I read them. She's a good speaker, and she's trying to say the right thing. Can we trust that she really has a plan? I don't know. But I do hope that she does because she's almost certainly going to be the next president, and these people deserve to be helped as much as anyone else in the country. Or, at least, as much as she wants to help Syrian refugees. These are hard-working Americans that want to work. And both sides have really done a terrible job at doing anything to help entire towns that are dying off.
2,821 2016-08-06 01:02:11
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
2,822 2016-08-05 13:00:08
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, I'm excited too. BvS was a movie I was wanting to see for a long time and got bogged down by a *ton* of expectations. Suicide Squad is a movie that's sorta free of that. People might be a little leery of a new Joker, but we've now had 3 Jokers in 30 years so we're sorta getting to the point where we expect a new look. People also might have expectations for Harley, but it looks like they have her down pretty well.
I still think it's really bizarre that they're already doing the weird sorta spinoff movie this early. I still think this is a bit of a risky movie at this point, just because it doesn't really fit in the overall story (again, like Guardians). I still like the idea of doing an Aquaman/Flash/Cyborg movie (almost exactly like the trailer for Justice League) as the post-BvS movie.
But I'm seeing it tomorrow night. I'll hopefully be able to put a review up Sunday.
2,823 2016-08-05 12:17:18
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, on the Weekly Planet (a comics podcast I love) they were talking about Suicide Squad and said it's the movie most people were talking about. I'm a week behind so they were talking about it before seeing it, and they were both really excited.
For reference, neither thought it was particularly a great movie. I didn't listen to his review yet, but his short twitter non-spoiler review said it was good but not great. Going in, he expected it to be great.
So I'm sure it'll make money. The question will be whether it has any traction for more than a week or two. BvS made a ton of movie the first week and then died out due to word of mouth. Suicide Squad needs to at least win this week and stay competitive the next couple weeks.
2,824 2016-08-05 12:14:25
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Okay, but where are the programs to help those people? I don't have any love for the coal industry, but these are people who want to work. Who are willing to do hard work. They mine coal because that's all their family has done for years. They aren't going to get a job as engineers. They aren't going to work for Goldman Sachs.
Hillary (allegedly) cares about poor Hispanics and poor blacks and poor Syrian refugees. But she's basically ignoring poor whites. She doesn't need them to win, but it'd be nice if she pretended like she cared about them.
2,825 2016-08-05 10:51:03
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, I think it's unfortunately that a group of people that have been historically forgotten by the US government is also getting painted with an unfair brush. Are some poor whites also the same hardcore racists who are being loud and awful at Trump rallies? Yes. Absolutely.
But a lot of these people are proud people who work hard for their families. And because there's a movement in the Democratic Party toward clean energy (which I agree with) and because the Republican Party tends to ignore poor people of any race, these people have no one speaking for them. They've been living in their town for generations, and they've been doing one thing (digging coal, working in a factory, etc) for generations. It's what they do. Their way of living and their towns are dying, and no one has spoken for them.
Now Trump is speaking to them, and they're responding. And either they don't know that Trump isn't really going to help them, or they know and don't care. And I'm not sure which is more tragic.
But I'm glad someone is finally talking about this issue. *Why* Trump has support is a much more important item than just getting mad that he has support. If we don't address why he's popular then I don't think things will get better. No matter how you define better.
2,826 2016-08-04 22:33:52
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ … or-whites/
This is an interesting article about why people are voting Trump.
Hint: it isn't because they're all stupid and/or racist, despite what the media wants you to think.
2,827 2016-08-04 22:31:25
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, I think if Trump were to drop out now, I think that'd only be good for the Republicans. Hillary has set up her entire campaign to be anti-Trump, and she has a gigantic lead. If she suddenly had to start talking policy instead of just fear-mongering about all the things Trump will do, I don't know if she could.
Some hardcore Trump people would stay home, but some would vote Pence because he was Trump's guy. And, again, you'd get Republicans and Democrats who have someone "reasonable" to vote for against Hillary.
I'm not saying he'd definitely beat her, but since most of Hillary's arguments are based on Trump, she'd have her work cut out for her to get back on message.
2,828 2016-08-04 09:19:26
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah but wouldn't that number be offset by #NeverTrump Republicans and #NeverHillaryorTrump Democrats? Pence would bring in establishment Republicans who don't want Trump, and it'd give an option to #NeverHillary Democrats who were turned off by Trump.
I don't see Trump voters switching to Hillary because Pence is too establishment. Hillary basically has the patent on establishment.
2,829 2016-08-03 18:46:43
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I mean I don't disparage anyone for fearing Trump. He's unpredictable. I just don't really fear him. He's not going to nuke Europe or drop out of NATO or build a wall and a bunch of concentration camps. He's a buffoon and he's not capable of any of the fascist stuff people think he'll do. I think he's much more likely to either quit after he wins (because he doesn't want to do the job) or get kicked out of office than do anything nefarious.
Hillary will go to war with Syria. She will bring in a ton of refugees. And she's going to have way more leash to do stuff she'll want to do because she has control over every Democratic congressman.
Just my thoughts.
2,830 2016-08-03 14:30:15
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, I've used Guardians a couple of times just because I think it's a movie that exists on pure fun. I could've easily used something like Fast and the Furious, but that has a negative connotation (although I've only seen the most recent one and I liked it).
I agree that these aren't the same types of characters, but I think them being genuine bad guys should make the movie more fun. Just a darker fun. These are people who would get delight out of causing mayhem and destruction. When Superman destroys Metropolis, we get a deeper moment because he feels bad that all that destruction happens. When Harley Quinn defeats the bad guy and 50 civilians die, she celebrates. The point is that she won, and the collateral damage is insignificant or irrelevant.
Now could they do a movie where that type of stuff happens and the protagonist is callous about it....and the movie end up being "fun" for the audience? I don't know. But it's a movie where big action pieces could happen with collateral damage but instead of it simply being an issue where the movie doesn't care about what happened to the nameless people who in the wrong place at the wrong time, they can actually build it into the story because the characters don't care.
If Ayer is doing what I think he's doing, I don't think these will be genuinely bad people. They'll be conflicted people who've done genuinely evil things but now want, on some level, redemption. And characters like the Joker are going to exist in the movie as a contrast. He's the truly evil one - they can find good in themselves to differentiate themselves.
That's just a guess.
2,831 2016-08-03 12:20:50
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I read that one of the issues with Suicide Squad is a disagreement about what it should be. The studio wanted a lighter/fun movie about some bad guys doing good, and Ayer wanted to do a more somber movie about the motivations for these characters. And the result is something sorta in the middle that doesn't really accomplish either of those.
