Search options (Page 27 of 57)

Yeah.  I can't argue there.

The problem with the Marvel Netflix shows is consistently a refusal to write any sort of "case of the week" stories.  And I just don't understand why none of the shows ever did this.  Daredevil is a lawyer.  Luke Cage and Iron Fist are heroes for hire.  Jessica Jones is a friggin' PI.  There are built-in ways to tell a story that doesn't involve one guy fighting one guy for 13 episodes.  I know "freak of the week" stories got old on Smallville, but I think television has evolved since then.  The Arrowverse regularly pads seasons that are twice as long with stories like that.

They wouldn't have to forget about their primary villains.  While Frank was trying to bust up a gang of human traffickers, Russo could still be in therapy.  Pilgrim could be chasing down the girl.  They don't have to ignore their character building to busy up Frank in an engaging story for an episode.  We could see Kingpin's rise to power while Matt Murdock is trying to get a falsely-accused guy out of prison.  Kilgrave could be abusing his power while Jessica Jones tries to find a missing child.

Give the characters a season-long arc, but it doesn't have to be *only that*.  I mean, Hell, in the X-Files, they did so many case of the week episodes that people actually prefer them to the mythology episodes.

I feel like it almost has to be something from the higher ups at Marvel TV or Netflix.  Because there's no way that we'd have 12 seasons of this stuff and none of the writing rooms thought "Hmmm...what if we had Frank do something in this episode instead of having him hang out on a rooftop casing a joint for 40 minutes so we can do the 10 minute fight sequence that is the only reason we're doing this episode."

Ha with the Culber stuff, I acknowledged it might just be me.

And I don't forgive all the Voyager stuff.  Voyager was very much a mess, but I just had fun with it for whatever reason.

*********

True, but Michael recognized their combadge.  Maybe she might know via Georgiou or Sarek or something, but I was more surprised that she knew than Pike. 

But just having their own combadges sorta takes the "secret" out of "secret agent" doesn't it?

The Red Angel, yes.  What I'm talking about mostly revolves around the Culber subplot.  They touched on it a bit last season too, where the spore network seemed to be some sort of afterlife.  Now they have someone's spirit existing and then being reformed into a human body?  I know Trek has dealt with stuff like this before, but it doesn't feel right for the series for whatever reason.  Could just be me.

All interesting theories.  I do wonder how the series will continue with Isaac regardless of the outcome.

*********

On Discovery, I'm having a hard time connecting with this season.  I don't know what it is, but there's a lot of non-science things going on.  They had a lot of spirituality on DS9, but I don't know if it works as well here.

Interesting.  I was actually thinking something else, but that would've been pretty huge.

The Orville was great last night.  It's incredible that it's gotten to a place where they can have an episode with very little humor and make me feel terrified for the crew.

Other than to help us identify him, is there any particular reason why everyone else on Isaac's planet has red eyes and he has blue?

Yes, that will do.

Now cross it over with FRINGE.

Ha, it was certainly not my intention to sour you on her.  I guess I sorta had the same process just stumbling on it on my own.  When the Flash first started, I definitely had my own little crush on Panabaker - she's very pretty and she was fun and smart and lively.  I never had any trouble buying her as a medical doctor, regardless of her age, and I thought she added to the team and wasn't just there as part of a love triangle or to be attractive.

And when my friend wanted to watch Time Lapse, I watched and was pleasantly surprised when Panabaker showed up.  "She's on the Flash!" I probably exclaimed to my friend who certainly didn't care.  And her performance in that movie was noticeable in a bad way.  And ever since then, I've been a little more attentive of her acting to see if she was bad in Time Lapse or if she's just not great.

I definitely don't want to bash her or anything.  Again, I think she's fine - she doesn't drag down scenes in the Flash, and I think I've noticed enough from her social media presence that she legitimately loves the show and the fans and wants to be great.  I think she seems to have a lot of fun playing Killer Frost, and she does a good-enough job acting the way you described (by dulling down Caitlin to make Killer Frost more lively).

It's funny, the Arrowverse generally has pretty solid actors and actresses.  I was going through the four main shows, and I struggled to come up with anyone who I thought struggled through their part.  Everyone's done a pretty good job.  So maybe, on a show with some actors who really can sell their characters, Panabaker is just okay?

I'm sorta impressed by where I think the Orville is going.  They had their second episode about the Moclans and their rigid society.  They can't have females, and now they cannot be attracted to females.

