Oh geez. Time sure flies.
1,982 2018-03-22 08:08:37
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I haven't seen the finale, but I watched the penultimate episode (catching up from missing everything the week of my Honeymoon). Alan Sepinwall says that it would've made a great finale, and I agree. It definitely feels like the end of the Mulder and Scully adventures. I don't know if it plays into the final My Struggle, but I could've easily seen that be the end.
One question I have - Duchovny seems really wooden this year. I can't tell if he doesn't care or if he's just gotten bad at acting, but it just seems like he's reading his lines. There doesn't seem to be much emotion behind them. A lot of people claimed he was checked out last season, but this one seems just as bad (or worse). Has anyone else thought that? I think Gillian has been great, but Duchovny seems really out of it. I know he's a good actor because I've seen it before.
1,983 2018-03-19 12:14:24
Re: Personal Status Updates! (759 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I don't write a lot in here, but I wanted to write and say that I got married last weekend 
1,984 2018-03-09 10:03:05
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
pilight wrote:
Cars have uses besides hurting people. Weigh the positives and negatives and nearly everyone will conclude the value of cars is greater than their hazards.
Well, here's my $0.02 as someone who doesn't like guns and doesn't own one. Guns might not have value to you, but they clearly have value to millions of people who don't want to kill others. And while it's easy to dismiss that as someone who doesn't like guns, I think it's important for the debate to take that into account.
So what might some of those reasons be, and what would be a safe and effective way to appease both parties.
"I like to hunt with guns"
This is a big thing for people. Hunting can be a time-honored tradition with families, and guns are essential to the process. People will fight hard for tradition and family and memories, and so I think there needs to be a hunting exemption.
My idea - either you "rent" your guns from a specific office where you keep it (near a hunting ground) and you aren't allowed to take it off the ground. If you only want the gun when you're hunting, this makes sense (just like how you rent bowling shoes or a paintball gun or ice skates).
"Guns are fun to shoot"
This is something that people have a problem with, but it can be a hobby like anything else. It's a skill you can learn, and there's adrenaline that you get from shooting.
My idea - create special gun ranges where people can go and shoot guns for free. Everything is subsidized by the government - the guns themselves, ammo, targets, and most importantly, security. And assuming that the security is strong enough, I'd be okay letting people shoot basically whatever guns they want. This is where I'd want background checks to be run, but if people want to shoot and it can be safe, I don't see any reason why they can't be allowed to shoot.
"I need a gun for protection"
This is the trickiest one. I saw an online debate where people were arguing in favor of AR-15s because they were better for protection. That the gun makes it more likely that you'd only hurt an intruder. I don't know nearly enough about guns to know if that's true, and honestly, it doesn't matter to me.
What's interesting...and it's something that I don't see much....is why people are so scared. Home invasion seems to be a very-real threat that people are concerned about, and it's not something that seems to be addressed. So I wonder...are home invasions more prevalent in the US than other countries? If not, how do foreigners make their families feel safe? If so, what do other countries do to keep home invasions down?
And I honestly don't have an idea here. You could stiffen the punishment for a home invasion to hopefully keep the numbers down. Maybe that might help people feel safe. Maybe subsidize other forms of home security so that people don't think guns are their only option. Additional police presence? Subsidize something like tazers or a non-lethal form of home protection?
And that's the thing. I think most people just don't feel safe. And not from the government....from each other. And when the government talks about taking away people's guns, I think most people aren't worried about the government taking over - I think it's just that they're going to feel less safe. That the police won't get there in time. That their spouse or children could be killed because they don't have the tools to defend them.
Now I know it might seem silly to say an assault rifle is necessary for security, but some people feel that way. Take away their gun, and they feel like their child is in danger. And I think until both sides understand where the other side is coming from, we're just not going to get any better on this issue.
1,985 2018-03-09 09:15:09
Re: Sliders reboot (untitled) listed on IMDB (4 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
When it was first posted, there were references to Quinn Mallory. I think that's why it was referred to as a Sliders reboot.
1,986 2018-03-09 09:13:45
Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I don't think that's true. I watch a lot of sports, and if I want analysis, I could look at millions of fans' opinions....or I could seek out an expert that either played the game or has studied it for a very long time. I usually choose the latter.
While I do find it silly that reviewers are forced to take a movie like Dumb and Dumber and somehow put it on the same scale as The Shawshank Redemption....I think critics have a lot that they can offer. I would just like to see movies judged on their individual merit - Dumb and Dumber can be a 9/10 if it's a movie that tried to be a dumb comedy and succeeded in making me laugh. A movie that's more serious and classical can be a 4/10 for failing, even if it's a movie that's "better" than Dumb and Dumber.
Because, yes, moviegoers can be more selective. So critics shouldn't say "go see the Shape of Water because it's a better movie than Super Troopers 2" because some people don't want to make that decision.
Instead, it should be "if you've chosen to go see this movie, here's how it performed."
1,987 2018-03-05 10:17:42
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I think they're trying to do a Civil War situation, but like that, this could all be fixed pretty quickly if everyone gets their head out of their asses.
1,988 2018-03-02 13:12:51
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I felt like the episode was 100% a case of ireactions' theory on the X-Files. This was just a writer/writers being given the X-Files sandbox and being allowed to do whatever they want with it. This episode took place at some point in the future where technology is more advanced than it is now, and this is one of their stories.
I loved it.
I don't only think it was one of the best episodes of X-Files I've seen in a while. I legitimately think it was one of my favorite episodes of any TV show that I've seen recently. It was far-fetched (AI team up to kill the guy that won't tip his robot chef), but it was thrilling and engrossing and a whole lot of fun. It could've easily been an episode of Black Mirror, but the fact that it was Mulder and Scully made it that much better. It's these two legends of TV, brought back into the modern time, and now they have to deal with this Black Mirror scenario.
So many things were effective. I thought, for the first part, that Mulder and Scully wouldn't speak the whole episode. That only the AI would speak. The silent movie effect was still powerful. And the cold, alien, lifeless setting of the rest of the episode made the final scene in the full-of-life diner so much livelier.
I'm not kidding. I absolutely loved it.
1,989 2018-02-23 11:44:12
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Grizzlor wrote:
NRA voter is grossly overhyped; the lobby is NOT.
While the lobby is certainly responsible, don't look passed the civic action taken by the NRA. Check out the piece John Oliver did on it.
1,990 2018-02-22 16:10:44
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
What I think is funny is there are people who will make fun of "thoughts and prayers" and then post some hashtag like #BanAssaultRifles to Facebook. They're making fun of the worthless gesture and then making a worthless gesture themselves.
