Did anyone watch Discovery?
That was actually a really entertaining interview.
Claire brought together Luke and Danny. Since they're the two that belong together (they're best friends and have a comic together), I thought that made sense (they were also the two people she'd most recently dealt with, and she was closer with Colleen than she was with Jessica or Matt).
That's why I kinda liked it....it felt like they came together organically. This wasn't a situation where anyone was building a team...they met each other in ways that were true to the character. Danny and Luke met when they were each following up on leads that they'd follow up on. Jessica met Matt when Jessica was investigating something and Matt was trying to protect someone legally.
It would've been nice for them to be fighting someone that took all four of them to defeat, but I think Elektra was a pretty decent villain. And the disposable Hand villains were fine for action sequences.
The Defenders was better than The Avengers, but still had some of the same problem. The plot wasn't as important as the scenes that they wanted to throw in. A lot of the character interaction/banter felt forced.
I agree that the plot was secondary to anything else, but I also don't think that all four series (and all five seasons) were really building up to anything. It was really just Daredevil and Iron Fist's stories colliding, and Luke and Jessica were sorta pulled along for the ride. If it'd turned out that Purple Man and Diamondback/Cottonmouth were all working directly for the Hand, it'd make sense.
This was just sorta worlds colliding as Matt and Danny continued their journeys.
I completely disagree about the banter feeling forced. I thought it was all actually pretty natural, and they all were pretty consistent with who they were in the comics. Jessica didn't instantly turn into someone who wanted to be heroic. Luke didn't betray his principles. They were there for reasons that made sense to them, and they stayed for similar reasons. I thought the character stuff was what made it work, since the plot wasn't all that important.
I enjoyed the Defenders. I thought the main four had pretty great chemistry, although I felt bad for Matt every single time they got together because he looked so ridiculous in his costume when they're all in street clothes. They should've had him go back to his season one outfit (maybe mention that he added padding or something) so he didn't stand out so much (and I love the costume).
I thought the plot was kinda meh/blah, but I think it was more about the character interaction. I also apparently need to rewatch Jessica Jones because I could not, at any point, figure out what her powers were supposed to be (besides just being strong). Is she bulletproof? Can she fly?
Roddenberry had no creative input into STAR TREK VI whatsoever beyond raging about how much he hated it. That's it. That's all. (He was annoyed at Starfleet's conspiracy, the Enterprise crew's racism and the militaristic tone. Not a frame was altered to suit him and he died shortly after seeing the film. It seems he hated VI so much it killed him.)
THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY's dialogue says that the Klingon homeworld has been severely damaged and that in order to repair it, the Empire will have to divert their resources away from the military and towards environmental repair -- which is why they initiated peace talks with the Federation. As those talks were successful, we can take it from TNG that the repair to their planet was successful.
STAR TREK VI was made between Seasons 4 - 5 of TNG and most of the film was shot on redressed TNG sets, so they knew full well that the Klingon homeworld had been shown to be a fixture of TNG and that the Federation and the Empire had made peace. The film established the origins of that peace and Colonel Worf, Worf's grandfather, was a little nod to TNG as well as the transition of "where no man has gone before" to "where no one has gone before" at the end of the film.
That said, much of VI makes more sense as an allegory for US/Russia relations than it does in the literal reality of STAR TREK, but I love it anyway.
I was hoping you'd answer, and you didn't disappoint! Much better than any of the research I was able to uncover at Memory Alpha!
Really? Weird. Especially considering all the shared sets/actors. I mean, they put in a Worf extended cameo in Star Trek VI.
What's weird is that it happened right in the era where the show and the movies were working together. In three TNG-era series (all featuring a Klingon in the main cast), they never explained what happened to the Klingon homeworld?
Star Trek VI establishes that there was peace between the Klingons and the Federation because of the explosion of Praxis and an ecological disaster on Qo'noS. It's stated in the film that the planet has about "50 years left" on it.
In TNG, the Klingons and Federation are (for the most part) peaceful, and there's tons of references to the idea that Qo'noS is fine.
