Search options (Page 12 of 58)

2023-12-06 09:32:05

Discovery ends in 2024. Strange New Worlds is working on Season 3. There's whatever Section 31 project they're working on.

I think that's it as far as live action goes? Lower Decks will be back, and Prodigy is getting their shot on Netflix.

2023-12-06 08:56:12

Grizzlor wrote:

0What risks would/should it have taken? This has been leveled on Mangold quite a bit, and most that say that just stop there.

Totally fair criticism. To me, I would've appreciated less hopping around and a bit more character stuff. Indy is a little reluctant to get back into the action, but to sell the theme of the movie (that Indy needed a little more adventure to get him out of the depression he was in), I would've hammered home that point a bit more. To get specific, I'll go into spoilers.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

By risks, I guess, I think the movie needed more stakes. And if this is truly the last movie, I think it needed to feel like it. So I might've entirely dumped the deaged stuff. It was fun to see young Indy, but I don't think that scene added anything to the theme of the movie.

So you start with depressed Indiana. He's teaching his class and no one cares. It's a stark difference to Raiders when everyone is hanging on his every word (mostly because of Harrison Ford but he can pretend history). I'd also do two things - I'd have him mess something up in his lecture. Maybe it's a misspeak, maybe it's carelessness, whatever. Someone (Helena?) corrects him, and he's very embarrassed. Second, I would have Indy pass a mugging or something. His instinct is to run in and help, but maybe he reaches for a whip that isn't there. Or a hat that has long-since been hung up. And either he calls for help (instead of intervening himself) or someone younger jumps in to help the person being mugged. Indy awkwardly limps away.

I want to show two things. That Indy is off his game and out of the heroism game. Even if he wants to, he can't do it anymore.

I also think Helena needs to be related to someone else. Could she be Brody's daughter? I don't know if the timeline works, but that would work for me. Maybe even a half-sister from some other child of Henry Jones Sr.? I'm just thinking of the characters we know that could've realistically had a child Helena's age. I just don't think it should've been a new character.

And here's the important one. When Indy gets dragged into the mess, he should be actively trying to stay out of it. He shouldn't be fighting or running or anything like that. He should be surrendering immediately, even if it means Helena is in danger. This is an Indiana who has given up so he can't immediately be up for a fight or an adventure. Maybe Helena runs off and has to rescue Indy from either a police lockup (if he's been arrested) or the Nazis (if he's been captured). He doesn't want to go on this adventure, and he's taken against his will.

In Tangier, he doesn't jump into the action either. He doesn't want to drive the tuk-tuk. He doesn't want to fight at the auction. He wants to go home. He needs to rest. His body hurts. He cannot do this adventure, and he's going to be helpless to save anyone if people keep making him.

But time after time, Indy has to step up. Maybe he has to grab a gun and fire. His arm is a little shaky, but he hits his target. Maybe he punches a guy. It really hurts, but a little smile escapes his face. He's getting back in the saddle. And the Nazis should escape Tangier because of something Indy does a little too slow. But instead of being down about it, Indy starts to feel better.

And as the movie goes on and on, he starts to be a little more Indiana Jones. His friends need to prod him a little less, and he has to prod himself a little less. The muscle memory starts to come back. He starts to enjoy himself a little more.

He's coming back.

Because while the movie makes a big deal about Indy being old, it isn't consistent about it. He talks about how much everything hurts, but he's alternating between slowly climbing up a cave and jumping from vehicle to vehicle. Indy's limitations need to be consistent, and he needs to use his brain where his muscles used to do the work. He's older, but he has something the rest of them don't have: experience.

The Antonio Banderas character is fine but who is he? Who cares? That character needed to be someone. Maybe that's where Sallah comes in. Maybe that's where Short Round comes in. I don't know but it shouldn't be no one. I know there aren't many people that character could be put pick someone. And whoever dies needs to have impact. Indy needs to have a reason to doubt himself again if we're going to believe he's going to stay in the past. I don't want Sallah to die any more than anyone else, but his death would launch us into an uncertain third act.

The core of the movie is fine, I think. By "chances" I don't think they took advantage of the fact that this is a depressed Indy that doesn't want to do it anymore. And by "it" I mean anything. The movie sells that adventure brought Indy back, but we didn't see Indy gone. People say that he's depressed and he talks about being depressed but they don't sell it. At least they didn't sell it to me.

He's sad at the beginning but he's basically Indiana Jones the entire time. To sell that Indy is "back", Indy needs to be "gone".

The alternative is to maybe make this entire movie juxtaposed with flashbacks. We get two, but maybe we need a lot more. Let's see a scene with deaged Indy and Marion in the middle of the film. Let's see their marriage break down. Let's see Indy try to do an adventure between Crystal Skull and Dial that goes horribly.

That's what I would've liked. Outside of a couple of scenes and a couple of lines, Dial of Destiny could've had Indiana be 50. If this is about a guy coming out of retirement to do one last adventure, make it that.

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

All that being said, I did like it. The scene with Marion is beautiful. The scene where Indy talks about Mutt is legitimately Oscar-worthy acting out of Harrison Ford. I think I just wanted a little more out of it.

2023-12-05 19:32:06

ireactions wrote:

I have to say "pretty much" because a third movie did enter pre-production in 2005 and reportedly, the original cast of the first were set to reprise their roles, and I think there was to be some quick explanation for resurrecting Linden Ashby's Cage. Unfortunately, the production chose New Orleans for a filming location and then Hurricane Katrina rendered New Orleans unusable for filming. That apparently shuttered pre-production, the contracts ran out, and the third film in the series was never made.

Interesting! I didn't know that either. I would've been okay with another Kombat film with the original cast (again, mostly out of nostalgia). I need to watch that retrospective because now I'm intrigued by the making of that awful movie.

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

Speaking of nostalgia, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny hit Disney+ and I finally saw it. I think Ford has some great scenes, and I think it was made with love. But I'm surprised that Mangold, who obviously has a reverence for this character, made a movie that is essentially devoid of any big swings. It's about as vanilla as you can get, takes almost no risks, and adds very little to the series. I'm not saying it's bad, I liked a decent amount of it quite a bit. It's just...nothing?

2023-12-05 07:59:37

Hold on....Annihilation cost *more* than the first movie? How is that possible? Less star power and way worse effects. From my memory, the whole set was just a big quarry. I know there were a couple CGI-ish characters but really???

2023-12-03 20:27:19

ireactions wrote:

Seth MacFarlane has promised fans that if there's a fourth season of THE ORVILLE, he will find a way to produce and write it alongside any other commitments he has.
Most of the actors have said that they'll do their best to return, but they can't promise that because they have to take other work to earn a living and could conceivably be engaged elsewhere if Season 4 is ordered. It's possible that MacFarlane might produce and write a fourth season, but be in it less, and a crew composed of available cast members and newcomers might board the bridge.

So apparently Adrianne Palicki was on Michael Rosenbaum's podcast "Inside of You" and essentially said the Orville was done. She said she hasn't really heard anything official on it, but that it was really hard to work on because there was so much time between seasons. They only did 36 episodes, but it's been 6 years. So the pay ended up being really low for the amount of time that they were doing the show. Sounds like that frustrated a lot of the actors.

I don't really understand how any of that works, and I'll admit I'm one of those simpletons that assumes that anyone that works on a network TV show is a multimillionaire. I know that's not the case, and I can see why it would be difficult to be stuck to a show that seems to be moving so slowly.

I still think the show is really great, vastly underrated, and I hope it can come back and take care of the actors on the show. Ms. Palicki didn't seem to think that was realistic, though.

2023-12-03 19:48:47

ireactions wrote:

I still maintain that everyone should watch ANNIHILATION if only to appreciate what happens when scripting, cinematography, performance and basic editing fall away from a project, all to better appreciate it when a movie does care about such things.

Annihilation came out at a time when I basically thought every movie that came out was awesome. This was one of the first movies that came out that I walked out thinking, "wait, was that not awesome?"

2023-11-28 15:14:22

Yeah, I'm assuming that Sony just throws some crazy amount of money at Holland for a few days work, and I assume there will be some sort of indication that Holland isn't the MCU version.

They could also do the same thing with Maguire or Garfield, I suppose. There's indications that the Sony universe is actually the Amazing Spider-Man universe.

2023-11-28 15:12:04

I think of the original Mortal Kombat as one of my guiltiest pleasures. I still enjoy that movie quite a bit. Annihilation is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

The newest remake is...fine?

