Search options (Page 51 of 58)

Something odd from the Flash - so Laurel is going to take down a high rise, and Barry can't go because he needs to race around the city to protect the rest of the world from the pulse.  That makes sense.  But they had time to dress up Cisco and Caitlin as Reverb and Killer Frost?  That had to have taken way longer than it would've taken for Barry to race out to take her out.

Also, it makes sense for Caitlin/Cisco to be evil metahumans on Earth 2 because they still get powers.  It makes less sense for Laurel, who doesn't have metahuman powers.  I guess Reverb could've given her the canary cry, but it makes less sense that Earth 2 Laurel would've followed the same path as Earth 1 Laurel.  Black Siren should've been Sara, right?

And since Cisco made Laurel's device, shouldn't he have been able to cancel it out?  And why didn't he remove it while Laurel was unconscious (she has it in her cell)? 

And why doesn't Caitlin have powers?

Final and - it seems like Laurel did die.  I guess it happened before Barry lost his speed?  And I guess they mourned on their own?  It's bizarre that there has been such little conversation between teams.  I know Oliver has his own stuff going on, but this is a war on American soil.  No Army.  No Argus.  No Team Arrow.  I know Barry is crazy confident, but wouldn't other forces show up regardless of what Flash wants?

I'm in a critical mood, I guess.

Again, I haven't read it.  Could be completely unfair to put it on Snyder, but reading the script reviews I've read (I actually have three scripts I want to read but haven't yet) just clicked for me.  Some of the things I thought were odd about the movie (mostly characterizations of Batman and Superman) suddenly made a lot of sense.  Batman was killing people and acting un-Batmanly because he'd snapped.  People trust Superman because he has spent 18 months winning them back.  These are things that absolutely make sense on retrospect but weren't set up by the movie.

Maybe it wasn't Snyder.  Maybe it was Johns or someone else at DC saying "YOU CAN'T MAKE BATMAN A BAD GUY!" but instead Batman is still a bad guy - just not the bad guy.  And the act of saving Batman by having him save Martha just comes across as a "well, you go save Martha and I'll deal with Lex" even though that doesn't really make any sense.  Superman could save Martha and deal with Lex before Batman could get either place.

And, hell, maybe it wasn't in the script.  But in that case, everyone got things wrong.  The writers were wrong, the director was wrong, and DC was wrong for letting it all happen.  Because while you see one thing, all I see is a homicidal Batman who only vaguely admits that he needs to change, and a Superman who never smiles and shouldn't have been forgiven by anyone.

I'd like to believe that there's a *great* (and I'm not kidding.  Dark Knight Trilogy - level greatness) movie just under the surface in BvS and Snyder messed it up for cool points.  Otherwise, BvS was a good movie that ended up being a bit of a mess for various reasons.

I thought I saw something that said he'd be allowed in 42 states.  I couldn't verify and it was a BernieBro so it's probably completely wrong

I haven't watched Flash yet (probably will tonight or tomorrow), but I'm still not convinced that Laurel has died yet in the Flash timeline.  I mean Barry *just* got his speed back.  And he's got enough in his life to worry about.  Now I know this week has a huge metahuman brawl, so maybe *that's* why he misses the funeral?

I feel like they're purposely avoiding crossover language because they know they messed up.

In other news, Stephen Amell was doing TMNT interviews and said he'd be surprised if there wasn't an Arrow/Flash/Legends/Supergirl crossover.  What's pretty cool about DC is that they're going to be able to do their own Justice League with a female as the most powerful character.  Which is basically what Marvel wants to do with Captain Marvel - but DCTV will beat them to the punch by a couple years.

Well Bernie is saying that he's going to get in line and help elect someone who isn't Donald Trump.  But I don't see what's in it for Bernie to help Hillary.  He'd be well in his 80s before he could legitimately run for president again (and she'd be harder to beat as a sitting president).  If she loses, I guess he could technically run in 2020. 

But he's not a Democrat, and the DNC has been awful to him.  And apparently the Clinton campaign is scared that Bernie folks won't come, even if he campaigns for her.  Even if he's the VP!  They've alienated the Bernie crowd so much that I just don't know if they'll come around.

I still think he could run as an independent.  I was saying that Jill Stein could get some votes.  Bernie could win some states.  He could almost certainly prevent either side from getting to 270.  But Trump wins if it goes to the Senate, right?

I'm still not convinced that the Democratic Party is going to unify behind Hillary.  The stuff in Nevada has gotten ugly, and the DNC (headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz) is basically attacking the Sanders campaign.  I wasn't there so I can't speak to any violence, but I'm not sure how the DNC can even claim objectivity anymore.  And when Hillary gets the nomination, I think a ton of Sanders voters are going to be pretty pissed off at the DNC *in addition* to the hate they already feel for Hillary herself.

So to get Hillary elected, the Democratic Party is willingly pissing off the majority of voters under 45.  These are not only people they need to beat Trump, but they're voters that they need down ticket.  And in 2018.  And 2020.  And 2022.  And so on and so on and so on.  This is the future of the party, and the head of the DNC is basically calling them crazy, violent zealots.

