a revival where aliens and conspiracies are off the table or so inextricably linked to Carter's clumsy myth-arc that any new alien conspiracy material would be connected to Carter's mis-steps.

I think this pretty much sums up the reasons why it doesn't make sense to just carry on with new writers.  With something like Ghostbusters, I think it makes more sense to continue in-universe vs. do a reboot (moreso than the gender of the main characters).  With that, you have established canon, rules, and mythologies.  It does nothing but pad the run time when you have to re-invent proton packs, re-build the ECTO 1, and re-introduce villains that we've already seen or were already referenced.  My opinion is pick up where they left off - everything's already invented and the characters you want to use already exist.  Just put your new characters into that story.

With the X-Files, you're right...alien arcs would be a mess and there's no sense in doing the X-Files with no references to aliens.

So my thought is....just make a new show.  If you have a show about a skeptic and a believer that solve paranormal mysteries for the FBI, the only thing from the X-Files you're carrying on are last names and a title.  Fringe was an updated X-Files with more tech-based monsters.  Supernatural is backroads X-Files. (Insert the name of 20+ shows or movies that I've never heard of) is (insert adjective) X-Files.

But as much as writers would be crippled by a revival, I think a reboot would be the same way.  They'd either need to make quick payoffs to their mythology episodes, or they'd be accused of dragging it out like Carter did.  Would they ever be able to get away with impregnating the female character?  And any payoff they would do would be compared against the original.

So if it's me, I just find my own twist on it.  What if, instead of FBI, the agents are CIA?  Have it all take place outside the United States with the agents investigating European/Asian/African urban legends.  Instead of an American government conspiracy, maybe it's the Russians or the Chinese working with aliens.  Or create your own mythos - maybe aliens have been working with the Indian government and slow-playing their advancements a la Wakanda.

Maybe you set the show in the future.  Or the past.  Tweak one thing, call it something else, and do your own version of the X-Files that isn't hampered by anything Chris Carter did, including his title.