Search options (Page 23 of 35)

I wasn't criticizing their profits.

I just think that they've reached their high point in terms of story and pop culture appeal. Doctor Strange may appeal to the comic fans who know the character, but as someone who doesn't, the trailer just looked like a lamer version of Inception to me. And while Spider-Man is a great character, I think that using him will be more of a challenge than people are expecting.

Ultron didn't impress people.
I don't know many who are excited over Thor 3.
At this point, I think Guardians 2 is their best bet.

And I am not up DC's ass. I can be just as critical of their work. I just usually like it more.

We do agree that I'm brilliant though

Before I saw the finale, I would have agreed that they should have done different stories each year. They could even do homages to different decades and it'd be fun. But I think that the writers have mapped out their plan for several seasons and know what they're doing. If that's the case, I'm fine with them continuing with this storyline. Season 1 can stand alone as a great story, so worst case scenario, we do what I'm going to do with Arrow and just forget that the bad seasons ever existed.

I don't know that we're talking about entirely different things. You're talking about removing characters and reworking their scenes so that their work is done by someone else. In the end, the story might be tighter. With the Avengers, the problem is that if you take those characters out, you're forced to get rid of a lot of plot points that were jammed into the story and added little to nothing anyway. The problem with The Avengers is that a lot of the movie is made up of fanboy scenes that weakened the overall movie. The carrier scenes make no sense because apparently the big plan is to kindly ask the Hulk to get into his prison cell if he happens to break loose. The inter-Avengers arguments are thrown into the middle the story, detracting from the immediacy of the actual plot of the movie. Removing those fanboy elements would actually make the movie stronger. So while Croc and Boomerang might not add anything special, they don't really detract from the overall plot either. They don't add useless scenes of Captain Boomerang doing nothing in particular, just because it might look fun on camera.

But I guess I shouldn't get into The Avengers again, because it is a rabbit hole. The problem isn't even necessarily the characters, it's the writing. The whole thing is filled with plot holes and fanboy moments, and the actual plot is about three levels down on the list of priorities for the people making the movie.

Back to the topic at hand...

You know how you sometimes add salt to a recipe, not because you want the finished product to be salty, but because a little bit of salt can actually bring out the sweetness in it? I think the same is true for those characters. Croc and Boomerang don't have huge important moments on their own, but the way the other characters orbit around them gives them meaning.

Another example that I could give would be Major Ferris in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. She isn't a major character. She doesn't have a plotline. You could edit out most of, if not all of her lines and there would be no real change to the plot of the movies. However, her just being there on the team adds a different element that would be absent otherwise. She serves to strengthen the foundation upon which the plot is built.

In the Avengers world, I'd say that Hill or Coulson would be along the same lines. They add a little flavor, but removing them entirely and giving their lines to someone else would leave a movie that is more or less the same.

With Batman v Superman, I think the studio did get in the way. Early tests showed that Batman was popular, so they upped the Batman element and cut back the Superman element. While I still liked the movie and still thought that this concept was valid for the movie, it wasn't what the movie was supposed to be. So I agree that they just needed to step back and let the people running the movie release the movie that they wanted. Screw the PG-13 rating that they thought would increase ticket sales. Screw the Batman feedback... but this is nothing new for studios. It's what they do. They take great stories and turn them into watered down products all the time.

If you watch the making of Frozen (I saw it on a special that aired on ABC), you will watch the process of taking a promising story with real depth and character and turning it into nothing more than a marketing gimmick. It was a really frustrating special to watch. They tossed the entire movie out the window because they thought of a catchy song.

The Marvel movies are just as guilty of producing this crap as DC ever was. Probably moreso.

So yeah, the problem with BvS wasn't the people making the movie, it was the people releasing the movie. They don't understand the material, so they got nervous. Bad move.

Suicide Squad is something else, I think. I've read descriptions about some of the deleted scenes. I've read about the missing Joker material (which is largely just Leto going nuts on camera, seeing what works and what doesn't). And while it might be cool to see some of that stuff, I don't think that it is the same situation as BvS. I don't think that the movie will be better by giving the Joker too much screen time and taking focus off of Harley. I don't know that we needed more of the romance between Rick Flag and June Moone. I don't know that we need more of the backstories for other squad members. That's not saying that I don't think there are interesting, worthwhile stories to tell here. They're all solid characters on their own. But for this movie and this story, I think we got what we needed. (with the exception of Slipknot. I know Ayer says that he didn't want to invest time in a misdirect, but I think that they could have spared a few more minutes)

Some of the Joker stuff would round out the relationship with Harley and show how abusive and one-sided it really was. There is enough history there for a whole movie (which will probably be explored in the Batman movie and the Harley movie). But for a movie that is focused on telling Harley's story, I'm not sure how proper it would be to tell the well-rounded version of their romance. Harley always sees Joker through rose-colored glasses. He tries to kill her repeatedly and she still swoons over him. Even in this movie, she glosses over his attempts to kill her.

