Is that official? Is that the first official reference to Superman being in this?
Well the Democratic Party is a mess too. Recently, a poll came out, and the Democrats don't seem to stand for anything but "not Trump" which is weird because the Republican Party has recently just been "not Obama"
(This is probably a good time to say that I think both parties are spinning their wheels).
And a lot of this is more people I see talking on social media. There were a handful of somewhat-prominent liberal celebrities saying stuff like "well, John McCain wants to take away people's health care, I guess it serves him right that he got brain cancer" There's just so much hatred toward people who have (slightly?) different beliefs. It's really crazy to me.
Ugh, there is so much "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" in government today. The story being reported is that the Democrats have beaten the Republicans in the Health Care debate. That's simply not true. The Democrats and a group of Republicans beat a Republican-led initiative to overhaul health care. The side led by Democrats won, but this was a bi-partisan effort. If it was United Red vs. United Blue, then Red would have won. It took Republicans to defeat the "Republican" bill.
I don't think anything is being made of the Republicans who crossed the line and voted with the Democrats. In the Senate and in the House.
There's just "Republicans want people to die" and "Democrats are the only decent humans in Congress." The whole thing makes me nauseous.
Well of any gender/race-swapping, Dr. Who makes the most sense. It's baked into the idea, and it's a good storytelling idea (particularly since this is The Doctor's first time as a woman).
I just haven't witnessed *anyone* complaining. But I've seen a ton of people making fun of people who are complaining. It's just weird to see the satire without the original source.
"Back then" when there were dragons and ice men who animate dead bodies? lol
Westeros may look like medieval Earth, but it's not. There are many differences, one of which is apparently the style of music minstrels play.
Ha, well, "back then" can also mean "in times when there wasn't anything else to do"
In other outrage news, I saw nothing on my twitter/facebook timeline indicating that *anyone* was upset about the Dr. Who casting. I saw a *ton* of stuff on my twitter/facebook making fun of people who were outraged about the Dr. Who casting.
Are we just at a place socially where we assume that people are going to freak out about gender/race-swapping, and we're pre-emptively shaming them whether they actually complain or not?
As it was... Like I said, I don't care. I don't know if the scene really added anything to the episode, and within the scene, the song seemed a bit awkward. However, I don't think that it was so distracting that it requires a lot of outrage.
But they've had a handful of scenes exactly like that in several episodes. Main characters are always running into people on the road to wherever and seeing what "common people" are talking about. I think the purpose of the scene was to sorta humanize Arya, who had just slaughtered a room full of people. I think it's going to pay dividends down the road.
The song was weird, but I didn't think twice about it. Bands of people sang for entertainment back then. Even the "it's new" line, while weird, I thought was kinda cool at the time because people would have to create new songs. Even if Ed Sheeran was playing Edd Shee-ran, a songwriter....well, songwriters had to exist back then. Maybe this was a guy who wanted to get into songs but was forced to do something else.
People just like to get outraged.
I guess. I had no idea what he looked like, and I wasn't drawn out of the scene because of bad acting.
Why are people mad that Ed Sheeran guest starred on Game of Thrones?
Finished Iron Fist on Netflix. Hands down the best series they've done in MCU so far. Great story, action, stunts, as well as acting. Episode flow was terrific, something MCU/Netflix is abysmal at.
This is a....unique opinion.
I didn't think it was nearly as bad as everyone else said, but I thought it was second level as far as Netflix quality goes (on the level with Luke Cage and maybe Daredevel season 2). I thought it picked up steam, but I thought it was very slow and awkward at the beginning. It took a while for Finn Jones to get into the action sequence (the first fight of the series looks like it's in slow motion), and Danny is *so* stupid and naive at the beginning just to advance the plot.
I'm glad you really liked it, though. I almost felt bad after I'd seen all the negative opinions, and most of the positive ones were like mine "it's really not that bad" - which is still kinda negative.
In the interest of being fair, these are valid criticisms of the themes of Spider-Man: Homecoming. (Trigger warning, there's a shot at Man of Steel, but it is Max Landis)
The problem that I'm having with this news is that the audience today is a lot more advanced than they were 40 years ago. On the one hand, this means that people will generally understand that these are TV shows and they'll roll with some punches (Superman appearing on TV and in films, played by two different actors, in stories that are completely unrelated to each other). On the other hand, it means that you really can't pull off a recasting without it being a brutal and jarring transition.
