541

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Simon Rosenberg at Hopium Chronicles points out via Lawrence O'Donnell: two-thirds of voters didn't watch Biden's disastrous debate, which strikes me as peering out awkwardly from a car crash and saying, well, nobody saw it, so it's not that bad.

Simon Rosenberg: In politics you have good days, and bad days. There is a long way to go in this election, an election that for all intents and purposes started this week and is today close and competitive, with us I believe more likely to win. My basic take on 2024 hasn’t changed, and if anything the Trump I saw on Thursday night looked far more extreme, bat-shit crazy, and beatable than I expected.

I was disappointed with Biden’s performance on Thursday, and I think the campaign needs to spend meaningful time figuring out how their big debate gambit backfired and what it means going forward. Yes, our job got a bit harder this week. But today, June 29th, 2024, I wake up knowing that over the next 4+ months I would much rather be us than them.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/lawr … -up-2-more

Maybe he's right.

542

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Pretty much every media agency is calling for Biden to step down.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/2 … e-00165914

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … t-00165917

It may blow over. It's pretty clear to me that the mumbling, hoarse, incoherent Biden of the debate was due to illness, but the rest of the world may not see it that way. Grizzlor certainly doesn't, and I don't blame him.

The full version of his fiery post-debate rally speech is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJoewM3WfU

543

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

A post-debate Joe Biden seems to have regained his voice for a North Carolina rally and sounds normal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJoewM3WfU

Joe Biden:

I know: I'm not a young man. To state the obvious.

I don't walk as easy as I used to.

I don't speak as smoothly as I used to.

I don't debate as well as I used to.

But I know what I do know:

I know how to tell the truth.

I know right from wrong.

And I know how to do this job. I know how to get things done. I know, like millions of Americans know: when you get knocked down, you get back up.

If the Biden we saw at debate was the Biden that his team is working with daily, they would never have gone for an early debate. The debate was an aberration of illness and deeply unfortunate timing.

544

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden was sick. At a later Waffle House appearance, he was asked if he were sick and he said he had a sore throat. He sounded like me right now. I'm having trouble breathing through my nose right now due to congestion, so my mouth hangs open. But I have the luxury of staying in my bedroom.

But it was still a really bad performance that made him look aged and worn out. The Democratic social media is blowing up with calls for Biden to decline the Democratic nomination and even former Republican-turned Democrats Steve Schmidt (Lincoln Project co-creator) and The Bulwark are strongly advising that Biden step down. Vox proposed that a refresh could reinvigorate Democrats: https://www.vox.com/politics/357876/bid … wn-atlanta

Simon Rosenberg says Biden was sick, had a bad night, and advises that people continue to, as he says, "worry less and do more". I hope that's true. But optics matter. Biden came off as sickly and weak. https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/joe- … sident-who

As QuinnSlidr notes: Biden has sounded totally fine in the last three months, especially in his State of the Union, so his bad performance was due to his health on this specific night, but it was still a terrible night on a national stage.

It may not matter. Presidential debates have a neglible effect on the actual election. Biden just needs to put in another State of the Union level performance somewhere for this debate to be forgotten. But the debate was bad.

545

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Biden is losing on the vast majority of polls, some are stunningly bad.  I read Rosenberg's Hopium thing, he is well meaning, and I concur that the polling is bad because it's way too Trumpy in who they're actually sampling.  That being said, I'm sorry, but they're not THAT far off, and not in the quantity.  aka they can't all be wrong, it's just math.

The consistent overperformance of Democrats in actual elections means that polls are that wrong; polls aren't results.

Grizzlor wrote:

Biden is horse and stammering badly.

I do not see how Biden is the nominee.  His campaign claims he had a cold???  GTFO.  I warned about this months and months ago.  His largest hurdle was looking entirely incompetent on immigration, Afghanistan, and inflation, and Trump absolutely buried him with it.  Biden's retorts were mumbled and frankly it was startling to watch.  How can anyone seriously consider Biden for another four years after appearing like this?  He should have been replaced a year ago on the campaign.  Jill Biden, if she loves her husband, has to take him out of this campaign.  For his own dignity.  Joe Biden may be very good at making decisions, but you MUST be able to communicate in a campaign, and he is completely incapable of that now.

Yes, you were saying that Biden should step down based on the clickbait reports the Robert Hur report, saying, "It's over.  Biden has to step aside.  The special counsel describes him as effectively an old geezer who soon will forget his own name.  I do not know what other RED flag is needed at this point???"

After the Hur report was exposed as a misleading fraud by actual transcripts, you declared, "As for Hur, look, his comments even at face value are basically worthless.  He found no evidence of wrongdoing, end stop, everything else he wrote should have been discarded.  The problem is the MEDIA.  They blew up what he said."

Biden put forth a commanding performance in the State of the Union; his Democrat detractors were silent, then he put forward a hoarse presence in this debate and now they've gone back to the post-Hur hysteria. People like this don't have any real positions or convictions or beliefs; they're just reacting to whatever clickbait last triggered them.

Should Biden be replaced? He's certainly not my choice for the Democratic candidate, but replacing him at this point seems like a fantasy. I'd certainly rather see Gretchen Whitmer or Andrew Yang than Biden.

Incumbents are always rusty. Obama blew his first debate against Romney too.

Does this matter? I honestly doubt presidential debates have more than a negligible effect. People who watch them already know how they're going to vote.

546

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden clearly has a cold.

He sounds like me. I currently have COVID.

547

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Kind of scared of this debate.

548

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think your memory is off, but I would offer some nuances. You may think I'm contradicting you at first, but once you get to the end of this, you'll find that I agree with you.

Speaking strictly in terms of the writing: the SMALLVILLE version of Clark Kent's character didn't hold together very coherently. The most glaring fault in the way Clark was written throughout the series was actually summed up by you when you remarked, "Throughout Season 8, Clark is trying so hard to save Davis Bloom from his fate as Doomsday. If Clark had tried as hard to save Lex as he tried to save Davis, I don't think Lex would have gone evil."

For most of Seasons 1 - 7, Clark's confidence in human nature seems nearly non-existent. Even when he loses his powers, he maintains The Secret towards Lex; he joins a football team of bullies and psychopaths; he has no dedicated ambition to use his power to save people and never seems to go on patrol -- there is something very lacksidasical and callous about how someone with Clark's powers self-isolates on a farm for most of Season 7. The only thing he seems to care about is Lana.

Season 8 rebooted Clark's character significantly to who he probably should have been by Season 2: he is actively pursuing his goals of serving the world as a superpowered first responder, he is going on patrol, he is building a network of allies and support staff, and Lana is in his past.. However, this drastic improvement also created some oddities in character-continuity.

In Seasons 1- 7 Clark having killed any number of supervillains by throwing them into sharp objects or turning their powers on them or heat visioning them or electrocuting them in the heat of combat. Season 8 abruptly has Clark not only declare that he doesn't kill, but acts like that's always been the case, particularly when Clark judges Oliver Queen as morally bankrupt for (supposedly) blowing up Lex Luthor with Luthor's own bomb, to the point of kicking Oliver off the Justice League (only for everyone on the League to take Oliver's side once Clark isn't looking).

The result is that Clark looks like a hypocrite even though, paradoxically, this was probably the first time the writers had really tried to stay true to the comic book character. It's very strange: the show consistently insists that Clark believes in the decency of all human beings and has a high moral standard, but in actuality, Clark is distant and aloof and guarded and didn't practice in Seasons 1 - 7 what he preaches in Season 8.

Henry Cavill's character seems to have all of the flaws described above: Clark kills in the heat of combat and if angry, he might well do it again. He fights with rage and fury when his mother or Lois are threatened and is otherwise tightly wound and coiled up. As a child, Clark saved a schoolbus full of children and was told by his father that perhaps he should have let them all drown.

Clark's father was later caught in a tornado and commanded Clark to stand by and do nothing to save him lest his powers be exposed to the public; Clark complied. These experiences have left Clark doubtful and shaken, untrusting and suspicious of others. His father didn't trust the world to treat Clark well or to see his powers used for good.

When Clark throws a punch against a superpowered alien invader, it devastates small town buildings, shatters skyscrapers. In MAN OF STEEL, Clark is undoubtedly surrounded by 200,000 dead people in the wreckage of the fight with Zod when he flirts with Lois and kisses her, implying a certain disconnection from human experience.

We could assume that, in MAN OF STEEL, Clark spent weeks after the Kryptonian attack digging out bodies and survivors and rebuilding the city just as he was trying to find survivors of the Capitol in the ULTIMATE EDITION of BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN... but we never see it and it's never discussed.

And, as with SMALLVILLE, this version of Clark was drastically rebooted into a distinctly altered personality. The depiction of Clark in JUSTICE LEAGUE under Joss Whedon's direction and writing is noticeably very different: Clark in JUSTICE LEAGUE is indulgent, happy to let some little boys interview him for their podcast, and answering all their questions with thought and sincerity.

He describes kindly how the S-insignia is not an S, but a river, that winds and flows, representing the flow of hope. When asked what his favourite thing is about Earth, Clark genuinely ponders the question and smiles brightly as he answers.

Later, Clark bursts into the battle against Steppenwolf, but just as quickly flees when he hears the cries of civilians in danger and turns his attention to them first, engaging in a friendly competition with the Flash to see who can save more people.

Ultimately, the writing of Tom Welling's Clark and Henry Cavill's Clark, at least to me -- have a lot of the same problems. Both depictions suffer from a distinct lack of proactive compassion and empathy whether it's for guest-stars, extras and potential collateral damage, or their local communities. They are focused on juvenile soap opera crap (Lana or Lois) instead of saving lives.

Both versions of Clark display little to no trust in human nature, hide from their problems and struggles, are motivated by a fixation on a woman, and are passive until they are reactive. However, Welling's Clark is a defensive fighter who seeks to contain and immobilize while Cavill's Clark seems to fight with decades of pent-up frustration and fury.

But -- that's the *writing*. The memories that Slider_Quinn21 has shared of Tom Welling and Henry Cavill seem to be less about the writing and rather the impression that these two actors left on Slider_Quinn21's mind. And in terms of the performances, these two actors could not be more different.

Henry Cavill is a very aloof, guarded actor who, when playing troubled characters (like Clark in a Zack Snyder movie), holds his characters at a distance from their actions and their supporting casts. Cavill's characters are burying their secrets, insecurities, demons and fears away from the world while still bearing the weight of them. Cavill adopts a distant and somber presence for this.

The result is that Cavill's Clark can seem really joyless -- except when Cavill is performing a Joss Whedon script where he has to save civilians and tell jokes, and suddenly, Cavill's aloofness is replaced by a glowingly warm, commanding charisma.

Tom Welling, however, is not aloof or guarded. Tom a paradox: he is an introvert who wears his heart on his sleeve. Tom is a low-key, quiet soul who likes to buy out the stock of children's toy stores and spend weekends in his garage putting them in gift wrap so that he can distribute them to low income families come Christmas.  Tom's inherent thoughtfulness, compassion and decency of character is not a performance, but a genuine expression of his true self.

As a result, Tom Welling's screen presence exudes a superhuman level of patience, goodwill, trust, caring, kindness and belief in the fundamental decency and positive potential of all human beings. There is a delicate caring to Tom's onscreen persona that the camera picks up: the carefulness with which he walks and speaks to others, the humility with which he listens, the patience that he conveys, that makes Tom seem superhumanly kind even when the writing isn't on his side.

MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN 'suffered' from excessive budgets where Superman's powers are most memorably rendered in Superman punching supervillains, smashing them through walls and buildings and cities. The most memorable images of Henry Cavill's Clark are him flying and punching as buildings (presumably filled with people) are reduced to rubble. This does not create the impression of a great humanitarian.

Despiet Joss Whedon's efforts, Henry Cavill's Superman will be remembered as a cold, distant, troubled Superman of war.

SMALLVILLE had the 'advantage' of a low budget at a time when digital effects were very costly. As a result, SMALLVILLE was limited to only showing Clark's powers in one specific area: the supersave. While Clark was not very proactive in Seasons 1 - 7, he did use his powers at least once an episode, and Clark's feats were always in rescuing people: shielding passengers from their exploding cars, ripping innocent people out of the path of bullets, pulling people out of crashing trains, catching girders before they pulped a human being, yanking people away from fires, catching people as they fell, etc..

