But to your understanding, is the Alpha Quadrant still the way that it was when we last left it?  And the Federation, while probably pretty racist now, is still on star maps (at least) the same as it was?  Or do you think the entire Alpha Quadrant is in disarray after Romulus?

I honestly can't tell.

SPOILERS FOR EPISODE 5 OF PICARD

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I'm sure no one is surprised, but I was sad to see Icheb die on Picard.  When I realized they were going with the xBs angle (ex-Borg) and bringing back both Seven and Hugh, I was hoping they'd find a way to bring back Icheb.  I liked both his limited storyline and how it impacted Seven.  I thought it was one of the few times that they did something character-based and it really worked.  And I know there was some issue with the actor and Anthony Rapp, but I was sad to see that not only was he killed, he was brutally killed.

And I get that Picard is more "adult" than Voyager, but it was just bizarre to have a character on Voyager (a show that was light on both death and violence) go out in such a brutal and gory way.  It's hard to connect the Seven/Icheb relationship we saw on Voyager ending the way it did on Picard.  It was disturbing, both because I wanted more from the Icheb storyline and because I have an emotional connection to both those characters.  Maybe people felt the same about Maddox, but the Icheb stuff stuck with me.

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

As a side note to that, I'm having trouble understanding the world that Picard is showing us.  Are we simply avoiding places where the Federation is, or is it something else?  All these talks of Fenris Rangers and the collapse of the Neutral Zone and possibly the reintroduction of money and the "criminal" acts of the Federation and Starfleet are making me confused on where the universe is.  It reminds me of how I felt watching the Star Wars sequel trilogy.  I just don't understand the overarching political situation in the Alpha Quadrant, and it's confusing me. 

I had a friend describe the Federation as having fallen apart.  And not just morally...literally.  Has that been explained?  Earth seemed fine.  I'm sure Starfleet is reeling from the destruction of Mars, but has there been any indication that anyone has taken advantage of that? All signs point to the Romulan Star Empire being tattered...at least more than the Federation or Starfleet.  I don't think Cardassia would be in position to step in.  We've heard nothing of them or the Klingons or anyone else who might've tried to reclaim Federation space following what happened on Mars.

From what I've seen on the show, the Federation is fine, and Starfleet is licking its wounds from Mars but still operating the same way they were twenty years before.  I'd love for the show to somehow interact with a Starfleet vessel doing normal Starfleet work so we'd have a general idea, but it seems like everyone that Picard has met is either an outlaw, a vigilante, or retired.

Is there a supplementary novel to this I can read, ireactions? smile

3

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Hmmm, it's possible that different reasons would create different consequences.  Beth didn't even know she was on a different Earth so I figured it was identical to how the people in the bar go there on Supergirl.  I guess we'll see.

I liked the Winn two-parter on Supergirl.  I'd sorta forgotten about him (even to the point where I didn't recognize him a couple of episodes ago when this plot point was teased).  I remember liking him, but I also thought the transition from Winn to Brainy was seamless enough that it didn't really matter.  But I think the actor and the character were actually a ton of fun.  I know he left on his own and doesn't seem terribly interested in doing these TV shows anymore, but I think he'd be a great addition to Legends.  Or heck, if they wanted to do a Legion show that he'd co-star on, I'd be interested in that as well.

4

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Maybe they'll address it later, but they couldn't wait a few more minutes until they were sure Alice was dead and everyone was safe?  I realize there's a good chance that Beth still could've been killed by Mouse's dad....but that wouldn't have been on Luke and Kate.  This bungle was.

And I'm much more upset about possibly having them wreck doubles than anything else.  Just because it was very unnecessary, especially on a show that was the least affected by Crisis.

5

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Wait....did Batwoman break the Arrowverse?

I understand the point of it all.  Why Beth survived the Crisis and showed up.  And why they couldn't have Beth and Alice on the show.  I get it.  But are we now definitively saying that two people can't exist on Earth Prime at the same time without dying?  And that the time has already elapsed on which people would die if that were the case?

So if the Brainiacs that survived Crisis hadn't sacrificed themselves, all of them would've died?  Both the bar owners on Supergirl are dead now (or one is dead and the other lived, I guess)?  If they're planning on saving Harry on Flash, as has maybe been referenced, are we saying both he and Nash are dead now?

If they were going to just have Mouse's dad kill one of them....why not write the same thing without the multiversal twist?  Because it doesn't really make sense.  Barry went to Earth-2 (with another Barry) and was fine.  There's a whole multiversal bounty hunter system where people jump from Earth to Earth.  They had a Superman jumping from Earth to Earth trying to collect other Supermen.  If Brandon Routh had stayed during the Crisis for longer, would he and Tyler Hoechlin Superman have both died?

And they can say all they want that the  Multiverse doesn't exist but it does.  The rules pre- and post-Crisis shouldn't be different.  And by saying "there can only be one" - that's a huge rule that I'm not sure the other shows can (or are going to want to) write around.

And Luke was right.  They were absolutely insane not to call Flash or Supergirl or *someone*  to help with it.  I know every week can't be a crossover, but no one has crossed over to Batwoman.  Having Brainiac show up would've been easy and effective.  Or Cisco (he's already left Central City so he could be in Gotham anyway). 

Then Luke was dumb.  They could've kept Beth in the Batcave for a year and no one could've tracked them.  You knew exactly when the timer was going to go off.  Wait until that is over.  Then deal with the Crows.

I'm sorry.  Parts were emotional and well written.  But I think they also made critically dumb mistakes that kill this episode for me.

Is it confirmed that Picard is selling the wine?  I might've missed that.

Because the vineyard existed the whole time.  I assumed he was making wine and then "donating" (?) it to stores and people that want it?  Just like I assume Joseph Sisko's food is free.  He'd get the ingredients for free.  Farmers grow crops because 1) they like it and 2) people need them.  Or they're replicated.  Sisko makes food because he likes doing and people need to eat.  Picard makes wine because his family has done it, the people that make it like it, and people need it.

It doesn't really make any sense, but I'm also trying to understand a world that "didn't use money" suddenly starting to use it again.  It seems just as alien to me.

Okay, I buy both things now.  Well done!  I also didn't know any of the behind the scenes stuff, and I'm willing to accept that Picard (through Stewart) has relaxed.

About money.  That was my original third point that I forgot.  Because it isn't just about Rios.

I actually watched a whole YouTube video about the issues with money in Trek.  There are apparently at least two books written by economist Trek fans, and they seemed to come to a conclusion that the Federation certainly uses money, even if the people in the Federation don't. 

What struck me as odd more than Rios wanting to be paid or Picard's winemaking operation was Raffi's situation.  Raffi attacks Picard for living in a mansion while being embarrassed that she's living in a hovel.  She's implying that her life fell apart and she ended up in the desert because no one else would take her.  In more modern terms....that was the only place she could afford.

But that doesn't make sense in a Trek world.  She should be able to live wherever there is space.  There's no money so there should be no reason for anyone to live in a hovel.  It would be more about simply finding some place to live and live there.  If there was nowhere to live, you'd think there'd be a system in place to build more housing.

But she's right.  She lives in a hovel.  Dahj lives in an apartment.  Picard lives in a mansion.  In a money-less society, what led those people to live where they do?  Dahj, you might assume, is living in an apartment because of convenience of location or simply being the right size for a woman her age.  And it's temporary since she's about to move to Japan.