2023-11-28 12:31:09

Have I been desensitized to movies enough that I don't think they're all that violent? A ton of people die, yes, but I don't think they're gory or bloody at all. Most Wick action scenes are him rolling into a room and a million guys pouring in. He fights with one guy, does a headshot and moves on. Repeat a million times. But I don't think there's much gratuitous violence - despite a million headshots, I don't think there's any shots of murdered people. No skull fragments or missing limbs or anything like that. People bleed when they're shot but I don't think we see that many wounds.

I wouldn't say it is as violent as the Walking Dead, and I don't think it's anywhere near what the Boys is.

2023-11-28 08:22:14

Holland will appear in a Venom movie because Sony desperately needs him to. Sony is making a valiant effort to generate a shared universe with the scraps they have left from their Spider-Man deal, but they almost backed out of the deal with Marvel already. And I assume if Madame Web, Venom 3, and Kraven the Hunter (ALL REAL MOVIES) all bomb, Sony will just cut an enormous check to Holland to have him essentially do for Venom what Downey Jr. did for Spider-Man Homecoming. He'll do a couple scenes out of costume and the rest will just be the Spider-Man CGI model.

I can pretty much tell you how I think they'd do it too. It will be "Sinister Six" or something, and the plot will be Venom, Madame Web, Morbius, Kraven the Hunter and I don't know who else (Spider-Woman? Scorpion from Homecoming? The Vulture?) teaming up to fight whoever the biggest villain that Sony has the rights to. Let's say Hobgoblin. And that will be the movie. But there will be a couple of scenes where Tom Holland (out of costume) will interact with Tom Hardy and let's say Dakota Johnson. Not as Spider-Man and he doesn't know who they are (Madame Web knows). And in the finale of the movie, Spider-Man (in costume with voice over from Holland) shows up (with a big shot of him web-swinging and landing directly in front of the main characters) and has a misunderstanding with the main characters. He has a quick fight with Venom, he throws a punch or two at Morbius, he says something to Vulture maybe.

Then Spider-Man realizes the Hobgoblin is the problem and leaves to go help civilians or something.

"You go save them," Eddie Brock says before the Venom mask reappears.

"This guy is ours" Venom says.

Spider-Man leaves and doesn't reappear. But Sony will absolutely market this as "Spider-Man vs the Sinister Six" and call the movie that. They'll put every second of Spider-Man / Tom Holland footage in the trailer, and people will be really disappointed. "Sinister Six" will be an in-joke inside the group "What are you trying to do, make a super group?
Like the Sinister Six?" that won't make any sense outside of that one scene.

2023-11-27 10:36:30

I had a free weekend for Starz, and I took advantage of that to watch John Wick 4. But prior to that, I needed to rewatch the first three movies. John Wick, for an original movie that is very straightforward and simple, has some of the most complex and fascinating world building that I'm aware of. It's cartoonish and silly, but it's really interesting.

And what I like about it is that it's clearly a set of movies made by stunt guys that want to showcase some of the cool ideas they've had in the past. The fights, while cartoonish, are choreographed in such a fun way. And even though the movies start with John being a very vulnerable and human (and by the end, he's invincible), it still feels real (for the most part). And because it was so stunt-focused, I think they could've gone the Fast and Furious route and just had John fight a brother out for revenge each movie, I think it's pretty cool that they decided to go with this outrageously complicated world.

And while I had to abandon everything else I was watching to watch these four movies over the holiday weekend, it was a lot of fun. Keanu is great, the supporting characters are great, and the world is just a lot of fun to explore.

Anyone else like these movies?

2023-11-26 20:18:54

Some really interesting news/gossip/speculation from the Weekly Planet's "Hot Scoop or Shot of Poop" segment (I'm obligated to say all that).

We haven't really talked about it, but Jonathan Majors is in some hot water (allegedly?), and it's another in a long line of headaches that Marvel has had to deal with recently. There's been talk of ditching Kang entirely and moving on to another villain (the rumor is Doom). Which would be quite the jump since Kang has been so widely teased and Doom hasn't appeared. I mean the announced title of Avengers 5 is "The Kang Dynasty"

Now Avengers 5 isn't supposed to come out until 2026 and Fantastic Four releases in 2025. There's plenty of time between now and those moments to set up Doom (or anyone, really) before Avengers 5 comes out.

But the question has always been "why are they abandoning Kang when Majors is the problem?" I know the post-credits scene in Ant-Man showed that all Kangs look like Majors, but it's the Multiverse. Use Multiversal logic to say "these bad Kangs look like John David Washington now" or something. We've already established in the MCU that Peter Parker can look like Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield so why not recast?

The Weekly Planet apparently has surfaced the reason. When Majors signed his contract, due to the multiversal nature of the character, Marvel agreed that Majors would be the only one playing Kang on screen. Any variant of Kang has to be played by Majors. That way, they couldn't bring in different versions of Kang and have them compete with Majors for screen time (or see how each one of them played). If Kang is on screen, he's played by Majors. He cannot be recast.

Now the Weekly Planet speculated that maybe there's a morals clause and maybe it could get them out of the "can't be recast" clause. But will the Majors stuff be sorted out enough to do that by the time they need Kang Dynasty to come out? Maybe not. And I doubt Marvel wants to risk that. Maybe they can still salvage Kang with a different actor but not by the time they need to be shooting Avengers 5.

2023-11-20 08:25:27

ireactions wrote:

I should note: despite my masking with a KF94 in public and outside my private office at work, installing a HEPA air purifier in my private office, bringing a battery powered air purifier to restaurants, and getting a flu shot every year (along with two COVID vaccines every year), I still caught a cold a few weeks ago and still have a lingering post-viral cough. But it is my first cold in three years.

Personal note: I have stopped, for the most part, wearing a mask all the time. I got the new Covid shot (and the flu shot), and I have worn a mask the rare times I've flown on an airplane. I've gone to sporting events, and I recently saw the Marvels without a mask (which was rare, I've masked up to see every movie I've seen in theaters - as I said in the Disney thread, I saw that movie with almost no notice). We don't go out to eat a ton or go out in general much, but it's impossible to get my kids to properly mask and I feel like they're more likely to get me sick than a stranger.

I think about it every time I don't mask, though.

What I think is interesting about it from either perspective is that being sick sucks. Not just Covid or the flu. Getting any respiratory illness just sucks. Feeling sick, having a sore throat, having a cough, not being able to breathe out your nose - it's all annoying and debilitating.

And, yeah, during the pandemic lockdown time, none of us got sick. I don't think I got sick in 2020 or 2021. Fall, winter, spring, cold and flu season, any of it. And it was great.

So it's not just Covid virtue signaling. I think it's a reasonable decision to wear a mask for a couple of hours in exchange for not feeling sick for days/weeks. It's mildly uncomfortable, but if you're watching a movie or a sporting event or whatever, you'll probably be distracted enough by that not to notice.

2023-11-20 08:10:07

ireactions wrote:

What is Kevin Feige planning?

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

From what I've read, Monica isn't in the Fox universe. Since the design for Beast is more like the X-Men 90s cartoon, the apparently implication is that Monica is in that universe. Which makes more sense than the Fox universe because Disney is making an X-Men 97 cartoon. I doubt that Monica (or Binary) is going to appear in that cartoon, but I guess it's possible.

Jackman and Reynolds have implied that the Wolverine in Deadpool 3 is the Fox Wolverine, but they also said it won't interfere with Logan. I wonder if it'll be a Wolverine variant.

Either way, I assume all these universes are leading to Secret Wars.

2023-11-17 13:15:27

Again, my recommendation to any Trek fan is to give Prodigy a chance. I had no interest, but I heard it was good and gave it a shot. It's definitely the most kiddie Trek, but it's not a baby show. It's not edu-tainment. The characters are somewhat young, but there's a decent amount of adult material. If you like Voyager, it's a direct sequel to Voyager in a lot of ways.

If it's not for you, that's fine. If you watch it and don't like it, that's fine. But if you're open to it, give it a shot. It can only help the Trek brand

2023-11-16 12:06:42

I thought it might've been a couple/few weeks before I could see the Marvels, but the stars lined up and I was able to see it this week. I read through your stuff, and here's my thoughts:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So first off, I thought the movie was a lot of fun. I liked that it was shorter than most MCU movies, although I can certainly see where they could've expanded some things. We could've spent more money on the singing world. There was probably some epilogue they could've done with the Skrulls, with the aftermath of the singing world, or on Earth. But I like that it was tight.