As a result, the most memorable images of Clark across 10 seasons is Clark rescuing someone whether it's his parents or or Lex or Chloe or Pete or Lana or some random guest star of the week. Saving people is what Clark did most frequently onscreen in SMALLVILLE. Saving people is where SMALLVILLE put the bulk of the budget. As a result, the common memory people have of SMALLVILLE's Clark is that he is a compassionate protector and rescuer, and the fact that he was a little lax and uncommitted to the job before Season 8 is easily forgotten.

And ultimately, while the first seven seasons of writing let SMALLVILLE down, I think Tom Welling and the special effects artists put in the work to ensure that SMALLVILLE's Clark will always be remembered and loved as for their vision of Clark Kent as a superhuman paramedic, firefighter, first responder and as a character of empathy and compassion.

Ultimately, I think both Welling and Cavill suffered from writing that didn't suit them or their roles, but Welling spent more time saving people and had a more naturally compassionate screen presence (because that's what he's like in real life), so he seems much nicer than Cavill.

It would feel a lot easier to ask Tom Welling's Clark to do your podcast than to ask Henry Cavill's... although Henry Cavill's Clark will do your podcast too, which demonstrates how if the writing is there, the actor can incorporate it into the character.

549

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I should note, Slider_Quinn21, that orange flavoured Gatorade is Joe Biden's drink of choice.

550

(35 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've been enjoying the Doctor under Russell T. Davies' return.

One episode, "Rogue", seems to have really had a positive response. It features the Doctor in a romance with a man in a Regency era storyline. I don't really relate to stories of men loving men; I am also not a fan of Regency fiction. However, just because something isn't tailored to my personal obsessions does not mean it is bad. In addition... I've come to realize how much can hurt someone to not see themselves onscreen. And men who love men deserve to see themselves in their TV shows and movies, and the Doctor, being an alien and genderfluid, is easily bisexual (if not more). I didn't relate to "Rogue" and it did not speak to me, but I felt it was *important*.

551

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, if you're nervous, do something about it. Something small and achieveable. Mail a pre-debate Gatorade and a Red Bull to the White House, Slider_Quinn21. :-)

552

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Even FOX News thinks Trump is on a losing streak.
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/bide … ead-in-fox

553

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

How does Tom Welling's Clark differ from Henry Cavll's Clark in your view?

Your thoughts interest me.

554

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, you can get the next one.

Also, while looking, I noticed that Sabrina Lloyd's "The Girl With Something Extra" interview ( https://earthprime.com/articles/the-gir … ing-extra/ ) describes her pre-SLIDERS career where she starred in an movie on HBO where she plays a teenaged lesbian who wants to go with her girlfriend to prom. That was actually an episode of an anthology TV show, not a film, and you can see the episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjPG0QVsFdI&t

555

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://earthprime.com/articles/wonder-of-worlds/

Let us know when the book is out!

I have been really busy, and been stalled on my own epub production for my stuff. I'm glad one of us is making progress.

556

(698 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've always found every MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, even the ones I didn't like, were very stagey and writerly. Which is fine for me because MISSION IMPOSSIBLE is about confidence tricks and deceit and staged scenarios to manipulate marks. I'm not sure what you're referring to by fourth wall breaking.

557

(698 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

The writing was just not as good on that film than some of the recent in the series.

What was wrong about the writing for you? I thought it was as strong as it had ever been, and had the same weaknesses and inconsistencies the series has always had.

558

(698 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://i.ibb.co/kMzyCRG/the-slider.jpg

I kind of want to see this movie.

https://www.amazon.ca/Slider-Bruce-Davi … 072ZM74YW/

559

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, it depends on whether you're looking at aggregate polls averaged and thrown off by Republican-funded polls, or looking at independent polls.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/5-po … -new-biden

560

(55 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Here's my story to give Caitlin a happy ending while leaving the post-Season 2 continuity unchanged.

Frozen Time

Caitlin is living a wonderful life in Montreal with Peter: a peaceful marriage, running a bar, and Peter working as a paramedic. But her nightmares remind her of a virus-ravaged future. And Caitlin starts to realize that time around her seems to run in a loop and oddly, she isn’t aging. Despite 40 years of happiness, she remains frozen in time. She realizes that she is trapped in a mysterious pocket dimension.

Peter admits the truth. He explains that he intentionally trapped them both here.

At the end of Season 2, Peter was crushed by his failure to retrieve Caitlin from the future. With Hiro's help, he repeatedly revisited the pivotal moment from "Powerless" where Peter prevented the viral outbreak -- and erased the future where Caitlin was stranded.

Peter had no way to find her again. His power and Hiro's did not allow him to traverse parallel timelines. He asked Hiro for help.

Peter and Hiro tried stopping Peter from stopping the pandemic, restoring the viral-ravaged future from which they could save Caitlin. But then they couldn't stop the pandemic at all, which would turn Caitlin's future into their present. They were forced to reset time to the way it was before.

Peter and Hiro tried delaying Peter's confrontation with Hiro and then Adam, giving Peter more time to visit the future to find Caitlin, minutes after Peter had failed to rescue her. But two time travel events in proximity created a burst of temporal momentum that caused them to return weeks after Adam had already unleashed the pandemic, and it was too late to stop it. They were forced to reset time to the way it was before.

Peter and Hiro tried delaying Peter's confrontation, then retrieving Caitlin at a later point in the future. But at that later point, Caitlin had already been infected; bringing her home would again turn the present into Caitlin's future. They were forced to reset time to the way it was before.

Desperate, Peter collaborated with Hiro in a fourth effort, combining their time-travel abilities. Together, they created a pocket dimension where Caitlin’s disease progression was looped, never getting better or worse, and where Peter and Caitlin could enjoy a happy life within a temporal bubble of bliss.

For 40 years, Peter and Caitlin thrived within this time bubble. But now it’s collapsing, and Caitlin leaving the bubble means her death.

Caitlin is saddened that her life has been cut short by a loop and mourns the lost potential, lost opportunities and lost life. Peter offers to take her wherever she wants to go for her last few hours of life; the loop will prevent her from infecting for a few hours after leaving the bubble.

Caitlin asks Peter to take them to shortly before they first met: when Peter was an amnesiac in Ireland, chained up in a storage container. Caitlin plants information to alter events, ensuring that Elle, the superhuman who was hunting Peter, and who has electrical superpowers, will find Peter before Caitlin's brother came across Peter.

As a result, in this altered timeline, Caitlin never meets Peter, never goes to the future, never gets stranded, never gets sick. Instead, the role of Peter's companion is now occupied by Elle, who accompanies Peter into the future and whose powers enable her to not be separated from Peter.

In this new timeline, Caitlin lives a life untouched by Peter’s influence, while Peter forgets her entirely.

The story concludes as Peter returns to the moment he first attempted to save Caitlin: the press conference in “Powerless.”

The altered timeline erases Peter's memory of her, explaining why he never mentioned Caitlin again.

And so, in the folds of time, Caitlin’s fate finds resolution, even if it remains hidden from the world.

561

(55 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I just want to say: listening to Tom and Cory recap HEROES is vastly preferable to actually rewatching it.

**

I would note that HEROES and FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS in 2007 were dealing with different narrative situations. I'm not super-familiar with sports, but I assume that sports matches and a pandemic are events that take place on pretty different scales. It may work for football games to happen offscreen. That wouldn't work for an end-of-the-world situation (although MILLENNIUM tried to wrap up a global pandemic between Seasons 2 - 3 and to laughable results).

HEROES had planned a 24 episode arc for Season 2: the first 11 episodes were Volume 2, "Generations", and revealed that superhumans, including Sylar, were becoming infected with a debilitating virus. Peter and his girlfriend Caitlin (Katie Carr) accidentally visited the near future in which the virus had begun infecting normal humans, and 93 percent of the human race had died. Peter lost control of his time travel powers and was sent back to the present before he could bring Caitlin back with him. Episode 10 revealed that the legendary samurai Takezo Kensei, also the immortal known as Adam Monroe (David Anders), had created the Shanti Virus as a means of population control and sought to unleash it. Monroe would later goad and taunt Peter that the woman he loved was trapped in a terrible future.

"Generations" was to end with Episode 11 in which Peter would fail to stop the virus from breaking out, heralding the future he saw and in which Caitlin was stranded. The town of Odessa, Texas would be quarantined. Nathan, announcing the situation to the press, would fall ill and collapse.

Then we'd have Volume 3, "Exodus", across Episodes 12 - 24. The heroes would try to contain the virus while Peter would trying to regain control of his time travel powers before changing the future, so that he could save Caitlin before that future timeline was erased.

When the HEROES creators realized that they would have to stop production with Season 2, Episode 11, they were facing a difficult situation. Due to their shooting schedule and contractual agreements, even if the strike were resolved, HEROES would be filming Season 3, not the second half of Season 2. The viral outbreak storyline was not something they could cover with a time gap and references to offscreen events. It needed to be a current and immediate situation if the story were to be told at all. Also critical to the story were Caitlin and Adam Monroe, which was another problem.

With the strike and the hiatus, HEROES had lost full access to David Anders, whose Adam Monroe was intended as the primary villain of Season 2. And HEROES' contract with Katie Carr to play Caitlin expired as well, and my understanding is that once Season 2 shut down, Carr was travelling between the United States, England and Australia, engaged in a modelling career and studying screenwriting in London. The bookings and studio sets HEROES had made for locations to render the viral quarantine of Odessa, Texas were also lost.

They'd lost the ability to use David Anders as the primary villain, they'd lost Katie Carr, they'd lost their preproduction work, they'd lost the immediacy of following up on Episode 11 a week later. With all this, the HEROES creators felt it simply didn't make sense to end Episode 11 on a clifffhanger and do the "Exodus" viral outbreak storyline in Season 3 in 6 - 12 months' time. They had no way of following up on it properly with all their losses.

If they'd done "Exodus" for Season 3, they would have had to write David Anders out with minimal appearances; they would have been unable to feature the Caitlin character significantly or at all. They would be following up on a viral outbreak cliffhanger that had aired 10 months ago, losing the opportunity for Season 3 to offer a clean and clear jumping on point for viewers as is expected for the season premiere of a major network show.

Given the multiple characters and arcs unfolding simultaneously in Season 2, it was a lot to ask a 2007 - 2008 audience to remember. HEROES was only available to stream via NBC Direct for US residents and wouldn't be available on iTunes until 2009.

Even as recently as 2021: I watched THE FLASH where the first three episodes of Season 7 were devoted to the mirror dimension plotline of Season 6, a season that had been cut short due to the pandemic hiatus. Like HEROES, THE FLASH was off the air for 10 months. Unlike HEROES, THE FLASH didn't (and couldn't) wrap up its truncated season and had to devote the first three episodes of Season 7 to resolving Season 6.

I was a devoted fan of THE FLASH, and I watched Season 7's first three episodes with great confusion. It had been 10 months since Season 6 and I had largely forgotten all the details of the storyline. I couldn't remember who Eva McCulloch was or what she wanted or how the artificial speed force tied into it or how mirror duplicates were involved. I couldn't remember. And I was too busy to rewatch Season 6. Due to limited recall, THE FLASH's sixth season opening was baffling to me.

And THE FLASH in Season 6 had a lot less going on than HEROES of Season 2, so I would posit that the average viewer would have found Season 3 of HEROES even more confusing than Season 6 of THE FLASH had HEROES attempted to do the "Exodus" storyline 10 months delayed.

I think the HEROES team saw that the virus plot was not something they would be able to follow up on effectively, so they reshot Episode 11 slightly so that Peter would stop the virus, and the replacement cliffhanger wouldn't require the audience to remember the Shanti Virus storyline when Season 3 premiered.

And on the whole, the creators' predictions seem to have been pretty accurate. David Anders was tied up with an independent movie when Season 3 started and had to be written out fast; Katie Carr was, I believe, in Australia. Ignoring Caitlin was a bad option, but there were no good (or available) options to bring her back.

From a writing standpoint, it was also difficult to address the emotional fallout of Caitlin's lack of fate. But the strike made it impossible to film anything new with Katie Carr for Episode 11; even if they attempted to save her with dialogue referring to her being offscreen, how could they save her from a timeline that was gone? Given that Peter couldn't control his time travel powers and was fighting Hiro at the end of Season 2, what options had there been to resolve Caitlin's storyline before the virus future was revented? Addressing Caitlin was a problem; ignoring Caitlin was a problem. HEROES is about ordinary people in extraordinary situations. Peter Petrelli's character is defined by his empathy and how he connects with people, reflected in his power of empathetic ability replication. Caitlin is an ordinary person, so leaving her in a horrific future undermines HEROES' entire mission statement.

