Search options (Page 37 of 58)

TF right again!

http://www.superherohype.com/news/40603 … n#/slide/1

Watched the third episode.  If this is where the show is going, it's definitely intriguing.  Although it got me thinking...it's very bizarre that there are two Treks going on at the same time: Discovery and Fox's The Orville.  What's even more bizarre is that the Orville, while seen through a Seth MacFarlane lens, is *light years* more Trek-like than Discovery is (in both structure and the fact that one is on conventional television and the other online-only).  It's not a knock on either show, but it's very strange. 

The Orville, while not taking place in the Trek universe, is a mostly-unserialized show set on a starship that is seeking out new life and new civilizations.  It's crude and is full of pop culture references that these people probably shouldn't be spouting, but it takes itself way more seriously than I assumed it was going to based on the promos I saw.  What I assumed was going to be Galaxy Quest ended up being a bit more like an updated TNG.  They've already gone for a couple of "moral high ground" episodes early, and there's a lot more awe in it than I was expecting.  I don't know if I love it, but I feel like it's in the same vein as a Trek series.

Discovery, however, *is* set in the Trek universe, but it's so much different than what we're used to expecting.  It's refreshing to have something new in the same universe, but it also feels very alien. 

I do wonder if some Trekkies are going to go the easy route and watch the (free) Trek-lite that MacFarlane is offering.

So I haven't seen the 3rd episode yet, but I was thinking more about the anthology aspect.  Was this a really cool idea that someone had for a first season of an anthology series (secret human daughter of Sarek raised as a Vulcan) that the series is just stuck with?  Because, again, nothing from this series necessarily requires a prequel setting.  Using Sarek is cool, but it could've been any human raised as a Vulcan.

If the plan was to create an anthology series, getting people in via a familiar setting with familiar characters is, potentially, the way to go.  Then you have a series set on a Maquis ship or a timeship or a season on the USS Titan (starring Jonathan Frakes) or a new adventure in the 26th century or a Vulcan ship or whatever.

Just speculating for fun.

That's why I like the idea of always going forward.  There doesn't need to be an explanation in that case.  The technology is better because that's how technology works.  The tech was bad in the 60s because....World War 3 put us back?  I think TNG did it right with the big jump.

The problem is that today we're all about seeing rebootquels.  We want to see characters we're familiar with.  If TNG would've been made today, it would've just been a reboot like Hawaii Five-O or MacGuyver.

That being said, I sorta like the idea that the Enterprise is an experiment that eventually wins out.

I watched it last night, and it's not really spoilery.  A couple minor plot points are spoiled, but that's it.  To be 100% safe, you shouldn't read it.  But it's more technical than plot-based.

That was actually a really entertaining interview.

I agree that the plot was secondary to anything else, but I also don't think that all four series (and all five seasons) were really building up to anything.  It was really just Daredevil and Iron Fist's stories colliding, and Luke and Jessica were sorta pulled along for the ride.  If it'd turned out that Purple Man and Diamondback/Cottonmouth were all working directly for the Hand, it'd make sense.

This was just sorta worlds colliding as Matt and Danny continued their journeys.

I completely disagree about the banter feeling forced.  I thought it was all actually pretty natural, and they all were pretty consistent with who they were in the comics.  Jessica didn't instantly turn into someone who wanted to be heroic.  Luke didn't betray his principles.  They were there for reasons that made sense to them, and they stayed for similar reasons.  I thought the character stuff was what made it work, since the plot wasn't all that important.

I was hoping you'd answer, and you didn't disappoint!  Much better than any of the research I was able to uncover at Memory Alpha!

What's weird is that it happened right in the era where the show and the movies were working together.  In three TNG-era series (all featuring a Klingon in the main cast), they never explained what happened to the Klingon homeworld?