I thought the action was a lot of fun, and I thought the camaraderie between the three leads was a lot of fun. The power switching, although oddly handled both how it started and how it ended, was a pretty cool mechanic. I liked that they practiced it, too. Not only was that scene fun, but I think its the kind of thing that's usually ignored in stuff like this. Either they continue to use it as a comedy gimmick, or they'd just work hard to avoid it. I liked that they worked hard to make sure it was a weapon in their arsenal.

You mentioned it earlier, but I wanted to continue talking about Carol and her characterization. I meant to rewatch the first movie before I saw it, but because I was able to see it in such a surprise fashion, I didn't get to. But Carol, despite being the lead in two movies, still feels unknowable. I feel like her powers are kind of confusing, and the power level she shows seems vague to me. At times, she seems invincible. At other times, it wasn't even clear if she was more powerful than Monica. It made it hard to really understand how powerful the villain was. Carol almost beat Thanos all by herself (and I assume if he didn't have the gauntlet at the time, she would have). She wrecked a bunch of Thanos' fleet all by herself. And yet, at times, Carol struggled to even handle one-off Kree.

And I think her being unknowable helped with the Kamala and Monica stuff. Kamala worshipping Carol and Carol being oddly defined made that relationship work. Carol being unknowable helped sell the distant relationship between her and Monica. But I just feel like we should have a better feel for Carol by now. What does she want? What are her weaknesses? What is her endgame?

The Secret Invasion stuff is quite baffling. You're right - it feels like those two things are wildly unconnected. The only thing that seemed to tie was the idea of "peace talks" between the Kree and Skrulls. Everything else seemed off:

- No mention of Gaia and no appearance/mention of Varra (who should've been on the station)
- Valkyrie took the Skrull refugees to Earth. No mention of the dangers they'd face there or how Valkyrie would protect them
- No mention of the relationship between the Skrulls on Earth or the Skrulls on the refugee planet. How many Skrulls were on that colony and why couldn't more Skrulls go there?
- No mention of how the weakened Kree were still keeping the Skrulls from colonizing *anywhere* - from the Guardians movies there seem to be tons of habitable planets for the Skrulls to hide on. Is *every* habitable planet inhabited? I still don't understand how they can't find anywhere for the Skrulls to go. What about Mars? Or the moon? It seems like between Earth and the Skrulls, the technology exists to send them one of those two places safely.

And that's what I don't understand about this. I understand the Netflix / ABC shows not being connected to the MCU. But Feige produces the Disney+ shows. Kamala (and Kate!) are in this movie, and they originated on Disney+. Skrulls and Fury are in this movie.

My only guess is that, due to the actors' and writers' strikes, there was less time to do reshoots on both productions to make the changes work? Maybe the Skrull genocide plot was added really late and the Marvels wasn't able to adapt because of the strikes? Maybe the Marvels originally dealt with this stuff and it was cut (either because of the poor reception of Secret Invasion or to make the movie tighter)? I really don't know, and at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.

I think Marvel could probably say that Secret Invasion happened *after* the Marvels? That would maybe explain why there are more Skrulls on Earth than anyone thought? And if the genocide hadn't happened yet, there would obviously be no reason to mention it? And no reason to mention Gaia or Varra?

Edit : Apparently, it was supposed to come out before Secret Invasion. I would assume this is the reason.

Or maybe it is after, but it was fixed off screen. It really doesn't matter and doesn't impact liking the Marvels. The movie is fun and fits in (mostly) without it. It's just weird that the MCU feels so rudderless in these two phases. Other than "multiverse" where are we going? What are we building to? Loki season 2 was a lot of fun, but I don't think it moved us toward Kang Dynasty.

And even this movie, despite a tie to an unannounced Young Avengers project, randomly ties to the multiverse stuff. Why did the jump point, which hasn't been connected to the multiverse at any other point, suddenly connect to a different universe instead of a different point in the regular MCU universe? Is it just because this is the multiverse saga? Or have the jump points always been conduits to the multiverse and its just because there was a tear?

And, yes, I know that the Thanos stuff wasn't really set up until it was. Thanos is a cameo in Avengers 1 and 2, and his biggest pre-Infinity War appearance is a relatively unimportant one in Guardians. Kang has already done more than Thanos did at the same point in his phases. But the universe, despite being smaller in phases 1 and 2, felt more connected and felt like it was going somewhere. Now it just feels like there's more stuff but less directed.

I'm hoping that the strikes caused the weird disconnect between Secret Invasion and the Marvels. Because outside of stuff like Moon Knight, they seem to be doing what they're supposed to be doing. Kamala and Monica were set up to be in this movie. Kate seems to have been set up for a future project. We got Sam to be Captain America so he can hit the ground running in his movie. Wandavision set up Monica and set up the villain in Multiverse of Madness. Loki set up the multiverse and Kang.

The shows should handle stories that are important but allow the movies to tell the really important stories. That way, we don't need a whole movie to make Sam Captain America. He already is. We don't need a movie to show how Wanda became a villain - she's one to start Dr Strange 2.

The problem is that if the movies don't feel like they're building to something, then the movies need to be better on their own. Right now, the shows feel like setup for movies that feel like setup for movies that haven't happened yet. Which would be okay if it felt like Kang Dynsaty or Secret Wars were going to be worth the wait. But between the Majors stuff and the disconnect in the multiverse stuff, I'm not even sure if that's true.

2023-11-14 09:39:09

ireactions, I haven't seen The Marvels yet so I'm hesitant to read anything you wrote yet, but I did want to say that Nando from Nando v Movies (and now the Nando Cut) did a video about how people are complaining about how they want to watch the Marvels but shouldn't have to watch Wandavision and Ms Marvel to enjoy it.

He said that it's not a legitimate concern because he's confident that there will be a scene where both Monica and Kamala's backstories and powers are summarized in two sentences. I'll let Nando explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be5LxTsAKuY

And before I see it, I'm genuinely curious for a non-spoiler answer to whether or not he's right. I feel like a lot of the future of the MCU is going to depend on the answer and how well they did it.

2023-11-12 19:44:38

Reeves is also a major player in this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson,_ … ter_crisis

2023-11-08 11:53:12

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I'm starting to get nervous about 2024.

So around the time of this, I read an article that told everyone thinking the way that I was thinking to chill out. The reasons were:

- Trump is campaigning and Biden isn't. So if there's news about 2024, it's news about Trump (or the also-rans in the GOP primary) ragging on Biden and life in America. So we're only getting one part of the argument, and Biden hasn't had the chance to respond with how life under Biden is better than life was under Trump. The economy hasn't fully rebounded, gas prices are higher than they were, inflation is still an issue, we are now involved in these wars, etc. When Biden and his surrogates are able to blitz the media with a more positive message, people should move closer to Biden.
- Saying you'll vote for Trump over Biden is one thing. But actually voting for Trump over Biden, especially if you did the opposite in 2020 is another thing entirely.
- The other elections are going really well for Democrats.

Obviously, last night was a good night for Democrats. There were big wins for Democrats in Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. Obviously, those things aren't necessarily indicative of 2024. There are clearly Republicans in those places that didn't vote in 2023 that will vote in 2024 for Trump. There are one-issue voters , and that one issue is TRUMP. They don't care about the governor of Kentucky or abortion amendments or the Virginia Senate.

But these are still big wins and indications that Democrats are ready to show up in the polls. And that makes me feel better. Democrats have somewhat-abandoned Biden since 2020, at least in polls, but they're still active and they're still winning. MAGA keeps losing.

I still hope the Biden campaign is taking these numbers seriously. They need to spend the next year listening to young men (particularly black men) and working on their concerns. They need to raise the profile of Kamala Harris. They cannot lose any more POC, and Biden needs to be listening and focusing on their concerns. Not just words, either. Actual progress.

2023-11-08 11:35:36

Ugh, that sucks. I assume moving out of state isn't an easy or workable thing for you to do?

2023-11-08 08:10:25

How will you lose your job?

2023-11-06 11:34:56

I miss the Orville and I'm glad there's potentially a path for it to come back.

******

Star Trek: Lower Decks is such a joy. I still think that it's sometimes too silly for me to really love that it's canon (when characters know things that only a current day Star Trek fan would know), but the show is really such a joy. And I think the crossover with Strange New Worlds did a great job of showing that a lot of Starfleet officers are Starfleet nerds (and thus Star Trek nerds) and might know things that maybe we think they wouldn't know.