Caitlin is an innocent person whom Peter loved, so Peter not saving her undermines Peter's characterization. Peter would either seem callous for dismissing her situation or be shattered by his inability to return to that future to save her, which would tie his character up in a distant storyline. As a result, the writers made the displeasing -- but understandable -- decision to simply never refer to it again: to bring it up would either undermine Peter or overcomplicate Peter. Their expectation was that when Season 3 premiered in September 2008, the majority of the audience would have forgotten about Caitlin, a character who had not been seen onscreen since November 2007, almost 11 months.

So, there were really no good options here: ignore Caitlin and move on from the virus plot and seem callous to anyone who remembered the character. Focus on Caitlin and the virus plot and Season 3's first impression would be that it was still mired in a storyline that, without immediacy and recent memory, was now difficult to follow and remember and also difficult to film due to losing the guest actors.

They chose to ignore Caitlin and hoped the audience would too... and I can't say the alternative would been any better. So I forgive the writers for choosing the simplest bad option over the complicated and confusing bad option. And I think they forgave themselves.

What HEROES should have done, however, which they never did -- they should have devoted one of their many webcomics to resolving Caitlin's story so that fans who did remember and care about Caitlin wouldn't think poorly of Peter for never mentioning her again.

I would note that the Charlie character (Jayma Mays) in Season 1 was really beloved as Hiro's love interest. She even inspired a tie-in novel, SAVING CHARLIE. But Charlie's character was unsustainable for the show as a regular, and she died a terrible fate. She wasn't mentioned in Seasons 2 or 3.

And yet, the HEROES creators brought the character back in Season 4 to give her a (somewhat) happy ending. I think they would have liked to do something similar for Caitlin... but how?

I imagine the reason the creators didn't at least produce a comic book is because with the viral outbreak timeline having been erased, the writers were at a loss for how to even find Caitlin. Even in a comic book: how were they supposed to get Peter back to that future timeline that was no longer available, even to a time traveller?

I myself have needed 17 years to come up with a solution...

562

(55 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Catching up on REWATCH PODCAST with Tom and Cory reviewing Season 2 of HEROES. https://therewatchpodcast.libsyn.com/

It's funny -- Season 2 of HEROES was in 2007. It was 17 years ago. But I still feel really sad about the Caitlin character.

Since it was 17 years ago, I should probably explain: Caitlin was an Irish barmaid with no superpowers, whom Peter Petrelli romanced in Season 2. They accidentally visited a future timeline where Earth was ravaged by a terrible virus. Peter and Caitlin were separated, and when he tried to save her, Peter accidentally travelled back to the present day. Peter couldn't go back for Caitlin until he'd acquired a cure for the virus and regained control of his time travel powers.

Originally, Season 2 was going to have Peter return to the future and Caitlin would re-enter the storyline. Unfortunately, due to the writers strike of 2007, the 24 episode order got cut to 11 episodes. The 11th episode was originally a mid-season cliffhanger with the virus being unleashed.

But when the writers saw that the strike was coming, they realized they had no idea when they'd be back on the air after their 11th episode; they hadn't even started filming the 12th. With the likelihood that it could be as much as a year before HEROES could air another episode, the creators decided to reshoot their 11th episode cliffhanger. They instead made Season 2, Episode 11 a season finale where the virus was contained, averting the future of viral contagion... which also erased the future timeline in which Caitlin was trapped.

Then it became difficult to follow up on Caitlin. Season 2 came to its abbreviated end in December 2007, the airdate for Season 3's premiere was September 2008. Heroes had been off the air for 10 months, as opposed to a usual 2 - 3 month summer break. Ten months was way too long to reopen virus plotline. Which meant the show couldn't revisit Caitlin.

When asked about Caitlin in pre-Season 3 publicity and if her character would reappear or even be mentioned, showrunner Tim Kring said, "No, we passed it. We leapfrogged it," explaining the virus plot was just not something they could revisit, and understandably so. A season premiere, especially after 10 month hiatus, needs a clean slate. I understand the decision.

And I know it's ridiculous to still feel sad about it. But it bothers me.

563

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/winn … jane-kleeb

Bits and pieces of hope from Simon Rosenberg.

564

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

pilight wrote:

What's right or wrong for most people, if such a thing can be determined, may not be for you.  Don't take medical advice from an online doctor, a TV doctor, or any doctor that hasn't examined you.  Find a local doctor you trust, get looked at, and ask them about concerns you have.

Agreed.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I think the problem with this is that there's an expert willing to sign off on any opinion these days.  There are doctors who are willing to advocate for anti-vax concerns.  There are doctors willing to speak out against masks, against social distancing, against basically anything.  I'm sure there's a "medical expert" with a YouTube channel advocating for smoking.

Now, any idiot can be on YouTube or Reddit or whatever and can spread their misinformation to millions.  They can be a true expert with a slanted agenda, or they can just lie and say they're an expert.  By the time you've found out which is which, your opinion could be slanted.

I would say it's important to exercise humility and critical thinking, and to differentiate subjective opinion from verifiable facts, fundamentals and principles.

In terms of sources: yes, anyone can say anything on YouTube or social media or post anything online. Therefore, we need to distinguish claims and assertions from knowledge. We need to recognize what's theory, what's fact, and when someone is presenting theory as fact.

When you're reviewing claims and assertions, are they presented with sources? Do the claims distinguish from sourced information and interpretative application of that information? Can we verify the sources are ones that offer actual medical and scientific research?

Are the claims operating within the basic principles of the fields in which they're engaged?

In terms of masking: electrostatics goes back to 8 BC and remains a fundamental area of science for extremely commonplace applications like air conditioning (filtration) and printers (photoconducting drums for positively charged image printing).

In this field, I have actually been impressed with YouTuber Aaron Collins, a mechanical engineer who uses an aerosol generator (that pumps sodium chloride particles into the air) and a particle counter with a probe that can be tightly punched through a mask. This allows Collins to measure the amount of particles outside the mask and the amount inside the mask, and report on the filtration.

This isn't just someone making claims; this is someone filming his test process and presenting results that make sense within the study of electrostatics. Collins also specifies that mask efficacy depends on a decent seal, and what seals well for him may not seal for others. These are assertions with evidence.

Someone may say electrostatic masks don't work and cite studies that consist of self-reported data. We might ask: do these claims exist within the realm of physical reality? They are saying that the laws of physics and the fundamentals of electrostatics cease to apply within a half-inch of the mouth and nose.

Does that sound plausible? Or does it sound like someone conflating theory with knowledge and tunnel vision with expertise, prioritizing social sciences over physics?

The responsible amateurist differentiates theory from evidence, and identifies or specifies what is an assertion and what is verified fact. The responsible amateurist accepts mask studies of self-reported data, but categorizes them as a study of human behaviour, not particle physics, reconciling both to observe: there are issues with human usage of masks, but behavioural studies don't overrule basic fundamentals of electrostatic attraction and repulsion.

If I tell you that oxybenzone, homosalate and octocrylene are potentially unsafe chemicals in sunscreen and that only titanium and zinc are known to be safe, you can Google those chemicals. You'll find this corroborated by the websites for the National Library of Medicine, the American Medical Association, the US Food and Drug Assocation, the National Institutes of Health, and the European Commission's Public Health branch.

You'll also see that there is nuance to be had: homosalate, avobenzone and oxybenzone are not proven to harm humans, but they absorb through skin, are detected in bodily fluids weeks after application, and have been found to be harmful in animal studies. While their effect on humans is not fully researched, animal study data is concerning, which is why titanium and zinc lotions, not deeply penetrating skin, are preferred by some.

By the same token: some medical professionals argue that oxybenzone should be avoided, but the rest are present in such small quantities in sunscreen that they are not harmful.

And when you can't find any corroboration within the basic principles of the field or from medical research, only other claims and assertions, then it isn't fact and shouldn't be presented as such. It is theory. And theory without at least a factual foundation is simply nonsense.

And going back to politics: after the Robert Hur DOJ report on Joe Biden's improper storage of classified documents was released, the internet was filled with clickbait articles declaring that Joe Biden was having serious memory problems and Robert Hur's report proved it.

But if you actually read Hur's report, you would see that the majority of people whom Hur interviewed had forgotten as much as Biden; that Hur excused all of them as having naturally forgotten events decades past -- except when writing about Joe Biden's memory at which point Hur declared he was senile.

The responsible reader should read the clickbait articles with suspicion. A responsible journalist would provide Hur's examples of Biden's failing memory, but then compare them to how Hur portrayed the memory failures of everyone else in Hur's report. And if a journalist doesn't look for those points of comparison, then they are irresponsible and inept.

565

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

This isn't related to Fauci, but Slider_Quinn21's post made me want to share one of my frustrations with medical amateurism: it is deeply disappointing when an irresponsible medical amateurist displays tunnel vision and selective focus.

This is when someone will give medical opinions based on the specific areas they (think they) understand while dismissing or flat-out ignoring the areas of science and medicine that they don't understand even if they're extremely relevant.

For example, one irresponsible medical amateurist will claim that masks don't protect from viruses and bacteria by pointing to studies where people self-reported whether or not they wore masks and whether or not they got sick, and point out that people who wore masks seemed to get as sick as people who didn't.

This irresponsible amateurist will refer repeatedly to these mask studies as recognized science, ignoring the fact that self-reporting is riddled with error; that these studies used a range of masks and some lacked electrostatic filtering or seals. They selectively focus on behavioural science and social science studies.

This irresponsible amateurist will never have any response when questioned on mask-filtration areas of science: electrostatics and the means by which electrostatically charged material attracts and traps particles because this amateurist doesn't understand of static electricity, stationary electric charge, or non-quantum particle models.

However, they do understand behavioural and social science, so they focus on that and they they this particular area of scientific study in self-reported behavioural data should overrule the fundamental physical principles governing electrostatics and particle physics. They just don't understand physics, so they decide it shouldn't be taken into consideration.

Electrostatically charged materials and their ability to filter particles are basic principles of particle physics. They are unaffected by how people wear masks or report it. It takes a special combination or arrogance and ignorance for anyone to claim that a shaky study of human behaviour should overrule the laws of physics.

Now, because health is a universal concern, we don't have the luxury of only discussing it if we have a medical degree. But there are ways to practice medical amateurism responsibly. The responsible amateurist needs to fact check their positions for tunnel vision, outdated information, and misapplied knowledge, and correct their positions before disseminating them.

The responsible amateurist is highly aware that because they don't practice medicine and don't maintain and update and apply their medical knowledge regularly, everything they think they know about medicine is likely incomplete, misremembered, or flat-out wrong, and take a critical eye to their own positions before sharing them. In this day and age, there is no excuse for anyone not to check their medical opinions before presenting them.

566

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

According to the AP News on Dr. Fauci's House appearance:

The definition of “gain of function” covers both general research and especially risky experiments to “enhance” the ability of potentially pandemic pathogens to spread or cause severe disease in humans. Fauci stressed he was using the risky experiment definition, saying “it would be molecularly impossible” for the bat viruses studied with EcoHealth’s funds to be turned into the virus that caused the pandemic.
https://apnews.com/article/fauci-covid- … 5484790230

567

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Please employ critical thinking and remember that Quinn is a fictional character and he has made a lot of bad choices like the time he beat a classmate with a baseball bat or when he walked into a vortex instead of building a drone with a digital video recorder that didn't depend on magnetized tape.

**

Gain-of-function is a point of criticism again of Dr. Fauci. Fauci had previously denied that the US or his agency supported or funded experiments in altering viruses to make them more infectious and contagious and resilient (to test how to fight them), or that he had contributed to such research in China, or that such research could have led to a lab leak that could have created COVID-19.

But last month, National Institutes of Health Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak confirmed that he and Fauci had worked on and led and contributed to gain-of-function research in China. However, Tabak noted that gain-of-function isn't a universally defined term and said the experiments discussed couldn't have led to COVID-19.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/0 … l-00161109

Fauci is to face the House of Representatives committee on Monday for questioning.

I will note that, as QuinSlidr explained: the research in question involved creating three artificial, lab-generated viruses and experimenting with how capable they would be of replicating in human cells; the human cells were placed in lab mice.

The argument at the time, as I understood it (but please be informed I am shaky on this) is that this research involved creating artificial and non-harmful viruses, not existing and/or dangerous viruses, and therefore didn't qualify as gain-of-function research, which generally refers to making natural viruses more powerful -- but not every scientist will consider gain-of-function a term exclusively applied to non-artificial viruses.