See, I'm partially this. I don't think I have any visual memory of the previous actress. So they could've gone out in Vancouver or LA and found a handful of obscure actresses who could've played the part, and I might not have noticed. By picking an actress that I recognize, they're going to make the change noticeable. That's the only thing that's weird about it for me.
I don't know if Erica warrants a season-long role as a major villain, but she could play a guest villain (the way fellow Smallville alum Laura Vandervoort played Indigo). Someone new that she could make her own.
Yeah, it's probably best if they don't highlight the things that are getting away from them.
Yeah, as soon as the Avengers assembled, it's best to keep the timeline fuzzy. So you can always just assume the movies take place at the same time as each other so you don't wonder why the Avengers weren't assembled when the freakin President was kidnapped or when SHIELD is getting destroyed.
If that happened, I didn't notice. There are only a couple of relevant events in the movie (an academic decathlon and a homecoming dance), and there might've been "only X days until..." for either of them. But if they did and it was inconsistent, it didn't jump out at me like the "8 years later" did.
Marvel released a timeline that explained when everything happened (and most of phase one happened around the same week, somehow), but I think they've shied away from that in phases two and three. Which is probably the best. I think that's why the 8 years comment was so weird to me.
If there were continuity errors internal to the movie, I didn't notice them. The one thing that stuck out at me was an issue with the years. For the most part, I think the Marvel movies are supposed to take place around the time when they come out (although from what I can tell, Marvel has stopped trying to make a timeline of any of these movies). Avengers was in 2012, and the beginning of Homecoming is the immediate aftermath of that movie.
Then it says "8 years later" and the movie begins. So either Avengers doesn't take place in 2012 or Homecoming takes place in 2020. It could honestly be either since the movies don't seem to have any sense of time. I don't think any of them mention the year, do they?
Well what's funny is that I thought the movie was going to be ruined because the trailer showed, beat for beat, the entire story. And, yes, while it showed a lot of the skeleton of the movie, a lot of the heart of the movie wasn't spoiled. So you kinda understand what Peter's journey is, you don't really get a full understanding of the steps in his journey.
I'm hoping there's enough heart that you'll like it. I think it's about on the same level as Spider-Man 2, which was easily my favorite Spider-Man film up until this one. It's a different kind of silly and a pretty different kind of Spider-Man, but they're both good with the right level of heart/action/humor.
And I'm excited for Defenders. I didn't love Iron Fist or Luke Cage, but I thought they were both pretty good. And I like both of their individual characters (although Danny is way too naive), which should make for a great Defenders.
One more Incredible Hulk thought and some thoughts on Spider-Man. There will be Spider-Man spoilers so here's your warning (Incredible Hulk thoughts first)
One more thing about this movie - as I was watching it, I was sorta fascinated by the way this is sorta the opposite of a traditional movie. In a lot of movies, the villain is shown to be powerful (Darth Vader and the Empire), and the hero (Luke) is drastically outgunned. He has the will to fight but no belief he can really succeed. It's only when another hero emerges with the key to defeating the villain (Obi-Wan) that the story kicks into gear, and against all odds, the hero is able to defeat the villain.
That's basically the story of the Incredible Hulk. Except Banner is a sympathetic villain, Blonsky is a crazy version of the hero, and Ross is an obsessed version of the mentor. The whole movie is Banner being an unstoppable force and Blonsky taking a warped hero's journey to take down the monster. From a certain angle, Blonsky is even a typical hero - Hulk is a monster, and he's incredibly dangerous. Blonsky is a soldier, dedicated to protecting people. He gets training, gets his magic sword in the form of the super-soldier formula, fails and fails again like any good hero, and he eventually finds the strength to fight the monster.
A pretty standard Hollywood movie could be done starring Blonsky, and it wouldn't even need a ton of changes until the third act. I just thought that was interesting.