And so the episode ends with a conversation with Ed and Kelly where they talk about how they could possibly co-exist with the Moclans.  Kelly said they're too valuable to the Union, but Ed seems convinced that it won't work out full time.  The Orville, a Star Trek parody, seems like it wants to take the story where Trek never did.  What if the Federation added a species, and what if that union simply didn't work?  What if the Federation had a divorce?

I know there was a proposed spin-off post-Enterprise where the Vulcans were going to leave the Federation.  I'm not sure if that had ever happened (even with a minor species), but I think this is potentially fascinating territory for the Orville to cover.

Worst kept secret in the world is out - the Punisher and Jessica Jones have both been cancelled.  Even though Jessica Jones still has a season to air, they went ahead and got it out of the way.

I'm four episodes into The Punisher season two.  It's fine.  One thing is bothering me, and it's bothering me to an annoying point.

Ben Barnes plays Billy Russo.  In season one, everyone kept saying how pretty Billy was.  That he's such a good-looking dude that he had this vanity to him.  By the end of season one, Frank busts up Billy's face.  It was clear what they were doing - Billy has always used his looks as a weapon, and Frank is taking that weapon away.  Billy, if he survives, ain't pretty no more.  Billy Russo is now the Punisher villain Jigsaw.

Flash forward to season two.  Billy is in the hospital, and he wears a mask with a jigsaw-like face drawn on it.  He's presumably wearing it to hide all the hideous scars on his face.  When he finally escapes the hospital and removes the mask, he's on a bus when a man teases him about his hideous scars.  How he's a freak.  The fact that Billy is essentially in a comotose state as he's talking doesn't matter - it's all about his freakish face.

Later, he visits a man that used to run his foster home.  The man keeps bringing up the fact that Billy used to be so good looking and look at him now.  Scars all over his face.  He's not pretty anymore.

....

Except that's how it's written.  In reality, Barnes has a couple minor scars on his face.  He's still very-much Hollywood handsome.  The scars are sometimes not even noticable - not enough to be mentioned over and over again. Definitely not enough for some punk to notice from across a bus.

I read that Barnes pushed for more scarring, but the producers convinced him to go with a more subtle approach because it was more powerful if he thought his outer scars were bad but it was really his *inner* scars that were the worst.  His face isn't terrible, but *inside* he's Jigsaw.

Which I think is just an excuse not to put Barnes in makeup for an entire season, but it also doesn't work.  Because if Barnes is fine on the outside but wrecked on the inside, why are 100% of the people Russo has interacted with speaking to him like he's got Jigsaw-like scars on his face?

It's like the decided later to change it but forgot to change the script, even when they were shooting.

(if either of you guys brought this up, I'm sorry.  I don't read your reviews until I'm done watching).

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure what to do with the Arrowverse.  I think if I were in charge, I'd move the Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover to the end of next season.  I'd make all the storylines in the Arrowverse (save Supergirl) about the coming crisis, and I'd have it end with Barry disappearing, Oliver dying, and the Legends breaking apart (maybe the crisis also ends their ability to time travel).  And the multiverse would collapse into one universe where Supergirl now exists.  I'd allow each show to have their series finale in their respective shows to deal with Oliver's death, Barry's disappearance (and possible hint at a return), and the breakup of the Legends.

You'd have a Supergirl show and a Batwoman show (if that comes through).  Since the network would still want content, I'd do one more show.  Maybe they could spin off John Diggle as a Green Lantern or do something like Blue Beetle or Booster Gold.  I'd love a Nightwing show, but it's probably too similar to Batwoman (although I'd love to see Dick end up on that show).  And finally make a decision on whether or not Black Lightning should be a part of the universe or not.  If we need another show, I'd do the anthology series.  Maybe start with someone like Cisco or Caitlin or someone from Team Arrow or the Legends (Ray Palmer), but move forward with other stuff.  Maybe one season could even see the return of Barry Allen or Oliver Queen or someone like that.

I don't see any need to end the Arrowverse but maybe ending some of the shows in it isn't a bad idea.

So I read a clickbaity article about how the Discovery era is going to fold seamlessly into the TOS era.  Essentially, it stems from the most recent episode.  Number One comes on board and says that part of the reason the Enterprise is failing is because the holographic communication is screwing up systems.  So Pike orders the Enterprise to strip off all the technology and have all communications be on "good old-fashioned" screens. 