They do need to stop releasing two versions of each movie. They need to let the directors make their movies and release them in theaters the way they're supposed to be. I just don't think that Suicide Squad is the same situation as BvS.

As for advertising more Joker than we got, movies do that all the time. Jared Leto is a big name, playing a well known character in a movie with a bunch of lesser-known actors, playing lesser-known characters. He got a lot of press, even when it was just people noticing that his hair was green, way back when. So they played up that element. It's not really different than Jennifer Lawrence being played up as an equal in American Hustle, when her screen time was probably less than half that of any of the other stars in the movie. Hell, Drew Barrymore was the poster for Scream. That's just how they market.

And the other company making another cut of the movie was overhyped by a rabid press. Alternate cuts and different takes on the material are put together and tested all the time. I think they finally settled on something in the middle. People are just looking for drama where it doesn't exist there.

I'll have to see it in context to be certain one way or the other, but I don't see any problem with what you posted.

I remember in the series finale of the Cosby Show, Cliff and Claire were dancing with each other. As they danced, they became Bill Cosby and Phylicia Rashad, and just danced off of the set for the last time. It broke the fourth wall that was no longer needed because the show was over. Without words, it made the audience feel like a part of the production in a way. Everyone became a part of the goodbye in that last moment when the Huxtables ceased to exist.

This is your finale. You're allowed to tip your hat to the audience that has been following you. I can't say how well it works until I see it in context and know how the drama and emotional flow are impacted by that decision, but it isn't a violation of what you're trying to accomplish in and of itself.

Sorry for my lack of actual input. It's just really hard to speak to your specific example without the full context, so my words are pretty useless.

And also, how sad is it that I will probably never be able to revisit the Huxtables again? Damn.

While I think that a lot of people have perfectly legit opinions about the movie, I think that a lot of the negative comments are also just echoing what the press told people to see months ago. People are saying that the movie sucks without deleted scenes that nobody has seen, and which only exist as rumors at this point.

The funny part about this weekend is that people released early articles about how Suicide Squad flopped in its second week and what a disaster it is... Then the movie surprised them by remaining on top this week, so now they have to release updates that try to paint that as a failure.

Argh. Again, Suicide Squad appears to be holding its own, making more on Friday than Guardians of the Galaxy did on its second Friday, get the articles are all about its massive drop and how doomed they are.

What am I missing here?

That's pretty much the Winn/Kara dynamic, isn't it?

Or it was. He might be gay now.

We also need to keep in mind that there will probably be two new timelines here. The first in which Barry saves his mother and things go horribly wrong (even though this would probably be the original and proper timeline). The second when he allows his mother to die and time kinda-sorta goes back to normal.

Maybe saving Harrison Wells allows him to create an even bigger disaster than when the accelerator exploded. But it will have to be acknowledged on Supergirl since that is the show where it was explicitly stated that she existed in another universe where nobody that Barry knows exists.

There were a lot of ways for it to fit with their stories. I think that trying to hold onto season 1's structure will be the mistake. The merging should be a crazy big event, or it should be a small personal event. But it shouldn't be a massive event that is shrugged off as no big deal.

Honestly, with a doorway between worlds already existing, they don't even need to bother merging them if they don't want to make a big deal out of it.

I am going to post my thoughts on the movie before I read any other comments, just so I'm not swayed in any way...

When Suicide Squad was announced, I was a little surprised. I didn't expect a story like this to be turned into a movie, and I certainly didn't expect it to be the third movie out of the gate. I thought it was a little too unfamiliar for mainstream audiences, but it should be a fun group-action comic book movie for those of us who already know most of the characters. I didn't go in with the same expectations that I had for Batman v Superman or Man of Steel, because this isn't one of the heavy hitters. This is a dark corner of the DC universe.

I was right and wrong on these points.

First, I was right that the movie wouldn't be for everyone. Specifically, the people who don't really like comic book stories, but have to sit through them anyway because it's their job to review movies. There's a lot going on in this movie that I'm going to have to Google later.