I really liked this movie. I thought it had a lot of heart, and I thought it was so much about Spider-Man that Amazing Spider-Man wasn't (to me, at least). Peter feels like a kid with these crazy ambitions, and I think it fits. He also finds life as a "friendly neighborhood Spider-Man" boring. Because, if he's living in the same city as the Avengers....it sorta would be. I also wonder how much crime Peter would actually run into, especially living in a post-Avengers NYC. The Defenders all found plenty of trouble in New York, but they typically sought it out. Peter can really only be Spider-Man during a very specific (afternoon) portion of the day, and he's not kicking down the doors of drug dealers or ninja clans.
He has power and ambition and wants to help, but I think it really made him feel like a real kid. He's Spider-Man, for heaven's sake, but he's still a kid....so it's not enough.
I also felt like the movie used Iron Man a sufficient amount. He's not overwhelming, and he doesn't steal the show. This isn't Civil War...he's just a side character in what's definitely Peter's movie. And it's crazy how much Peter fits into this universe, and how they're able to hit on some areas (alien tech being sold, and the consequences of the path set off by Tony admitting he's Iron Man) that, honestly, Agents of SHIELD should be handling better.
It was just a fun adventure, and I loved the little reveal at the end with Pepper Potts (I said spoilers). A really fun movie, and one of my favorites in the MCU (top 5 maybe?)
I actually really liked him as the Hulk/Banner. I agree with that.
The other weird thing about this (and more proof that the MCU had its own growing pains) is that the post-credits scene, while cool, makes zero sense in context. It's basically another "Avengers Initiative" tease, but it doesn't work. Stark was never "putting together a team" - in the rest of the movies, he's adamantly against it. The One Shots show that the plan was originally to try and put Abomination on the Avengers, but it was shot down by Coulson and company.
And maybe Stark was interested, did a little recruiting, but then decided it was a terrible idea and walked away. It's possible.
It was cool that Civil War brought back Ross, but there's still cool stuff from this movie that they could use.
Watching the Incredible Hulk. This movie isn't terrible, and I actually really like Norton as Banner. It would've been interesting if Norton had stayed on....would he have been willing to do multiple Avengers movies or something like Thor:Ragnorok?
I also would really like to see Abomination or the Leader show up. I think there was a plan to put Abomination in Avengers: Age of Ultron, but they decided against it. He's also been mentioned in Agents of SHIELD and one of the Marvel One Shots.
Erica Durance is coming to Supergirl, replacing the actress who played Kara's mother (who is now unavailable). It's weird to pick her for that role (instead of something else) since I'm assuming a lot of Arrowverse fans also watched Smallville, but it'll be good to see her again.
I wonder if they'll get Tom Welling. I'm still hoping that the Smallville universe is out there in the multiverse....I'm still shocked that the original Flash universe is officially included and Smallville isn't.
I am so angry right now I am about to explode. Informant and Slider_Quinn21 have officially made an enemy for life today by still refusing to share what they've heard about Wil Wheaton that makes Rick Berman not want him onstage at TREK events.
Ha, I told you I don't have stories. Stuff I've collected through the years. Just like I'm now working on the idea that Jonathan Frakes is a nice guy because he may or may not have given Informant direction. I'd probably heard something negative about him and that's just the "status quo" opinion I had.
To be fair, the story he wrote about Shatner was really entertaining. So maybe my default position on Wheaton will be "he's pretty funny"
Everything I know about Wil Wheaton is anecdotal and third hand. I've never personally interacted with him, nor have I sought out much of his actual work. What I've seen has been good. I've followed him on Twitter a couple of times only to unfollow him shortly thereafter,
At the end of the day, I don't really have an opinion of him. I just know my original understanding of him was that he was a jerk, but after reading all you say from his book, maybe that's all in the past. I understand a thing or two about regret, and I'm sure the whole experience was incredibly humbling. If he came out of that a better person and if he's found success these days, then all the better for him.
I honestly don't understand why people hate the kid actors who do bad movies/shows. Jake Lloyd was essentially bullied to the point where he hates Star Wars, and I've never understood that. He was a kid who took, essentially, the coolest job in the world. It wasn't his fault that the dialogue sucked, and I'm sure he did just about as well with the part as any other kid his age. Blaming the actor seems like a really bizarre choice to make.
