2,821

(759 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

From the SUPERNATURAL thread:

Grizzlor wrote:

S15 has been good so far.  It's a shame Informant has vanished, as they FINALLY brought back brother Adam from the cage!

ireactions wrote:

I’ll respond to this when my Chromebook laptop arrives in the mail. I’m currently down to a tablet for leisure computing; I’ve had to rip all entertainment and social media out of my Windows desktop to focus on Work. And I can’t do long form message board posts on an iPad.

Transmodiar wrote:
ireactions wrote:

I’ll respond to this when my Chromebook laptop arrives in the mail. I’m currently down to a tablet for leisure computing; I’ve had to rip all entertainment and social media out of my Windows desktop to focus on Work. And I can’t do long form message board posts on an iPad.

Important, urgent information. smile

ireactions wrote:

Well, I think it's somewhat relevant that I have bought a new computer for the sole purpose of posting on this message board. (It cost two figures and it's been held up at customs.)

Transmodiar wrote:

Two figures? I'll take a Chromebook for that price point!

See? It's important information and clearly somewhat urgent.

It's a Samsung Chromebook 3 with an Intel Celeron processor, 4GB of RAM and 32GB of storage. Found it on eBay with the search filters set to look up Chromebooks less than $100 and new (ha!), open box or manufacturer refurbished. I found an open box one. I'm still seeing a bunch on eBay in the $50 - 90 USD range, but with 16GB of storage.

Although God knows what will arrive in the mail: I'm told it's being held in Erlanger, Kentucky on suspicion of containing hazardous materials. For all I know, it contained an intelligent living flame or penicillin or a disc containing the unredacted Constitution or a super-intelligent snake or an anti-Kromagg virus or contraband coffee. This is as much as I can stand to type on an iPad.

2,822

(267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, I think it's somewhat relevant that I have bought a new computer for the sole purpose of posting on this message board. (It cost two figures and it's been held up at customs.)

2,823

(267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I’ll respond to this when my Chromebook laptop arrives in the mail. I’m currently down to a tablet for leisure computing; I’ve had to rip all entertainment and social media out of my Windows desktop to focus on Work. And I can’t do long form message board posts on an iPad.

2,824

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I guess, for me -- I already know my own capacity for savagery, cruelty, violence and debasement, and I don't need Nazi stories for that. That's not to say such stories shouldn't exist.

**

Another instance of ambiguity that I really like that is somewhat related to SLIDERS -- the TV show DOCTOR WHO (a British version of SLIDERS that pre-dates SLIDERS) was cancelled between 1989 and 2005 aside from a 1996 TV movie. Leading up to 2005 was a run of DOCTOR WHO novels featuring the eighth Doctor from the 1996 film. While the novels sold well and sustained the license and the brand, the show's return for 2005 was announced.

The eighth Doctor novels had a conclusion announced with its finale book, "The Gallifrey Chronicles," to be released after the 2005 TV show aired its first episode. There was a dreadful fear, at least for me, that these eighth Doctor novels that had been a part of my life for nearly a decade, would be wiped clean off the slate as the TV show was to feature a new actor as the ninth Doctor. Later on, the 2005 showrunner declared that he had no wish to contradict the novels although he would be unlikely to sequelize them either, and a later showrunner would point out that a time travel show like DOCTOR WHO cannot have a 'canon'; all the TV shows and spin-off material are true even if they contradict each other.

That said, I opened "The Gallifrey Chronicles" with great trepidation, fearing that the eighth Doctor and all his adventures would be treated dismissively or end abruptly. Instead, "The Gallifrey Chronicles" was a summation of the eighth Doctor's career in his books, spanning different eras of his time in his novels, validating the importance and value of each companion and all their adventures -- and then it ends on a cliffhanger. There are a number of loose threads where the Doctor will have to resolve them after the book's conclusion assuming he survives. And on the last page, the Doctor is about to leap into a volcano to face down an alien invasion that remains unfinished by the book's last page. It's unclear: is this where the Doctor dies and regenerates into the TV show Doctor? How do we go from "The Gallifrey Chronicles" to the first episode of 2005?

It's deliberately unfinished because the author, Lance Parkin, was making the point that just as "The Gallifrey Chronicles" had no end, the Doctor's adventures have no end and continue right into the TV show even if the Doctor now has a ninth face and exists in live action rather than prose. It was a comforting non-ending ending and I of course ripped that off for the "Slide Effects" script by resurrecting Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo but leaving them still lost, still sliding, still searching for home (albeit without Logan St. Clair chasing them or a Kromagg tracker or Arturo dying of a terminal illness). The last sentence of "The Gallifrey Chronicles" describes how the Doctor is staring down the volcano opening "and he leaps... " which, of course, I also stole for "Slide Effects"' last line.

2,825

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I have never watched THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE as we have plenty of Nazis in the real world with whom to contend and I would prefer to watch BROOKLYN NINE NINE. That said, as Chuck of SUPERNATURAL would say, endings are hard and even harder than endings is trying to use ambiguity.

Ambiguity can be handled beautifully or terribly and it's not terribly in vogue because in storytelling, an artificial representation of a fictitious reality, ambiguity can easily come off as indecisiveness with the writers unwilling to commit to a direction or create clarity in their narrative.

TV Tropes presents the movie BEFORE SUNRISE as the standard bearer for ambiguous endings. In BEFORE SUNRISE, two college kids meet on a train in Europe. Jesse's going back to New York the next day; Celine is heading home to Paris. With little money and a long layover in Vienna, they spend the night walking the streets, chattering endlessly, falling hopelessly in love and conflicted by their time now and the deadline approaching them. The movie deliberately ends with Jesse and Celine suddenly and abruptly promising they'll meet again in six months' time on the train platform where they're parting ways, fading out before revealing whether or not they made it.

In the sequel, made nine years later, Jesse is asked if he ever met Celine and he replies, "I think how you answer that is a good test if you're a romantic or a cynic"; the ambiguity is for the audience and not necessarily the characters.

One instance of ambiguity that worked for Slider_Quinn21 (and only Slider_Quinn21) -- the conclusion of LOST. (I have literally never seen anyone speak well of the LOST finale aside from him.) LOST ultimately never answered any questions as to why the island was so peculiar or offered any rationale to the paranormal anomalies there. FRINGE would have explained that there was a rip in reality between two parallel Earths; that the ripples of temporal and spatial energies were affected by the psychological states of any visitors to the island.

LOST suggested it would do so but ultimately shifted to focusing on the characters' personal journeys and was clear and definitive about the people even as the island was a foggy, variable element of vagueness, and as Slider_Quinn21 was primarily invested in the cast, the island is an unknown, ambiguous catalyst for stories defined more by how it affects the characters rather than its specific origin or method of operation.

THE X-FILES is the standard bearer for how ambiguity can go wrong by constantly establishing information and then reversing it. It spent its Season 9 finale laying out the alien colonization conspiracy and planned invasion; its Season 10 premiere immediately debunked and dismissed it because it was no longer convenient to explore or develop as the invasion date had passed between the hiatus of Seasons 9 - 10. The push and pull between debunking and validating and dismissing the conspiracy became so tangled and repetitive that even Slider_Quinn21, a gentleman who historically dislikes reboots, agreed that THE X-FILES should be rebooted.

I have literally never seen Slider_Quinn21 champion a reboot for any show other than THE X-FILES.

One story of ambiguity that hits the middle ground is an episode of VOYAGER, "Sacred Ground," a show that Slider_Quinn21 (and only Slider_Quinn21) enjoys. (I have literally never seen anyone other than Slider_Quinn21 express fondness for this series.) In "Sacred Ground," Kes is injured and Starfleet medical technology can't help her. Janeway engages in an alien religious ritual involving tests of faith and the show leaves it unclear what heals Kes.

However, the episode, while an intriguing piece of drama, feints and dodges between faith and science so much that it's not really clear what it's saying about either.

And one story of ambiguity that I really like is AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: "The Book of Ezekiel" (#506 - 509), the 2004 end to a story that started in 2001. In AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #471, Spider-Man is approached by Ezekiel, a middle-aged man with spider-powers just like Peter's.

Ezekiel knows Spider-Man's true identity and asks Peter: is he sure that the radioactive spider is what turned Peter Parker into Spider-Man? Given that the radioactive spider was destroyed and never examined, does Peter know for a fact that his powers came from the spider? Or is it possible that the spider unlocked something in Peter that was there all along?

Shortly after this, Peter is relentlessly hunted by a seemingly invincible energy vampire, Morlun, who has hunted 'animal-totems' across the globe, draining the lifeforce of superhumans who have the powers of animals. With Ezekiel's help, Peter barely survives. Peter continues to explore the mystical side of his powers in subsequent stories and investigate Ezekiel, a billionaire industrialist who appears at various crises in Spider-Man's life to give him advice. Ezekiel informs Peter that his powers are part of a mystical "web of life."

In "The Book of Ezekiel," Peter discovers that as a young man, Ezekiel learned about the mystical "web of life" where the totemistic powers of animal spirits may be granted to humans. Decades ago, Ezekiel used his wealth to convince a shaman to trick the web of life into granting Ezekiel spider-powers, enhanced longevity and physicality -- but decades later, predators like Morlun eventually began hunting Ezekiel for his life force and Ezekiel approached Spider-Man to serve as a larger target, defeat the predators -- and now Ezekiel has prepared a ritual where he will feed Spider-Man to a mystical spider-entity as a sacrifice to free Ezekiel from any further attacks.

However, when Peter is tied up, the two bond telepathically in the ritual and Ezekiel sees Peter's entire life flash before his eyes; Ezekiel realizes that Peter has spent his entire life helping others whereas Ezekiel enriched himself; Ezekiel takes Peter's place in the sacrifice and dies to free him. A revived Peter finds the shaman and asks him: where do his spider-powers come from? Do they come from the science of radioactivity altering the genetic structure of a spider and altering Peter's DNA? Or do they come from a mystical web of life of magical totemistic energies?

The shaman replies that tomorrow, the sun will rise. Peter would describe that as the result of gravity, light transmission, planetary rotation and visual observation of vanishing points and horizons. But the shaman would say that it rises because it is meant to rise. And that he sees no difference between either perspective.

I initially ripped this off in SLIDERS REBORN in Part 5, a script where Quinn (Jerry O'Connell) is trapped in a burning building and hallucinating and sees Mallory (Robert Floyd) who encourages Quinn not to give up and find a way out. In the script, Quinn asks Mallory: "Are you really here? Or are you just a manifestation of my subconscious mind?"

The original response from Mallory was: ""The 1995 limitation. You're trying to fix it. You'd say you're at war with a broken reality and the warped rules of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. But I'd tell you -- you're in a war of indifference versus compassion. Apathy versus hope. Determinism versus potential. I see no difference. Do you?"

Transmodiar wrote:

What the hell is that?! Just have Mallory say, "Yes." Why do you have to spell everything out? Why can't you just let the reader experience it on their own terms? Why do you have to write sentences that have terms like "The 1995 Limitation"?

That's a good name for a band, though.

I am not very happy with Part 5. The only part I like is Quinn's question and Transmodiar's response to it. In addition, Slider_Quinn21 is the only person who enjoyed Part 5.

I have literally never received any positive feedback on it from anyone but him.

2,826

(34 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Spyfall: Part Two.

*facepalm* A faceful of *facepalm*

I'd say a massive problem: Disney decided they wanted a new STAR WARS episode every two years. This led to exhaustion and burnout: the cast were strained severely; Rian Johnson declined to sign on for EPISODE IX when EPISODE VII was demanding all his time and energy; JJ Abrams and Chris Terrio were given two years to write, film, edit and release IX -- and now everyone is worn out.

Daniel Craig was worn out from SPECTRE from working 18 hour days and relentless fitness training and also being at the end of his contract and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But he wasn't happy with how SPECTRE turned out, so he consented to try to give his Bond another finale.

The development schedule also seems to have been an issue on SOLO where directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were slowly taking time to let their cast improvise and leading to massive overtime. This didn't suit the factory production model that Disney had stipulated, leading to the no-fuss hyperefficiency Ron Howard hired to replace them.

With a TV show where actors are doing 20 - 22 episodes a year, rest periods are build into the schedule because TV shows stick to specific shooting locations and sets. Also, it's possible to give Jared and Jensen a week off now and then and let an episode focus on Jodie Mills or Eileen or Rowena. Blockbuster films are a relentless race to the finish with STAR WARS films being made all around the world. On the two year schedule, a period of rest is immediately followed by another driven march to finish.

I think Disney may have tried to squeeze too much out of STAR WARS too soon with three core features and two spinoffs so soon. They probably should have aimed for one movie every three years with JJ Abrams leading the stories and supervising directors to handle filming and performances, and only after that should they have entered the spinoffs and TV shows.

Admittedly, the financial success is mostly there, but there is also some withdrawal as Disney has elected to let the film franchise rest for now and focus on TV.

2,828

(34 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Spyfall was an extremely mediocre episode. The production values are superb, all the actors are engaged, the series is beautifully shot -- but the writing is so devoid of imagination, wit or anything resembling a point regarding any worthwhile subject at all. Spoilers.














I assumed that DOCTOR WHO, if pastiching James Bond, would subvert and question the conventions of those films. Instead, it simply re-enacts them in an empty and often illogical fashion and the middle of the episode flat out forgets the Bond elements and has the Doctor running around in an outback ghost story. When it does dive into Bondian material, it plays it completely straight: Ryan and Yaz infiltrating a building, the Doctor and friends swanning about a fancy party, then a motorcycle chase followed by pursuing a plane. And none of these sequences make any sense and suggest that Chibnall doesn't have the imagination to write the Doctor well.

Why does the Doctor, attending Daniel Barton's to spy on him, confront him overtly and cause him to run? If she wanted to surveil him, why did she draw attention to herself?

Why does the Doctor then let Daniel Barton run away before declaring that she and her friends must capture him? If she wanted him confined, why didn't she trick him into getting into the TARDIS to question him?

Why do the Doctor and her companions then pursue a fleeing Barton on motorcycles? They have a time and space craft; they could have looked up the nearest VOR facility and TARDISed there and been waiting for Barton before he made it.

Why do the Doctor and friends race across a hangar to leap aboard a plane instead of returning to their time and space craft and materializing it aboard the plane moments before it takes off?

Why are these errors here? It looks like Chibnall wanted the specific setpieces in there and they are indeed beautifully filmed, performed, edited, scored and the effects are terrific -- but the connective tissue between them is a tangled script of clumsy choices that speak to Chibnall lacking the style, inspiration and perspective needed to write a time traveller.

It's really unfortunate, because DOCTOR WHO subverted the superhero genre in "The Return of Dr. Mysterio," noting the silliness of the disguises and secret identities and giving the superhero a decidedly de-masculinized job as a nanny and bringing the Doctor's trickery and cunning into a formula that usually relies on force and physicality. DOCTOR WHO also showed the Doctor present throughout the superhero's life, from their secret origin to their awkward teens to the adult career.

DOCTOR WHO taking on James Bond tropes could do the same: it could even observe how Bond is a secret agent who uses his real name and draws attention to himself constantly with a playboy lifestyle that makes a public spectacle of covert operations and is entirely at odds with the less than glamourous life of espionage. Instead, it plays it so straight while forgetting all about the Bond theme for lengthy sections to the point where it's a non-committal affectation rather than a meaningful style.

Good cliffhanger, though.

I think the only way we're going to be able to get a sense of what the intentions were and how much of a plan, if any, was in place, is to wait. Eventually, Colin Trevorrow's vision of EPISODE IX before Carrie Fisher died will be revealed and then we'll know what the ground beef would have been.

It’s hard to say what the plan was because Colin Trevorrow has declined to elaborate on what his version of EPISODE IX would have been. I find it unhelpful to look at Trevorrow’s filmography: SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED is a sweet little indie romance film with hints of science fiction. JURASSIC WORLD is... uh, I’ve never seen it. I can’t see Trevorrow continuing with Rian Johnson’s approach, however. And I don’t think Abrams threw out Trevorrow’s material. Kennedy said that IX had been planned as Carrie Fisher’s film much as VIII was Mark Hamill’s and VII was Harrison Ford’s. Which means that Trevorrow’s material was discarded because it relied upon Carrie Fisher being alive to perform in it.

I think that the original intent was that THE FORCE AWAKENS would be a safe, reverential entry made by remix artist JJ Abrams followed by an iconoclastic, high cinema entry from Rian Johnson followed by... something. Unfortunately, what we got was a safe, reverential opening act, an iconoclastic, high cinema middle chapter — and then a safe, reverential closing entry that seems like an urgent reversal, but that has more to do with Kennedy electing to hire a safe, reverential director to come in after Trevorrow.

I read that Colin Trevorrow was reviewing THE LAST JEDI and monitoring where Rian Johnson's film EPISODE IX was going to prepare for filming the next movie. He confirmed that he had asked Johnson to include at least one additional scene -- it's where Rey introduces herself to Poe. Johnson didn't have it in his original script, but Trevorrow asked for it to be filmed. He wanted to be spared the need to have Rey and Poe meet for the first time in EPISODE IX.

However, whatever plans were in place were scrapped when Carrie Fisher died and then Trevorrow left. Instead of a third director taking the third installment in a style that would build upon the second, the third installment looped back to the approach of the opening act. It might seem symmetrical and fitting; it might also seem disjointed and contradictory.

I guess, for me, I don't really expect anything as provocative, subversive and individual as THE LAST JEDI from tentpole blockbusters and it was a pleasant surprise with the second film, but I never expected such iconoclasm to be sustained. It's sort of like on SUPERNATURAL where I enjoy the eccentric comedy episodes now and then, but I don't expect them to be the bulk of the season or the season premiere or the series finale.

I think of STAR WARS as fast food and while it's wonderful to have something as cinematically groundbreaking as STAR WARS (1977) or as high quality as THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK or as clever as THE LAST JEDI, I don't expect it. I generally expect a STAR WARS movie to be at about the level of THE RISE OF SKYWALKER. It's competent and professional. It's a Mighty Angus burger from McDonalds; arguably the best burger to be found in that specific fast food menu using never-frozen meat and well-baked buns, but it's still just fast food.

Palpatine is an awkward reversal on RETURN OF THE JEDI and I'd agree his presence is to give the Disney trilogy a definitive conclusion by undoing RETURN OF THE JEDI's ending to repeat it. I think Abrams had intent that Rey would be Palpatine's granddaughter, but with Disney setting a schedule for STAR WARS episodes to be released every two years, he didn't expect to direct anything after THE FORCE AWAKENS. In fact, the two year schedule and the desire to have Abrams direct THE FORCE AWAKENS meant he couldn't act in a Kevin Feige type role for the subsequent films or direct the second one, much in the same way Rian Johnson was asked to direct THE RISE OF SKYWALKER but was too busy with THE LAST JEDI.