The movie wasn't as heavy as Batman v Superman. It could afford to be lighter, and it was. It didn't try to be anything that it wasn't. That said, it wasn't a comedy either. It's wasn't cartoonish (though kudos to Margot Robbie for having Harley's mannerisms down). This movie wasn't the Guardians of the Galaxy movie that some people were expecting, and I think that threw those people off.  Harley Quinn is a funny character, but she isn't just comic relief. People expecting her to be all jokes must have been disappointed. I think it's a solid addition to the DCEU. It introduced a lot of elements that will come into play later, and it did it in a fun way.

Some of the criticism that I've seen says that this was just Will Smith playing Will Smith. I expected that, but I was pleasantly surprised to see him tone it down quite a bit. Deadshot wasn't as annoying as I thought he'd be. I didn't mind him in the role at all.

The criticism also (probably led by media reports) says that this was a wildly re-edited movie that didn't fit together as one movie. I disagree with that. I didn't have any problem with the tone of the movie or the overall flow of it.

They say that the flashbacks either gave too much backstory, or not enough. I thought that what we had was good. The only complaint that I have here is that they should have developed Slipknot. Not giving him a backstory or showing his flashback tipped their hand and ruined what could have been a shocking moment.

A lot of people think that the studio ruined the movie by removing Joker scenes. And while I eagerly anticipated the Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman, I'm going to have to disagree here. As it was, we got more Joker than I expected. If they added more scenes with him, they would run the risk of his stealing the spotlight in a movie that is supposed to focus more on Harley. I didn't hate this Joker or anything like that, but I didn't need more of him. I can wait for a Batman movie for that, if that's the direction they decide to take this.

The Marvel movies were all connected, but there was also this disconnect between them. Even in Avengers movies, they feel separate from the other movies. Maybe it's just me, but I never felt excited by those connections. Characters who carried over across films weren't consistent with what we'd seen before, and references to past movies didn't feel like anything more than a way of telling the audience that it was all connected.

This felt different to me. When Amanda Waller talks about Superman, it feels like it isn't just something that happened. It's something that continues to happen to that world. The way Batman comes in and out of the movie doesn't feel cheap. The way The Flash comes in doesn't feel like a teaser for his upcoming movie. There is an attention to detail in stories that aren't even on screen. The director talks about the Joker killing Robin, Batman smashing his teeth out, Joker getting the "damaged" tattoo before being sent to Arkham, where he meets Harley... There is a whole world that existed before we came into it and a whole world that is existing off camera. I like that. It's been said that there hasn't been enough thought put into making the DCEU one cohesive whole, but I strongly disagree with that.

One element that I was cringing at during the movie, not because I hated it, but because I was waiting for it to derail the entire movie, was the Enchantress story. I was surprised that they went so big with that side of the DC universe, so fast, and in a movie that most people just expected to be a simple "elite team" action movie. Then again, why would you throw the Suicide Squad at something normal? Her story wound up setting the stage for the big changes coming to that world, but it wasn't so overwhelming that it ruined the movie for me. The real villains of the movie were still in the Squad itself, which was interesting. They could have hammered that Enchantress story into the ground with way too many useless magical fight scenes that meant nothing, but they didn't. Which is good, because toward the end, I was starting to think that this was a better Ghostbusters remake than the actual Ghostbusters remake. The only thing that I wish they'd changed was when Enchantress was showing people their heart's desires... I kinda wished that Harley would conjure up an image of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.

The movie isn't my new favorite superhero movie of all time or anything, but it has taken its place with the other DC offerings on my list of strong comic book movies that I will go back to again.

I get that it makes sense for the writers and the network, but it still has to make sense within the story. They can't just have Kara show up at the next crossover event as though she's been there all along.

As for Clark... I wish they'd put him in the season premiere, just before Kara leaves that world, and they never ever go back to him. The pics of him in that costume are just not good. The cape looks like he made it out of a cheap pleather bean bag chair that he bought at Target. The wrong material, and the wrong length.

New info on Discovery.

http://tvline.com/2016/08/10/star-trek- … lers-cast/

I have no idea what this big event might be. Anyone else? I'm less of a TOS fan, so I'm a little tired of going back to the Kirk and pre-Kirk era. That said, if there is a good story to tell, I will watch it. I think that Fuller is a good person for the job of blending the old Trek style with modern TV.

I hope they don't reimagine the aliens too much.

I am intrigued about the idea of a non-captain as the lead. Don't care about gender, as long as the character is solid.

