Search options (Page 38 of 59)

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.

So to those of you adamantly anti-Trump....what's your best case scenario for a Trump presidency?  Do you want him to make / have made a greivous enough mistake that he has to be impeached before 2018?  Or just after 2018 when the Democrats might have more seats in Congress?  Do you want him to do enough damage to ensure a win in 2018/2020?  Do you want him to mess up and make mistakes so you have something to make fun of?  Or do you genuinely want him to succeed, knowing that his successes would be conservative ones?

It's really hard for me to tell.  The "resistance" loves to make fun of Trump's mistakes ("The Mooch" being the latest, but there have been tons) while also being "horrified" by them.  But when things run smoothly and stuff gets done (say, the travel ban) then that's also horrifying.

Understanding your hatred for him at a personal and professional level, is there anything he could do that would make you happy? 

Because, from my vantage point, the Trump presidency has actually been pretty optimal.  He's not doing a ton of damage, the rest of the world seems to be holding everything else pretty steady, we aren't in any wars, and there's an investigation to see if anything he's done to get elected is shady.  He's not doing anything outlandish or fascist (he's too incompetent for the latter), and he can't get anything pushed through a Republican-majority Congress.

And the revolving door of people in and out the White House is actually good in my eyes.  If Trump is constantly trying to work through chaos, he can't be instigating North Korea or doing anything stupid.  If he spends 90% of his time in office hiring and firing people, then that's only 10% of the time he has to do anything else.  To me, that's a win.

(This is why I feared Hillary more than Donald.  She would've actually governed, but poorly, for probably 8 years.  Donald is going to keep the country in neutral for probably less than four.  And standing still is better than going backwards).

Yeah, but it's just hard for him to say that Superman made him see the best in himself.  I mean maybe he prefaces it in the movie with "I was blinded, but..." (which is why I'm an a-hole for criticizing things out of context ) - it's just weird.  I'd actually really like to know where the other League members stand on Superman.  Barry knows about Batman (at least by reputation, he doesn't seem to know that Batman doesn't have powers based on the "I'm rich" exchange), but I'd like to see where everyone stands on Superman.

Well, I don't know about that for a couple reasons:

1. People don't change their minds easily, especially now.  I think if people hated Superman after Metropolis, everything that happened afterward would just back up that opinion.  There would be people who'd blame Superman for the explosion at Congress, and there'd be people that'd have "proof" that Doomsday and Superman were working together and Batman / the mysterious woman killed them both.

2. There were no witnesses.  No people were around.  The military would give their story, but that'd be the only story the people would hear.  I don't think Batman gives interviews (and he's feared too), and it's hard to tell what public persona Wonder Woman has, if any.  In Death of Superman, Clark died on international TV.  In this, he died under mysterious circumstances against an "unspecified" monster. 

It's obvious from the full military funeral and the Day of the Dead scene that a lot of people loved him.  No protests, apparently.  I just don't buy that it'd flip that fast.

I still maintain that the last 3 minutes is the most entertaining scene/scenes in Star Wars history.  I think it's what I've always wanted Star Wars to be, especially in terms of Vader.  And I liked it better than I liked Force Awakens because I think both are flawed and I wasn't caught up in all the "original trilogy" nostalgia because I'm not the world's biggest Star Wars fan (and I didn't love Force Awakens).

My biggest complaint wasn't with the script - I think Felicity Jones was way too wooden.  I don't know if she can act or not, but it was a prequel-quality performance.

Is that official?  Is that the first official reference to Superman being in this?

Ugh, there is so much "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" in government today.  The story being reported is that the Democrats have beaten the Republicans in the Health Care debate.  That's simply not true.  The Democrats and a group of Republicans beat a Republican-led initiative to overhaul health care.  The side led by Democrats won, but this was a bi-partisan effort.  If it was United Red vs. United Blue, then Red would have won.  It took Republicans to defeat the "Republican" bill.

I don't think anything is being made of the Republicans who crossed the line and voted with the Democrats.  In the Senate and in the House.

There's just "Republicans want people to die" and "Democrats are the only decent humans in Congress."  The whole thing makes me nauseous.

Ha, well, "back then" can also mean "in times when there wasn't anything else to do"