568

(63 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, 'exponential' growth implies that the technology even works as claimed in the first place. But it doesn't. Text generations are dependent on prompts where the user has to write a detailed breakdown of what they want in order to produce a rambling, incoherent rough draft that they have to polish extensively. Image and video generations are clumsy combinations of previously existing images without perspective, lighting, or composition.

I think it's really stretching for AI-purveyors to be bragging about artificial general intelligence or artificial superintelligence. Right now, we're at artificial narrow intelligence, and even that limited degree is propped up by humans doing all the gruntwork: training the models piece by piece, cleaning up and editing the content it generates, producing its results and hiding the human labour involved. AI right now is a very narrow illusion of intelligence. Exponential advancement from a con game of 'intelligence' is simply a more advanced con game.

AI is a helpful assistive tool where, if you have an outline in bullet points, AI is great for converting those points to a working rough draft (a very rough draft) to be rewritten. AI is great if you took a photograph and want to enhance its inherent strengths. But the claim is that AI can self-generate great content, and it can't even self-generate 'okay' content. And when AI producers claim it can drive a car or run a grocery store, they're hiding how it's humans behind the curtain, doing all the work.

569

(63 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

This article points out that a lot of the AI hype right now is severely overblown, with humans working to tidy up and polish the flawed results of glitchy AI tools:

Last month, Amazon’s supposedly AI–powered, human-free “Just Walk Out” grocery-store concept actually featured … many humans behind the scenes to monitor and program the shopping experience. Similar results were found in supposedly “AI–powered” human-free drive-thrus used by chains like Checkers and Carl’s Jr. There’s also the “driverless” Cruise cars, which require remote human intervention almost every couple of miles traveled.

ChatGPT parent company OpenAI is not immune to this, having employed a lot of humans to clean up and polish the animated visual landscapes supposedly generated wholesale by prompts made to its not-yet-public Sora image and film generator.

https://slate.com/technology/2024/05/go … takes.html

Even with some terrific AI outputs... I've had to do a lot of editing to make them fit for human consumption.

570

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I really, really want to believe the polls are wrong or at least slanted enough to impact the results.  I'm not there yet.  I'm still going to keep actively supporting the president and sending him money when I can.  I will not be discouraged enough by the polls, but I can't just hope the polls are wrong.  I'd love to see Biden take a lead, especially in the swing states, before I feel better.

Well. Resuming our tradition of Quinn writing campaign messages:

A message from Quinn Mallory to Slider_Quinn21:

Look, I get it. You're rattled by the polls showing the Republicans ahead. It's like watching a trainwreck in slow motion with Donald Trump at the end of the line. But let me tell it to you straight: these poll averages are as skewed as the NBA playoffs in 2002.

The Republicans are churning out dime-a-dozen surveys that tip the scales, mixing them with the legitimate ones to cook the averages. It's misdirection: flood the algorithm with weighted numbers to make Trump look inevitable.

But if you take a closer look, the independent numbers tell a different story. The real picture is buried under a pile of biased junk data.

You're hoping the Democrat surge will pop up in the collective polls. But that's like waiting for a bus that's been rerouted. That bus isn't coming. The truth isn't going down that street any more. If you want truth, you'll have to take a more circuitous route than you did before -- and towards the unbiased, unaffiliated polls.

I get that it's a hassle. It's easier to let someone else do the work. To take the neatly packaged average. But that's how you get played. The truth? That comes from legwork.

A lot of people have called me a genius. You've called me that. I'm going to let you in on a secret. I've never told this to anyone because nobody ever asked me to explain:

I'm not a genius. Anyone can think the way I do.

Every 'genius' I've ever met was just someone willing to do the work. Someone who would throw themselves into tasks that other people find too tedious and boring.

The world isn't actually divided between the brilliant and the mundane. Smart people are just the ones who are willing to grind through the data, chip away at the mistakes and the lies, and dig their way to the truth.

And I'll warn you now, friend. The truth isn't always in our favor. The truth isn't always going to be what we want to hear.

But the polling averages right now aren't truth. They're a boast. They are a brag to scare you and intimidate you, to tell you that what you're afraid of is what's coming true.

The truth is simply where things stand. The truth will shift because tomorrow's another day. The truth is where we are right now.

The truth is that neither party has a clear path to 270 electoral votes yet. It's 270 to win and neither side is there. Which means the race is a dead heat.

But even this far from Election Day, we can see that Donald Trump's campaign machine is glitchier than the Egyptian timer on its worst day while Joe Biden's campaign has the focus and drive of the Professor's mayoral campaign... which I remember that he lost, but my point still stands: as of this moment, no one's in the lead.

I'm a mathematician. I convert situations to numerical data and weigh probabilities and possibilities. As of today, the mathematician in me can't tell you who's winning or losing.

But I'd rather be on your side than theirs.

I cannot stress enough that this is a work of fiction and not written by AI; Quinn Mallory's political views as presented by me are so far outside canon that to call them fan fiction is giving them too much weight; the views of ireactions are not the views of Sliders.TV, and if I am wrong on this one, then I owe Slider_Quinn21 an Alamo movie house gift certificate.

Also, in 2016, Quinn told Slider_Quinn21 to vote for Joe the Tiger Guy and Slider_Quinn21 has said he will always regret it.

571

(698 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

As a huge fan of Christopher McQuarrie's MISSION IMPOSSIBLE series and the Ethan Hunt character (but not Tom Cruise) -- I am astonished that MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING was not a profitable film. I thought it was really great, but creative success isn't always financial success.

However, the previous M:I movies had been critically acclaimed and successful, so this one only earning $567 million on a $291 budget surprised me. I would have expected this film to easily earn at least $873 million and be a success on the general view that a film needs to earn triple its budget to turn a profit. A lot of franchises did poorly in 2023: TRANSFORMERS, INDIANA JONES.

MI7 apparently lost $100 million and MI8 is still filming and delayed, and it has to be released. But the studio wants to remove the DEAD RECKONING: PART 2 title and change it to something else to try to detach it from the underperforming MI7.

There are all these theories as to why MI7 wasn't more successful: that BARBIE and OPPENHEIMER dominated the news, that the PART ONE label on MI7 was alienating to people who weren't inclined to go to the movies for a cliffhanger ending. Another theory that I don't think is likely is that there have been too many MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movies, but MI4 was in 2011, MI5 was 2015, MI6 was 2018, MI7 was 2023. A gap of five years since MI6 is hardly short.

I don't go to a lot of movies in theatres, but I was so excited to see MI7 that I made sure to see in IMAX the first week.

A part of me wonders if Ethan Hunt's resurgence under Christopher McQuarrie has had its time. I'm not sure. Ethan Hunt since McQuarrie took over has been revised into a counter-establishment, anti-establishment figure, a figure of mistrust, paranoia, whose movies induce anxiety and are navigated with a panicked methodicism. Hunt has been a rogue operative in five of his seven movies. Ethan's improvisational brilliance and physicality reminds me of who Quinn Mallory would be in his 40s and 50s.

To me, an Ethan Hunt movie with Christopher McQuarrie is a distillation and realization of Quinn Mallory's character, and a validation that SLIDERS and Quinn were both something really special.

I've always thought of Jerry O'Connell as the less cult-obsessed, less-egotistical, less-expensive version Tom Cruise. I've written a lot of Quinn Mallory fanfic, and it's pretty clear to me that my Quinn is Jerry O'Connell playing Ethan Hunt, except where Cruise exudes frantic confidence and panicked certainty, my Quinn conveys unsteady alarm and is a little astonished when his improvised solutions work.

I wonder, given how terrifying the world can seem these days, if people looking for some comfort and relief at the movies look at BARBIE and OPPENHEIMER and elect to see BARBIE.

I wonder if people looking for high art look at MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, a pulpy thriller, and OPPENHEIMER, a Christopher Nolan film, and go with Nolan.

Ethan Hunt is a character I adore played by a problematic actor. He is like a child's vision of improvisational hypercompetence. He is a valuable and special character, but he may not be a character who can justify a $291 million dollar movie that needs to earn $873 million at box office to turn a profit.

I wonder if Ethan Hunt can exist in a $120 million dollar movie and I genuinely don't know if he can, because at this point, Hunt is defined by crazy physical stunts like skydiving over Paris or driving a motorcycle off a mountain onto a moving train, and you can't do that kind of thing on the budget of SUPERNATURAL or even SUPERMAN AND LOIS money.

572

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I wonder how sentencing will go.

**

At this point, my theoretical conclusion is that the poor poll performance for Biden is specifically targeting Slider_Quinn21.

The method: create numerous low-budgeted, low-labour polls of the electorate that deliberately focus their sample size on Republicans and calculate the results to overcount Republican support and undercount Democrat support.

As these polls are designed to alter the overall average of cumulative poll results, these polls aren't checked for accuracy and reliability. Because these polls are deliberately fast and loose, they are cheap and quick to produce in greater quantities than independent polls that are costly, slow, and subject to rigorous review.

Polling is generally based on pooling the polls, Democrat and independent and Republican, and calculating an average. In the 2022 midterms, Democrat analyst Simon Rosenberg described an "unprecedented campaign by Republicans to flood the polling averages in the final month to create this impression of the red wave" that never came.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … -democrats

The goal seems to be to demoralize Democrats with bad polling and lead them to waste valuable and additional resources (time, money, labour) on candidates and districts that the polls say are in trouble, but are actually well-positioned to win.

Meanwhile, candidates and districts that are in very-tight but still-winnable races are deprived of the resources that would let them be more visible and present to voters and eke out more votes to win.

The goal seems to be to make Slider_Quinn21 unhappy.

That's the theory I'm going with. But I could be wrong.

I cannot emphasize enough in the name of Quinn's sweater vest, Rembrandt's red sweater, Maggie's checkered top and Colin's cowboy outfit that the opinions of ireactions are not the views of Sliders.TV and if I'm wrong, I will script Parts 7 - 8 of SLIDERS REBORN.

573

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Nate Cohn in The New York Times:

The polls have shown Donald Trump with an edge for eight straight months, but there’s a sign his advantage might not be quite as stable as it looks: His lead is built on gains among voters who aren’t paying close attention to politics, who don’t follow traditional news and who don’t regularly vote.

Disengaged voters on the periphery of the electorate are driving the polling results — and the story line — about the election.

President Biden has actually led the last three New York Times/Siena national polls among those who voted in the 2020 election, even as he has trailed among registered voters overall. And looking back over the last few years, almost all of Trump’s gains came from these less engaged voters.

Importantly, these low-turnout voters are often from Democratic constituencies. Many back Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate. But in our polling, Biden wins just three-quarters of Democratic-leaning voters who didn’t vote in the last cycle, even as almost all high-turnout Democratic-leaners continue to support him.

This trend illustrates the disconnect between Trump’s lead in the polls and Democratic victories in lower-turnout special elections. And it helps explain Trump’s gains among young and nonwhite voters, who tend to be among the least engaged.

Commentary from Rosenberg at https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/new- … uch-rather

You know, your comments about Batman have made me realize something about myself: I have a blindspot when it comes to Batman. I tend to overlook when something has gone horribly wrong with him, and I normalize it when I shouldn't. And since it's me, it obviously ties into the cancellation of SLIDERS and the death of Professor Arturo.

From 1997 - 2000, the sliders were destroyed: they lost Tracy Torme, Professor Arturo was murdered, Wade was sent to a rape camp, Quinn was 'lost', Rembrandt's fate was unknown. SLIDERS presented a fundamentally defeatist vision: teamwork, knowledge, ingenuity and improvisation were useless. Our demons and David Peckinpah would always defeat us.

Then in 2000, there was Mark Waid's JLA storyline, "Tower of Babel" in which the Justice League is attacked by R'as Al Ghul who makes Superman's skin transparent which overloads his solar storage capacity and supersenses. Ghul then gives the Flash superspeed seizures, traps Wonder Woman in a simulation of endless battle that will cause her heart to explode, uses a toxin to make Aquaman hydrophobic which will kill him if he's away from water for too long, and blinds Green Lantern so he can't use the power ring.

The League is horrified to learn: Ghul stole all these strategies and the technology from the Batcave. Batman has been creating ways to kill the entire Justice League should they ever turn against him. Batman barely manages to save his friends who promptly kick him off the team.