I don't like guns. If there were a vote, I'd happily vote to ban gun sales or guns or whatever. But at the same time, I also see the problem as being way bigger than most people think. I think there are a lot of angry people, and I think there'd still be mass shootings if all guns magically disappeared. We should be working on guns, but we also need to work on ourselves.
But what's funny is that people on the left talk about the NRA as being this big juggernaut, and it isn't. The only weapon the NRA has is the same weapon that everyone on the other side has. The big difference is that the NRA.....has much smaller numbers than the anti-gun people.
NRA voters are single-issue voters. They only vote on gun-related things. If they were another organization, they'd be considered a bastion of American democracy. They're active. They vote. They rally. They contact their government. They do everything that American citizens are supposed to do.
The anti-gun chunk of society has all the tools they need to run the NRA into the ground. If they actually got up and called their congressmen and women, if they actually went out and voted, if they actually rallied, then they'd be fine. Some do. There are gonna be huge rallies regarding the stuff in Florida. But the NRA does it *every day*. The anti-gun people can't match the NRA's intensity, and that's why the NRA wins.
1,991 2018-02-22 14:46:17
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
1,992 2018-02-21 14:47:18
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I don't know if I agree with that. Steve is a boring character, but he's boring in a lot of the same way (comic) Superman is boring. He does the right thing. He thinks with his conscience. And he's willing to fight if someone disagrees with him.
That's sorta what I'm talking about in my review. I was surprised at how much character stuff there was. I think they missed the mark on some stuff, but you get a pretty good idea about the depth of his friendship with Bucky. You get a pretty decent idea of what makes this guy tick and what makes him angry. When you look at the Captain America trilogy, there's actually a decent foundation for those movies. First Avenger is the worst of the three (in my opinion), but it's almost a Batman Begins situation. Dark Knight is a better movie, but there's no Dark Knight if Batman Begins didn't do heavy lifting.
I was impressed. Not blown away. But impressed.
1,993 2018-02-21 09:32:01
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I mean, I've read your idea on how the trilogy should've gone....building to him being frozen. And I think that could've been a stronger story as far as Steve/Peggy, but I think for Steve on his own, I think it's fine to throw him right into the future. He doesn't really get the Hollywood ending that he wants, and as soon as he feels comfortable with this life he's always dreamed of, it's torn away from him.
The other movies are really about Steve regaining what he lost.
I see where you're coming from regarding how the Avengers might've cut short a story that would've gone longer if they didn't need Steve in the future. But if you consider his 1940s story done, then I don't think worldbuilding affected this movie as much as, say, Iron Man 2.
1,994 2018-02-20 13:16:03
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I haven't seen Black Panther yet. I hope to see it soon.
***************
I've recently been watching the MCU films with my fiancee. She's not into comic books or superheroes, and as I've said many times on this board, I think the MCU is very accessible to people who don't typically like comic books. We finally got up to Captain America: the First Avenger, and I was surprised by it. I hadn't seen it since it came out, and I'd resigned it to the pile of "worst MCU movies". Whenever it's brought up here, it's regularly mentioned as a movie that worked only as a preview to Avengers and not able to stand on its own.
Watching it again....I really disagree.
It's not a movie without its flaws. My fiancee certainly wasn't wowed by it or the character of Captain America, but I think it works on a lot of levels. Steve is a very compelling protagonist that you're rooting for from the first frame he's in. You believe in his friendship with Bucky (which will become more important in later movies), and the world that's built feels real and genuine.
Does the movie set up the Avengers? Sort of? The Tesseract is both the McGuffin here and in the Avengers, and the ending certainly sets up the idea that Captain America is in the modern times, but I didn't get the impression that those two things were really enough to de-rail the movie. The emotional thrust of the film is still Steve and his friends, and that's pretty resolved before any of the future stuff even happens. Even then, Steve isn't wowed by the future or the potential of joining a team of superheroes...he's sad about Peggy.
There's stuff I didn't like. I don't understand why Steve was so easily turned into a caricature. He starts the movie so desperate to join the war effort that he's willing to commit perjury to try again and again. Even if the Senator was a great salesman, Steve wasn't interested in helping domestically - he wanted to lay his life on the line. If General Tommy Lee Jones didn't want him, I'd figure he'd simply enlist with his new body - there didn't seem to be anything stopping him.
I also didn't understand why General Tommy Lee Jones didn't want Steve. Sure, he'd be disappointed that the super-soldier program only produced one guy....but it produced one guy. Why not use him? Or even *see if he's worth using* before just dumping him. Steve literally changes the course of the war all by himself. Even if he was just a great soldier, I thought it was crazy to turn him into a song and dance man, and I don't see what that really did for his arc.
And I get that Steve is now a top specimen, but the movie actually shows him running into a window because he's not used to being so big/strong/fast. This wasn't a Neo situation and skills were downloaded into him. He's the same scrawny kid in a small body. I don't understand how he can, all of the sudden, fight. And ride a motorcycle. And shoot guns. And fly planes. He had the training at the base, but he was shown to be pretty below average. He's small, but if he's beaten up as much as he is, he clearly can't fight either (and those are two different things I'm talking about). He shouldn't have any of those skills.
SQ21 Edit - Skip the song and dance stuff. Everyone involved immediately understands that Steve is a very powerful weapon. But 1) he can't fight and 2) he's too important to be risked on anything but the most important missions. He's sent to train (willingly) and gets trained by the best. Meanwhile, different parts of the war effort keep asking to use him, but it's always rejected - not important enough. When the POWs held by Red Skull are mentioned, it's declined. And that's when Steve decides to take matters into his own hands, and the movie can continue from there.
All in all, it's not a great movie. But while I went in thinking it's one of the worst Phase 1 movies, I think it's actually better than everything but the first Iron Man. That's not saying much because Phase One is the weakest one, but I found myself really enjoying it.
1,995 2018-02-19 15:32:15
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
To me, it's weird. I feel like I would like Star Trek: Discovery and The Orville more if they were called "Discovery" and "Star Trek: Orville". I think MacFarlane could've reigned in some of the more absurdist comedy but presented a fun sci-fi show that takes itself less seriously than shows in the past.
Meanwhile, Fuller could've had fun with his own mythology. The Klingons and Vulcans could've appeared in another form with another name, and the show would've felt freer without stepping on the toes of previous continuity.
I like them both as is, but I feel like they're shows that are playing in the wrong sandbox.
1,996 2018-02-19 14:29:36
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, was Trek really an ensemble? We had episodes for Troi or Kim or whatever, but the shows almost always focused on the captain and one or two crew members.