But Dahj clearly wants to live in a mansion.  Picard spent most of his life on a starship, and his mansion would've either been sitting empty for decades (after his whole family died) or was lived in by workers at the vineyard.

My only guess is that, at some point, "ownership" became grandfathered.  Picard's family owned a vineyard so that's their vineyard.  If all the Picards died, the vineyard could be willed to someone or would become property of the Federation.  But as long as the Picards want it, they own it.  Same with a store or the Sisko family restaurant.

If you don't own anything, your options are whatever is available.  I would assume there would be some sort of lottery or waiting list if you wanted to live in a place that was high demand, and if you wanted to live somewhere low demand, you'd get it rather easily and quickly.  It'd be a lot like now except money would be out of the equation.  If your family and two other families wanted the same house, you'd have to "win" it in some other way - by chance or by asking first.

For Raffi, my guess is that she was blacklisted by Starfleet somehow and was unable to get any of the good housing.  Her housing is still free, but it's the only place that was available to her in the system.

BUT....

Another option is that....what if the Federation started using money again?  What if the theme of Picard is that money crept back into Federation society and has corrupted it somehow?  I mean it's almost certainly not that....but what if?

I *am* excited to see ____!

I've enjoyed the show.  I'm not sure if it's good or if I'm just genuinely excited to see post-Nemesis Trek.  I identify with this era so much more (and not just because of my irrational love of Voyager...for the record, I still know that DS9 is the superior show), and it's nice to see what familiar faces are up to.  It's also nice to see a side of Starfleet that we've never really seen very long or in depth - a civilian one.  Certainly there would be "retired" members of Starfleet who would still want to do something space-adjacent.  So Rios is an interesting character in that sense.

A couple things that have bothered me:

1. I know Starfleet has always been pretty corrupt.  TNG had about 100 episodes where the eventual main villain ended up being a corrupt admiral.  DS9 showed the many atrocities of both Starfleet and humans (via Section 31).  So to say that the Federation and Starfleet have always been the good guys is a bit off.  But the way Starfleet is shown does sorta throw it's arms in the face of what I think Roddenberry originally envisioned.  I'm sure the show will try and rationalize this by the end, but I found myself wondering if Picard was the only person who quit in protest.  I know we'll find out what happened to Riker and Troi.  I'm guessing Seven of Nine has been a civilian for a while, but we'll find out this week.

But what about the people we probably won't see. Would Admiral Janeway have agreed with the decision?  Bashir?  O'Brien?  Barclay?  The Doctor?  Who would've quit with Picard?  Especially people who followed Picard everywhere else.  The show makes it seem like Picard and maybe Raffi were the only ones....and that would be disappointing because I think Picard is almost certainly in the right no matter how you look at it.

2. This one is way more minor, but why does Picard let Raffi call him JL?  One...that's not a nickname we've seen from anyone else.  And two...Picard has been very hesitant to have anyone call him by his first name.  I know it's happened with the occasional love interest (I think Ruby from First Contact does), but for the most part, it's shown to be something that Picard hates, especially on duty.  And Raffi calls him JL, even when he was in uniform as an admiral.  I get that she sees him as some sort of father figure and the show wants to show that they had more of a personal relationship, but I can't imagine Picard was ever truly okay with that.

9

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah I thought about that.  It makes sense for the girlfriend, but I figured the Legends were out of time so their presence doesn't matter.  I guess it's erased because, since the mom was captured in the past, there's no reason for the Legends to go to the future?

I don't know.  Legends doesn't owe me an explanation - they've earned their ridiculousness.

And yeah the title sequences don't matter.  I just found it odd that they decided to do it post-crisis instead of the beginning of the season. I'm assuming Supergirl and Batwoman have them too now, but I haven't watched their new ones yet.

10

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh and I also noticed post-Crisis, both Legends and Flash have fancy new intro sequences.  I don't love either of them, but I did notice them.

11

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I'm watching Legends of Tomorrow and the villain comes out of the shadows.  Mick shoots him with his fire gun, and the villain repels the fire and then shoots it back to him.  Mick is burned up on the ground.  Sara indicates that he's dead.  She's upset because her friend is dead and says as much to the villain.

Later in the episode, someone says "where's Mick?" but it's actually a joke because Mick is making out with an old flame (PUN INTENDED).

....wait, what?  I never thought for a second that Mick was dead because they played it off very cavalierly.  And I know that Legends has a limited scope of reality, but was Mick saved because they stopped the mom in the past?  So the section in the future never happened?  I read a couple of recaps after I was done, and the ones that referenced Mick dying never referenced his resurrection.

I had familial distractions around that time in the episode so maybe I just missed the explanation.

12

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I haven't read the full script but I read portions.

At the end of the day, I think Trevorrow's script would need a ton of polishing (especially after dealing with Carrie Fisher's death), but I think it does a much better job of 1) following up on The Last Jedi and 2) completing the sequel trilogy.

I think JJ Abrams script was too concerned about hitting emotional notes that he set up with The Force Awakens and felt ownership to resolve the entire 9-movie saga.  I do think that Ben needed to be redeemed in some way, especially after Han (and in some ways, Luke) died in order to try and save him.  If he simply becomes an irredeemable villain then both their deaths are in vain.

That being said, TLJ left two options.  Either Kylo is your villain or you bring in someone else.  And, honestly, I think the movies work a lot better if Kylo is your villain.  I don't think Trevorrow handles it correctly either.  He sets up a situation with Luke and Kylo where Kylo can be saved, and he doesn't go that route either.  I think you could write a scenario where Kylo has gone full bad guy, where Kylo still dies for his crimes, and he's still redeemed in the end.  I think it's more fluid and a better connection between the movies.

As far as uniting the movies, I don't really see the reason to do that.  Yes, I think there are people who legitimately think that the series ends with 9 Skywalker movies, but I don't believe that for a second.  There will be an Episode X.  And beyond.  Of course there will.  So tying Episode IX to Episodes I-VI I think is sentimental for the sake of being sentimental.  Bringing in Palpatine doesn't make sense...so much so that they didn't even try to explain it.

Rey showing up on Tattooine doesn't make any sense.  she has no connection there.  She never knew Beru and Owen.  Her only connection to that place was Luke, and he hated it there.  She has no connection to Anakin (and I'm sure there's reason to believe she doesn't even know who Anakin is).  Luke is the only one named Skywalker she ever met, and I can't say their relationship was that strong.

She knew way more Solos.  She liked more Organas.  Solo makes much more sense for her to name herself after, but she chooses Skywalker because it's the Skywalker saga.  She goes to Tattooine because people know that place and it's significant to Star Wars.  It isn't significant to Rey.

Duel of the Fates isn't great, but it attempts to be the third part in the sequel trilogy.  And since it's an early draft, I think a final draft of that script could've succeeded at that goal.  Rise of Skywalker tries to be so many different things and fails a lot because it can't focus.  So I'd give RoS a C- and DotF an incomplete.  Maybe it would've ended up worse.  Maybe not.  But its bar was lower, meaning success was more likely.

