Search options (Page 27 of 35)

I always saw Joker as sort of an entity in a way. Like in The Dark Knight, he wasn't any one thing. He kept making up new backstories. He was just this strange force of chaos and evil that made him more twisted and scary. So in that sense, I don't mind Jerome (who could come back from the dead, I suppose, right? Maybe deformed and twisted), since he would be a part of that same force of nature.

I'm just fascinated by the media's handling of BvS. I don't understand it, unless they had some sort of payment for being that negative. But it's fascinating, because it was so oddly extreme. I think BvS did fine. I am not comparing the movie or its success to Civil War. I don't think you could possibly do that. I'm just looking at the media now. There are movies that, for whatever reason, they want to fail. When that happens, it seems to be a unified anti-publicity campaign. It seems almost political.

But yeah, I'm not comparing the two movies.

I agree. And I'm sure that it will eventually make over a billion. I'm just curious!

I haven't seen that one. I may check it out sometime, to see what the US version was based on. I'm just worried that the foreign politics won't make as much sense.

Question: Does anyone know the marketing budget for Civil War? I did a quick search, but couldn't find it.

I think that BvS is a lot like the world we live in. It's a very binary culture. People are lovers or haters. On or off, with no interest in being in between.

When Obama was running for President, there was a lot that the media wouldn't seriously talk about, because they liked the story of this political messiah, coming to save the day. The RNC could have demolished Trump early on, but they didn't like the alternative, so they have crazy republicans saying crazy things about Cruz, while remaining silent on Trump. Hillary isn't really winning her nomination, but she will get it anyway.
Even with the issue of transgendered people in bathrooms, most articles aren't discussing the opinions that people have. They're discussing the opinions that they want people to have, so they can make absolute rights and absolute wrongs.

The movie showed protesters in Washington. They showed that there are non-radicals who don't like Superman. They showed that there are non-radicals who do like him. But the movie plays to extreme sides, because that is where our culture is. Now, they could have shown Superman as the absolute right, but that isn't as compelling. It's more interesting if even Superman doesn't know for sure. The Planet makes him out to be the Reeves Superman, because it sells papers. He knows that's not who he is really. And they are willing to turn around and write attack pieces the second that makes them more money.

At this point in the game, he has shown that he is willing to kill for humanity, and he is willing to die for humanity. That's interesting.

Okay, we're in the wrong thread again, but I'll do this anyway...

To me, the movie was about perception. It's about how different people view this being, when there has never been anything to measure him up against before. Even he doesn't know how to do it. So yeah, Batman was mad, Wally was mad and Lex was mad, but their anger was all different. They had different motivation and different reactions to it. They represented the people who were furious at Superman, for all of the various reasons. They are the extremes.

Batman - Superman is a threat unlike anything we have ever faced. He is completely alien, which means that we have no idea how to begin to trust him or know what he's thinking. He is more powerful than anything we can throw at him, and allowing that power to go wild will get people killed. Essentially, Superman is a phantom, comprised of everything untrustworthy and dangerous that Batman has ever faced.

Wally - He came here. He destroyed lives. People died. And now he has a f*****g statue built in honor of his heroic actions, taken during an event that wouldn't have even happened if he hadn't come here in the first place! People need to see this for what it is. People need to understand. And on some level, he's pissed because for all of the people that Superman saved, he didn't save *him*.

Lex - I have spent my entire life working to become the most powerful man on the planet, and this guy literally has to do nothing in order to take the title. He just has to exist. How do I compete with that? How do I become that powerful? How do I get what he has? Or, alternatively, how do I take it all away from him?

Then we have the people who are less committed either way. The Perry Whites of the world, who will take things for what they are at any given moment. Or the Senator, who wants the answers, but isn't as committed to the cause as some.

Somewhere in the middle, we have Martha and Lois, who know him, trust him and support him. Not because of his power, but because of who he is. Which is something that other people don't have access to. To them he is human.