Alan Sepinwall speculated that maybe we'll get a big name (if Jason Issacs and Michelle Yeoh count as big names) captain for each season. Not necessarily meaning that the captains will end up dead - maybe the ship changes continue - we've never followed one crewmember on multiple ships before - that could be interesting, actually.
But there's actually a decently fresh slate, and it all sorta ties into the idea that this was supposed to be an anthology show. It'd actually be nice if the ship *wasn't* called the Discovery so it could actually just be about....discovery. I think they're pretty committed at this point, but I'd be pretty interested in this cast with a new premise.
I still sorta wish the Discovery had flung itself 400 years in the future. Maybe they'd trick Starfleet and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant into thinking the spore drive was too dangerous, and that's why no one uses it. Then they arrive safely in the future, and it's fair game again. The crew would both be obsolete (a little like Scotty in Relics) and cutting edge at the same time.
1,997 2018-02-19 13:13:12
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, you're hitting a lot of the nails on the head that we all hit.
- It'd be better if it took place in the future - not the Kirk era
- The Klingons should've been a new species
- It doesn't "feel" like Trek.
Did you watch the Orville? It was more "Trek" than this was, although both took stabs at making Trek more honest and realistic (Orville was lighter and more sophomoric, this was more violent and sexual)
1,998 2018-02-16 14:51:07
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Can we just assume, sorta like the Sliders theory, that every episode of the show is hypothetically a different Mulder and Scully from a different parallel universe?
1,999 2018-02-16 14:46:04
Re: Supernatural (267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Canonically, where is Adam/Michael? Is he in a separate part of Lucifer's cage? When we saw the cage a couple of seasons ago, Lucifer was alone. Was he moved to that separate cage?
And since this season seems to imply that Michael is evil, was our version of Michael evil too? He never came across that way to me.
2,000 2018-02-16 09:03:53
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Ha, possibly. I just worry they've written themselves into a corner. I'll look forward to seeing how they pull it off.
2,001 2018-02-14 16:23:27
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
ireactions wrote:
From a scripting standpoint, nothing's at odds with the original STAR TREK except for aspects that should be ignored anyway like "Turnabout Intruder" saying no woman has ever captained a starship. Gaffes like "Vulcan Hello" contradicting "Tholian Web" (in which Spock said there's no record of a mutiny aboard a starship) have been patched with Burnham's record being expunged. Spock has never been forthcoming about his family, not even acknowledging his parents when they were standing right in front of him.
Well, the biggest thing to me is the Spore Drive. There are a few ways they could've written it so that it would work, but they seem to be doubling down on it. They're especially backed into a corner with the idea that the Spore Network essentially drives all life. Therefore, since life exists in TNG/DS9/VOY, the Spore Network (hypothetically) must exist in some form. And no one is using it for....reasons?
Maybe it's a little like Bruce Wayne's fusion reactor from the Dark Knight Rises....maybe Starfleet mothballs it for "reasons" in hopes that it can be used better in the future. But....wouldn't Section 31 use it during the Dominion War? Now that the Klingons seem to know about it (in the Discovery Era), wouldn't they want it (in the same way every nation on Earth wants the nuclear bomb even though many don't intend on ever using it)? If Starfleet has that kind of technology and simply don't use it, aren't there hundreds of examples where such technology would've saved lives?
Not only that....even if there's a "we can't take advantage of living creatures ever again" kind of reason for shutting it down....are we to suppose that no other Alpha Quadrant species could've figured it out on their own? The Borg don't even seem to have it, and they'd probably treat the Spore Network, in some ways, with the same reckless abandon that the Terrans used it.
The hologram technology doesn't bother me as much. Maybe people just don't like it and that's why the holograms aren't big in the later shows. We have video phones now, but no one likes to use them, opting for the "less advanced" audio-only phone calls.
But the Spore Drive really bothers me. For some reason.
2,002 2018-02-14 12:44:05
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Which sucks, by the way. I actually really like the idea of Starfleet "softening" their look as they move toward a more exploratory-based mission.
I like the show. I really do. In fact, if Discovery was a Orville-type show taking place out of continuity, I think I'd legitimately love it. The problem is that the show wants me to believe that it's taking place during a period of Trek history that is VERY known to people. And they keep showing us stuff that is unknown or doesn't fit or was needlessly changed. We've had the "they should've set this in a different time period" conversation enough that we don't need to re-hash it.
But damn. It's Trek but it's not. It's good but it could be great. It wants to belong but doesn't really.
The people in charge say it'll all make sense. I don't really believe them, but I'm going to try not to care anymore.
2,003 2018-02-13 08:55:17
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Not sure if anyone else is watching this or not, but the finale was pretty good. I think if this had been the first season of an anthology series then I think it went pretty well (outside of one thing). It leads right into the TOS-era stuff, and it ends with a cool little nod to the original series. It's the Enterprise! And Spock!
(Except that it's a Discovery-ized version of the Enterprise....which sorta goes against the tie-in novel, right? ireactions?)
The only thing that wouldn't work (and still doesn't) is the spore drive. The season ends with the spore drive still very-much in Starfleet hands and very-much a part of Starfleet plans. They've already said that if the spore network collapses, all life will be destroyed....so it's not like they can use that as their Get Out of Jail Free card.
I have no idea how they're going to fix this plot hole. I think using the Terrans to destroy the network made perfect sense. Starfleet mastered this amazing technology, and now it's destroyed and no one can ever use it again.
All in all, I think it was a good season. I'm looking forward to season 2.
***************
All that being said, I'm still shocked that we have so much material taking place in Kirk's lifetime. I get that TOS is considered the gold standard for Trek, but I don't understand why. Yes, it was the classic. Yes, it has nostalgia for a lot of people. But it would've had even more nostalgia for people back in 1987, and TNG didn't lean on TOS as much as Discovery has. The people who watched the 60s Trek as kids are all retired now. The people who grew up watching Trek that are working now would've grown up with TNG, right? Shouldn't we be in the middle of a TNG nostalgia craze?
2,004 2018-02-12 09:36:45
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
http://www.superherohype.com/news/41171 … black-suit
It's hard to say if this was cut from Snyder's vision or Whedon's, but it's still cool to see the black suit in live action.
2,005 2018-02-11 16:51:41
Re: Supernatural (267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Informant wrote:
For f*** sake, how many dead characters have they brought back *this season*??? This would have been a great time to bring Michael/Adam back
I was shocked that it was Gabriel. And, honestly, pissed.
Gabriel's death scene might be one of the best scenes the show's ever done. It's wonderfully done, wonderfully acted, and it has a ton of real weight to it. It was a huge win for Lucifer, but it was also what helped the boys come up with the plan to put him back in the cage. It's one of the most important scenes in the show, and I think it's a lot about the core of what the show is.