13

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

My question would be: if only beneficiaries of J'onn's telepathy remember the other timeline -- then why didn't everyone remember Kate having rescued Beth-2 from the car? Why weren't the DEO staff happily familiar with all the Brainiac 5s as having always been part of the team with some recollection of them having time travelled in?

I think they're two different things.  I think the Brainiacs and Beth-2 are refugees from Earths that no longer exist (or they're also gifts from Oliver-Spectre to solve future problems).  I think resurrected Lance/Tommy/Emiko/etc are original members of Earth Prime who never died.  So Earth-1 Tommy is dead, but Earth Prime Tommy never died.  The only way Earth-1 Tommy exists is via J'onn's memory transfer.  Beth-1 and Beth-Prime are identical, but Beth-2 came from an Earth that was erased - no one remembers her because they remember Beth-Prime (as Beth-1 was destroyed).

Technically, Barry is Barry-Prime with the memories of Barry-1.  Same with Kara and everyone else.

It's funny that TF mentions the memory virus.  Because for Team Arrow or Team Supergirl, the memory stuff wouldn't matter.  If Chris Pine played Captain America instead of Chris Evans, they could usually write most of that stuff off when they're talking to a random character.  "Evans.  Oh I meant Pine" they'd say.

But what if you're someone like Tommy, who almost never interacts with people who remember the Earth-1 timeline.  Or even someone like William.  How crazy would it be if you had memories of entirely different world that literally no one else remembers.  You could potentially be getting things wrong all the time, and people would just think you were crazy.

(I don't think Tommy got a full memory restoration but I'm just thinking of people on the edge of this universe who wouldn't interact with superheroes 99% of the time like Kara or Barry).

14

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Everyone remembers the other timeline because of J'onn.  I assume that Tommy knows just because he was told by the people that J'onn let in on.

And, yeah, that's why I was kinda weirded out by the whole thing.  There's an entirely new version where Tommy lived all eight seasons and things would've definitely been at least a little different.  I imagine things are still supposed to be fairly similar to how they went.  Laurel still showed up from Earth 2 and still had her redemption arc.  And while Emiko survived, I'm assuming Darhk and Diaz still died.

I'd think a decent amount of Arrow would still be pretty much left intact.  Tommy would be alive, but he wouldn't have participated in any adventures.  Oliver still needed his team so things couldn't have gone too far off the rails.  But it's the major moments that Oliver would've gone in and tweaked to make sure he made the right decision at the right time.  It's an Oliver thing to do, but as we're seeing, it's a bigger deal that they sorta glossed over.

15

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Does this mean that Sliders Reborn was part of the crisis officially?

16

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Hmmm, I did not get that.  My understanding is that Oliver went back and fixed his mistakes.  He saved Moira.  He saved Tommy.  He didn't kill Emiko.  Etc.  So when Tommy says he was married to Laurel, I'm assuming he was talking about a parallel timeline (not a parallel Earth) where Earth-1 Tommy (who didn't die) married Earth-1 Laurel (who eventually did die).  So there's an alternate season 2 where Tommy started to date Laurel and eventually married her before she died).

When Tommy said "I just found out there's an Earth where I died" I assume he was just talking about the original Earth-1 timeline.  It wouldn't mean any different to him.

Because Quentin is mayor.  He didn't just show up from a world where he was mayor.  So he didn't die.  I assume the same happened with Tommy.  According to Earth Prime timeline, he didn't die.

It could be semantics.  We watched the Earth 1 version of Oliver, who no longer exists.  There's an Earth Prime version of Oliver who saved Tommy, saved Moira, saved Quentin, saved Emiko.  It's just weird that *that* is the official canon now and we didn't really get to see any of that.

17

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought the finale was really sweet. Lots of great character moments, lots of surprise returns, and a really nice tone all the way through.  I struggled to think who else should've been at the funeral that wasn't.

That being said, Oliver's resurrection of everyone is a really big deal.  It essentially changes the entire run of the series where nothing we saw actually happened.  And I don't even think the thought it too much or ingenuous.  I think Oliver probably had the power to undo all his major mistakes, and I think he certainly would've.  But if someone were to watch the series again, you'd see a huge number of high-emotion moments that didn't really happen that way.

I thought for a minute that maybe the finale would have one of those for every character that came back, but they really only did it once.  At the end of the day, it works.  Crisis changed everything - Supergirl's world is arguably the most changed.  And I'm sure there's huge changes to each of their pasts with both Superman and Supergirl existing on "Earth Prime" the whole time.

It was just strange to think that so much of what we saw in Arrow is now incorrect.  Great finale, though.  Well done.

18

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I can summarize, but I'll only do it from memory:

- Kylo spends the movie trying to find a way to destroy all the Jedi and Sith forever.  He hangs out in Vader's castle, and Luke spends the movie trying to get him to turn back.  But Ben Solo is gone - Kylo is all that's left.

- The First Order has a stranglehold on the galaxy.  No communication can happen between planets.  Hux controls Coruscant.

- Finn and Rose have a lot more to do.  Finn, Rose, and Poe hijack a star destroyer, and Finn ends up leading a rebellion of former stormtroopers (both giving him something to do and finishing his arc).  He's not force sensitive, but he does lead a group of sensitives to Rey at the end (including Broom Boy).

- Rey is still trying to redeem Kylo and they (along with some other force ghost cameos) are forced to kill him.

19

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I think Batwoman is my least favorite of the Arrowverse shows, but I still watch it.

I usually find myself watching some show on the iPad while I do something else.  Maybe I'm working, maybe I'm on my laptop, maybe I'm working out, maybe I'm playing Knights of the Old Republic on my phone.  Last night, I sat to watch Batwoman, and I guess I got a little too into the "something else" and completely missed a major plot point. 

And at these times, I tend to look up a recap instead of just going back to the last point I remember.  And the review I read sorta felt the same way.  The writing is weak.  I was able to sorta doze off on the show because it's sorta formulaic.  I actually found the idea of bringing in a real Beth post-Crisis to be pretty cool and a nice way to sorta play off the whole sister thing while also making Alice an irredeemable villain (this is now a crossover to the Rise of Skywalker conversation).  But all in all, I feel the least connection to these characters.  I think Batwoman probably just takes itself too seriously.  I tend to enjoy these shows on a scale tied to how much fun they allow themselves to have. 

And maybe it has more to do with Luke Fox.  They haven't really allowed that character to really be anything, and it's the Ciscos, the Felicitys, the Curtises, the Winns, the Rays of the world that really make this universe fun.  They should let Luke have an episode where he actually appears outside the Wayne building or the Batcave.

***********

I wonder if the Arrowverse will ever acknowledge, in-universe, that the world *has* to know that something happened.  There can't just be extra versions of Brainy and Beth.  This has to be some sort of worldwide situation, and there would have to be some sort of worldwide response to it.

20

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ah, well that explains it.  In that case, it's less awkward from a behind the scenes perspective.  Still awkward from a narrative perspective.

I might watch Arrow live tomorrow if I get the chance.  I've never watched it live before in eight years.

I enjoyed the opener quite a bit.  It's a little hard to see Picard moving around so poorly, but I think they did a good job.  I've always sorta been fascinated by civilian life in the Federation so that has been pretty cool.  I don't think we saw a single active member of Starfleet in the whole episode?  Maybe in the longshot in San Francisco, but I don't think anywhere else.