The gay thing... For me, it's not a matter of the social issue, it is about character. I hate when they force characters to be gay for the sake of having a gay character. That said, sometimes characters just are who they are. That's fine. Honestly though, if you want to outrage Trek fans, throw in a Christian character. Their heads will explode.

The ship is still fugly. Now it reminds me of the Vulcan emblem.

I just bought my ticket for tomorrow morning at 11:30. I'm looking forward to it. And then to the crazy Joker edition that will probably be announced for home video

Having run out of X-Files episodes to rewatch, I decided to go back to the first season of Arrow and see if I could remember what I saw in the show back then. I was actually a little sad to watch the Pilot, because it was really good. There were strong characters. There was a direct mission. The fights were really well done. Most importantly, the people making it seemed to be taking it seriously. No characters baby-talking or whining their way through dialogue, which was also nice.

The thing is that in order to enjoy the show, I have to ignore everything that happened after season 2. I liked Tatsu, but I have to forget that she existed, or else the promise of the island is an empty waste of time. They really, really messed up the five year arc of Oliver on the island. Instead of being like a brutal version of Lost, they meandered and dilly-dallied their way through it, to the point where part of me was wondering why Oliver was so upset about it in the first episode.

I hope that this new season can reset the series and get back to what worked. But no matter what happens, seasons 3 and 4 have to be forgotten.

Years ago, I'd heard rumors that the decision to fire a cast member a bring on Seven came down to two cast members, Wang and Lien. The rumor suggested that a favorable magazine article saved Wang's job, so Lien was fired.

I was upset by that. Kes was a much more interesting character than Kim. She shouldn't have been kicked off the show.

However, in recent years, it's become clear that there may be more to the Jennifer Lien story than we knew. I'm not sure that keeping her on was an option. Besides, making her more sexy would have only worked for a season or two before we got into the old age makeup. Kes would have been on her deathbed by the time the show ended.

Making Seven a male is an interesting idea. It would have certainly added a different dynamic to the show. I don't know that it would have necessarily made the character less of a sexiness ploy, but it certainly would have changed how the character was used (Seven loses his virginity to alien sex slave! Seven doesn't understand why humans wear clothes!). Then again, it would have stepped on Data's toes a bit too much.

I can think of a bunch of shows that never degraded or exploited its female cast members. Voyager and Enterprise really hit low points with their skin-tight cat suits, but DS9 had strong, intelligent female characters. The only one that you can say was really exploited was Leeta, whose job was to be sexy, but who we came to realize was so much more than that job.

I think that there was a point in the 90's where the "sex sells" gimmick went way too far. But I don't think it really hit every show of the time.

Deep breath. Close your eyes. Answer one question for me...

Do you know what happens to a toad when it's struck by lightning?

See? Instant perspective! You're welcome. ☺

I get that point of view, but I think we've seen it and explored it enough by this point. There isn't much left to ponder when it comes to the question of whether Batman is responsible for the craziness of Gotham. But there is something interesting about exploring the idea of the city itself being a living creature that drives people into darkness.

I just don't see why we always need to be bogged down by the way things "should" be done, based on how they've been done before. Comic books get to play with these ideas all the time, creating new twists on the reality within that world. Why shouldn't TV shows and movies do the same thing? I like watching the show and getting a hint of what's to come, just based on the name of a character. But at the same time, I like that I don't really know how this is going to play out. Bruce will become Batman, but when and how? Penguin and Riddler have a long road ahead of them... Both of them go through their wacky criminal careers and come out the other side (more or less) in the comics, while other Batman villains are still starting out.

I was shocked by what they did with Mr. Freeze and his wife, and the fact that it didn't line up with the comics did cross my mind. But that doesn't make it a bad thing.

In the comics (to the best of my knowledge), Jim Gordon and Leslie Thompkins never got involved or had a kid together.  That doesn't make the TV show wrong or bad. It's just one of man, many interpretations of the material. Saying that the writers got impatient implies that there is a more proper way to tell this story, and that it can't just be what it is. I disagree with that.

How many of the comic books shows really follow the comic book storylines?

If at the end of the day the story that's told on the show is bad, that will be a perfectly fine opinion to have. It's fine to discuss how things could have been handled differently. But I don't think we can ding a show for not being something that it's not trying to be. The show is about Gotham. It's not a Batman origin story.

This version of Clark gets slapped down a lot. He isn't anti-social, like you say, but every time he tries to be social, it blows up in his face. It's been that way ever since he was a child.

