1

(1,005 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The Erica Thomas Stuff:

PREFACE - I think the "send her back" stuff is abhorrent, and I don't think any human should ever tell any other human to go back where they came from.  It's important to make all immigrants, especially minorities, feel welcome and American. 

(I shouldn't have to have this preface but I felt it necessary).

If he told her to go back to where she came from or her original country, then roast him.  We don't have room in our society for that, and if you want to say that in public, you get whatever blowback comes at you.  My problem is with two aspects of the story:

1. She's walked back enough of her statement that it might be possible that it wasn't racial at all.  It may just be an asshole who wanted to make a scene at a grocery store.  I'm almost more mad at him for yelling at her because she's pregnant than yelling at her because she's black.  If he didn't say "go back to your country" or "go back to where you came from" then I don't think that's okay either.  You can't yell fire in a crowded room for a reason.

2. Finding the truth these days is exceptionally hard.  When you have to throw out 90% of all publications because they're clearly biased one way or another (#IStandWithErica or #HateHoax), it's hard to find your center.  There are so many different versions of the story out there.  Does he not identify as being white?  Does that matter?  Is he actually an Anti-Trumper and a hardcore Democrat?  Does that matter?  Would he use Trumpy language if he hates Trump?  Does that matter?

There are real, vile, horrible racist things being done and said.  We don't need to make anything up or even give the impression that stuff is being made up.  It's way too volatile.

2

(364 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I don't remember VOYAGER. Was Seven acting human and being casual and pleasant by the end?

I found that alarming as well.  She definitely wasn't that casual.  But depending on when Picard is set, it's plausible that she's had a chance to let loose.  She ends up dating Chakotay by the end so she's definitely embracing a life outside of her role on the ship, but my guess is that once she gets off Voyager and outside of a duty-based environment, she'd loosen up a bit.  Being on Voyager probably felt a bit like being on a Borg cube at times so it would've been hard to fully embrace her humanity (like learning a language in a classroom).  Being on Earth (or wherever she ends up) would be more like learning a language while living in a country that speaks that language.  Her gains would be bigger.

That being said, again, I found it to be alarming.  She definitely hadn't spoken like that on Voyager.

3

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I did have some thoughts about the Azure Gate Bridge when I saw the Golden Gate Bridge.  I thought briefly of apes and terminators and Magneto when we went over the bridge itself.  I did visit the Presidio but don't remember it from As Time Goes By.

I also thought about the Pilot, amongst other things, when I was in Golden Gate Park.

4

(364 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Man, the Picard trailer awoke something in me too.  And the inclusion of Seven of Nine was a total shock to me.  I feel like, moreso than Discovery, the Picard people are going to have fun playing in the post-Nemesis sandbox.

I was also shocked to see Brent Spiner, who wanted so desperately to get away from Data in the end.  Although my video buffered a bit at that part so maybe it was a CGI re-creation of Brent Spiner.  He looked otherworldly.

*********

I also agree that Orville to Hulu makes sense.  I'm hoping they can do some fun stuff now that they're streaming-only, and I hope the budget doesn't suffer because of it.

5

(14 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've watched the first six episodes of Titans, and I really liked it.  I was impressed at how real the world felt, even with aliens and demons and everything.  I feel like this show could take place in the Snyderverse - it has the violence and "maturity" that I feel like Snyder was going for...but with the depth and layers that were needed to explain why Batman was acting so differently than we were accustomed.

I know a bit how this season ends, but I feel like they're doing a good job of weaving Dick's story in.  Sending Jason Todd to keep Dick up to date on Batman's activities was good - I feel like they could've done the same for Alfred on the episode where he was referenced.

I do feel like Dick should have more friends in the superhero world.  I know Wonder Girl shows up at some point, but I feel like they're making Dick an outsider more than he probably would be realistically.

6

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I went to San Francisco last week. I feel like a bad fan because it wasn't until the last day that I realized:

1. I was in the birthplace of sliding
2. I could've gone to some filming locations

I know they only shot a couple scenes for the Pilot in San Fran, but do we know where I could've gone?

7

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, mermaids have roots in a lot of places.  Mesopotamia, Europe, Africa, Asia.  I don't know which ones predates the others, but the idea of "half human, half fish and lives underwater" is about as original as "flood that covered the earth" or "son of god" - which exists in just about every civilization ever. 

The weird part of the Little Mermaid part is that it's based on a Dutch story (so you'd think lighter skin) but the story takes place in the Caribbean (so you'd think darker skin)

Of course, mermaids aren't real so it doesn't matter.  They don't have exposure to the Sun so the biological reason for skin color in humans is irrelevant.

8

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

pilight wrote:

The most common race swapping seems like Asian to white, with Latino to white and black to white close behind

Yeah, I can't argue with that.  And I'd like to stress again that I don't care either way.  I'm just speaking for Informant and pointing out that it's weird that there seems to be a trend of only race-swapping redheaded white characters.

I don't think redheaded people are being discriminated against in any way.  it's just weird that several companies were like "we hav to make someone black.  Is there a redhead we can switch?"

9

(600 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I really do miss when Agents of Shield would show the aftermath of the MCU movies.  I know it was an abusive relationship, but that part about it I really liked.

10

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I think it's fine.  It's just weird to look at what's become a definite trend.  From Wally West (and by association, Iris) to Jimmy Olsen to Mary Jane Watson to Hawkgirl to Annie (Lil Orphan Annie) to Ariel, it seems like redheaded characters get race-swapped more than anyone else.  It isn't intentional, but it's happened enough times that it's a crazy coincidence.

11

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'll play Informant for a brief second and show outrage for yet another redhead being race-swapped to a black person.

I honestly don't care who plays Ariel because I'll never see that movie, but it is strange that this seems to be a legitimate trend that I know bothered Informant.  Why is it always redhead to black seemingly?

12

(600 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I enjoyed Far From Home quite a bit.  And I found myself legitimately surprised by a couple things at the end.  Engage SpoilerVision:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

The end credits scenes were both a complete shock to me.  The JK Simmons cameo was great (it's the most 4th-wall breaking the MCU has ever done since we all love him in that role so much - it almost feels like it's not real), and I have no idea how they're going to handle Peter's cover being blown.  My guess is that they'll be able to play it off somewhat with Jameson being an Alex Jones - like kook, but I don't know if it'll last for long.