I'm not convinced that there should be 24-hour news networks. I'm not sure that the concept works, once you figure in the need for ratings and advertisers, and the fact that there will be many days when the news is just not that thrilling. So, they start to inflate the news artificially. Then, once that line is crossed, they might as well skew that inflation in the direction of their choosing. Is there a way for this to be sustained without being corrupted?
We had this conversation the other day. We compared it, actually, to ESPN. ESPN used to fill their programming with stuff like the World's Strongest Man competitions. The Outdoor Games (lumberjack events). The X-Games. Maybe classic sports. Then, at night, they'd do some live sports (if they could). Then SportsCenter....which was their money cow.
Then two things happened: the Internet made SportsCenter much less relevant (if you wanted to watch a sports clip, you could watch it whenever you wanted...you didn't have to wait to catch it on SportsCenter) and ESPN got rights to big-named sports (MLB, NFL, NBA, etc).
With their big moneymaker much less powerful, they focused more on their newest toys. But they felt they were cheapening their "legitimate" sports when they showed the "odd/quirky" stuff like World's Strongest Man. So that disappeared. Since they were a legit sports network that only showed legit sports, they needed to fill their time with legit sports news....and that's when opinion shows started to creep in. They couldn't show legit sports all day, but they could talk about it all day. So that's what they did. Sports and politics are very similar - you pick your team and you live and die with it. There's a clear hero and a clear enemy. If someone talks the way you think, you tune in. If not, you either hate-watch or don't watch at all.
It's the same with cable news. You'd tell the news and it was fine. But it was repetitive. You'd tell the same 8 "mundane" news stories over and over again. Then stuff like 9/11 happened and ratings went through the roof. They could talk about one thing all day and cover tons of new angles. They could bring on experts to talk about it. To keep "breaking news" alive, more stuff had to be considered "breaking news." Breaking news brought ratings, and they needed ratings.
With politics, they found another moneymaker. People loved to tune in to hear people that thought like them. And, in some cases, loved to tune in to hear people that they hated who thought differently. Elections brought big ratings. So how can they talk about elections when there isn't an election? Make the elections last a year! Even more! Spin everything politically. Bring in people who are there for their opinions. Let the hosts give a few more editorials.
It's a slippery slope but they're similar. Being big fish in small pools wasn't enough. Once they had access to bigger pools, they had to evolve to grow. But they stopped being who they were, and they evolved into something that was unrecognizable and counter to everything they started with.
I just think there's so much they could do with the backstory of a Batman who's operated for so long. What's he done? How many times has a saved the day? How much do people know about him? What were his big successes and big failures? Who came into his life? Who left his life? How many of his famous Rogues' gallery has he fought?
There are ways to dive into this with a line of dialogue here or there. Ways to show bonds that were created and bonds that were destroyed. I think Logan did a great job with that...by referencing just enough about the "Westchester Incident" without showing or telling us so much that it distracted from the plot of what we were watching. But we got enough about it that we basically know what happened...it was mostly in subtext which made it so much better. They could've done the same thing with Bruce/Alfred/Tim/Jason/Dick/Barbara/Damien/whoever.
The problem is that we've seen so much of Batman but know so little about him. How long has he been Batman? There's no real indication. The furthest we flash back in the DCEU for Batman is the scene where he takes down Harley and Deadshot, right? And those were relatively recent events, right? We know he had a Robin and that he died (by Harley and/or Joker). We can suspect based on some graffiti that Riddler existed in some form. But even the dialogue in BvS is contradictory with itself - with Perry calling him "The Batman" (like he's well known) and Clark calling him "the Bat vigilante" (like he's recently showed up on the scene). The police don't seem to be working with Batman (or all that familiar with his work), and yet the newspapers imply that his methods have gotten more violent (meaning his methods are familiar enough that they could tell the difference between him getting more violent and not).
The main evidence that Bruce has been around for a while is in a couple lines of dialogue, but the strongest is simply Ben Affleck's age. If they'd cast Armie Hammer and kept the entire dialogue identical, I'd assume that Bruce has been active for a couple of years....certainly not a ton longer than that.