Waid's storyline seemed to trigger something in every other writer on Batman: Batman became a harsh, abrasive, callous, and abusive 'leader' of the Bat team. He rarely had a single kind word for Robin, Nightwing, Oracle, Azrael or even Gordon. Batman in his titles and every guest appearance made him condescending, impatient, dismissive and aggressive. His behaviour reached the point where Alfred moved out of Wayne Manor and moved in with Robin.

When Gotham City is struck by earthquakes and abandoned by the US government in the NO MAN'S LAND storyline, Batman... disappears. The city descends into chaos, Gordon and the rest of the Bat family struggle to hold things together, supervillains carve up parts of the city as their empire.

We learn that Bruce has abandoned Gotham after failing to convince government to reverse its decision. He wanders aimlessly until his ex-girlfriend, Talia, forces him to confront the situation; only after a three month absence does Batman return to Gotham and attempt to retake the city, eventually succeeding and seeing Gotham restored to the US.

Some time later, Bruce Wayne began dating TV personality Vesper Fairchild, which Batman considers merely keeping the Wayne identity in circulation. When Vesper starts to get too close to Bruce, he callously stages a nude pool party with models and lets Vesper think he's cheating on her to drive her away. Later, Vesper is murdered, and all evidence point to Bruce Wayne. Bruce is arrested, and then escapes from jail, beginning the BRUCE WAYNE: FUGITIVE era.

When Alfred, Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl (Cassandra Cain), and Oracle (Barbara Gordon) catch up with him, Batman informs them that he has no intention of trying to clear Bruce Wayne's name. Instead, he declares that the Wayne identity is a disguise that has become a liability, and he's done with it. He tells the Bat Family they are on their own as Bruce Wayne's fortune will no longer be available, and then Batman resumes his crimefighting career without any personal life or secret identity, using satellite bases in Gotham and stockpiled supplies and equipment.

Eventually, Batman does clear his name, but Batman's increasingly distant, aloof and dismissive attitude to anyone and everyone remains. When Jason Todd returns from the dead as a criminal-slaughtering anti-hero (UNDER THE RED HOOD), Batman is shaken but denies it's emotionally difficult.

It all comes to a head in the 2006 INFINITE CRISIS where we learn that Batman set up the deadly Brother Eye satellite network system to surveil superheroes worldwide to monitor and use as a weapon to eliminate them should they become threats. The supervillains and a parallel Lex Luthor, Alexander, take control of Brother Eye to use it against the superheroes.

Batman attempts to regain control and can't, and he has a psychological collapse, horrified by how everything has gone completely wrong: he's alienated every friend and ally, his weapons are now in his enemies' hands, and his life's work has been a failure.

The Justice League and a regretful Batman barely manage to prevent a catastrophe, but a shattered Batman confronts Alexander Luthor, grabs a gun, and is prepared to put a bullet through Alexander's skull. It only Wonder Woman who stops him.

At this point, Batman realizes that something is wrong with him; something has been incredibly wrong with him for years, and he needs to take a step back.

In 52 #30, Dick Grayson and Tim Drake have a discussion, and they realize what they've turned a blind eye to for too long: Batman has had a nervous breakdown. Dick believes that Batman's mental health crisis began with the death of Jason Todd followed by the Joker shooting Barbara and crippling her. The emotional trauma of both were then compounded by the physical trauma of Bane breaking Batman's back. Batman felt helpless.

The grief, pain and paranoia led to Batman creating the anti-JLA countermeasures that alienated him from his closest friends. The US abandoning Gotham City saw Batman walk out on the city as well for three months; despite returning, he later abandoned the Bruce Wayne identity and all his friends. Then the horror of Jason Todd returning as a murderous lunatic and losing control of the Brother Eye system were the final cracks in Batman's crumbling psyche.

Dick says that they had overlooked it; they saw Batman as invincible, unbreakable, devoid of doubt or fear, to the point where they dismissed his increasing isolation, abuse and sociopathy as Batman being Batman. Even as Batman abandoned his city for three months, alienated his friends, abandoned his friends, abandoned his own true identity -- they thought it was simply his focus on crimefighting. They didn't realize that Batman had lost faith in friendship, teamwork, trust, and even in himself. Batman's agony and depression had swallowed him whole and even Batman himself didn't notice.

In a ritualistic ceremony in a vacant desert without the costume or any weapons, Bruce confronts the tribe of Ten-Eyed Swordsmen who battle him and all his demons. When Dick and Tim catch up to him, Bruce is serene. He says that the darkness in his soul has been shorn away. "Batman is gone," he tells them.

When we next see Batman, he's back in Gotham City and has a decidedly more upbeat and positive attitude, and the embittered and miserable Batman of 2000 - 2006 has become a passionate, imaginative adventurer with grand ambitions for making the world better.

When I was reading these comics from 2000 - 2006, reading all these stories of Batman's escalating sociopathy -- Batman's cynicism seemed like sanity to me. After SLIDERS, Batman's attitude seemed like a completely rational approach to the world.

Batman abandoned all liabilities and distractions; he dismissed friendship as frivolous, teamwork as tenuous, and trust as temporary and therefore meaningless. He wrote off Alfred, Gordon, Dick, Tim and Barbara. He assumed the worst of all circumstances and all people. And at the time, Batman's isolationist approach seemed (to me) like the only way to survive a world that could do such horrific things to Barbara Gordon and Jason Todd, or Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo.

But looking at it now, it's obvious to me that Batman was either losing it or his writers had (due to being overly enamoured with "Tower of Babel"). It's obvious to me that Batman abandoning his personal life and all his relationships was not a strategic decision, but an act of self-destructive bitterness and grief where he pre-emptively lost hope and faith in people and gave up on them in advance of them letting him down.

I failed to see that Batman was not being written correctly or that Batman's sanity was deteriorating. I couldn't see it because of my own mental health issues.

It occurs to me that I have a recurring inability to spot it when Batman is having a mental health crisis (or when the writers are having one). I have a tendency to normalize it due to my own psychological shortcomings, and Slider_Quinn21's comments have really made me see that.

575

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't know how seriously to take Democrat think tanker and analyst Simon Rosenberg, but he noted that the 2022 elections predicted a red wave wipeout that didn't happen. His view is that polling is severely skewed by Republican-funded polls that are throwing off the averages:

In looking at the polling averages note that we are starting to see, as we did in 2022, a difference between independent polls and Republican-aligned polls. Just scrolling through 538 you can find data like the data above, showing Biden leading/tied, and then you get to the many GOP polls which show Trump ahead by 2-5 points. It’s why I don’t really believe in the averages any more.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/abor … ncouraging

Part of the reason I got the 2022 election right when so many got it wrong was that I broke out independent polls like these from polling averages which had been influenced by a flood of Republican aligned polls. These Republican funded polls often produced results 3-4 more points more Republican than independent polling.

I think we are starting to see something similar happen in this election, with most independent polls finding a close competitive election, perhaps one now where we have a slight advantage; and R funded polling (and NYT/Siena) finding it much more Republican. It’s clear Trump and Republicans think they are seeing a new red wave, and that they lead. I don’t think it's a fair read of the data, just as I didn’t think the red wave was a fair read of the data in 2022.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/also … -inflation

The theory here would be that the polling averages show Democrats losing due to an influx of Republican polls that are biased to favour Republicans, and these Republican funded polls, due to being sloppy and selective by design, can outnumber independent polls and unbalance the averages to make it seem like Republicans are winning.

This would mean that Slider_Quinn21's disheartened outlook is the result of the Republican strategy to flood polling with bad data in their favour, have the media report another red wave like in 2022, and try again to depress Democrat voters and campaign efforts and Slider_Quinn21's morale.

576

(698 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Does an announced DEXTER prequel make Slider_Quinn21 happy?

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/dexter … 236014330/

I don't think it's happening soon.

It seems like Paramount Global is having financial issues.
https://trekmovie.com/2024/04/02/alex-k … his-hands/

Matalas won't be on VISION forever.

578

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, here is Biden's take on why the polls are wrong:
https://www.axios.com/2024/05/14/biden- … 4-election

The issues with Superman strike me as something that should have been addressed simply by Snyder having Superman doing repair work with the US Corps of Engineers after the Metropolis attack, and having a conversation with the general about his loyalties on a construction site. And noticeably: in BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, Superman is emotionally shattered by the deaths in Washington, but Warner Bros. inexplicably cut the scene and it was only in the ULTIMATE EDITION.

But I think you've seized upon something very important that even SMALLVILLE understood despite SMALLVILLE being possibly one of the stupidest superhero shows ever made: Superman isn't defined by beating people up; Superman saves people.

The most exciting scenes in SMALLVILLE were never the (very few) superpowered fights; it was Clark ripping people out of harm's way as he pulled them from crashing cars and explosions and yanked them away from gunfire and floods. Tom Welling, while not the world's greatest actor, was so incredible at conveying superhuman strength and superhuman gentleness in his super-saves.

Zack Snyder seemed to have little to no interest in exciting super-saves, and a Superman who doesn't have amazing super-saves is like a Sherlock Holmes who doesn't solve mysteries or a Spider-Man who prefers driving over web-slinging or a Jedi who doesn't use a lightsaber.

As for Batman's motivations -- maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that so many traumatic things have happened to any version of Batman in his life that it would be a little reductive to point at any one event as what sent him slightly off the deep end, whether it was the death of his parents or Alfred burning the bacon one morning.

And yes, it was ridiculous for Snyder to tease some massive, epic Apokalips vs. Earth storyline that he kept teasing in the SNYDER CUT even when he knew there would be no resolution.

I mean, Scott Bakula is a Name Actor. He's not Tom Cruise, but he has a following and he brings importance to a project. If Bakula had been in the revival, it would have been an additional point of marketing, a new avenue of publicity, and more attention that could have led to higher ratings.

Did Scott Bakula kill QL2.0 by starving it of his participation?

That said, iCARLY 2.0 and WILL AND GRACE REBORN only made it three seasons, THE X-FILES REBORN and SAVED BY THE BELL REBORN made it two seasons, and PUNKY BREWSTER REBORN only got one.

**

I guess, the thing that makes QL2.0 kind of disappointing for ending where it did: it retroactively presented Dr. Sam Beckett's disappearance in a really bleak and tragic way. Sam was lost and never returned home. Project Quantum Leap was ultimately a failure. Sam was a failure. Al was a failure.

I don't think that's where they would have left Sam and Al's stories, with or without Bakula's involvement, if they'd had more time. Certainly, the Season 2 finale of Addison and Ben joyfully reunited was meant to be a reversal: Ben is still lost, but he and Addison are together. They would have found something kinder for Sam and Al too, if they had not been cancelled.

As Dr. Ben would say, time steals from us all.

And I will say this: the slow demise and cancellation of SLIDERS really damaged my ability to connect with people. It destroyed me in so many ways. It made me bitter. It made me angry. It made it hard for me to trust again. It became too easy for me to lose hope and faith in human beings and TV shows.

QUANTUM LEAP 2.0 was cancelled, but the unplanned finale it provided made me feel glad and grateful for the time I had with it, and made me feel like cancellation was something I could move through without feeling defeated by it. For that, I thank Martin Gero and his team.

I would argue that Zack Snyder's DC movies would have been considered successful if they had cost less.

I don't know if Snyder's Batman and Superman are really that off-model. Batman is prepared to kill henchmen in a fight and target Superman for death if he thinks Superman will be a threat... which is a few steps removed from the comic book version, but not that far removed in that the fighting techniques Batman uses in the comics would, in real life, kill someone, and Batman does stockpile Kryptonite in case Superman ever turns. Superman kills Zod to prevent him from harming civilians, which, again, I could see the comic book Superman doing if he had to.

I think that Snyder put Superman and Batman in a more 'realistic' world and was a bit haphazard in the realism. The Metropolis event should be a traumatic, horrific, 9/11 level disaster of violence and grief, but MAN OF STEEL seems to forget all about it, and rumour was that Snyder genuinely didn't realize the audience would imagine themselves in all the destroyed buildings.

I would say that Snyder's main issue is audience and cost. Regarding the audience: should have realized that his MAN OF STEEL action sequences would look like 9/11 to an audience, be as traumatic as 9/11 for the characters, and either adjusted the story accordingly or depicted the trauma accordingly.

Regarding the cost: MAN OF STEEL cost $258 million and would have needed to earn $774 million to turn a profit; it earned $668 million, probably just breaking even. Snyder's BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE cost $325 million, needed to earn $975 million to turn a profit, earned $874.4 million, again, probably just breaking even. There is an audience for grimdark superheroes -- it's just that it's not big enough for Snyder's films to be profitable at the amount that they cost.