Then, to explain the turbolifts, we had that virus infect the universal translator, and Saru says they'd need a translator to operate it.  Solution?  Make it operated by a very old-fashioned hand-operated bar.

And since Pike, in canon, becomes a Fleet Admiral, he'd have the power to make all his anti-technology decisions spread throughout the Federation.

....

I don't know why they insist on doing all these backflips to make the timeline work.  They made a mistake and set the series in the wrong era.  If you want the tech to be updated and look sleek and cool *and* you want to have TOS-era characters....just don't worry about it.  Trying to do all these backbends to make it work is just distracting.

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

Although I did do the liberty of stealing one of ireactions ideas to offer my own explanation - namely, his Orville idea.

Season ## premiere - Michael Burnham wakes up on a ship surrounded by people she doesn't know.  They try and calm her down, explaining that she's been in a coma for 20 years.  She was in a shuttle accident, and her mind created a story of her career in Starfleet to get her through it.  It's actually the 28th Century, but when Michael was little, she was fascinated by the stories of Kirk and Spock and Vulcan culture.  The 28th Century is going through a sort of "galactic dark ages" where technology and progress has become stagnant.  The Federation is once again at war with the Klingons, but the reason seems to be nothing more than boredom.

Since Burnham's mind assumes her parents were killed, they were.  So in her coma, she envisions a life where she gets to live with the famous Ambassador Spock and learn from his famous parents.  And then she gets to join Starfleet back when their mission meant something.  She gets to be on the forefront of solving the war with the Klingons.  She gets to seek out new life and new civilizations back when there was something to seek out and new civilizations to meet.

Why is the technology so much nicer looking?  She's seeing the 23rd century through 28th century eyes.  She can't imagine a world without modern holographic communicators.  She can't imagine a time when spore drives (invented in the 26th century) couldn't send you wherever you wanted and imagine she's on the first ship ever installed with one.

Since she's never seen a Klingon in real life, her idea of what they look like is fuzzy.  It could even explain why Pike and Spock and Sarek and Amanda look differently than TOS - it's a child's approximation.

The season would have Burnham using her new 23rd Century ideals to lead a new ship out to reclaim Starfleet's original purpose.

So it was confirmed that Margot Robbie will not be in the Suicide Squad sequel.  It was also announced that the Joker/Harley movie is probably dead.  Unless something changes, you gotta think we won't see the Jared Leto Joker ever again.

I do wonder what the Suicide Squad movie will look like since it's a "soft reboot".  I'm excited to see what Gunn does with it.

I also wonder what would happen if the Joker movie does well.  Would Phoenix be merged into the existing DCEU?  Would he appear in The Batman movies?  Would he even be interested in coming back?

So was the Star City Slayer supposed to be a homicidal version of Informant?

Wanted to get rid of Oliver's team.  Wanted to get rid of Felicity.  Wanted Oliver to work by himself.  Said everyone else was making things worse and making him soft.

I'll throw in my two cents just to do it.  My views don't represent anything.

Three months ago, my wife had a miscarriage.  The baby/zygote/clump of cells/etc was like 10 weeks.  But for a brief time between our first ultrasound and our second, she had a heartbeat.  I say "she" because we'd decided that she was a girl with no reasoning to base that on.  I didn't cry when it happened because I know in my brain that it wasn't really aware of anything and didn't exist long enough to cry over.  I was sad, and she was very sad.  But we'll try again and hopefully have a baby come all the way to term.  But in my heart, every once in a while, I get very sad at the thought that we had a child and she died.  That maybe she was aware and was trying to grow and just couldn't.  That makes me sad.  Is my brain right or is my heart right?  I don't know. 

I tend to land on the same side of the abortion fence as ireactions.  I won't ever have the ability to make a decision on an abortion so I try to stay out of it.  It isn't that I think men don't deserve an opinion, but I feel like my decision has less weight to it because it's not a problem I'd ever have to directly deal with.  It'd be like me having a strong opinion on some sort of military issue for troops in Syria.  I'm not going there, I don't know what it feels like to be there, and I feel like I shouldn't speak.

I do feel like some women feel very powerless, and this is an issue they feel like they have some control over.  "You may control the White House and Congress and the military and the world, but I'll be damned if you control my body."  That's just my thinking - I haven't had anyone confirm that.

I'll leave with an anecdote.

Anecdote - I spoke with a female friend a couple years ago about this topic.  I didn't say much but I did ask this.  If Star Trek-like transporter technology existed that could take an unwanted baby (at any point of development) and transport it safely from the woman's body to some sort of other place (another viable uterus, some sort of incubator, etc), would that solve the problem?  The baby would be safe, the woman would be safe, and everything would be great, right?

