Search options (Page 49 of 59)

Ha, I love this place.  We came up with our own elaborate backstory to explain a rumor that may or may not even happen.  And if it does happen, there's no way they're going to be as detailed as we've been.

You guys are awesome

Well, if the show works upon a "branching" multiverse, then I think they could write it that way.  What if the branching event that causes Supergirl to live outside Barry's world happened after Reverse Flash did something?  For example, what if Reverse Flash decided to try and destroy another hero when he got the chance and used STAR Labs technology to either destroy Kara's ship or divert it from Earth, somehow?  So that's why Kara isn't on Earth-1?  And maybe that event either forced Clark to not come out of the shadows (maybe operating like Clark on Smallville), or Thawne was able to kill Clark as well.

To explain differences in Kara's Earth, you could also use this theory.  Maybe instead of going after Clark and/or Kara on Kara's Earth, maybe Thawne decided to take his anger out on STAR Labs and kill everyone there (maybe including Barry).  When Barry says that no one exists, it's all STAR Labs people - Cisco, Caitlin, and Wells.  So when Barry was searching for them, maybe he couldn't find them because they were dead.  Maybe the other heroes don't exist because this is a world where Superman exists so Oliver thought fighting crime with a bow and arrow seemed silly compared to that.  If Oliver doesn't become Arrow, then there's no Atom or Black Canary.

With Thawne defeated in the new timeline, none of that would happen and the universes "merge"

Well, the reason why I say that Deadshot "beat" Batman was based on a couple things - the "fantasy" sequence when Deadshot had killed Batman and the fact that the daughter stepped in at all.  Both of these are written off pretty easily - the little girl couldn't possibly be expected to understand how the fight is going.  She stepped in because she thought her dad was going to kill Batman - not because he necessarily would.  And the fantasy sequence is just that - a fantasy.

But the way that it was shot, Batman looked like he was helpless and Deadshot had him.  Now I know that Deadshot has a "blind spot" for Batman and usually can't kill him (or misses), but that's not presented in the movie.  He's sitting, ready to fire, when the daughter steps in.  I"d assume that Deadshot could've killed Batman there if he wanted.

I don't know.  I know it wasn't a Batman movie, but if they're going to include Batman in a cameo, I want him to be super terrifying.  And he wasn't.

I agree that teams need filler, but one of the problems was not enough backstory for a couple of people.  So here's what I would've done to change things.

- No Boomerang or Croc.  No backstory on either buys you 5-10 minutes, and it doesn't really impact the story (someone else just needs to throw the bomb....so we'll say Flagg just throws it himself.  It wasn't like the bomb was heavy or the throw was far).

- Include the entire seduction/corruption of Harley by Joker.  Instead of "she was a doctor and then she fell in love with her patient....show the whole thing.  Batman the Animated Series did a great job with it, and it only took three minutes of screentime.  It explains so much about Harley's character, and I think it would make more sense.

- Like you said, introduce Slipknot with the same introduction as everyone else.  Also include a scene where Amanda Waller is talking to someone about the bombs either being a trick or not really working in earshot of Slipknot.  The assumption being that Slipknot would automatically try and escape on his own, which would be Amanda's plan the whole time.

- Introduce Katana correctly.  She's just sorta tacked on in the middle, and the audience feels less for her.  Include her from the beginning.

- Make Joker less Scarface and more Joker.

- If you want to include Croc, make him show up as a cameo in the sewers scene.  But if you're going to include him, make his scene matter.

- Batman needs to be terrifying in the flashbacks.  Fast, strong, and big.  Batman also needs to meet with Waller on a rooftop or alley in the mid-credits scene.  Not Bruce in a restaurant (pet peeve).

That's just what I would change.  I think that would make the movie tighter and more character oriented.

I mean, I'm sure there'll be a reason.  It'll be technobabble BS, but it'll be there.

"When you changed history, you sent a shockwave through the entire multiverse.  Entire worlds were merged together.  Mathematically speaking, the two closest worlds to our Earth.  So any world you've been to, I assume."