22

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Would Duel of the Fates have been better?  I don't know.  It would've faced difficulties since it would've needed changes after the death of Carrie Fisher.  But I think what would've helped it was the idea that it would've made the sequel trilogy feel like a cohesive story, which is the major downfall of what happened after Rise of Skywalker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzujpplt-0M

I watched this video, and I think it does a good job of understanding some of the narrative issues of TROS.  When Snoke died and Rian Johnson set up Kylo Ren as the major villain, it caused a lot of issues that Abrams decided to force his narrative through.  He wanted to redeem Kylo so he needed a villain - he chose Palpatine over creating a new villain.  But at the end of the day, it feels the same way.  I also saw another video that talked about how Daisy Ridley seemed to imply that there was enough evidence in The Force Awakens to deduce Rey's parents.  The YouTuber said that it implied, if anyone, that Luke was her father.  But since they needed to force Palpatine in, Abrams changed her parentage to be Palpatine...another twist that seemingly comes out of nowhere.

Duel of the Fates fixes some of this by simply staying the course that Rian Johnson set.  Kylo Ren is the bad guy.  Luke is spending his time trying to redeem his nephew.  The Resistance is defeated but still fighting.  It feels like it's more naturally a sequel, and it even plays with certain aspects of Abrams story with Rey ending up being a student of both sides of the Force.  It respects both Force Awakens and Last Jedi, while I don't think Rise of Skywalker did much but tolerate what parts of TLJ it had to.

At the end of the day, I think it would've *felt* like a better sequel.  Whether it would've been a better sequel is up for debate.  I imagine it could've been improved on rewrites since Trevorrow was canned well before he had the chance to do so.  And maybe Disney would've pushed for changes after TLJ actually came out.

But the more I think about it, it's simply bizarre how much freedom Rian Johnson got.  Bizarre and impressive.

23

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I think with Green Arrow and the Canaries, it'll be a world where everyone in the main cast remembers pre-Crisis and that ultimately won't matter. 

My question is....why a backdoor pilot?  They've essentially done two seasons of backdoor pilot for this show.  What did this add?  Star City was saved, I suppose.  And so we get to see that Oliver Queen has a legacy for 20 years that worked.  His time as Green Arrow worked.  But why the other stuff?  Couldn't they have done a 2-hour finale where they show glimpses of this "perfect" future.  Mia is happy.  JJ isn't a bad guy.  The city is safe.  Rene is mayor.  That way, Arrow itself ends with Star City being this perfect, crimefree place.  And if the next show wants to pick that up, they can.

It would be like if Batman the Animated Series ended with Bruce's tenure in the Batman Beyond suit and the scene where he uses the gun.  It might be a part of the Batman Beyond Mythos, but it's a weird note to include in the main show.

Because, again, Mia's been a main character for two seasons.  We know her as the Green Arrow.  We know this world.  We know William and Rene and Dinah and Laurel.  They're essentially just continuing Arrow without Oliver and in the future.  I feel like the people who should be sold on this would've been sold on this a while ago.  I just don't know - it felt weird.

24

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Green Arrow and the Canaries

I thought it was entertaining and I'd watch more of this world....but man, is this a bizarre way to both follow up on Crisis and lead into Arrow's series finale.  I get the logistical problems - this has to be post-Crisis because the Star City 2040 needs to be post-Crisis.  Oliver is dead so there can't really be a ton of post-Crisis episodes of Arrow without just starting something new.

So you're in this weird space where Oliver died, they want to do this backdoor pilot, and it has to take place in the future.  I wonder if they could've done this on an episode of Legends instead?  I get that this is a continuation of Arrow, and I imagine they're going to use a lot of Arrow writers/staff on this new show...but it just felt really weird.  It's going to be two weeks since Oliver died before we really get a reaction to it.  If this new show doesn't go to series, we're essentially leaving a show that never happened on a cliffhanger.  It was just kinda weird.

Although, again, I did like it.  I guess all the characters will eventually remember everything, and then it'll just be a nicer version of last season?  I was also a little weirded out by the whole Laurel and Dinah thing since it was kinda confusing.  Is Laurel a time traveler?  She implied that Sara dropped her off (which is why it might've fit on Legends), and she doesn't look like she's in her 50s.  Is Dinah one too?  When she said she woke up after Crisis, did she mean in 2040 or in 2020?  Or somewhere in between?  I didn't feel like she looked like she was in her 50s either, although she definitely looked a bit older.  I was wondering how they would get away with aging both actresses for every episode, but I wonder if they found a way to just not do that?

Star Trek: Picard premieres today/tonight on CBS All Access.  We get to move beyond the TOS era for the first time in almost 20 years!  I'm about as excited about this as I've been about a random TV show in a while.  Hope it lives up to the hype!

26

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Interesting.  Okay, I buy that.

27

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ha, that's fine.

Re: Batwoman (spoilers if you haven't seen)

I watched the last 10 minutes.  Is Beth really back?  Is it Crisis related?

If so....this is really what Flashpoint should've been.  I'm glad they rectified it with Crisis.

28

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think the Smallville scene feels out of place because it was a late addition.  I still maintain that the original idea was for Tom Welling to play the Brandon Routh Superman role.  I think it was written that Tom would appear in the Kingdom Come suit and would have a bigger part to play.  I assume Tom declined, and they went with either Option 2 or option 1B (it's hard to say that getting a theatrical Superman is worse than getting a WB/CW Superman).

So like the scene with Ezra Miller, they wrote a scene inconsequential to the plot and then threw it in.  As Tom would later say, they wrote the only version of the scene he couldn't turn down.  One day of shooting.  One scene.  No suit.  No working out.  I assume that was worked out through negotiations, and that's why it feels tacked on.

That also might be why Routh's Superman disappears in Part 3 and never returns (except for the glimpse into the new multiverse) - because it was written for Tom to appear in two episodes, and they didn't want to try and oversell something to him.  If Tom plays the part, they get out of the whole "why does Ray Palmer look like Superman" question - and may even get out of the "why does Kara's mom look like Lois" question if they followed the same "everyone in Clark's life is dead" story for Tom's Clark.

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

I watched Batwoman and Supergirl's first post-Crisis episodes.  I wonder if Supergirl will have the biggest adjustment since Lex is now alive and they're all on a different Earth.  Batwoman seems mostly the same, minus a reference to Oliver Queen (and maybe the last ten minutes, which I actually haven't finished now that I think about it).  I don't watch Black Lightning, and that show also moved to a different Earth so maybe that'll change too.  Obviously Arrow will change, but that's shortlived.  The Flash has been tied to Crisis all along so it'll change but that change will feel more natural.

I'm just picturing a Supergirl fan who has only watched Supergirl since the CBS days being so confused on why so many things have changed.  I imagine even a one-show fan might watch the full crossover, and I realize that the Supergirl episode is what kicked it all off.  It's just crazy that the whole season was turned on it's head after the crossover (especially when Batmoman seems more or less unchanged).

I also thought it was kinda weird that the DEO staff kept saying that the multiverse was dead.  Did the Supergirl writers misunderstand the ending to Crisis?  The multiverse isn't dead...it came back.  Their worlds were merged into Earth Prime, but the multiverse lives. All those Brainiacs should presumably already have worlds to go back to?