She said no.  It'd still be invasive.  It's still the woman's right to end the pregnancy her own way if she wants.  So I think, as much as it's about safety, it's about control. 

But that's just one anecdote.

It could be that, but I have two alternate explanations:

1. Instead of being plucked out of 2003, John was plucked out of Heaven.  And after spending 13+ years in Heaven, that's what softened him up.  If my interpretation of the final scene is accurate, then he's been hanging out in an idyllic place, softening up.  So he shows back up, things are looking great, and he stays in a Heavenly mood.

2. The pearl didn't bring back the real John Winchester, but an idealized version that had all the good traits of John but few of the bad ones.  The thing Dean's heart wished for the most wasn't the real John but one that would confirm that Dean did a good job and be someone who'd be proud of him.

It really did feel fanfic-y.  Like a small little story where the boys get this little moment because that's essentially what happened.  The rest of the story was simply set-up for the story to happen and for it to end so quickly.

I do wonder, if given more time, whether we could've gotten more about John's philosophy vs. the brothers'.  Whether or not the brothers have outgrown their father or not.  All those are interesting questions the show could look at.

I agree with your stance on the supernatural elements going public, but I wonder if, after 15 years, it's no longer believable that any of this would still be a secret.

Yeah, I get that.  And if WB doesn't have the rights to use Cavill's image without paying him, then I guess they'll have to make it work somehow.

But how do those kind of contracts work?  Does he get a prorated rate (so one hour might still be some ridiculous amount but it would be a percentage of what he'd make in a full movie) or does he get a minimum amount no matter how much of the movie he's in?  I know these guys have to make a living, but how would putting on the Superman costume for an hour for a cameo be any different than putting on the Superman costume for an hour at a children's hospital?  I know one is a bit more personal, but he'd make millions of kids smile (sick or not) if he appeared in a Shazam movie.

Also...there'd be kids there in a classroom scene

Potential spoilers for SHAZAM:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S (might be a false rumor)

According to a rumor I read online, Superman is going to make a cameo in Shazam but not played by Henry Cavill.  It's just a payoff for a joke, but that would be weird, right?  I'd really like Superman to make a cameo in Shazam because I think it'd be a great interaction for Billy.  I also think it'd legitimize the movie a bit and legitimize him as a hero.  Plus, if they ever did it, Shazam/Superman fights are epic.

But to have him appear as a body double would cheapen it....unless they did it in a funny-enough way that we wouldn't care.

I must've missed something.

When Oliver turned himself in, he took credit for being the Green Arrow *and* the Hood?  And that became public knowledge?  Is Roy still dead according to the public?  And Rene was outed as Wild Dog, but none of the others were unmasked publicly?

I did think the episode was cool, although if they were going to go with the documentary angle, they needed to stick with it.  The fact that it started as a documentary and then went in and out was weird.  Getting back so many people was fun, though.  We even got a Huntress reference.

I throw Snyder under the bus a lot, but I know that it's not all his fault.  I also agree that the movies themselves work as they are.  Ben Affleck's Batman might not even have a "no kill" rule.  Maybe he went out after Robin was killed and took revenge on whoever did it - maybe he killed the original Joker or maybe the Joker was just an accomplice to whoever the real killer was.  The only evidence we have is the graffiti in the Batcave (which could've been done afterwards) and the note in Suicide Squad that Harley Quinn was an accomplice.  So maybe the real story was that maybe Bane worked with Joker and Harley to kill Robin, Bane was the real killer, and Joker (along with Harley) was the distraction.  Afterward, Joker graffitied the Robin suit.

The problem with a Batman that kills is the same problem that happens with the Punisher.  If the hero kills, there should be no recurring villains.  Why would Joker still be alive if he killed Robin?  If Batman has no problem killing a hired gun, why would he have any problem killing the guy who hired the gun?  If Batman was willing to kill Superman because there's a chance that he's dangerous, then killing the guy who killed his partner should be done without a second thought.

The problem is that there's not enough evidence in any of these films to connect these dots.  I could ask a hundred questions about Bruce's history, and the movies don't give me enough to work with.  They want me to use existing Batman lore to fill in the gaps, but the existing Batman lore doesn't fit.  The original idea for BvS (where an older Batman has been twisted into trying to kill Superman by years of being Batman) is actually a fascinating take.  We've seen 7 Batman movies previous to that, and this would be a fresh new take. 