Sorry to get back into this. I know it's all material I've covered before, but it's just something that gets at me. I just feel like we should know way more about this guy than we do.
CNN has become the left wing equivalent of Fox News, pretending to be journalists when they're actually propagandists.
I watched a ton of CNN during the election, and they were all so anti-Trump that it started to be noticeable. I think they realized that a) they weren't going to get many conservative viewers who were already firmly at Fox News and b) they could get stronger ratings if they stopped trying to be unbiased. I think it simply started with hosts like Wolf Blitzer and Ashleigh Banfield leaning slightly left, but I think it's gotten more targeted since then. I remember the Republican Convention had a mostly-even panel between Republicans and Democrats, and then Democratic Convention panel was about 9 Democrats and 1-2 Republicans.
If they want to respond to Fox News and take the other half of the country, that's fine. The problem is that CNN still means something to some people. It used to be a name you could rely on. To suddenly become Fox News under the guise of something that's better than Fox News is upsetting to me as a former journalist myself. I almost wish they'd started a new network if that's the direction they were going to go.
Where is Will McEvoy when you need him?
I don't really know what to make of Wesley or Wil. I found myself feeling very badly for Wil when I read ireactions' summary, but I've also heard a lot about the "dickishness" of Wil both online and in stories.
The character was fine. I think there's something to be said about the Wesley/Nog/Harry Kim characters of the world, but I don't think it's really been done properly yet. If they want these wide-eyed, in over their head, young characters, I think there are ways to make them more interesting.
All true. It's just weird that in the ultimate "world building" movie, they didn't really flesh out the world of the main character. I like little nods to a bigger world, especially when it's a world they hope to play in later. I like in the Arrowverse how they've alluded to Batman (Jimmy referred to him as "Clark's friend" and Winn referred to him as "more of a frenemy"). Back when there were a ton of rumors that Nightwing would appear on Arrow, they had Oliver talk about going out with a buddy in Bludhaven. Stuff like that is fun.
Even including the Gordon line, the impression I'm getting from the DCEU is that there was one Robin and he's dead. I absolutely love the idea of doing Bat-Family stuff, and I want to see a Nightwing movie about as badly as anything (#PadaleckiForDickGrayson). But if they're doing to do that, I need an explanation for where they were. Even if it's a flashback movie for Barbara, I need to know why she wasn't in BvS/Justice League. For Dick Grayson, it's gotta be critical if the relationship is *so* bad that neither wants anything to do with the other, and Alfred isn't even trying to make things right.
Not saying they won't, but I'm making my expectations known
The Bat-Family stuff is confusing to me. If they exist, why weren't they helping Bruce in his crusade against Superman (or trying to talk him out of it). I still think a line was needed to either explain why they were gone ("You're pushing away everyone like you did with Dick and Barbara") or ("Dick called again. I don't know why you won't accept his help").
Or, if Bruce was too blinded with rage in BvS, why aren't they helping with the Justice League*? I know they don't have powers, but you'd think he'd want people he trusts alongside him, even if they aren't necessarily in the front lines.
* I know they could show up or be referenced. Basing this off the idea that we know they probably will not actually appear or we'd likely know that.
That's another reason why I'm a little disappointed that Discovery isn't an anthology series. I think there's so many cool stories that they could tell in the Star Trek universe, up to and including "What's Wesley up to?" I think a "different era each season" story (like American Horror Story* for Star Trek) would work, or I think a complete anthology series could be really cool (like Twilight Zone* or Black Mirror*)
* Talking strictly about format.
You probably wouldn't get Avery Brooks to return as Sisko for a whole season of something, but you could get him for an episode. Same with virtually any of the other actors (Patrick Stewart might be the only guy too big for something this small, but even he might do a cameo or something). Let's check in on the TNG crew. Or the people at Deep Space Nine. How's Riker's first big command going? What's Jake Sisko doing? How'd the Voyager crew end up? What was the adjustment to the first years of the Federation like for the Enterprise crew?
Or go further. What's life like in the 26th century? 29th? 32nd?
Republicans don't want to do these things - they have the same agenda as Democrats.