Apparently the studio loved the first teaser trailer and even hired the company that made the teaser to do their own cut of the movie opposite of Ayer. Which is a bizarre decision to say the least.
Again, this is why I think there needs to be a single person who can make decisions on this stuff. Say what you want about Marvel movies, but they feel connected. Even something like Guardians feels like an MCU film. If someone like Geoff Johns was overseeing these movies (and, yes, I know he is now) then there wouldn't be so much discussion about what these movies are supposed to be because all this stuff would be planned out.
On this, apparently they had a release date before they even had a script, and Ayer had to write the movie in something like six weeks. Marvel has the same sort of stuff (Ant-Man is the best example) but at least they had 10 movies under their belt by the time that came out. If Guardians or Ant-Man had failed, it wouldn't derail the MCU.
If Suicide Squad isn't successful, that'll be mixed/rough reception for their first three movies. And even if Wonder Woman looks amazing, people are going to be skeptical. This stuff builds on itself - people overrate MCU movies because so many of them have been "fun." It's going to be the opposite for DCCU movies if they aren't careful.
2,832 2016-08-02 21:59:45
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I don't know that staying on Metropolis would have built that story or that world in the same way that moving forward did.
Yeah, but we talked about this after MoS. In my opinion, the movie never moved on. And people (not you, others) told me that the aftermath of Metropolis was going to be a huge part of the whole DCEU. That it would all build off that moment.
And I could see that. Maybe that's what would inspire Batman and Flash and Wonder Woman and Aquaman and Cyborg to come out into the light. Maybe Batman would be frightened, but maybe Barry would be inspired. Aquaman and Diana would show up to protect their worlds from this new threat.
I saw trailers where it looks like Superman is standing trial for what happened. He was being held accountable. He was forced to defend what he did.
Then the movie came out.....and nope. Man of Steel skipped over the aftermath of Metropolis, and BvS made it a side story. That's not really Zack Snyder's fault because he showed at the end of MoS that the world didn't really think it was his fault. It's joking about how hot Superman is and going to a basketball game in an already-rebuilt Metropolis. Not sure why I expected more from BvS.
Reviews are coming in for Suicide Squad. Critics hate it, which makes me oddly more excited to see it.
Yeah. I'm really looking forward to it. One of my girlfriends is a huge Harley fan, and she got us all tickets a couple weeks ago. The non-spoiler review I read said that it was fun but didn't make much sense. And also mentioned that it could've been a fun Guardians-like movie, but it gets sorta bogged down by the world Snyder created.
I don't know. I'm excited about it.
2,833 2016-08-02 21:51:08
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (722 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I'd actually like to see a TOS era ship trying to survive in the TNG/DS9/VOY era. We've always been on a ship that's been technologically superior. The Enterprise was the Starfleet flagship, DS9 and the Defiant were pretty tough, and Voyager was the most advanced ship in the Delta Quadrant it seemed like.
Sorta like Beyond, actually. What if a crew crashed and had to escape on a TOS-era ship. They save the day and return to Earth. And due to the Dominion War or whatever, they can't give them a new ship. The new captain volunteers to use the old ship. So they're using an outdated ship in a really uncertain time. That would be cool, I think.
But, yeah, TF is probably right. I've heard that story too.
2,834 2016-08-01 22:49:54
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, I can see Russia being a problem in a Trump presidency, but I honestly can't tell you the best strategy for them. If Putin wants to invade other countries, what's the proper reaction? Isn't "World War 3" the only thing that comes out of that? Whether Obama, Trump, Hillary, Biden, Pence, Kaine, Ted Cruz, whoever is president?
I've seen the "buddy-buddy" argument, but what's the endgame for that in people's minds? Is the US going to go to war with NATO because Russia invaded the Ukraine? Just stay out of it completely? Invade Ukraine ourselves to help them hold it?
I'm using a lot of hyperbole, but I'm honestly not sure exactly what a Putin-Trump friendship, if indeed they're friends, would even mean. Is it better to deal with Putin passively (as people assume Trump would do) or meet him with force (as people assume Hillary would do). Is that even a question we want to ask?
2,835 2016-08-01 18:16:41
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, my fear with Superman being on the show is the eventual forcing of him to show up in the Arrowverse. Legends of Tomorrow made a reference to Superman existing, but as far as we know, he doesn't exist on Earth-1. If he does....then where is he? Where has he been? And would Superman being an active part of the Arrowverse change things too much?
If it was me, I would've moved Kara to Earth-1 (somehow) and have her be the only Kryptonian on Earth. Maybe Krypton never blew up on Earth-1 so Kal-El and Kara are just hanging out there. Or maybe Krypton never existed.
You eliminate "why doesn't Clark show up?" by removing Clark from the equation. But if Kara is going to stay in National City on Earth-Kara, then yeah, they needed to bring him on the show.
2,836 2016-08-01 18:12:22
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Okay, but the question I'm continually coming back to is.....what are you actually afraid of when it comes to Donald Trump? Yeah, he's a loudmouth. Yeah, he's an idiot. Yeah, he's an egomaniac. But outside of being, as you said, embarrassed to have him hold the office, I don't know what people are actually *afraid* of.
Hillary made reference to the fact that Trump shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, but that attack is both baseless and sorta crazy. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief and controls the military, but he doesn't have a button in the Oval Office that just nukes countries. That process, like almost everything, comes with a system of checks and balances so that stuff like that can't happen. If Trump got mad at, say, Guatemala for some bullshit reason and wanted to nuke them, he'd end up under arrest before he ever actually did any damage to anyone else. So either Hillary doesn't know that (which shows incompetence) or she's using the same sort of baseless fear tactic that Trump is using (it's the latter).
He'd be a terrible, awful president. I will not vote for him. But when people say they're afraid of him, I'm not quite sure what to be afraid of. He's not going to be able to deport all muslims or all Mexicans. Even if he wanted to, he wouldn't be able to. And the more I think about it, I don't think there's any chance in Hell he could even break ground on his Mexico wall in four years. It took way longer than that to break ground on One World Trade Center, and that's something everyone in the country wanted to get done. If elected, the wall would just be cancelled by whoever wins in 2020 with the only cost to the taxpayer being whatever committee was hired to find a contractor to build the damn thing.
The stuff to fear with Hillary is more tangible. That she's been bought by the banks. That she has a history of getting rid of leaders and leaving countries worse than they were before. That she has a lady boner for Syria and wants to go in there. That she wants to take in a *ton* of Syrian refugees when ISIS has already said they're planning on sneaking in terrorists through refugees.