Then, opposite to Lex or Bruce, we have the people who are in awe of Superman. The people who worship him. The people who see him coming to save the day, and see a god. The people who celebrate him, even when he doesn't deserve it. The people who are blind to him humanity, and to whatever bad he has brought to the world.

We don't get a lot from Clark's point of view. What we do get is somewhere in the middle, torn between sides. He wants to be the good guy that is deserving of trust, but nothing he does is good enough (for him, much less other people). It doesn't matter how many people he saves. He didn't save them all.

The whole movie was about exploring that conflict. I think they did a good job of making painting that divisive figure, because nobody is all right or all wrong. As much as I want the MoS sequel from Superman's point of view, I don't know that this story could be done if Superman were one of the main point of view characters in the movie. If we know him as the Clark Kent from Smallville, we can't understand any of those other points of view. Everyone who hates him becomes irrational and evil. So we have the information from MoS to work with, but this movie has more distance from his point of view. That works for me.

We should discuss House of Cards sometime. I'm curious to see why you hate it so much.

I watched Fantastic Four on HBO. It's an interesting movie to watch.

I was thinking the same thing about Diggle, not calling Barry or any of the other people they know, when Andy was hunting them. I mean, his baby was in danger!

Maybe I will assume that he tried, bit it wasn't an option.

Did I see a different Batman v Superman than you? I swear, sometimes it seems like it.

Anyway, I finally saw Fantastic Four. Finally, there is a Marvel movie that I can enjoy. They finally put some effort into character, and they seemed to care about the visual elements and how they aid a story on screen. It was just really refreshing, after all this time.

I am joking. My goodness, I'm joking. There was a climax to a movie that didn't even exist before the climax started. It was like they cut together two movies and at some point, the actors obviously just gave up. I was willing to accept changed in the source material, but only if it actually worked. This did not.

And I kept waiting for Sue's father to offer her some ribs.

This is why I stopped reading comic books.

Okay, I read that last one because it was a reply to me.

The thing is that with Batman and Superman, the only way for them to really fight like that is by not knowing each other. The second they know each other, they will never reach a point where they are willing to kill each other unless one of them is being controlled by some outside force. And that was the point of BvS, because as you say, the thirst for blood ends once Batman can stop viewing Superman as some inhuman alien force. The movie acknowledged that.

One of the problems that I have with the MCU is that a character like Captain America can really be used however they want, because he has had such little character or development thus far. Five movies in, and how much do we know about him as a person? (Well, four movies in for me)

I am trying to break the habit of comparing the franchises, because they are different. So I won't do that. But I am a character guy. They need to make sense to me. They need to live within the world of the story. My problem with the MCU is that they don't do character stories.

I guess it comes down to Murder, She Wrote vs. Veronica Mars. MSW is fun to watch when you're bored. VM digs a little deeper. On the surface they seem similar, but they're really not.

Still, a crossover would be a hoot!

So, I replied to a comment that someone made in a Facebook group that I belong to. The typical stuff about Marvel being better than DC or whatever. I just said that they're not really the same thing, so we shouldn't compare. Then people started to reply, bashing DC's movies.

And I kindly stepped away before it got heated! I save the good conversations for you guys.

The problem with the checks and balances is that the politicians have created an elite class for themselves. This is the problem with not having term limits. It allows them to live in the clouds, never beholden to the people who put them in office. They hold onto power by scheming and lying and cheating and stealing. We've seen the Constitution blatantly violated, and nobody is held accountable for it.

One of the safety measures is supposed to be the people of this country. Ultimately, we have the power to change who is in office and how things are done. However, there is a lack of education on many subjects. The media has a lot of power when it comes to what the people know, and therefore how the people think. They distort the truth all the time. Look at the recent racial tensions. A lot of that was caused by misrepresentation of the facts by the media. That misrepresentation of the truth caused anger, which led to crimes, which led to more anger. And the politicians just fueled the fire. Why? Because it's easier to lead herds of people than it is to lead individuals. As long as you keep people in groups, with "us vs them" running through their heads, they unite and become one unit. It's why the country was ever so briefly united after 9/11.