There's a decent chance that Lower Decks is my favorite Trek series of all time, all things considered. So obviously I'm able to get over the silliness.

2023-11-06 08:29:47

(Please note that I still fully support Joe Biden and will do everything I can to get him elected. My support hasn't wavered, and I think he's done a great job).

I'm starting to get nervous about 2024.

I know polls from this far out are mostly junk, but there's a lot of bad signs that I hope the Democrats and the Biden campaign are taking very seriously. We know that Trump has overtaken Biden in a lot of national polls, but he's also started taking over in a lot of state polls. And important battleground state polls. Biden was down really big with young voters, both white and non-white, even among people that voted overwhelmingly for him in 2020. I don't know if it's because of his age, because of the economy, because of some of the unrest in the world or what. But the polls are what the polls are, and if the polls are right and the election was today, Trump wins.

Now the polls may not be right and the election isn't today. But the election is a year from now, and things don't look good. A four-time indicted maniac fascist is inching his way back to the White House. I'm getting very nervous.

Now there could be tons of reasons for this. Because the Republican primary is happening now (and there's not really a Democratic one), Trump's name is in the news more. There's maybe more enthusiasm for Trump because he's actively campaigning and Biden really isn't. There isn't really a blitz in favor of Biden saying all the positive things that have happened in the last three years. All that will come and all that will help Biden. Right now, all people are hearing is how bad things are because the only people campaigning are Republicans.

And Trump's trials are (supposedly) coming up. Trump is taking the stand today in his fraud trial. There's plenty of time for things to come up, for him to get a lot of bad press, and for people to wake up.

But still. People that voted for Biden are saying that they're going to switch to Trump. That's scary.

And it reminds me of 2016. Everyone in the Democratic Party coalesced around a candidate that was deeply unpopular, with (mostly BS) fraud/criminal connections that rile people up. In Hillary's case, she tried to go for a knockout instead of a win, focusing on states that would give her a landslide win instead of shoring up states that would just give her any kind of win. I assume Biden's team will zig where Hillary's team zagged.

That being said, I'm still just surprised that we're here. Biden talked in 2020 about being a one-term president and passing the baton on to someone else. The Democrats won both chambers of Congress and the White House. They had big names in Congress and in the Cabinet that they could've lifted up and popularized. They could've given Kamala Harris work to make her more popular and likeable.

Instead, they gave Harris the impossible task of dealing with the border. Mayor Pete has fumbled a couple of the big opportunities he had to make a splash nationally. No one in Congress stepped up to have a high profile. No one stepped up, and even if Biden didn't want to run, he might *have* to run because there's no one else. Biden is unpopular, but Harris is just as unpopular. If Biden didn't run, who would even be able to run in his place, and would that person have any more of a chance than Biden does?

They had years to build a deep bench, and what do they have to show for it? Gretchen Whitmer? Gavin Newsom?

Scary times.

2023-11-03 12:59:16

Has there been any discussion on whether or not the actors would be able to come back? How does that even work? I assume none are under contract and are getting work elsewhere. If only half of them could come back, it wouldn't really be the same.

Although if they just filmed the novel, that would be enough for me.

2023-10-27 07:16:59

Yeah, I've softened on Clinton, but she was just so entitled in 2016. She was also entitled in 2008, but Barack Obama was able to defeat her. In 2016, she stacked the deck, intimidated anyone competent from running against her, and she *still* almost blew it against a random independent named Bernie Sanders. Now I wasn't anymore for Bernie, but Hillary went out of her way to attack Bernie supporters and making it impossible for all of them to unite under her.

Then, her campaign was such a mess. Instead of just going for the simple win, Clinton tried to go for a Obama-ian knockout, and its part of the reason we're in this mess now. I don't know if a smart Clinton campaign beats Trump, but you gotta think it would've considering how close it was. I'm also not guaranteeing that any Democrat could've beaten Trump, but Clinton's unfavorables were so high that it really did seem like Trump and Clinton were both awful choices.

Clinton was very qualified (maybe not as much as she and her surrogates wanted us to believe - the beginning of political over-hyperbolization that Trump ran away with) but maybe an open primary would've allowed us to find the next Obama. We *still* haven't found the next Obama.

But, of course, a Clinton presidency would've been better than a Trump one. I don't know what would've happened - I assume Trump would've tried the same Stop the Steal stuff he tried against Biden. But maybe Trumpism wouldn't have been so ingrained.

2023-10-25 08:58:08

Is it just pride? Would Loki rather say that he lost it emotionally (and it was in his control) than to admit that the mind stone got him? Would a prideful person rather admit that he was in control than admit something controlled him?

I guess we don't know, right? Did Thanos find Loki or did Loki seek out Thanos? Has that gap ever been filled in?

2023-10-23 11:36:34

I thought Jordan was going to be able to bully his way in, but he got shot down. That's a pretty solid loss for the MAGA movement. I don't think this is the beginning of the end, but it's a sign that Trump doesn't have full control over House Republicans. This was Trump's guy, and he was running unopposed. Whoever gets the job now will not be (as) in debt to Trump. I think that's significant.

2023-10-19 07:52:44

So a ton has come out post writers strike about how Marvel does their productions (specifically TV). It seems that they treated their TV shows like expanded movies. No show bibles. No showrunners. Just (mostly movie) executives that were in charge of making sure the shows were good. No pilots. They'd greenlight an entire project, let it shoot, and work on fixing it with reshoots and post.

Now for a 2-hour movie, that works. Let a creative make a movie and reshoot stuff that doesn't work. You can cut out scenes that don't work, characters that don't work, plotlines that don't work.

For a 6-hour TV show, it's much harder. Secret Invasion and Falcon and the Winter Soldier have obvious reshoots to remove/reshuffle plot lines, and it doesn't work. There's too much to unwind and even with shifting episode lengths, it's way easier for it all to turn into a mess.

Example - the Daredevil show. They greenlit it and the production shot at least 4-6 episodes. When executives took a look at it, they were horrified that it wasn't the gritty, action-oriented show that they were expecting. Matt doesn't even wear the Daredevil suit until episode 4. It was more of a courtroom procedural than season 4 of Netflix show. They're apparently throwing it all away and reshooting a ton (all?) of it.

But how does all that get done without the executives knowing? Did no one read any scripts? Is there no one monitoring what's being written or shot? There's allowing creatives to make something they want to make, and there's sheer irresponsibility.

They're fixing this, but I'm worried they're going to overdo it. They're going to start doing pilots, force writers to write show bibles, and focus on multi-season stories. Which is fine in some cases. That's basically TV 101. But I think some of the allure of the Disney+ is that they can introduce characters like Kamala Khan and catch us up on 2-3 movies worth of character development and then let them show up. Or to explain how Scarlet Witch is the villain of Dr. Strange 2. Or to explain why Sam is Captain America without having to spend an entire movie on that.

Loki works as a multi-season show. Wandavision worked as a one-off. Werewolf by Night worked as a special movie event. We don't need four seasons of Secret Invasion or Hawkeye. We can do both. I hope they realize that before they go too far the other way.

2023-10-19 07:08:02

And I gotta think this hurts them politically. Republican voters want to send money to Israel and we can't right now. And Biden went to Israel so again maybe that helps with fringe voters.

I don't know what a good solution is for Democrats. Who is the most moderate Republican in the House?

2023-10-18 07:08:24

Yeah, it was a mess. Nando v Movies (maybe on his Nando Cut channel) has a great analysis of it once you're completely finished. His biggest complaint is that, while the show is about shapeshifting aliens, the show barely uses that premise. It's used a few times in the first episode, but outside of one instance where someone isn't who they say they are (and even then, the whole thing is fumbled), there's no intrigue to who anyone is. Everyone is who they say they are. It isn't a spy show - everything is basically out in the open the whole time.

As you said, they don't do the character stuff well. They don't do spy/intrigue stuff well. And by the time they get to the action, it's CGI nonsense with characters we don't care about. And the show is dull enough that none of that is spoilers.

It was a big miss. And the one takeaway from it will probably be brushed under the rug.

*********

Loki is back and it's still fun. Ke Huy Quan needs to be in everything.

2023-10-17 09:39:24

I wonder if the Democrats made a miscalculation when they booted McCarthy. (Note: McCarthy is terrible, and I don't support him). He's a liar and two-faced (one republican said his superpower is that he doesn't believe in anything) but he actually worked with / caved to Democrats to get some deals done to keep the government funded and working.