Is this ever explained? Did they evacuate Qo'noS and whatever planet they're talking about in the TNG era is a "New Qo'noS?" Or did Federation/Klingon scientists find a way to save the planet?
Let's do a Suicide Squad 2 with more Joker/Harley and see if that works before we do a Cinematic Jokerverse. That's all I'm saying
I mean it's not even about doom....it's just bizarre. I think it'd work in-continuity too....just have it be the story of the *real* Joker that Batman faced. Get Leonardo DiCaprio if that's who you want....show how he became the Joker and how the Batman took him down and he died.
Jared Leto is still the Joker...just a Tim Drake or Jason Todd version that went crazy and became the new Joker.
To spend all this time making a shared universe and then immediately start doing out-of-continuity movies with characters that are in other movies at the same time is going to be super weird. Why not do a "Heart of Ice" movie about Mr. Freeze? He's certainly not going to be in the DCEU. Or a Harvey Dent movie. Or a Penguin movie.
Batman has tons of cool villains that could be protagonists in their own movie. The Joker is literally the worst because he's better the less you know about him.
Can someone help walk me through what DC is doing here? They're making:
- Suicide Squad 2 (with Harley Quinn and Jared Leto as Joker)
- A Joker/Harley movie (with Harley Quinn and Jared Leto as Joker)
- A Gotham City Sirens movie (with just Harley Quinn, maybe a Joker?)
- A Joker origin movie by Martin Scorsese not related to the DCEU and not played by Jared Leto
Elseworlds are cool and I think studios need to be more creative with these properties, but it's a bit odd to do 4 Joker movies with one out of continuity.
Legends usually does less than a full order, but they could also have someone "kidnap" Stein and force Jackson to be a "hero without his powers" for an extended period.
Or, like they did with Robbie Amell, they could simply transfer the other half of Firestorm to a new character and kill Stein off.
Wonder Woman: Special Edition - Now featuring NO THIRD ACT!
I'm kinda glad that this was cut, but it's a cool tie-in to Justice League.
I'm not worried about whether it will happen or not...I'm talking about prominent Democrats who seem to think that the Republicans should be the one to impeach Trump. That'd just never ever happen (for either party).
What I don't understand is the renewed outrage every time Trump does something. The same people that called him a fascist and a racist and a white supremecist are the same people who are like "TRUMP IS A FASCIST? A RACIST?!?! A WHITE SUPREMECIST?!?!" whenever he does something stupid. He is what he is. Blowing up online isn't going to have any impact on anything.
I'm also confused on what people want the GOP to do. I think they're doing exactly what the Democrats are doing....letting him implode. If impeachment is going to ever happen, it's going to have to be bi-partisan, and it's going to have to be offered up by the Democrats. No matter what happens, the president's own party is not going to set up impeachment, and it's ridiculous to assume they will.
The problem is that the president is an idiot, the GOP is playing politics, and the DNC can't get out of their own way. The only Democrat who's even speaking out is Bernie, and he's not even a Democrat. I don't know if the DNC is just hiding in the woods, if they're in a coma, or if they've been ordered to stand quietly until Hillary comes back. Whatever it is, I feel like they're as complicit as the Republicans.
Reeves claims that he was misquoted and it will absolutely be in the DCEU.
That makes sense. My last dog died a few years ago, and I never replaced her.
I'm sorry to hear about your dogs, Informant. It's hard to fill that hole in your heart, but hopefully you can begin to feel better. How many dogs do you have? Are you going to get another one?
Does anyone here watch "The Strain"? It's in its final season. It's pretty good....but Zach is the worst character in the history of television. I literally hate the show every time he's on.
I'd love to read the article, but every time I click on it, it's a full page ad for Westworld that I cannot click out of. I maximize the screen, scroll all over, and there's nowhere to click out of. Thanks, thewrap!
Honestly, I don't think this affects anything. Unless Joss is somehow responsible for the Justice League movie failing, I think he's locked in if he wants to be. He might even get his stock risen higher if he gets credit for Justice League's success, especially if some of the female characters (Diana, Lois, Iris, Mera, etc) have great scenes with Joss' fingerprints on it.