"Oh hey Kara and Harry!"

Well, it makes logistical sense for Kara to be in the Arrowverse.  We know guys like Cold and Merlyn and Laurel are going to be on all four shows, and those guys can't be jumping around the multiverse.  So she has to come over.

And if she's coming, her side characters have to come.  If they don't, even if it's fun to explore alternate Arrowverse versions of Winn and James and Cat, the whole plot of Supergirl is going to have to revolve around something she can't do (go home).  And even if she brings along everyone of relevance, there's still issues that are left unresolved.  What about Clark?  Does he come?  If Clark and Kara both go, is it fair to leave Earth-Kara essentially unguarded?

So merging it actually makes the most sense.  Kara doesn't have anywhere to go, and all relevant characters exist in the same universe.

I'd prefer a "Joker only appears in Harley flashbacks with additional flashbacks" edition

Yeah, I'm also not sure Lien would've appreciated being the sexy one.  I don't know why I think that.  Although, again, I feel like she was already moving that direction in season 3.

And I actually thought of a reason.  If she lives only a handful of years, season 4 could've been a "puberty" for her so she starts exuding more sexuality. 

The idea that she would've been old in the final season(s) is one of the reasons I'd love for her to stay aboard.  It could've put Voyager's journey in much more perspective since it only lasted 7 years but lasted "a lifetime" to her. 

Plus, I saw a video about the unusual relationship with Vulcans and Humans.  Vulcans live so much longer than humans that they might think of us like we think about dogs.  Yeah, you love your dog, but you're also sorta taught that dogs are temporary.  Humans might be like pets to Vulcans

And Kes would be the opposite.  How do you form a bond with someone who will only be a minor blip in your lifetime?  It's definitely a cool concept that they ended up abandoning.

It's just so weird because there's a build-up to it, and it just falls so flat.  It bothers me every time

Another point about Suicide Squad

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Why didn't any of the members of the squad know each other?  I understand why none of them might know Captain Boomerang if he spent his entire career on the other side of the world.  But Harley and Deadshot worked out of the same city, and it didn't seem like they'd ever interacted before.  Killer Croc also worked out of Gotham and is a major Batman rogue.  I know he probably doesn't collaborate a lot, but they've run into each other, right?

If they wanted some fun character stuff, shouldn't there have been a scene or two where the Squad members talk about previous jobs they'd worked together.  Or at least their hatred of Batman?  Or maybe their hatred of Belle Reve?

They bond over the course of the movie (a little), but there's no indication that they'd ever bonded previously.  Am I taking too many liberties in the comic universe where villains seem to interact with each other all the time?

I mean, I get that he's hard to identify with.....but he's Superman.  That doesn't just extend to strength and invulnerability.  He's confident because nothing can hurt him.  He's had no reason to be scared of anything his entire life.  I know there's physical pain and emotional pain (which Clark *isn't* invulnerable to), but he's also never sick.  He's attractive.  He's smart.  These are things that would've made him popular by itself.

I'm not saying Clark wouldn't have issues.  Because, of course he would.  Like I said, he's still vulnerable to emotional pain.  The head cheerleader turns him down, he gets sad.  He fails a big math test, he gets sad.  He can't afford the car he wants, he gets sad.  These are very human problems that would also affect Clark.

But he's still Superman.  He still can do things that no one else on the planet can do.  And that's terrifying, but it's also gotta be, on some level, really satisfying.  Even if his parents were straight monsters who taught him to hate himself because he's different, he can still do all those things I said he could do.  Even in his drifter phase, he was always employed and got to see the world.

I know I sound like Clark's psychologist, but I just expect his life to actually be better.  There's Elon Musk and there's Clark Kent.  Elon Musk's life might not be that great.  Clark's life, on some level, just has to be pretty great because he lives free of fear.

You'd change lives with Clark in a second, right?  Wouldn't just about anyone?