I think he was a great character, but he should've stayed dead. His death should mean something. Like John's has.
Michael would've made sense. Even a miracle resurrection by Raphael would've been better. I hate this.
2,006 2018-02-08 13:36:56
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
http://www.superherohype.com/news/41166 … solo-movie
Just the concept of this movie confuses me so much.
2,007 2018-02-08 08:53:03
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Informant wrote:
Question, going back to the politics of this season: these episodes take place shortly after My Struggle II, right? So we'd be in maybe April of 2016 by now? So there is no President Trump yet. I guess they're fudging the dates so they don't end up making a period piece when all is said and done, but this is a great reason why they shouldn't be doing political commentary.
Mr. Robot did a similar thing. Their show definitely takes place in 2016, but they're making one of the plotlines about political maneuvering to get a guy like Trump in the White House. Then there's one scene where a big time player is watching a Trump rally or speech.
I get that Hollywood hates him, and they feel like they're doing their form of protest. But I don't really see the point of hitting us so hard with it. I don't like him either, but I don't bring it up all the time at my work.
2,008 2018-02-05 16:02:41
Re: Supernatural (267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, that's the thing. There are tons of cool characters that could've been brought back if they really wanted (going back to Jo and Ellen). And yet Rowena comes back time and again. A super-powerful witch is a cool anti-hero, but couldn't they just introduce someone new?
2,009 2018-02-02 19:04:41
Re: Supernatural (267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
What the heck is up with the writers' obsession with Rowena?
2,010 2018-02-01 09:40:04
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, another way they could do it would be for Oliver to get thrown in prison for vigilantism (not able to connect him to any murders as the Green Arrow, since "The Arrow" did more murdering than GA), and then for the city to vote to legalize vigilantism. Or for James to threaten the city to the point where the city/government has to officially pardon Oliver to save them.
It wouldn't really work if both of them were unmasked, but maybe he gets thrown in a secret prison so the general public doesn't know his identity? (He probably couldn't be mayor in this case)
2,011 2018-01-31 17:04:47
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I actually have enjoyed the season, but I'm just a bit weirded out by some of the characterization. There's actually quite a bit of growth they could be exploring but just aren't.
2,012 2018-01-31 15:38:44
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
If I were in charge, Oliver would've gone to prison and Barry would've revealed his identity to the world. It's the most-interesting way to deal with the two characters. The more-powerful guy has to worry about being vulnerable (since people know who he is and who Iris is). For example, would Barry get to keep his job at CCPD? Would Joe? Would Iris have to go into hiding? There's a ton that could be done with it.
With Oliver, I don't know if they could follow the plot of SuperMax, but it'd be interesting if he was in prison and resigned to it like Barry was. The problem is....where do you go with it? Oliver couldn't have his case overturned - he did murder people. Would he escape Supermax and just be a fugitive? Would he have to fake his death....again?
2,013 2018-01-30 14:48:24
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, even putting aside any part of whether or not it's true, it's just a weird thing to put in there. Because let's assume that Trump *doesn't* shut down the FBI, and let's assume that he either has one term or gets out before one term.
The jokes are gonna be weird and irrelevant in just a couple of years. If you tried to watch it in a few years, you'd wonder if you missed some segment of the X-Files where the President was involved. Because these jokes are really only relevant now.
I think "fake news" and media/government propaganda belongs on the X-Files because they're constantly dealing with misinformation. Having Mulder say something in one episode or two might be a clever little wink to the audience, but the show is doing it over and over again. And while they might have something to say now, Trump is a very temporary problem. It'd be like if every single episode of the Simpsons' first few seasons had a Dan Quayle joke. It's just weird.
2,014 2018-01-30 10:53:55
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Spoilers for this week's Discovery:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
So we got to the end of the Terran arc. I thought it was pretty good, but then they came to the end.....and I thought they were going to make everything right. There were a couple of lines of dialogue that seemed like they'd be solving the puzzle.
1. They talk about the Terrans destroying the network. I thought...."okay, here's how they fix the spore problem. The Terrans destroy the network for everyone, across all universes, and then no one can ever use it. People could try and recreate it, but it'll never work again. That's why we never hear of it again."
But, nope. They save it. And the spore network....controls all life in the multiverse? I'm sure they mentioned something about it in a previous episode, but I started getting visions of midichlorians.
2. (summarized) "We're back in the Alpha Quadrant in our universe, but we missed the time by a little bit" - I thought "YES! This is when they move this to the future. Maybe they end up in the 25th century and we can take this beyond the TNG era into a new place. We can have this ship out of time, and maybe the fact that the Discovery vanished without a trace convinces the Alpha Quadrant species to come together and agree not to research the spores or something."
But nope. They're a few months in the future and they're sticking with the Klingon War stuff. I understand that it's the crux of the show (and, specifically, Michael's character). But if they're gonna play with time travel, why not move the show into the future if they can?
It was still a great episode, but I was hoping it'd take this thing in a new direction.
2,015 2018-01-30 10:44:51
Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21 (934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
The hype is pretty big as far as I can tell. I've heard a lot of people who don't watch comic book movies getting really excited to see it.
2,016 2018-01-30 10:43:04
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Oh and BTW, I'm also a little tired of the Trump jabs. If Fox is so pissed off about Trump, why doesn't he spend his time trying to investigate him? He's already free, apparently, to do whatever he wants.
I get that Hollywood doesn't love Trump and wants to pat themselves on the back for speaking out to millions of people, but it really dates the show. He's going to be out of office before we know it, and these little comments are going to look so petty one day.
2,017 2018-01-29 09:26:59
Re: “Counterpart” on Starz (4 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I saw a trailer for this, and I might check it out. Looks pretty solid.
2,018 2018-01-29 09:25:51
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I really enjoyed this episode. I thought it was a ton of fun....particularly when Reggie was re-edited into the opening credits and clips from the show. I thought the actor that played Reggie had great comedic timing and played the part perfectly.
The scene with They and Mulder was played with this fun, surreal quality, and I think the whole Mandela/Mengele Effect was played wonderfully. It's strange that the best two episodes of the revival (IMO) have been, basically, straight-up comedies, but it's really worked for them when they've gone for it.
2,019 2018-01-24 09:47:09
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Does Cisco not want to be a main hero? It seems like he's only willing/able/happy to help when the "top" hero needs help? He's more than capable on his own, but it seemed like they immediately went from "Trust only Barry' to "Trust only Ralph"
I did like the way Harry and Cisco summoned Killer Frost. Although I have no idea whether she's good or bad or whatever anymore. Now she's just a tool that the team uses. Is she okay with that? Is Caitlin? Does any of that matter?