She also has her ambiguous fears. Is she going to flip-flop on stuff like TPP, breaking up the banks, gay marriage (stuff she's only recently started supporting)? Do the Russians already have dirt on her that they can use against her via those deleted emails? Are she and Obama unequipped to handle ISIS, seeing that it's grown out of control under their watch? Is four more years of what we're getting actually the right path?
Trump sucks. I get it. But with him, the problems are nebulous. And considering the fact that he's not talking policy, I have to assume he has no policy. Yeah, he'd hire a conservative judge or two. But I honestly think he'd just end up doing a lot of nothing, and if he tries to do something illegal/immoral, his lack of support among the Republican establishment makes it the most likely impeachment in the history of the country.
Hillary has so much power in the democratic party that she could be on trial for murder and she wouldn't get impeached.
So until I get more concrete fears, I'm going to be more scared of her than him. But, just to be clear, I'm not voting for either.
2,837 2016-07-26 21:41:41
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (722 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I don't think it warrants its own post, but I really enjoyed Star Trek: Beyond. I thought it was a lot of fun, and it was the most complete movie of the series IMO. Some pretty cool ties to the Trek universe as a whole(including a few references to Enterprise).
Anton Yelchin was great. Made me really sad that he's gone.
2,838 2016-07-24 19:05:14
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I love that. DC needs to hire the Holy Trinity of the Sliders BBoard to write Justice League 2
If they were going to do "older Batman" (which, the dead horse says, I wasn't in favor of), I *love* the idea that Superman was a fan of Batman. Because how couldn't he have been? Batman is supposedly in his 40s in BvS. So he would've been active for 10-15 years? Superman is supposed to be in his early 30s. So even if Clark wasn't young enough to be Batman for Halloween, he was a teenager when Batman was just getting started. As I've said before, I think it could be a really cool DCCU Elseworld to have a story where Clark becomes the first Robin. Maybe after the death of Pa Kent?
2,839 2016-07-24 11:30:42
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, I just think they could've gotten the same place at the same time without the bloating. I don't necessarily think the movie needed to go to Africa. Congress could've (and should've - it's unknown if they did) held hearings on what happened in Metropolis where American citizens did die. I don't think Lex and Doomsday necessarily needed to be in the film. I don't necessarily think Wonder Woman needed to be in the film. And whether you liked any of that stuff (I thought Diana was great in her limited time - Lex not so much), those elements took away from time that could've been used elsewhere.
Superman didn't need a controversial inciting incident - he had one in Man of Steel. Any time spent on Diana could've been spent on Superman. Any time spent on Lex could've been spent on Bruce. What if the cameos by Flash/Cyborg/Aquaman (and heck, Diana) were Bruce putting together pieces to make an Amazo-like android who could finish the job if Batman failed?
So the movie opens with Batman on patrol with Jason Todd. A villain gets the better of them, and Batman is a step slow in saving Jason. He's older and doesn't have it anymore. He snaps and kills the villain. He gives up the cape and the cowl, and he goes full Bruce Wayne businessman. And yet Batman calls to him - getting revenge didn't make the pain go away. Flash forward X months/years and the Battle of Metropolis happens. And all the feelings come back. Bruce knows he only has a short amount of time and *this* revenge will make things better. It will make everything matter again.
Superman is doing is best to make up for Metropolis. Some people are scared, some people think he's great. Some *hate* him - some *worship* him. It's a mess. The government wants to hold hearings about it. Clark doesn't know what to think. He just wants to save people.
Batman comes up with a three-pronged plan. Find out who Superman is (detective), find out what hurts him (detective), and kill him. The first and second act is Bruce implementing this plan as Batman. He's brutal and scary. While Clark is trying to find common ground with Superman, he gets interested in the Batman story. This was a hero who Clark grew up loving. He went as Batman for Halloween at one point. This new guy can't be Batman. Something is wrong.
Batman finds out Clark is Superman. Clark catches Batman snooping and finds out Batman is Bruce. Clark (journalism) finds out about Jason Todd. Dick Grayson. Barbara Gordon. The Waynes. All the death. How it impacts people. And he starts to look into all the pain caused by what happened in Metropolis.
He goes to Congress and basically admits that he was responsible. He should've been better. He will be better. Some of the congressmen want to see him taken away. Some don't. Superman leaves before it's resolved - Batman sees this as him being a fugitive. He starts on phase three of his plan. He's found out about Kryptonite, but he's not sure it's enough. He starts his backup plan.
Clark goes back to trying to save Bruce. But Bruce is gone. Batman is gone. No one can find either. That's because Bruce is around the world. He's found an android built by Silas Stone. He's found a powerful Amazon warrior. An Atlantean king. The fastest man alive.
Batman attacks Superman. They fight. Batman is brutal but Superman is trying to get through to Bruce. It doesn't work. Superman has to fight back or he's going to die. *whatever Martha moment you want* They find common ground. Superman saves Batman. Then Amazo shows up - it's as fast and strong as Superman but can fight like Batman. Batman helps Superman defeat it.
They form an alliance. Bruce says he knows others that can help. End of movie.
2,840 2016-07-23 23:35:35
Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'd love it if most of the minor characters in these shows had contracts like this. Felicity works well with the others. So does Cisco. These characters should be floating around, offering to help whenever they can. The main guys should be on their own shows and mix up for crossovers, but everyone else should be fluid. I think it's such a cool idea.
I'm guessing Flashpoint resurrects both Cold and Laurel.
2,841 2016-07-23 23:33:25
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Is it weird that it really bothered me that Barry's "lightning" was blue?
And I think ireactions has it correct. The movie, to casual audiences, just didn't connect. There was way too many moving pieces and without the extra scenes, the gears didn't all connect to each other. And what's funny is that it's a movie that I seemed to like a lot in the theater....then as time went on, I liked less and less. I think, at the end of the day, it was rushed. And not necessarily development but I think they wanted to be at a certain point and I think they bit off more than they could chew. Bruce and Lex and Doomsday and Death of Superman and introducing Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League.
I think a movie could've been done where Superman is trying to clean up his image from Metropolis and Bruce doesn't buy it. Instead of retelling the death of the Waynes, tell the story of Batman's fall during the course of the movie. You have a detective and a journalist. Clark could investigate what happened with Bruce and Bruce could just be blinded by rage. Maybe we find out that Jason/Dick died right before, and Bruce is unhinged. And over the course of the movie, we'd really get to know these characters. We'd know why Batman lost his way. We'd know why Superman acts the way he does. There'd be scenes where Alfred is desperately trying to pull Bruce out of his tailspin, and there'd be scenes were Superman is struggling with the fact that he keeps saving people and they still hate him.