Let's do a Suicide Squad 2 with more Joker/Harley and see if that works before we do a Cinematic Jokerverse.  That's all I'm saying

Can someone help walk me through what DC is doing here?  They're making:

- Suicide Squad 2 (with Harley Quinn and Jared Leto as Joker)
- A Joker/Harley movie (with Harley Quinn and Jared Leto as Joker)
- A Gotham City Sirens movie (with just Harley Quinn, maybe a Joker?)

and

- A Joker origin movie by Martin Scorsese not related to the DCEU and not played by Jared Leto

Elseworlds are cool and I think studios need to be more creative with these properties, but it's a bit odd to do 4 Joker movies with one out of continuity.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/40379 … e#/slide/1

http://www.superherohype.com/news/40372 … e#/slide/1

I'm kinda glad that this was cut, but it's a cool tie-in to Justice League.

What I don't understand is the renewed outrage every time Trump does something.  The same people that called him a fascist and a racist and a white supremecist are the same people who are like "TRUMP IS A FASCIST?  A RACIST?!?!  A WHITE SUPREMECIST?!?!" whenever he does something stupid.  He is what he is.  Blowing up online isn't going to have any impact on anything.

I'm also confused on what people want the GOP to do.  I think they're doing exactly what the Democrats are doing....letting him implode.  If impeachment is going to ever happen, it's going to have to be bi-partisan, and it's going to have to be offered up by the Democrats.  No matter what happens, the president's own party is not going to set up impeachment, and it's ridiculous to assume they will.

The problem is that the president is an idiot, the GOP is playing politics, and the DNC can't get out of their own way.  The only Democrat who's even speaking out is Bernie, and he's not even a Democrat.  I don't know if the DNC is just hiding in the woods, if they're in a coma, or if they've been ordered to stand quietly until Hillary comes back.  Whatever it is, I feel like they're as complicit as the Republicans.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/40351 … e#/slide/1

If any of this is true, what do we think?

I'm sorry to hear about your dogs, Informant.  It's hard to fill that hole in your heart, but hopefully you can begin to feel better.  How many dogs do you have?  Are you going to get another one?

I'd love to read the article, but every time I click on it, it's a full page ad for Westworld that I cannot click out of.  I maximize the screen, scroll all over, and there's nowhere to click out of.  Thanks, thewrap!

Honestly, I don't think this affects anything.  Unless Joss is somehow responsible for the Justice League movie failing, I think he's locked in if he wants to be.  He might even get his stock risen higher if he gets credit for Justice League's success, especially if some of the female characters (Diana, Lois, Iris, Mera, etc) have great scenes with Joss' fingerprints on it.

At this point, I think his reputation is cemented, and this interview won't affect much.

I think the Darkness is a fine storyline...the issue I have with it is that there was really no way to make Darkseid (or even the evil planet thing) look good enough on the budget they had.  Like with Doomsday....where it just looked silly.  Sometimes these CGI villains look terrible with a cinematic budget.

Smallville was always best when the villains looked human or when the villains had powers that could be shown using practical effects.  I think TV CGI has gotten better recently, but this was never going to work.

I agree with that.  Clark's way worked, and the final season could've/should've been how a guy like that would even want to be Superman.  It doesn't make a ton of sense for most versions of Clark, and it made even less sense for the Smallville version.  The whole "beacon for the world" idea could've made sense, but since the writers didn't really know where they were going with it, they threw so many ideas out there.  Lex clones, superhero registration, Lionel, Earth 2, Darkseid.  It was just a weird scattershot.

Well, the last shot is terrible.  I have no problem with the arguments Tom presented, but it didn't have to look so cheap.  It was obvious that they only had a portion of the Superman Returns costume and had no budget for anything better.  The idea that the show ends as soon as he's Superman is fine, but it could've been better.  If they truly were going to have an entire episode where he was going to be Superman then the 3 seconds that he was Superman could've been better.

Well to be fair, it's all forced for Clark.  He's this farmboy from Kansas who puts on this bright blue and red costume.  The red-blue blur makes a whole lot more sense for someone who should really be quiet and soft-spoken and want to stay out of the spotlight.  Batman's costume is, at the very least, functional.