If we get Jim Jordan, that ain't happening.

Now I know the Democrats can spin this to win the House in 2024 or maybe even to win the White House. Jordan is essentially Donald Trump in the House, and if Jordan pushes for a government shutdown (which I have to assume he'll do), that will bounce back on Jordan and Trump with independents and soft/non-MAGA republicans. There's already been a decent amount of pushback from conservative media about what a clown show this whole republican House situation has turned into.

But giving Jordan power seems like such a bad idea, even with only a year or so to wield it.

2023-10-12 20:01:04

Oh, if I wasn't clear before. Let me be very clear: I do not support RFK Jr on any level. I do not support Donald Trump or his MAGA movement on any level. Trumpism is a disease on this country, and it must be eradicated. I believe this wholeheartedly.

ireactions mentioned that I voted against Trump in 2016 but not for Clinton. I greatly regret this, even though my vote would not have mattered in the result. I grossly underestimated the harm that Donald Trump could do, and it's one reason why I've significantly tried to educate myself in these matters. I didn't used to listen to political podcasts or learn about political figures.

I am a Democrat and support Democrats. I'm about as close to "Vote Blue No Matter Who" as you can be, and I've voted that way locally for the last few elections. I rarely voted in midterms prior to 2016. This year I voted on some random local offcycle election. I voted all Democrats.

ireactions, as usual, is correct in my motivation and goal. Like I said, Trumpism is a disease that must be eradicated. Some diseases can be eliminated by doing the right thing (eating healthy, exercising, cutting bad habits, etc).

Some diseases need to be destroyed with chemotherapy or surgery that can be as painful or more painful than the diseases. And I'm open to any and all (legal and honest) solutions for Donald Trump to lose. And I would prefer that all people that have supported Trump (especially my political nemesis Ted Cruz) also crash and burn. But right now, the focus has to be on eliminating Trump in 2024.

And so that's my thinking in bringing up stuff like Biden's border policy and RFK Jr. I'm *fascinated* by any move that gets Biden closer to victory in 2024. I would *love* if America would wake up and realize that half its citizens are trying to vote for a 4-time indicted conman. I am losing my faith that such a thing is going to happen in time. I don't know if I have enough faith that the courts will even get these trials in on time, and even if they do, I don't have enough faith for my fellow countrymen for that to matter. Too many people have already indicated that they're voting for Trump no matter what.

So can a slight alteration in border policy scrape off a few votes from Trump? If so, I'm in! If RFK Jr runs and can scrape a few MAGA people off the Trump bandwagon, I'm in! Yes, these are both bad things. I don't want Biden to adopt a more-conservative view on the border, but we have to win. I hate that RFK Jr is getting any attention, but we have to win.

********

QuinnSlidr, I appreciate the apology, but I assure you I took no disrespect. I am very sorry for your loss as well.

2023-10-12 14:09:39

RFK Jr has a pretty high profile a politician. He shows up on Joe Rogan's podcast (I don't listen or pay attention to that, but I know he does) and DeSantis has mentioned that he'd hire him if he were president. I think that's a higher profile than Kanye, but I can't speak either way about his overall popularity.

Not to bring up polling again, but he polls fairly high especially among Republicans. They're also less likely to be picking RFK on a poll because he's not Biden or because of his name (the primary reasons he was getting high poll numbers in the Democratic primary).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … publicans/

And even if you're right, I guess it just depends on where the 100,000 votes are.

2023-10-12 11:03:43

QuinnSlidr wrote:

I don't celebrate any right wing nutcase.
RFK Jr. doesn't deserve the name Kennedy.

Well, I'm not celebrating him. I don't want him to have any power or for anyone to like anything he says. I'm talking about a means to an end, and I think Kennedy might be the means to that end. Same as if Don Jr or Rudy Guiliani or whoever were to run. If it splits MAGA, then MAGA cannot win.

2023-10-11 13:53:46

I'm intrigued by RFK Jr. going into the race as an independent. He's been strongly supported by MAGA as some kind of spoiler to Biden, but that's because he's philosophically a conservative. He's straight crazy, and he's supported by Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Ron DeSantis, and Joe Rogan, among others. He made a lot of noise early because he was polling in the teens/20s in certain polls. Experts said it was essentially name recognition driving the polling because, again, he doesn't have any of the same ideals that Democrats would ever vote for.

But as an independent, I think he's much more dangerous to Trump than Biden. I think the test will be whether the Democrats can convince their voters that RFK is *not* a true Kennedy and whether or not conservatives can convince his true believers to vote for Trump.

What do we think?

2023-10-05 07:41:46

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-admi … uth-texas/

Obviously Biden saw the same poll and had the same concerns. I don't think there's any harm in doing some highly-visible work at the border. If it were up to me, I'd send Kamala down to the border with very public events, especially in border towns where Republicans are making serious inroads. One of Harris' strengths is her toughness on crime, and I think if Biden/Harris even give the appearance of being tougher on the border than they have been (even if it's all for show), then I think it will be much harder for non-MAGA Republicans to vote for Trump.

I know some of these people, and I promise you they'll think "Well the economy is doing better, Biden seems to be doing things on the border, Harris is doing good work....I can live with four more years of this."

2023-10-04 14:14:36

QuinnSlidr wrote:

So you're saying ageism is fine, and racism is okay, so we should acknowledge their behavior as right by making these concessions?

....no?

And I'm not even sure how you're getting that from anything I said. I'm obviously on Biden's side. But I'm also able to see that this election is going to be very close. It doesn't matter whether Trump is a racist or a sexist or a rapist or a fraud or convicted in four different trials.

So Biden would be wise to do whatever it takes to get people on his side. He's very unpopular, even with people who like him, on immigration and the border. If he can get one vote from a Trump supporter by making concessions on the border, that's one vote closer to Biden being president and Trump not being president.

Just doing what he's been doing isn't enough. He has to do more. Otherwise, there's a real risk that Trump becomes president again. That's not my opinion. It's just the facts.

2023-10-03 07:06:25

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Why do we have to make concessions on a problem that doesn't exist and is fueled entirely by rethuglican lies, hatred, and bigotry against races other than white people?

I mean do you want to end Trumpism and win in 2024? To end that, you need a definitive win. You can't win by minimal numbers in several states. There needs to be an overwhelming statement from the country that we're not going to vote for a criminal to be president. There needs to be an overwhelming statement that Americans don't want this and that republicans don't want this. If you get that, the tide turns. GOP people like Cruz and McCarthy are spineless and will only support Trump if it suits them. If Trump gets steamrolled then they'll abandon him.

If it's close (or if Trump wins), then it won't stop. You'll have President Don Jr.

So am I willing to make concessions to stop that? Yes. Especially when Biden is struggling with support on the border isssue *with Democrats*.

With Biden's age, he's going to have plenty of skepticism going into next year. Why not eliminate one of his biggest weaknesses? Especially when it would be so easy with almost no negatives.

2023-10-02 19:07:55

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Can you please back this up with a reliable source and the sources you cite? Otherwise, this is nothing but conjecture.
MSNBC, ABC7, or AP, NPR, or Rolling Stone are acceptable.

Well, Biden has been underwater for a long time for his approval rating:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/bi … al-rating/

You can cherry pick whatever poll you want for over a year and it'll be underwater.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trouble … =103436611

This is the poll that had everyone in a tizzy. Everyone thinks it's an outlier poll, but it's from a reputable source and they chose to release it. But even if you throw the poll out, you have to look at some of the results and pull some results out of it. The poll had 42% of people choosing Biden over Trump, but only 37% of the people approve of his performance. That means that even Biden voters are disapproving of his performance. It gets worse when you see that only 26% of people don't think he's too old (so 16% of people think he's too old but still would vote for him) and 23% of people approve of his handling of the border (19% of people that chose him over Trump still disapprove of his handling of the border).

So even if the poll is bad, there's info you can pull out from the people that chose Biden. And they're saying that they'll vote for Biden but don't necessarily approve of him or his performance.

Now Biden has a ton going for him.

1. He already beat Trump
2. Trump's legal troubles might cement him with his base, but they can only lose him voters in the middle. I can't imagine even an acquittal doing anything positive for him with independents
3. Biden's actually accomplished quite a bit in his term. Democrats just need to be made aware of the progress because non-political-junkies aren't going to have heard of any of it. That's going to obviously depend on how much info Democrats can get out during the election cycle.