It could've been a nice, somewhat-intimate character study. But I also know how that kind of movie ends up turning into BvS. Snyder doesn't think Metropolis is a big deal so he adds the Africa stuff. You have to add Lex because Bruce can't be the bad guy - he has to be manipulated. And because Bruce has to be a good guy, Clark has to look menacing. And the movie can't end with Batman fighting Superman because the good guys have to get over their issues and fight something - it'd be even crazier to introduce Darkseid in a third act so you throw in Doomsday. And at that point, throwing in Wonder Woman and the Justice League isn't crazy.
But if you do the smaller film with a tease to Wonder Woman, you're getting her film. I might do a "Bruce gathers the Justice League" movie. I was thinking about it earlier and I might do it Pulp Fiction or Sin City style. Where it's three separate stories. Bruce tracks down Aquaman. Bruce tracks down Barry. Bruce tracks down Cyborg. In all three stories, there's action and intrigue and character, but it's written like Pulp Fiction or Sin City where they don't have to all get together. It's three separate stories that sorta cross over at times.
Then you do Justice League. You can either still do Suicide Squad or make the Bruce movie instead and save Suicide Squad for later. I've basically gotten the DCCU in the same place without going batshit crazy (pun intended) with BvS.
All that being said, I agree - Informant saw the Ultimate Edition when the rest of us saw the regular version. Pretty cool.
2,842 2016-07-23 17:41:59
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
All that being said, I think things are going in the right direction. The Wonder Woman footage looks fun and exciting and way less dour than MoS or BvS. I'm psyched about seeing Suicide Squad in a couple weeks (I already have tickets). And even the Justice League footage looks way more fun/exciting/human than BvS was to me.
Although I thought it was odd that Bruce sorta used his Batman voice while recruiting. It even seemed a little odd that he did his recruiting as Bruce. I would've thought, at least with Barry, that he'd try and use the Batman costume to intimidate him. Since he throws a batarang anyway, it's not like he's afraid of being too aggressive or giving away his secret.
But it's definitely moving in the right direction. They can still take the material seriously without either being too light (Avengers) or too dark (BvS). IMO, of course.
2,843 2016-07-23 17:37:52
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I'm glad to hear that you both liked it. I imagine that I'll also feel better about it, especially if Superman feels more like a person. Again, my question is why anyone would trust Superman in-universe. And yet the movie, outside of a couple of news clippings, seems to show near-universal acceptance of Superman as a hero. The movie wants us to think that the Battle of Metropolis only affected Wally and Bruce - and everyone else pretty much was okay with it. Lex doesn't even seem particularly troubled by what happened in Metropolis.
If they wanted to make Superman a troubled God who never really figured out the hero he wanted to me, that's a great way of doing it. But I absolutely think/thought that needed to be clearer in the in-universe world - there needed to be massive protests in around any time Superman showed up. Or, at the very least, at his statue. Even a passive protest when Wally spray-painted the statue would've been nice.
I agree with Informant - they needed Superman to be cold and uncaring in certain scenes to show us what Batman saw. But in my opinion, their world-building didn't express that. I never got the idea that anyone outside of Wally and Bruce really feared Superman. Even Lex didn't really fear him - he just wanted to show that he was superior to even this god. And without having seen the ultimate version yet, I can't imagine being a citizen in that world and not be absolutely terrified of this man.
2,844 2016-07-23 12:40:48
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Tim Kaine is so much more likable (just as a person, not talking about policy) than Hillary. It would've been great if the DNC had let guys like him run for president instead of just allowing nobodies like Bernie to run.
2,845 2016-07-23 00:38:50
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
It's possible. But one of the criticisms of Trump is that he doesn't know what he's doing. Even if he could repeal Obamacare (which, honestly, might not be the worst idea - I lost my health insurance in January and Obamacare wasn't a great option), I don't know if he'd put together anything to replace it.
It's hard to get things done as president. Even if one party controls all three branches, the system is so clogged with bureaucracy that wholesale changes are difficult to make. Compromises have to be made and everything gets watered down.
The criticisms against Trump are that he's unqualified and doesn't know what he's doing (*agreed*) and that he's going to set up a Fourth Reich. I don't see how these two gel together. I don't have any faith that Trump can "make America great again" (or even what that means) but I also don't see him as a political mastermind. I don't think he has the stomach or the will to do all the hard work that the President requires, and I think he'd delegate a lot of the hard stuff to lower people. And unless Pence is a political mastermind / secret Nazi, I think we'll just have four years of nothing. Which, honestly, is the best case scenario in my opinion.
That's why I fear a Trump presidency more than a Hillary presidency. I fear both and I will not vote for either. But until someone can tell me what I should actually be afraid of with Trump, that's just how I feel.
2,846 2016-07-22 14:50:35
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I mean I get that he won't be a good president. I'm certainly not going to vote for him. I just don't know what he could really do that would be as bad as people are fearing. I think he's a guy who's all talk and no action so I could see it just being four wasted years in terms of actually doing anything productive. I'm not even sure if he'd repeal Obamacare, even if he wanted to.
My concerns with Hillary are more concrete because we know more about what she wants to do and what she has a history of doing. There will be more regime changes in the Middle East. More economic policies that benefit corporations over people. And after another (apparent) terrorist attack in Germany, more really weak defense against ISIS.
When Trump doesn't spell out policy, I think it's because he honestly isn't planning to do much. And I'd rather have a president that doesn't do much than one who is actively working in their own self-interests.
But, again, I'm not voting for either. I'll let the rest of the country decide which of these is the lesser of two evils.
2,847 2016-07-22 13:39:15
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, the weird thing about the hardcore anti-Trump people are the double-sidedness of it. They criticize Trump for not being specific about anything (and they're right) and yet talk about a Trump presidency would be post-apocalyptic. How can you be scared of something that you don't know about?
I think Trump would be a bad president, and I think Pence would be a bad vice president. But I don't really know how Trump could be a post-apocalyptic president. I don't know what, specifically, Trump could do to be the next Hitler or to end America. I don't think the president has that much power, and I think he'd be even more hamstrung by a Republican establishment that doesn't love his policies.
He's not going to deport all Muslims or all Mexicans. It won't happen. He's not going to repeal gay marriage - that can't happen. He's not going to drive away America's allies because our allies are smarter than that. You don't quit being friends with your best friend because his/her annoying brother is in town for the weekend. You get through the weekend and wait for things to be fine.
He'd be responsible for a Supreme Court judge, but unless the GOP gets enough Senators (questionable) then he's not going to get a crazy person confirmed. He'll get someone who leans conservative, but I don't think that means we're going to turn into Nazi Germany.