The Skrull stuff....man, I thought for a second that they were doing something really big there.  But the internet is doing a great job of analyzing this, and I'm going to steal a bunch of stuff I saw online.  How long has Fury been gone?  Since the 90s?  Has the Nick Fury we've known since the first Iron Man been a Skrull?  I felt like the Fury on the ship seemed a little more carefree.  I'm fascinated to know about that.  And then came the question of....is Maria Hill even real?  Or is she a character created by Talos/Fury/Soren to have as a sidekick?  She's not shown on the ship so that'd be really interesting.

The movie itself was fun.  I didn't think it had the heart of Homecoming, but I think it's probably just about as good.  I thought it did a great job of playing in the whole sandbox (bringing back throwaway lines/characters from previous movies was genius), and I think Holland is so great as Peter.  I think they sold the Mysterio stuff a little hard since most people knew he'd be the villain, but I think it had to work that way so that Peter would fall for it.  But I think it led to a pretty awkward story structure.

All in all, I liked it.  And now I have no idea what Phase Four will be.  But I'm very excited to find out.

13

(37 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Legion is a really fun show to watch, even when I don't know what's going on or remember any of the characters' names smile

14

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That's interesting.  I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle.  I think, on shows like the X-Files, they need to have some sort of "rules" - on Supernatural, I believe they have some semblance of rules - essentially that there are no rules.  Heaven and Hell exist.  Other gods exist.  Fairy tales exist.  Magic exists.  All the fables and stories are true.  Our world is real.  Scooby Doo is real.

At the same time, I feel like aliens are too far on Supernatural.  If aliens showed up, I feel like that would be weird.  It wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me, but I feel like it'd be weird.

I do feel like the X-Files liked to tow that line.  Simply having Scully on the show implied that there needed to be a scientific explanation for everything, but they also liked to challenge her with things that she couldn't explain.  Same with Fringe.  It's a realistic, technobabble X-Files, but they liked to push the boundaries of the explainable there.

With Sliders, I think the rules sorta get thrown out because "anything is possible."  Even with Quinn or Arturo occasionally playing Scully, they didn't really try to understand how there could be a universe where the rules of physics don't really apply.  As if there's some sort of branching possibility with physics being "created."

For me, I know what I would do.  It's what I did for Earth 214 (I think), and it's what I've suggested to a lot of people who've asked me about fanfics - and that's "try to think through each world."  The most fun part for me about writing Sliders is trying to put real thought into each world you come up with.  If you want to write a story about the French ruling America, come up with how it would work and follow through.  Maybe Napoleon was never defeated.  Then what.  Then what.  And I'd try to have something in the episode that shows that we did the research and put thought into it.

Where this gets me into trouble with most people is that doubles probably shouldn't exist.  This definitely came up after E214, but if I were doing Sliders, doubles would either be very rare or completely absent.  Fraternal doubles should exist, but if we're talking about a world that separated in 1776, it's very unlikely that every human that was born from 1776 on looked exactly the same.  And if one person looks different, then every subsequent birth should be different.  If Quinn's grandparents look different from Earth Prime to British Earth, then Quinn's parents would look different and then Quinn would look different.  And that's if Quinn's parents ever meet in the first place.

If you want doubles, you sorta have to write into the rules that "certain people are supposed to exist the way they are."  So there's some sort of predestination where Quinn always looks like Jerry O'Connell.  But then you can't play around with Robert Floyd as Quinn or Logan St. Claire.  Because if the universe always makes Michael's sperm and Amanda's egg magically meet to create Quinn, then you have to stick to that.

And hell, if you want to get really deep into the deep end, there's the idea that human beings are unlikely.  Life was unlikely.  If you actually looked at infinite Earths, I'd think the vast majority of them wouldn't have life at all.  And then there'd be a vast majority of Earths with life that doesn't look anything like the life we know.  Language would vary from Earth to Earth dramatically.  In that case, Sliders would resemble Star Trek more than Sliders.

To explain this, someone here had a great analogy.  Think of sliding as a vehicle in a town.  Every house is a different parallel Earth.  You can very easily travel from house to house, and the people in every house might look different but they'd typically have a lot in common.  They'd speak the same language.  Go to the same schools.  Shop at the same stores.  One family would be pretty recognizable to another one.  You'd need a more powerful timer to go to a different part of the city.  It's still be recognizable - the people would still be citizens of the same town but the kids would go to a different school, the people might work somewhere else.  They'll shop somewhere else.

You'd need a more powerful timer to get to a different part of the state/region/country.  A lot of things would be different but still very recognizable.  But the further you get, the bigger the differences would be.  Dialect.  Language.  Nationalities.  Ethnicities.  Politics. 

The "rules" you establish could simply be that Quinn's timer is a scooter.  It can go from house to house, and with enough work, it might be able to get around a city.  The city is a place where Humans are dominant, the languages are recognizable (not always English but always an Earth Prime language), and history is familiar enough.  The worlds where life evolved into something unrecognizable, where language isn't decipherable, where the air isn't breathable, where the worlds are more alien than anything....aren't accessible to Quinn.  Maybe they aren't accessible to any Slider.

That's how I'd make it work.

15

(37 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Apparently Matthew Vaughn wanted to do First Class, then Apocalypse, then Days of Future Past.  He wanted the First Class people to get their own movie as a team (after coming together in First Class) before doing Days of Future Past.  Fox apparently heard the plan and demanded they flip DoFP and Apocalypse to take advantage of the money grab to get the old cast and the new cast. 

And, honestly, that makes more sense from a story perspective.  If you end the series with Days of Future Past, the future sequence with Wolverine could've been the end.  Everything worked out and sorta tied together.  Instead, they tried to do more with the younger versions even though they'd already established that they'd saved the future.  It's hard to fear for Scott and Jean and Charles and Hank in Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix when we saw them okay in the future.

On the Weekly Planet podcast, one of the hosts likes to talk about how the X-Men films' continuity is as simple as "do you remember the last movie?  That's good enough" - if you ever try and remember passed the previous movie, the continuity sorta falls apart.

It's just crazy that the X-Men films were fine, broke their continuity with prequels, and then had a movie to fix the continuity....before trashing it all over again.

I don't know what the legacy of the X-Men films is.  The three movies I like the most (X2, First Class, and Logan) don't feel like they exist in the same universe despite the fact that they all have a lot of the same characters, mostly played by the same people (Wolverine is in all three).  It's a series that technically has two finales (Logan and Days of Future Past) but doesn't end either place.