It's possible that discussing politics while editing a dystopian novel is not the best idea.

I still consider season 5's finale to be a series finale. I just view the whole Supernatural series like books, with 1-5 being one book. 6 and 7 standing alone as books of their own, and then 8-11 as another longer book. There will never be anything that would ruin the arc of 1-5 and it could be watched to that point with a solid sense of closure.

Jeremy Carver came in saying that he had a three years plan, starting with season 8, but later said that once he realized that the show was going longer, he kinda spread things out and dropped some more material in there. I am hoping that this season is another one of those "final season" arcs, so next year can go somewhere new.

What I hope to see is God taking care of Amara, so she goes away. That arc has been a weak spot this season, but fortunately, the majority of the episodes have been really solid stand alone episodes. Once he takes down Amara, he should go back to Heaven and close the door on that. No more angel arcs on the show.

If I had my way, the gateway to Hell would be closed too, and the place would go back to being the prison that it's meant to be. Which means that it would need a warden, not a ruler. I'm thinking Castiel. Angels and demons should go back to being legends that even hunters don't always believe in.

And next year, we get something new. I've already explained my thoughts on what they could do with it.

As for the characterization of God... I have to try to separate my actual beliefs from the story on a TV show. God walking around as Chuck steps on some Jesus toes. But then again, they can't explore a character who can't appear, so... yeah.

There were some things that I didn't like about the characterization, because God has never been absent on the show. He has only been subtle. But in the last few minutes, once we realized that his entire deadline was about facing Amara, he because more like what he's always been on the show. He was always going to step in. He never stopped caring. He allowed Metatron to beat up on him without really reacting to it. And in some ways, I think that was about saving Metatron and getting him back on track. Because that was a very interesting arc for Metatron in the episode, going from the snotty guy we always knew, to being scared, to being angry, to being humble.

As I was watching the episode, I worried that the bar scene would be like one of the horrible Crowley throne room scenes where they talk and talk without saying or doing anything, and it just wastes time. But by the end of the episode, it turned out to be pretty emotional. The second Chuck becomes God, when Metatron realizes what has happened and stands there, realizing that God would sacrifice himself for humanity, was beautifully played. And then taking that moment to Sam and Dean, in an unwinnable moment of their own, as Dean discovers the amulet and he and Sam realize what it means. That was an emotional moment that felt genuinely earned.

So, I walked away happy. Mostly because they didn't betray the character that God has always been on the show. He was still a question mark at the end of the episode. The whole conversation between him and Metatron wasn't about explaining God at all. Interesting.

The thing that annoys me is that there are plenty of other incentives to get around the country. It doesn't need to be LA or Vancouver anymore. I would love to see some new scenery. But that would make it harder to do crossovers.

I wonder if the Flash crossover was done to get ratings, or to establish a multiverse for this type of situation

If Hillary is indicted now, Obama will make it go away. She stands a better chance of paying for her crimes after the election. Which makes me wonder who her running mate will be.

I don't think I can vote for Trump. He might as well be Hillary.

My goodness, we're in one of the stupider Sliders episodes.

I'm sure I'll live. But I have a habit of reading entertainment news, so it is annoying. Even now, they're trying to kill the excitement over Suicide Squad, which has had nothing but positive reactions from the general audience. Why?

Argh

Anyway, when BvS comes out on home video, we should all watch it and comment at the same time. That way we can explain what we are talking about.

Or at least take more detailed notes. It's hard to be specific about a movie I saw once.

Nor can its box office success, the vast difference between critic reviews and audience reviews, and the overwhelmingly slanted reporting on the film in the media. The fact is that the movie is basically divided in the same way as a comic book would be. The Marvel fan hate the DC stuff. The readers are divided on what they did like and didn't like. The plot and characters are being debated. And the mainstream people who don't like comic books don't get it one way or the other.