The Barry in prison scenes are pretty good, although if he's willing to use his powers in a fight and to go through the glass.....why isn't he willing to use his powers to escape prison, fight, and then go back? Is he not *that* fast?
2,020 2018-01-23 10:19:15
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
It is weird. If the chaos behind the scenes of the Han Solo movie had been for a DC movie, I think it'd be out of control. But since it's Star Wars, it seems like the bad news is tempered a bit.
Does Disney pay off people to give them better press? It wouldn't surprise me. But I think the most likely case is that people want to hear about chaos at DC. I think the public persona is that those movies are failures and the Marvel movies are successes. So people will click to read a story about "behind the scenes problems at DC" or "will Affleck leave? who will replace him?" Right now, superhero films are the height of clickbait, and I think these sites are just playing to the crowd.
If DC films were more beloved and Marvel films more chaotic, I think it'd be swapped....Disney or no.
2,021 2018-01-22 09:13:10
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I don't know...I think the DCEU was behind the 8-ball even without the press. I know, considering everything political, you're anti-media right now (and that's a discussion for another date and time), but the DCEU has been a mixed bag for a majority of people.
When you're talking about comic movies, you have to remember that the vast majority of the audience doesn't know most of these characters. Most people know Superman and Batman, but even 1/3 of the DC Trinity (Wonder Woman) is a virtual unknown. There was the show in the 70s, but that's about her biggest touch with mainstream America. I'd guess most people would assume she's just a female Superman.
I'd say just about no one outside of the comic community knows who Cyborg is. The Flash might have some extra reach because of the CW show, but I'm sure most people know he "runs fast." Aquaman is a joke.
So here's where we get back into Marvel/DC. The MCU has literally made billions of dollars on characters that are even less popular. No one knew Iron Man, and now he might be one of the most popular/known superheroes out there. People now know all about Captain America and Ant-Man and Dr. Strange. Hell, Marvel has turned Rocket Raccoon into a household name.
And whether you like the movies or not, they play to a larger audience because they're simple premises with bright colors and lighthearted comedy. From a box office standpoint, a mid-level MCU movie can compete with a DC movie for two reasons:
1. Children can go and see them. Which means that parents go, and it often means that children and parents go multiple times.
2. Non-comic fans find it easier to go because they're more welcoming.
I dragged my fiancee to Dr. Strange because I wanted to see it. Even though she'd never heard of it (and definitely not him), she ended up having a good time. I did the same with Suicide Squad, and she couldn't get into it. One was a fairly straightforward movie with the girl from the Notebook and a love story, and the other was a CGI explosionfest with a bunch of characters she didn't recognize.
She's not a movie person, and she's definitely not a comic person. She's one of those people who thinks that all comic characters exist in the same universe and wonders why Iron Man and Superman don't show up in a movie together. And because Marvel makes movies for children and non-fans, she was able to understand and enjoy what was going on.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the DCEU movie that was the most successful was a) the story that was the most paint-by-numbers origin story and b) the one that you liked the least. As far as a) is concerned, it made Wonder Woman the most approachable DC movie.
Because you can go see Wonder Woman without seeing anything else. You can go see Spider-Man: Homecoming without seeing any previous MCU movies. You might not know who Iron Man is, but the movie plays it pretty safe with his character. Tony is a mentor character named Iron Man in an iron suit who leads a group called the Avengers that Spider-Man wants to be a part of.
The DCEU is much more stream-lined. A lot of the character moments require you to understand and know each movie. Man of Steel plays a huge part in Bruce Wayne's motivations in Batman v Superman (the movie shows that Superman was involved in the fight but it doesn't go into who Superman was fighting or why the collateral damage was explainable). The scene with Kevin Costner could be confusing if you have no idea who he is, that he's dead, that he died tragically, etc. The movie plays like a direct sequel to Man of Steel at times, but even team-up Avengers movies usually treat the audience like children when it comes to "this is (hero), this is who they are and this is what their powers are"
Then there's the tone. The movies are too dark and too scary for young kids to go. In BvS (the theatrical cut), neither Superman nor Batman are all that heroic or all that likable. It ends up being a little like Batman Returns where it ends up scaring kids away. And while Marvel movies are fun and exciting and funny, DC movies are more serious and real and dour. So, again, you lose casual viewers who like the escapism of lighter movies. My fiancee would be much more likely to watch a Pixar/Disney movie than a darker, action-thriller. So she's more excited for me to drag her to Dr. Strange than a Suicide Squad.
(And, honestly, the same applies to Star Wars - those movies are safe and made for anyone to enjoy, regardless of age or awareness of the source material)
So the audience for Justice League shrinks. BvS wasn't well-received, and Justice League looked like more of the same. Kids weren't going to go, and they'd already lost a lot of the casual audience because of tone and story.
Media probably didn't help, but decisions that the DCEU made had already cut out a large part of the audience.
2,022 2018-01-19 17:04:13
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Informant wrote:
Does Iris manage to stay out of danger now?
Well that's the thing. In a city where a guy can have a meta power that turns him into a nuclear bomb, is Iris really *ever* safe?
2,023 2018-01-19 17:03:08
Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More (330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, I don't know if I love it myself...but I watched the Red Letter Media review on Last Jedi and a lot of the complaints seem to be that nothing is really accomplished. The film's theme about failure is just not getting through to people.
They also had a problem with Kylo "turning good" and then immediately undercutting that twist by becoming the cliche bad guy again. In watching Kylo's character, I don't think he wants anything to do with ruling the galaxy. He and Rey have similar goals - they want to understand their place in the galaxy. Having them leave suits their interests.
And people seem to want there to be more mystery. I injected a ton of that stuff in there.
So it's not about whether it'd make the movie better (because I liked it just fine) - would it have been better received by the people who hated it?
2,024 2018-01-19 16:45:56
Re: Star Wars: Movies and Shows on Disney+ and More (330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I wonder how The Last Jedi would've been received if these changes were made:
- Rose and Finn sneak onto Snoke's ship. Evil BB8 does not notice them.
- The throne room sequence from Rey's entrance to the death of the imperial guards is the same
- The rebels escape is the same
- When Kylo asks Rey to go with him, we don't see her answer. It cuts away with Kylo holding his hand out and her looking at him.
- Rose and Finn work on the tracking computer. They look back and DJ is gone.
- Hux enters the throne room to find Snoke and the imperial guards dead. No one else is there. No sign of Kylo or Rey. Hux assumes command just as the final Resistance ship runs out of fuel.