He'll probably try and build the wall, but that's either going to fizzle or take forever. And, again, hardly makes us Nazi Germany.
He sucks. He's not qualified. He's probably racist and/or sexist. But I really don't know the actual consequences of a Trump presidency. I think the odds are *much* higher that he's impeached before he could ever turn into someone like Erdogan in Turkey. I know that it's possible, but it's possible with anyone - including Hillary.
2,848 2016-07-22 10:54:53
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Seeing a lot of people getting mad at Trump for using fear to try and stir up people to vote for him. I don't disagree, but it's usually said by Hillary supporters. Isn't her entire campaign about the fear of a Donald Trump presidency? Isn't she doing the same thing?
2,849 2016-07-20 23:58:08
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah they're saying that Trump set him up. Either Cruz would endorse him, or Trump would whip up support to boo him at the end of his speech. I don't see it as a huge deal, although now Hillary is basically using his words to say vote for her. If Cruz doesn't clarify that he *doesn't* mean "vote for Hillary" then he could be in bigger trouble. Not voting for Trump is one thing. Advocating voting for Hillary at the Republican National Convention is the type of thing that ends political careers.
2,850 2016-07-20 17:35:23
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I also don't understand how anyone at all can support Hillary, given her history and that of her husband. They're the inspiration for characters in House of Cards, for crying out loud.
I've seen people post on social media about how scary Frank Underwood is and then publicly support Hillary. I almost put my palm through my face each time.
2,851 2016-07-20 11:50:13
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Informant - I have a question for you. I know you're a conservative/Republican who doesn't support Trump. If a politician you like were to support/endorse Trump, would that change your opinion of that politician? Would it make you less likely to vote for them?
The reason I'm asking is that I'm confused on the Republicans who are going out of their way to not support Trump. They must think that it would hurt them politically, but I don't see how that'd be the case. Especially when I assume any politician would write it off by simply saying "he was running against Hillary Clinton" even if Trump loses in a landslide.
Along those same lines, if the story about Kasich being offered the VP job (including control over domestic *and* foreign policy), I have no idea why he'd turn that down. He'd basically be president, and there's a real chance he'd officially be president before 2020. And even if he wasn't, I could see it being the first time (as far as I know) that a sitting vice president challenged a sitting president in a primary. And he might win, especially if he looked more presidential than Trump.
Just seems like a weird decision to both turn down that offer and not even show up to the convention. Even Cruz, who Trump was much more vicious to, is showing up. Kasich comes off looking really petty.
2,852 2016-07-19 23:18:44
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, I can't defend the Martha thing just because I think it was done really awkwardly. Batman humanizing Clark because his mother's name is the same as his own is fine. But it was weird that Clark called her "Martha" - not something like Mom. I thought it was weird that it caught him so off guard. Batman is a determined guy who had the villain in his crosshairs. Would he have been caught similarly off guard if the Joker had said "Martha?" Would Batman be distracted if he heard "Martha" while he was saving, say, a busload of kids?
And I get all the next-level symbolism we were supposed to be getting. Man of Steel was about fathers, and BvS was about mothers. They're tying Bruce's humanity to Clark's. But I just didn't connect with that moment emotionally at the time.
Maybe the whole picture will let me connect better. We'll see.
2,853 2016-07-19 21:09:11
Re: DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) (1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I've been meaning to watch it. Haven't yet. The guys on the Weekly Planet podcast said that if you liked the version the first time, you'll like this one better. If you didn't, it's way too long and there's not enough spaces filled in.
I have heard there's some good stuff after the Capitol explosion, which corrected a big criticism of the film.
2,854 2016-07-19 21:07:47
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well I thought the Trump people's explanation was weak. There were whole sections that were word for word. My issue has more to do with the people ripping Melania herself. I would say there is virtually zero chance she had anything to do with the speech, and I would say there is a zero percent chance that she would've realized that it was plagiarized. That was stupid.
2,855 2016-07-19 00:47:57
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, Trump's campaign continues to crap all over itself as Melania Trump straight stole a portion of her speech from Michelle Obama's speech. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter, but it's just another stupid thing that the Trump campaign let happen.
2,856 2016-07-16 00:01:02
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Apparently not everyone on the list will actually be speaking. Tim Tebow announced that he would not be and did not know how he got on the list. I guess that's the kind of attention to detail we can expect from a Trump presidency.
It makes his campaign look so stupid. And this isn't the first time he's announced that someone would speak and they said "wait, no I'm not." I understand when he shoots from the cuff and just randomly says stuff because he's an idiot, but his staff should be *that much more careful* because of it. And yet they seem to be the same level of people.
"Hey Tim's publicist! We want him to speak on the final night of our convention."
"I mean, maybe. I'd have to speak with him abo-"
"Great! I'll release it officially!"
"Wait, bu"
* dial tone *
As for Pence, that should be the final nail in the coffin of the idea that Trump is anything other than a GOP establishment shill. Nobody is more Republican insider than Pence.
I don't disagree at all, but that's not super fair. Just because VP candidates are supposed to fill in gaps that the presidential candidate can't fill. So, ideally, Trump's VP is supposed to convince Republicans/independents who don't like him that they should vote for him anyway. So Hillary's VP should be a progressive. It doesn't mean that Hillary is progressive, but it's to throw a bone to people that are *supposed* to vote for her but don't like her as a candidate alone.
So Trump gets an establishment VP and the establishment is supposed to vote for him. Whether or not Trump is establishment (I agree with you, for the record). People are led to believe that the VP will influence the President when IMO it's basically a vestigial position anyway.
2,857 2016-07-14 12:17:06
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Everyone is reporting that Pence is the guy. So that'd explain why he's not on the list.
2,858 2016-07-13 16:06:52
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I will be voting third party. Still trying to figure out which one.
So a poll came out that had Trump winning or tied in all three big battleground states (Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio). If he wins those three states, it's going to be very hard for Hillary to win. In fact, if you take the Obama/Romney map and just flip those three states, Trump wins 273-265.
Leads me to my question. If Hillary loses, what happens to the Democratic party? Besides the rift created by the Bernie Sanders crowd, there'd be tons of mistakes made along the way. A really weak field (orchestrated by Hillary) and then losing to a crazy unpopular Republican with almost no support from the Republican establishment. We know the Republican party is going to go through tons of changes after all this, but wouldn't this be a giant disaster? With Hillary's money, her support from a president with high approval ratings, and her support from her party, wouldn't a loss be devastating?
2,859 2016-07-13 13:21:19
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Hahaha. I just can't put him on the same level as Hillary and Trump. The good news for you is that he ain't coming back, and he does seem to be in fully lame duck mode. And if he truly thinks that Hillary is the most qualified ever, then he's clearly not as smart as I want to give him credit for.