In addition, Disney wanting of a summer blockbuster finale to the Disney trilogy conflicts with expanding on Rian Johnson's ideas. Even if THE LAST JEDI ended with claiming that it would be new characters who would defy the First Order, it's John Boyega, Daisy Ridley and Oscar Issac who are on contract to return and the studio was going to make full use of their actors for their final films. Therefore, THE RISE OF SKYWALKER acknowledges that the Force is strong within two former stormtroopers, so it makes a token nod to THE LAST JEDI but doesn't focus on it.

In the future, it might be best if one person creatively oversees the writers and directors whether that person is Abrams, Johnson or someone else.

Personally, I feel that Rian Johnson is such an eccentric visionary that it would be foolish for anyone other than Rian Johnson to continue and elaborate on his approach, so what we have is Abrams making an action movie that includes references to Johnson's material but doesn't make it integral to Abrams' movie. That said, I don't feel THE LAST JEDI is dismissed; at the end of that film, Luke declared that he wouldn't be the last Jedi and that the Resistance would be reborn, so Luke saying, "I was wrong" in RISE is continuing that.

I am okay with THE LAST JEDI being an unusual outlier bookended by two more conventional entries. I think it's cool that we have a very reverential opening in THE FORCE AWAKENS, a wider exploration of settings and themes in THE LAST JEDI and then a return to conventionality in RISE.

I don't disagree with the tennis metaphor, but I don't feel that Johnson and Abrams are on different sides; they just have different tools for expressing similar sentiments ("Rey is nobody from nowhere and has to define herself on her own terms" / "Rey is the granddaughter of Darth Sidious and has to reject that and define herself on her own terms") and it can feel like they're in opposition because their styles are so dissimilar.

Without being in any way denigrating to Abrams, I would say that he makes ice cream whereas Johnson makes crème brûlée. They're both good.

I enjoyed RISE OF SKYWALKER and am happy with it, but a lot of people aren't and I have a lot of room in my heart and head for different views.

Style: RISE OF SKYWALKER is so tautly, quickly, forcefully paced that it goes by fast. JJ Abrams is an entertainer whereas Rian Johnson is a philosopher. Rian Johnson was making pointed remarks about dynastic bloodlines, military strategy, theocratic governance and the hollowness of legacies. Abrams is making the point that it is COOL to have the Millennium Falcon flash-jump to different planets and to have Rey take down a TIE Interceptor with a lightsaber.

Space: STAR WARS has the space to welcome both, but it does leave RISE OF SKYWALKER open to valid criticisms: that it is shallow where THE LAST JEDI was deep. Also, THE LAST JEDI let the Empire/First Order win, had the Rebels/Resistance reduced from an army of hundreds of thousands to maybe 40 - 50 people aboard the Falcon, the Jedi represented only by Leia (whose actor died shortly after filming) and Rey (who is physically capable but emotionally troubled).

This is a massive shift from the capable if underpowered Rebels of A NEW HOPE and EMPIRE and a total reversal of their apparent victory in RETURN OF THE JEDI.

Repetition: In contrast, RISE OF SKYWALKER ends with the Rebels/Resistance having triumphed by killing Emperor Palpatine which seems significantly important except they'd accomplished the same thing in RETURN OF THE JEDI which means RISE OF SKYWALKER is in the unfortunate position of resurrecting Palpatine just to kill him again.

In a few decades time, we may find Rey leading a losing resistance once again while the Empire dominates the galaxy with, I dunno, a resurrected Phasma in charge.

Mastermind: However. RISE OF SKYWALKER establishes that the destruction of the Death Star 2.0 in RETURN OF THE JEDI was merely a decisive battle and that the Emperor survived but in so damaged a body that he can't leave his life support system. Which means that the Resistance being on the losing side of THE FORCE AWAKENS and THE LAST JEDI was all due to the Emperor running the First Order through the Emperor speaking through the Snoke clones (earlier versions of which are glimpsed in Palpatine's lair).

Details: Furthermore, RISE establishes that the planet of Exogol houses the Emperor's fleet; destroy the fleet, kill the Emperor, and the First Order loses all coordination and leadership as well as their most powerful weapons, so even though RETURN declared that destroying the Death Star 2.0 would be the final and decisive battle, RISE does some work to say that this showdown on Exogol will truly be the final and decisive battle and they meant it before but this time they mean it for realzies, but this is a yet another rerun.

RISE splits various hairs to claim this finale really counts, but if RETURN didn't count, why should this?

Reversal: Fans are also offended by Luke saying that he was wrong to have the attitude he did in THE LAST JEDI and Rey being revealed as not being nobody from nowhere but the Empress of the Sith and Palatine's granddaughter.

Enjoyable: I personally am not blind to these problems, but I feel that RISE OF SKYWALKER gets past all of these issues by being so quickly paced. Each scene flies by so fast with a minimum of exposition. Chris Terrio's script is expressive and sparingly dialogued. Where THE LAST JEDI was deliberate and controlled, RISE OF SKYWALKER is a relentless adrenaline burst and skillfully hurried and therefore a lot of fun.

Entertainer: There's also a certain desperation that reflects the pressure Abrams was under. Abrams has talked about how, when directing STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS, he lost track of the core themes of the story and just tried to make each scene as exciting as possible and hoped it would be coherent.

It looks like he has attempted the same with RISE OF SKYWALKER where he was parachuted into the film with two years to write, pre-produce, film and edit the movie; the previous script had been thrown out due to Carrie Fisher's death.

Continuation: Rian Johnson shuttered the Resistance, killed off Luke, left the First Order victorious, and suggested that the First Order would be defeated not by the Jedi and not by the Resistance but by a new generation of heroes. Abrams had to create a script that would follow up on all that but also feature Daisy Ridley, John Boyega and Oscar Isaacs front and center, address Carrie Fisher's absence, resolve the Resistance/First Order conflict, conclude Kylo Ren's situation and serve as a finale.

Necessities: As a result, some of Abrams' obligations conflict with Rian Johnson's vision in THE LAST JEDI; THE LAST JEDI proposes that the STAR WARS universe continue with new characters in a First Order dominated galaxy with an open-ended approach; Abrams is required to cobble together a conclusion by undoing RETURN OF THE JEDI to restage its victory.

THE LAST JEDI suggests moving onto new characters represented by the boy with the broom and Rose Tico; Abrams is contractually obligated to have his core cast feature front and center and build their relationships with each other and conclude them in the same movie as they had only one scene together in the previous film.

Acknowledgement Without Focus: Due to this need, Rose Tico becomes anonymous base personnel. RISE OF SKYWALKER also fails to focus on the idea that there may be heroes outside the Resistance and the Jedi Order and the Skywalker families, but it does nod to it with Finn and Jannah both being former stormtroopers who have Force sensitivity.

And due to the need to reintroduce the Emperor to defeat him again and offer a sense of closure, Abrams is required to link him to a core cast member and chooses to reveal him as Rey's grandfather.

Blood: This last one rankles severely with fans. Fans who are adopted children were hurt by RISE OF SKYWALKER suggesting that people need to have defined bloodlines to have identities; critics have noted that the idea of children of legacies being above others is undemocratic and has no place in a world where people should be evaluated by ability and attitude over birth; viewers are irked that RISE OF SKYWALKER suggests that only people from important families can make a difference.

Harmony: Personally, I see all of that, but what I also see is another note to THE LAST JEDI, a film that declared that heroes can come from anywhere. When Rey confessed in THE LAST JEDI that her parents "were nobody," it was a moment of grief and loss.

When Rey discovers that her grandfather is Palpatine, she is consumed with self-loathing, isolating herself to Ahch To as Luke did, burning her spacecraft, throwing away the lightsaber -- only for Luke to catch it and inform her that Luke and Leia have known all along about Rey's parentage and still chose to teach her, Luke in his indirect and cynical fashion and Leia with wholehearted love and devotion.

And while THE LAST JEDI has Luke declaring that it is time for the Jedi to end, his final scenes in that film had him changing his mind, saying that he wouldn't be the last after all, so Luke in RISE OF SKYWALKER declaring that he was wrong in THE LAST JEDI to isolate himself is continuing Luke from where Rian Johnson left him.

Legacy: THE LAST JEDI also had Luke calling the Jedi Order a legacy of failure noting that the prequels showed them to be incompetent (they allow slave labour to prosper), blind (they allowed the Sith to rise in their own government) and not worth preserving. RISE OF SKYWALKER has Luke telling Rey that she must face Palpatine or the Jedi will die, but Luke is noticeably not calling for the Jedi to be restored as a governing body; he merely wants there to be at least one Jedi in the galaxy and for that Jedi to be Rey.

Identity: There is affirmation and beauty in Luke revealing that he and his sister chose to see Rey in terms of who she was and could be instead of where she came from because, as THE LAST JEDI declared, heroes can indeed come from anywhere and I think that's summed up beautifully in the final scene. "I'm Rey." "'Rey' who?" "Rey Skywalker."

In taking on the Skywalker name with Luke and Leia watching approvingly, Rey is committing not to bloodlines -- but to the legend of Luke Skywalker as a person who will (in the end) help people find light and hope whether they're Darth Vader or the last 40 - 50 fighters in a failed Resistance or the Empress of the Sith.

Action: And it was nice to see all this in a fast-paced, driven, exciting action movie with so many cool scenes from Rey and Kylo fighting in the wreckage of the Death Star 2.0, the light-speed skipping sequences, Rey's obstacle course, Rey aided to victory by previous the voices of Jedi.

There's also some nice loophole logic where the Emperor declares that Rey killing him in rage and hatred will allow him to possess her body; Rey instead reflects the Emperor's lightning back at him and he kills himself.

I liked THE LAST JEDI as a thoughtful, contemplative film of defeat and I like RISE OF SKYWALKER as a widescreen action extravaganza of victory that harmonizes with THE LAST JEDI but is more of a crowdpleaser. I find that THE LAST JEDI and RISE OF SKYWALKER aren't at odds; they're saying similar things but with very different words spoken by very different people and I'm happy to have both.

Disclaimer: I may be in the minority on this. I liked JUSTICE LEAGUE, after all.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Something I've been thinking about since I saw the movie a second time?  Does Rian Johnson hate the Force Awakens?  I feel like he took a lot of stuff from that movie and either openly made fun of it or snuffed it out.  Is it pretty consistent that people that liked TFA didn't like TLJ and vice versa?

Slider_Quinn21 made a list of all the ways THE LAST JEDI dismissed THE FORCE AWAKENS and I have updated his list to reflect THE RISE OF SKYWALKER (spoilers follow):





















The Rey/Luke scene where Rey holds Luke's lightsaber out to him:
TFA - Treated like a huge deal/cliffhanger.
TLJ - Treated like a joke.  Luke throws the lightsaber away and walks off.
ROS - Rey throws Luke's rebuilt lightsaber towards a fire, Luke catches it and remarks that a Jedi's weapon should be treated with more respect.

Anakin's Lightsaber
TFA -This is the key.  Why is it back after so long?  How did it get here?  Now that Luke has it, what will happen?!?
TLJ - Luke doesn't care about it.  Ends up destroyed.
ROS - Leia has rebuilt the blade and presents it to Rey to indicate that she is a worthy inheritor to the family legacy. Rey later tries to destroy it again, but Luke tells her that he was wrong to throw it away as he did and wrong to turn his back on the galaxy.

Kylo Ren's Costume:
TFA - "Here's your new Vader!"
TLJ - Treated like a joke.  Snoke specifically says that the helmet and the costume is dumb, and it seems like Kylo did it on his own because he thought it looked cool.  Kylo destroys the helmet and never wears it again.
ROS - Kylo rebuilds the helmet but keeps taking it off and ultimately sheds it as he switches sides.

Rey's Parents:
TFA - A huge mystery.  Maybe *the* mystery of the entire new trilogy.
TLJ - They were no one.  Doesn't matter.
ROS - Rey's parents were no one; her grandfather was Emperor Palpatine (possibly procreating in yet another one of his Force-augmented genetics experiments as he created Anakin), planning to use Rey as a younger vessel to house his consciousness and continue his reign of terror.

Maz:
TFA - This character knows everything.  Knows everyone.  She holds all the secrets if you know how to ask.
TLJ - She doesn't have time for this movie.  Get your deus ex machina somewhere else.
ROS - Provides exposition to cover what Carrie Fisher's limited dialogue couldn't explain; that Leia is giving herself over to the Force in an effort to save Rey from Kylo Ren.

Hux:
TFA - Here's your new Tarkin.
TLJ - Except he's a total idiot.
ROS - And ultimately self-serving, not interested in the First Order except for his rank and class, and fed up with Kylo Ren's leadership.

Phasma:
TFA - She's a badass.  You'll see.
TLJ - Not really.  Maybe dead?
ROS - Really dead.

Snoke:
TFA - This dude is the ultimate evil.  Very mysterious.  Fear him.
TLJ - Wears a dumb-looking gold robe.  Cut in half.  He doesn't matter.
ROS - And was ultimately a clone (and one of many) whom Palpatine used as a puppet for his own voice and actions as the actual Palpatine was a damaged, flawed clone form dependent upon life support systems that kept him isolated to a single location.

Rey:
TFA - Everyone loves Rey, and she's great at everything.  Always rescues herself.
TLJ - Luke wants nothing to do with her.  Suspects she might be evil.  She struggles with her training.  Has to be rescued by Kylo in the Throne Room.
ROS - Is the granddaughter of Emperor Palpatine which Luke and Leia sensed and knew all along and is why she had her astonishing control of the Force and machines and weapons with zero training. Can access dark side powers like Force lightning, but also light side powers like Force healing. Becomes the living embodiment of all Jedi in all history and chooses, with Luke and Leia's blessing, to declare her name to be "Rey Skywalker."

Finn and Poe:
TFA - Finn is an insider with so much knowledge of the First Order.  Can use that to take them down, and Poe is the only guy daring enough to help him do it.
TLJ - Finn's plan is ridiculous and doesn't work at all.  Nearly gets everyone killed.  Poe's plans are reckless and gets tons of people killed.
ROS - Finn and Poe have learned to work together and when to take chances and when not to; they've also learned that while they couldn't ask the galaxy to come to their rescue as a doomed resistance, they can lead the galaxy if their fight offers the chance to truly make a difference. Also, they note that certain tactics in TLJ like the Holdo Maneuver were unique to certain individuals and are unlikely to be replicated.

Nostalgia:
TFA - Star Wars is the best!  Here's a reference!  And another!  Look, a bigger Death Star!  The Millennium Falcon!  Anakin's Lightsaber!
TLJ - "Let the past die.  Kill it if you have to."
ROS - Here's a reference and another and another, look, Star Destroyers with Death Star weaponry, the Falcon, Anakin's lightsaber and the voices of Samuel L. Jackson, Liam Neeson, Hayden Christiansen, Ewan McGregor, Olivia D'Abo, Ashley Eckstein, Jennifer Hale, Frank Oz, Angelique Perrin and Freddie Prinze Jr.! But also some small roles from various non-Jedi and Finn to indicate that the Jedi are not the be-all, end-all of the Force as TLJ established -- although we'll definitely stick to Jedi characters AND have Luke Skywalker tell Rey that he was wrong to say that the Jedi should end and that it's important that she preserve the Jedi and face down Palpatine.

A lot of fans seem to consider THE RISE OF SKYWALKER a repudiation of THE LAST JEDI just as Slider_Quinn21 felt THE LAST JEDI was a counterargument against THE FORCE AWAKENS.

I personally feel a bit torn about it. I really liked THE LAST JEDI and RISE OF SKYWALKER and I don't feel that the two movies are against each other, but they are bringing in different perspectives and have very different goals and while RISE OF SKYWALKER hits different notes from THE LAST JEDI, I personally feel that those notes are mostly in harmony.

The vast majority of the world disagrees strongly and I don't want to go full Informant and say that everyone else is wrong; I'll just say that I like Rian Johnson a lot, I like JJ Abrams a lot, but they don't make the same kinds of movies and I have space in my heart for both.

I really enjoyed RISE OF SKYWALKER and thought JJ Abrams made an enjoyable, professional product that will make the fans happy.

2,836

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I’ve heard a lot of weird rumours, some likely, some from the desperate. There are SMALLVILLE fans insisting Welling will be back because Marc Guggenheim said there was a scene with three Supermen — which appears at this writing to be the scene with Brandon Routh playing Superman and Ray interacting with Tyler Hoechlin. There are SMALLVILLE fans insisting that Welling’s voice has been in the trailers delivering lines that, in the aired episodes, were spoken by Grant Gustin. That said, I imagine that a quick shot of Welling and Durance seeing red skies fade could easily have been done during Welling’s one day of filming.

I think having the older Barry sacrifice himself in our Barry’s place works from a plotting standpoint, but it feels awkward because the older Barry first appeared in ELSEWORLDS but had no arc or relationships with the regular cast, so his sacrifice doesn’t hold weight unless you were a big fan of the 1990s FLASH. It also highlights another problem: the Monitor killed all the heroes on Earth-90 and all the civilians in his effort to ‘test’ heroes — but CRISIS has presented this genocidal character as a hero. Hopefully, CRISIS can patch this by restoring Earth-90 if not the John Wesley Shipp version of Barry.

2,837

(74 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Another thought -- I said here that Informant is not a men's rights activist or a neo-Nazi or a white supremacist or a birther or a scam artist. However, I should specify that there is no Informant; Informant is merely the character that Kyle played on Sliders.TV and the character of Informant may or may not reflect the person who performed the role. Please don't call me in as a character witness if Informant or the man who was Informant ends up in court for any reason.

2,838

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's possible that Lois and Clark adopted. It's also possible that time runs differently in different dimensions which "As Time Goes By" and "The Guardian" established and which should naturally apply to the Arrowverse BECAUSE.

I don't think Earth-167 is gone for good; CRISIS opens with the TITANS universe being destroyed and the second episode had BLACK LIGHTNING's universe erased as well. Except TITANS and BLACK LIGHTNING are still producing new episodes, so one would think that CRISIS Part 5 will restore them all.

2,839

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I liked the SMALLVILLE scene, but I understand why fans didn't. Many seem to think Clark woke up one morning and decided to stir some Gold Kryptonite into his eggs. But I imagined a very different story in which Clark lost his powers, and if Rosenbaum had signed on, maybe it would have been explained fully like this:

Luthor (Earth-38) throws a furious punch at Clark (Earth-167). Clark easily catches the fist and decks Luthor.

CLARK: "Still stronger."