- Rose finishes her work and Finn radios to Poe to jump to light speed. No one answers. They look out a nearby window to see the ship explode. As far as they know, the Resistance was just ended.
- Movie ends with the Resistance (the whole group that escaped) on the same red planet. Their escape worked. Hux never finds out that they got away. Finn and Rose are stuck on the big destroyer, thinking they're alone now. Kylo and Rey are gone. Hux is in command of the First Order but also thinks the war is over. Luke's story is still incomplete.
Ways I think it works:
1. It's a shorter movie. The extra scenes on Ahch-To don't happen.
2. There's less failure (but still enough for the theme to work). Finn and Rose accomplish their goals - it's just too late to save the ship (and Holdo, I guess). The Resistance makes a full escape - their plan works perfectly. Perhaps Rey got through to Kylo.
3. Luke is still an option to use for Episode IX (especially since Leia essentially says goodbye in this movie).
4. The galaxy is in a really interesting place. The First Order is led by an incompetent fool who thinks the war is over. The Resistance is small but not too small. Help could still be coming. And completely outside of the First Order/Resistance fight is Kylo and Rey, who have disappeared from the playing board. Are they going to find the Knights of Ren? Are they on the good side? Or the bad side? What will Finn and Rose do now, especially since Finn thinks all his friends are dead?
5. It leaves a lot of mysteries alive (which people seem to love).
What do we think?
2,025 2018-01-19 16:08:14
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Telling the city Barry's secret might actually cause some...good storytelling. It might be a little too similar to how Arrow's season is playing out, but I think it'd be a bigger deal for Barry.
I just don't think that many villains would go after Iris. If someone wanted revenge on Flash....maybe. But most villains have a specific plan and want to *avoid* dealing with Barry. Bringing Iris in would guarantee that the Flash would get involved. If I were a villain, I wouldn't go anywhere near her.
2,026 2018-01-19 14:55:34
Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Psych is one of the shows I completely missed when it was on. I've never seen more than 5 minutes of it. Seems like something I'd like, but I've never seen it.
2,027 2018-01-19 14:53:27
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Also....why can't Barry reveal his secret? Literally every one of his big bads has known his secret before Team Flash knew the bad's secret. It wouldn't affect Cisco/Caitlin because they already openly work with the Flash, right? If not, they can defend themselves. Joe is a cop and fights metas anyway.
The only person it'd affect would be Iris, and she's in danger all the time anyway. Plus, most of Flash's villains don't have any particular problem with Flash until he interferes with their plan. Iris would just need some sort of way to signal Barry or anyone on Team Flash, and he could literally be there in a....flash.
2,028 2018-01-19 10:40:07
Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Anyone watched Black Mirror Season 4 yet?
I really liked it. I found this year's stories to be less dark, especially the endings. Even when there are episodes where people do really horrible things (episodes 1 and 3, for example), justice is served by the end.
Slight spoilers for the final episode - I'm really hoping that it takes place in some weird continuity and isn't actually an attempted to tie the whole series together. To me, Black Mirror functions the best when they're showing us a different world each week. I don't want it to be one universe and I don't want it to be our world. Just close enough to scare us but just far enough away that we can steer away
2,029 2018-01-19 10:35:56
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, after reading your "This" post, I can buy that logic. So my casual watching of the show works fine because it isn't important to understand what came before
2,030 2018-01-19 08:41:05
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
In my continuing "casual X-Files fan" mode of watching this show, I was confused - I thought Mulder and Scully were actively a couple. Weren't they living together and snuggling on the couch last episode?
(I just read irreactions' "This" review so maybe that was a simulation or an individual's vision of Mulder and Scully?)
2,031 2018-01-17 09:35:31
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I mean if the US government was cool paying out $1 trillion because it owned up to Superman's actions, then great. And if Superman was willing to work to rebuild (saving billions of dollars), then I'll stand corrected.
******
Changing gears a little bit.
The Ultimate Edition has really got my mind going regarding Bruce Wayne. Because we get almost no context of what his character was pre-Superman, I have to wonder about what he was like before.
There are so many things about the character that are contradictory or confusing. Was the Bat-branding something new, or is it only new that people are getting killed for it in prison? The movie implies that it's new (with the newspaper coverage of it), but neither Bruce nor Alfred ever mentions it. If it's new, it's something you'd think Alfred would be upset about. But, again, he seems almost more upset about Bruce not having a girlfriend or a social life than any new parts of Bruce's behavior as Batman (he mutters something about Bruce's love/social life 2-3 times).
If the Bat-branding is new, why is Bruce so nonchalant about people getting killed? Or does he not care? Superman spends a lot of time investigating the branding, but the World's Greatest Detective doesn't even seem to notice it.
Speaking of newspaper coverage, Clark treats Batman like he's a brand-new thing. "This Bat vigilante" is what he keeps calling him. Batman is stated to have been active for 20 years - has Clark never heard of him in 20 years? Or is Clark just being dismissive of him, thinking that if he calls him "Batman", he's legitimizing him?
Or is it something else? Has Batman worked way under the radar for the entire time, and is the emergence of the Bat-branding a thing that has forced the media to finally acknowledge him as real? Alfred mentions "exploding penguins" at one point so I'm assuming there was a time when the Penguin attacked Gotham with exploding penguins and Batman saved the day. Did this all happen outside of the media's coverage?
But there's a Bat-signal? And Gordon seems pretty chummy with Batman. So he can't have been *that* underground. Plus, Suicide Squad shows that Batman has no problem jumping on cars in the middle of active streets and driving his Batmobile all over town. He's not exactly being overly stealthy.
Then there's the killing. Is that new? Has this version of Batman always been okay with casualties in his war on crime? Even after the "Martha" scene, Bruce kills a handful of people without thinking. He's in a hurry and against a clock, but he definitely uses lethal force a lot. Alfred doesn't mention the killing either (at the docks or at the warehouse, where he leaves multiple bodies each) so I have to assume it's not new either. Did he start killing after the death of Robin? That's the kind of thing that would make Bruce go dark, I'd assume. If the killing and branding has been around since the death of Robin, Alfred would probably be used to it by now and might not mention it.
Which brings me to my idea. The DCEU seems to be content on doing smaller, less connected movies. Aquaman is standalone. Patty Jenkins says that Wonder Woman 2 isn't dependent on Justice League. There's no indication that Shazam will involve anyone else in the DCEU. The Harley/Joker stuff might involve Batman but doesn't need to. And there's no Justice League 2 in development. Whenever Matt Reeves talks about The Batman, he says it stands alone. With Ben Affleck wavering on playing Batman again.....what if they decided to take the opportunity to answer some of my questions, while also getting a chance to re-cast.