16

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

No, Pelosi has argued that she doesn't want to impeach because she wants to wait until he's no longer President so that he can be indicted.  The Mueller report said that they can't indict him on criminal charges because he's president.  So if he's not president, they could use those charges to send him to prison.  If a Democrat is in office, he wouldn't get a pardon.

With Trump, Pence could pardon, but that only works on Federal charges.  He could still go to jail from the charges in the state of New York.

17

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, I'm certainly not an expert.  If impeachment hinders a Democratic push for the White House against Trump or even Pence, it doesn't make sense.  I just have read a lot on it and loved John Oliver's analysis.

I think I trust Pelosi more than some.  I don't buy the "I'm waiting so that we can send him to jail" argument because I think you can have that cake and eat it too.

18

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

As much as I would like Trump out of office, I have to ask: what exactly can he be charged with to oust him? Collusion with Russia? If this loudmouth worked with Russia, he'd never shut up about it. Obstruction of justice? He failed at every turn.

Numerous experts say that Trump's intent to obstruct is established through ordering subordinates to shut down the Mueller investigation only for his staff to ignore him or refuse. And that it's solid grounds for impeachment. To me (and to Pelosi, I think), it would be very easy for the Trump administration to spin that as Trump expressing wishes that he knew would not be carried out. To me, impeachment is currently a dead end.

Yeah, I don't think impeachment and removal is possible.  My favorite idea is to go through the motions and then not call for a vote.  I'm for impeachment in the same way that I'm in favor of a doctor doing one last round of CPR on a man he knows is probably dead.  Because it's the right thing to do.  Because there's that small chance that it could work.  Because you never know.

Would it be a waste of Democratic political capital?  I don't know.  It wouldn't affect Biden or Mayor Pete or Beto or Julian Castro or DeBlasio or anyone not currently in Congress.  If you don't bother with a Senate vote, it wouldn't affect Warren or Bernie or Booker or Gillabrand or Kamala or Klobuchar.  The only person who might be involved in a House impeachment proceeding is Tulsi, and maybe you let her campaign and let the other Democratic Reps do it.  For Democratic people in the House, I'd suspect that the impeachment proceedings would *be* their campaign.  "Did my House rep participate in the impeachment proceedings?  Were they big players?  Cool, they have my vote"

I'd rather them do that than keep wasting 9/11 first responders' time.  Or work on legislation that McConnell will kill.

Would it be a dog and pony show?  Would there be evidence to get any sort of conviction?  I don't know.  I'd just feel a lot better about my government if a president tried really hard to break the law, and even if he failed because he's an idiot, that the checks and balances at least tried to make him pay for it.

Maybe Pelosi is right.  I just don't really see the downside.  I don't think you lose any votes.  I'd love to present a ton of evidence and make Republicans (either in the House or the Senate) formally side with Trump in history.  And maybe you disrupt some republican campaigns or Trump's campaign by getting them crazy off topic for the most part.

Just like I've gotten us crazy off topic smile

19

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

pilight wrote:

More people believed he was guilty before the trial than after.

There's no way that's true.

The prosecution bungled a bunch of things, and a ton of coincidental items happened to overlap at one specific time that made things easy on the defense.....but I don't think the defense actually convinced anyone of anything.  And that's why I picked that specific example - the defense simply created a narrative that played into the minds of people who already thought he was guilty.  That the LAPD wants to take down black men (powerful or not) and are willing to use their power to make that happen.

If you watch the fantastic documentary OJ: Made in America, the jury essentially admits that they ruled the way they did because they wanted revenge for Rodney King.  None of them watched the trial and were convinced that he was innocent.  And depending on how far you meant by "after" the trial, almost everyone is convinced now that he did do it...outside of the supercharged political climate that the trial took place in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … edirect=on)

And that's what you would have in an impeachment trial.  Two sides that already are locked in on their opinion and two sides arguing a case to their own side.  Is it foolhardy to try?  I don't think so because I think we owe it to the system itself to say "he did bad things, and people stood up to him."  Just like I think it would've been insulting to Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman to not bring to trial the one guy who could've done the murders, even if they knew what we know now.  Not necessarily because it's the wily thing to do but because it's the right thing to do.

Again, you don't even have to call a vote.  Just present the evidence and get it out there as much as possible.  It only takes a few hundred votes to take way Trump's win in 2016.  Yeah, nominating someone not historically unpopular with 20+ years of political baggage will probably get you there....but shouldn't they use every weapon in their arsenal?

20

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah but by not impeaching, they're admitting there's no case.  Is that what they're going after?  Would it have been better for the LA District Attorney to not prosecute OJ Simpson knowing that he got off?  Or do you make your best case and if the system fails, you can still hold your head high?

And if they think this president is dangerous, you don't play politics with it.  If you wait for the primaries, that's another several months where Donald Trump can deal with Iran, where Donald Trump controls the situation at the border, where Donald Trump can be meeting with foreign agents about 2020, etc.

(For the record, I'm not arguing with you.  I'm arguing with them, if that's their logic)

21

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

As a liberal, I spend more time criticizing liberals than conservatives because I'm more concerned about the failures of my side and what my side can do to correct them and how my side is constantly falling short of the values we espouse. If I were conservative, I imagine I'd be the same, just on a different side. And, quite frankly, I don't even think the politics were the problem as much as the means by which they were expressed.

I don't follow anyone political on Twitter, but I occasionally dip my toe into political waters to see what people are thinking.  My newest political curiosity is how active liberal Twitter people are handling this particular conundrum: if Trump is awful and needs to be impeached and the Democratic Party is the beacon of all goodness, how are people handling the idea that the Democratic Party is seemingly refusing to impeach Trump?

When Trump was elected, I wasn't as upset as everyone else.  I thought this because I didn't think Trump was all that popular with mainstream Republicans (I was quite wrong there) and I thought Democrats would lead the charge against Trump on Day One, and they'd boot him from office whenever he had a misstep.

I was also wrong there.  While Democrats obviously despise Trump and all that he stands for, the anger seems to be isolated to interviews on Rachel Maddow and on Twitter.  There's a lot of talk and very little action.  It actually reminds me of the "thoughts and prayers" that Republicans do whenever there is a mass shooting.  For all Trump's done and for all the evidence they have, we get the Democratic version of "thoughts and prayers"

Stepping back, I get it.  Is it worth it to impeach Trump when there's a really good chance that Senate Republicans won't pass it?  You'd need more than a handful of Republicans to step over the aisle, and while I thought it was possible in 2016, I don't think it's possible now.  I can see why Pelosi and Democrats don't want to give him the OJ-like ability to claim himself innocent when everyone knows he's not.