LUTHOR: (fuming) "You backwards, subliterate hick from nowhere!" (grabbing the Book of Destiny) "I'm going to turn you inside out until all that's left of you are rags and denim! I'm going to -- "

From off camera, the AXE that Clark dropped swings in. The flat of the blade strikes Luthor in the head and he falls and drops the book. We see who swung the axe. It's a man in a bleach-white suit with a subtly superior expression, a bizarre contrast to the farmland surroundings. It's Lex Luthor (Michael Rosenbaum).

LEX: "You came to the wrong farm."

LUTHOR: (from the ground) "You! What's WRONG with you!" (waving at Clark) "He's POWERLESS! Why haven't you KILLED him!?"

LEX: "He's my friend."

Luthor's eyes nearly pop out of his sockets.

LUTHOR: (sputtering) "He's your 'friend'!? Are you deficient!?"

LEX: "The Braniac 5 virus was going to wipe out the world. Superman contained it. I set off a nuclear implosion to take it out for good -- and me along with it. Superman absorbed the blast. Took in the radiation. And then expelled it along with all his solar energy. He gave up his power for me."

Clark smiles, Lex picks up the Book of Destiny and opens it.

LEX: "I saved the world. Clark saved me -- and gave me a chance to change my life."

LUTHOR: "That book gives you the power to change it too! Look at you! A pet to this glorified day laborer! He's made you a shadow of yourself. Use that book and rise!"

Lex leafs through the Book.

LEX: "This book gives you the power to control the destiny of every person in this world. It comes from the multiverse."

CLARK: (warningly) "Lex -- "

LEX: "I'm giving it back."

A portal appears. Lex throws the book into it, then grabs Luthor by the collar.

LEX: "I've closed off this Earth to any more visitors and taken it off the multiversal grid. Antimatter waves or you -- you won't be coming back. Now go."

Lex throws Luthor into the portal and it instantly closes.

LEX: (to Clark) "You alright?"

CLARK: (warmly) "You should'a called. I would've made up a room for you."

LEX: (reaching to the ground to pick up a grocery bag) "I had the Secret Service drop me in quietly. Wanted to surprise you with my latest attempt at your mother's apple pie."

LOIS: (off camera) "Clark!"

Lois (Erica Durance) steps in the scene.

LOIS: "Oh, Lex. If you haven't killed anyone in the last eight years, you can come hang out." (to Clark) "Did something just happen here?"

CLARK: "An alternate Luthor tried to kill me and Lex saved me."

LEX: "Also, the multiverse outside our reality might be ending."

LOIS: "Smallville and Chromedome, you both made a funny! It's taken you about a decade, but you're getting the hang of it."

CLARK: "What did the girls make?"

LOIS: "A mess. They can't wait for you and Uncle Lex to see it."

CLARK: "Oh. That sounds like a job -- for us."

I think SMALLVILLE as a TV show was one long build to Clark putting on the suit which it failed to deliver. CRISIS, however, acknowledges that Clark's superhero career and the costume were ultimately outside SMALLVILLE's purview (for better or for worse).

Admittedly, SMALLVILLE as conceived could only have lasted for four years and stayed effective: it was about the high school years of Clark Kent. For the show to maintain its "no flights, no tights" policy, Season 4 of SMALLVILLE should have ended with Clark graduating from high school, stopping some mass destruction event while wearing the red jacket and blue shirt, but being spotted at a distance by children who would layer draw what they recall as a man in a blue bodysuit and red cape with an S-symbol on his chest. Martha would make Clark the costume, but Clark would decline to wear it, saying he needed to leave Smallville, travel the world, understand what he could do for the planet as a whole, and when ready, he would come back and wear it then.

However, the unexpected longevity of the show put it in a position where the plot expectations called for Clark to put on a costume and Tom's insistence on maintaining the "no flights, no tights" policy was at odds with SMALLVILLE continuing even after the high school years. SMALLVILLE fans, I suspect, wanted CRISIS to make up for "Finale" by truly showing Clark as Superman, but CRISIS instead chose to represent its SMALLVILLE scenes with a scene that actually represented what SMALLVILLE was as a TV show which was a show about "a guy working on his farm," as Clark put it.

Ultimately, that's yet another anti-climax in a series that was full of them and that frustrates those fans again: they spent 10 years waiting for Clark to become Superman and now they're told he was only Superman from 2011 - 2019.

However, I do think that Clark "gave up" his powers in a major, cataclysmic conclusion to his Superman career and given that he wasn't all that concerned about Lex trying to kill him, it suggested to me (and only me) that Lex is no longer a threat to humanity and that they're on good terms.

2,840

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Some thoughts on CRISIS casting *spoilers*

































Kevin Conroy's Bruce Wayne did not sound like Kevin Conroy doing his Batman voice, but he's considerably older than when I last heard him. Kate recognizes Kevin Conroy as Bruce, but remarks that he isn't the Bruce she knew which seems to be the show both leaving it open to having Conroy play Bruce in BATWOMAN or having another performer in the part. Except Luke Fox is played by the same actor at the same age on Conroy's world and on Earth 1, so............

I've seen some displeasure at CRISIS showing Brandon Routh's Superman having lost his entire supporting cast to the Joker and Tom Welling's Clark having given up his powers.

However, that seems an inevitability of the production. Kate Bosworth and Frank Langella would have been unaffordable for a TV production, so CRISIS had to account for their absences. In a nice moment, CRISIS reveals that after SUPERMAN RETURNS, Lois and Clark found their way back to each other and got married and that Clark and Jason became father and son. (Hopefully, James Marsden's Richard character wasn't vaporized like he was in X-MEN III.)

And Tom Welling had visibly aged and put on an average amount of weight for an average middle-aged man and was no longer doing the bodybuilding he used to, so CRISIS had to account for why Tom's version of Clark was clearly no longer superhuman. They had to work with the actors they had; they didn't have SUPERMAN RETURNS' Lois or Perry and it would've been odd to have Sam Huntington's Jimmy without them, and they didn't have Tom Welling in superhero shape.

Also, despite the showrunner saying that he considers the SMALLVILLE: SEASON 11 comic books to be canonical to CRISIS, that's unfortunately not the case. SEASON 11 dealt with the multiverse and multiple Earths quite extensively with Monitors and a Crisis of its own, and that cannot be reconciled with the Arrowverse version of CRISIS. In addition, SMALLVILLE: SEASON 11 had Clark becoming extremely well-acquainted with the multiverse, so Clark's ignorance of the concept in CRISIS indicates that this is not in the same continuity as the post-show comics; instead, both the comics and CRISIS exist on parallel tracks as potential outcomes for what happened after "Finale."

There's a lack of acknowledgement towards the casting -- nobody comments on why Tom Welling doesn't look like Tyler Hoechlin -- which becomes strange when everyone comments on how Brandon Routh's Ray and Clark look the same. Not even a line about how "universes take different shapes; so can the people in them." But intriguingly, Bitsie Tulloch's Lois and Brandon Routh's Clark feel an instinctive connection to each other, almost as though despite different forms and actors, the fundamental soul of the characters are present.

2,841

(18 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

TITANS has featured Bruce Wayne as played by Iain Glen in the second season. TITANS in Season 2 has not been allowed to show Batman (and was only permitted to show him played by a nearly off-camera stunt double in the costume Season 1). Therefore, Glen appears only as Bruce Wayne and never in the costume. It's interesting: Iain Glen is 58 years old and renowned for playing men with astonishing fighting abilities especially on GAME OF THRONES, but he has a certain rigidity in his movements. He has a receding hairline.

Most incarnations of Bruce Wayne, even in old age, look more like Liam Neeson and Tom Cruise in their late 50s; when Glen showed up onscreen in TITANS, I thought he was playing Alfred. His barely suppressed Scottish accent under a weak American one was bizarre. When sitting down on a sofa, he noticably braced himself against the armrest. He looked infirm and weak and his voice was awkward; I couldn't imagine this slow-moving, gentle man as Batman.

The Batman that Dick imagined in the TITANS Season 1 finale was a demonic force who moved like a cracked whip whereas Glen seemed to regard sitting down as something he has to do carefully or he could miss the cushions and end up on the floor. The thing is, however, while Glen bracing himself against an armrest plays onscreen looks like physical weakness, it's in fact a mannerism in how he seats and orients his body. It does not reflect the extremely able-bodied and athletic man that Glen actually is.

Glen appears in a subsequent episode as a hallucinatory Bruce Wayne, and this time, his accent is much improved, but he's playing a sardonic, comedically mocking figure who voices Dick's insecurities. He doesn't seem like Batman. Later in the season, however, Dick hallucinates Bruce again and imagines Bruce beating him up -- and suddenly, Glen displays a stunning physical prowess. He dodges Dick's blows with instantaneous speed. He throws single punches that knock Dick and the camera to the ground. He counters attacks with a controlled ferocity.

Naturally, there's a bit of trick editing here to speed up Glen's motions and accentuate the force of his attacks. But it's up to Glen to sell it and he sells it.

Suddenly, the slightly unconvincing American accent doesn't matter. Glen's aged face and fading hair don't matter. Glen's physicality takes on a predatory, otherwordly presence and he conveys a cool self-assurance so as to be above Dick Grayson's neuroses and anxieities. Iain Glen suddenly doesn't need the costume and or the Batman-jawline of Christian Bale or the voice of Kevin Conroy. The awkwardness of his earlier appearances is cast aside. Glen is unmistakably Batman. It works.

Still, I'd be interested to see Slider_Quinn21's take on it.

2,842

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

One thing that struck me about Kara Danvers' look in SUPERGIRL -- the actress has a very distinctive face. I always noticed how one iris -- in the left eye -- is expanded and significantly larger than in her right eye. On a talk show, Melissa Benoist described how she was wrestling her very large dog and tripped on some stairs and hit a potted plant, she said with a cheery, self-deprecating goofiness. I thought it was cute.

Benoist had a tough time when SUPERGIRL first premiered: private photos of her being intimate were leaked which didn't do anything good for SUPERGIRL's family friendly image, but thankfully, our society has advanced sufficiently that Benoist could refuse to be shamed out of her career. Benoist was later reported to be cheating on her husband Blake Jenner with SUPERGIRL co-star Chris Wood (Mon-El), but it was later revealed that Benoist had filed for divorce from Jenner well before she'd even met Wood whom she would later marry. Throughout all of it, Benoist had a distinctly enlarged left iris.

Then recently, Benoist posted a video on Instagram where she said all this.

Melissa Benoist wrote:

So -- I don't normally do things like this. But I've written something that I want to share. And I wanted it to stay my words and not have to edit it down for publishing. So I thought -- I'm gonna read it out loud -- and I'm quite nervous, so bear with me.

I am a survivor of domestic violence or IPV intimate partner violence -- which is something I never in my life expected I would say -- let alone be broadcasting into the ether.

He was a magnanimous person who didn't really give you a choice not to be drawn to him. He could be charming, funny, manipulative, devious. He was younger than me and his immaturity obvious and for a period of time I wasn't interested.

I was newly single and gaining my bearings in a period of change in my life. Making dumb decisions. But in the midst of that, he became a friend. A friend that made me laugh and feel less alone. Made me feel special and worthwhile.

And then once we started dating, it was a zero-to-sixty catapult. And I wasn't just a rag doll letting myself be swept away into a relationship I didn't want, but I was unsure about what I was getting into from the get-go. As strange as that might sound, it's still hard for me to dissect what I was thinking and feeling that kept me from stopping what felt like a runaway freight train.

But the most logical deduction I've come up with is I was a child from a non-violent but broken home. And the ways in which the effects of my parents divorce manifests in me were varied. But sheer terror at a failed relationship in my own life was one of them.

I also hadn't figured out that I could say no and disappoint someone and still be okay. It didn't matter that I had misgivings; whether or not he was the one at the time, it felt very good how much he coveted me. How much he seemed to treasure who I was. He loved me. I thought I loved him and I was going to make it work.

The abuse was not violent at first. At first, it reared its head at me under the guise of common dysfunction coming from his insecurity and depression. He confided in me the tragedies he had experienced the injustices and insecurities he had been dealt.

It was all very real and easy to sympathize with making it alarmingly easy to excuse when the damaged man that I felt for became too wounded to control himself.

There was a lot of jealousy. He was snooping on devices. He was angry when I spoke to another man. I had to change clothes often before we went out because he didn't want people looking at me.

On a birthday, I spent working I was criticized because I had to dance with a co-worker. Work in general was a touchy subject. He didn't want me ever kissing or even having flirtatious scenes with men which was very hard for me to avoid.

So I began turning down auditions job offers, test deals -- friendships -- because I didn't want to hurt him.

None of that registered as abuse because I was worried about how he felt at that point. To even comprehend how it affected me in retrospect, I see that each red flag followed a very clear path on the way to things becoming violent. Because violence is so often preceded by mental emotional verbal and psychological abuse which were all very sneaky things.

It started about five months after our relationship began. And the violence escalated just as quickly as the relationship had. So quickly. I didn't know how to respond the first time that happened. He threw a smoothie at my face. It smacked my cheek and exploded all over the floor and the sofa.

I ran to grab paper towels rushing back because I was so worried about cleaning the couch than the fact that it was all over my face, my hair, my clothes, and that my cheek was painful painfully throbbing.

I was more worried about the furniture than I was about the fact that I had just been abused.

It wouldn't be easy to describe in detail the physical arguments that occurred more after that. It's hard to even articulate, not just because of the anger and the pain that surfaces, but because the memories feel like they took place on a different planet where I was breathing different air and could never tell anyone what I had seen.

It had to be secret for shame, for a fear of more attacks, for reluctance to actually admit any of it was happening. The stark truth is I learned what it felt like to be pinned down and slapped repeatedly. Punched so hard the wind was knocked out of me. Dragged by my hair across pavement, head-butted. Pinched until my skin broke. Shoved into a wall so hard the drywall broke. Choked.

I learned to lock myself in rooms but quickly stopped because the door was inevitably broken down. I learned not to value any my property as irreplaceable. I learned not to value myself. Most vividly, I remember how the arguments would usually end. There would always be a click of reality snapping back into place when he would see what he had done.

And a wave of guilt would wash over him. And I imagine in a subconscious effort to wash the both of us clean after what had just happened, he would carry me and put me in an empty bathtub. Throwing the faucet on. And leave me while he gathered himself and I would sit in the tub as the water inched up my body surveying the damage.

Insert the typical abuser's apology speech here.

He'd kneel next to the tub crying self-hating tears with me. He never made me feel like he thought I deserved the beating which I guess eased my mind. And internally, I still held on to the sympathy and the empathy I felt for his brokenness he admitted to. Having his apologies were heartfelt and effective in getting us back to sanity and a semblance of a loving relationship.

But deep down, I never believed he would change. I just fooled myself into believing I could help him. I thought that I could love him enough to make him see a way of life where violence was not the way you handled emotions.

So I consciously deluded myself into thinking that forgiveness would heal him enough to make it stop. Someone had to let him know that his behavior wasn't okay. Who better than the one he was taking it out on? So I pull down the drain in the bathtub and down the pipes the argument would go with its indecency, humiliation, sorrow, rage, and myself.

I went down that drain every time he put me in the tub. My fortitude. My worth -- that he had begun to define my blood, my tears. He once jokingly told my mother she cries enough water to end thirst in a third-world country. Months and months of this routine passed. sometimes there wouldn't be a physical argument for a month or two. Sometimes, I would distrustingly rejoice in the peace thinking maybe it's actually different now.

And things were different, but not for the better. I've changed and I'm not proud of how I changed. I became --

A person that I never could have imagined lurked inside of me because I was livid at what was happening and the fact that I was allowing it to out of fear of failure.

I experienced firsthand that violence begets violence. I started fighting back because rage is contagious. I had an astonishing poker face, but inwardly I was the ugliest version of myself I had ever known.

I became unreliable. Unprofessional. Sometimes unreachable. There were stretches of weeks where I wouldn't get out of bed for more than two hours a day.

If you met me at this time I was most likely friendly -- just to the point of getting too close -- and aloof to the point of being cold.

It was as if I split into spinning plates to maintain a false image versus the truth. I was living another performance of sorts. Melissa in public put on a happy face and purported a healthy life. Whereas Melissa at home dropped the veneer and lived the nightmare in the middle of one never-ending dispute. Battle wounds and all.

To my closest circle I just plain lied. I made up stories of how bruises and scratches were born. I did this at photo shoots at work with my family -- all to shield myself from my own anger, protect myself from more arguments -- and of course, to protect him.

I knew how he was treating me was wrong but I thought the consequences he would suffer if I exposed his behavior outweighed suffering through it.

And then he threw something at my face again -- only this time, it was significantly worse. It was a blow to my face with his iPhone.

The impact tore my iris. Nearly ruptured my eyeball. Lacerated my skin and broke my nose. My left eye swelled shut. I had a fat lip. Blood was coursing down my face and I can remember immediately screaming at the top of my lungs.

The next morning I was due to work on reshoots for a film. After it happened, complete stillness blanketed the room. We panicked. He put me in the bath time, but this time that wouldn't be enough. This wasn't going to be easy to hide, let alone fix.

And something inside of me broke. This was too far. I couldn't flush this one down with the tug of the drain. We made up a flimsy story together.

I had tripped and fallen on the stairs of our deck and hit my face on a potted plant. We called our mothers, all of our representatives, all of my representatives -- who then had to call producers and directors I was working with.

He drove me to the hospital. When the ER director doctors made him leave the room and cops came to question me at my hospital bed, I told them our transparent story that I'm sure they'd heard versions of before.

And then we laughed together when he said my face was cute and looked like Squirt from FINDING NEMO because my eye had become bulbous.

This is an injury that's never going to fully heal. My vision is never going to be the same.

And emotionally after that I was done. I felt that whatever I thought love was, it certainly wasn't what I had been going through.

I was so tired of living the way I'd been living, but it felt too late to get out. Would it be safe for me to leave?

I had ostracized myself so completely in my life that I made myself believe I had no one to turn to if I did. And I was ashamed. But abuse doesn't just affect the people. It's better in its chokehold.

However -- and unbeknownst to me -- many people in my life suspected and feared exactly what was happening. A friend visited me where I was working. My abuser wasn't there so she had a rare opportunity to talk to me without his looming presence.

She sat me down and said she wanted to talk about something important and I immediately knew where it was going. My heart pounded. She was nervous. Shaking. Afraid that it would ruin our relationship.

But she bravely asked me if I was a victim of domestic violence. It was the first moment I spoke about the abuse to anyone.

And I can't describe the amount of relief and solace. I felt she held me. And she said, "You know what you have to do now. Don't you?"

Here's the irony about enduring an ordeal like a violent relationship. Inevitably, while terrible and irreparable damage is done to you, you build an impenetrable strength without realizing it.