I thought it was weird in Man of Steel too, honestly.  Clark had spent most of his life trying to blend in...he wears muted colors and Lois refers to him as a "ghost" - but he finds a blue/red onesie with a big cape and decides, "Yep, this is what I want to wear now"

I thought that was weird too.  He also says that it's weird, but he doesn't say goodbye either.  I thought it'd end with "have a good night!" or something goofy like that.

Well that's the article I read before I asked my question.  They already had a great director on set who was a part of the process from the beginning.  I'm curious if they asked Ben if he wanted to finish - doesn't that happen a lot?  An actor with directorial experience directs certain scenes?  I swear Ed Norton's done it a couple times.

What do the fans want?  A "Developed by the fans of supernatural?" credit?  Do they want to be hired as writers?  What's the plan?

I agree there.  But at the same time, I think they could've done it a couple of different ways publicly.  Maybe they say Superman died while he's off finding himself.  Or searching for Steppenwolf.  Or whatever. 

Because when you look at it the other way, people were worshiping Superman before he *rose from the dead*.  It already made Clark uncomfortable before....now it's going to be a thousand times worse.  And since Clark Kent was one of two people that died in the Doomsday attack....I think resurrecting Clark in any meaningful way is going to amount to simply admitting that he's Superman.  I don't know if we'll ever get Man of Steel 2 so maybe "Clark" won't matter.  But this would be a little different from the first Death and Return of Superman because a ton of people died in the comic battle and as far as I can tell only two died in BvS (Clark and Superman).

The marketing, though, is still weird to me.  If we all know that he's not dead, why pretend he is?  And if you're pretending he is, why is he now appearing front and center on stuff?  It's like the Harry stuff in Kingsman....I feel like I missed something.

Okay, I think that's fair.

But, again, what are we talking about here?  If we're talking about the destruction of the Earth, there are 348,470,000 people in the US and North Korea.  There are 7 billion other people on the planet that probably don't want to die because Kim Jong Un is crazy and Donald Trump is an idiot.  They have fully functioning state departments and capable leaders that a) don't want to die and b) could step in and help either diplomatically or militarily.  If China is just going to completely sit this out, then leader of the free world Angela Merkel could step in.  Or Theresa May.  Everyone seems to love Justin Trudeau - maybe he can help.

If we are talking about North Korea attacking us/South Korea/Japan/Hawaii/whoever, then it wouldn't really matter who was president.  North Korea has built up a nuclear program under Republican and Democratic presidents.  If Kim Jong Un is suicidal and decides to launch an attack, President Obama/Clinton/Sanders/Cruz/Biden/Pence wouldn't be able to stop that.  And if they were to nuke someone/anyone, then there would be be a war there either way.  The international community would have to step in because it'd be an act of war that would affect the whole planet.

There's no question that I'm not an expert on this stuff.  Call me an idiot if you want....I've certainly said enough stuff in my years here to earn that title.  But at the end of the day, I just think we aren't going to let the world end because of fucking Donald Trump.  And if we are, I certainly don't have any say over it so I'm not going to spend any time worrying about it.

It'd be 0% about saving Japan and 100% about saving themselves, but maybe they want to die.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017- … 488376.htm

This is from the Chinese-run media.

But the crux of the entire article is that they don't give a shit about what Donald Trump thinks or says.  They aren't going to run in and save him from the North Koreans because he told them to.  But at the same time, they aren't going to die because he's an idiot.  They aren't just going to sit around and hope he doesn't retaliate with a nuclear attack 500 miles away from Beijing.

Or maybe they will.  But any smart country is going to try and defend themselves against Trump's idiocy, and I assume China isn't any different.

You know what I mean.  Everyone assumed we'd be at war with someone like Bolivia because they'd make fun of his hair.  The only wars we're involved in are ones that Bush started.