29

(234 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I wonder if they should've saved Chuck for the legit end.  Maybe end last season with Jack and then slowly find out this year that they were manipulated.  Chuck is the bad guy for the last three episodes.

Although, to be honest, I feel like Chuck is making the classic bad guy move of wanting his bad guys to suffer as opposed to just killing them.  I feel like Chuck's ending is to have the brothers kill each other instead of him killing them.  That keeps the boys safe (from him) for now.

30

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

SPOILERS for all of Crisis now:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I'm not sure how I feel about the crossover as a whole.  On one hand, I think what they pulled off was extraordinary.  On the other, I'm a little underwhelmed.  This was essentially the Avengers: Endgame of the Arrowverse, and I don't know if we got the same level of emotional closure that we got from Endgame.  I think part of the fact is that they went for such a shocker moment at the end of Part 1 with Oliver dying.  But they never really undid it - Oliver still died at that moment, and he only part-way came back.  Killing him twice sorta robbed us of any true connection to him dying.  I think he needed to be a paragon, and he truly needed to sacrifice himself.  As it stands now, Oliver died offscreen.

And I think some of the beats they hit just came off wrong.  I understood that the last scene was essentially the leads of all the shows (including the proposed Superman show), but having Black Lightning at the funeral (but no one from Team Arrow) felt weird.  But if it was just the leads of all the shows, why was J'onn there?  I understand that Arrow will have its own goodbye to Oliver, but it was just odd how they came to that group.

But they hit a lot of home runs in this too.  I liked the trip through Oliver's memory in the Speed Force.  I wondered for months why Legends was the finale (and not Arrow) but they truly gave the leads to all the shows a front seat for each of their episodes, and I think Sara did a great job carrying the final hour.  I liked the camaraderie between the characters (with Kate and Kara becoming instant friends).  I liked the tongue-in-cheek nature of all the crossover talk.  I think the intro of Earth-Prime was handled well and will allow for more teamwork and less roping in of Kara and her team.  And, of course, I thought all the cameos were really fun.  I still love that they made the Smallville stuff work.  That makes the crossover a win no matter what else happened.

I did find it odd (but not necessarily bad) that they didn't show any other new worlds except for the active/future shows.  It made me wonder if the Smallville universe or the Batman 89 universe were destroyed.  I wonder if the Flash TV Flash is back.  It would've been nice to have a longer montage where they showed some of the key figures living normal lives, but that might've been cut in editing.

All in all, I think it worked.  I think the hardest thing is how they handled the Flash.  "Flash disappears in Crisis" has been around since day one of the Flash.  Day one.  And for them to have such a cheap bait-and-switch with zero ramifications for the show or anything is....borderline unforgivable?  I'm not saying that I wanted Barry to die, but I think he sorta needed to for the Flash as a series to work.  It reminded me of Harry Potter - I didn't want Harry to die, but I felt like the whole series was pointed in that direction.  And when he didn't, it just felt wrong and cheap.  I think TF had the best idea - kill Barry off heroically and have Grant Gustin play someone like Bart.  It would inject some new life into the series as they team would have to deal with a new Flash, Grant would get to play a new character.  Even Iris would get to live on in a different role.

But to have five years of "Crisis is coming!  Barry is going to die" and then not even really get close to that....I mean what was Iris' article even about?  "Flash disappeared in a crisis but it was some other flash that no one knew.  Don't worry about it."

31

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Spoilers for Part 4 of Crisis.  I didn't get to watch Part 5 yet so only Part 4.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Ezra Miller on the CW???  Whoa, that's pretty huge for them.  I actually read the story on that, and it sorta explains why the whole scene doesn't make any sense.  Apparently the whole crossover was done.  Shot, edited, in the can.  And that's when WB called and asked if they wanted Ezra for the crossover.  So that's why his scene both doesn't make any sense in the narrative (the rest of the scenes they visit are memories of the group becoming a team - not other versions of each other) and doesn't make sense in terms of what's happening.  Because it was legit just thrown in.

And it was kinda bizarre.  This is a movie star - a legit movie star - showing up in character on a CW show.  I'm not sure if the budget for the Flash's entire run would equal the budget of just Ezra Miller's scenes in Justice League, but it was really cool.  This was essentially a major league player going down to Little League to hang out with that team and play around for a few minutes. I love that WB allowed it (and from what I understand of the story, made it happen).

The scene itself was weird too, though.  The whole fuzziness of being in the speed force combined with the surreal aspect of the crossover itself was just so odd.  I almost didn't believe what I was seeing.

And the fact that they kept it a surprise.  That was really cool.

32

(300 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm a very unique guy.

I get the Nazi stuff and not wanting any more of that.  But, oddly, I think there's something healing about seeing a world where the US was completely enveloped by Nazi Germany.  Because, on it's surface, you sit there and you think, "Well, I'd never go for that.  I'd be in the resistance."  But then you watch a story about someone like John Smith, and you start to see the cracks in your own story.

And this is where I think the 1947 story is the most interesting.  In the alt-world of High Castle, FDR was assassinated in the 30s and the US never recovers from the Great Depression.  Because of this, they are slow to get into the war.  Pearl Harbor is also more devastating, and by the time the US tries to spring into action, it's too late.  Washington DC is nuked, the American continent is invaded, and that's that.

There's a scene in season 4 where we see a group of US soldiers hiding out in a cabin.  It's the day that Patton has surrendered to the Germans, and they're wondering what they're going to do.  How are they going to fight back.  Their superior officer knocks on the door, but he's wearing a swastika armband.  He tells them that they have two choices - report to work for the military and their new leaders or die.  That's that.

But he also does something else.  He brings milk.  Bread.  Provisions.  The propaganda radio, previously, talked about how America was getting running water again.  24/7 electricity.  Food was arriving from the "liberators."  And Smith and Smith's wife Helen are appreciative of the food.  The milk means that their starving baby might stop crying.  Joining up means that they get to live. 

Smith says several times that he never believed in it.  But he believed in the security and power it provided him.  He understood that looking the other way (even when his best friend was carried off to a camp) meant that his children and family get to survive and thrive.

Even for other people, just getting the power back might lend some sympathy.  Getting food and water and a return to normal life would be enough to be appreciative of the "liberators" - even if they hated them before.  It's strange - the Germans would be responsible for their losing power, but they'd also be revered for restoring it.

So I think it's important, at least for me, to see how small a bend you'd have to make to become the worst version of yourself.  And that's what we got with Smith.  He was a good soldier who fought for something, and his life changed to get a baby to stop crying.  Helen Smith has a great scene in the finale where she tries to rationalize it to her daughter, and she's horrified by her own answers.  John remarks that it's a nightmare to see other versions of himself because he knows he's the worst.  Alt-John explains that he left the military because he realized he was too good at it.

I think now, it's important to realize how easily good men become cruel.  So we don't do that.

33

(300 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I finished Man in the High Castle (Amazon Prime).  Spoilers on the ending.

I liked the last couple seasons quite a bit.  I think transitioning from a show about a resistance to doing more stuff with Smith, Juliana, etc was a good move for the show.  I found a lot of the 1946-1947 scenes to be the best - watching the Smiths compromise their values out of self-protection.  I think it added another layer to it.  I read in a review that they'd watch a spinoff set in 1947, and I'd absolutely watch that. 