Finally utterly uttering the words that I had muted for so long inflamed that power in me.

I had to get out and I took careful steps to leave him as quickly as our relationship had sped into my life. Leaving was not a walk in the park. It is not an event, it's a process.

I felt complicated feelings of guilt for leaving and for hurting someone I had protected for so long -- and yes -- mournful feelings of leaving something that was so familiar. But luckily, the people I let in, the more I was bolstered.

And I never lost the sense of clarity that kept telling me, "You do not deserve this." None of this is salacious news. It was my reality. What I went through caused a tectonic shift in my outlook on life. It taught me what love is and isn't the strength I'm capable of.

The violence I endured and yes, even tolerated -- the lies I told -- the protection I gave my abuser -- these facets all paint the dark and sinister portrait of that time of my life.

But recusing those habits and breaking that cycle was the most rewarding and empowering choice I have ever made for myself. I feel an enduring strength and self-assurance that has dug its roots deep within me.

I will be healing from this for the rest of my life and that's okay. And I've discovered that healing is a constant maneuvering and fidgeting to find what works and what triggers. But it is possible.

Sadly, IPV is one of the most chronically underreported crimes in the country according to the US DOJ, it's estimated that one in four women in the US ages 18 and older will experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

And while it affects men as well, the numbers clearly show that it is a more prevalent women's issue and it's wildly intersectional in its reach. I want those statistics to change and I hope that telling my story might help prevent more stories like mine from happening.

I choose to love. I don't choose to minimize my life out of fear. I choose to love myself to know that love does not include violence. And to let victims know that there is a way out in which you will be protected.

If you are enduring what I went through and you see this, maybe you will find this tiny straw that will break the camel's back. Or at least you might begin to think of your freedom --

In which case, I am here. I am with you and you can and deserve to live a violence-free life.

I have successfully converted the first two SLIDERS REBORN scripts to a mobile format suited to phones and tablets and I am now working on the third. Also fixed one plothole and a typo where I mistakenly referred to the character of Laurel as Lauren (the real life young lady upon whom Laurel is based).

"Reprise" (1): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1awJ … sp=sharing
"Reunion" (2): https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Qf … sp=sharing

I'll definitely get "Slide Effects" and "Net Worth: The Quinn and Wade Edition" into this format as well. However, I think I'm going to leave the Quinn vs. Donald Trump script, "Resistance," alone -- I think its time has passed much like the Captain America and Spider-Man comics where they react to 9-11.

2,844

(759 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, congratulations. But just in case, I'm going to start writing an essay on Top Ten Contributions From Slider_Quinn21.

2,845

(6 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The thing that strikes me is how Mr. Mallozzi joined STARGATE (which I've never seen) in Season 4 and is yet championing it still. Obviously, he'd like another paycheque, but he's also telling the fans that he's a fan too. It seems strange to say this now, but back in the 90s, being a fan of science fiction struck me as something to be embarrassed by, especially when the product of which I was supposedly a fan included material like "The Breeder" and "The Chasm" and "The Great Work." There is something incredibly validating about being told that something of which you're a fan was worthy of your support and investment and was (sometimes) absolutely brilliant.

2,846

(759 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I tried Gillette Skinguard, a new razor with only two blades, dual lubrication strips and two skinguards between each blade to flatten the skin to create more distance from the blades. It's quite impressive. Because my facial hair grows flat against my skin, I have to shave against the grain or the blades glide right over the stubble and leave it untouched, but there can be tugging, pulling and tiny cuts where the hair has been almost yanked out. The Skinguard, however, has absolutely no discomfort whatsoever and creates the same results as a Mach3 blade, and it feels like I ran a piece of smooth plastic over my face.

**

I'm in the process of converting my Fade In scripts for SLIDERS REBORN into Google Docs which will be much easier for people to read on mobile phones. I keep finding uncorrected typos and plotholes as I go. "Reunion" has Quinn running from the police with a bag of illicit peanuts. But later in the script, it's established that via his 2015 slide system, a vortex will automatically find him wherever he is on a parallel world once the window is ready, with or without the timer, and return him home. So why does he run? Why not just surrender to the cops and let the vortex extract him from the back of a cop car or a holding cell? I wrote this script and I cannot answer this question except to say at the time, my thinking was, "It's a SLIDERS script; it has to have a chase scene."

2,847

(50 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Josh Trank reviews FANTASTIC FOUR:
https://letterboxd.com/joshuatrank/film/fantastic-four/

2,848

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Just got home from A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, a film about a reporter interviewing saintly children's entertainer Fred Rogers (Tom Hanks). The movie treats Rogers as a supporting character who is never anything other than his tender, gentle TV persona.

However, there's an intriguing scene where the reporter asks Rogers if he ever feels burdened or tired at being someone in whom everyone confides their problems. Rogers responds with -- breaking out his favourite puppets and talking about playing the piano. On one level, it's a deflection; on another -- I had the odd sense that the extrapolative algorithm used to simulate Fred Rogers' behaviours and responses had run out of data to propose a likely response and therefore defaulted to pre-programmed phrases and mannerisms.

NEIGHBORHOOD has elected to avoid elaborating on Fred Rogers outside of autobiographical details and recorded, documented accounts. It refuses to put words in his mouth that he wasn't known to have said; it offers a pastiche of the man but refuses to go beyond those boundaries, resulting in a portrayal that is truthful but occasionally finds itself sputtering and regurgitating.

I find this fascinating because when pastiching the sliders, I know all about them. Quinn's favourite food is lamb chops with a green bean medley; he fell for Daelin watching her care for a dog that reminded him of Bopper; his flannel shirts are Michael Mallory's clothes which Quinn grew into; Quinn got into athletics because he estimated his cognitive functions were 40 per cent faster with regular cardio and because that way, he could eat anything he wanted; Quinn's beer of choice is Trumer Pils. Slider_Quinn21 couldn't figure out who to vote for in 2016 and I wrote a scene where Quinn gave his opinion and Slider_Quinn21 said he found it convincing. Wade was a sickly child who once had an allergic reaction to the glue in her shoes; her improved health in her twenties drove her to adventure (this is TF talking, but yes). Rembrandt's ridiculous suit in the Pilot was actually a mis-delivered dry cleaning item that Rembrandt reluctantly wore onstage only to later declare it was his idea and forget that it was an accident. The Professor's mother gave him his first bow tie. But I'm (dimly) aware that I don't know these things about THE sliders; I know these things about ireactions' sliders.

Transmodiar wrote:
ireactions wrote:

I'm not a wholehearted fan of "Double Cross"

You shut your mouth.

I'm not a wholehearted fan of the episode "Double Cross" because it was filmed in Los Angeles and I will have a base level of distaste for any episode of SLIDERS filmed in Los Angeles. The script is very good.

Transmodiar wrote:

Action also requires escalation of stakes and being able to interpret it. If it's smash cuts of people screaming at each other, when they aren't even in the same physical space, there's no tension. Beatdowns are pointless. You can do much more by making a scene urgent and having characters you give a shit about. That's why "Double Cross" works - the action is personal, the stakes are high, and the need to reconnect is urgent. Then you temper that with interactions between Logan and Quinn where they're just vibing together, watching the city. Screenwriting 102.

Yes.

I don't know if this is Marketing 102 or even 101, but the trailers for CHARLIE'S ANGELS were awful; generic shots of action and the Angels in their finery and a very strange song with the lyrics "Don't call me angel" as though a CHARLIE'S ANGELS movie was ashamed of Charlie's Angels as featured in CHARLIE'S ANGELS. And after watching the movie, I felt the trailers were awful because the movie had so very, very little interaction between the Angels. The trailers had no shots of Elena the newbie Angel reacting with terror to Sabina and Jane's hijinks, no clips of Jane the pugilist and Sabina the seductress arguing about tactics, no lines from Bosley describing insane stakes as the Angels react, no brief displays of the relationships -- because there weren't any in the movie and the trailers had nothing to sell the film on aside from women and underchoreographed fights.

The other thing that's unfortunate is that angels are not always rendered as beneficent, gentle creatures but savagely dangerous warriors, but CHARLIE'S ANGELS maintains the view that an Angel's primary gift is baiting men with their bodies because men are god-damn stupid (which they are).

... like I said, this movie should have been my everything. Oh well. Hopefully, the next Sunday of BATWOMAN and SUPERGIRL will be good.

Ensembles are difficult to write and I have a great deal of sympathy for Elizabeth Banks. The Angels are on covert missions and separate paths, yet they're supposed to be a team. SLIDERS had the same problem and would handle it by splitting the quartet into duos and mix up the pairings.

CHARLIE'S ANGELS, like SLIDERS, has four characters (Sabina, Jane, Elena and Bosley) but neglects to do this. The four are only together during hurried briefing scenes. During missions, they have earpieces, but they just shout situation updates without banter. The movie has them largely separated and the only pairing is a very, very, very short sequence with Sabina and June dancing.

I'm not a wholehearted fan of "Double Cross," but in that episode, the sliders repeatedly fail to stop Logan until the end. To avoid making the sliders seem incompetent, veteran screenwriters Tony Blake and Paul Jackson have the sliders win small victories without defeating Logan: the Professor identifies Wade's impostor, Quinn bargains for Wade's release, the Professor survives near incineration -- even as Logan is gaining control of sliding and encountering little meaningful resistance to her plans for multiversal domination. Then the ending has Quinn leaving Logan lost in the interdimension. The villain keeps winning for most of the story, but the heroes keep surviving increasingly levels of deadly threat to win at the end.

In contrast, CHARLIE'S ANGELS never has the Angels in much danger of anything and never shows them using cleverness or teamwork to survive. When their MacGuffin is lost or when their mark escapes, the Angels don't have any achievements to balance their losses and they seem like failures.

Writing action oriented ensembles requires craft and skill and I say that as someone who ran face-first into all of these problems when attempting SLIDERS scripts. Thankfully, Transmodiar and Slider_Quinn21 were available to walk me through how to address these problems. Transmodiar cautioned against having the sliders separated for too long and said that if one slider were alone, the other three should be together. Slider_Quinn21 helped revise scenes so that the sliders were conversing over Bluetooth so they would feel like they were together even if they were physically separate. Maybe they should have revised the new CHARLIE'S ANGELS.

I've edited this thread title into being about Interesting Failures™ in general. And one interesting failure I saw in theatres recently (!!): CHARLIE's ANGELS. As you all know, I love powerful women; I love watching women fight crime. And I love director Elizabeth Banks (PITCH PERFECT II) and I think one of the greatest things I've ever seen was PITCH PERFECT III (not directed by Banks) where Rebel Wilson beats up a yacht full of thugs and then blows up the boat and jumps off it yelling. I adored Melissa McCarthy's SPY and Mila Kunis' THE SPY WHO DUMPED ME, I'd enjoyed DARK FATE and was up for another female-driven action film, so CHARLIE'S ANGELS (2019) should have been my everything.

As with TITANS, I just don't get what this movie is trying to do. If the movie is about three women with conflicting personalities trying to work together as a team in the face of deadly threat, why are the relationships so totally irrelevant to the spy missions where they almost immediately split up every time? If the movie is about Sabina (Kristen Stewart) being a hypercapable lady spy, why is she presented as distractably ineffectual to the point of repeatedly losing her target, losing the villain, losing her gadgets and losing her fights?

(Spy movies often have to work hard to make their hero seem competent while letting the villain's plot progress until the end of the film, but CHARLIE'S ANGELS doesn't try to finesse or counterbalance Sabina's defeats nor does it seem aware of how Sabina is inexplicably lauded for spy skills she doesn't demonstrate.)

If Sabina barely knows her boxing bruiser teammate, Jane, to the point where Sabina has to ask her for her name, then why Sabina later dissolve into tears over Jane as though they have a long-standing friendship?

If it's about female tech engineer Elena falling ass-backwards into the world of espionage, why is Elena so inconsequential to the spy missions except as someone who gets captured and has to be rescued? If it's about women in action sequences, why are the action sequences a rhythmically challenged series of posed shots with no sense of danger, physicality, impact or risk? Seriously, no punches seem to land, there are car chases where you can't tell how close or far apart the vehicles are and action that looks adequate on LEGENDS OF TOMORROW looks bare on a giant theatre screen.

If Jane and Sabina are trying to rescue Elena, why does Jane suddenly split from the rescue effort to spend time fighting a henchman who is not between the Angels and Elena? In fact, why is it that every time the Angels set out to retrieve some MacGuffin, they forget about the MacGuffin in favour of fighting henchmen and wasting time?

If it's a comedy, why are there scenes where the Angels accidentally kill people in the most gruesome manner possible before skipping ahead to a joking scene? If it's a movie about strong women, why does one bizarre scene have Patrick Stewart beating actress Elizabeth Banks in a fight? Patrick Stewart is 79 years old and walks like it takes mental effort to put one foot in front of the other and Elizabeth Banks looks like she should be teaching me how to work out.

I have never been more sympathetic to a film than I am with CHARLIE'S ANGELS, a movie that declares women can do anything and that men are foolish to never take them seriously. I have never been more dismayed at how a movie I agree with in principle is strangely devoid of ability in character arcs, physical action, motion, pacing, blocking, geography or maintaining character motivations in fight scenes.

There is one scene that really comes alive -- when Sabina and Jane join a dance party to infiltrate a secret base. This sequence has all the momentum and physicality that the fight scenes don't and I'm terrified to say that Elizabeth Banks can direct dancing and conversation but can't direct action because it might come off as me saying that about all women. Dear God. Lexi Alexander directed my favourite episodes of SUPERGIRL. Rachel Talalay directed all my favourite DOCTOR WHO action episodes.

The best I can say is that (a) I saw the movie for free because the projector blew on the Friday I first tired to see it and I got two free passes and (b) Elizabeth Banks declared on Twitter that if CHARLIE'S ANGELS were a bomb, at last her name was on it four times over (as an actor, producer, writer and director). She is a force to be reckoned with and I wish I liked her movie as much as I like her.

2,852

(18 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

... what is TITANS about?

If TITANS is about Dick Grayson overcoming the darkness of his time as a street level vigilante, why is he fighting dark gods and aliens in Season 1? If TITANS is about a team of teen superheroes, why are all team members now adults? If TITANS is about adults living in the shadow of their shared past on the team, why has the show at the outset introduced other teenaged superheroes who don't have a shared past yet?

If TITANS is about a teen girl facing supernatural forces, why are her allies an alien princess and a decidedly non-supernatural police detective? If TITANS is about heroes, why are the only actual Titans so unheroic that they want to abandon Rose Wilson to be murdered by her father?

If TITANS is about the second generation of Titans in Conner and Raven and Beast Boy, why is the focus so firmly on the original team of Dick, Hawk, Dove and Donna Troy? If TITANS is about an alien princess, why is it called TITANS?

TITANS is a good show. Every episode has a clear, central, crystalline clarity of what it is: TITANS is a moody, grim show about unhappy, self-destructive people engaged in their grudge matches and vendettas, but the individual character arcs collide with each other without any real purpose or identity for the show. I don't know what TITANS is about, and it's thanks to its strong sense of tone, pacing and atmosphere that it feels coherent. It isn't.

2,853

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

My logic here may be fuzzy because I'm at home sick, but I think SUPERMAN II: THE DONNER CUT was made because of the lucrative DVD market and because completing a somewhat makeshift Donner cut with some CG work would lead to significant units sold at Best Buy and whatnot.

We're currently in a world where CBS couldn't justify remastering DEEP SPACE NINE and VOYAGER to high definition because streaming services destroyed the home video market to the point where CBS lost money on the remastered NEXT GENERATION blu-rays. The economics don't encourage Warner Bros. to release a second edition of a movie that already failed the first time.

That said, I find it intriguing that all the people who hated Zack Snyder's vision for the DCEU insist that his version of JUSTICE LEAGUE must be good. It's very easy to dislike the movie you saw while insisting the movie you didn't see is the epitome of excellence because it is purely hypothetical. And Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE, in addition to existing largely in terms of the imagination, is also the first part of a duology where there won't be a second. Warner Bros. is wise to cut their losses.

But I do expect the Snyder Cut to come out some day, just not under present circumstances. It's not a never-ever situation, just a not-right-now.

2,854

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It took 20 years for the Richard Donner cut of SUPERMAN II to come out on DVD, so maybe we’ll get Snyder’s cut in 20 years on telepathic psigraph in 6D.

I'm waiting until the Marvel shows hit Disney+ to subscribe. But I've read that the STAR WARS (1977) film on Disney+ has yet another George Lucas revision in addition to all the other dumbass alterations he's made over the years: he's added a new shot to Greedo's death scene where Greedo now yells "Maclunkey!" before he and Han fire on each other and Greedo inexplicably fails to shoot a target sitting across a table from him while Han's head nonsensically inclines to the left while Han's blaster kills Greedo.

... it's bizarre. The insert shot of Greedo with his new line breaks the flow of the blaster fire immediately following the, "I've been waiting a long time for this, Solo" / "Yeah, I'll bet you have" exchange. It's a discordant note because "Maclunkey" is not subtitled, so the audience can't even understand what Greedo is saying unless they remember watching THE PHANTOM MENACE and recalling that at one point, the Sebulba pod racer tells Anakin, "Maclunkey," subtitled as "This will be the end of you." https://slate.com/culture/2019/11/star- … unkey.html

Dear God, WHY?! It looks like Lucas made this revision for the 4K release before he sold the franchise to Disney (and, to be fair, gave most of the money to wildlife preservations, inner city youth programs, museums and educational initiatives).

Anyway, I'm never going to watch it. I have the Despecialized Versions. Okay, that's not entirely true -- I watch the blu-ray version of EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

2,856

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

This isn't related to the current DC universe, if one even still exists.... But I watched the teaser trailer for Superman Returns on repeat today.  One, I think that might be my favorite teaser trailer of all time.

Well, I liked what Ezra Miller said about how the DC Extended Universe is really a DC multiverse, hence Worlds of DC. As for SUPERMAN RETURNS -- Temporal Flux once spoke fondly of the TRANSFORMERS cartoon. I watched three episodes of it and each episode was so formulaic and near identical that I couldn't make it to a fourth. Grizzlor laughed at me for that, saying that of course it came off that way; I'm not a child and it's not the 80s. SUPERMAN RETURNS was a godsend when it arrived in 2006.

From 1997 to 2005, all the SUPERMAN movies in planning were ghastly: producer Jon Peters wanted a '90s' SUPERMAN who reflected the stylings of whatever was trendy and cool which, in his mind, was cyberpunk. He wanted Superman to wear a black costume, to be a ferocious killer, to be played by Sean Penn in full psychopathic mode. He didn't want Superman to fly. He didn't want Superman in red and blue. (Why even make a Superman movie?)