I would estimate that the audience for Snyder's movies is about 83 million people. I would suggest that Snyder's movies should have been budgeted at $100 - 125 million, and if they had been, MAN OF STEEL, BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE and even JUSTICE LEAGUE would have been successes.

Considering how amazing SUPERMAN AND LOIS looks on an $6.3 million per episode budget, Snyder's movies really did not need to be spending $258 million and upwards unless his movies could earn $774 million at minimum. Snyder shot MAN OF STEEL in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Vancouver; filming entirely in Vancouver like SUPERMAN AND LOIS would have made MAN OF STEEL much more cost effective. The fights and special effects, while very impressive, were so elaborate and took two years to do what SUPERMAN AND LOIS could accomplish in a few months.

Snyder had a very lavish, extended, normal-for-cinema model for creating that, while impressive, takes a long time and costs too much for the amount of revenue it generated. SUPERMAN AND LOIS is not nearly as detailed and lavish and has a certain minimalism compared to Snyder's extravagance, but SUPERMAN AND LOIS accordingly doesn't need to earn $774 million in revenue to turn a profit.

Had MAN OF STEEL been made with the cost efficiency of the SUPERMAN AND LOIS television show and earned the same box office on a lower budget, I don't think Warner Bros. would have interfered with BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE or JUSTICE LEAGUE. If JUSTICE LEAGUE had cost $125 million, it would only have needed to earn $375 million to be profitable and its $661.3 million box office would have been seen as a good return.

582

(5 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I agree that people didn't buy the military aspects of Maggie, but that is the character. She's a military officer. She's a fighter pilot. She's an intelligence agent. She was a spy. It's ultimately the only framework for the character beyond "played by Kari Wuhrer", so it's the place to start, and it should inform her characterization in the way Captain America being a soldier informs that character's clothing, dialogue and mannerisms.

Marc Scott Zicree did a lot of work on the Maggie character and he identified that Wuhrer was much more endearing as a lighter presence rather than a harsh one. But while he was on SLIDERS, he also worked Maggie's military background and strategy skills into her characterization a bit more. I also liked how Chris Black delved into Maggie's military family background while also leveraging Kari's musical skills and had her sing. Ultimately, the military origins are the best starting point for Maggie when it comes to trying to define the character -- and aesthetically, that should have been at least subtly reflected in the character's fashion.

And the purple hair and punk rock look that Kari wanted for Maggie -- well, Maggie was a spy. The story could be that she had to assume the look and role in an undercover mission during a slide... and something about it spoke to her and she stuck to it. But again, that's playing to Kari's interest in music, and the way a character looks should speak to the character's life and background and formative experiences. And for Captain Margaret Allison Beckett, that is her service in the armed forces.

583

(5 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

What a pleasant interview! Thank you for sharing this. I'm sorry that Kari didn't get a chance to direct an episode in Season 5 as hoped. As for her wish to rework Maggie's character -- honestly, given how Maggie's personality was incoherent, they could have done worse than put her in Kari's hands. (I recall the purple hair was for Season 5.)

I don't think any of her hairstyles ever looked "stupid". The bright red hair of Season 3 was very distinct; the dark black hair of Season 4 was subdued; the dark red hair of Season 5 was a midpoint. It does speak to how the creators of the show didn't have a very clear image of Maggie since they didn't identify aspects of her appearance as signature elements to be maintained.

Looking at other characters: the Doctor on DOCTOR WHO, beginning with the fourth Doctor, was consciously styled in hair and clothing to be recognizable at any distance and angle (the hat and the long scarf); Clark Kent is distinct in his suit and glasses; MacGyver stands out with his long hair. Maggie was never given a signature style; it seems Kari wanted to give the character something to stand out.

Maybe it's too on the nose, but probably, the signature style for Maggie should have reflected her military background in some way: a camouflage pattern in pants or jacket, or always some hint of militaristic green.

RussianCabbie pondered how QUANTUM LEAP 2.0 would be remembered, if it'd be considered a success or failure, if cancelled after two seasons (which it was).

I thought it was, creatively, a very successful show. But I confess: I will never watch it again.

It's not because it wasn't good -- it was very good and sometimes great -- but it didn't have a climactic, conclusive finale. It was a set of strong episodes that ended in another strong episode that offered a nice note of grace. But that note wasn't an ending as much as a new beginning.

QL2.0 is a story with a beginning, a middle, and a pause, as opposed to a beginning, a middle, and an end. Given how many cancelled shows just cut off (SLIDERS), a pause is admirable and a high achievement. It was the best the creators could do in the situation they were in with the resources they had to hand.

It just wouldn't be worthwhile for me to go on that journey again because the journey didn't go somewhere wholly satisfying. But I'm glad and grateful for the time I had with QUANTUM LEAP 2.0.

Well, winning or losing for RIVERDALE would depend on examining RIVERDALE's goals. RIVERDALE was a TV exploration of putting the Archie characters in different genres. While the Archie brand is associated with children's teen comedy, ever since 2010 (if not earlier), the comic publisher had been experimenting with turning the ARCHIE publishing line into SLIDERS with some genre-hopping and some titles that were more adult and serious.

LIFE WITH ARCHIE was about adult versions of the characters. 2013's AFTERLIFE WITH ARCHIE put Archie in a post-apocalyptic zombie horror story. The 2015 ARCHIE relaunch changed Archie's genre from teen comedy to dramedy, with a bit more stakes, while still very funny. JUGHEAD: THE HUNGER explored Jughead's werewolf heritage. VAMPIRONICA made Veronica a vampire.

All of these were in separate continuities, so Archie could die in LIFE WITH ARCHIE and Riverdale could be destroyed in AFTERLIFE and other titles were free to ignore it. The JUGHEAD: TIME POLICE series had Jughead encountering some of these parallel realities. All these comics were an exercise in exploring how far the Archie cast could go in genre and setting while still remaining themselves. RIVERDALE was the distillation of this exploration, with a teen soap meets rural film noir situation for Seasons 1 - 4, a darkly operatic civic crime thriller in Season 5 with the gang now adults, a shift into TWILIGHT ZONE science fiction and mysticism in Season 6A followed by moving into the superhero genre in Season 6B.

One very strong ARCHIE comic was ARCHE: 1941 which was set in a historically realistic 1941 where Archie and Riverdale were facing World War II, the boys joining the army, war rationing, bigotry, nationalism and fear that Nazis were nearing American shores. The seventh season of RIVERDALE was a loose adaptation of ARCHIE: 1941, choosing the 1950s where the post-war ARCHIE comics had solidified into teen comedy over war propaganda, and exploring the civil rights movement that the actual 1950s comics had ignored.

Did RIVERDALE lose? I mean, the show was absurd, but I don't think it was ever trying to be a Serious Drama as much as a melodramatic, exaggerated, heightened, self-aware fantasy. I don't think it lost at being exactly what it set out to be, although as actress Vanessa Morgan (Toni) noted: it severely underserved its people of colour, never giving Toni any storylines once she was established as Cheryl's love interest and only using her to give Cheryl a black friend and lover.

Vanessa Morgan called the writers out on this in public in social media, and interestingly, showrunner Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa responded on social media with: "We hear Vanessa. We love Vanessa. She’s right. We’re sorry and we make the same promise to you that we did to her. We will do better to honor her and the character she plays. As well as all of our actors and characters of color."

Season 5 and on ward saw a larger role for Vanessa Morgan's Toni Topaz: she was treated as equally as Betty, Veronica and Cheryl, and Archie told her that she had always been an important part of his friend group, which was a huge part of why Seasons 5 - 7 were so pleasing to me. So even in that area of failure, RIVERDALE found a way to do better and succeed.

That said, there is a ton of disdain for RIVERDALE's absurdity and exaggeration and lunacy, from Season 2's hunt for the Black Hood killer to Season 4's insanity with an organ harvesting cult where the leader tries to escape in a rocketship and Season 5 where the FBI sets up an office in Riverdale because the town is a nexus point for any number of criminal enterprises.

And for anyone wanting a sensible teen dramedy like DAWSON's CREEK, RIVERDALE was probably not a winner. But I would argue we should review the show they set out to make and not the show anyone else wanted them to make. We wouldn't judge SLIDERS for being an absurdist comedy over an action series.

586

(698 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I am not a Zack Snyder fan and did not watch REBEL MOON... but did it really look cheap? I always thought of Zack Snyder as only doing projects with lavish spending.

You know, the Defenders were originally Dr. Strange's team. Netflix made it Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist, but the team was originally Strange and whatever characters Marvel editorial had free. So, if you wanted to do a Marvel Suicide Squad, you could probably use the Defenders.

I imagine that a Zack Snyder version of Captain America would be Ultimate Captain America as opposed to anything like the Chris Evans version.

I'm glad you made sure to include an unnecessary and pointless premonition in Zack Snyder's AVENGERS of a future plot that will never, ever, ever be completed. That seems like such a Zack Snyder thing. Haha!

I suspect that a Zack Snyder CAPTAIN AMERICA movie would have used Ultimate Captain America, a version in comics developed by writer Mark Millar. This version of the character was less Chris Evans and more... Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer in 24.

The ULTIMATE version of the Marvel universe is set in the 2000s vs the 616 Marvel Universe originating in the 1960s. This alternate continuity was Marvel attempting a then-present day reboot of Spider-Man, X-Men and the Avengers, which were rebranded as The Ultimates to avoid competing with the 616 Avengers title.

Mark Millar radically reworked Captain America for the ULTIMATE line. The Ultimate version of Steve Rogers was not a gentle, good-hearted superhero, but instead a somewhat jingoistic and nationalistic soldier with superpowers who gladly supported the George W. Bush administration.

Ultimate Steve Rogers made sexist remarks and had hints of racism (such as when he was frozen during WWII, woke up in 2000, and didn't Nick Fury could be in the army because Fury was black). Rogers had no hesitation in using lethal force when his 616 counterpart was written as having not even killed anyone during WWII. Rogers was willing to torture and flat out murder America's enemies. This version of Rogers also participated in the US Army covering up their involvement in the Hulk attacking New York City and killing several hundred people, and later called French people cowards for surrendering in WWII.

Millar wrote a lot of nuance into Rogers: when a teammate violently abused his wife, Rogers hunted him down and beat him into the hospital. Rogers treated his colleagues and civilians with respect, politeness, and worked hard to prevent civilian casualties. Rogers was, ultimately, not a superhero as much as a soldier whom the US Army presented to the public as a superhero. Rogers' priority was always victory for America over right and wrong.

Millar's nuance enabled Rogers to be enjoyable for people on both sides of the political spectrum. One side saw Rogers as their icon and hero; another side saw Rogers as a satirical indictment of the military industrial complex and the glorification of war.

However, a lot of Millar's version of Rogers is dependent on the reader noting the distinction between Rogers and the 616 Steve. Without that contrast, Millar's Rogers might not be as interesting.

After Millar left the ULTIMATE line, subsequent ULTIMATE writers seemed to really struggle with writing Millar's version of Rogers. Some wrote him as a government tool without the nuance; some wrote him like his 616 counterpart. But over time, Ultimate Steve Rogers also lost his reason to exist.

Post-Millar, the 616 writers folded quite a bit of Millar's version of Rogers into the 616 Steve. Steve's WWII war service was rewritten to have had Steve use lethal force in war and combat, and in the present day as well, although he wouldn't kill if he could avoid it.

The 616 writers began to highlight Steve's skills as a master strategist and tactician were highlighted to make him more distinct than other street level superheroes like Daredevil. Steve's military role was used to put him in more espionage thriller stories instead of straightforward superhero adventures. Steve remained a gentle man of peace, but the writers gave him some of the Ultimate Steve Rogers' militaristic edge and made the solder aspect of Steve more prominent. However, Steve in the 616 universe was always a superhero first and a soldier second.

Writer Ed Brubaker, possibly in response to Millar having Rogers call the French cowards, wrote a 616 issue where Steve visits France and talks about how, in WWII, he was inspired by how the people of France kept fighting the Nazis even when the government had surrendered. Steve describes how, when France was finally liberated, he attended the military victory parade in uniform, but stood among the people and not the military, saluting French soldiers instead of marching with them.

Despite Millar's Captain America being very different, his take on Captain America ultimately informed and improved the original version, and I think it was a good thing.