So when I look, I get this confusion from liberals on Twitter.  It's this "IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!" followed by a "Pelosi knows what she's doing."  Or "PELOSI SHOULD EITHER IMPEACH HIM OR RESIGN" followed by someone attacking that person for not getting in line.  Like Bernie and Hillary, we're coming up on a Civil War inside the Democratic Party where people are either starting to turn on Pelosi (in some cases, calling her complicit to Trump's crimes) or holding the line because that's what Pelosi is doing.

And I'm baffled by it all, honestly.  Yes, Trump is the leader of the Republican party.  And since he's popular (enough) with the base and since it's good for them to have a Republican in the White House, I understand why most Republicans can't just openly turn on him.  But I also assume they'd all be happier with Pence both in the White House and on the ticket.  He's a more traditional conservative (although arguably worse than Trump on certain issues in every definition of that word for everyone concerned), and I think certain parts of the Republican base would be happier to vote for him than Trump.

For Democrats....I don't know what.  I see where Pelosi is coming from, but her inaction almost makes me believe in the idea that Democrats and Republicans are just our labels and everyone in Congress is essentially on the same side.  That they're all happy with the status quo but that they have to rabble on Twitter to make certain people feel better.

Because, yeah, the Senate probably won't kick him out (even though it makes sense for them to).  And even if they did, he probably wouldn't leave peacefully.  And that's a huge problem in itself.  But I think what Pelosi thinks they have to lose isn't really what they have to lose.

If the Senate refuses to boot him, Trump will be able to say he was not guilty - Well, he's saying that now.  And he'd say it even if he was found guilty.  That's not going to change.

If the Senate refuses to boot him, it might affect the election - In certain years, maybe.  This year?  I think most people have a rock-hard opinion of Trump and that an impeachment result (either way) will not persuade their vote in 2020.  Certain people will vote for Trump in 2020 no matter what.  Certain people will vote for his opponent (no matter who that is) no matter what.  People have decided if he's guilty or innocent, and the Senate vote won't have any impact on what they think.  I think even most independents (myself included) have already made up their minds on him.  So who's still unsure?  Wouldn't bringing up all the evidence and showing it convince more people than a strictly-political vote convince people?  Even if you get a few hundred votes to flip in the right place or convince a few hundred people who sat out in 2016 to vote....that's enough to win.

The only thing I can think of is that Pelosi is 100% convinced that someone will beat him in 2020.  That she'd rather face Trump than Pence.  And she might be right.  The map overwhelmingly helps Democrats over Republicans, and it took a historically unpopular candidate in Clinton to lose.  And even then, she barely lost and still overwhelmingly won the popular vote.  I think essentially anyone in the field can beat him, and it might not even be that hard.

If that's the case, maybe you just wait and beat him.  But I read an idea online that the House should go through the impeachment process and then never throw it to the Senate.  Go through the whole evidence procedure but never call for a vote.  So you'd give the American public all the information without ever giving Trump a chance to exonerate himself.  I mean he'll consider this an exoneration and his fans would too....but they're going to anyway.

I think it's an interesting strategy.

22

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think it's probably hard to feel like you're on a side by yourself on everything.

- Informant loved the DCEU, but generally hated the Marvel movies.  Most people here tended to criticize the DCEU and liked/loved many of the Marvel films.

- Informant struggled to keep watching the Arrowverse and despised Supergirl.  We all stuck with it, including Supergirl.

- Informant was a clear pro-life conservative.  Most people (TF notwithstanding?) are either centrist or liberal.

It's probably hard to find the passion to get back here and be the only one championing something on so many levels.  Without Sliders to talk about on any sort of consistent basis, these are the things we talked about.  Superhero movies, superhero TV, and stuff like that.  He seemed staunchly opposed to most of us, and we had a lot of the same arguments in circular fashion.

It is sometimes easier to log onto a site and see a view that supports your own.  There's vindication when he reads an article about how the DCEU was too genius for its own time, for how the Marvel movies aren't all that great, how the Arrowverse needs to die, and how Supergirl is the worst of them all.

But I always looked forward to seeing a new post from Informant on a lot of these subjects.  It was always interesting to see a new Marvel movie and see what he thought.  I, of course, looked forward to seeing what he thought about movies like Justice League and BvS.  It was also fun to write a big long thing about any of those movies and see him pick my points apart.  I think it's more fun to read the other side and try and see where they're coming from.

If he's gone, it's going to be less interesting around here.

23

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's interesting.  For the most part, every show has to sell you on plot first.  Great characters usually only develop out of some sort of interesting plot.

To me, the best show ever (not my favorite) is HBO's the Wire.  It's a show that I've recommended dozens of times, but it's also a show that I always mention "starts slow but stick with it."  A lot of people say to give it 4 episodes before you quit on it, essentially demanding that people fight through almost *half* the first season before they're allowed to decide if they like it or not.  That show is almost exclusively about characters - there's certainly a lot of plot, but the plot for that show is decidedly disconnected for the most part.  When I sell the show to people, I sell the realism and the characters.

My favorite show is LOST.  LOST is an interesting case study because it's a show that always had a fight between plot and characters.  People that were there for plot hated the show.  People that were there for characters loved it.  But almost everyone that watched the show watched because of the plot.  I can distinctly remember looking at a newspaper ad for LOST - it was Jurassic Park meets Castaway - two things that intrigued me at the time.  None of the advertisements said "don't worry about the plot!  You'll love the characters!" and I'm not sure I would've watched if they did.

I also distinctly remember ads for Sliders.  And, again, I was sold on plot.  Four people land on a world run by the Russian!  A world dying of disease!  A world about to be destroyed by an asteroid!  But it wasn't anything about characters.

I think the problem with Sliders in this respect is that shows in that time were about plot.  You might have a show with great characters, but it was usually incidental.  Mulder and Scully are great characters, but I think the X-Files cared more about plot than characterization because they needed a plot to draw people in.

Today, I think you can sell a show on characters.  I think Better Call Saul is a show that draws people in on characters and not plot.  People know the plot of Better Call Saul, but they want to see Jimmy/Saul.