There was great dread among Superman fans for what Hollywood would spit out. This was even more severe due to SMALLVILLE which was the current vision of the character for the 2000s and it was an inept DAWSON'S CREEK with Clark killing villains and being unheroic and dull.

SUPERMAN RETURNS came out and it was slavishly reverent to SUPERMAN (1978), the most well-liked, well-known incarnation of Superman, and all this reverence was a salve to SMALLVILLE and the terror that Jon Peters threatened.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

It's so well done.  I don't like the movie very much.

Looking at the movie without its original context, SUPERMAN RETURNS is a weird little misfire on so many levels. In being reverential to SUPERMAN (1978), SR fails to present Superman in a meaningful 2006 situation.

Why does Superman resume his life as Clark Kent? The only relationship he has is with his mother; in Metropolis, he's not close to anyone and is viewed as forgettable and irrelevant. The reasoning in 1978 was Superman wanting access to information about emergencies around the globe, but in that case, why does Superman in 2006 need anything more than an iPhone?

In mimicking the 1978 setup, RETURNS also calls upon Routh to be Christopher Reeve's Clark Kent, but Routh's performance is completely different. Reeve played Superman and Clark as two separate people whereas Routh performs them as variations on a core personality. Routh can be a good Superman, but he is completely mismatched to playing Reeve's Superman and SUPERMAN RETURNS insist they're the same person when they clearly aren't. The recasting also affects Lois: in 1978, Lois was Margot Kidder as a tough, capable, sardonic, endlessly entertaining female lead. In 2006, she's Kate Bosworth who is bland and vague and at 21, far too young for the role.

In addition, we see Superman's exploits around the globe and... he stops bank robberies. There is barely any sense that Superman is addressing problems that humans can't solve themselves; even the threat of Lex Luthor earthquaking the United States apart is due to humans failing to incarcerate Luthor for his crimes. There is no sense that the world has in any way suffered for Superman's absence in a way that the world can't handle itself unless it's too incompetent to do so.

The movie is also vague due to bizarre choices in editing: why was Superman absent for five years? Why did he feel a dead world was more important than a living one? Did he know Lois was pregnant? How much of SUPERMAN II and the memory erasing kiss still stands? Does Lois remember Superman impregnating her or does she think she was raped by him? Bryan Singer's disrespect for the concept of consent is disturbingly present, especially in Superman stalking Lois being played as benevolent.

In the original script, it's explained that Lex Luthor faked a signal from Krypton so that Superman would go look for survivors; that the planet had become a giant mass of Kryptonite which hurt Superman and damaged his ship, turning what should have been a very brief absence into a five year disappearance. It's also explained that (after SUPERMAN II), Lois and Superman had a romantic and sexual relationship but that Superman didn't tell her he was Clark Kent. All this was lost in favour of reverential Richard Donner homages.

Ultimately, I think SUPERMAN RETURNS made a huge mistake in having Superman absent and then return to find the world doing fine without him. I think SUPERMAN RETURNS should have had Superman absent for five years. Then he comes back to find Lex Luthor is President of the United States, Lois Lane is Luthor's spokesperson, the Daily Planet has been reduced to a 12 person team of bloggers led by Perry and Jimmy, Metropolis has become a slum and America seems superficially normal if as troubled, but in reality, it's become a fascist dystopia and President Lex has been waiting for Superman to return to kill him. The movie could end with Lois turning out to be spying on Lex to bring him down, Luthor impeached, the Daily Planet restored and all being well until Luthor, in his dying breath, tells Lois that Clark is Superman and that he's been laughing at her the entire time, leading to Lois deciding to mount a revenge plot involving VR contact lenses and Martians and awards ceremonies and such.

TemporalFlux wrote:

Even though Routh was the big star, he had really fallen after that.  But for his accident and resulting death, I’m confident Christopher Reeve would be somewhere in the Arrowverse too (Reeve would only be 67 today).  His star never rose past Superman, though; and even his time as Superman lost its luster at the end.

I wrote a summary of Routh's career once. http://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?pid=7938#p7938

Routh fell, but it's arguable that his rise from bartender to blockbuster was so abrupt and sudden that his descent was just as quick and inevitable. In an interview on Collider ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTGfkvhFr5s ), Routh said that playing Superman meant he'd skipped a big step in auditioning for work and he hadn't developed those skills.

He confessed that after Superman, he resented having to compete to play Technician #3 and Cop #2 and he had to over time accept that he couldn't search for another trampoline to the top; he would have to climb the ladder slowly and incrementally and for the first time. He took guest roles. He took recurring roles. He joined ensemble casts. And he rebuilt his life. Currently, his net worth is $12 million and he's happily married and he adores his son and no, he isn't a movie superstar anymore, but he's a superstar in other ways.

The same can be said of Christopher Reeve, and Reeve in many ways decided not to pursue post-Superman stardom. He turned down many, many, many roles despite the money and notoriety, sometimes because he didn't want children to see Superman's actor playing serial killers and such, sometimes because he to maintain a Massachusetts to London line of transportation to see his children.

Reeve invested what movie earnings he had appropriately so that he never had to take roles for money after SUPERMAN and he focused on advocacy and social justice. After his accident, Reeve devoted his life to medical research and when he passed away in 2004, he died with $3 million in the bank despite not having walked in nearly a decade.

I can't say Reeve lived a happy life because what happened to him was horrific, but he made the best of it and tried to live up to the role of Superman even though he hadn't played the role since 1987.

2,857

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Supergirl is fine. I don't know if they know what they want to do with most of these characters, though.  Kara seemingly has no character arc, and she doesn't seem to learn anything or grow at all.  Is she attracted to Lena?  Is William supposed to be a romantic lead?  I honestly have no idea what her character really is.  I think the writers seem to have a lot more fun with J'onn and Nia and Brainy and Alex.  Kara's really just there to do the fight scenes and go back and forth to check on how the characters are doing.  Am I wrong here?

I've enjoyed Melissa Benoist in every season of SUPERGIRL. I don't take any issue with her character in Season 5, but I don't disagree that she lacks an arc in Season 5. I'm not sure she needs one right now. The main thoroughline of Kara in Season 5 is that she has merged the two halves of her life, or she at thinks she has. From a plotting perspective, it makes sense to give her an 'arcless' period of stability before Lena overtly turns on her or Kara discovers that Lena considers her a treacherous enemy.

That said, I'm trying to be more open to different kinds of characterization. In Season 1, the writing for Kara Danvers was a mess: she was an entry-level intern at a news agency who was a top level secret agent employed by a government espionage agency who was struggling to keep a secret identity amidst a regular cast where everyone except Cat Grant knew all about it who had a close relationship with Superman although Superman never appeared in person.

Season 2 got its act together at last: Supergirl is the friendly superhero face of a covert spy agency; Kara Danvers is a nervous mess of a human being who has to get her act together when trying to mentor a shiftless layabout, Mon-El, in the superhero game. Supergirl was everything Kara could never be in civilian life.

Season 3, unfortunately, got confused again and this was a season where Kara's only real arc was her grief at Mon-El returning a married man. There was a lot of intrigue over Kara's Kryptonian heritage, but Kara didn't really have a strong direction this season, likely because sexual harasser Andrew Kreisberg was fired off the show halfway into the season and none of the writers wanted to use his planned material once they were rid of him.

Season 4 was good, exploring how Lena is Kara's most rewarding relationship and Lena can't stand Supergirl. The constant collisions between Kara's civilian and superhero life were played out beautifully as Kara discovers that Catco's reporting is at threat, as Supergirl finds that she's part of a discriminated minority, as Kara finds that the ordinary people she lived among for most of her life consider her the other, as Supergirl realizes that she's part of a government agency that is falling entirely in line with a xenophobic White House administration.

The most heartbreaking moment of Season 4 was when Alex is forced to have J'onn erase Alex's memories of Supergirl and Kara feels truly lost. There's another beautiful moment where Supergirl, unable to defeat a Kryptonite fuelled villain and in a jail full of people who hate her, switches to Kara Danvers and is astonished to be dismissed by Supergirl's attacker and embraced by an inmate who is a devoted reader of Kara's articles. And the season finale is where Kara and Supergirl are at last united: Kara exposes the President and Supergirl stops Agent Liberty. Season 5's premiere was, to Kara, the seeming conclusion to this storyline where she tells Lena who she really is and now we're dreading how Kara thinks all is well when she has no idea what she doesn't know.

... is Kara in love with Lena? I think Kara and Lena should be the romance of the show -- but I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think it was planned for Katie McGrath to have such chemistry with Melissa Benoist, but it happened and the writers have tried to steer into it as much as they can, they've made the Kara/Lena friendship the center of Season 5.

However, Supergirl is owned by a corporation that took over seven decades to concede that Wonder Woman is bisexual (and that's with Wonder Woman living on an island nation of immortal women and no men since 1942). The character of Supergirl as she's been portrayed since 1959 is a boy crazy teenaged girl; letting the Melissa Benoist Supergirl be bisexual implies that every version of the character is the same because Benoist is the most commonly known rendition. I don't see this slow, lumbering and heteronormative multinational finding the institutional will to make one of their iconic properties bisexual based on the specific chemistry between one performer playing the role with a specific scene partner.

That said, accidents happen and good shows capitalize on them. ARROW realized that, despite Black Canary and Green Arrow being a couple in the source material, the onscreen chemistry of Stephen Amell and Emily Bett Rickards was the way to go whereas Katie Cassidy was better as Stephen Amell's friend. COMMUNITY planned for Troy and Pierce to be best friends; they soon realized the real bromance was between Donald Glover and Danny Pudi, just as they realized that Joel McHale's best scene partner was not Gillian Jacobs but Alison Brie. SUPERGIRL realized that Winn, despite being a Catco employee, worked better in the spyfi environment of the DEO and made the change for Season 2. MACGYVER started out with MacGyver a gunslinging, arrogant action hero but realized the actor was better as an unarmed innocent. SLIDERS meant for Quinn Mallory to be an unathletic, socially inept geek, but Jerry O'Connell transformed the character into a damaged, self-isolating athlete brainaic and Tracy Torme ran with it.

I doubt SUPERGIRL will capitalize on Supercorp any more than it's chosen to; SUPERGIRL has made Lena the most passionate friendship in Kara's life and I think that's all it can be. Institutionally. If SUPERGIRL were an original property and the showrunners could make decisions without worrying about whether or not they can use the Suicide Squad or get their content past DC Comics, I do think Kara would have been out and proud by the middle of Season 4.

2,858

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought Welling looked fine in the photo I saw of him with Tyler Hoechlin. Definitely not as sculpted as he could be, but he's lost some of the weight he gained (deliberately, I think) as Cain on LUCIFER. Welling is unshaven and wearing Clark's flannel and a worn golf shirt on top of his jeans and the clothes are very loosely fitted to Welling. In contrast, Hoechlin is wearing the Metropolis uniform for Clark: a very slim-fit business jacket, shirt and trousers. I wonder if the scene was shot to contrast Clark on the farm, relaxing and being a farmer, with Clark visiting from Metropolis and in reporter mode.

There is stuff Welling could have done to youthen up for the scene -- he could have shaved. Spent a week getting cucumber masks and retinol treatment on his face, especially the eyes, to plump some of the age lines. Or he could have worn a muscle suit under the long-sleeved flannel. Dyed the silver from his hair and grown it out as well to offset his face. But Welling has served the superhero genre with honour, so I say let him be.

I found a neat fanfic -- a virtual third season of SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES written in screenplay format.
http://tib.cjcs.com/terminator-the-conn … c-project/

I'm only on the fifth script and I'm depending on somewhat vague memories of the TV show, but these seem very solid, capturing both the screenplay format, the militaristic and somewhat defeatist tone of the TV show and the optimism of the characters within it. It's a very plausible rendition of a TV budgeted screenplay.

That said, despite maintaining the format of Sarah Connor's ruminations in voiceover and the troubled tone of the future resistance, there's a slight lack of emotion. By that, I mean I'm on the fifth script and John and Sarah only grieve for losing each other in brief moments. That's sort of the point; they have no time to really stop and process. But it's a little dissatisfying. I can't speak to whether or not this is a good pastiche because I haven't rewatched CHRONICLES, but it's working for me right now.

I'm also impressed with the writer's portrayal of Allison from Palmdale; Cameron is gone, but Summer Glau appears in every episode and the scripts have notes of Cameron except the writer shows how Cameron was in many ways a machine approximation of tiny facets of a much more complicated woman.

Admittedly, the SARAH CONNOR I would have preferred would have been a proper ending to Season 2 with a rewritten "Born to Run" where Catherine Weaver's entire plot is explained along with that three dots stuff, Cameron dies, Derek dies, Sarah sends John into a time bubble to escape certain death -- and he ends up seemingly alone only to be reunited with Derek, Kyle Reese and Allison Young, and John proves able to handle himself in the Skynet war thanks to Sarah's training, meaning that John is where he belongs and will be fine -- an ending that allowed the show to close out but still allowed for Season 3 should the Sci-Fi Channel have saved the show for two more years.

It's also interesting to look at what happened behind the scenes of T3, SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, T4 and T5.

With T3, there was no creative drive to make a third film, just a desire to cash in on the success of T2 with a new PG-13 product. The screenwriter of T3 and T4 has actually blogged about the process: despite T3 being a heartless money grab to exploit T2, the writer didn't even *like* the second TERMINATOR movie and deliberately wrote T3 to annoy the studio by presenting John Connor as a wealthy Silicon Valley supervillain now seeking to make money off a Skynet takeover. Naturally, the studio balked and the writer grudgingly stripped out his more offensive elements until what was left was an empty retread of T2.

There's a troubling attitude in franchise fandom that only certain creators can handle a franchise correctly whether it's Gene Roddenberry for STAR TREK or James Cameron for TERMINATOR. I think the more nuanced truth is that film and TV are in the business of selling tickets and ads with the content being a secondary concern, but the creators producing the content need to devote themselves to serving the content by identifying the story they want to tell and telling that story with commitment and craft. T3 was made entirely to serve a balance sheet.

With T3, the studio and the writers were completely uncommitted to telling any particular story with a third TERMINATOR; they just wanted to be paid for having brought one into being. Which is why THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES disproves the idea that only specific individuals can handle the TERMINATOR franchise: CHRONICLES didn't have James Cameron or Arnold or Linda Hamilton or Edward Furlong -- but it had Josh Friedman's complete devotion to telling his story. The dialogue was punchy and sharp; the action was gripping and had a human cost. Cameron was a fascinating Terminator whose Summer Glau appeal and loyalty to John masked a shocking inhumanity as she casually abandoned civilians to die if they weren't relevant to keeping John safe.

However, Friedman's devotion to telling his story was often in foolish defiance of ratings and format. CHRONICLES was hit by a writer's strike that cut the first season short, losing viewership. Friedman's second season was so alienating to new viewers that it couldn't grow its audience and was cancelled on the 13th episode -- only for Warner Bros. to save it by lowering their license fee. Friedman received nine more episodes, almost certainly the last nine of the series -- and his devotion to telling his story had him decide to end the show on a cliffhanger.

Which I think speaks to another part of putting out a good product: in addition to being committed to executing the chosen story well, there needs to be some thought to the audience that will be watching this material. Josh Friedman served his story, but he didn't serve his fans.

SALVATION is similar and different to T3: it actually had a story, but it backed away from telling it. The original plot of SALVATION: during the Skynet-human war, a human-Terminator hybrid named Marcus tries to help the human resistance by searching for and saving John Connor from a Skynet plot. Connor is a largely offscreen character and the story establishes him as a rising legend who inspires humanity to resist. When Marcus finds him, he fails to save him -- but a dying Connor begs Marcus to carry on for him. Marcus alters his face to look like John Connor and to assume his role in the resistance.

The script was pretty solid -- and then the creators asked Christian Bale to play Marcus and Bale refused and said he wanted to play John Connor and that he wanted more screentime and that he wanted his character to live. SALVATION was changed to meet these stipulations and the result was a pointless movie that didn't move the TERMINATOR story in any particular direction and featured a lead character in Bale's Connor who had no impact on the plot. SALVATION served Christian Bale instead of SALVATION.

Much of the drama regarding T3 and T4 is detailed in the writer's blog: https://johnbrancato.blogspot.com/2009/ … horse.html

And then GENISYS (2015). Setting aside the poor casting, I'd say the greatest problem of GENISYS is that it is designed all around time travelling back to the original 1984 movie and then changing the situation. It's a rebootquel and STAR TREK (2008) made it clear how this can work. However, at the midpoint, the action abruptly jumps from 1984 to 2017 and it makes no sense. In 1984, Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese have over three decades to work out Skynet's plan and stop it; in 2017, they have days. This nonsensical decision is inexplicable.

The reason this happened: it's pretty clear that even as GENISYS was being scripted, the studio and director and producers were unwilling to present a 2015 movie that was set in 1984. They didn't want to do a period piece. They didn't want to go to all the time and trouble and expense of maintaining the aesthetics and technology of 1984, so for simplicity of production, they detached themselves from serving the story they had in their hands.

DARK FATE is... certainly not the innovative, inventive cinematic event of T2 in 1991. It doesn't have anything all that new; it's not a visionary work. But it does care about the fans with the painstaking effects work to bring a 1992 era Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong to the screen for a scene and giving a senior citizen incarnation of Hamilton a leading role. And it is absolutely committed to serving its chosen purpose as a female-driven chase movie.

Comic book businessman Rob Liefeld (terrible writer, awful artist, excellent salesman, in his 50s) had an interesting tweet; he said that he never showed his sons the TERMINATOR movies and he thinks TERMINATOR failed because the franchise's height was in 1991 and that the franchise is only meaningful to people his age.

Well, after T2, TERMINATOR was then absent from the cinema for 12 years before returning in 2003 with RISE, 2009 with SALVATION, 2015 with GENISYS -- and because there was an 12 year gap and then 12 years of forgettable films, families didn't pass TERMINATOR onto their children. Even SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, an admittedly unforgettable story, is best forgotten because it has no ending. Anyone who saw T2 in theatres in 1991 without sneaking into a screening is now at least 46 years old.

And TERMINATOR and T2 maybe haven't enjoyed a continued, rising audience in home viewing because the pedestrian RISE OF THE MACHINES and incoherent SALVATION and clumsy GENISYS have made the series a bad memory which meant DARK FATE was trying to capitalize on nostalgia that had been systematically destroyed. I wonder if TERMINATOR fans don't even really want to revisit TERMINATOR; outside of a wish to conclude SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, the feeling is that TERMINATOR is best seen as having ended with T2 and then left alone both by the creators and the viewers.