I like this. To me, it's a level of thought and complexity that isn't usually put into Superman. He's usually just a happy-go-lucky dude who has this perfect life. I have always had a hard time identifying with that version. With this version, I feel like it's more like the world I live in. I can identify with him. Realistically, there are a lot of people in the world who seem to have perfect lives that we would take in a second, if we could. But with any of those people, a closer look will reveal that their lives are just as stressful and complicated as our own. It's just how life works. The grass is always greener. This is the first time that they've really explored that side of Superman's life on screen. Smallville was closer, but it was hard to feel sorry for Clark when he had three beautiful girls swooning over him, he was popular, and everyone loved him.

It would be cool to see Braniac in the next movie. It seems like it's something that could progress naturally from Justice League. Or they could go with someone like Metallo. Parasite would be cool, but then you end up with another Zod situation.

In normal Superman stories, he isn't weighed down. He has a solid best friend, a pretty high school girlfriend, he is popular and everything is great.

This isn't that story though. This is a story where the Kent's are the creepy weird family in town, because they can't afford to have baby Clark grab onto the finger of a friendly neighbor. Each of his parents probably suffered numerous (self treated) injuries. He didn't play sports. He didn't wrestle with his friends. He wasn't thrilled by his amazing abilities, they were the monster under his bed. His life was lonely and confusing and scary, which isn't entirely unusual, but would have been that much worse because he genuinely was a freak and nobody could know about it.

This Clark hasn't experienced much of the fun and wonder of his abilities yet. He has only recently embraced his differences, and as soon as he did, it nearly destroyed the world. I don't blame him for being less happy than Clark is normally written. It would be weird for him to act any different.

(Note: my phone is wonky, randomly distorting or deleting words after I write them. If I say something that makes no sense, that's why... This time)

Clark should be changed after coming back in Justice League. Maybe that can make him more sure of his purpose. Maybe it can give him a happier view of his situation. That's cool. But I don't want him to be the bland, hollow Christopher Reeve version of the character that plagued the character for so long. People said that he was too broody in Man of Steel too, but I just saw a person who was going through a lot.

I expect that someone else will write and direct Man of Steel 2. Snyder will be busy with the Justice League movies for a while, and I don't think he'd have the time to be working on a third movie at the same time. Maybe as a producer, but not full time. It'd be cool if they could get Nolan for it, but that probably won't happen. Whoever it is, I just hope that it's a filmmaker, approaching the movie as a piece of art. Something they care about, not just a fanboy recreating what he's seen a hundred times before.

Yeah, I'm definitely open to that side of it. I don't have high demands for this movie, but I hope it is at least good. I can't really comment on the criticism of the movie itself yet. I can only comment on other media coverage of the franchise, which has been strange.

I think Star Wars explains some of the reaction. The Force Awakens was a mish-mash of elements from the original movies, essentially making it a high budget fan film that offered nothing fresh and profiting by giving people a "new" movie that was essentially one of the old movies. When Man of Steel came out, a lot of the negativity toward it from critics was due to its not being the same as the old Superman movie, which is the only Superman that most of the critics know. Despite debate among actual geeky fans, the same is true of the critics' reaction to Batman v Superman. "It isn't the Batman that I grew up with" was a common phrase, as we're comments on how dark and un-Marvel-like the movie was. With some critics, I think that they're just not into these characters and their idea of what a comic book movie should be is influenced by their general disinterest in comic books.

That said, I do think that there is a negative PR campaign going on here. Whether Disney is directly paying people or media outlets are just trying to stay in Disney's good graces because losing interviews and exclusives for Marvel movies, Star Wars movies and Disney animated movies would be a huge blow... I don't know. But when I start seeing different reviewers using the same weird terminology to ding a film, or see articles talking about the horrific state of DC's slate, despite this movie performing incredibly well and even BvS holding its own to this day, despite the negative critic reviews, something just seems off to me. Watched these patterns on the news for years, usually with political stories. The tactics are the same here.

Look at this article: http://www.comicbookmovie.com/avengers/ … nd-a105731

It is all about Marvel reshoots and how it's all good and normal. The article is written to ease audience fears when they hear about reshoots, because it is a pretty normal practice.

Whereas articles about DC reshoots are usually painted as panic and worry ( http://www.comicbookmovie.com/suicide_s … la-a133142 ). They go so far as to second guess Jai Courtney's comments on the reshoot because he made it sound like no big deal.

These news outlets make their money on news and interviews. Even if Disney isn't paying them directly to spin DC stories, there is a lot of incentive for them to stay on Disney's good side.