2,860 2016-07-13 12:10:53
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Again, no happy with Obama. But the future is so scary with either Hillary or Trump. The problem is that they're both Nixon, and we haven't had a president as narcissistic and power-hungry since then. And as we saw with Nixon, I think both of these people would be willing to do anything (punch their mother, murder someone one live television, etc) to get to be president. I'm already on record as saying that I don't believe either would make it through a whole term because they're both so stupid and/or corrupt.
I think Obama generally wants what's best for the country. He's made a lot of mistakes (yes, due to being underqualified) but I don't see him as downright-evil as I see these guys.
The one positive I can say about Hillary in my own soul-searching over this mess is that she's done a ton of horrible things to get to this point, and maybe it's all to get to be the first woman president. And maybe once she has that power, she can go back to being a respectable human being.
But I wouldn't bet on it.
2,861 2016-07-12 23:52:25
Re: Game of Thrones (10 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
The story has always been that she was captured. I think that was known. What wasn't known was that she was pregnant. That was the lie.
2,862 2016-07-12 22:55:13
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well after I said that I looked into it. I was thinking there'd be a popular change.org petition or something, and there wasn't. Which surprised me.
What I did see was the idea of an emergency extension of the presidency for two years and have the election in 2018. Which would mean Hillary and Trump would be eligible to "re-take" their positions, but they'd have to win a primary again. Basically saying "do-over" on the whole process and starting it back over. I'd certainly be okay with that, assuming that we'd spend the next year feverishly looking for anyone to replace the two of them.
But, again, I'd be okay with a third term for Obama. I don't love him as a president, but we know what we're going to get with him. And by the time the next election happens, Trump and Hillary would both be Bernie's age, and I'd hope both parties could find someone less toxic.
I don't know. I watched all the speeches today. Bush was great and Obama was great. Both very presidential. And just the idea of either Hillary or Trump giving a speech like that would come off as very self-serving. I think both of them are very narcissistic - to the point where I honestly wouldn't be able to buy that they care about any of the victims. I think Hillary is sad that two black voters were killed, Trump is sad he lost 5 white voters, and I think both candidates are going to just use what happened in Dallas for their own agendas.
2,863 2016-07-12 16:10:14
Re: Game of Thrones (10 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
So the significance of R+L=J has to do with having Targaryen blood so that he can be a dragon rider. There's still one missing Targaryen (with theories about just about everyone that's still alive being that final one). What's interesting is that, as far as I know being an avid reader/watcher, it doesn't really change his standing. He's no more an official Stark or an official Targaryen as he's ever been. He definitely doesn't have any more claim as the heir to Winterfell (which should still be Bran), and he definitely doesn't have a claim to the Iron Throne ahead of Daenerys.
The other interesting item is that Bran is the one who knows it through a vision he had. But even if a kid showed up who claimed to be Bran Stark (remember, most of the people who knew Bran are dead - one of the storylines from the book revolves the Lannisters taking a random girl and saying she's Arya Stark and no one disputes it) said he saw it in a vision, I don't know if anyone would even believe it. They would believe the one person who was there to witness it - Howland Reed - but he hasn't appeared (in the "present") in either the books or the show.
2,864 2016-07-12 13:40:34
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Obama with an amazing speech at the political I'm willing to vote to repeal the 22nd amendment if it means no Trump or Clinton.
2,865 2016-07-12 11:26:27
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Back to the original subject, Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton today
It was a ringing endorsement too. "She is not Donald Trump" was the summary of the entire speech. So if the Republicans were to pick any other human, I wonder if he'd retract it
Outside of just being afraid of a Trump presidency, I don't really understand what Bernie gains here. From what I've read, Clinton delegates shot down a ton of progressive items in the democratic platform. They're miles away on tons of subjects that Bernie claims to be excited about.
Statistically speaking, Bernie Sanders should die sometime during Hillary's first term (average American lifespan is 78). Statistics say this will be the last election of his life. And to get such little done after such a long fight seems to indicate that Bernie is the weak politician that everyone thought he was the last 30 years.
2,866 2016-07-10 15:13:54
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Well, just to jump in here. As a native of Dallas, this week has been pretty crazy. I watched the Alton Sterling videos and basically watched the Philandro Castile shooting live (I happened to be on Twitter when everyone was posting the Facebook live video). And people grouped it together because it was cops shooting black people, but I found the situations to be wildly different.
- The Sterling one looks the worst because he didn't seem to be resisting arrest - he was just a huge guy who didn't want to be thrown to the ground. The video makes it look bad but there's a couple different things about the story that can change the narrative a bit. I haven't heard confirmation but I've heard that "Gun! He's got a gun!" is one cop and the one that shot was the other. In that case, it's a horrible mistake but the shooting makes sense. It's a guy protecting his partner. The shooter was misled but thinks he's saving a life. Even in that case, he shot him way too many times (and whoever shot "Gun!" was incorrect). Both should be prosecuted IMO and let the courts decide.
- The Castile one is another example of a cop making a mistake. Castile definitely shouldn't have been shot, and the cop who shot him *knew it*. If you watch the video, he yells "FUCK!" a ton. He knew he made a mistake, and he knew it was going to ruin his life. Doesn't justify it, but it definitely doesn't mean he went out that night to gun down black people. Castile told him he had a gun and reached for his ID. Something in the cop's mind misinterpreted it and he made a mistake. Just like people make a mistake when they accidentally kill someone with a car or any other weapon. Again, he should be prosecuted and the courts should decide how guilty he is of a crime.
They're very different scenarios but have two key things in common. In both instances, a black man died because of a mistake by the police, but in both cases the mistake makes sense in the moment. So to me it's more of a situation of unprepared police making awful, horrible mistakes. Instead, the media paints it as "black people are being hunted by the police" which isn't the case in either situation.
But I monitored the situation on social media, and many upset black people were saying that the police were at war with black people. "Leaders" in the black community (not all actual leaders, just people with big voices) implied that was the case. And I saw many people on Twitter saying that someone needs to do something. And when you convince people that there's a war on the police, Dallas happens.
What's stupid about the Dallas situation is:
1. Dallas PD had nothing to do with any of the shootings, and has been regarded by black leaders (actual leaders) as being one of the exemplary departments in the country. DPD has been involved in BLM protests, both helping to plan and helping to protect protests.
2. There are an insane number of people on social media calling Micah Johnson a hero. Even though he put future black lives in danger no matter what you think the police agenda is. If you think police are at war with black people, then now they are going to be even more trigger happy. And if you think police are good people doing a scary job, then their job is now that much scarier. And people make mistakes when they're scared.