HALLOWEEN 2018 was in a similar situation, but HALLOWEEN 2018 only cost $10 million to make. Even if you adored SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, DARK FATE wasn't going to acknowledge it, so DARK FATE was aiming itself at an audience that didn't exist in sufficient numbers to justify a 145 million budget that needs to earn 450 million to break even. One might as well spend $145 million on producing SLIDERS REBORN for an audience of 23 people.

I am not a huge fan of TERMINATOR or James Cameron, but after Informant -- I mean, after some random dude with whom I have no prior association whatsoever declared DARK FATE to be a failure because it was political under the "get woke go broke" hashtag -- well, I quantum-leapt to the cineplex to see it. Anything that pisses off this person -- whom I absolutely do not know in any way, shape or form -- I absolutely have to see. :-D

**

I am not a huge fan of TERMINATOR or James Cameron, but I see the talent and craft even if the final product doesn't serve my personal obsessions. DARK FATE is a chase movie and Cameron/Tim Miller designed it to create characterization and relationships in shorthand and on the go.

We don't get a conversation where Grace and Dani share their values; we get a shot of Dani resting her head on Grace's lap. We don't get an arc where Dani shows her leadership skills; we get a quick moment of Dani shepherding her brother to work and protesting his replacement by a robot.

We don't see Sarah Connor staggering through life with alcoholism; we get Linda Hamilton wordlessly conveying that she exists to blow up robots and sleep before doing it again. Cameron's approach doesn't rely on dialogue or even necessarily action and decision to convey character; he depends on actors to sell you on it while often putting them in highly reactive roles as they deal with their ship hitting an iceberg or their being hunted by an AI.

In the original TERMINATOR, Kyle Reese is defined less by the script and more by the performance that Cameron and Michael Biehn produced: the performance wordlessly conveys to you that Reese is a starving soldier who has long lived without any kind of comfort or luxury, who is terrified of the Terminator and Skynet, who is traumatized by war and barely holding it together to perform his mission -- which is why Jai Courtney's blandly heroic performance was so offensive to fans. Courtney made Reese so confident, so at ease, so certain whereas Biehn's Kyle Reese was fundamentally broken but not letting it stop him from doing his job.

I am not a huge fan of this approach, but it is a perfectly valid approach.

**

To be honest, I felt about Legion the way Slider_Quinn21 feels about the First Order and the Empire in STAR WARS; it's a re-branding. However, as someone who admires the first TERMINATOR (without enjoying it) and both admires AND enjoys TERMINATOR 2, I didn't feel DARK FATE besmirched John Connor or Edward Furlong. The amount of effort taken to put Furlong in DARK FATE was insane with Cameron reporting that most of the de-aged footage was unusably poor.

Ultimately, DARK FATE asserts that John succeeded; he stopped Skynet and it didn't come back, but other people kept creating AIs and one of them would inevitably turn against their creators. And DARK FATE declares that the future is always dark and that our heroes will forever have to delay, forestall and prevent it; they will keep pushing it backwards forever and ever. So I felt okay with that -- but narratively, Legion and Skynet are really about the same and I didn't think DARK FATE differentiated the two sufficiently.

I think that DARK FATE needed to present Legion as a more seductive or manipulative form of evil; rather than blowing up humanity, it creates situations to make them turn on each other. We see a bit of this, but as Temporal Flux points out, DARK FATE is ultimately following the T2 formula of a killer robot chasing down humans.

**

I like all of Slider_Quinn21's ideas. That maybe Sarah could have been trying to change the past and save John from the Terminator. That maybe Dani could have been Danny to add a man to the mix since Arnold Schwarzenneger is barely in this movie. I think Cameron/Tim Miller just wanted to do a really intense chase movie without a lot of sentiment or conversation, largely driven by a distinctly feminine energy that's in contrast to RISE, SALVATION and GENISYS being driven by men. And they succeeded creatively and have crashed and burned financially.

I kind of feel the length thing, but... I just really enjoyed watching Mackenzie Davis beat people up. It's my thing. I also enjoy watching Sarah Michelle Gellar, Summer Glau, Ashley Scott, Ruby Rose, Melanie Scrofano, Jaimie Alexander, Brie Larson, Carrie Anne Moss, Lena Headey and Linda Hamilton beat people up. I think I enjoy that more than I enjoy watching or reading Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo snarking at each other.

2,863

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh my God! BATWOMAN hasn't dropped the voiceover! I just... stopped recognizing it as such and viewed it as Kate's letters to Bruce. Haha!

Temporal Flux is absolutely right to say that JUDGEMENT DAY, RISE OF THE MACHINES and GENISYS have all featured humans fleeing a cybernetic assassin who is just barely held off by a reprogrammed robot Arnold Schwarzenegger; SALVATION varied this a bit with Sam Worthington playing the robot(ish) protector. Perhaps DARK FATE, in addition to being the fourth installment in a role to be the first in a trilogy that could be left unfinished, was yet another chased-by-a-robot movie and the audience had seen enough of those. Also, DARK FATE tries to sell itself in ways that GENISYS already attempted to the disappointment of the audience. Maybe they weren't willing to take the chance of being fooled again.

I'd argue that every pre-DARK FATE sequel to JUDGEMENT DAY has suffered from being either inauthentic, incompetent or incomplete or some combination of all three. RISE OF THE MACHINES is, like Season 4 - 5 of SLIDERS, a cheap copy of the original content, in this case JUDGEMENT DAY.

JUDGEMENT DAY had grand and lavish action sequences from James Cameron who has an incredible grasp of geography, motion, location, editing, pacing and timing. It also had a grippingly troubled female protagonist in Linda Hamilton, a hilarious dynamic between the rascaly Edward Furlong and the taciturn Arnold Schwartzenegger.

In contrast, RISE has blandly pedestrian action and a blandly present Claire Danes. RISE also presents a John/Terminator relationship that rings false. Nick Stahl's John is ineffectual and weak, perpetually cowering and overwhelmed by simple acts like breaking and entering that the young John performed with confident ease, and Stahl performs John with a one-note nervousness. He reflects none of Furlong's wit, cunning, rebellion and daring and simply isn't John Connor. And Schwarzenneger is back as the Terminator, but this is a different machine with the same face; this Terminator never bonded with John in T2.

Despite RISE claiming to be the further adventures of John and the Terminator, this isn't the T2 John and this isn't the T2 Terminator. It's inauthentic. The best that can be said of RISE is that it dares to show (a fairly sanitized) rendition of Skynet's victory at the end (even though RISE had alternate footage filmed so that another Terminator would have shown up to defeat Skynet had the studio balked at the ending).

SALVATION is incompetent. The story is nonsensical with Skynet inexplicably augmenting a human, Marcus Wright, with Terminator powers to infiltrate the human resistance despite this human (inevitably) switching sides. John Connor has once again been recast as Christian Bale who exists to run around in various action sequences that don't affect the core plot for Marcus and Kyle Reese. The ending simply resets the movie to the beginning of the situation with Marcus Wright dead and John Connor continuing his leadership of the resistance.

The reason for all this: Connor was supposed to be a mostly off-camera character, but Christian Bale declined the role of Marcus and insisted that he play John and ordered that John have (superfluous) scenes added to the film for him to perform. In addition, the original script had Connor dying and Marcus Wright changing his appearance to look like Connor to maintain the legend of the man, something Bale also had altered. The ending was also changed: the original intention was that Skynet would reveal that it was enslaving humanity to save it from its own destruction, but this was also lost in shifting the film from Marcus to Christian Bale.

THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES is, despite being an excellent TV show, somewhat inauthentic and incompetent. The recasting is actually pretty good with Lena Headey and Thomas Dekker doing a great job of performing new versions of Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong and the scripts are also splendid. However, CHRONICLES seemed determined to create unresolved plot thread after unresolved plot thread and was dead set on creating a cliffhanger finale for Season 2 that had next to no chance of ever being resolved (and remains unresolved) when a more competent TV show would have crafted the final episode to work as both a season finale and a series finale in the likely event of cancellation.

And GENISYS is completely inauthentic, shockingly incompetent and again incomplete. The original TERMINATOR featured a troubled, war-scarred Michael Biehn as Kyle Reese. GENISYS recasts with Jai Courtney and Courtney is a charisma-free vacuum whose performance has no thought, no detail, no effort and no depth. Courtney's Reese is a bland hero; there is nothing of Biehn's rebel soldier, nothing of Biehn's madness or grief or loss or desperation as survivor of a borderline extinction. And then we have Emilia Clarke as Sarah Connor except Clarke captures nothing of Linda Hamilton's 80s demeanor in TERMINATOR and also nothing of Hamilton's angry war veteran in JUDGEMENT DAY.

GENISYS claims to be returning to the roots of the original TERMINATOR and yet presents impostors once again. Furthermore, despite showing the original version of Reese being dispatched by John to save Sarah (which is why John meeting Kyle doesn't match the SALVATION depiction), GENISYS doesn't explain where the "Pops" Terminator came from to rewrite the events of the 1984 film. It's presented as a mystery to be explored later, but it comes off as sloppiness. And the film works in revisiting/remaking moments of the 1984 film -- except it then inexplicably has Sarah and Kyle time travel to 2015 on the eve of Skynet being activated. At no point does the movie explain WHY Sarah and Kyle would decide to throw away 31 years to find a way to stop Skynet other than the filmmakers not wanting to continue recreating the 1984 setting -- which also makes the 'mystery' of Pops look less like an ongoing question and more of a plothole -- one that will never be resolved as GENISYS will have no sequels. Inauthentic. Incompetent. Incomplete.

GENISYS sold itself as being a return to the series' roots (by returning to the 1984 movie to choose an alternate path) and advertised itself with James Cameron claiming he loved GENISYS, a claim he'd later withdraw. I suspect that Cameron was thrilled to see GENISYS refilming moments of his 1984 film and was so overwhelmed by these overtures that he only later came to see that outside of these recreations, the surrounding movie featured bland impostors of his creations in a clumsily plotted and unfinished story.

Fairly or unfairly, DARK FATE is part of a franchise that presents unfinished, confusing stories with stand-ins for the real characters.

DARK FATE, like GENISYS, it claims to return to the roots of the series, sidestep the sequels (but only after T2 whereas GENISYS replaced even the original TERMINATOR) and is endorsed by James Cameron once again -- except with GENISYS, all of that turned out to be utter BS. The fact that DARK FATE managed to recapture authenticity, competence and completion doesn't seem to matter because such things can only be appreciated by an audience that sees the actual film and as they'd been burned on three previous occasions, one can understand them not returning for a fourth. That's despite the authenticity being real this time: we have Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor; we have Ed Furlong as John Connor. These aren't recasts; these are the same faces we saw in TERMINATOR and T2.

And DARK FATE is a return to competence. While James Cameron did not direct this movie, I feel he might as well have much in the same way HALLOWEEN 2018 recaptured the style of the 1974 movie despite Carpenter neither filming it nor having final cut. DARK FATE is plainly a movie that Cameron had made on his behalf the way George Lucas directed RETURN OF THE JEDI through Richard Marquand. Despite never going to the set, Cameron managed its scripting and oversaw the editing and DARK FATE captures all of Cameron's strengths while also amending some of his weaknesses.

Where RISE, SALVATION and GENISYS were pedestrian in their action, Cameron's gift for pacing, shot sequencing, motion and geography are plainly present in Tim Miller's direction. DARK FATE is a relentless chase movie akin to a Season 2 episode of SLIDERS and Miller and Cameron ensure that each action sequence presents a new variation: a terrifying car chase, a battle in an auto factory, a battle within a crashing airplane, an underwater escape -- each sequence presenting a different form of physicality.

Also, Tim Miller infuses DARK FATE with a beautiful feminine energy. Mackenzie Davis' Grace can be unstoppable and indomitable, but she conveys the pain and shock of each blow and how near collapse she is as she performs another astonishing feat. There's a tenderness and tactile sense of identity to Grace in contrast to Schwarzenegger's implacable brutalism. And also, DARK FATE is complete. It doesn't end demanding a sequel, instead ending on a closing note that indicates that should there be a sequel, there'll be a great one, but if there isn't, the adventure continues. It's what SARAH CONNOR's finale so singularly wasn't.

It's a shame that GENISYS was made; had DARK FATE come in its place, it'd have been the first sequel to declare itself a return to authenticity, and had DARK FATE been on track to earn the same $440 million that GENISYS made, it would have been considered an adequate success. And looking at DARK FATE's sister movie, HALLOWEEN 2018 was also a 'deboot' that had the original leading lady reprising her role as a lead character -- except HALLOWEEN 2018 was a return to the original film's roots as a low budget indie movie made for 10 million dollars and earning 255 million at box office.

In contrast, DARK FATE is not a return to TERMINATOR (1984) being made for 6.4 million but instead yet another attempt at T2's blockbuster earnings with a blockbuster budget. Admittedly, a 12 million dollar version of DARK FATE would not have Linda Hamilton or Arnold Schwarzenagger and likely not have the computer generated deaging effects to recreate a young Linda Hamilton and Ed Furlong as Sarah and John, so maybe DARK FATE just came too late. It should have come out in 2015 before GENISYS poisoned the idea of going back to the original well.

Ever since Slider_Quinn21 posted FANTASTIC FOUR: Why did it fail? -- I've thought of that question regarding numerous interesting failures especially when SLIDERS is nothing if not an interesting failure.

**

I hadn't planned to go see the new TERMINATOR in theatres; I rarely go anywhere. But someone I wish I didn't know who annoys me -- well, I heard them snarking that DARK FATE failed because it had women leading the cast and a Mexican and that it was replacing white men in the key franchise roles and upon hearing that, I sped over to the cineplex, walked into an IMAX screening and came out having really enjoyed it.

Natalia Reyes is a terrific viewpoint character, Mackenzie Davis is an incredible action talent and Linda Hamilton anchors the franchise in the way that Nick Stahl, Christian Bale and Jai Courtney so singularly could not. Except clearly not because the audience is staying far, far away from DARK FATE.

I wonder if RISE OF THE MACHINES, SALVATION and GENISYS have cemented a popular view of TERMINATOR: that it produces incompetent action movies with inept scripting and incoherent plotting with each installment being the first film of a trilogy for which the sequels are never actually made, and only crazy people want to yet again watch the opening act of a story that once again won't be finished (although unlike RISE, SALVATION and GENISYS, DARK FATE does not demand or promise a sequel).

To be honest, the actresses I know aren't really NAMES. They star in commercials, one woman shows, short films, stageplays and they have civilian identities managing fast food restaurants or doing intake at psychiatric hospitals or performing dental cleanings. I'm having dinner with two next week, one of whom played a police station receptionist with two lines and was also in a wet wipe commercial, and the other one is focused on stage work.

That said, maybe I should get them to autograph some stuff now and hand over various personal artifacts so that if they hit it big, I can sell their stuff on eBay and then I can achieve my lifelong dream of writing a six part series of SLIDERS screenplays that resurrects Quinn, Wade, Rembrandt and Arturo and gives them a happy ending with Slider_Quinn21 to edit all the script pages. Oh. Wait. That already happened. Well, I'll just relax a bit for now then.

2,867

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I maintain that Temporal Flux is completely correct in all of his ARROWVERSE theories and that the show just hasn't validated them YET.

**

I sometimes fear that, like those ridiculous people who claimed that BATWOMAN was a disaster before it had even aired, I focus too much on the negative. I tend to post when something strikes me as wrong; I take it for granted when something is good.

I'd like to say that'll change, but I thought it was really weird that Regan the Bartender flirted with Kate Kane and then promised to call Kate having at no point in the episode exchanged any contact information with Kate. Was she going to use the Bat signal?

That said, I'm adoring BATWOMAN which has thankfully dropped the voiceover. Kate fighting crime in the shadow of Bruce Wayne is effective; the action sequences have a brutal physicality and the humour works, especially where Kate fails to catch a returning Batarang and Luke realizes he forgot to calibrate it for her height and arm span. That's funny.

I am fascinated by how Beth became Alice and wonder if the revelations the show will provide will in any way resemble what Greg Rucka and JH Williams III intended to offer in their abortive run in the comic.

I am also deeply amused by how we couldn't have Catwoman so we get Magpie, one of the lamest villains to ever feature in a comic and not even a BATMAN comic. She appeared in MAN OF STEEL #3 as the villain Superman and Batman teamed up to fight. Yes, that's right, Batman teamed up with Superman to catch a jewel thief. My God, MAN OF STEEL #3 was lame. Magpie worked for BATWOMAN, though.

**

THE FLASH is also starting out well. As a show, it's suffered from never finding a central metaphor for the superspeed. Seasons 1 - 2 were nominally about Barry running away from his past except he was investigating it quite thoroughly. Season 3 got too muddled with Flashpoint and wasn't about anything. Season 4 was about how the Thinker was too smart for Barry's speed, but then sexual harasser Andrew Kreisberg was fired off the show and his successors, unwilling to maintain his plans, fumbled the arc and turned a strong seasonal arc into the Flash fighting Sylar, as Slider_Quinn21 put it. Season 5 was slow with maybe a half-season arc of Nora secretly working with Thawne stretched out to a whole year and THE FLASH, while not being sure of what it is, shouldn't ever be slow.

Season 6 has found a way to focus on speed: the Flash is now racing against the clock before his time runs out. His death is inevitable, inescapable, unchangeable and it's entirely possible Season 6 could be the last year of the Flash. As a result, each episode of Season 6 has had a drive and passion and intensity that Season 5 so singularly didn't: Barry must train Killer Frost and teach Cisco because the annual crossover isn't coming any slower and he doesn't expect to survive it.

I'm also pleased that showrunner Eric Wallace has announced that he's treating Season 6 as two mini-seasons much like AGENTS OF SHIELD often had two arcs within one season. If it's a self-criticism of Season 5 and an effort to amend the problem, it would work.

**

SUPERGIRL has found a really compelling arc this season where friends are foes in secret and seeming foes are in fact friends. Kara's love for Lena has never seemed more romantic even as Lena is plotting against her; William Dey seems to be Kara's nemesis but turns out to be her ally; J'onn's loathsome brother turns out to be a villain of J'onn's own creation and Alex -- well, I dunno, but I liked the look of her poached eggs. It's good, although random remarks about voter turnout are a bit, well, random -- if the episodes' plots don't actually involve an election. There is nothing as sickening as people who throw out the term "virtue signalling" towards any expression of morality and responsibility and people like that are insufferable and tend to post transphobic rants on their Twitter accounts and support homophobic harassment -- but I'm grudgingly forced to concede that this would count. Damn it.