What if The Batman is a prequel?
Cast a younger actor that looks enough like Ben Affleck to make it work. Or, if Ben Affleck wants to do it, de-age him a bit (either with makeup and hair dye or slight CGI). Show me what Batman was like before. Either tell the Bat-Family story or the death of Robin story. If there's a Nightwing or a Batgirl out there, explain what happened to them and why they don't talk to Bruce anymore. If he didn't kill before, explain why he's okay with it now. If the branding isn't new, explain what happened there. Bring back JK Simmons and show his relationship with Gordon. Show his relationship with the media.
If you cast a new actor and it works, then you can bring the new actor into the world with Flashpoint. If you cast a new actor and it doesn't work, Affleck can take back over as the older Batman.
Batman is crucial to this universe, but we have such a little understanding to how his character works. Fill in the gaps for us, DC.
2,032 2018-01-16 10:24:18
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (746 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
What is Discovery?
In watching the show, it's decidedly not-Trek. I know it's set in the regular Trek universe, but it feels a lot more like the Abrams universe. Even with tie-in novels that try to connect this to 1960s Trek, it just doesn't feel like Shatner and Nimoy are out there (even if they aren't working on the Enterprise together, yet).
It's busy for Trek, but that's because it's the first show that's really serialized. But at the same time, I think it's busy even for a modern show. Is the show about the war with the Klingons? Is it about what a good man will do to win a bad war? Is it about a woman torn between two worlds trying to make up for a very costly mistake she once made? Is it about a man torn between two worlds and two women he claims to love? Is it about trying to stay good in a world gone insane? Or is it about exploring a new way to travel?
None of these things are really Star Trek. And in a year when the Orville decided to be a modern (less Roddenberry) version of Star Trek: the Next Generation, it feels even less like Star Trek.
The show is good. But I struggle to really identify what it is or where it's going. Is it too late to go the anthology route?
2,033 2018-01-16 08:57:22
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
ireactions wrote:
It is impossible to write a sequel to MAN OF STEEL where Superman is charged for the attack on Metropolis. He worked with the army to fight Zod. It's a matter of public record.
He worked with the army, but people sue other people all the time for all kinds of reasons. People could easily argue that he used excessive force. Insurance companies would probably go after him as the reason why the buildings were knocked down and lives were lost. "Superman is liable for the destruction of the Claremont building, as he is clearly shown to be throwing General Zod into that building. He is not responsible for the destruction of the Bakerfield building, as Zod's heat vision clearly caused that building to be destroyed."
I mean, hell, if Bruce really wanted to make Clark's life a living hell, he could go after him for the destruction of the Wayne Building.
I mean, we're talking about an incident where thousands (a ridiculously low number) of people were killed and billions (trillions?) of dollars in property damage. It would bankrupt the city and put enormous strain on the nation to rebuild it as quickly as they did (the city looks normal 18 months later). You don't think there'd be hearings where people would try to hold him financially responsible?
Then there's the fact that there would need to be an investigation into Zod. Where did the Kryptonians come from? Are there more of them? Are more coming? The public would have a billion questions, and the only reliable witness is Superman.
It's also silly to think that Superman would be instantly cleared for Man of Steel but quickly roped into a hearing because a handful of people were clearly shot and then burned
2,034 2018-01-14 19:40:36
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Informant wrote:
I see where you're coming from with the Africa storyline, but I disagree. If the movie was about Snyder defending Man of Steel, it wouldn't have served the story well, and it would have looked like a petty response to criticism (even if I kinda think that criticism was petty to begin with).
Well, there's still a lot of him responding. The movie goes out of its way to talk about how there are no civilians anywhere at night in either Metropolis or Gotham.
In our world, there are hearings on everything. I mean, look at how involved the Benghazi stuff got with only four people dying. Having the Senate hearings be about Metropolis would make a ton of sense. I mean, imagine how many lawsuits Superman would be involved in? Even if he was completely blame-free, he'd be involved in so much red tape.
I think Lex took advantage of the fact that Bruce was already at the end of his rope, suffering from what appears to be some sort of PTSD, combined with his desire to bring justice. Bruce was broken when Robin died, and he wanted to destroy the bad guys at that point. Lex just redirected Bruce's focus.
They could have made things more personal for Bruce, but that wouldn't have furthered other aspects of Lex's plans, like gaining access to the Kryptonian ship.
But here's the thing....the movie still doesn't give us enough context to understand Bruce Wayne. Is he suffering from PTSD? There's a lot of clues, but the movie never comes out and says it. Alfred seems irritated by his revenge plot, but he seems just as irritated by the fact that Bruce doesn't have a social life. If Bruce was a completely different person, the movie needed an "Alfred confronts Bruce" (sorta like a similar scene in The Dark Knight Rises) where they could drop some crucial information.
Is the mere presence of Superman enough to drive Batman to criminal insanity? The movie fills in a lot of the plot holes in Lex's plan, but Bruce is still branding criminals and doesn't seem to care that they're getting killed in prison. He's still willing to kill people to further his goals. I don't know if the movie gives us enough to believe that Bruce would turn into Lex.
In my opinion, it still needed a personal touch. In The Killing Joke, it took attacking Jim Gordon's daughter to break him. Killing "Jack" shouldn't been enough to break Bruce. IMHO.
2,035 2018-01-13 19:48:42
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Batman v Superman: The Ultimate Edition
You guys are right. It's way more rounded. I'd say it's better....there are still problems, but it's better.
Some of the cuts they make are, frankly, insane. The parts after the Capitol attack are criminal to Superman's character. The part where he flies off immediately after standing, blank-faced, in a room full of scorched bodies showed that Superman didn't care. Cutting the scene where he's trying to help but doesn't really have any ability to help shows how powerless he feels. There are a few other moments of humanity that were lost, and I honestly don't understand what the edits were going for. The movie is bloated in other ways, and they could've found a better way to cut it.
Where I would've started was the Africa sequence. The Ultimate Edition fills a lot of plot holes. It makes it clearer that Lex has been setting things up for the whole time - he knows who Batman is and knows who Superman is. He knows how to manipulate them, and he's covered all of his bases. While the theatrical version rushed through a lot, the ultimate edition really lets it sink in. The Africa sequence feeds into the Capitol sequence and turns the public mood against Superman enough.
The problem is....it's not really enough. I maintain that the Capitol hearing should've been about Metropolis. It could've been Zach Snyder's forum to defend Man of Steel through Clark, and it could've shown his humanity. "I didn't do anything wrong. I did my best to save as many people as I could." Clark would think. But he'd go because he won't rest until humanity trusts him.