I never said that it was my favorite movie of the year (though, I've only seen one in a theater and whatever other movies I've watched were probably released in 2015 at the latest, so I guess it may win by default). I've never even said that I don't have any issues with the movie. There are things that I would have liked to have seen differently. I wanted a Man of Steel sequel that showed the progress of Superman. What we got was a Batman movie where Superman is used as a symbol in the minds of others rather than a character of his own for most of the movie. It doesn't take away from what the movie was, but it did leave me feeling like I didn't get the movie that I've been waiting for. Yes, I wanted what you guys wanted... the scenes of Superman being Superman. The only difference in opinion between us is that I acknowledge that that isn't the perspective of this movie and what we saw wasn't a reflection on his character, it was a reflection of how others saw him. So when they eventually make another Superman movie and he isn't grim and angry, or acting like a god that hovers over people, everyone will say that they are responding to criticism of this movie, when the truth is that it will just be the first time that we're actually seeing him in context since Man of Steel.

I didn't like what they did with Jimmy Olsen. They thought it'd be fun to do something really out there with a character that they had no plans to use in the future. The only thing saving that scene from being a serious ding against the movie in my book is the fact that they didn't name Jimmy in the finished product... but they probably will in the extended cut. Which leaves me unhappy. It was just pointless and did not honor an iconic character in any way.

I think that the "Save Martha" thing works, but it could have been smoothed out a little bit. Mostly, because a lot of people didn't get what was happening there and they thought that it was all about the name itself.

I think that the footage of Aquaman could have been done better. Same with Cyborg. But they pushed too hard to make Aquaman very visible, when he could have remained a blur or a silhouette. The footage was too well framed.

I think that there are a lot of little things that could have been done differently or better, but ultimately I liked the movie for what it was. It's not perfection. I don't think that it's as good as Man of Steel, but I think that it set things up nicely. I wasn't disappointed by it.

The only reason that I seem to obsessively defend the film is because the reporting on it is so incredibly biased and comments made about it based on those reports are frustrating to me. Today, I saw an article that claimed that Snyder would have had Batman prison raped if he were in charge of the Nolan movies. This was based on a comment that was taken out of context, where the writer of the article deliberately misrepresented what he was saying, just because it fit the idea that Snyder doesn't care about story, he is only interested in making things as dark and angry as possible.

THAT annoys the crap out of me. Suddenly changing the methods by which we measure a box office success annoys me. Ignoring the audience reaction, which has skewed far more favorably than critic reactions, annoys me. You know I'm willing to admit when something I like loses its shine. I don't do blind loyalty to anything. I think the anti-publicity campaign for this film is unlike anything I've seen since The Passion of the Christ though, and it annoys me to no end that there isn't more of an issue being raised about it. The reporting is flat-out dishonest.

Anyway, at this point I'm just repeating myself over and over again. There's probably nothing new to say about the movie, at least until it comes out on home video. So... whatever.

Suicide Squad!!!!

I saw an article talking about the sexism in the movie, because Harley Quinn is wearing hot pants and they're sexualizing the character. It went on to talk about how they're marketing toward the horny young men at the expense of women. Then they went on to rationalize the skin tight outfits on unrealistically fit men by saying that it's all about the male ego.

Which led me to believe that the article had nothing to do with the movies themselves, or seriously discussing the issues, but was using the popular Harley Quinn character and her skimpy outfit to attract attention to their article. Which makes their whole feminist slant pointless.

Three months until the movie comes out. Woohoo!!!

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-final- … 33263.html

I agree with the one guy who was quoted, saying that the movie was a box office success. I think that the driving force behind the perceived failure of the movie are the critic reactions, which other articles use as the basis for their viewpoint. The actual audience reaction has been far more favorable than what the press has portrayed. I'm not saying that everyone loved it, but it hasn't been the type of hatred that the critics have had.

And the critics probably hate it because they have no clue who these characters are or what type of stories they're capable of, outside of the movies that have come out prior to this one.