Now for the ending.  I get that in a show like this, they couldn't really do a definitive ending.  And they spent so much time doing various things that it was clear that the ending would be more about Juliana and Smith's personal lives than the macro issues of their world.  But I found the whole thing kinda underwhelming and unnecessarily confusing.  Who are the people coming through the portal?  How did they get there?  Why are they coming?  Why don't they seem concerned?

My thought at first that it was some sort of American force.  Maybe from the Alt-World.  But maybe from another Alt-World that's dealt with this type of stuff before.  Think a good version of the Kromaggs who could help stabilize that world.  Random people - I don't know how that's going to help.

I guess the implication is that the US is going to try and go back to being itself.  But I just can't imagine that actually happens.  Even if they get into a cold war with Nazi Germany, I think the new Smith is going to get assassinated before he can do any real good.  So all those people that came through might just end up in concentration camps.

But all in all, I liked the show.  Season 4 had some great episodes, and I think all the Smith stuff was great.  And maybe the ending makes sense - but I don't know.  I was underwhelmed.

34

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah.  I know they're doing Mandalorian season 2 and an Obi-Wan TV show.  I'd forgotten they're also doing a Cassian Andor show for Disney+ starring Diego Luna.

But Rian Johnson is still working on something for Star Wars.  So is, apparently, Kevin Feige.  So there will still be Star Wars movie, but Star Wars fatigue is definitely a thing.

35

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

When Game of Thrones finished, there were a number of videos that came out that showed that the cast sorta didn't like the ending.  They'd be asked a question about how things ended, and they'd either hesitate to come up with a diplomatic answer or they'd give some sort of sarcastic one.  The idea was that they knew the ending was bad and couldn't contain how they felt about it.  The internet did the same thing with questions Mark answered about Luke's portrayal in the Last Jedi, something he's somewhat-openly had issues with.

I've seen in multiple interviews with the younger Star Wars cast (Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, and Oscar Isaac) where they all seem sorta done with Star Wars.  I've seen in multiple interviews that Daisy seemed sorta wooden and checked-out in her performance.  Boyega and Isaac both specifically said they had no interest in any sort of Disney+ supplementary material.

I wonder what to make of that.  I know Harrison Ford was done with Star Wars during the original trilogy.  The fans have all but ruined the experience for someone like Jake Lloyd.  I'm sure it's exhausting to do a Star Wars because you're asked about it all the time, and I'm sure the press junkets made them never want to suffer through something like that ever again.  All three of them have "made it" and I'm sure they don't need Star Wars like they probably did when the Force Awakens was casting.  Daniel Craig essentially said during the press tour for Spectre he'd rather die than do Bond again, and he came back and did another Bond.  So maybe it's nothing.

But with all the chaos at Star Wars, I wonder if there's just something off about the brand at the moment.  Trilogies are announced and cancelled.  Directors are brought on and then fired.  I'm not blaming anyone in particular, but I wonder if the Disney and Star Wars marriage isn't as functional as we all think.  And I wonder if the actors sorta see that.  I think an Oscar Issac-led Poe series would be really cool, and I think there's tons to do with him or Finn.  Especially in light of the success of the Mandalorian and how much Marvel is branching out with TV shows.  And for either actor to outright (and vehemently) dismiss it just came off as really odd to me.

36

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Jurassic World is a ton of fun.  As someone who has more nostalgia for Jurassic Park than I've ever had for Star Wars, I can safely say that Jurassic World was a love letter to me as a fan.  I think it's a lot like the Force Awakens - it's a retelling of the original story with higher stakes (since the park is open and there are more potential casualties).  I think he might've made a similar movie to The Force Awakens, honestly.  So I assume his Episode IX wouldn't be much different than TFA.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with the Rise of Skywalker in a vacuum.  I think it's perfectly enjoyable on it's own.  I think where this series fails is simply as a cohesive unit.  Episodes VII and IX feel like two ends of the same story since they were made by the same person.  Episode VIII feels like a sidequel or a supplementary comic book adventure because what happens in it adds to the characters but not necessarily the story.

The sequel trilogy, to me, is a delicious gourmet hamburger meal.  Abrams films are two wonderfully toasted buttered buns, and Johnson's films are perfectly fried french fries coated in parmesan and truffle oil.

We're missing the meat.  The connective tissue between Abrams' movies so that the jump into IX isn't so abrupt.  We have a villain in TROS that we don't understand, even though he's a familiar face.  Is Palpatine the original guy we were introduced to in Episode I that survived the destruction of the Death Star?  Or is he, as he puts it, some sort of timeless embodiment of the Sith?  I've heard theories on all of it.  That TROS Palpatine is a clone of the original who was imperfect (or torn apart by the Dark Side energy) so he needs to jump into a new body.  Or that TROS Palpatine is the *true* Palpatine and that the Darth Sidious that was killed in Return of the Jedi was the clone/projection.

Honestly, I don't know, and the movie doesn't really care to answer.  I think maybe they just needed another edit.  Maybe merge the Pasaana and Kijimi scenes so that they can get to Exegol faster.  I don't know.  Even as someone who liked TLJ more than most (and it's my favorite of the sequel trilogy), I wonder if Rian Johnson just didn't do enough to set up Episode IX and Abrams had to cram in Episode VIII and IX into one.  And that's why it was both really long and really rushed.

37

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think that's fair.  Stuff like this is fascinating to me, though.  Star Wars is (and has been) a license to print money.  TROS is going to be a financial failure compared to the two previous Disney sequels, but it's still going to be an amazing financial success.  So I wonder how much, if any, the decision makers really care what movie comes out.  The movie could be arthouse, dumb popcorn flick, coherent, or nonsensical, and it's still going to make money.  Different groups of people seemed to hate each of these movies, and they still made ridiculous amounts of money.  So it might not actually matter whether JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson made a cohesive trilogy.

When I look at Marvel, it seems so simple.  Kevin Feige (and I assume a group of others) watches over a series of a couple dozen movies, doing (IMO) a great job of both building and interconnecting a universe while also making that universe feel diverse and unique.  Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy shouldn't work together, but while they have very different themes and visuals, they both "feel" Marvel.

TFA, TLJ, and TROS all have the same characters and two feature the same director, and they don't really feel like the same group of movies.  I'd think someone like Kathleen Kennedy would line these scripts and directors up and figure out a way to make everything make sense.  If there isn't a plan for all three movies, are there are at least mile markers we want to hit?  Places for these characters to go?  If Abrams truly threw out everything Trevorrow did, it implies there was never a plan.  On one hand, it means that these movies aren't written by robots like Marvel seems to be.  But on the other hand, I just can't imagine HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE.

But since Marvel seems to be the only one doing it their way and everyone else seems to be doing things their way....I guess maybe Kevin Feige is the crazy one.

38

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think I agree with that.  I think the primary issue is that I don't feel like either of them ever even worked together.  And I don't even necessarily mean they got in a room for days to plan things out.  I don't even feel like there was an email with a list of possible directions to go in that either of them used or referenced.  If I were JJ Abrams and I've just completed the Force Awakens, I would've made a list of directions that I was hoping to go. 