But one place Biden can grow quickly is the border, and I'm sure there are tons of things that he can do to gain support from moderate republicans (believe it or not, they exist) and independents. Not only would it bolster support with those groups, but it would take away Republican talking points. Because MAGA is just a third of the Republican party. There are plenty of Republicans that aren't die-hard Trump voters, and you don't need them to vote for Biden. You just need them to vote 3rd party or not vote at all.

And you do that by convincing them that a second Biden term wouldn't be so bad. The economy is already improving and should be much better by next year unless something bad happens. Educating voters on Biden's accomplishments will help there too. But they also need to attack on Biden's weaknesses. His age they can't do anything about, but the border is something they can really work on. Since Harris is already in charge of the border, they could probably kill two birds with one stone. Harris could spend the next year at the border, "acting tough" or whatever and it would make a difference. Both in improving Biden's favorability regarding the border and in improving Harris' own ratings

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po … la-harris/

Because if people liked Harris more, they'd worry about Biden's age less.

2023-09-29 15:57:42

QuinnSlidr wrote:

There are no GOP values that align with progressives when their goal is to lie, lie, and lie to prop up their savior Trump.
As soon as they committed a violent insurrection to stop the certifications of votes for Biden on January 6th carrying a guillotine to the capitol, they ceased becoming a viable political party. They are equivalent to the Taliban.
They deserve arrest, conviction, and prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.
Don't believe everything you hear regarding polls. CNN is now right wing and they are pushing immigration this and immigration that in support of their GOP mega donors.

Okay, but the population you're referring to (MAGA) doesn't explain any of this. Unless MAGA is the majority of the country now, Biden is still underwater in his favorability overall and especially on immigration. MAGA people are never going to turn on Trump no matter what. MAGA isn't enough for Trump to win the election.

But there are people that voted for Joe Biden in 2020 that currently are disapproving of him. There are clearly people that voted for Joe Biden that are currently saying that they'll vote for Trump over him.

Biden needs to be doing something differently because what he's doing now has him underwater. That's not a MAGA problem. That's not a GOP problem. That's not a news problem. That's a Biden problem, and it's one that he needs to fix or non-MAGA is going to vote for Trump over him.

2023-09-27 08:16:47

But does that matter? I'm not sure it does.

Recent polling (and I guess all polling) has shown that Biden's handling of the border is very unpopular. He's extremely unpopular (38% favorable) on his handling of the border. That's not just Republicans and it's not just the Fox News crowd. That's a lot of independents and probably some Democrats.

So whether or not the GOP and conservative media is lying, the majority of voters think Biden isn't doing enough. So my question is...what are some things that Biden can do that would improve the border situation in the 20-30% of non-MAGA people's eyes? The economy is improving and there's not a ton more Biden can do there. But the border is both very visible and it's easier to see progress.

If Biden announced that he was going to restart progress on the border wall, that wouldn't move the needle for any hardcore Democrats (who are voting for Biden no matter what) or Republicans (who would vote for Trump no matter what). But would that convert some potential Trump voters to Biden voters (or non-voters)? If only 38% of people approve of Biden on the border, would he lose any votes if he got more "conservative" on the border?

My point is this: Biden needs to win the next election. And I think some out of the box things are going to need to be done to get the Independent voters and soft Republican voters that Biden is going to need. They obviously wouldn't do everything the Republicans want, but I think they gotta do *something* besides putting Kamala Harris in charge.

Again, if it was me, I would be reaching out to conservative groups and getting their list of demands, and I'd be cherry picking the ones that are a) possible and b) won't conflict with progressive values. And then I'd be going on Fox News every chance I got, and I'd be telling conservative voters what we were doing at the border or on the economy or whatever issues Biden polls poorly on.

Maybe Trump will lose votes as these court cases drag on, but he's not losing any support in the GOP primary or in national polling. I don't think we can spend the next year hoping that will change.

2023-09-26 14:12:22

Sounds like the writers got what they wanted? Am I reading that right?

If so, that's awesome.

2023-09-26 14:09:56

Yeah, I think Democrats need to do what they can to investigate any and all Democrats accused of misdoing. Within reason, of course. If they only investigate Republicans, they're feeding right into the whole "Republicans are being targeted" nonsense.

******

So...the border. This is something that the Democrats just get hammered on all the time. Is there not more that Democrats are willing to do? Are they doing more but not enough? Does this come down to the Republicans wanting more extreme / less humane things and Democrats aren't willing to go there?

I just wonder if the Democrats would be smart to make some concessions on the border. No separating families or putting kids in cages, of course. But make it a point to fund the border patrol more? Maybe even do some ceremonial work on the border wall / fence (even if it's been shown to be ineffective). I'm sure there are some prudent and very visible things that the Democrats can do to take a chunk out of the anger that many people feel about the border.

I'll admit, even in Texas, I don't really know what is being done. Maybe it's as much as possible. But I assume this isn't just a Fox News thing.

2023-09-26 14:03:17

In the Clone Wars, the only Force "ghost" that appears is Qui-Gon, and I don't think he was capable of anything but a voice. He seems to have figured out how to do it by the time of the Obi-Wan show.

2023-09-14 07:46:05

I know it may seem like I'm stressing about continuity. It really doesn't bother me as much as it may seem. I can watch Strange New Worlds and not get bogged down by TOS continuity, particularly since I don't remember much of TOS continuity. What I'm talking about here is more issues with overall continuity. If Vulcan is okay in 3190, it is in no danger in 2410 or 2500 or any year in between. If there's some sort of Federation Civil War in 2600, we know it eventually works out because the Federation survived (in some sense) in the 32nd century.

From a certain point of view, Discovery is now the official Trek "present" and everything else is prequel territory. Just like TOS became prequel when TNG started.

Now ireactions is right that the future is fluid. So maybe something will happen that will wipe out Discovery's version of the future. We've already seen the TOS version of the future (and the past) altered. Again, not a huge deal. Just an annoyance.

2023-09-13 11:24:50

It is bizarre to me that Aquaman 2 is coming out. It comes out in like four months, and we still don't have a trailer (we're getting one in a couple of days). It feels like such an anachronism.

I mean I get it. The first Aquaman made a billion dollars, but it also came out FIVE YEARS AGO. We've had nine movies in the DCEU come out since then. We've had *two* Shazam movies come out since then (3 if you count Black Adam). We got a Harley Quinn solo film (sorta) since then. We got a Suicide Squad reboot since then.

How did Aquaman 2 not come out in 2020 or 2021? I'm not saying Aquaman could've single-handedly saved the DCEU, but it's crazy that so much happened since it came out, and it's coming out as the last breath of this universe.

I know some people love the DCEU but what a fitting disaster. Also, apparently, the movie is a disaster with tons of rewrites, both because the movie isn't great and also to try and fit it into whatever it is they're doing. The filmed a scene with Michael Keaton for it and one with Ben Affleck but both are apparently getting cut because the continuity is such a mess.

I can't imagine I'll see this movie in theaters. Is anyone else?

2023-09-13 09:51:37

Ahsoka Episode 5 spoilers

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So I don't know enough about Star Wars lore, but Anakin seems to be Force Ghost Anakin in physical form. So he's definitely post-Vader but different than Force ghosts we've seen before (in that he physically interacts with Ahsoka). The World Between Worlds hasn't been fleshed out that much so it could be anything. Anakin is both calm and angry, and he sorta takes Ahsoka to the past (or a vision of the past - it's vague).

What's interesting based on our last conversation is that we actually see young Ahsoka for a decent chunk of the episode. So Clone Wars Ahsoka. And here's where I missed Ashley Eckstein the most, but unless they had a child actor mime the dialogue and used Eckstein's voice, I don't know what they could've done. The voice wasn't exactly right but I thought she did a good job. This was essentially live action Clone Wars which was cool.

2023-09-13 09:44:52

I think that makes sense. I guess it doesn't make a ton of sense to overwhelm the service with too many Star Trek things at a time because subscribers aren't giving you any extra money for extra content. I guess the optimal model is to have one Star Trek show running at all times so that no Star Trek fan ever unsubscribes.

With Picard done and Discovery ending, hopefully they can get Legacy going before Matalas moves on.

2023-09-12 19:15:23

Was Picard less successful than the internet made it seem like? I thought it was quite the phenomenon, and I would've suspected that they'd want a follow-up from Matalas. But there's been no word, despite massive fan interest.

Of course, I have no idea how the "Trek on Streaming Only" model works. Maybe it's more expensive than the money it makes. Maybe they do just want to try movies again.