I think it could've been about Penguin's rise and crazy sort of things happening.  That there was a level of insanity on the brink of erupting, and that Batman was the catalyst for things to change.  I was cool with the beginning - Nygma is in the police force but going a little nutty.  Penguin as a foot soldier with ambition.  Selina and Ivy as kids.

But they got impatient.  Added Harvey Dent and Mr. Freeze and pseudo-Joker and a bunch of others.  So it's basically Batman without Batman.  Which is fine, except for the reasons I said.

For the record, I still like the show a lot.  I just think they could've done it better.

My problem is how the show is sorta changing a fundamental aspect of the Batman character.  There's a thought that runs in stories like Batman Begins and Year One that Batman is sorta responsible for the craziness in Gotham.  That he shows up in this garish outfit, and that is what sets Gotham on the path to craziness.  That if Bruce had never shown up back in Gotham, that his villains wouldn't exist.

That Batman, more than anything else, created his own villains.  Gotham (the show) implies that Gotham was already crazy and that many of its villains were already the way they were.  And that Batman is a reaction to Gotham and not the other way around.

And while it's not a terrible change, I think it's a less-interesting one.  The idea that Batman might not actually be good for Gotham - that he might create as many villains as he puts down, just by existing in the city.  The idea that, if he quit, maybe the city would go back to "normal."  That's a pretty cool concept, and it's something that a lot of Batman stories sorta leave ambiguous.

Gotham answers the question pretty clearly - Gotham goes crazy with big colorful villains way before Bruce ever gets on the scene.  Even if Bruce waits another 6-10 years to show up as Batman, he's absolutely reacting to something that had been going on in the city for years.  In fact, almost none of Batman's villains would've been a reaction to Batman.  Even Joker would've simply been a reaction to Jerome.

It's definitely an alternate reality.  I'm just worried it's a less interesting reality.

He claims a lot of his part was cut (and we know some of it was based on shots from the trailer).  But the more I think about it, Joker was the most disappointing part of the movie.

I wonder if his character is the biggest victim of the alleged major re-edit.

So they're recasting Poison Ivy with a sexy young actress - now 19 years old instead of the 12(?) year old she was before.

The show has done a decent job of planning and foreshadowing, but their characterization of Poison Ivy has been all over the place.  She was really important in the Pilot, showed up a few times, completely disappeared, and now she's jumping a few years in age so they can hire another hot young actress.  Oh well.

http://www.superherohype.com/news/37976 … y#/slide/1

I mean, I just don't see the character as someone who'd be weighed down by his powers.  Would you not switch lives with Clark in an instant?  Wouldn't anyone?  So when the character is written as moody or depressed, it's like writing Richie Rich as depressed.  "Damn all this money!  It makes it harder to connect with my fellow kids?"

Maybe the Christopher Reeve movies were an extreme of this where his life is great and nothing ever goes wrong, but again, I think there's a happy medium in between those movies (for the record, I think the Reeve movies are boring and I cannot watch them).

Clark would have problems like everyone else.  But unlike everyone else, he can enjoy life in a way that no one else can.  This version of Clark could apply to someone like Ben Grimm (who has cool powers but cannot fit in) or maybe Martian Manhunter (who is weighed down by being the only Martian *and* living through it).  But Clark shouldn't identify as a Kryptonian.  He's SuperMAN.  I think he should identify as human since he was human longer than he was Kryptonian.

So he's a human with cool powers living on a planet with 7 billion other humans.  So I don't know why he'd ever feel like his life is joyless.

Well, the complaints were that Superman was too moody.  Not so much in Man of Steel but definitely in BvS.  If he's that moody in Man of Steel 2, then that is a problem.

I know it probably won't happen, but I'd like to see someone else direct Man of Steel 2.  I'm thinking Snyder just doesn't want Clark to have any fun at all

The more I think about it, the more I really think this movie just needed one more rewrite to be really great.  Mini spoiler alert, but in my rewrite, I would've eliminated two characters from the lineup.  I thought back, and with only one minor plot point, both characters are basically Rogue from Days of Future Past - they could be eliminated from the plot entirely with no plot holes.  So I'd get rid of them.