I think most people come to a show for the plot and stay for the characters.  I think that's the case for Sliders.  I think the unique thing about Sliders is that the plot is so compelling and so infinite and so untapped that people might've come for the plot, stayed for the characters, and then stayed for the plot as the characters fell one by one.

24

(14 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well that would definitely put a damper on things.  But if they want to go after the Disney model, one big platform with DC being a smaller part (like Marvel/Star Wars being sections of Disney+) might be the way to go

25

(14 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Muwhahah, nice smile

26

(14 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think we need a post for DC Universe, but after two pretty well-regarded series (Titans and Doom Patrol), DC has already cancelled Swamp Thing after just one episode.

Although supposedly there were issues with a rebate they were supposed to get from the state of North Carolina, and it was enough to just pull the plug.

I've been meaning to watch Titans (it'll be next on my list of catch-up shows), and I heard great things about Doom Patrol.  If DC is going to actually put out great material, maybe it'd be worth doing.  And I'd love to see them try something big on there (ireactions has mentioned moving their cinematic universe to TV - this could maybe work)

27

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That really is interesting.  I feel like that's an American way of thinking - that whatever we did was the right thing.  That we've perfected a sort of way of living and that anything different is inherently flawed.

One interesting one is the Earth that Smarter Quinn talks about in the Pilot.  The utopia Earth.  Someone, somewhere, told me that they believed that the Earth that Smarter Quinn is talking about is, in fact, the Luck of the Draw world.  I prefer to think that it isn't, just to maintain the hope that the world Smarter Quinn talked about was a real utopia and not a result of a Lottery.  But if it was, it's a bit of a dark notion.  Utopia exists but there's always a price.

28

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's strange.  This is reading like a tribute/obituary to Informant.

Is he never coming back?  Is this his tribute/obituary?

**************

Everything about the abortion debate makes me want to pull my hair out.  In no way do pro-choice people want to kill babies.  They are simply arguing that, if there's a situation where a woman believes that bringing a child into the world is going to be bad for everyone involved (her, the child, and possibly society as a whole) then she should have the ability to safely make that decision.

I also think, in no way, do (most?) pro-life people want to turn the clock back a thousand years and put women in a Handmaid's Tale - style gender apocalypse.  They are simply saying that life is precious and that, since the baby doesn't get a choice on whether or not it gets to live, someone should speak for them.

For some reason, I seem to have a rare superpower to see both of these things.  And while I acknowledge that there can't be a perfect solution where no one gets abortions but women are still free to get them, I also acknowledge that there has to be a better way to discuss this than sending *anyone* to a cornfield or a mental asylum.

29

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It renders a lot of long term storylines moot but characterization remains.  The main characters still grow and change even if the setting changes.  It would be like a show that's about a journey.  Sam and Dean go to a new place each week with very few recurring characters, but the brothers still grew and evolved.  Preacher is essentially about a road trip, and it's setting/background characters change each season.  Even something like Star Trek has the crew going to a new planet each time (looking more at Discovery than any of the older shows since it's more serialized).

I do think that a modern re-telling wouldn't necessarily need to be one world per episode.  I think it might be interesting to stay on a world for 2-5 episode stretches and then move on.  For example, if they were to do a 12-episode season and visit four worlds per season.  I think it would allow for more drama and less deus ex machina to get the sliders out of a jam each week.

30

(248 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

If Sliders came out today, I think its best bet would be to be somewhere streaming or on a network like AMC.  In either case, it would need to be even less formulaic than it was since TV has moved so far towards serial storytelling.  AMC has done stuff like Into the Badlands or Humans (and quirky stuff like Lodge 49), and it's known for "smart" storytelling that Torme would appreciate.  If I were producing Sliders today, that's where I'd go after if I were them.

31

(1,083 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's weird.  The Monitor showed up on Arrow first, and he had the biggest "cameo" on that.  Then he showed up on Supergirl and Legends, while also sorta being a part of the Flash finale (as the crisis moved up to 2019).

But what are we to make of his appearances on Supergirl and Legends?  On Supergirl, he release's J'onn's (evil?) brother from some sort of imprisonment.  Then he rescued (?) the dead (?) Lex Luthor to end the season.  On Legends, he showed up, did nothing, and was used mostly for comic relief as he was seen eating popcorn.

I don't know what they're setting up with him.  He seemed like a good guy fighting an impossible fight on the Arrow finale (after being a sometimes good / sometimes bad character in the crossover).  On Supergirl, he seemed like a bad guy (working with / helping two supervillains).  On Legends, he did nothing.

It's cool that they're going to have a storyline potentially bleed through all five shows next season, and it's going to potentially be a cool sendoff to Arrow and a big step in the Arrowverse.  But I found the Monitor cameos to be much more confusing than the "WOW" tease that I think we were supposed to be left with.

32

(226 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I sorta think something has to happen in the first two episodes, or it's virtually impossible to go back to the Monster of the Week stories.  What's interesting is that Jensen and Jared spoke at some conference recently, and Jensen was asked how he wanted the final season to go.  I tried looking it up but I couldn't find it (I didn't try super hard) but paraphrased, Jensen said "I would like the angels to go back to Heaven, the demons to go back to Hell, and we would just fight monsters like we did back in season one."

So Jensen, channeling Informant, said that he likes the Monster of the Week format.  If God is stalking the brothers or if they have to fight hundreds of zombies each week, that's virtually impossible.  The boys would literally have much bigger fish to fry.

I think you're right.  It'll look big and epic and then something will happen.  God will disappear again and no one will be able to find him.  Or something big will scare him away.  Or something.  And the boys will sit around the bunker, drinking beer, deciding that it's best that they go hunt a wendigo or something while they wait for Chuck's next move.  And then, like in previous seasons, Chuck will show back up in November and cause problems.  Then he'll disappear/leave again.  Then show back up when it's finale time.

33

(600 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've enjoyed the episodes, and I feel like the TV writers have decided to simply return the movie division's favor and ignore the movies.  I feel like they've been the little brother for long enough, and they just want to do their own thing.  No more connections, no more mentions.  If a snap happened, it doesn't matter.  If there's an Iron Man and a Captain America and a Thor and Avengers, it doesn't matter.  Just like it didn't matter that the Avengers brought every hero of all time (including Howard the Duck) to fight Thanos, and there wasn't Quake or Inhumans or anyone else that could've helped.