At this point, I think his reputation is cemented, and this interview won't affect much.
Well, that's the thing. The show didn't need Doomsday to show up the way he traditionally did. He could've simply been human-looking with Clark-like strength. The story was fine...how they decided to use their budget is the problem.
I think the Darkness is a fine storyline...the issue I have with it is that there was really no way to make Darkseid (or even the evil planet thing) look good enough on the budget they had. Like with Doomsday....where it just looked silly. Sometimes these CGI villains look terrible with a cinematic budget.
Smallville was always best when the villains looked human or when the villains had powers that could be shown using practical effects. I think TV CGI has gotten better recently, but this was never going to work.
Interesting comments from Affleck. Sounds like they're revamping Batman a bit following BvS. Makes sense from a real-world and in-universe perspective.
I agree with that. Clark's way worked, and the final season could've/should've been how a guy like that would even want to be Superman. It doesn't make a ton of sense for most versions of Clark, and it made even less sense for the Smallville version. The whole "beacon for the world" idea could've made sense, but since the writers didn't really know where they were going with it, they threw so many ideas out there. Lex clones, superhero registration, Lionel, Earth 2, Darkseid. It was just a weird scattershot.
Well, the whole final season was weirdly planned. They didn't know if they'd get Michael Rosenbaum back so there was the whole Lex clone storyline that might've gone nowhere. Since they couldn't legitimately have Darkseid on, Clark ended up fighting Lionel Luthor and then "fighting" a CGI planet.
It actually feels a lot like the Sliders final season where they planned a big CGI finale, ended up blowing their budget on something else, and then ended on a cliffhanger.
Well, the last shot is terrible. I have no problem with the arguments Tom presented, but it didn't have to look so cheap. It was obvious that they only had a portion of the Superman Returns costume and had no budget for anything better. The idea that the show ends as soon as he's Superman is fine, but it could've been better. If they truly were going to have an entire episode where he was going to be Superman then the 3 seconds that he was Superman could've been better.
Arrow has added two pretty great genre actors as villains - Kirk Acevedo and LOST's Michael Emerson. I'm pretty psyched.
Well to be fair, it's all forced for Clark. He's this farmboy from Kansas who puts on this bright blue and red costume. The red-blue blur makes a whole lot more sense for someone who should really be quiet and soft-spoken and want to stay out of the spotlight. Batman's costume is, at the very least, functional.
I thought it was weird in Man of Steel too, honestly. Clark had spent most of his life trying to blend in...he wears muted colors and Lois refers to him as a "ghost" - but he finds a blue/red onesie with a big cape and decides, "Yep, this is what I want to wear now"
Some interesting insight from Tom Welling, including an abandoned idea to have much more Superman in the series finale.
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?
I thought that was weird too. He also says that it's weird, but he doesn't say goodbye either. I thought it'd end with "have a good night!" or something goofy like that.
Superhero Hype also wrote that they're changing the tone of Cyborg's character to be "lighter" - http://www.superherohype.com/news/40288 … s#/slide/1
I've also heard a couple people speculate that, while there probably wasn't much (if any) reshot material in the Comic-Con trailer, the jokey scene at the end with Flash and Gordon felt like Whedon.
Well that's the article I read before I asked my question. They already had a great director on set who was a part of the process from the beginning. I'm curious if they asked Ben if he wanted to finish - doesn't that happen a lot? An actor with directorial experience directs certain scenes? I swear Ed Norton's done it a couple times.
Had an interesting thought. I wonder if DC considered having Ben Affleck finish the shooting of Justice League before going with Joss.
What do the fans want? A "Developed by the fans of supernatural?" credit? Do they want to be hired as writers? What's the plan?
Yeah, the toys and merchandise ruins a ton these days. It sucks.
I'm also a little disappointed because I wanted to get black suit Superman, at least for a little bit. Maybe we still will but seeing the same suit again made me a little sad.