To me, there's still not enough of a reason for Batman to want to kill him. To get the weapons, yes. That's very Batman. But the problem with the Ultimate Edition making Clark more human is that it, by association, makes Bruce crazier. Yes, a lot of people died. But Bruce, Lex Luthor, and Wally are the only ones in the world, it seems, who can't get passed it to see the good that Superman did. That he continued to do. Bruce didn't lose anyone. He lost....Jack? Some guy? Not even Lucius Fox?
I'd have lost the Africa sequence and replaced it with something that relates to Bruce specifically. Metropolis made Bruce suspicious and then you see the public's understanding. You see the news clips and the commentators debating whether Superman is good or bad. And then break Batman's mind with something that hits home. Not just some guy. Wally didn't mean much to Bruce because he didn't even know about the checks. Either make Wally a character that Bruce really has cared about the last 18 months or do something drastic.
What if there's an incident where Alfred dies? I think that's how you do it. I love this version of Alfred, but replace the Africa sequence with something that causes Alfred to die. Now Bruce, already suspicious after Metropolis, is alone in his grief. His father died anew.
Because, even in 3 hours, we don't get enough of Bruce to understand why he's so angry. It's not a fit of rage...at times, he's calm and decisive. He's lucid and he's still caring. He's not a bad guy....but the movie has him act like the bad guys. The only problem with Bruce's plan is that Lex's plan is better. Otherwise, it's the exact same plan.
I know killing Alfred would be a big step, but they kill Jimmy Olson with a lot less regard. And if not, put him in a coma or something. Batman would still be alone, and that could put it over the top.
*****
Some other random thoughts:
1. Man I hate Jesse Eisenberg as Lex. It's a terrible, terrible performance. Lex is crazy the entire time, and he's still respected for some reason? I don't understand it at all. His company would've been taken away from him years before.
2. The dream sequence is cool, but it's a problem for so many reasons. First, does Barry come back? It happens in a dream within a dream, but I think we're supposed to accept it as some sort of vision? And why does Barry say "You were right about him, you were always right about him?" I thought maybe this would be referenced in Justice League, and some say it was ("Lois is the key!"). But Barry's basically telling Bruce that he's right to want to kill Superman. I don't understand it.
It becomes an even bigger problem with Justice League. Bruce does a 180 with his logic in Justice League, saying they 100% have to bring Superman back. But even after talking about how Superman might not come back as the same person, Bruce doesn't consider that they could be *causing* his nightmare by bringing Superman back.....with an army of parademons...that are already on Earth.
3. Clark was dead. He wasn't in a "healing coma" or anything. Why did the dirt float at the end?
4. I still don't buy that so much hope rested on Superman. Justice League wants us to believe that everything fell apart because Superman died, but he was only active for 18 months. This wasn't a world that was held together by Superman - there wasn't enough time for us to adjust to it. There's no indication that he stopped any wars or that he prevented anything catastrophic. Yeah it was cool to have a Superman, I'm sure Metropolis would be extra sad, and a lot of his more-culty people might've gone off the deep end....but was he really that instrumental?
5. Bruce mentions that they buried an empty box. Even if the public was told that his body was buried....what's the in-government explanation? Did they know his secret identity following his death and let him bury the body in Kansas?
I know I've been negative, but I did have a good time. I think it's a lot better, and like I said, they filled in a lot of plot holes. I don't remember the "bat brand" getting explained, and they explained that. They covered a ton of plot holes.
Informant is right...it's the complete movie. The only problem is....how did they create a movie that had to be 3 hours to make sense? And when they realized that....did they need to break it into two movies? Is releasing two movies better than releasing a 3-hour movie?
(If you want ideas on how to make the movie an hour longer so that it can be two 2-hour movies, I'd add some more Bruce backstory and add some sort of extended Superman rescue sequence - a la the plane rescue in Superman Returns. This movie desperately needed a Superman heroic moment, and the movie is surprisingly short on them)
2,036 2018-01-12 13:40:45
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I hadn't thought about the Disney side, but I wonder if that's a brand they even want to cultivate. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't shelve a lot of the "FOX" stuff and try and build a softer image for the network. There's a ton of wiggle room between being not as edgy as FOX used to be and being edgier than ABC.
I just have a feeling that, as soon as the purchase is done, Disney is gonna toss a lot of older/flailing properties in the trash. This is a potential one, especially if viewership isn't strong and costs are.
2,037 2018-01-12 12:27:26
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
They didn't buy the network, but they did buy a lot of the properties (including the Simpsons, Family Guy, etc). Fairly certain X-Files would've been in that box.
2,038 2018-01-12 11:05:06
Re: The X-Files (431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well doesn't Disney own it now? Wouldn't it be up to them if they want to bring it back or not?
2,039 2018-01-12 09:01:34
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Informant wrote:
At the end of the day, I feel like the Ultimate Edition is the movie that we're supposed to watch when we go back to rewatch the movie.
Yeah, but that's the thing....it's a special edition. This isn't the Star Wars special editions - it doesn't override all versions. If you watch BvS on HBO or HBO Go (where the movie is currently streaming), it's the theatrical version. I recently moved and got rid of almost my entire video collection - I have subscriptions to the streaming services so I can see just about anything. Combine that with the fact that I don't have a DVD player, and it doesn't make any sense for me to run out and buy the blu-ray.
If I can stream the ultimate edition on amazon prime, I can do that. But in today's unplugged environment, asking someone to buy a specific version of the blu-ray so that you can enjoy a movie you've already paid to see in theaters is a little much.
(You guys know how I feel about having to buy tie-in material to understand the primary movie).
2,040 2018-01-11 20:44:19
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I actually have quite a bit of time this weekend. Is there a way to stream the Ultimate Edition? I don't have a blu-ray player, nor (currently) any way to watch a DVD.
I knew that Superman wasn't on trial for the Metropolis incident, but the way I remember, he was being accused of killing the people in the village.
The problem with the Ultimate Edition is.....is it canon? Is Justice League a sequel to one or the other? Or....both? Are deleted scenes generally regarded as canon? This is more of a philosophical question than anything. I suppose the world's love for Superman is canon, since it's said in the movies.
I also don't doubt, watching either edition, that Superman is heroic and cares about people. What I don't understand, mostly because it's painted as being controversial in BvS, how everyone in the world has decided, by Justice League, that he was really great. He was being protested pretty heavily outside the Capitol Building, and this was *after* he'd saved the world from invading aliens. Was dying during another attack enough to turn the tide completely?