With those characters gone and no additional scenes needed to fix any errors (just one character doing something significant instead of another), there's three scenes I'd like to add.  It'd probably end up being slightly longer than the original cut, but it wouldn't be super-noticeable (and there's a scene or two that could be cut to keep it at a certain length.

And this is why I really like the idea of someone like Feige or Johns who is overseeing everything.  Because if it was me, I'd ask the screenwriter two questions about each character: 1) does the audience have enough to care about this character and 2) does this character serve the story?  For the two characters I'm talking about, the answer is "no" to each. 

And if the writer says "well, they serve a purpose down the road" then I'd either include them as a cameo or move their introduction to another movie.  Allegedly, the Batman solo film is going to take place in Arkham, and any character from Suicide Squad could be introduced in that movie and included in a Suicide Squad sequel.  I know the Batman stuff hasn't been confirmed so it definitely wasn't confirmed when Suicide Squad was being written....but, again, if there was a bit more planning, that might've been known before things started getting written and shot.

I get that.  But, like I've said in the past, I think these movies are aiming higher and get judged on a higher standard.  I don't think it's really fair that Thor the Dark World and Suicide Squad are measured against each other just like I don't think The Secret Life of Pets and Sausage Party should be measured against each other.  They have things in common, but they have completely different goals.

When you have Thor punching a giant rock monster and your primary villain gallivanting as Captain America in a humorous cameo, you're telling your audience that they don't have to be emotionally invested.  But in Suicide Squad, the "heroes" are told that if they step out of line, they explode (I hope that's not a spoiler).  And unlike Loki, if you die, you don't come back. 

So for Thor, the movie is judged on "did you have a good time?"  And yeah it was stupid and I don't think I'll watch it again, but I had a good time for two hours.

With Suicide Squad, just being fun isn't enough because the movie made it clear it was trying to do more.  So I have to judge on whether or not character motivations make sense.  I have to judge it on plot details.  I have to judge it on characterization.  When something doesn't make sense in Avengers, they make a joke and move on.  DC can't aspire to be better and do that.  It's why we care when Metropolis is destroyed but not when New York is.

If you want to be better, you're judged more harshly. 

It's also weird to me that you bunched in Iron Man 3 with Thor 2 and Avengers 2.  Iron Man 3 failed in some areas, but it was the most un-Marvel of the entire MCU.  It tried things that no other Marvel movie ever tried.

SPOILERS

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Okay, so I saw it.  I'm not really sure why the movie is getting such bad reviews.  It's a bit of a mess, but I thought it was fun.  I thought it was sorta like a more serious Marvel film - much more fun than BvS or even MoS.  And it still sorta felt like the DC universe even though it was brighter and people were smiling.

I thought Margot Robbie was good as Harley, although I really didn't think they played up the tragedy of her character that much.  Even Batman: The Animated Series devoted more time to Harley's fall, and since she was such a central character, I would've liked to have seen her downfall to madness more than we got.  One of the problems of the movie is that it gets bogged down, but I think I only really understood her backstory because I've seen it elsewhere.

Will Smith was good as Deadshot.  But again, I don't really think I understood where his character was coming from.  Was he always a character who wanted to be better, or did having a daughter change him?  Did he truly like killing, or was it a means to an end?  It was hard to say.

El Diablo was a pretty great character, actually.  Maybe my favorite.  I think I understood his character the best, which was odd.

The rest were just sorta there.  I thought Katana was oddly added, and there wasn't much to her character.  Killer Croc and Captain Boomerang were forgettable in the background, and I thought Rick Flagg was pretty forgettable in the foreground.

Then there's the Joker.  I really didn't like this version of the Joker, and I'm a little upset about it.  And my main problem is that he didn't feel like the Joker to me.  Not at all.  He just seemed like a sorta-psychopathic gangster to me.  Nothing about any of his exploits really screamed "Joker" to me, and he wasn't even laughing all that much.  I know Heath Ledger's Joker wasn't really using "Joker" weapons or props, but I got the idea that he was at least an agent of chaos.  I really just didn't get a Joker vibe from him the entire time.