As a Republican/Democrat, I'm HORRIFIED that you'd accuse Republicans/Democrats of siding with Republicans/Democrats! Republicans/Democrats are SAINTLY, GODLIKE men and women, and Republicans/Democrats are EVIL, SUB-HUMAN slime. Did you know the Republicans/Democrats want to steal our babies and eat them? If not for the Republicans/Democrats, they'd get their way! Republicans/Democrats are out there working hard for our benefits, and Republicans/Democrats just want to line their pockets with GREED and DECEPTION. If Republicans/Democrats had their way, there'd be no democracy at all.
Thank God for Republicans/Democrats!
Okay. I guess that's a fair assessment. Honestly, I haven't seen the movies in so long, it's hard for me to form any super deep opinions about them. I just never walked away with the feeling that they were the worst movies ever made, as some people seem to think they were. On the other hand, some of the movies out there have left a rather big negative impact on me, so they're more memorably bad.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it. It's actually pretty rare for me to hate a movie. I can count the movies that I've started and not finished on one hand, and I can usually find something about a movie to compliment (there were parts of the latest Fantastic Four movie that I thought were interesting or well thought out mixed in the rest of the mess).
Amazing Spider-Man, to me, just felt like two different movies that were awkwardly edited together. For example, I think the movie could've been really interesting if they hadn't included any of the Lizard stuff. What if 80% of the movie was about Uncle Ben's killer somehow tying back into the death of Peter's parents? After three movies where Peter fights powerful monsters, wouldn't a movie where he simply fights a bunch of evil men in suits be refreshing? Where Peter is *easily* the most powerful person in the movie but fails because a) he hasn't figured out his powers and b) his problems can't be solved by brute strength but with the mind that he had from the very beginning.
And I still think it's off-putting that Uncle Ben's killer gets away with it. Peter never finds him in the movie, he's still at large at the end, and he's never mentioned in the sequel. I think it actually could've been an interesting moment if the killer is captured by the police, and Peter's relieved that his anger didn't lead him to revenge. He's "forgiven" the man who did it, but the man who did it still faces justice.
Agreed 100%, and at that point, we have to hope that the other 99% of politicians in Washington are doing their jobs. More positive change can happen out of Congress anyway (I believe Trump would sign/veto basically anything they told him to do as long as they told him he'd be a great president because of it). Trump's incompetence actually is highlighting the issues in both parties as far as I'm concerned. The Republicans should be able to push through their legislation with control of both houses (and they've been doing a terrible job of that). and the Democrats don't seem to be doing anything but focusing on Trump.
The DNC suffered major losses in the last election (way beyond the presidential race), and they've done just about nothing to clean anything up. It's why I 100% expect Hillary to be the Democratic nominee again in 2020. They've made zero changes that would delay it, and Hillary's going to keep trying until either she's president or she's dead.
Well, that sorta goes into what I was saying. The guy is a kid, both mentally and emotionally. If he wants to spend all day tweeting and golfing and being mad at people who were mean to him....isn't that exactly what we want? If he's a bad leader....shouldn't we want him wasting his time? It's embarrassing but he's going to be an embarrassment either way. Wouldn't we rather he be an embarrassment that gets nothing done?
My problem with Amazing Spider-Man has to do with how edited it feels. Almost schizophrenic in how it treats the plot. It sets up all kinds of stories (the hunt for Uncle Ben's killer, the ruthless scientist at Oscorp, the search for what happens to Peter's parents, ect) only to abandon all that for a Lizard ending that almost felt like a left turn. I thought Garfield was a good actor, but I think part of the charm of the Spider-Man character is how nerdy/unpopular/outsider Peter is. And in this one, Peter already seems like the cool kid (or at least a cooler member of his outsider friends group). I like the idea that the popular girls in school wouldn't even know who Peter is (so Spider-Man inspires him to have more confidence), but I feel like Gwen would've dated Peter regardless of the spider bite.
This isn't really the movie's fault, but I was disappointed that I was sorta promised an "untold story" of Peter Parker and then got a fairly standard Spider-Man film. If they were going to remake Spider-Man so quickly after the Tobey movies, I wanted something completely different, and it was too much of what we'd seen before. And I think I held that against the movie, fair or not.