And I think that's fine.  Daredevil supposedly exists in that universe even though it never felt like it.  It's sad because I think it could've been cool to introduce people on the show and have them bleed into the movies and vice versa.  While they were never going to get Chris Evans, it was cool that they got Jaimie Alexander.  It was cool that there was a plotline on AoS to explain how the Helicarrier got there in Age of Ultron.  It was cool that they had to react to Captain America: Winter Soldier and clean up after Thor: The Dark World.

But when the movies didn't seem like they cared, it's fine that the show decided the same.  Just do what the Netflix shows did - carve out your own little place and don't worry about anything else.

34

(226 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

This is a complete reversal to one of SUPERNATURAL's greatest creations. It's a shocking and painful betrayal. But it seems to me like the inescapable result of extending the lifespan of the series.

Possibly.  But it could also either be some sort of trick (it's not really Chuck) or it's some sort of gambit to prepare the brothers for something bigger/badder.

Or, again, it's the only "monster" that the brothers haven't killed and the only way to end the show.

35

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Hahaha to be fair I used Max Landis as a resource for my Mary Sue argument and he ended up being a serial sexual abuser too and has fallen off the face of the planet (although I think he's still making money selling scripts).

The thing that makes me sad is that we used to have societal protections in place to make conversation civil.  I eat lunch with a group of people from work.  I know for certain that a couple of them are highly (but not far-right) conservative.  They come from more rural areas and strongly believe in the 2nd amendments and have more conservative, Christian social beliefs.  And so when we have lunch, we tend (as a group) to just not broach certain topics.  For example, despite being a big topic, no one has mentioned the abortion bills.  It isn't that no one cares (I know for sure that one of them does), but it wouldn't be constructive to talk about it so we don't.  We still need somewhere to eat lunch tomorrow and the next day and the next day.

On the internet, we don't have to do that.  We can let our darker/more radical thoughts grow, and we can have them reinforced by like-minded people.  And then the hate starts (I almost made this a Yoda reference but decided against it).

I'm not saying you have to eat lunch with a Nazi.  But I think there was a time when we'd be okay talking to one.  I think of the movie American History X, where a former Neo-Nazi is rehabbed by a friendship with a black guy.  He doesn't have to be punched.  He doesn't have to be left alone.  Maybe you talk to them and try to understand where they're coming from.  And you realize that you have something in common.  Maybe a few things.  And he realizes that maybe he's wrong on a few things.  Next thing you know, he's hiding the tattoo he has instead of proudly showing it off.

I'm seeing less and less of that these days.  People want women in Georgia and Alabama and Missouri to flee the state instead of staying and fighting for what they believe in.  I feel like certain liberals are willing to abandon people in red (and sometimes just purple) states without trying to understand why they're doing what they're doing.  Instead of finding some sort of compromise (like we've done for decades), we're trying to pass radical legislation.  We have to label someone as "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" when it's clearly not what they're going for.

I'm ready to put some of that civility back into things.  Then maybe we could have lunch with someone who might have a few radical beliefs.  We don't have to be best friends with them.  We don't even have to change them.  Sometimes we just see if they change on their own.  Sometimes they do.  Sometimes they don't.  It's okay either way smile

36

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

When writing the SLIDERS script where Quinn meets Donald Trump, I asked Transmodiar to create Quinn's political opinions for me and Quinn/Transmodiar's views were decidedly not my own. My criticism of Informant isn't that I disagree with Informant on The Issues; my criticism is that he never seems quite content to let his personal opinions be his own but insists that his incredibly idiosyncratic worldview is universally objective.

This is my number one problem with politics and the worst thing that social media has done for the world.

Thirty years ago, people had friends that they'd chat with, they'd go to work, and that was about their social reach.  Everyone probably had a crazy uncle with weird political views, but I'm assuming that societal norms kept most people from talking about their more radical political opinions.  If someone talked about something that Reagan or Clinton did, you might test the waters on a political topic at the water cooler, hoping to see if the other person agreed with you.  "Oh yeah, I don't like him."  That would allow you to give your second-level opinion ("I don't like his policy on XXXX") but that's probably as far as it went.  If the person didn't agree with you (or there were too many people around), you probably never get to that second level.

With social media, you can find a water cooler with people who think exactly like you.  Not only that, you can find a water cooler for any opinion.  You can wish people who don't agree with you into the water cooler cornfield.  So you can start conversations with your second level opinion and get to third/fourth/fifth/Nth level opinions.

When that happens, you start to forget about the guy you wished into the cornfield who disagreed with you.  You also forget about the guy you wished into the cornfield that agreed with you but not all the way.  You didn't need his 99% agreement in your conversation because it made you question your beliefs and that felt weird and uncomfortable.  Only 100% agreement at this water cooler.

So when you forget about the other side (or demonize them), you start to feel like all reasonable people are at your water cooler and anyone at any other water cooler is wrong.  Or crazy.  Or evil.

In a way, you can recreate your social world so that your opinion is the universal one.  After all, you go to the water cooler and everyone there agrees with you.  The water cooler is the only place you have social interaction so why wouldn't you believe that?  Everyone you talk to agreeing with you translates to everyone in the world agrees with you.  Everyone that matters, after all.  Not those crazy, evil people who don't agree with you.  We hate them.

37

(1,005 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Biden declares that Trumpism is an aberration, a temporary shift in the culture of the American identity. That is simply not true: Trumpism arose because Americans are suffering from some of the worst health care and education systems in the world, a horrific inadequacy of social services and the overall collapse of the middle class with severe income inequality.

Americans are ensickened by pollution and burdened with bankruptcy-inducing medical bills and disappearing jobs that, even when found, are insufficient to pay rent and buy food. Trumpism tapped into this agony by proposing that all these social, economic and environmental ills be blamed on anyone who isn't Caucasian.

Biden may put a friendlier, kinder face on a broken system, but he would simply mark time until the next Trump-esque figure emerged and consolidated discontent into power. If Democrats aren't prepared to address the ills of society that led to this situation, then even a Biden victory over Trump is simply a palliative that doesn't treat the underlying causes.

The most upsetting part of it to me is the complete lack of empathy for the other side (from either side).  When Trump was elected, one of the things I was hoping for from our society was that the Democratic Party (certainly the party that cares more about people) would realize that they'd been ignoring a big part of their base (lower income white people).  While Trump's campaign strategy was certainly racially motivated, I think one of the things he did was tell lower income white people that the Democrats didn't care about them.  And it worked because, for the last few elections, the Democrats haven't.