I'm not saying that any negative comment toward DC movies is part of a massive conspiracy. I'm just saying that the approach to discussing these movies has been coming from negative, long before Batman v Superman ever came out. A lot of the articles take good news and spin it to bad, or take a report on a successful weekend and spend several paragraphs discussing how horrible things are for the DCEU. It is disproportionately negative.

Look at the Rotten Tomatoes scores for some otheotheries. Thor 2 is at 66%. Age of Ultron, 75%. Iron Man 3,
79%. New Ghostbusters, 73%... And not one of the movies that Matt Damon has started in has ranked as low as the last two DC movies. MATT DAMON!

Sorry, but some of those movies are inexcusably low quality. Not fun. Not a few weak spots in an overall good movie. Just bad. There is no convincing me that there's not something wrong here, especially with such huge differences between critics and the general audience.

Hillary Clinton would sacrifice her own de grandchild if it would secure her win. Neither she nor her husband have ever cared about anyone but themselves, and neither one has any hint of a moral compass. We have decades of experience with these people and they've never shown a hint of sincerity or humanity. He fakes tears at funerals. She makes up 9/11 stories to gain sympathy.

There is nothing good or sincere about Hillary Clinton. She doesn't even seem to comprehend basic human emotion, and she couldn't care less about the little guy unless there's a camera around.

The problem is, Trump isn't much better. I think that looking for care from either of them will just result in falling for the con.

Like I said, I'm surprised that the movie is as big a deal as it is. We will see if the critics hurt this one.

While it's true that BvS didn't perform as well as some expected at the box office(a point that I think keeps getting exaggerated with time), it seems to be holding steady in home video sales. I just checked Amazon and the blu-ray is ranked at number 3 in overall video sales. Also, a lot of critics stepped back from their reviews of the movie once the Ultimate Edition was released. I do kinda wish that there was a separate Rotten Tomatoes page for the two versions.

Anyway, I'm still excited to see it. I don't expect it to blow my mind or change the way I see film. I think it will be a fun comic booky movie, filled with a lot of characters that I never expected to see on the big screen.

I guess we will find out after the movie is released. I'm hoping to see it next week, but my schedule is always difficult, so we'll see.

I don't think there will be any DC movies that get solid good receptions. Most critics think that comic book movies should be cartoonish, which is why they love Marvel and the older Superman movies. Most of them think that comic book stories shouldn't be dark or gritty, which is going to be a problem. Criticizing Harley Quinn because it's a sexist portrayal, or dinging the movie because of its machismo... it sounds like they're more upset that the movie doesn't live up to their political standards than they are about the actual movie.

It could be a mess. I don't know. But the critics are so out of the loop on these movies, I can't take them seriously. And their "inside information" has been proven false in the past.

Wonder Woman might get better reviews, since the character is a feminist icon and critics won't want to bash the first female superhero movie like this. But overall, the critics are a joke. They keep expecting DC to put out Marvel movies, and DC isn't doing that. So DC gets criticized for not being Marvel. It's no-win. Guardians is about lovable rogues. Suicide Squad is about genuinely bad people. Killer Croc is not Groot.

About the Africa thing... I think that it shows the aftermath of the Metropolis event, while moving the story forward. It gives Lois a new story to work with as well. I think it works because it shows that after what happened in Metropolis, it doesn't matter what Superman does. A lot of people are ready to believe that he is evil, no matter how many lives he saves. It was a great way to use the press in the movie (and not entirely unlike what I've done in some of my recent books). There is manipulation of the public opinion.

I don't know that staying on Metropolis would have built that story or that world in the same way that moving forward did.

Moving on...

Reviews are coming in for Suicide Squad. Critics hate it, which makes me oddly more excited to see it. Especially since some of their comments prove how little they get the source material. They say that Harley is written in a sexist way. Well... duh. She was Joker's puppy dog, chasing him around in skimpy outfits, shaking her ass and trying to get in his pants while he really didn't care for her that much. But on the flip side was this smart, well educated, classy woman who didn't so much go crazy as she just decided to stop being sane.

There is no way to do Harley right without being sexist. But that is just one part of a larger, deeper, complex character.

But the weird thing about the reviews is that I'm seeing similar wording across different reviews (I was skimming reviews earlier and there were examples, but it was hours ago and right now I can only remember the word "machismo" being used to criticize the movie). That always strikes me as odd. You'll usually see it from politicians, when they're repeating the party memo for the day, or in news reports that are trying to skew the story. I wouldn't expect to see it in movie reviews.