2023-09-12 07:45:07

Hmmm. Also Star Trek has *already* rebooted less than 15 years ago. The reboot just didn't outlast the regular continuity.

Now, I do think Star Trek has a problem, and I do wonder if a reboot should be on the table. And the problem, of course, stems from Discovery.

Right now, Trek is currently operating in several different points in time. Strange New Worlds is set in 2259. Lower Decks is in 2381. Prodigy is in 2383. Picard is in 2401. Discovery was set in 2256-2259, but is now in 3190.

The weird, slightly different timeline in Lower Decks / Prodigy / Picard is awkward but fine. The two animated shows allow for younger versions of TNG-era characters, and they play around with continuity a bit anyway. The way I see it, we have a prequel in SNW, we have some silly stuff with Lower Decks and Prodigy, and Picard is set in the present. Any future show, I assume, will be set in the 2400s.

But Discovery kinda messes with that thought, at least in my head. Please note that I already have a strange opinion on continuity so this probably isn't an issue for most people.

Discovery is set in the 3190s. You could argue that Picard is in the present and that Discovery is in the future. But the way I see it, they're *all* prequels to Discovery seasons 3-5. Why are they prequels? Because unless Trek is going to wipe out Discovery with time travel, it's as far forward as we can go. And we know that the Federation was in tatters but it's coming back together. And as far as we know, none of the key planets have been destroyed since Romulus. So if there's a storyline in Star Trek: Legacy where Earth is in danger, we know it's fine in the future.

Now we can all say that Earth was probably fine, even if we didn't have Discovery. Most shows don't destroy Earth. But we don't *know* that. With Trek, Earth survives another 800 years after the "present". The Federation and Starfleet does too. We know what happens with unification. We know about the Burn.

Just like in a prequel, there could be a threat that Kirk could die in Strange New Worlds but we know he lives. Some of the tension, however much might exist, is gone.

So I wonder if "the present" needs to be 3200 now. Maybe they allow for "prequels" in the 2400s while the TNG-era cast is still alive. But in the mean time, we march forward in the only era where there's still "a final frontier?"

Or you reboot and the whole thing is a clean slate.

2023-09-11 19:46:36

SPOILERS FOR AHSOKA

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Is it confirmed that the Anakin we see at the end of episode 4 is post-Vader? Where they are is in the World Between Worlds so past, present, and future are happening at the same time. The Vader/Ahsoka fight that you referenced is actually a big part of that because Ezra is able to look at the fight as its happening (even though it happened much earlier) and rescue Ahsoka from the fight. She gets pulled into the future. That's how the fight ends.

So this Anakin could hypothetically be pre-Order 66, post-Vader, or maybe even some sort of parallel version of Anakin that never went to the Dark Side.

2023-09-11 07:54:18

I don't want to click on that link so can someone tell me what the (false) rumor was?

2023-09-11 07:51:38

I think the Clone Wars movie is terrible and had the same thought. I think the first part with the battle scenes is fine? The kidnapping plot was boring and I was very uninterested. I think if you look at some of those condensed lists, the movie is either left off entirely, you're told to only watch a certain amount of it, or they include it simply because of character setup. I don't think anyone in the Clone Wars fandom thinks its good.

And there is a lot of filler episodes, but I never found myself bored or annoyed by the show the way I was bored by the movie.

Regarding your spoiler

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

I think it's interesting. I really like James Gunn's DCU approach. If a character is going to be in a DCU property (be it animation, live action, or video game), he or she will be voiced by the same actor. It adds a level of consistency that I appreciate.

That being said, when I watch something that's supposed to be the same thing, I usually defer to the original performer. So Matt Lanter is an animated Hayden Christensen. Rosario Dawson is a live-action Ashley Eckstein. I guess on some level, it's weird that a relationship that started animated with two different actors is now being presented in live action with two different actors, but I guess it'd be the same thing with Ezra and Hera.

I've softened on my whole canon ideology, and since these are both explicitly canon, I think I'm just going to merge it all together in my head.

2023-09-11 07:39:15

I feel the same way about our government. I feel like the Democrats are clearly the good guys and say the right thing and keep things from veering off into a bad direction. But that doesn't mean that they're all saints to be admired. When Republicans say stuff like "well what about (whoever)?" my answer is always "investigate it and if they broke the law, throw them in jail." I don't care if it's the Clintons or the Bidens or the Pelosis. If there's smoke, investigate. If there's fire, arrest them.

Tribalism is bad on both sides, and I think the left (because I don't think the right is currently capable of introspection) needs to decide if they want to be the same tribalistic people as the right. If no one is above the law, then no one is above the law.

2023-09-07 07:29:58

I think watching it would definitely upgrade your experience. I think the show does a good job of explaining who the characters are at a high level, but you're obviously not going to get a lot of the context if you've never watched Clone Wars or Rebels. So Ahsoka talks about how she's not a Jedi, but there isn't really any explanation for why she'd say that. It talks about how she was Anakin's apprentice, but there's no sense for how long / how that relationship developed / where it landed. So it might be a little like watching A New Hope without watching the prequels (you know Obi Wan was a great Jedi knight, but you don't really know what that means) or even watching The Last Jedi without seeing the original trilogy (you know Luke was great but not what he did to be great).

There are also a couple main Rebels characters (so far) that have appeared. They're more or less archetypal characters who don't need a ton of explanation. Hera's a former rebel and a pilot. Sabine is a Mandalorian with a connection to Ahsoka. And there's also how Rebels ended - the first two episodes are a retelling of the epilogue of Rebels from Ahsoka's perspective. So without Rebels knowledge, you're not going to understand who Ezra is or why he was important, you're not going to know who Thrawn is or why he's dangerous, and you aren't going to know how they ended up where they are.

All that to say, I think the show is constructed to be watched by someone who has never seen any of Rebels before with story and character beats that are probably best for people who have been along the entire journey. And I'm interesting to see how they try to explain (SPOILER) to a general audience without being handwavey or way too involved.

That being said, if you want to get some of that context without watching hundreds of episodes of two cartoons, I've seen lists that will either:

- Cut down Clone Wars and Rebels to only the key arc episodes. This way you can experience the full feel of both shows without some of the filler or kiddie or irrelevant episodes.

- Cut down Clone Wars and Rebels to just the episodes that are relevant to Ahsoka/Sabine/Hera/Ezra/Thrawn. Ahsoka isn't in every episode (or even every arc) of Clone Wars, and she's in much less of Rebels. People have determined which handful of episodes from each show are give you the gist of these characters' journeys without any of the stuff that won't be relevant to Ahsoka.

So depending on your time commitment, you could do either of those. But honestly, you could also probably watch Ahsoka first and get the context later.

2023-09-06 12:21:42

I'm not usually one to get overly surprised by anything on TV but man the ending to Ahsoka episode 4 blew my mind just a bit.

2023-09-05 08:18:40

TemporalFlux wrote:

The studios won’t be able to re-start the engine quickly. Once they run out of things already filmed, they’ll need to film more and do post production on it.
Even if the strike ended tomorrow, we could right now see months with little to no new releases in theaters or even on scripted tv. That extends further the longer this goes.

Selfishly, this will allow me to catch up on a long backlog of things I have to catch up on.

To be clear, I'm on the side of the writers and actors.

2023-09-05 07:33:09

ireactions wrote:

............... is there some sort of FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS media tie-in that fills in the continuity gap? A novel, comic book, audioplay, webisode, app, puppet show, picturebook or cereal box? Is the writers' strike the reason the character ages got muddy?

As far as I'm aware, there's nothing that fills in the gap. I think they liked the stories they came with and built on them. Time had moved on, they needed to start a new year, and they do their best to catch up the audience.

(Spoilers for seasons 2-3 of Friday Night Lights if you're still reading this and care)

It is jarring though. The previous season, like many strike-shortened seasons, just sorta ends at the end of a random episode. But they're clearly building to some interesting things. The team is trying to sneak into the playoffs after a rough start. Smash has swallowed his pride and has committed to a historically black college that really wanted him. Lyla is pulling away from her old friends and her old ways. Buddy has essentially adopted this street-wise kid who is trying to improve his own life and get away from his dangerous friends.

But the season ends abruptly, and when you start up the season 3 premiere, things are just different. Smash is hurt, his scholarship is gone, and he's trying to rehab. Lyla and Tim are just together with no explanation. They explain how the last season ended (Smash got hurt and the team couldn't rebound). Santiago is just gone with no explanation of where he went or what happened to him (it's one of the threads they just abandoned).