- Rey is a Palpatine
- Palpatine is still alive / is the embodiment of all Sith evil on a distant planet
- Leia is going to sacrifice herself to redeem Kylo who also sacrifices himself to save Rey

Even if its just a photo of rambling notes, I'd write something down so that the next person has a general idea of where things were meant to go.  Either Abrams did this and Johnson threw it in the trash, or Johnson made the theme of his movie about the idea that mystery boxes don't matter.  Either way, there's not really any connective tissue between Episodes VII and VIII.  And if episode IX was directed by someone else entirely, then maybe that would work.  It'd be an anthology of Star Wars movies that have a different visual or tonal style telling one mostly-coherent story.

But even if Abrams and Johnson weren't working against each other, they're not working with each other enough for the story to make the ride feel smooth.  Abrams decided he wanted to take the left path through the exciting forest, and he started down that path.  And Johnson decided he didn't like the forest and wanted to take the windier path that goes alongside the ocean so he could contemplate the vastness of the ocean without all the noises and distractions from the forest.  Neither seemed to notice or care that there was a middle path where you could still see the ocean and still hear the forest that was both safer and faster.

And again I don't think this is all that strange, even in Star Wars.  Star Wars is notorious for its wide and expansive Legends universe full of tons of stories from hundreds of different creative minds.  But if Lucas wanted the Clone Wars not to be touched upon, they weren't.  When the comics wanted to bring in a clone of Vader, Lucas insisted they make it a clone of Palpatine.

I don't think it would've been a stretch for Disney to have the same philosophy.  "Rian, you're the mastermind of Episode VIII, but JJ has some plot points that we would like you to either build on or at least don't directly contradict."  So it's still collaboration even if they're still working 100% independently.

39

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, I think ireactions did a fantastic job of summarizing a lot of things about the movie.  So I'll just make a list of my thoughts since it will be hard to be a lot more eloquent and detailed than him.

- Overall, I had fun with it.  I think what they decided to go with worked, I thought the movie was fun, and I think the character pieces worked.  Leia was a bit distracting, but I thought their use of her was nice and effective.  I feel pretty good in thinking that they were almost able to do exactly what they wanted with her.

- I think it's a fine wrap-up.  I don't necessarily agree with Grizzlor that it's definitely a wrap-up of the Skywalker story.  Especially because of what I'm about to get into.

- Palpatine.  I was very uneasy with this plot direction for a lot of reasons, which I'll hopefully get to.  I'd be curious to know why this path was chosen.  Was this JJ's plan all along?  Or did he have to pivot when Rian Johnson killed Snoke?  Was this a matter of sticking to the plan, or did they have to frantically throw together a new plan when Rian Johnson left his movie the way he did?  I don't know.  I liked The Last Jedi, but I do think it's a movie that feels either complete or ends on such a low note that it's hard to imagine the good guys winning.

The problem with using Palpatine are two-fold.  The first is the bigger concern, and that it just comes so far out of left field.  Nick Mason on the Weekly Planet podcast had a good point - The Rise of Skywalker doesn't feel like a sequel to either Last Jedi or even the Force Awakens.  It feels like a sequel to an unproduced Episode VIII that exists only in JJ Abrams' head.  I'm sure they'll retcon stuff to make pieces fit, but it feels like so much is missing since there weren't really any indications that Palpatine was alive or pulling any strings.  There were no hints, no clues, and no mystery boxes even implying that.

And I get where they're coming from.  If this series has an overarching villain, it's Palpatine.  He's there in Episode I and he's there in Episode VI.  The second that the sequel trilogy's Darth Vader was revealed to be Han and Leia's son, we knew he wasn't going to be the overall bad guy.  So when Snoke died...who else was there?  Hux?  Laughable.  They could've brought back Snoke in the same nebulous way they brought back Palpatine....but why?  Snoke is barely a character.  Even if you reveal him as Plageous - that's essentially a brand-new character.  So outside of just doing a brand-new character, why not bring in someone who was the villain for at least six of the movies.  Bringing him in at the last minute worked in Episode VI.  Why not here?

Well....we've been there.  We've seen that.  Not only does it undercut Episode VI's ending, I think it sorta undercuts this movie's ending.  Is the Emperor dead this time?  Was he actually dead the first time?  Does the movie even tell us what happened?  Is he a clone?  Or did he survive falling down that shaft?  The comics famously had a situation where Sidious simply transfers into a new clone whenever he dies.  So is that possible again?  Is there any reason to believe that Rey wouldn't end up fighting the Emperor again?  And if so, can this really count as a definitive ending?

- Dismissing Rian Johnson so hard.  I get it.  People didn't like the Last Jedi.  But it's one of the 9 episodes of this saga.  People don't like Episode I, but Darth Maul has been resurrected into canon because people like him.  There's a whole TV show about the events between Episodes II and III.  The prequels are hated, but there hasn't been any effort to erase them from existence. 

As ireactions showed, JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson essentially played tennis with this trilogy.  JJ Abrams did some stuff.  Rian Johnson turned that stuff on its ear and overrode some of it.  JJ Abrams did the same.

And that's fine.  Rian Johnson essentially tried to make Kylo Ren the main bad guy, but JJ (obviously) wanted him to be a character that can be redeemed.  Rian Johnson wanted to make a statement that the Force doesn't care what your last name is - it can pick anyone to stand up and face the darkness - that even an orphan scavenger girl can stand up against the Crown Prince from the most powerful family in the galaxy, but JJ wanted her to be someone important.  Rian Johnson thought the mask was stupid, but JJ knew they could sell toys and that they needed the mask for Galaxy's Edge.

But therein lies the problem.  You have created a trilogy that became a tug of war against itself.  I don't think TROS is disrespectful to the Last Jedi, but it obviously wants to do its own thing.  So it almost makes TLJ seem like an unrelated adventure, and like Nick Mason said, it makes TROS feel like a sequel to a movie we never got.  It feels disjointed because it's a three-episode TV show with no second episode.

In retrospect, they either needed to stick with the plan of 3 different directors or have JJ direct all three.  Because having Rian Johnson subvert JJ Abrams' ideas obviously hurt the flow of the movies.  And I think if Colin Trevorrow or anyone else had directed this, I think it would've one it it's own direction instead of (at times) awkwardly pivoting in a direction that it was no longer traveling.

Because I think Rian Johnson left breadcrumbs on how he wanted his version of the story to end.  The little boy with the mop at the end showed that anyone can have the force.  So maybe Trevorrow or Deborah Chow's version ends with a bunch of Reys stepping up to fight the evil of the galaxy.  Nobodies standing up against the Skywalker legacy that had so much good and bad.  I don't know - JJ didn't seem to care about that much.

- The Batman v Superman / Justice League connection.  Chris Terrio co-wrote this film.  He also co-wrote BvS and Justice League.  I bring this about because I think those movies are tied to these movies.  Batman v Superman was the Last Jedi for DC.  Zack Snyder, love him or hate him, did some things with characters that were unexpected.  Batman kills.  Superman's relationship with humanity is...complicated.  These characterizations were hated, and when Justice League came around, they were mostly ignored.  Batman doesn't kill.  And Superman is remembered as a guy who was revered by everyone.  They're the characters we love and remember.

Kinda feels like the Last Jedi.  People hated how the Last Jedi treated Luke Skywalker.  So the Rise of Skywalker goes out of his way to say that Luke was wrong to do and say the things he said.  He's the Luke we all loved and remembered.

