Search options (Page 50 of 59)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 *

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hahaha.  Sorta unfair.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Haha no reason to debate BvS anymore.

Big Justice League information dump today.  I don't know if any of this is actually spoilers but here ya go.

- It's just one movie.
- It's moved up to November 17, 2017.  Star Wars Episode VIII comes out a month later
- Willem Defoe is playing an Aquaman character named Vulko
- Steppenwolf is confirmed as the primary villain
- They're promising the tone will be "lighter" and "more fun" - but it's still Zach Snyder so we'll see about that.  Much of the comedy will come from the Flash so at least they understand that

Flash is the first one back in the Fall.  Then Arrow.  Then Supergirl.  Then each Flash and Arrow get a second episode before Legends premieres.

So hypothetically, they could do a "Dark Arrowverse" episode for Flash and Arrow, let Supergirl have an episode in her own universe, and wrap up the Flashpoint stuff in episode 2 of Flash before Legends even premieres.  It'd be pretty cool to have an episode of Arrow that exists in a dark timeline before getting back to business with the second episode, although I wonder if they'd be able to explain that away to people who don't watch Flash.

It'd be a way of having their cake without necessarily affecting all four of their shows.  Just speculating.

They could also hypothetically fix everything in episode one and not affect any other show.  Either way, I think it'd be a mistake for there to be no ripples on Arrow if things aren't resolved in the Flash premiere.  Why even bother with having a shared universe if something this big doesn't affect the other show(s)?

He seemed like a good dude, and he was a rising star at one point (he did a bunch of big projects in a row at a pretty young age).  He sorta slowed down a bit, but he brought a lot to the Chekov role.  RIP.

Yeah, I see it both ways.  How long has Supernatural been on Wednesdays?  It was paired with Smallville back in the day, wasn't it?  I can't even remember anymore.

I think their superhero strategy is the most interesting, but we'll see how Supernatural does on Thursdays.  It's got to be nearing an end, right?  Do Jensen and Jared want to do this show forever?

Not sure if this was announced or not, but Supernatural will actually move from Wednesday (where it was paired with Arrow) to Thursday (where it will be paired with Legends of Tomorrow).

It's a bit of a weird move.  I think Supernatural and Arrow worked together somehow.

Considering what TF said about Canadian actors, I'm surprised they hired an American.  But he does look like Superman to me in the pics I've seen.  And even a little like Henry Cavill.

Yeah, not to mention the fact that Martian Manhunter could stay on board with a different actor.

I just wonder how they're going to deal with the mass cast exodus.  Are they going to kill the characters off, or are all of them going to move away?  Wouldn't it be easier to just move Kara and keep everyone else in National City?