Changing gears a little bit. I understand why people laugh at Donald Trump. I get why they're embarrassed of him. What I don't get (and what I'm having a harder time getting the more he's president) is why people are *afraid* of him.
From what I've heard, he's functionally illiterate. He comes off as childish and, frankly, dumb. He's been unable to pass any meaningful legislation and fundamentally threw away his most important 100 days in office. This all with a supermajority in both the Senate and the House. He might appear to be a fascist, but he has none of the other traits of one. A fascist would've taken complete control of the situation and passed all sorts of crazy laws. Putin took complete control of Russia in the six months that Trump's been given.
Even some of the weird/scary stuff (like removing journalists from briefings and barring cameras) seems more about embarrassment than power (the briefings became a laughing stock so the administration is trying to spare itself of more public ridicule).
Where you might get me is stuff on the international stage. But even then, Trump is a child, but there are other grownups around. If North Korea decided to go crazy, there are people in charge of other powerful nations that could do something about it (I've always maintained that the US isn't the right country to deal with them, anyway - it's China). Same with Syria. Same with Russia. Unless Putin decides, for some reason, that he wants to die, then nuclear war is pointless for him. It doesn't accomplish anything for him.
He's a childish, immature, possibly illiterate moron. He's a bad president. He's an embarrassment to the country. But we've had childish presidents and immature presidents and illiterate presidents and bad presidents. We've had embarrassing presidents. The US has gotten through it, and I don't see any reason the country can't get through this one.
And outside of some executive order and whatever garish stuff the next president has to redecorate around, I don't even think there's gonna be much cleanup. He's accomplished virtually nothing. All the damage, for the most part, is psychological. And we're *great* at dealing with that
The real world explanation for why SLIDERS in Seasons 1 - 2 generally explored branches from a version of history similar to our own -- it was a TV show written and filmed on our Earth with all the inherent limitations of our reality and our frames of reference..
This is obviously correct, but I think it's so much more than that.
I think, even in the limited scope of mid-90s network TV, there's more stories to tell about a world that's *slightly* twisted than one that is so alien that it is hard to comprehend.
I've thought about how I'd approach a Sliders reboot if I were to be hired to write one, and I get these ideas where we'd make it more "realistic" (HA!) to how it'd be. If you were truly using a roulette wheel of an infinite array of Earths, you'd almost never run into a double of yourself. You are an insignificant blip in this universe, and you'd be infinitely more insignificant in any multiverse. You were one sperm of many fertilizing one egg of many. Your parents get drunk one night instead of another, and you are a completely different person. Your parents meet someone else, and you don't exist in any meaningful way. Same with their conception and their parents' meeting. It goes on and on ad nauseum.
It's all a different roll of the dice. Human beings being the dominant species. Mammals developing at all. Life leaving the oceans. Sentient life existing at all. Or vegetation. Or water. Or any of it. If you were to be "realistic", I bet you'd go millions of slides in a row without encountering anything "earthlike" at all. Hell, you might never encounter the Earth itself.
But even if "Earth" is somehow locked in, your show just becomes Star Trek. Dolphin creatures and bipedal dinosaurs and, yes, probably Kromaggs. The sliders would be running away from monsters every week, turning it even further from Sliders or Star Trek into something more akin to Planet of the Apes.
So, in the end, it wasn't just the easy way....I think it's the better way too. Humans developed to a certain point.....then what? That's the more interesting question.
I heard separate rumors today that DC is looking into making a RED SON adaptation (live action?) and that the next Justice League trailer will feature an "evil Superman" tease at the end.
Yeah and there were a few worlds where humans didn't evolve or the sliders' doubles weren't there. But for the show to make sense, I think the "neighborhood" story has to be true in some sense.
Because if sliding were truly random, you'd be much more likely to slide to a universe where the Earth didn't form than find a world where you'd have an identical double.