It might've even made Justice League a stronger movie.  Where Batman finds that he does need to work with others to be a true hero.  Where he tries to find himself again.  And yet that movies doesn't really touch on that stuff either.  Bruce is simply a nicer, gentler Batman again.  He obviously regrets what he did with Superman, but what about the other stuff?  He kills at least a dozen random Luthor thugs.  Does that bother him?  Does the branding thing bother him?  Or is the only thing he regrets is the Superman stuff?  Maybe that was going to be included, but of all the cut footage we've seen, I don't think there's much (if anything) that is Batman-specific.

At the end of the day, though, you're right.  Zach Snyder made his mark with movies that were almost 100% CGI.  They were movies that appeared to have depth but were, in reality, just excuses to have cool action sequences.  WB got what they paid for.

And they also seemingly got what they wanted.  Even the non-Snyder DCEU films devolve into Snyder-esque CGI messes in the final act.  Wonder Woman (Jenkins), Suicide Squad (Ayer), and Justice League (Whedon) all end with the hero(es) fighting a CGI gray villain in a dark, colorless space surrounded by CGI fire.

Supergirl, Flash, Arrow, and Legends of Tomorrow have all been renewed for another season.

So unless they pull off something crazy, I don't think Oliver is dying in the crossover

But....again?  We already did this.  I guess he's Loki now?

To be fair, I cannot speak all that intelligently about Dexter.  I haven't seen the show since it ended.  I actually wasn't in the group of people who hated the ending - I felt like it was a lot like the ending to the Shield (which people loved).  It isn't the ending I would've gone with, but I didn't think it was the dumpster fire that most people thought it was (and have since made fun of nonstop).

I do think that Harry had his own issues.  Maybe he wanted to be a serial killer, or maybe he got some sick thrill about getting away with it.  He obviously had the idea to kill bad guys that escape the system, and he wanted to use Dexter (instead of himself) because he'd probably be able to escape prosecution if Dexter was ever caught.  The whole show was about how he could've been a better person, and how he is able to become a better person, despite tragedies continuing to befall him.

I don't know if I have enough to say about Dexter to create a new post.  But it's a show I'd be interested in revisiting at some point.  My friend is watching it now, and I'd forgotten that Rita already had kids.

I didn't know that about Frank's darkest secret.

I've never read a Punisher comic, and I'm afraid I'm very unfamiliar with the comic version.  But your description actually coincides with a premise that, not only was on TV for a very long time but was universally accepted by critics until its later seasons - Dexter.  Dexter is a man whose childhood twisted him into a serial killer, but he was raised by a police officer who recognized his tendencies and did his best to train him to 1) get away with it and 2) use his bloodlust for something good.  So, like your description of the Punisher, Dexter uses his training to find people who the criminal justice system couldn't condemn.  Most episodes revolve around Dexter finding a bad guy (rapist, murderer, etc) that gets released from prison.  Dexter does his homework to make sure the guy is guilty, and then he arranges a "murder room" to kill the person, dismember their body, and throw them in the bay.

Dexter is a calmer, less armed version of the Punisher.  But he's still essentially a man "addicted" to murder.  Who cannot control his addiction and so he channels it in a way to do some good.  So it can work, and it has worked.

It makes some sense.  It does feel sorta Chuck-like of him to let them try it their way, but I also sorta agree with Informant that, eventually, he'd step in and try to get things back on whatever version of track he believes in.

I guess I can answer that question with another question - is there only one Chuck?  If so, I think I completely understand where Michael is coming from.  Every alternate world is Chuck trying something else.  In our world, he protects Sam and Dean, and they saved the day.  In Michael's world, he wins and gets to do things his way.  In that case, Lucifer has a world where he won, there's probably a world where they destroyed each other, there's one where Gabriel saves the day, or Raphael, or maybe other scenarios.  Other endings.  He's a writer, and he's experimenting with different ways his story can end.

In that case, Michael sorta has a point.  Because we're cool writing fanfics where Maggie dies a heroic (and in some cases, very non-heroic) death, but none of us want Kari Wuhrer to actually die or suffer.  When Chuck writes something, living creatures die and suffer.  Free will or not, that's messed up.