The whole thing is a disaster, and I'm a little upset that black leaders (including Obama) aren't doing more to try and fight the anger in the black community. That's not to say they shouldn't be angry or scared - that's completely justified. But when people are calling a mass murderer a hero, you're emboldening future mass murderers. And while I've seen tons of black people calling out the idiots that are calling him a hero, I'm not seeing enough of it.
I think the primary problem with BLM is that there's no central leadership. No one is able to speak for Black Lives Matter. And so no one can speak *to* Black Lives Matter. If there was a leader, he/she could condemn the shootings and preach peace. And maybe that would calm people down.
Because people used to wait until cops were cleared of charges before they rioted/protested (Rodney King, Ferguson, etc). Now, there's no wait. Someone dies and riots/protests happen. The system needs to change, but shouldn't we wait to see if the system changed? Shouldn't we see if the cops in Louisiana and Minnesota get charged? And if they're charged with murder (whether they're found guilty or not), doesn't that mean the system changed? Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction?
I believe there needs to be less shootings of black men by the police, but I understand that being a policeman is a can't-win job that is crazy dangerous. And that any decision they make can and sometimes does result in the loss of a life. I both sympathize with BLM and back the blue.
And I don't understand why those two things are mutually exclusive for so many people.
2,867 2016-07-09 00:02:23
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Did you guys hear the crazy NYT story about Trump (which I admit I'm too lazy to look up right now)? Word is that he's considering quitting early if the polls don't get better later in the election cycle because he wouldn't be able to take the embarrassment of actually losing the election (presumably because he thinks quitting is better than losing - something he'd presumably blame on a rigged system).
(Which would certainly play into the fact that Trump is simply a Clinton puppet sleeper agent designed to destroy the Republican party enough that Hillary can win but that's neither here nor there).
The crazier thing was that they asked him about quitting if he *won* and he didn't discount it. That plays into the theory that Trump wants no business being president and just wants to win. I could see that (or quitting a few months into the job when he sees how hard it is) and then it'd be a matter of whether or not you trust whoever Trump picks as a VP. Which is funny because, as I've said, I'd trust just about anyone over these two.
What's interesting is that it could be the best of all worlds. #NeverTrump Republicans would get to vote for him knowing he'd never take office. Trump people would vote for it either assuming he'd never quit or not knowing about it at all. If the Trump campaign was sophisticated at all, they could target #NeverTrump and try to get a few of them in key states to understand that the guy might never do anything in office. They aren't so it won't matter, and the idea of him quitting might actually scare off his base.
It is an interesting thought, though.
2,868 2016-07-07 23:44:04
Re: Game of Thrones (10 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Hahaha. Sorta unfair.
2,869 2016-07-07 23:42:44
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I don't know. Whenever I talk to anyone about why they're voting for Hillary, every single person says "because she's not Trump." So if you give the people an alternative to Hillary, that person could win. I still think there are circumstances where Bernie could win if he was able to get on ballots in all 50 states.
They've basically found the two worst people in the country to run for president. So almost anyone should hopefully be able to beat them both. Since Hillary's speeches are exclusively about how dangerous Trump is and she refuses to talk about her record anymore (since it's a disaster), I don't even know how Hillary would be able to campaign against Cruz or Ryan or whoever the Republicans pick.
2,870 2016-07-07 17:39:44
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah I'm just curious if we'd get Biden vs. Ryan (since they're the most known of the non-candidates) or if we'd get, say, Newt vs. Warren.
In other news, another terrible day for Hillary. Comey all but said she was too dumb to understand the difference between something that was classified and something that isn't. I know people love her because she's not Trump, but that honestly seems to be the only reason to vote for her. I almost think the Republicans would be better off doing something drastic at the convention and let the Trump people freak out. I think pretty much anyone but Donald would be able to beat her. I know the polling doesn't really show that, but if Trump isn't there to distract from her, I think her candidacy falls apart. The Trump people would freak out, but they'd come around.
2,871 2016-07-06 16:11:28
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Our best hope is a freak accident at the debate takes out both of them.
I definitely don't want anyone to get hurt, but I did wonder what would happen if both were killed at a debate. Would the election be suspended until new candidates can be chosen and campaign? Would both VP candidates become the nominees and choose their own VP candidates? I honestly have no idea.
2,872 2016-07-06 10:37:31
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Hillary was the brains behind Libya, and that was a disaster. Now she's going to be the brains behind toppling the regime in Syria. It's going to go just as well. When you destabilize a place, even if it means getting rid of a monster, then people are going to cling to something that makes them feel safe. For many in the Middle East, that's ISIS.
2,873 2016-07-06 10:34:56
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Trump is the world's biggest idiot. Yesterday should've been all about condemning Hillary, and he found a way to make it about another idiotic thing he said.
If you listen to Hillary speak, she's completely stopped talking about herself. She doesn't have to. She could've been fully indicted and would've still been able to win against him because he'd find a way to screw it up.
What's funny is that I think the point Trump was trying to make (that we can't keep taking out dictators with no plan afterwards like we did with Saddam, Gaddafi, and how Hillary will handle Syria and not expect the continued rise of terrorism) is actually valid. Praising Saddam is probably the worst way to carry that point across.
2,874 2016-07-05 20:48:37
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, because as bad as she is the Republicans have nominated someone even worse
Which is unspeakable in its own right. This should be the easiest race. She's unlikeable, she's seen as universally untrustworthy, and the FBI called her incompetent at the only job she's supposedly done well at her entire career. And she's gonna win because the Republicans essentially forfeited. It's driving me nuts.
In other news, Obama once again called her the most qualified candidate in history. I'm stunned that he's tying himself to her at this level. He doesn't have to do this. And it's making me respect him so very little.
She was a lawyer. Then she married Bill Clinton. His name got her a job as a NY senator where she accomplished nothing. Then she lost a presidential bid to a no-name congressman. Then she was an incompetent Secretary of State. Where are the qualifications?
2,875 2016-07-05 16:12:13
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I love how excited Hillary supporters are. The head of the FBI called her actions "extremely careless" and explained exactly how she'd lied to the public about what really happened. She didn't ask for permission, she didn't hand over all her emails, and a lot of the emails were classified at the time. And they're celebrating because their candidate won't be going to jail.
Hillary's only excuse now is that she was utterly incompetent. And she's probably gonna be president. It's unspeakable.
2,876 2016-06-30 13:34:54
Re: Game of Thrones (10 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
I understand that they may have 13 episodes left and the producers are planning two short seasons (why not just do a 13 episode final season??)