I'm happy with what they're doing with Bruce on the show. They're allowing him to explore those parts of his personality that would just be in him naturally, and would drive him to become Batman. They're making progress toward his becoming Batman, but they're not just jumping to the end of that story the way most TV shows would do. I like that they're allowing Bruce to be a kid on the show. Where he is now explains why he could rationalize having teenagers as sidekicks later on (though I'd still say that they should be toward the older side of their teenage years).

I love that the series isn't being pressured to become a Batman series. They're letting the city speak for itself, and all of the people who inhabit it are really interesting.

Can I just say that it is super annoying that people are still complaining about Batman not being on the show? It is the end of season 2 and Bruce is a teenager. Batman is not going to be on the show. Give it up! This isn't a Batman story! How do people not get this after two full seasons?!

Welcome!

I am one of the oldies... I started on the Fox forum, around the time that season 3 aired and the show was cancelled. I was part of the fan efforts to save the show, and the excitement leading up to the Scifi Channel pickup. I still remember watching the first glimpses of season 4 on RealPlayer

I think the reason for the community's survival is that it isn't just a Sliders board. We talk about everything from politics, to cell phones and operating systems. We share writing experiences too. It is a place centered on Sliders, but it is really a mish-mash, which makes it easy to keep talking. At this point, it is like the modern equivalent of the neighborhood bar or barber shop.

The surprising thing is that as old users circulate in and out, we still get fresh batches of new people every so often. That's pretty cool.

Wonder Woman lost its original director too... And you could say that Man of Steel lost about a thousand directors before it was eventually made.

If it were closer to filming those movies, I might be more worried. As it is, they announced a lot of that stuff a long time ago, before there were scripts and real plan in place. It's not like a whole concept is being scrapped, like with the various versions of Superman that never got made.

It's not great, for sure. I just don't think that it's a sign of doom, and I doubt that it has anything to do with the critic reviews of Batman v Superman. This is a big deal. The DC movies don't cheap out on directing style. I'm surprised that a first time director had the job in the first place.

Maybe, but the robot that he was fighting was all CG, and couldn't be done quite the same way with a real person in a costume (I really liked the fact that we could see inside it).

The fight didn't look too bad to me. Obviously CG, but really no worse than most movies these days. If they'd had more time, maybe they could have made the movement look more real and heavy.

All very interesting ideas. I think the official DC/Warner Bros stance is that the TV shows and movies are part of the same multiverse. They will probably never come together (though that would be an EPIC move on the studio's part) but they like to wink at the thought of a Crisis event somewhere down the line.

I think that the idea of many actors playing one character's doubles would be interesting, but it might be impractical on screen. We look at Grant and see Barry. If you have ten actors all playing a character with the same name, it just becomes different characters turning their head when someone calls that name

Another element of the flash forward that didn't work was the decision to keep the target of Oliver's hatred a mystery. We all thought it was Damien, but the writers didn't commit to that because they wanted options. The scene meant absolutely nothing, because not one word had purpose. It is really frustrating.

Question: is it time for Grant Gustin to put on a little bit of muscle? He is playing a superhero whose body heals at a rapid rate. That means that Barry should put on muscle pretty easily. Obviously, he shouldn't be as bulky as Oliver, but shouldn't he have some muscle? He looks very skinny/scrawny at times.

Question 2: how funny would it be if next season's Arrow flashbacks revolved around Laurel and something she experienced while Oliver was missing?

So, about last night's Arrow episode, I have a question.

The character that Madison McLaughlin plays has been spoken of as this big deal by the producers. There was this whole mystery surrounding her and the producers said that no show had ever done anything like this before.

Having seen her on the show, I have no idea what they were talking about. What was so unheard of? I'm confused.

I... Agree.

I agree! We agree on something!!!

Which is why I think that comparing the franchises is a mistake. They're playing entirely different games, aimes at entirely different audiences. There is no "will DC catch up to Marvel?" competition, because they're not remotely similar, beyond being "comic book movies", which only sounds like one specific thing if you don't actually read comic books.

Also, Dumb and Dumber sucked. I hate that movie so much. I hate that entire brand of comedy. I side with your mother.

That sucks. I think I've seen people running Android on those. I wonder if that works better.