The Democrats took lower class white people for granted.  They assumed that, since they're in a similar situation to minorities, they'd always be a reliable part of their base.  And since it was more "cool" to campaign to minorities, to women, and to Hollywood elites, the Democrats essentially ignored the lower income white people in the Rust belt.  And Hillary lost all those states.

Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't learn.  They haven't spent the last three years trying to understand what they did wrong, re-evaluate their strategy, and get the low income white Democrats back.  Since Trump was elected, they've done....nothing?  They've been angry at Trump.  They've made some gains in Congress.  But they haven't done much else.  I don't know if they learned anything from 2016 except to blame outsiders like Russia and the GOP.

There was someone on Twitter (I think Jason Alexander) who said something like "The GOP are going to trick us into another war.  Why do they do this?  And why do we let them?"

A ton of people responded.  Almost every one of them answered the first question.  No one focused on the second one.  I think Democrats have a problem of self-reflection.  I think they're on the right side of history, but they're a little too interested in playing the victim card.  No one focuses on the fact that the Democrats didn't have a real primary in 2016 - they had a coronation (and that's not even about Bernie Sanders.  Since he was an Independent, that means zero Democrats ran against Hillary in the primary).  No one focuses on the mistakes that were made in 2016 and how to fix them.  It's all about Trump.  It's all about Russia.  Democrats might've had their house broken into and vandalized, but they haven't gone through the trouble to fix the broken door or the broken windows or paint over the graffiti.

Even with impeachment, Democrats are essentially ignoring their party's part in things.  Tons of Democrats scream "IMPEACH HIM." No one seems to be asking Democrats to do it.  There seems to be some sort of hope that Republicans will simply change their minds and impeach him themselves.  If Democrats wanted impeachment, it could be done whenever.  The Democrats don't seem to want it.  I sorta agree with them, but the people that scream "IMPEACH HIM" aren't screaming it at their own party.  They're screaming it at Republicans.

The whole thing sorta drives me crazy.  There's no empathy.  There's no real debate.  There's two sides that *hate* each other that have left the other side to burn.  And, honestly, I don't see anyone trying to recruit moderates or independents.  The Democrats and Republicans are running to their fallout shelters, requiring a loyalty oath for admission, and they're getting ready to launch their nukes.  The rest of us be damned.

38

(69 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I hope nothing bad happened.  If he's moved on from the Board, that's okay.  I do miss his input on lots of things.  It'd be nice if he was here.

39

(1,083 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

*Edit - Legends is being held until midseason.  So there might be some aftermath from the crossover (and they might appear), but it seems like they're just skipping the whole thing.  I also forgot about Batwoman - it'd be hard not to have that show be involved, but would they want to bog down their first season with a huge event like this?

There's an image from the CW Upfronts that said that the Crossover would be 5 hours and "2 quarters"

Since it's a financial meeting, I have to assume they mean two financial quarters.  Since it's 5 hours, it would have to include all 5 connected shows (including Batwoman), and the picture on the image also would indicate this (as both Sara and Mick were in the picture with Batwoman, Kara, Barry, and Oliver).  Since LoT was held until midseason, that also makes sense.

The crossover might start in November, have a big cliffhanger at some point, and conclude in January or February.

40

(1,083 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Flash -

I didn't love this season.  I think having Thawne be the big bad was cool, but it was also frustrating that they let him go and still lost Nora.  I'm guessing Thawne got Nora's name wrong (when Barry and Nora went back in time) because she was never meant to exist?

I also wonder if they always meant to move the Crisis up, or if they overshot how long they thought these shows would go on.

Final also wonder - is Cisco leaving the show?  I know there was talk of a lot of people leaving, but I'm not sure if any of that was actually confirmed.

41

(1,083 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I could see that.  It could be cool to do it that way, and they've definitely positioned both the Flash and Arrow to work that way.  You could even have Arrow have a mostly-new cast and have any of the Arrow cast move to the Flash full-time.

I don't think we'll see LoT involved full-time, and I'm also not sure Supergirl will go there.  I guess we'll find out after those finales.

*Edit - Legends is being held until midseason.  So there might be some aftermath from the crossover (and they might appear), but it seems like they're just skipping the whole thing.  I also forgot about Batwoman - it'd be hard not to have that show be involved, but would they want to bog down their first season with a huge event like this?

42

(226 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think this is something I've always struggled with in terms of my own faith and my own understanding for how the universe works.  To me, it doesn't make sense for God (Chuck, in this case) to be all powerful or all good.  Free will is great...and if we could blame all the problems in the world on free will, then that's fine.  But what about the child that gets a terrible disease out of sheer bad luck?  What about damage caused by things we refer to as "acts of God?"  If one person kills another, that's something that God would stay out of?  But what about things that free will seemingly is unrelated to?

If God has the power to fix some things, why can't he fix all things?  The scenario I like to use is a policeman who arrives on the scene of a man threatening another man with a gun.  The gunman doesn't know the policeman is there, and the policeman has a clear shot.  The policeman is, for the purposes of this scenario, an expert marksman.  The policeman has the time and ability to incapacitate, distract, or kill the gunman if he chooses.  The policeman lets the situation play out, and the gunman kills the other man.  The man's daughter sees it all happen, including the policeman's inaction.  Who does she get the most angry at?  The man who did it, or the man who had the ability change the situation and simply chose not to?

To me, Chuck is a pretty safe way of understanding the world.  He's a good guy, but he's not all powerful.  He can fix some things, but he can't really fix everything.  He's also realized, on some level, that he shouldn't fix everything.  So he watches us from afar, either doing a little here and there or simply leaving us be.  He's essentially provided heaven as a place to enjoy eternity for putting up with what is essentially a broken world that he can't fully fix.

But even going there, it's kind of a nutty prospect.  Chuck created a broken world and then forces people to live in it.  Yeah, there's a reward at the end, but there's no guarantee of a reward.  Even his caretakers have their own issues of both good/evil struggle and lack of power.

Since he's not all-good, he's capable of evil.  And as he fancies himself a writer, the Winchesters are ruining his ending.  What good is a great novel with a bad ending?  There's still a chance that Chuck is painting himself as the villain because he needs a villain for his story.  It wouldn't surprise me if that's where they're going.

But they took down the Devil.  The only bigger villain can be God.  It was shocking for me to see it happen, but I didn't feel like it was unearned.