**

ARROW. Wow. I am really impressed by how propulsive this short season is. Every shot of every episode is like one of Oliver's arrows flying from his bow: there is intensity and purposeful drive. It's quite odd that a street crime vigilante is battling a cosmic crisis, but ARROW moves so fast it gives you no time to think about it. The season premiere was a touching revisitation of the first season. The second episode was a fascinating look back at Oliver's exploits in Hong Kong. The third was a gripping adventure that recalled the R'as Al Ghul season. By shifting the show out of Star City, Emily Bett Rickards' absence feels natural and it's interesting that she's been maintained in the recap sequence (and I see she's been booked for the series finale, very good).

The future sequences are also really strong and Katherine Macnamara really convinces as Mia, conveying both Felicity's intellectual ferocity and Oliver's heated aggression. I've never seen this actress play a role with such savagery and she's really gripping. Press reports seem to say that the spinoff she'd lead, GREEN ARROW AND THE CANARIES, is as good as sold, but I seem to recall a similar attitude for WAYWARD SISTERS and we all saw how that turned out. Regardless, nothing would make me happier than to see Mia Smoak fighting crime ever week next year other than a SLIDERS revival using Temporal Flux's REDUX concept.

**

LEGENDS is deeply frustrating for me right now on account of it not airing any new episodes.

Well, I feel I've done my part for queen and country.

However, as you may know, one of my quirks is to platonically befriend actresses, one of whom recently celebrated her 23rd birthday. She informed me that she'd been celebrating her 23rd birthday for over a decade and a half via a combination of diet, exercise and skin care and that she expected to continue celebrating her 23rd birthday until retirement or finding another line of work. (I think this is the part where Slider_Quinn21 tries to identify who I'm talking about and I tell him I've changed the details to obscure who I'm talking about.)

I expect that I shall celebrate the fifth anniversary of the twentieth anniversary of SLIDERS by finishing up a website for SLIDERS REBORN five years after it first came out.

2,869

(267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I was reading the comic BATMAN AND ROBIN ETERNAL (2015) and I was really struck by the character of Jason Todd. (WTF? What does this have to do with SUPERNATURAL?! I'll get there.)

Jason Todd was the second Robin in the 1980s, killed by the Joker, abortively resurrected in HUSH (2003) only for that to be shown as a fakeout only for writer Judd Winick to retroactively declare it hadn't been a fakeout after all in 2006 and Jason was back. Winick characterized Jason as the Gotham City equivalent of the Punisher, mowing down villains with handguns to Batman's dismay. Later writers, however, had varying characterizations. (WTF? Why is this relevant? Patience!)

In TEEN TITANS, Geoff Johns wrote Jason as unstable but non-lethal as he attacked Tim Drake (the third Robin) out of jealousy for how Bruce was proud of Tim but ashamed of Robin and beating up Tim Drake to best him and then walking away. Bruce Jones wrote him in NIGHTWING as a malicious prankster stealing Dick Grayson's Nightwing identity. Tony Daniel wrote Jason as outright psychotic in BATTLE FOR THE COWL towards the Bat Family after Bruce Wayne was thought dead: Jason attempts to shoot Dick Grayson to death and stab Tim Drake through the heart when they refuse to accept him as the new Batman. Grant Morrison subsequently wrote Jason as a hipster crime fighter who would document his crimefighting on social media and invite Gotham City citizens to vote on whether or not he'd execute criminals. (So WHAT?! What does this have to do with SUPERNATURAL?)

Judd Winick returned to the character after all this and had Jason confess that he'd been a little unstable after Bruce's death but he'd calmed down now. Ultimately, the character didn't seem to cohere until 2010 -- when there was an animated adaptation of Jason's resurrection story, BATMAN: UNDER THE RED HOOD, in which Jensen Ackles (Dean on SUPERNATURAL) voiced the character of Jason Todd (I told you we'd get here).

Since then, RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS (by Scott Lobdell) and BATMAN AND ROBIN ETERNAL (by Scott Snyder and James Tynion IV and others) have written a highly coherent take on Jason Todd -- Jason is written as a pastiche of Jensen Ackles as Dean Winchester with Jason having gone from being defined by lethal instability to being defined by sardonic humour to give voice to his troubled mindset. At one point, Batman, on a leave of absence, allows the Bat Family to help themselves to whatever they want out of the Batcave to carry on fighting crime. "Dibs on the Batmobiles!" Jason crows. "Just two or three. I'm not greedy."

In another issue of ETERNAL, Jason's immediate post-battle regime is to demand that Tim Drake accompany him to a bar to drink heavily despite Tim being underage. Later, someone remarks that Batman trained all the Robins well and Jason, regarded as the most unstable of all of them, snarks, "Yeah, every year in his Christmas card, Bruce tells me how proud he is of how perfect I turned out." At one point, Jason is fighting possessed college girls and remarks, "I dreamed about being smothered in college girls but it was more Drake video and less John Carpenter." These lines are plainly being written in the voice of Dean Winchester whether anyone will admit it or not and DC might owe Jensen Ackles some money here.

2,870

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The CW and Warner Bros. TV are developing a SUPERMAN television series featuring Tyler Hoechlin and Bitsie Tulloch as Clark and Lois. Interestingly, they're aiming for adapting a recent run of comics, the post-SUPERMAN REBORN (hunnh) where Superman is married to Lois and together in Metropolis, Lois and Clark are raising a 10-year-old son named Jonathan Samuel Kent who has inherited Superman's powers, Clark Kent's hapless innocence and Lois' inability to stay out of danger.

This means one of two things: WB has given up on a new Henry Cavill movie or recasting him for now and is letting the CW do whatever or WB has really loosened up since the days when they ordered that the Suicide Squad on ARROW be killed off and blocked Harley Quinn from appearing on the show.

The post-SUPERMAN REBORN (hunnh) era of comics (2016 - 2017) is interesting too from a comic book narrative perspective because it resembles all those Season 6 fanfics that have Rembrandt meeting the original Professor who then helps him split the Quinns who then reveals that the Earth Prime in "Genesis" wasn't their home Earth followed by the discovery that the Wade in "Requiem" was a clone and rescuing the real Wade followed by by Logan St. Clair catching up to the sliders and holding Henry the Dog hostage followed by the sliders defeating the Kromaggs using a combination of the Slidewave, the "New Gods for Old" nanites and the Professor's slide rule followed by the FBI appearing to guide the sliders to their true home followed by world peace and global nuclear disarmament followed by -- well, you get the idea.

The New 52 had 'rebooted' the DC Universe in September 2011. In August 2011, Superman had been happily married to Lois and in his late 30s. Suddenly, SUPERMAN featured a single, mid-20s Clark Kent who'd never dated Lois and been Superman for five years. ACTION COMICS was set five years previous and had a new origin for Superman. The loss of Lois and Clark's friendship and the confusion over what had and hadn't happened between the origin story in ACTION and the present day stories in SUPERMAN led to multiple writers repeatedly quitting the books, unable to find a tone or a direction for their work.

The first writer, George Perez, said DC couldn't even tell him if Clark's parents were alive or not in the new continuity. Eventually, the books found their feet, but the muddled two years caused sales to crash despite the eventual excellence of arcs where Superman starts dating Wonder Woman and then the spectacular TRUTH where Superman's secret identity is exposed to the world. I wrote up quite a summary several years ago:

http://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?pid=3288#p3288

The New 52 Superman would eventually find creative success, but it wasn't a financial success. The idea that a single, young Clark Kent would sell better had proven false. DC Editorial began laying groundwork to reverse the New 52: the LOIS AND CLARK mini series revealed that the original Superman found himself in the New 52 universe from the start along with Lois. They assumed new identities as Lois and Clark White and Clark observed his alternate's adventures and avoided interfering. In this peaceful retirement, Lois also gave birth to a son, Jon, who is now 10 years old.

At the end of the New 52 run, the New 52 Superman dies burning out his powers. In the DC REBIRTH relaunch, Clark White resumes the role of Superman and explains to the Justice League that he is from a parallel universe and he can't replace their lost friend, but he will serve them as best he can. Another complication occurs: a man who looks exactly like Clark Kent and is only human reappears, claiming that the New 52 Superman put him in witness protection and assumed his identity.

Telepathic scans reveal he has all of Clark's memories (but none of Superman's). This undoes the Clark/Superman identity being revealed. In addition, the New 52 Lois Lane absorbs the New 52 Superman's powers after his death, but then she promptly dies. To investigate, Lois assumes her double's identity and resumes work at the Daily Planet. There was a year of these stories: Lois Lane impersonating herself, Clark White carefully avoiding and investigating Clark Kent, little Jon confused by all of this.

In 2017, there was finally the climax, SUPERMAN REBORN (hunnh), where Kent is revealed as the fifth dimensional prankster, Mr. Mxyzptlk trying to help Superman regain his life in his mischievous way. The New 52 versions of Lois and Clark are shown to be alive after all but as disembodied energy that were split off from the original Lois and Clark due to the New 52 reboot. In REBORN (hunnh), both versions of the characters are merged, resulting in a combined timeline of 1985 reboot and the New 52 reboot.

The New 52 adventures are rewritten so that some of them happened, but during the past 10 years, Lois and Clark have mostly been away from the Daily Planet and Metropolis, taking some time off to raise their son. No one remembers there having been two Supermans; the Superman/Wonder Woman romance has been erased, the entire supporting cast has known Jon Kent all his life, and Clark White is able to resume his life as Clark Kent once again. Like I said, this is the SUPERMAN equivalent of all those Season 6 fanfics.

I grudgingly respect DC spending a whole year's worth of SUPERMAN and ACTION COMICS having Lois and Clark White slowly regain their lives as Lois Lane and Clark Kent and merging the New 52 and 1985 timelines -- but Jesus. There's a reason why most readers and writers haven't been able to finish their Season 6 SLIDERS fanfics.

I assume that a CW Superman series will skip past all of that.

2,871

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

On DC's attitude to timelines:

I've been catching up on my reading and enjoying the semi-recent run of BATMAN ETERNAL (a 52 issue weekly series in 2014), BATMAN AND ROBIN ETERNAL (a 26 issue weekly in 2015) and then the 2016 - 2018 run of DETECTIVE COMICS. Much of this was written by James Tynion IV. These comics showcased Stephanie Brown and Cassandra Cain, both of whom were introduced in the 90s and 2000s, both of whom became Batgirl, both of whom were cut from the character roster after the New 52 relaunch where DC sought to present the versions of Batman's sidekicks who would most commonly appear in movies and TV. Robin could remain Damian and while Dick remained Nightwing because their comics sold well.

However, BATGIRL featuring Cassandra Cain as the title character and BATGIRL featuring Stephanie as the lead had never been a big hit despite Bat-fans adoring her, so it seemed best to revert Batgirl to being the most prominent character in the role, Barbara Gordon. DC decreed that Stephanie and Cassandra were now erased from existence and relaunched BATMAN, DETECTIVE COMICS, BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT, NIGHTWING, RED HOOD and BATGIRL. Strategically, it made sense, but narratively, it was strange go from reading these comics in August 2011 where Bruce and Dick are two of hundreds of people wearing Batman costumes with Stephanie and Cassandra as Batman's agents -- and then go to September 2011 to find the August 2011 plots continuing -- except only Bruce is wearing the costume, the Batmen around the world are now Bat-derivatives instead (Batwing in Africa instead of the Batman of Africa) and everyone is now 10 years younger with Bruce in his early thirties and Gordon's hair has gone from white to red -- and there is no mention of Cassandra or Stephanie at all.

In 2014, the BATMAN ETERNAL series reintroduced Stephanie in her original costume as the Spoiler, but showed her meeting the Bat Family for the first time. 2015's BATMAN AND ROBIN ETERNAL had Cassandra Cain meeting the Bat Family for the first time. On one level, it allowed for these new versions of Stephanie and Cassandra to belong within the relaunch continuity; Stephanie would be the Spoiler and Cassandra would be Orphan, never again to find themselves assuming a role that the original would take away from them, never again to be made redundant. On another, it was obnoxious to read a new version of a story that had already been told in the 90s and 2000s and to see the characters starting their journey all over again no matter how skillful the scripts and art were.

And there are other oddities as well. BATMAN ETERNAL has Alfred encountering Bane and both of them coming to an uneasy alliance; Alfred never refers to Bane having met Alfred and beaten him senseless before breaking Batman's back, so the KNIGHTFALL arc has been removed from Batman's history along with Bane's defining story -- while retaining Bane himself. There are flashbacks to Hush (Tommy Elliot) showing him being obsessed with an orphaned Bruce to the point where Tommy as a pre-teen murders his own parents by sabotaging their car and then hugging Bruce and saying, "We're the same now" -- contradicting the original HUSH story where Tommy's parents died before Thomas and Martha Wayne were murdered and contradicting HEART OF HUSH where Tommy's mother repeatedly compares him to Bruce spawning Tommy's insane jealousy. Tommy's publication history is now a mix of flashbacks that don't fit with the original material with no coherent progression.

Under this DC approach of continually rebooting the past while maintaining the present, the result is that even when the writers and artists are good, the constant declaration that stories the reader saw in the past either didn't happen or happened differently is perpetually disorienting.

Stephanie and Cassandra would become part of a Bat Family team in the subsequent DETECTIVE COMICS which did a great job of acknowledging this, however: Cassandra fears that she can't overcome her upbringing as a child assassin and Stephanie feels inadequate. A villain tries to capitalize on this by showing them the previous timeline where they were Batgirls but are now mere shadows of themselves -- but Stephanie and Cassandra are instead inspired to know that they have what it takes to wear the Bat symbol. So that's something.

But under the Marvel style of continuity, I can't see much of this happening; instead, Marvel declares that all published stories are true, even the ones that contradict each other, folds them into a vague 10 - 20 year timeline and anything that doesn't fit, they just don't refer to. If Marvel had been handling the relaunch and needed to put Barbara Gordon back in the Batgirl suit, they wouldn't have erased Stephanie and Cassandra from reality: they would have just thrown in a line about Stephanie and Cassandra taking a break to go to university out of town and brought them back if someone were inclined to do so, much in the same way Spider-Man's clone, Ben Reilly, relocated to Las Vegas for two years.

If Marvel wanted Batman and his supporting cast younger, they would have simply started drawing them younger and referred to them as being younger, just as Tony Stark went from being in his late 40s to his early 30s. They wouldn't have had a cosmic event to justify Jim Gordon's hair going from white to red again; they'd have just changed it and made a joke about how Gordon quit drinking and started taking vitamins the way J. Jonah Jameson has been drawn a bit younger over the years. And if they wanted to change Barbara Gordon from being a mid-30s computer genius to a college aged Batgirl, they'd have just relaunched BATGIRL with Barbara younger and then made a joke as to how she'd been acting older than her age for years but now wanted to finish her education formally. And if Marvel wanted to re-do Cassandra and Stephanie's origins, they'd probably do an altered retelling in flashbacks much in the same way Iron Man's origin is retold every few years with the technological and topical references and locations updated.

2,872

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I re-read some of the BATWOMAN comics, specifically the opening arc in DETECTIVE COMICS by writer Greg Rucka and artist JH Williams III, and then BATWOMAN #1 - 24 by JH Williams III, W. Hayden Blackman III and some other artists.

The opening arc by Rucka is strong. It capitalizes on Batwoman having appeared in the 52 comic book, an anthology series of sorts, but it gives Batwoman much clearer definition as a daughter of two US army officers with a severely militaristic approach to crimefighting after being rejected from service for being gay. Williams III's art is hallucinogenic and eerie, Kate Kane is all punk defiance and rage while Batwoman contains Kate's fury in bright red hair and an elegant costume. Everything that makes the BATWOMAN TV show great is present: Kate feels duty, a compulsion to serve as a soldier. The mystery of Beth/Alice is also established with strength.

Then we go to the full fledged BATWOMAN series which Rucka didn't write and... things get weird. Williams III assumes responsibility for scripts and art (while other artists come in but clearly follow Williams' preferences for double-paged layouts and wide composition). And Williams III's interests define BATWOMAN #1 - 24 and his interests seem to be mythological monsters. Water deities. Giant serpents. Werewolves. That's what he wants to draw and he's great at it.

And while the book is well-scripted and a strong, rich reading experience, I just don't see how gorgons and water elementals bring out the Kate Kane character who is defined by her military background, whose abilities are in street level crimefighting, whose nerve strikes and tasers should be useless against smoke monsters. Kate regards the monsters with a certain calm stoicism, but never panics and instead runs away and comes back with Wonder Woman for help and I couldn't help but think that this was more a Wonder Woman story than a Batwoman story.

The subsequent arc involved Batman and Batwoman being manipulated against each other by dark forces and was unfinished by Williams III as he quit the book in frustration after DC approved his plot for Kate to marry Maggie Sawyer but then withdrew permission. It was wrapped up in a perfunctory, rushed BATWOMAN ANNUAL #1 written by another writer.

Ultimately, I'm not surprised that the BATWOMAN television series makes absolutely no effort to draw on Batwoman fighting water elementals and werewolves and Medusa and mystical tears in reality, all of which are unaffordable on a CW budget as rendered in the comic and none of which really speak to the Kate Kane character.

HUSH and BATWOMAN comics often seem a bit amateurish compared to the TV shows, although I can't pretend the TV shows don't have their failings.

2,873

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Having now reread HUSH by Jeph Loeb, HUSH RETURNS by AJ Lieberman and HEART OF HUSH by Paul Dini along with UNDER THE RED HOOD by Judd Winick, there's the odd sense of sequels trying to make contrary efforts to capitalize on the sales success of HUSH while repairing its flaws. HUSH RETURNS insists that Hush is an important villain because... the writer insists upon it, writer Lieberman can't explain why Thomas Elliot does anything or why he's constantly playing random mind games with Batman.

UNDER THE RED HOOD feels like an embarrassed cough after HUSH; Judd Winick's story has a mysterious Red Hood fighting crime in murderous fashion in Gotham and this Red Hood is revealed as Jason Todd alive after a cosmic reset and a Lazarus Pit, who also confirms that he was fighting Batman in the original HUSH storyline. The intent is clear: Winick acknowledges that HUSH would have worked better if Todd had been HUSH, but offers Jason Todd a different persona as a brutal, merciless crimefighter. He's like the Punisher and Batman created him, and Batman is forced to co-exist with his wayward pupil. In the stories that followed, Jason returned as an antagonist and eventually re-joined the Bat-Family and was accepted by Tim Drake, Dick Grayson, Damian and even Bruce himself, and it's probably the story that HUSH should have told in the first place.

Paul Dini in HEART OF HUSH, however, manages to cobble the disparate pieces of Hush into a coherent character. Why does Hush wear the bandages? He tears them off and we finally see underneath them at last -- and the face is Bruce Wayne's -- retroactively explaining why Tommy Elliot faked his life of wealth and success; he wanted to kill Batman and then live Bruce Wayne's life; he's been performing plastic surgery on himself to that end.