I suspect that Snyder, if he had been asked to do a Captain America movie, would have done the Jack Bauer version of Captain America as written by Mark Millar, and he wouldn't have cast Chris Evans. He would have cast someone with a more aggressively masculine screen presence like Dwayne Johnson or Chatum Tanning.

One show that doesn't get much respect but which I enjoyed a lot: RIVERDALE, a dark, film noir version of Archie comic books. And something I enjoyed in its fifth season: they basically cancelled their own show and mounted a revival. In the early fifth season episodes, Archie and the gang graduate from high school (which was meant for the end of Season 4 but delayed due to pandemic).

Then the very next episode is set seven years later: Archie and friends return to their hometown after a long absence and the actors, now playing characters closer to their actual ages instead of high school students, discover that their home is in a dire situation and is in urgent need of saving.

I really liked all of this. I liked seeing the kids we knew in high school become adults. I liked them moving past adolescent issues and battling for the soul and life of their hometown. I liked seeing them become teachers and mentors instead of students. It was wonderful to see their potential achieved and realized.

Season 6 also took another turn: the first half of the season was set in a dark, paranormal reality and the show's title changed to RIVERVALE. And when we returned to the 'main' reality, Archie and friends now had superpowers: superstrength, psychic abilities, telepathic gifts -- the show took a bizarre and joyfully ridiculous turn into becoming an eerie CW superhero drama.

Season 7, for better or for worse, did a hard reboot and all the characters were now 1950s high school students. The writing was as strong as ever (but even RIVERDALE's most ardent fans will argue it was always poor). I understood that, as the creators knew it to be the final season, a 1950s setting was a way to engage where Archie comic books had solidified, and deal with the actual social realities of bigotry and inequality and prejudice that the Archie comics of the era had never addressed at all.

But I really loved the revival-style adult seasons of RIVERDALE. I would have loved to see the show do four years of high school and four years of adulthood.

590

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Now, rather than respond and ask me to clarify, or something a civilized person would do, we get the moderator notes followed by another trip to the principal's office.

I hear you. I agree with you. You're right. I should have responded and asked you to clarify and done what a civilized person would do.

I'm sorry. The next time you say something that offends me, I will ask you to clarify instead of what I did before.

**

I'm freaked out by everything: the Supreme Court case (despite George Conway's reassurances), by Judge Cannon (although that was less on Democrats and more on Merrick Garland's slowness and timidity), by the polls (despite Democrats overperforming).

I find myself thinking about what Sherlock told me.

I would tell you to stop being irrational and emotional. You're letting your fear and anxiety cloud your mind and prevent you from seeing the reality: that you have no control over these events, and your feelings have no impact on the situation.

You're wasting too much time time and energy obsessing over something that doesn't benefit you and doesn't benefit from your attention.

You need to find a case.

A case that is interesting and complex. A case that requires your skills and expertise. A case that challenges you and tests you. A case that is worthy of your attention and time. A case that is fun and exciting. A case that makes you match your wits and logic against adversaries and the unknown. A case that only you can solve. A case that demands for you to play the Game.

Outside of your obligation to vote, politics are a joke. They're a farce. They're a waste of time. They're nothing.

The Game is something. It’s a challenge. It’s a thrill.

You need a case. You need the Game. The Game is everything. The Game is the only thing that matters. The Game is life. And I am the master of the Game. The Game is what makes me alive. The Game is what makes me Sherlock Holmes.

And the Game.

Is on.

Not to mingle threads, but in situations like these, I find myself reading the Marvel comic, POWERLESS, set in a universe where none of the superhero characters have any powers. Matt Murdock is a recovering addict, a lawyer who is completely outmatched by crime boss Wilson Fisk. Peter Parker is a survivor of radiation poisoning and his terrified of corrupt industrialist Norman Osborn.

There are no superheroes in this world, just ordinary people, and the entire comic is a solemn reflection on how we often take joy in escaping to a world where good triumphs over evil, and no one ever really dies (except Karen Page and Uncle Ben) -- but in real life, sometimes we're the hero, sometimes we're the villain, sometimes we can save the day, and sometimes, we are powerless.

I guess this was a long-winded way of saying that I'm limiting myself to a half-hour a day to read political news because the whole thing is so scary.

Anyway. My 'case' has been to throw myself into my dayjob and edit photos for nice ladies.

591

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The polls for Democrats are bad... but in actual elections, Democrats outperform.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democra … =101850305

I have no idea who is going to be the next president, and I'm still pretty worried about it.

592

(438 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The first two seasons of SLIDERS and the first five seasons of THE X-FILES were basically neighbours filming in Vancouver. And I certainly think of SLIDERS and THE X-FILES as existing on the same multidimensional axis.

**

What are you enjoying about the books you've been listening to?

**

Every couple years, I like to re-read the SEASON 10 and SEASON 11 comic books. They had a slightly more muted, low-key (and rushed) finale than I would have liked, but they mostly resolved their stories except for two loose ends.

**

I still have the two IDW X-FILES prose anthologies from the SEASON 10/SEASON 11 era of 2013 - 2015 to read.

593

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've noticed that people have some unfortunately non-factual ideas about mask studies, electrostatic filtration and viral transmission.

Mask Study Findings

This study, Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review, has been cited by many to declare that masks don't work. They claim that this report declares that transmission was not lower among mask wearers than non-mask wearers, or in areas with mask mandates vs no mask mandate. That is a baffling claim given that the report starts with:

Despite the risk of bias, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/

The risk of bias is that much of the data comes from mask-wearers who were self-reporting their mask wearing habits, perhaps inaccurately, and that mask wearing was combined with other interventions like social distancing.

The other highly cited report is the Cochrane Report, Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses, where unscrupulous clickbait producers cited it to claim masks don't work. But the report's key points are:

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks.

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/do … .pub6/full

To put it simply: the results were hit and miss, but due to "relatively low adherence with the interventions" -- which is referring to how the majority of people in these studies were not wearing masks consistently or at all -- the lack of reduction in illnesses could easily be people not wearing masks as opposed to masks not working.

Electrostatic Filtration

Most mask enthusiasts wear KF94, KN95, N95 or ASTM masks. KF94 masks can be tent-shaped (bifolds) or boat-shaped (trifolds); KN95s are generally bifolds but some trifolds exist; ASTM masks can be flat surgical masks (which the mask enthusiast eschews) or bifolds and trifolds (a shape which tends to seal better to the face than a surgical mask).

These masks operate via electrostatic filtration: the filter layer of these masks are electrically charged. As Quinn Mallory would explain to you: electrical charge is a fundamental property of all matter, which contains protons (positively charged) and electrons (negatively charged) and the neutron (neutral). A drop of water positively charged hydrogen atoms and negatively charged oxygen atoms.

However, when water encounters a positive charged object like electrostatic cloth, the electrons in the oxygen are drawn to the positive charge (as opposite charges attract) while the protons in the hydrogen are repelled by the positive charge. However, the electrons, moving closer to the positive charge, develop a stronger attraction. Meanwhile, the protons, being pushed away from the positive charge, develop a weaker repulsion. The result is that the positively charged cloth attracts the particles.

Try rubbing a plastic fork on a plastic bag, and dripping an eyedropper of water drops past the fork, and you'll see the water drops are drawn to the fork. An electrostatic filter in a KF94, KN95, N95 or ASTM mask is a layer of meltblown polypropylene that is electrostatically charged. It draws and catches water droplets within its electrostatic fibers.

The Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review and the Cochrane Report had inconclusive findings, but ultimately, their studies were exercises in measuring how people wore masks inconsistently, reported incorrectly, and they couldn't offer any statistical analysis to come to a conclusion.

But statistical analysis, whether it concludes or not, is ultimately a study of human behaviour. It does not disprove basic particle physics. Water contains positively charged hydrogen and negatively charged oxygen. Electrostatic filters are positively charged and attract the negative charge of oxygen in water, catching water droplets whether visible to the naked eye or respiratory droplets or aerosol particles. In air conditioning, these filters catch dust and bacteria and viruses. In an electrostatic mask, these filters prevent viral particles in respiratory droplets and aerosol particles from being inhaled.

Mask studies on mask wearing are ultimately a study of sociology, and while enlightening in human behaviour, it really has no bearing on particle physics.

The Size of Viral Particles

The mask skeptic often declares that cold and COVID and flu viruses are 0.1 microns and electrostatic masks are only rated on filtering particles that at 0.3 microns (94 percent for KF94, 95 for KN95, N95 and ASTM). They claim that viruses are too small to be stopped by electrostatic filtering. However, this forgets: viruses on their own have no mechanism of propulsion. Viruses don't float through the air independently; they travel by being attached to aerosol particles and respiratory droplets in expelled and evaporated air. They travel in water and water vapour suspended in air.

A 0.1 micron particle does not have the size to contain sufficient viral material to infect a human being. A 0.3 micron particle does not have the size to contain sufficient viral material to infect a human being. The average virus-carrying respiratory droplet is 9.3 microns. An aerosol droplet would need to be at least 5 microns large to have enough virus to infect a human.

Furthermore, the 0.3 micron measurement for electrostatic masks isn't actually to indicate that sub-0.3 particles pass through the filter. 0.3 micron particles are where the filter is expected to be weakest, 'only' filtering 94 - 95 percent, but particles smaller than 0.3 tend to have such an erratic movement that they collide with electrostatic fibers at an even higher rate than larger particles.

Also, while KF94 masks are required to filter at 94 percent by the Korean government before they can be sold, most filter 0.3 micron particles at 97 - 98 percent. KN95 tends to be all over the place, sometimes as low as 40 and sometimes above 95 percent. N95 tends to be in the 99.9 percent range.

I hope this has dispelled some myths, falsehoods and misunderstandings until the next time they are inevitably reiterated, but at least typing it out here means I can copy-paste from it later.

594

(438 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm going to say no. I think, for SLIDERS to be effective in contrasting parallel worlds with our world, the sliders' home Earth needed to be almost aggressively mundane even if it wasn't exactly our own specific Earth. If the sliders' home Earth is the center of a confusingly contradictory alien invasion plot in addition to housing vampires, werewolves, poltergeists, demon children, talking tattoos, talking dolls and that Flukeman thing, then the wonder of parallel worlds is diminished.

But also... I cannot get a handle on the Earth in which THE X-FILES took place, and nearly every season just baffles.

The alien mythology episodes position THE X-FILES as being set in a sci-fi biotechnology universe where all paranormal events are the result of alien technology and genetics experiments and their biological properties being harvested and transplanted in some way.

However, the monster of the week episodes often present THE X-FILES as a supernatural universe in which demonic forces and incomprehensible beings of darkness and monstrosity exist just outside human perception and manifest as vampires, werewolves, the walking manifestation of Death, that goat eating thing near the Mexican border, and present a world where genies can rewrite reality, writers can make their fictions appear as flesh and blood, and people have other inexplicable powers.

Some of the monsters of the week do approach pseudoscientific explanations of genetic anomalies or unusual brain and biological structures, but these sit awkwardly next to episodes with witches and magic golems which are explained through folklore and mysticism.

It's like the separate universes of SUPERNATURAL (magic) and FRINGE (technology) have somehow crashed together and THE X-FILES, somehow ricocheting between the rules of either universe, never establishes any rules for its own universe. And THE X-FILES pre-dates SUPERNATURAL and FRINGE!

The fictional alt history of THE X-FILES is also baffling. The original backstory was that in the late 1940s, the black oil Purity alien race attempted to invade Earth only to be warded off by threats of nuclear armageddon and a treaty to organize the human race for Purity to infect as parasites to reproduce, efficiently and without resistance for maximum production while the conspirators would be spared.

Season 10 abruptly changed this to claim the alien invasion was a hoax and a distraction from the real conspiracy of unleashing the Spartan Virus for population control.

Season 11 changed this again by claiming that the original invasion plan was real, but the aliens lost interest in Earth due to global warming and resource depletion (although the only resource they cared about in the original arc was human bodies). Season 11 also had the conspiracy not unleashing their population control virus for no stated reason whatsoever and instead being concerned with a manhunt for William Mulder.

I have no idea what is going on in the parallel Earth featured in THE X-FILES. Is it a sci-fi universe or a magic universe? Is the mythology about alien colonization of human bodies, population control of the human race, or something or other with William? Are the monsters based in genetics experiments or in supernatural powers?

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that whatever's going on there is not happening on the sliders' home Earth.