Someone smarter than me here (TF, ireactions, Transmodiar, etc) either had the idea or pushed me toward the idea that something in the timer kept the Sliders in a specific "neighborhood" of the multiverse. Time is mid-90s, human beings have evolved, even specific people have been born. So while there might be a world where the Russians run America or women are the "stronger sex", everything else is especially familiar. In most cases, the Earth was formed and life evolved exactly the same time. And even though history was drastically different in certain cases, Quinn's father met Quinn's mother and the exact sperm fertilized the exact egg in the exact way and Quinn Mallory was born looking like Jerry O'Connell.
I think the official version is that they are dropped down the cavern. We don't see that they die, but it's pretty assumed I think.
Them getting arrested is a deleted scene, I believe, added to TV versions.
Well, I think Harrison Ford is happy to reappear in these "soft reboots" / continuations, but I think he doesn't want to do much of the heavy lifting. It was harder with Star Wars, but I think in this he could be a minor person who provides information from the past and connects to what happened before.
That's just my guess. The dude is in his mid-70s so it's hard to expect too much from him these days.
I have a feeling that Ford won't be in the movie all that much. Might just be a minor part towards the end. All the scenes he's in look like the same set piece, right?
And also....SMH. We just can't agree on this crap
Well, that's my question. They have Chris Pine....could they bring him back? She acts like she hasn't seen him in a while, but could he have survived? Could the Flash have grabbed him out of time and brought him to the present day? Could he have been, I don't know, recruited into the Green Lantern Corps?
Also....CAN SHE FLY OR NOT? Haha.
I think I could maybe believe that Iron Man (2008) exists in the Netflix world. It's grounded....SHIELD is done in secret. Everyone seems shocked by the idea of two metal men fighting. I actually think it fits in quite nicely.
But I'm having trouble imagining Jessica Jones and anyone from the recent MCU films. I don't see anyone in the Netflix world living in a world where the Hulk is.
I don't necessarily hate the idea that they shared a world. I don't think it hurts the Netflix world like it hurts the Agents of SHIELD world because they can do their own thing without really stepping on anyone's toes. The problems that, say, Iron Fist faces are too small time for the Avengers or even SHIELD. Just like Batman can exist in a world with Darkseid. Superman doesn't have to save the day when the Riddler kidnaps the mayor of Gotham.
And if they'd introduced someone like Green Lantern into the Dark Knight trilogy, it'd feel weird too. That's just how this feels. Yeah there are powers and yeah there are a couple of costumes. But it doesn't have the same feel as the MCU (which has a feel that even Guardians can capture).
I don't think it's a detriment to either franchise, but I think it's why there aren't (and shouldn't be) any crossovers.
What did he say about the Kromaggs?
I'm about 8 episodes into Iron Fist. The fighting has become much better as the show's gone on, and I think it's pretty good. It drags a little at times, and I have no idea how Ward ever became a high-ranking figure anywhere with how screwed up he seems to be. The fight with the drunken master (?) was one of the best of the entire Marvel Netflix universe IMO, a really cool choreographed fight.
I still keep thinking about how this universe doesn't feel like the MCU. I know they keep making *very small* references to the overall MCU, but I wish they'd just consider this a parallel universe. Because I keep seeing scenes at the top of Rand Tower and cannot imagine it's a world where Tony Stark could be flying around the other skyscrapers. It'd feel silly. It really doesn't jive with the rest of the MCU.
Hmmm, considering what a mess the Dark Universe seems to be, I wonder if they'll just scrap it. Cruise's star power could probably keep it afloat, but it seems horribly planned. They only have one filmed planned, a couple stars attached, and a ton of TBAs. Shouldn't be too hard to hit the eject button if they want to.
I've always really liked Will Sasso. I was a big MadTV fan back in the day, and he was always a great character actor. That's really cool that you got to meet him!
I don't blame Israel Jurabe for not really having much to say. I can't imagine it was a big part of his life, and it was 20 years ago. But it was still cool that he took some time to talk to you and say something.
Haha, come now. You can criticize that one line....it's all I ask
It's a great line for the trailer. It just needed to be cut for the movie. Or altered. Clark could say "Is she with you?" and Bruce could says something else witty. "I don't think she's with anyone" or "I think she's with us" or something. Or even just that Batman smirk to let the other guy know that he knows something the other guy doesn't know (even/especially when he doesn't).
Have fun at Wonder Woman!