It isn't bad. It just feels bizarre. But season 3 is better than season 2 so I was happy to move on.

*******

I don't think the strike had anything to do with the ages. I think they wrote season one a certain way and probably considered Tim/Lyla/Tyra to all be seniors. Maybe they originally meant for it to be an anthology series or focus on different groups of players? But since Jason was the only one who was specifically mentioned to be graduating at any point, they ran with that idea. And not only did it allow them to shave a year off them all, they were able to shave two full years off everyone.

There are no continuity breaks as far as I'm aware, and it works. It just feels weird when you think too hard about it. Jason, the big man on campus, is just friends with a bunch of sophomores, and we never meet anyone else he graduated with.

2023-09-01 11:11:23

ireactions wrote:

Do the character ages actually matter on FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS? I don't know. I've never seen it.

At the end of the day, I say no. The show is good and there's no Star-Trek-like open continuity errors in dialogue. The show never tells the characters' ages, and any continuity errors are simply based on assumptions or logic. Jason Street and Tim Riggins are best friends. They happen to be different ages and wouldn't have had any classes together or worked on projects together or been on the same football team. They are two years apart (an enormous gap from my experience) but met at some point and became very close friends. Same with Landry and Matt.

The differences in the girls' ages is less of a thing because high school girls' tend to work their way into the lives of older boys.

The show never said anything, and that's okay.

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

The other interesting thing about Friday Night Lights, which ties into your examples, is the Writer's Strike. Season two of FNL is pretty reviled by the fanbase, mostly because of a hysterically stupid storyline where one of the characters kills someone (in self defense) and tries to cover it up. The show occasionally tries to ingratiate itself into the world of crime, and it never really works out.

Season two also follows up on a lot of season two storylines. Superfan Buddy Garrity tries to bring street-smart Santiago onto the team to play defense, even allowing him to live in his home. Smash Williams tries to toe the line between being socially conscious of being a black man with some name power in a somewhat-racist town in Texas. He starts to lose some of his scholarship opportunities because of it. Lyla becomes religious and rejects the advances of Tim by dating another boy from church. Meanwhile the team is trying to repeat the successes from the previous season.

But after episode 15 of the season...the strike ends the season.

Now on most shows, they could pick up where the last season left off. But Friday Night Lights moves one year at a time with each season being the full football season. I guess we'll never know.

EXCEPT....

Friday Night Lights just moves on. Not just as if nothing happened but moves on as if the remaining 7 episodes happened and aired. There are references to things that happened (Smash got his scholarship situation figured out but then got hurt, Lyla and Tim ended up together, etc) and there are some "flashback" scenes that show some of the things that happened but it's no more than would've happened in a typical "reset the stage" scene.

It's both clever and bizarre. They don't do enough to cause any problems, but it does give you a bit of whiplash as you try to distinguish between the stuff that actually happened and the stuff that you don't remember because it didn't air. The show always does this in some sense because each season ends in November/December and starts back up in July/August. So there's always a time jump and stuff always happens in the time jump. But it's just a bit bizarre for the show to be like "we had a plan and we're sticking with it, whether those episodes aired or not"

2023-08-29 07:27:41

ireactions had a pretty great summary of all the weird continuity errors in Star Trek in the original series. The show essentially couldn't agree on what the Enterprise was doing or who Kirk worked for or what year it was. But it was the 60s, and that kind of stuff doesn't happen anymore, right? Not on good shows?

So I started watching Friday Night Lights recently. I'm a(n American) football fan and I'd never seen it. Not only that, but it's highly spoken of by one of my favorite TV reviewers (Alan Sepinwall). Sepinwall wrote a book called The Revolution Was Televised about how 12 shows changed television, and I've loved just about every show he covered. Friday Night Lights, being on Netflix, was a natural next one.

For those that don't know, Friday Night Lights is primarily about a high school football coach in small town Texas (where football is king). Coach Taylor's wife is a counselor at the school, and their daughter goes to the school and is friends with some of the players. The show also deals with some of the players and their personal lives. I'll try not to spoil anything here, but if it would upset you to know any minor spoilers from Friday Night Lights (over a decade old), I'd stop reading now.

So we're introduced in the first episode to the main cast of high schoolers. Jason Street is the star quarterback who is nationally known and highly recruited. Lyla is his devoted girlfriend. Tim Riggins is his best friend. Tyra is his on again/off again fling. We are also introduced to Matt Saracen, the backup quarterback in Jason's shadow. Matt's best friend is Landry, a musician who doesn't play football. Matt has a crush on Julie, the coach's daughter. The other main castmember is Brian "Smash" Williams, but he's not really connected to any of the main cast outside of also playing football.

When you look at the cast, there's a clear divider. Jason, Tim, and Lyla all hang out together (Tyra is around as well but not as close). Matt and Landry hang out and eventually Julie gets into the group. And the way that both groups hang out, it's generally assumed that each group of kids is the same age.

So season one deals with the competition between Street and Saracen to be the starting quarterback (I won't say any more than that). At the end of the season, Jason has graduated, but in season 2, Lyla and Tyra and Tim are still in school. It's later confirmed that the three of them were sophomores in season one, and Jason was the lone senior of the group.

It's obvious why it was done. Jason was clearly a senior in the show and his story moves on to other things. And as the show finds out time and time again, once people graduate or leave the high school, the writers no longer know what to do with them. The show is about a high school and doesn't handle juggling very well.

But it feels disingenuous. It also doesn't feel right that Matt, who spends most of season one feeling like an outsider, is the same age as Tim and Lyla. There was a clear divider in season one.

Now I'm not saying this isn't possible, especially in a smaller school in a smaller town. Seniors can be best friends with people younger than them, and Tim Riggins is a larger than life guy. But it's generally harder to be friends with people that aren't in the same grade as you. Sure, football connected Tim and Jason, but they would've only been at the same school every couple of years. They probably wouldn't have played on the same team that often. Their friendship doesn't work as well. Especially because Tim isn't in the same stratosphere as Jason in terms of football talent. It just feels strange.

The show does it again in season three when it's time for all those guys to graduate. It was established that Matt, Tyra, Lyla, and Tim were all going to graduate, but having already had to deal with Jason and Smash graduating (and not knowing what to do with them post-graduation), they make another move. Now Julie and Landry are a year younger. So they were freshmen in season one.

Again, it's possible that Matt and Landry were friends outside of just being in the same grade, but it just isn't ever mentioned. Season one doesn't deal with Landry or Julie dealing with their first year of high school. The older group all being seniors and the younger group all being sophomores makes sense. But unlike some of the graduated football players, they couldn't write Julie off the show - she's the main character's daughter. And I think they realized what they had with Jesse Plemons and wanted him to stick around in season 4.

It just felt weird to me.

The show is great though. I've really enjoyed it (even the much-maligned season two which was mangled by the writers' strike). The ages of the kids just feels really odd.

Search options (Page 12 of 58)

Posts found: 661 to 720 of 3,461

661 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-12-06 09:32:05

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

662 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-12-06 08:56:12

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

663 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-12-05 19:32:06

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

664 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-12-05 07:59:37

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

665 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-12-03 20:27:19

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

666 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-12-03 19:48:47

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

667 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-28 15:14:22

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

668 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-28 15:12:04

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

669 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-28 12:31:09

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

670 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-28 08:22:14

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

671 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-27 10:36:30

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (697 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

672 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-26 20:18:54

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

673 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-20 08:25:27

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

674 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-20 08:10:07

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

675 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-17 13:15:27

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

676 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-16 12:06:42

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

677 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-14 09:39:09

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

678 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-12 19:44:38

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

679 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-08 11:53:12

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

680 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-08 11:35:36

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

681 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-08 08:10:25

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

682 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-06 11:34:56

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

683 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-06 08:29:47

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

684 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-11-03 12:59:16

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

685 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-27 07:16:59

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

686 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-25 08:58:08

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

687 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-23 11:36:34

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

688 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-19 07:52:44

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

689 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-19 07:08:02

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

690 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-18 07:08:24

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

691 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-17 09:39:24

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

692 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-12 20:01:04

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

693 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-12 14:09:39

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

694 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-12 11:03:43

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

695 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-11 13:53:46

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

696 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-05 07:41:46

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

697 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-04 14:14:36

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

698 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-03 07:06:25

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

699 Reply by Slider_Quinn21 2023-10-02 19:07:55

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,553 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)