Search options (Page 35 of 59)

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

What the heck is up with the writers' obsession with Rowena?

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.

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.

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.

I saw a trailer for this, and I might check it out.  Looks pretty solid.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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).

Yeah, I just don't agree with this.  You're saying that nothing happened in any of Flash's/Cyborg's/Aquaman's lives that was worthy of a solo movie?  I just don't see that.

I think you're thinking it's going to be a paint-by-numbers origin movie, but it could be literally anything.  It could be the story of how Arthur found that fishing village and started being their protector.  It could've been a story of Barry growing up with his dad in jail, coming to terms with autism, etc, and then getting these insane powers.

Even if we got stories from all three that *don't involve superheroics*, then we'd know who these folks are.  And if we know who these folks are:

1. More time can be used telling the story because we don't have to be told who they are.
2. All the character moments have more impact.

I'd be okay with it being David Duchovny as a mentor to younger agents.  I don't really see any point in the show continuing as it is now without Gillian Anderson.  I'm also not sure the story would make sense, as things stand now, with Mulder but no Scully.

I'd end it.

I also think Carter is on record as saying that he's going to end the season on a cliffhanger either way. So look forward to that.

True.  I think about it like it's a standard job.  I don't consider things like Stephen Amell working on Ninja Turtles or anything.  But I imagine the "Arrowverse" show idea could give the actors whatever freedom they want.  If Stephen Amell was going to be the new Green Lantern or something, Oliver could not show up on the show for months and he could fit in his 20 episodes in some other way.  You could have long stretches where Grant Gustin carries the show while everyone is off filming movies, and then he's relieved by Melissa Benoist.

It's a crazy format, but it could work.  The 4-show, 13-episode, year-round format probably works the best.

Jan-Mar - Arrow
Apr-Jun - Flash
Jul-Sept - Supergirl
Oct-Dec - Legends

You could still sign people to 20+ episode contracts and it'd free up Gustin/Amell/Benoist for 7+ guest appearances on the other shows.  If it works out, you get a mini-crossover event.

It's pretty fun being an outsider in the X-Files fandom.  I just sorta watch the "My Struggle" episodes with a child-like "Okay! I guess this is happening now!" way.  Jeffrey Spender shows up and I think "Oh man, I thought he died at some point.  Maybe I'll look that up on the X-Files wiki".  And so I do that and Jeffrey Spender's page is convoluted and it looks like he did die but then was horribly scarred but now is back to normal and I just go "Okay, I guess this is happening now!"

Cigarette Smoking Man is back and seems alive and healthy and has a new name now and I thought he'd died like five times before but I just smile and go "Okay, I guess this is happening now!"

I watched My Struggle III having not seen a good chunk of the beginning of the series, a good chunk of the end of the series, and having forgotten huge blocks of the time when I watched the show religiously.  I watched Season 10 but couldn't remember what the cliffhanger was.  I just smiled like Sammy Jankis and went with the flow.

There are no continuity errors when I watch the X-Files because I don't remember enough and I'm not invested enough to worry about what's a continuity error.  It ends up making the show a lot more watchable.

I mean, maybe.  But if you're going to go with the Avengers "model" vs. the Justice League one*, I'd rather have solo movies for everyone before they meet.  Every scene could've had more meaning if we understood where people were coming from.  The Mera/Arthur scene could've been better if we knew anything about them.  Heck, the Steppenwolf/Atlanteans fight might've meant as much as the Steppenwolf/Amazons fight if we had any idea who those guys were (or what their power level was).  The Barry/Henry scene would've had more value if we were catching up with them (instead of meeting them both).

I mean, even small stuff....when Barry trips running, it'd either be a huge shock ("BARRY NEVER TRIPS, HE MUST BE TERRIFIED") or something we're used to ("Damn!  Just like his fight against the Reverse Flash").  Arthur getting the Trident.  Victor taking command of the Tank.  These could've all been cooler moments if we had any context for what we're getting.

Granted, this could all still happen....just, in reverse.  So maybe Barry *doesn't* trip against Reverse Flash because he's already fought against frickin' Superman.  But if we're talking about elevating Justice League, I think I'd rather know these characters going in.

* Not talking about quality of Marvel or DC....just the way their leads were brought together.  If we're being fair, Barry/Arthur/Victor are the equivalent of Hawkeye/Black Widow/Coulson/Fury in Justice League - we know them, but they're side characters more than stars.  Maybe that's how it should be for the first-ever Justice League movie (the Trinity is the stars and the others are supporting), but that's how it felt to me.

Yeah, I meant to comment on that.  What was up with that?

(Although I think that fight is the highlight for me.  Especially the Flash/Superman stuff).

Star Wars has never been about mysteries, and I think the bigger sin is setting up the mysteries at all.  I think Rian Johnson agreed with that, and he's stated as much.  He said if Star Wars is going to survive, it has to become something more than what it was.

The Last Jedi is divisive because it's a hard reset to what JJ Abrams did.  Which is why it's going to be such a problem when JJ comes back.