I agree there. But at the same time, I think they could've done it a couple of different ways publicly. Maybe they say Superman died while he's off finding himself. Or searching for Steppenwolf. Or whatever.
Because when you look at it the other way, people were worshiping Superman before he *rose from the dead*. It already made Clark uncomfortable before....now it's going to be a thousand times worse. And since Clark Kent was one of two people that died in the Doomsday attack....I think resurrecting Clark in any meaningful way is going to amount to simply admitting that he's Superman. I don't know if we'll ever get Man of Steel 2 so maybe "Clark" won't matter. But this would be a little different from the first Death and Return of Superman because a ton of people died in the comic battle and as far as I can tell only two died in BvS (Clark and Superman).
The marketing, though, is still weird to me. If we all know that he's not dead, why pretend he is? And if you're pretending he is, why is he now appearing front and center on stuff? It's like the Harry stuff in Kingsman....I feel like I missed something.
I don't understand some of the marketing of Justice League. On one hand, the action looks great, and I think they're nailing a lot of the characters. The threat looks real, and there seems to be a real need to get all these god-like characters together.
Then there's whatever they're doing with Superman. I really don't understand where they're going with it. He was "dead" in BvS...then immediately revived by the sun....then killed again....then the dirt on his grave started to levitate?
No one on Earth thought that Superman was going to stay dead (and the final shot is a clear indication that he might not have been dead at the end or if he was ever dead at all), but the marketing all went with the idea that he was dead. Superman didn't appear in any of the marketing, despite Henry Cavill making some references to Superman on social media. The first teaser didn't mention him at all, the first official trailer didn't mention him at all, and the Comic-Con trailer made a couple of references to him and a big tease that he's back.
And now I'm starting to see posters where Superman is just there. No black suit or mullet or whatever. He's back and part of the team....which the movie doesn't even seem to reference.
It sorta reminds me of the bizarre marketing for Kingsman: the Golden Circle. In the first movie, Harry (Colin Firth) died, and the first teaser made a quick reference to him somehow being alive. Seemed like it was going to be a major plot point. But the first full trailer just shows Harry like he's part of the gang again. There's literally no reference to the fact that he's back from the dead or he's a robot or that he was ever dead at all.
I think it's cool that Batman and Wonder Woman are joining forces to start the League to protect the world in Superman's absence. But one of the big themes of BvS was Superman wondering if he needed to be Superman. Instead of Death and Return of Superman, couldn't they have sent Superman into space after BvS? Batman and Wonder Woman would still need to start the League, and there wouldn't need to be this weird cat and mouse with Superman being dead (or the crazy way they're going to have to handle resurrecting Clark Kent, if they do at all). And him deciding to abandon Earth and then come back and save it would work better with the themes that Snyder is working with.
What do we think?
I'm mostly just observing this conversation, but damn that paragraph almost gave me a stroke.
To be fair, the Merkel part isn't true.
But, again, what are we talking about here? If we're talking about the destruction of the Earth, there are 348,470,000 people in the US and North Korea. There are 7 billion other people on the planet that probably don't want to die because Kim Jong Un is crazy and Donald Trump is an idiot. They have fully functioning state departments and capable leaders that a) don't want to die and b) could step in and help either diplomatically or militarily. 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.
If we are talking about North Korea attacking us/South Korea/Japan/Hawaii/whoever, then it wouldn't really matter who was president. North Korea has built up a nuclear program under Republican and Democratic presidents. If Kim Jong Un is suicidal and decides to launch an attack, President Obama/Clinton/Sanders/Cruz/Biden/Pence wouldn't be able to stop that. And if they were to nuke someone/anyone, then there would be be a war there either way. The international community would have to step in because it'd be an act of war that would affect the whole planet.
There's no question that I'm not an expert on this stuff. Call me an idiot if you want....I've certainly said enough stuff in my years here to earn that title. But at the end of the day, I just think we aren't going to let the world end because of fucking Donald Trump. And if we are, I certainly don't have any say over it so I'm not going to spend any time worrying about it.