Amanda Waller was pretty well done, but I also wasn't really sure where her character was coming from.  The scene where she kills a room full of agents was bizarre, and I never really understood her motivations.  Was she just out for herself?  If so, why didn't she give Enchantress what she wanted when she was captured?  Why didn't she try and make some sort of deal?

I thought Batman's part was a bit weird.  I liked the mid-credits scene quite a bit(*), but I thought the two flashback scenes were sorta bizarre.  Batman gets the drop on Deadshot with this daughter, but would Deadshot have killed him if his daughter hadn't stepped in?  Did a little girl save Batman's life?  Deadshot basically beat him in the fight.  I know it's not a Batman movie, but it was a little odd to me.  And the Joker scene was really quick for how much it was prominently featured in the promo materials.  Flash's brief cameo capturing Boomerang was almost better than the two Batman cameos.

* I really liked the interaction between Bruce and Waller, but I had a few questions about it.  I know Waller knows everything, but is Bruce too old to care that much about his secret identity?  Including the Justice League trailer, Bruce is basically working as Batman in his Bruce Wayne persona a lot.  These are scenes that I expect Bruce to have in costume.  Instead of meeting with Amanda in a suit in a restaurant, I'd imagine that scene would take place on a rooftop as Batman.  It just feels a bit weird for Bruce to be doing so much of the work. 

* continued - And I'm still confused about why Bruce needs *more* information on Aquaman/Flash/etc.  The dossiers didn't seem that long, and he already has the information from Lex.  It just seems a bit of a retread.  Maybe Bruce just wants to be thorough.

All in all, I thought it was fun.  The first half of the movie is better than the second, but I didn't hate the second.  The action was pretty fun, and I liked the characters.  One thing that surprised me is that the movie really isn't very funny.  I can't think of any times, really, where I (or, really, anyone in the theater) laughed out loud.  There's comedy, sure, but I was surprised at how few genuinely funny scenes there were.

Oh and one last thing.  Just like Katana was tacked on, I thought there was some lazy writing with Slipknot.  His death was so telegraphed.  After every character (even Enchantress) gets an introduction with a flashback and a scene at Belle Reve....right before their first mission, "Oh, and here's Slipknot.  His power is whatever."  He gets one brief scene where you see that he's a bad guy and then he's simply a prop to show that Waller/Flagg can really kill them if they want.  They should've either pretended he was a real character (so we care whether he lives or dies) or use him to show how ruthless Waller is (maybe have a scene where she tricks him into thinking he can escape so he'll try - to basically sacrifice him to show that she's serious).  I just thought it was really lazy.

I'm disappointed that it's getting bad reviews, but I can see why people might not like it.  It's two different movies (setting up the characters and then going on a mission), and the characterization is definitely unbalanced.  What they get right (Harley, Deadshot) is good, what they get wrong (Joker) is bad., and then there are just a bunch of characters that are just there.  And I barely mentioned the plot, but there was a lot about it that didn't make a ton of sense (no one seemed to know what the mission was, I don't really know whether or not they were actually trying to kill Enchantress or not, a lot of time seems to pass between the initial attack and the Suicide Squad showing up - where were the other heroes?, etc).

So, yeah, there were issues.  But for what it is (and it knew what it was), I though it was enjoyable.

Well, I'm certainly not advocating continuing to use fossil fuels just for the sake of the miners.  But any level of investment would be better than the nothing that they're getting right now.

The problem is that the way to the presidency for Democrats is minorities and liberal affluent whites.  Poor whites aren't in the equation, and so they're getting ignored.  It's not just that Hillary lost them, but she hasn't even done much to court them back.  She doesn't care, or she knows making them any promises hurts her in other areas.

It's just odd that "stronger together" clearly doesn't mean everyone.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?