595

(438 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

The guest list was lousy.  Nobody is traveling to Saratoga for Mitch Pileggi (who does a million conventions) and a few other dinky names.  Saratoga is in the middle of nowhere, which again, nobody wants to go to, because you would have to fly in somewhere else then drive hours to get there.  Obviously the couple who run the museum live up there, but that's just a tough sell.  They had a better guest lineup last year, which was still overshadowed by PhileFest in Minneapolis a few months later that featured Chris Carter.  I went to something called X-Fest 2 outside Chicago in 2019, which had a nice lineup itself.

I can't find the guest list. Who was on it?

Considering all the B-list, C-list, and D-list celebrities whom Grizzlor has met and photographed -- if Grizzlor says the event guest list was lousy, then it was undoubtedly terrible.

(Disclaimer: B/C/D-list is merely a measure of the level of public interest in the celebrity, and I don't use it as a reflection on their talents characters. I would love to meet Tom Welling someday and ask him some diet and fitness questions, and Tom is C or D list.)

I have been struggling with event planning in recent years, and one challenge: your event has to offer a reason to go that's worth the trouble of leaving your home. And if your event is not located in a major hub, your event has to offer an attraction that is rarely if ever offered by anyone else. If Mitch Pillegi was the biggest name on the guest-list, as Grizzlor notes, that doesn't appeal to anyone who could go to a more accessible appearance in a closer major city.

It seems to me that the Preservation team would be better off creating a travelling version of their exhibits and holding their event in a more central locale, perhaps partnering with an existing X-FILES event.

596

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I am very sorry that you had a terrible week.

I'm going to focus exclusively on the content regarding masks.

The majority of mask wearers I SEE these days ON TELEVISION or IN PERSON seem to be the obnoxious, terrorist sympathizing, anarchists screaming "genocide" re: Palestine." The great irony is now that the symbol of the face mask has become those who don't wear them for health reasons at all.  Which would entirely rule people such as YOU out of my social commentary.

I guess that revision to personal perception changed it from an attack on me to a broad summary of anecdotes about personal experience with maskers who aren't me.

I wear a mask for my own health and safety. And my safety measures include buying masks that do not require others around me to mask. No mask enthusiast needs to take issue with someone not wearing a mask.

Yesterday, I had to leave my car at a mechanic and took the bus and train home, wearing a mask to avoid another pneumonia-inducing cold. The overall public perception of mask wearers outside of this forum is not my problem. Being called "terrorist sympathizing" for my masked transit ride home on this forum is my problem.

I guess 'didn't mean you!' is sufficiently apologetic.

Personally, I would have been satisfied with, "I apologize for calling mask-wearers like you terrorist sympathizers. That was a typo. I meant to say you're a twitchy hypochondriac. I also called you obnoxious and anarchic. I stand by that, and I also find you annoying and aggravating."


On Flawed Mask Studies

You previously said masks didn't work and pointed to various studies. But your claim was false because every mask study you cited used:

  • Non-sealing surgical masks or non-electrostatic cloth masks as opposed to the KF94, N95 and ASTM Level 3 cup-style, bifold or trifold masks worn by actual mask enthusiasts

  • Test subjects who admitted that they often forgot to wear their masks at all

The only thing the studies proved is that weakly-protective masks are weak in their protection and that people have trouble wearing them consistently, and that mask mandates aren't very helpful if too many masks lack filter and seal..

They proved nothing about the actual efficacy of electrostatic masking with correctly sealing, high filtering KF94, N95, and ASTM Level 3 cup, bifold or trifold masks.


On Clickbait

Since you discounted and dismissed that, I don't believe you actually fully read or understood those studies. I think you either skimmed them or only read clickbait articles that inaccurately summarized those studies by 'journalists' who didn't understand what masks those studies used or how poorly the test subjects adhered to the testing stipulations.

I have seen you use clickbait representations of reports over the actual reports before. I saw you do it in your reaction to the release of the Robert Hur report on Joe Biden, where you read clickbait sensationalism about it, and then declared, "It's over.  Biden has to step aside.  The special counsel describes him as effectively an old geezer who soon will forget his own name.  I do not know what other RED flag is needed at this point???" https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 398#p15398


On Sources and Clickbait

Later, you confessed, "Of course I didn't read the report!" which revealed you were reacting to clickbait instead of actual information, and taking the clickbait as fact. https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 436#p15436 The actual examples of Joe Biden's supposedly poor memory in Hur's report showed that Biden's memory was as 'poor' as everyone else interviewed, yet Hur seized upon Biden's memory alone. The actual transcripts revealed that Biden's memory ranged from average to above average but was never poor or non-existent.

Your comments on the supposed failure of masks and Joe Biden's memory strike me as very similar to your previous fixation on Dr. Anthony's Fauci's "gain of function" research (which was a fiction).

To me, your claim that masks don't work based on those studies looks to me like you reading clickbait articles written by 'journalists' who were misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the scientific studies or reports they were using as sources.

"Scientific Studies Prove Masks Don't Work" was more attention seeking than, "Scientific Studies Prove Weak Masks Offer Weak Protection. Scientific Studies Also Reveal That It Is Really Hard To Get People To Consistently Wear Masks To Study Mask Wearing."


On Electrostatics and Particle Physics

No mask study will change the very simple fact that electrostatic filtration is highly effective at capturing particles and droplets. If you live in a home or ride a bus or a train with heat and air conditioning, you are relying on air filters and the study of electrostatics.

An air filter is the culmination of many fields of scientific study across centuries, encompassing electrostatics, particle physics, atomic physics (atomic as in atom-sized, not explosive), particles, antiparticles, electrons, positrons, all employed in commonplace air systems and electrostatic masks.

A study that used poor masks and non-compliant test subjects is not going to disprove the Standard Model of particle physics and the existence of static electricity.


Mask Enthusiasts and Social Anxiety

I suppose I should say something about the mask enthusiast community.

I would say that a lot of the posts I see in mask forums give the impression that many who wear masks have an untreated or poorly managed anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, paranoid personality disorder, dependent personality disorder, are on the autism spectrum, and either have a social phobia or generalized social anxiety.

I've seen a lot of mask enthusiasts post unhappy accounts of how they were picking up a takeout order and saying, "Everyone was staring at me" and "The customer service worker gave me this ugly look and rolled her eyes at me" and "No one wanted to make small talk with me because I was wearing a mask" and "I've been cut off from my social circle because I wear a mask and they don't" or "My roommates all refused to wear masks outside their bedrooms, I can't believe they would do this to me."

To me, that isn't mask enthusiasm as much as a serious mental illness -- paranoia, anxiety, projection -- and also social ineptitude. These mentally ill people with social difficulties are masking their illness and handicaps with masks (haha).

They have seized upon their mask-wearing as making them a target when the reality is: most customer service reps want to move through transactions quickly; the small-talk deprived person was probably not very sociable or willing to take initiative and project openness to interaction; unless a home is a health care facility, residents shouldn't be required to mask; and the people telling these stories clearly have poor social skills but are blaming anti-mask sentiment.


Mask Enthusiasts and Narcissism

There is also a subset of mask enthusiasts who look down upon others for not wearing masks, somehow ignoring that the KF94, N95 and ASTM L3 masks worn by the serious masker seal and filter very effectively. Other people masking would not give the masker any additional protection. To me, this is not mask enthusiasm but narcissism, the desire to see others as subhuman while elevating the narcissist, and masking is both pedestal and a mask for the narcissistic personality disorder.


In Closing

None of that is my problem. I just use those communities to look for places to buy the masks I want, and I mask because I don't want to get colds, flu, COVID or pneumonia, and going unmasked on the bus and train home is not worth getting sick for me.

As for all the other comments regarding anarchists, anti-Semites, radical-left, conformists, so-called progressive pols, Black Lives Matter, buffoons and college campuses... none of that seems to have anything to do with masks, so I'll just leave that alone.

Anyway. Sorry again about your no-good, terrible, horrible, very bad week.

To better days.

I don't really understand what you're talking about here. But I love your enthusiasm. And I support you. And I stand by you. Don't stop having amazing adventures, fellow Slidehead. We're all with you. We go with the vortex. We cannot be stopped.

598

(438 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's really tough. Fan gatherings are a leisure activity. And it's hard to spend on hotels, meals, travel and such for leisure.

I think the last movie I saw in a movie theatre was MADAME WEB and only because my job gave me a gift card. The last movie I saw in theatres on my own dime was MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING. It just does not make sense to go to a movie theatre and pay for a $15 ticket, parking, concessions, gas and such when I have an adequate TV at home with an okay speaker system.

It may not make financial sense for a lot of people to travel to a fan convention when they could use message boards, Facebook, Reddit, podcasts and ebooks for a facsimile of meeting cast and crew and attending discussion panels.

On another note: Claudia Gray's upcoming X-FILES novel, "Perihelion", costs $28 USD. https://a.co/d/4C4yXFc

Twenty. Eight. American. Dollars. Look, Claudia Gray may be a splendid author and "Perihelion" may be the greatest literary achievement since HUCKLEBERRY FINN. But even then, it would not be worth $28 American dollars in the year of our Lord 2024. It cost less to watch MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: DEAD RECKONING in a movie theatre than it does to buy "Perihelion".

(I actually preordered the ebook from a Canadian bookseller for $12 USD awhile ago.)

599

(759 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yes, I agree with everything you said here. Allison Stoner has an excellent podcast, DEAR HOLLYWOOD, which explores how children are ill-equipped to navigate the professional labour minefield of acting that even adults struggle to address.

QUIET ON SET is a powerful piece of work. I hope you find some time to watch the whole thing. That said, the fifth episode epilogue was quite unnecessary and repetitive.

For me, the whole thing was an exercise: is it possible to empathize with Drake Bell's suffering while still condemning his abuse towards women? Is it possible to condemn Rider and Will's support and cowardice while still empathizing with their fear and weakness and paralysis? Is it possible to regard everyone involved with empathy while still expecting responsibility and accountability? Is it possible to be sympathetic towards a domestic abuser while indicting their actions domestic abuse?

600

(3,554 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Mask wearing is down to about as limited as pre-pandemic, from my personal observations.  The majority of mask wearers these days seem to be the obnoxious, terrorist sympathizing, anarchists screaming "genocide" re: Palestine.

This remark is unacceptable. Mask wearing has no correlation to terrorism and terrorist sympathies. "Obnoxious" and "anarchist" is opinion and anyone can call me that falsely or accurately.

But calling a mask wearer a terrorist sympathizer is a nonsensical conclusion and a deceitful attack.

You have been warned repeatedly about false statements regarding masks. You were very clearly informed that if you continued to make false statements regarding masks, you would be banned for a week. You were further told that if you made another false statement, you would be banned for a month. The third instance would result in a permanent ban.

Grizzlor, you will apologize for your false accusation in your next post in this forum or you will be banned for a week upon your next post in this forum.
**

(Wow, that was dramatic.)

On a more informal note: I could fairly be called obnoxious, and I obviously have some anarchic tendencies (and no one who enjoyed Alan Moore's V FOR VENDETTA can claim they don't). But calling me a terrorist? For sharing a shopping experience that I described as convoluted but cheap?

Who does that?

When I first discovered the excellence of Korean masks, they were an entire four-sided rack at the Korean grocery store. But last year, masks only took up two sides of the rack. And in the past month, the rack is gone; I now have to go into the back warehouse area where they sell expired, marked-down items. Now I'm buying masks almost directly from the manufacturers.

I will note: the ability to acquire high quality masks at sensible is incredibly convoluted. If you try to buy them at local hardware stores, the markup is absurd, often at $4 - 6 USD per mask whereas a manufacturer on GMarket will charge you anywhere from 32 - 60 cents a mask. No one should have to spend $40 - 120 USD a month on masks that cost maybe 10 - 20 cents to make.

Why mask? I wear masks before going into certain public places, because I do not believe certain tasks and activities are worth risking COVID or even colds by doing them unmasked. My last cold led to pneumonia. It was my first one in three years, but pneumonia was exhausting.

For a lavish dinner with my favourite actress or for her birthday party, I will accept the risk of being unmasked in a restaurant or in her house with her friends.

But it is not worth it for me to get sick due to being unmasked while paying for fuel inside the mini-mart at the gas station, or being unmasked at the grocery store, or being unmasked picking up a hamburger to go, or being unmasked retrieving an order from a print shop, or being unmasked to buy a cup of coffee to drink elsewhere.

These are my personal strategies and assessments for my personal health and safety. No one else needs to follow them. My masks filter both ways.

I dare you to call me a terrorist for that -- again -- and see what happens.