I'm not comparing the movies any more than that because I don't think there's much more to it than that.  I just think it's kinda funny that BvS and TLJ are two of the most controversial genre movies we've ever seen, and Chris Terrio essentially Jedi Mind Tricked us both times into ignoring the things we didn't like about the previous movies.

- Wrap Up.  All in all, I liked it for what it chose to be.  I just don't really understand why it chose to be that.

40

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

BTW, there's a fan theory that Smallville Clark is wearing a Blue Kryptonite watch.  He is, indeed, wearing a watch with a blue face so it's not impossible.  It could possibly be explained that Clark wears the Kryptonite watch when he's at home (or when there's not a Superman-level event) in case people think he's Superman.

Not sure if that makes anyone feel better, but it's a nice theory.

41

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh yeah, in fact, I've heard a rumor that Robert Wuhl filmed additional material - so there's a decent chance that we get to see all the "cameo" Earths restored.  So maybe we'll see Clark and Lois again.

42

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I could see it being something like that.  The thing is that it was Clark's decision.

The timeline is a bit confusing.  Canonically, Clark is Superman in 2018.  It's definitely 2019 in the Arrowverse.  And yet Lois and Clark have at least two girls that are old enough to "want to show Clark something."  So if Clark gave up his powers in 2018, there's *at most* 23 months where that could work.  So the kids could maybe be one year old.

There are tons of explanations for this:

1. Clark and Lois could've had kids in the same/same-ish way that Clark and Lois had kids in the Supergirl universe.
2. Clark and Lois could've adopted during the time Clark was Superman.  So Clark's reasons for giving up his powers could be unrelated to the kids directly but still important to him indirectly.
3. "The girls made something for you" could be just making a mess, and they could be one year old.

But I think Clark would see his "career" as Superman as a success and is "retired" - without necessarily having to give up his powers in some big act of bravery to save the world.  He gave Smallville a decade.  He gave Metropolis a decade.  And then he passes the torch to someone else.  I like the idea of adapting the Eric Summers method and giving his powers to an Oliver Queen whose body has broken down and still wants to do good.

Do I feel cheated that we *still* never got to see Tom Welling in the suit?  On some level, yes.  But Tom, in interviews, essentially said that the scene they wrote was the one scene he couldn't turn down.  Which implies, at least to me, that Tom was going to turn down any offer that included him going in the suit.  Giving up his powers, as ireactions said, allowed Tom to play Clark the same way Tom looks now.  And, again, I think it's a really happy ending for Clark.  If he was still Superman, we would know that the Brandon Routh Superman's fate could still belong to Clark.

The way it is now, Lois and Clark are probably going to live a quiet life on the farm.  Until the multiverse explodes.

We got a 4-minute coda to Smallville.  I would've been happy with a 30-second one.  I feel like we won.

43

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I actually really liked the Smallville scene.  I feel like Tom fell right back into the part, and I think it was done beautifully.  I heard on Crisis Aftermath (the aftershow) that the scene was written by a couple of former Smallville writers so that made sense.  I loved how annoyed Clark was by the whole thing, and I liked how much fun he seemed to have.

I think Clark would give up his powers if it made sense.  I can picture, only going by the show, that he set up the Justice League and felt comfortable.  Or maybe he found some way to transfer his powers to someone like Oliver so that someone could be Superman and he wouldn't have to.  It's a bit weird that they spent ten years getting Clark to accept that his powers are a part of him and for his story to end with him giving them up.  But for Clark to end up living a normal life on the farm is pretty cool.  Even if he is dead.

***********

I thought the Flash "twist" was an incredible copout.  I actually liked TF's idea of Barry dying and being replaced by a lookalike relative from the future that Grant could play.  Or if they just wanted to end Flash at the same time they're ending Arrow and have Barry go out with a bang.  To just say "it was a different Barry Allen" was cheap.  The Monitor didn't mean that.  The future that XS is from didn't mean that.  None of the futures that Barry saw showed that.  Earth 1 Barry was supposed to die, and that's been on the show since the beginning.  To just say "nah" at the last second was pretty disingenuous.

I get that they needed Stephen Amell to do the crossover and they don't want to cancel Flash.  But they could've done some stuff to make it better.  And, to be fair, maybe they will.  Maybe Barry switching places with Barry will have consequences.

But all in all, I think the crossover has been great.

44

(18 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Still, I'd be interested to see Slider_Quinn21's take on it.

Unfortunately, Season 2 of Titans is pretty far down on my list of things to catch up on.  I might not get to it until the summer (same way I watched Season 1).

But I'm very excited about it.

45

(644 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Saw the trailer for Black Widow.

It looks...fine.  I don't really understand this movie, though.  Is it just to give Black Widow a movie?  Is it meant to wrap up her character since, rightfully, Iron Man's death took priority in Endgame?  Or is this going to be an excuse to bring Natasha back somehow?

I think the movies need to be better than the comics in terms of death.  I think Nat should stay dead.  I think Tony should stay dead.  I think Gamora should've stayed dead.

I just don't really see the point of this movie.  Although of course I'll see it, and I'm sure it will be really fun.

46

(1,228 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I saw that about Benoist - very sad.  I'm glad she's doing better.

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

Okay, so I wonder if they've solved the Bruce in Batwoman problem - I wonder if he'll just be Kevin Conroy.  It seems like Conroy is playing a version of Bruce that Kate can recognize.  We've read throughout that he's playing an older Bruce Wayne, and I think we have to take that as truth.  Kate seems surprised so I'm assuming that's because he's older than she'd expect.  If that's still the case, could Bruce appear on Batwoman with Conroy's voice, audio-only?  Would that be enough?

I'm assuming that Bruce is supposed to be in his mid to late 20s in Batwoman?  I don't think Conroy could play that young of a Bruce, but if Bruce is never supposed to actually show up, perhaps they picked Conroy so that he could convincingly be the voice of younger Bruce.

47

(653 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's been really great so far!  I think we lucked out with a pretty great little girl.

And I tried to sell Quinn really hard, but I was vetoed smile

48

(653 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I know we talked a bit about my wife and me trying to have a kid.  Well, I wanted to announce that last week, she gave birth to our daughter!  Just wanted you guys to know that 1) so you didn't feel so bad about what happened before and 2) so you won't worry if I'm not here as much in the next few weeks smile

49

(45 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I would still love to know more about what happened in his opinion, but it's cool that he did that.

50

(938 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I also don't see the reason financially unless it was literally done when Snyder left (no evidence of that) or unless Snyder himself paid to finish it himself (not sure why he'd do that - he's probably more legendary without it being released).

The argument I've seen from a financial perspective is that if they announced that the Snyder cut would be included on Day One of HBO Max, would that encourage more subscriptions?  How many people desperately want the Snyder cut and would subscribe Day One?  Would that be enough to offset any costs?  I doubt it.  And yeah, a directors cut of a movie that was a financial disaster probably isn't the same selling point as the Mandalorian was for Disney+

Maybe Snyder asked Gal and Ben and Ray to do him a solid and post it.  Just for kicks.  But it's weird because it legitimizes the movement and gets unrealistic hype unless Zack/Ben/Gal/Ray think there's a legit reason it happens.  The evidence says that it won't.  But maybe they know something we don't.