It's like the plot of Cabin in the Woods or movies like that.  Michael feels like he's doing something he's supposed to do and living a normal life, but he's actually the part of some diabolical scheme.  He could easily be the hero of a story we're sympathetic with.  Instead of being Truman Burbank and giving Christof the metaphorical finger, he goes on a 3rd act rampage and gets his pound of flesh for messing with his life.

If there's one Chuck, I think it says a lot about the show as a whole.  It might also explain where Chuck keeps going.  He's got a lot of pots boiling, and he's really only able to deal with one at a time.

I think it's a satisfactory answer.

I think Arrow is still fine.  They're actually re-introducing the Suicide Squad under a different name which could be interesting (but if they're going to do that....why not get Oliver out that way?).  I think the idea of Oliver as a police-sanctioned vigilante is interesting.

The flash-forwards are still weird, but I don't hate the side characters as much as you.  I'm still betting on Earth 2, but I'm sticking with that theory because I don't really think it makes any sense for these flash-forwards to be canon for Earth 1.

But to answer your question, yes.  The principle story in Supergirl this year is that "alien immigration" is a huge topic in the US, and a large segment of the population (not sure if it's the majority or a vocal minority - I'm sure it's been said) is against her.  The DEO has been taken over by anti-alien members of the government, and Supergirl has been working on her own.

Yeah, that's not a terrible idea.  I also wouldn't mind a situation where Team Flash either doesn't fight or doesn't find out about the Big Bad until the end of the season.  Maybe a situation where the Big Bad has a handful of lieutenants (mini-bosses) that the team has to fight and take down throughout the season and then the big fight is only one fight and it's in the finale.

It reminds me of Jessica Jones.  Killgrave was a great villain, but there were a handful of times in the season when he should've been captured.  And the only reason he wasn't was random chance or massive stupidity on the part of the heroes.  Cicada is an interesting villain, but there's no reason why he shouldn't have been captured by now.  It's insane levels of incompetence that has allowed him to still be out there.

I find myself re-writing stories where I don't feel there is enough meat.  If it were me, I'd do it differently.

Cicada was an elite soldier or assassin.  It's the same backstory where he ends up with this kid and then he grows to love her and then she's horribly injured.  Makes sense.  So now he's Cicada, and he's killing metas.  He has the dagger to even the playing field, and because he's this elite fighter, no one stands a chance against him.  Early in the season, they fight him, and he kicks all their butts.  "Kills" Cisco, cripples XS, whatever.  So they reach out to Oliver for help, but he's in prison.  So Oliver sends someone - say Thea or Roy or someone that Oliver has trained.  And so that person is the guest star for the season, and he/she starts training Team Flash on how to fight in a "fair" fight.  So now you have Barry, who's always gotten by with his super speed, getting Oliver-level training.  So they train harder.  If you want to up the stakes, maybe Cicada goes toe to toe with Oliver's trainer, and Cicada comes out on top.

It would force Barry and the team to face the idea that, without their powers, they're essentially helpless.  Maybe instead of the dagger being an actual dagger, maybe it's embedded in his body so there's no way to "get the dagger away from him?" so there's not that little trick that Team Flash can do but fail at five times.  There's no "the one guy you never caught" or anything like that - if this is all about Thawne using a different guy to be Cicada, that's fine.  Just have Cicada be this dumb villain that Nora barely remembers.  He was a joke, not unlike any of the hundred villains Barry takes out week to week.  The fact that he's this badass now is the scary part.

That's how I'd approach it.

I wrote that during the episode.  When I finished it, I still have a lot of problems with Cicada as a bad guy.  He's essentially worthless without the dagger.  So I don't understand why Barry doesn't just speed him to the Pipeline whenever he has the opportunity.  If you really want to beat him up, you can do it there.  Or if it'd cut through the Pipeline, run him to the other side of the Earth - the dagger only moves about 20 miles an hour - he'd have plenty of time to beat up / interrogate Cicada before the dagger gets anywhere near him.

Or just run to Earth 2.  Or any other Earth - the dagger can't follow him there.

And I still don't understand why Oliver can't beat him.  He's literally just a guy, and Barry was able to keep up with him for a while without his powers.  Oliver should be able to crush him, and his dagger won't do any good (no more than a regular sword).  Granted, Nora was the one who told him that Oliver failed, and they just listened to her.  So maybe Oliver absolutely could, and she lied because defeating him too early would mess with her plan.

I don't know, I just have a lot of problems with him as a villain.  I think he's an interesting-enough character with believable motivations, but I don't see any reason why he's any harder to defeat than any other Meta of the week.