Well, I think the logistics of filming has become the major issues. I heard someone on the radio talking about how the cost of the entire first season was about $6 million, and they're now spending $10 million *per episode*. I've also heard that, because of the vastness of the shoot (where they're shooting all over the world to get the different locales of Westeros/Essos) that they're basically in production the entire year. So I think they wanted a little simplification of their schedule. And I can't blame them for that.
My GoT experience has been a bit unique because I started the show late (around the end of the 2nd season), then I caught up, watched the 3rd season live, and *then* I read the books. Then, starting with season 4, I was one of the people who'd read the books before the show (so I knew about the Purple Wedding, etc). Then, after season 5, I was back in the dark with everyone else.
If you're someone who really likes the show and wants their experience enriched, I suggest the books. Around season 4, things really start to differentiate so it becomes an "alternate universe" of sorts, but for the most part, the main story is still the same. There's some stuff the show does pretty well (consolidating characters), but there's a few things that I really prefer in the books. And a couple of really fun/interesting storylines that the show has decided to skip/cross over.
Either way, I've become a pretty big fan.
2,877 2016-06-30 01:00:51
Topic: Independence Day: Resurgence (spoilers) (0 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
The original Independence Day is one of my favorite guilty pleasure movies. I know it's dumb and Amer-centric and overly patriotic dribble. But it was one of the first gigantic post-apocalyptic movies I ever saw, and it captivated me. For (probably too many) years, I had an ID4 poster hanging in my room of one of the giant ships hovering over a beautiful vista of NYC. And in the infancy of the Internet, I kept hearing rumors of a sequel. And then 9/11 happened and, depending on your source, that either killed any chance of an ID4 sequel or reignited it.
For the most part, I was sorta glad that they didn't make a sequel. After watching disappointing sequels to some of my favorite 90s movies, I liked that Independence Day sorta survived on its own.
But when the sequel happened, I was still excited. When Will Smith decided not to return (but basically everyone else did), I actually sorta saw that as a good thing. Will Smith is a much bigger star than he was, even in the 90s, and I didn't think the movie needed to have an overwhelming presence like him.
I saw it tonight, and I wanted to talk about it for a little bit.
I knew it was going to be bad. Not bad in an After Earth sort of way - but bad in the same way that the original was bad. But I really liked the way they were coming at it, and as long as it was bad and fun, I was going to be okay.
It's funny - my first thought is how cool it was to revisit the world. At the same time, I think the beginning was a little too much. I would've loved to have seen an hour-long (or more) documentary about how the world changed since 1996, but the fact that we had to go around the world, catching up, was a bit much. But we get to see a world that's technologically advanced and peaceful. Some of the stuff that's hinted at (including a ground war with aliens in Africa) would've made a pretty spectacular movie in itself, and I found myself sorta hoping to see the Earth defense work against something else before it's obliterated by the aliens.
One thing I liked was that it definitely felt like a sequel. Every returning character immediately steps back into the role perfectly without a beat. There's weariness (especially with President Whitmore), but it's all very familiar. And the next generation (including the children seen in ID4) work pretty well.
Another thing I liked was that it wasn't a retread. I was really worried it was going to be a remake of the original. The aliens show back up, tear stuff up, and we have to rally around and defeat them again. And while that's kinda what happened, we get to see a new side of the aliens. There's much more ground war with them. The first one was more about air battles against a mostly-faceless group. Here we get more hand-to-hand and a closer look at the aliens.
That being said, I didn't really think there was much to it. The aliens come in, blow passed the defenses, wipe out the government, and then it's just a race against the clock. There's no extermination. There's one attack on the mother ship, and then it's a race to Area 51. There's the new stuff inside the mother ship, but I think it's a consequence of having to catch up so much on what's happened in the last 20 years. I checked my phone a few times to see the clock because I was surprised by what little had actually happened at certain times.
And again, it was sorta disappointing to see how quickly our defenses failed. There's talk of defenses at Saturn but we don't see it. The moon laser disables the "orb" but is completely useless against the new ship. The orbital defense is destroyed before it can do anything. I know the whole point is to show how unprepared the Earth actually is, but it would've been nice to have seen it work before we see it fail.
And while I really thought the "enemy" species and the "resistance" was a cool concept setting up potential sequels, I thought the whole Queen thing was a bit ridiculous. Making her that big made me feel like I was watching a completely different movie, and it was really weird. Making them a hive is one thing, and making the Queen a force to be reckoned with is another. But to basically make her a kaiju was a bizarre choice in my opinion.
All in all, I thought it was okay. Nothing special or spectacular. It was fun to see the world, but the plot was pretty weak overall.
Has anyone else seen it?
2,878 2016-06-27 16:34:16
Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Again, if Donald is going to be the disaster we all assume he's going to be, then the Republicans will probably do very well in congressional elections because they're going to get all the money usually earmarked for the presidency. And Republicans will realize that if they can't win the White House, they should at least make it as hard for Hillary as possible. Winning both houses of Congress is the best way to make that happen.
What's funny is that Hillary has now spent weeks talking only about Donald Trump. She's completely stopped talking about herself. Probably because there's virtually nothing to talk about that would be positive. And she has so many jokes in her speeches that it seems more like she's running to join the cast of Saturday Night Live.
At the very least, this election is going to make the world forget how bad the British people look. So our friends across the pond will appreciate that.
2,879 2016-06-25 11:40:59
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (722 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Yeah, I get that. I don't blame Paramount for coming down hard - and maybe they will ease up in the future. I just think it'd be really cool for the property if Paramount went the other direction and actively helped fan films.
2,880 2016-06-24 23:33:33
Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (722 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)
Wow, that's way more restrictive than I thought it'd be. I was thinking they might exclude actual Star Trek actors and restrict any money they make. The titling rule makes sense. But if guys want to pay a crap ton of money to make an authentic-looking Trek, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to. As long as, of course, people aren't making any money off of it.
I'm surprised Paramount didn't just require the movies to be hosted on their own website. And let Paramount put ads during or before it so they can get some money off every viewing. Anything not housed on the Paramount-owned site would be taken down, and they'd control it.
I mean, heck, they could even do more with it. What if Paramount decided to take an actual role in these films? These fan studios/productions could pay Paramount to make their productions with the help of Paramount themselves. If you want to make your own sets and costumes and run the production yourself, then that's fine. But what if you wanted to make a fan film but didn't have any experience? What if Paramount let you pay to use certain sets that they've built? And costumes? And even use freelance cameramen, directors, editors, etc to help the whole process through?
I don't know if the demand is there for that, but wouldn't it be cool if you could make something under the banner of Paramount? Something, while not canon, that is "official" in one way or another?