43

(1,083 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I'm not sure I fully understood where they're going with the Arrow finale.  And, by extension, I'm not sure where they were going with the season as a whole.  I never really bought the Ninth Circle or Emiko as a compelling villain.  In fact, part of me thought that there was going to be a revelation that she'd lied about being related to him in the first place.  I don't think the connection they tried to make between Oliver's guilt and Emiko worked.

At the end of the day, I hate bringing in a long-lost sibling this late in the game.  I don't think it worked.  I almost would've rather had the villain be someone like Huntress or even Roy.  If the whole point was that the team is what made Oliver a great hero, then show someone who tried to go Oliver's original route and it turned them on a darker path.

So where do we go from here?  It's a shortened season that seemingly ends with the crossover.  But....what's Oliver going to be doing?  Is the Monitor going to put him back on Earth in secret where he can never speak with his family?  I thought for a second, while they were wrapping things up, that he might be taking down the Ninth Circle (because that seemed to be the reason they went into hiding).

Is Season 8 going to be fully....is "galactic" the right word?  Will it be Oliver and the Monitor prepping for the Crisis?  Do we even need 10 episodes of that?  Or would it be better for Arrow to end there and have Oliver simply make his return in the Crossover?

Did season 7 give us the right closure?  Because I have a feeling that Season 8 is going to be more of an epilogue than anything.

Yeah, I agree.  I feel like that was strange.  They kept talking about the Kaylon, but you're right - they barely even featured Isaac after that.  I wonder if they didn't know where to go with that, or if they didn't want that to take over the whole show.

I wonder if they should've had Isaac sacrifice himself.  The Kaylon could've still been a threat, but they wouldn't have had to deal with the consequences.

Yes!  That's great news.

46

(600 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I get the sense you're all agreeing that there isn't a market for a three hour film of Steve and the Red Skull sitting in a cave and talking.

I have a feeling it'd be easier to convince me than to convince Marvel smile

Before, I really thought Chris Evans was just talking when he said he was done.  Now...I don't know.  I sorta don't want to bring Steve back.  I sorta want to let him be happy.  I don't want him magically de-aged for one last fight.  I'm not sure I even want him plucked out of time for Secret Wars.  I'd love to see him show back up, but I felt like there was a finality in Endgame and don't want to cheapen it.

One idea I think might be kinda cool would be to put an older Cap (post going back in Endgame) in a prequel movie.  Maybe even a Black Widow "Budapest" movie.  Where he's helping where he can.

I also wonder whether he and Peggy had any kids.  If so, would there be any reason to have a kid or grandkid in a movie?


********************

Random question.  The Russo Brothers were quoted that they'd come back for movies about certain characters.  One they mentioned was Dr. Doom.  Keep in mind that I've never read a Fantastic Four comic or seen any of the animated shows.  My exposure to Dr. Doom is almost exclusively from the subpar movies. 

I've read a lot of articles about him, and I know he's consistently listed as one of the best villains in comics.

But I don't get him at all.  What are his powers?  Why is he such a compelling villain?  What makes him special?

47

(600 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I do think a lot of was cut out for Steve and Bucky.  I thought the scene, the way they did it, worked.  But if Bucky and Steve didn't talk, it would be highly disingenuous to the characters.

My guess is that Cap did talk to Bucky first.  My guess is that Steve offered the shield to Bucky first.  My guess is that Bucky turned it down.  He's a character who's working hard on redemption, but I don't think he's a character who will ever truly forgive himself for what he was forced to do.  I think a part of him is afraid that he'll always be the Winter Soldier, and it'd do more harm than good for Steve's legacy if he was ever activated again while donning the Captain America suit.

If I had to guess (again), my theory would be that the Bucky/Falcon show will be about this on some level.  That Sam is the new Captain America, but that he wasn't the first choice.  And it'd be somewhat about that and somewhat about Sam proving that he was the right choice - which I think Bucky would actually agree with.

It's just weird that they didn't go with Bucky since they'd alluded to him having the shield so many times.  I agree that a black Captain America is a good thing for many fans, but I'd like the Sam/Bucky show to make us believe that it actually makes sense in-universe.

Because it feels a little like the end of the Dark Knight Rises.  Sure, John Blake is a good man.  Yes, he has proven himself to be a hero.  Yes, he has access to all of Bruce's toys.  But John Blake is not Bruce Wayne, and I have real fears that he'd get killed in his first night as Batman.  Sam is a hero.  But while he'd have Cap's shield, he doesn't have Cap's strength or his years of experience.  Bucky does.

48

(600 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Except, but by that logic -- why is Steve Rogers back in the prime timeline at the end? It's wonderful that he was reunited with Peggy at some point in what I assume is the 1950s. It adds a kind coda to the unfinished arcs of the AGENT CARTER television show, declaring that regardless of what did or didn't happen in the never-filmed Season 3, Peggy and Steve found each other again -- except that would be an alternate timeline that wouldn't connect with our own. The same way there's now an alternate timeline where Thanos and his army disappeared nine years ago. And an alternate timeline where Loki stole the Tesseract and escaped after the first AVENGERS.

Steve should have simply disappeared, never to return -- unless the Steve at the end of ENDGAME actually travelled from his timeline to this one to assure Bucky and Sam and Bruce that he was alright?

The writers of the film have come out and said that there's one timeline in the film.  Steve goes back and lives in his timeline, and an older Steve is somewhere, staying out of view, from the 40s/50s onward.  And considering Steve's understanding of time travel, I assume he would've stayed out of things.  It probably would've been difficult to not tell Peggy about Hydra or her future, but he knows how things turned out and I'm sure he's at peace with that.

I don't necessarily know if I buy that, but it does leave the opportunity to have Chris Evans return for some sort of period piece.

****

BTW, I don't disagree with Falcon over Bucky for the shield, but I thought it was weird that Steve and Bucky didn't get one last scene together.  I actually hope the Falcon/Winter Soldier show is a sort of battle for the shield, though.

49

(600 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Two thoughts on the Black Widow movie:

1. My first thought is that it'll be about the Budapest incident that's been referenced so many times.  It'd be cool to get a period piece that goes over what happened there.

2. Was the Black Widow movie fake?  Will it actually come out?  Or was it put on the schedule to throw fans off, and it'll be some sort of "gotcha" by Marvel?  Considering the scene that happened in Endgame, they could even avoid criticism from people wanting another female-led solo movie by replacing it with an A-Force movie.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-Force

If it does get axed, I hope someone (Netflix, Hulu, maybe even something like Disney+) picks it up.  It's too good to lose.