I'm not talking about North Korea nuking Japan. What if one of their test missiles with no warhead lands in Tokyo? That would require subtle, level headed diplomacy.
We survived the Cuban Missile Crisis with an alcoholic womanizer in the White House. Survived the height of the Cold War with an egomaniac asshole covering up his own crimes leading the country. Survived the 1980s with a movie star president with Alzheimer's.
Even if Kim Jong Un is suicidal, reason tends to prevail no matter who's in the White House.
It'd be 0% about saving Japan and 100% about saving themselves, but maybe they want to die.
This is from the Chinese-run media.
As a neighbor of the DPRK, China knows well it has a lot to lose if the Korean Peninsula slides further away from denuclearization, so it has been making strenuous efforts, including organizing the Six Party Talks, to maintain the fragile calm on the peninsula and work toward an early solution to the problem.
But the crux of the entire article is that they don't give a shit about what Donald Trump thinks or says. They aren't going to run in and save him from the North Koreans because he told them to. But at the same time, they aren't going to die because he's an idiot. They aren't just going to sit around and hope he doesn't retaliate with a nuclear attack 500 miles away from Beijing.
Or maybe they will. But any smart country is going to try and defend themselves against Trump's idiocy, and I assume China isn't any different.
Because we're obligated by treaty to defend Japan. That's why they never built their military back up after WWII.
Yeah but if North Korea nuked Japan, everyone would have an obligation to defend Japan. That affects everyone in the region and everyone in the world. The fact that Donald Trump is president would make it more likely that other countries (again, China) would step in before Trump escalates anything.
Unless you think China would just step back and allow nuclear war to happen in a country that borders it. "Nah, just let Donald Trump handle it" sounds like a pretty bad position for them. Or anyone.
China and North Korea are only allies because the Chinese doesn't want American troops to be on their border (like they would be if there was a unified Korea). I don't think China likes them enough to risk a nuclear wasteland as a buffer state.
we aren't in any wars
You know what I mean. Everyone assumed we'd be at war with someone like Bolivia because they'd make fun of his hair. The only wars we're involved in are ones that Bush started.
Trump is showing how unqualified for the job he really is. The question is whether he can handle a real crisis. Suppose the next North Korean missile test hits Japan. What are the odds of getting a reasonable, proportional response from the US?
Why would we need to respond at all? This is why we have the United Nations. Or, you know, China can handle it since they don't benefit in any way by a war in their backyard.
So to those of you adamantly anti-Trump....what's your best case scenario for a Trump presidency? Do you want him to make / have made a greivous enough mistake that he has to be impeached before 2018? Or just after 2018 when the Democrats might have more seats in Congress? Do you want him to do enough damage to ensure a win in 2018/2020? Do you want him to mess up and make mistakes so you have something to make fun of? Or do you genuinely want him to succeed, knowing that his successes would be conservative ones?
It's really hard for me to tell. The "resistance" loves to make fun of Trump's mistakes ("The Mooch" being the latest, but there have been tons) while also being "horrified" by them. But when things run smoothly and stuff gets done (say, the travel ban) then that's also horrifying.
Understanding your hatred for him at a personal and professional level, is there anything he could do that would make you happy?
Because, from my vantage point, the Trump presidency has actually been pretty optimal. He's not doing a ton of damage, the rest of the world seems to be holding everything else pretty steady, we aren't in any wars, and there's an investigation to see if anything he's done to get elected is shady. He's not doing anything outlandish or fascist (he's too incompetent for the latter), and he can't get anything pushed through a Republican-majority Congress.
And the revolving door of people in and out the White House is actually good in my eyes. If Trump is constantly trying to work through chaos, he can't be instigating North Korea or doing anything stupid. If he spends 90% of his time in office hiring and firing people, then that's only 10% of the time he has to do anything else. To me, that's a win.
(This is why I feared Hillary more than Donald. She would've actually governed, but poorly, for probably 8 years. Donald is going to keep the country in neutral for probably less than four. And standing still is better than going backwards).