Why did a psycho kid trying to kill his parents to inherit money become a hardworking doctor? We see that Tommy's parents were insanely abusive and his mother constantly compared him to Bruce, leading to a psychotic obsession and hatred -- and that Dr. Jonathan Crane, the Scarecrow, was (before his life of crime) Tommy's psychiatrist and amused by Tommy's insanity which he fostered and encouraged; this is why Tommy become a doctor. Why is Tommy so fixated on Bruce? He is fuelled by a mad jealousy towards him. None of this characterization was in HUSH, and it feels like THE HEART OF HUSH should have been part of the original HUSH and Dini makes it feel like it's been there all along, weaving all the disparate details together.

I think I have to take it back -- Hush is an A-list villain, albeit one not currently being used in the film adaptations and so fair game for BATWOMAN. However, Hush is weakened by how either UNDER THE RED HOOD or HEART OF HUSH should really have been contained in his original debut.

2,874

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Hmm. I've been re-reading the original BATMAN: HUSH issues and I think I may have been overly hard on Jeph Loeb and HUSH. HUSH features Batman being attacked on all sides by friends and foes, manipulated by a mysterious stranger in a trenchcoat, his face and body swathed in bandages. Throughout the initial issues, there are hints: Batman suffers an injury when the mystery man severs Batman's jump line with a Batarang, blows out the Batmobile's tires, leaves residue of a Lazarus Pit at the scene of a crime -- all of which adds up to the revelation where Hush rips off his bandages to reveal that he's Jason Todd, the second Robin whom Bruce failed to save from being murdered by the Joker. The Batarang was Jason's; Batman’s severed line landed him on the street where he first encountered Jason trying to steal the tires off the Batmobile.

However, the story abruptly declares this a fakeout, Jason Todd is actually Clayface impersonating Todd, and Hush is actually Bruce's childhood friend, Tommy Elliott -- except Hush's bandages are never taken off to reveal Tommy's face underneath. In addition, it's unclear how Tommy knew Batman's true identity and knew the details of Jason Todd's relationship with Bruce or how he was able to engineer and motivate all of Batman's enemies -- which then requires another reveal that the Riddler was behind it all and Hush was his pawn -- except the Riddler was defeated and imprisoned by Batman in a throwaway action sequence earlier in the arc and makes this revelation from Arkham Asylum, hardly the position of the mastermind behind the HUSH arc.

The explanation for how the Riddler knows Batman's true identity is nonsensical with the Riddler claiming that he gained enlightenment from being resurrected by a Lazarus Pit. And how did the Riddler acquire all the intimate details of Jason Todd's story with Bruce Wayne?

Reading it now, it seems very clear to me that Jeph Loeb's intention was that Hush was indeed Jason Todd -- because the structure of the story makes no sense without it. Without Jason Todd being the villain behind the bandages, the only justification for Hush's knowledge of Batman is to attribute it to another villain which makes the titular villain of the story nothing but a figurehead for someone else. The clues that hinted at Jason Todd make no sense as misdirection because they could have only been planted by Jason Todd himself.

It seems like DC editorial got cold feet around the last three issues of the 12 issue HUSH arc and mandated that Hush could not be Jason Todd after all. That's why why Tommy Elliott's motivations make so little sense and feel like they've been written without regard for the rest of the story. It's probably why Loeb never unmasks Hush as Elliott -- Loeb didn't know how to write Hush without Hush being Jason Todd. And indeed, a later story, UNDER THE HOOD, reveals that it was Jason Todd in this story after all, although Hush as Tommy Elliott remained a separate character.

It's quite hilarious to read the GOTHAM KNIGHTS arc from #55 - 74 where another writer tries to pick up from where Loeb left off by having Hush return to menace Batman. Hush is portrayed as a gripping visual; a flowing trenchcoat, his bandages billowing in the wind, his dual-pistols firing -- but now it's just baffling. Why is Dr. Thomas Elliott, famous and wealthy neurosurgeon, wearing bandages? Why is he using a gun? Why is this man, so jealous of Bruce Wayne's wealth, running around Gotham beating up various supervillains and saying they work for him now? Why did he fake his own death and throw away a life of success and appreciation to get into street brawls?

It's tragically obvious that without the Todd identity, Hush is merely empty imagery without any real characterization and it's only later that Paul Dini gives him some.

Anyway. I excuse Jeph Loeb for the misbegotten mess of Hush.

2,875

(934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ah, good.

**

So, it looks like the separation between Marvel Television and Marvel Film is at an end as Marvel Film producer Kevin Feige is assuming control of the TV and publishing divisions of Marvel while retaining control of the film division. Before the original separation, Ike Perlmutter ran both divisions and was Feige's boss until he tried to fire Robert Downey Jr. off of CAPTAIN AMERICA CIVIL WAR. Feige threatened to quit over Perlmutter's interference with CIVIL WAR and Perlmutter was reduced/reassigned to only overseeing TV and publishing with no authority over Feige and the film department.

But as a result, AGENTS OF SHIELD lost the ability to tie in to Marvel movies as Marvel Film and Marvel TV were now coldly at odds. That's no longer the case: Perlmutter is no longer running Marvel TV and his top lieutenant, Jeph Loeb (who created Hush/Tommy Elliott over in BATWOMAN!) is leaving Marvel TV. https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/kevin … 203377802/

Creatively, I feel that the individual TV projects had a lot of success. DAREDEVIL's first and third seasons were excellent, LUKE CAGE did well for half of its first season and all of its second, JESSICA JONES was terrific throughout, THE PUNISHER was good if never great and IRON FIST had a good second season. AGENTS OF SHIELD has been a very well-written, well-produced show. AGENT CARTER was brilliant. However, financially and in terms of viewership, AGENTS OF SHIELD is at best a sleeper hit, AGENT CARTER was cancelled on a cliffhanger (that AOS Season 7 may resolve) and the Netflix shows all saw dramatic audience drop off that saw them cancelled. It seems to me that good TV shows weren't produced at Marvel TV as much as they escaped from Marvel TV and Perlmutter, who is not interested in creativity and was more concerned with being spiteful and selling content.

The main reason for the cancellations of all the Netflix shows: Netflix wanted to order fewer episodes per season. Marvel TV (and Perlmutter) balked at making less money despite the fact that every season of the Netflix shows suffered from overstretched plots, some handled gracefully (like DAREDEVIL Season 3) and some not (like DEFENDERS). It wasn't about making a good show; it was about getting hours sold to streaming.

And then there's the inability to effectively market TV shows about Marvel characters as being part of the same universe as the Marvel movies -- because the head of Marvel TV was adversarial and belittling towards Marvel Film. Without being able to tie into a feature film, AGENTS OF SHIELD lost a massive promotional push, lost ratings ground and has stayed on the air through budget cuts and reduced licensing fees.

That belittlement is best demonstrated in INHUMANS, a film project Perlmutter pushed forward as an effort to replace the X-MEN property in Marvel Films as FOX owned the rights. After Perlmutter was removed from Marvel Film, Kevin Feige rightly cancelled the INHUMANS movie as trying to replace a culturally iconic property like X-MEN with a non-entity like INHUMANS was insane. In response, Perlmutter ordered a cheap, rushed, slapdash TV production of INHUMANS to be filmed and had the first two episodes of this substandard product shown in IMAX theatres. The damage to the Marvel brand and to the IMAX brand was astonishing, declaring that Marvel and IMAX would peddle a cheap TV movie as a cinematic experience and it was a financial catastrophe not to mention a ratings failure when the rest of the episodes aired on ABC.

And with this kind of relationship between Marvel TV and Marvel Film, there was no way for the TV shows to sell themselves as being in the same world as the Avengers. The Marvel TV shows don't seem like a product extending from the Marvel brand. They seem like STAR TREK novels because the TV head can't and won't coordinate with the film division.

There has been no stated reason for why Kevin Feige has been promoted to take over Perlmutter's stewardship of the TV and publishing wings of Marvel, but INHUMANS was a clear sign that Perlmutter's way of doing business for Marvel was not yielding positive results financially or creatively. Meanwhile, Feige was the hero of INFINITY WAR, ENDGAME, HOMECOMING, FAR FROM HOME, CAPTAIN MARVEL, THOR RAGNAROK and the ANT MAN films. And with Marvel starting a streaming service for TV shows, it no longer made sense to keep Feige removed from TV projects or to leave Perlmutter in charge of them when he ran the Netflix shows and INHUMANS and AGENTS OF SHIELD and AGENT CARTER into the ground, any quality existing in spite of Perlmutter.

2,876

(934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

TemporalFlux wrote:

And that rumor of a Spidey appearance in Captain Marvel 2 persists.  The previous (seemingly slanted) rumor had Spidey appearing only as a screw-up that Captain Marvel constantly has to save.  The slant of the rumor was that she would also be very emasculating to Spidey during all of this to make herself and female empowerment look better.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainmen … -mcu.html/

It is a shame, really.  People should be laughing with Spidey and not laughing at Spidey.  Maybe Sony does need to just take full control and cut Marvel out.

Sony should cut Marvel out because... there are rumours? Wouldn’t there be rumours regardless?

The last Kevin Feige spoke of CAPTAIN MARVEL II, he said he wanted to explore Carol’s adventures in space between her first film and ENDGAME. Unless Tom Holland’s Peter gets the Captain Universe powers, I don’t think Spider-Man would have a role. We’ll see, but given the overwhelmingly positive reaction to HOMECOMING and FAR FROM HOME, why should a rumour suddenly have people who’ve enjoyed the Feige/Holland era suddenly declare Feige doesn’t know the character? You’ve lost me on this one, although your SPIDER-MAN TEAM UP point is certainly irrefutable.

2,877

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Yeah, I think this version of Malcolm is just a businessman.

So are we sure that the CW doesn't have more Batman rights than we thought?  Tommy Elliot (Hush) appeared on the show, and they name-dropped the Riddler.  They've also said that Kate was worried that some of Batman's old villains would show up if they thought Batman was back - that might not happen because of the Batwoman reveal, but between what we've seen and what was teased in Elseworlds, I'm interested to see if they'll actually use Batman villains in this show.

I'm also curious how the world of Batwoman works in the comics.  Does she fight Batman's rogues gallery as well as her own?  Does Batman fight her rogues gallery?  Because, like with all the Marvel heroes in New York, it's crazy to me to have separate worlds in the same city.  They'd be crossing each other all the time.

Well, Batman has been cast for CRISIS. He will be played by Kevin Conroy, veteran Batman voice actor of the BATMAN animated series. But because Tom Welling and Tyler Hoechlin and Brandon Routh are each playing Superman and Routh is also playing Ray Palmer, it's unclear if Conroy's Batman is BATWOMAN's Batman. But even without that, the situation is peculiar to be sure.

There is really no reason why TV and film versions can't co-exist, but Warner Bros. seems to frown upon it. THE FLASH TV deal came together well before Zack Snyder wanted the Flash for his JUSTICE LEAGUE film and the subsequent spinoff and was grandfathered past the films getting first pick. However, ARROW introduced the Suicide Squad, introduced Deadshot, introduced Deathstroke, setting them up as semi-regular cast members -- and then WB ordered that these characters be removed as the Suicide Squad and Deadshot would be in SUICIDE SQUAD and Deathstroke was planned to be the central villain in a Ben Affleck-directed BATMAN film.

SUPERGIRL and BATWOMAN strike me as shows made by a TV wing that can't get Superman and Batman on TV. During Season 1 of SUPERGIRL, the show was barred from showing Superman's face on camera and in TVLine, the BATWOMAN showrunner has shared how BATWOMAN was not permitted to make Batman a regular cast member. https://tvline.com/2018/12/10/arrowvers … no-batman/

The situation seems to be that if a character is headlining a feature film, WB doesn't want a competing version of them to appear as a regular or semi-regular character in a TV show. However, on a case-by-case basis, they have permitted Batman, Superman, Lois Lane, Deadshot and Deathstroke to appear or return -- as guest-stars who won't appear so regularly that they seem like they're replacing Robert Pattinson or Henry Cavill in advance of the movie franchise. Bruce Wayne has appeared on TITANS, but he's a 58-year-old version of Bruce played by Iain Glen, clearly not competing with Pattinson. Tyler Hoechlin has to date only appeared in six episodes of SUPERGIRL.

Also, I consider Hush to be a D-list villain.

Hush is one of the lamest characters ever to appear in a BATMAN comic book, memorable only because he was drawn by superstar artist Jim Lee in a 12-issue BATMAN arc written by Jeph Loeb where Hush was supposedly masterminding attacks from all of Batman as he was attacked by Catwoman, Superman (both mind-controlled), Poison Ivy, the Joker, the League of Assassins, Clayface. The imagery of Hush as a trenchcoat clad man in bandages and two guns was a red herring to indicate he might be Two Face, but beyond that, Hush had no real character or rationale -- until he unmasked as Jason Todd. But the next issue immediately dismissed this, revealing that Todd was actually Clayface and Hush went unrevealed for awhile longer.

The half-explanation given for his motives at the end of his opening arc: Hush claimed to be Tommy Elliot, a childhood friend of Bruce's who became a brain surgeon. Hush says that as a boy, he caused a car accident to kill his parents, but Dr. Thomas Wayne saved Mrs. Elliot, enraging Tommy who wanted his inheritance -- and so, the money-seeking Tommy decided to become a hardworking brain surgeon (?) to get revenge on Bruce Wayne and Batman. The story arc was so inept that Hush is never unmasked to confirm or deny this story, and then the resolution has the Riddler taking full credit for Hush's plot, meaning Hush was a pointless poseur who wasn't responsible for anything at all.

Because the HUSH arc featured all of Batman's greatest villains drawn by a popular artist and because the Marvel Comics editor in chief enthusiastically promoted this 12 issue arc from his competitor (for some reason), HUSH was a sales smash but one of the most-mocked publications of the year. And there were sequels. A later arc by Judd Winick in BATMAN revealed that the Jason Todd that Batman fought had indeed been Jason (who switched places with Clayface later in the fight) -- although Jason was not Hush.

Another arc in GOTHAM KNIGHTS had Hush trouncing various Batman villains to consolidate the Gotham underworld and framing Alfred for murder and suggesting that he wasn't really Tommy Elliot after all -- only for it to be confirmed that he was actually Tommy. It was a clumsy mess.

However, for some strange reason, this misbegotten character struck a chord in DETECTIVE COMICS writer Paul Dini (showrunner of the BATMAN animated series). Dini brought Hush back in an arc called THE HEART OF HUSH where flashbacks reveal that Tommy as a boy was an obsessive, driven child who loathed his abusive mother and was psychotically jealous of Bruce Wayne's wealth and freedom as a rich orphan (which justifies why he went to med school after his failed murder attempt).

Dini also wrote Hush with something Hush never demonstrated in his previous arcs: Hush now had an innate understanding of Bruce Wayne and Batman in his new plan where he kidnaps Catwoman, puts her on comic book scifi life support machines and then rips out her heart. "It doesn't matter what socialite or reporter you're dating," Hush snarls at Batman. "There's only one woman who's ever held your heart and now I'm holding HERS!" Later, Hush incapacitates Batman and reveals that Hush has altered his face via plastic surgery: Hush now looks like Bruce Wayne and intends to assume the role of Bruce and Batman and become the very man he hates and of whom he's nursed a lifelong jealousy.

The fight goes into the Batcave where Hush remarks upon the bay of Batmobiles with, "Bruce! You magnificent bastard! A car for every mood swing!" Hush is defeated and Catwoman is restored, but when Batman is thought dead after FINAL CRISIS, Dini presented THE HOUSE OF HUSH: Hush attempts to assume Bruce Wayne's identity only for the Justice League to let him and then have him under constant guard, letting them control Bruce's ongoing legacy with Hush as their puppet. Hush escapes just as Bruce Wayne returns from the dead and Hush then reveals to the world that Bruce Wayne is Batman -- except Bruce has started Batman Incorporated, a global army of Batmans, and has already revealed that Batman has been many different people over the years and he was only ever one of them, rendering Hush's revelation meaningless.

I concede that Paul Dini has told some excellent Hush stories, but that is because Paul Dini is an A-list talent. Hush remains D-list. He has a deeply uninteresting visualization, a clumsy motivation from an inept writer that was ironed out later by a better one, and he's ultimately a reflection of Batman and Bruce Wayne rather than being a strong character in his own right. But I reserve the right to change my mind on that at any time.

2,878

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, Deathstroke survived the island. Anything Deathstroke survived, Batman could as well. Also, given that Deathstroke overcame his insanity, if Batman went insane, he could have recovered from that as well and become (or remained) Barry-2's friend.

The only thing I'm unsure of: why was Malcolm Merlyn unable to defend himself against the Dark Archer/Tommy? I suppose on Earth-2, Malcolm never joined the League of Assassins, never trained to become the Dark Archer, and his timeline diverged from Earth-1 well before Oliver and Robert went missing.

2,879

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Episodes of THE FLASH established that on Earth 2, Robert Queen, Oliver's father, was the Hood who tried to stop the Undertaking and was exposed on TV in a background news report in Season 2 of THE FLASH. Presumably, Oliver-2 was killed but Robert survived and, on the island, was trained by a stranded Bruce Wayne who performed the same role that Deathstroke did for Oliver. It seems that Robert-2 either went into hiding or was killed after his identity was exposed, but also trained Adrian Chase to carry on for him.

2,880

(1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Really enjoying SUPERGIRL's second episode with some great fight scenes and terrific interpersonal drama and I even liked Alex noting that she barely knows Kelly while Nia realizes that Brainiac is a troublingly obsessive boyfriend. But...

At one point, Lena needs some of the technology within the VR contact lenses, so she... tries to take apart a set to steal the internals and breaches the security and Andrea Rojas proceeds to strip Lena of her lenses and her access to the VR network. Uh.

If Lena needed the tech in the lenses, why didn't she license it? And why is Andrea personally enforcing end-user agreement breaches and punishments? Is Tim Cook going to come to my door if I take apart my iPad? And furthermore, how exactly can Andrea 'ban' Lena from using the VR lenses?

Even if Netflix cancelled my account and took my TV, could they really stop me from creating a new email, opening a new account and buying a new television from Best Buy? Certainly, social media networks have banned alt-right personalities, but that's specific to public figures who depend on their names and notoriety to go about their business on a social media platform. Lena's work was in private.

I don't get it, and SUPERGIRL seems to grant Andrea Rojas a lot of power in-universe -- stipulating that Catco employees can't find journalism jobs elsewhere, declaring that her accessible-to-any-subscriber VR network is now off limits to Lena -- and I don't see how, even in a superhero universe, her power is feasible.