The amount of power the Clintons must have in the Democratic Party is staggering.  Because literally any candidate other than Hillary should be able to wipe the floor with Donald Trump, but the Clintons are throwing every bit of power they have to make sure that the establishment stops at nothing to make sure she wins.  I'm honestly fascinated to see what kind of meltdown would happen if she doesn't win this time.  I'm guessing it will be epic.

Yeah, and that's what's sorta scary if you're in the #NeverTrump category.  Most voters vote based on the economy, and if the economy dips in the next few months, it could drive people to Trump.

It reminds me of the election in the final season of the West Wing.  Vinick had that election wrapped up until the nuclear disaster flipped the script.  Something big could push the election either way, especially if Hillary continues to lock herself to Obama (although I think that's a bit silly since they seem to disagree a ton).  If Obama's final few months is uneventful and prosperous, people would want more of the same.  If something happens that trips him up, people might want a change.

Well, regardless of who's in charge, something is going to have to change for these movies to resonate with large audiences.  I know that audience reaction (67%) was higher than critical reaction (27%), but both those numbers are still too low.  If you maintain that Superman was angry and cold because of perception/perspective (like Rashomon, I suppose) then they can't play that card again because most people (myself included) didn't get that.

My fear with Justice League and future movies is that damage has been done that's not easily corrected.

- Superman *does* appear cold and alien.  If he comes back with a personality (in his Superman persona), then we're going to need a scene explaining why he's friendlier. 
- Batman *does* gun down and kill many people in BvS.  Whether he's abandoned his "no killing" code or not, we're going to need an explanation for that as well.  Otherwise, if Joker is robbing a bank and people are at risk, why wouldn't Batman simply kill him?  If he's willing to kill a random mercenary working at LexCorp who may or may not be a bad person, why would he even hesitate to murder someone who he's *certain* is a truly evil person?

From my perspective, Snyder's Superman is cold and alien.  His Batman is a brutal murderer.  His Clark Kent might be more human and warmer, but Snyder has also shown that he'd rather make a Batman movie than a Superman one, so Clark Kent might only get a couple scenes here or there to show his personality.  The more people involved, making decisions, that understand that Batman has to be more than Lex in a Batman suit, the better.

Well, I imagine it's DC trying to beat Marvel to the "women" punch.  Marvel announced a Black Widow movie, and Captain Marvel will be out in a couple of years.  Could be a smart move by DC to get the leg up on the female market.

(And I think it's so weird that DC is so afraid of TV/movies intersecting.  Waller dying is another example).

I don't have a link (and I'm too tired to pull one), but I heard that Affleck is pretty upset that BvS got panned the way that it did.  It could be the reason why he's taking a bigger role in the Justice League movie(s).  I also heard that Snyder isn't super happy that he's losing control, but that guy probably doesn't have a ton of rope left. 

It's crazy, but I trust Affleck way more than Snyder.  I think less Snyder and more Affleck will be great for the movie.  Same with Johns/Affleck working together on the Batman movie.

I like that Hillary is so unlikable that her own campaign is basically saying "Don't worry, Bill is going to do most of the work."

Well the thing about moral question in both versions of Civil War is a good one.  And I think it's a good one because I could honestly see myself arguing both sides.  I mean you have these living superweapons fighting other living superweapons, 90% of the time near civilians.  The governments responsible for keeping those people safe (and fixing any damage caused by the superweapons) would honestly want some say in how they interact.

It's a fair point, and I agree with Tony that it would be inevitable in a realistic situation.  And it makes sense that Marvel, being the more realistic comics, would tackle it.  The only problem I had with the scenario is that it took so damn long to do in a Marvel universe that prides itself on not rebooting.  It'd honestly be something I would've expected to see in the Ultimate universe or one of the many recent DC reboots, just because it's something that the governments would probably be quick to try.

And I think the moral question is severe enough that, as ireactions said, the writers' opinions seemed to matter more than the heroes themselves.  Because I could take most heroes and find a way to argue either side.  And I don't know if Civil War is honestly that different of a story if Cap is pro-registration and Tony is anti-registration.

Haha I was actually going to say there was still a sizeable drop in box office results.  #FairAndBalanced

Yeah, I think it's a bit odd that Tony Stark would side with registration, but I think it sorta makes sense in the context of these movies.  I think they probably could've done it a little better, but I think it's sorta the natural progression of the character.

A lot of people point to the fact that Tony stands in front of the government in Iron Man 2 and tells them that they can't have his property.  That he's a private citizen and that the government is infringing on his rights.  And, yes, that's a huge turn from where he is in Civil War, but people forget that Iron Man 2 is the third movie in the MCU.  In the mean time:

- Tony learns that there are aliens (Chitauri) and that Norse gods are real (Thor/Loki).
- He fights an army of these creatures, almost dying in the process.
- Almost dying gives him panic attacks/PTSD, and it causes him to build tons and tons of suits to feel safe. 
- When this doesn't work, he decides to build Ultron and the Iron Legion.  He decides that he might not be smart/strong enough to defend the Earth, but he's smart/strong enough to build something that can.
- Once again, this blows up in his face.

The man who faces the government in Iron Man 2 has built this kickass suit of armor, has dominated every foe he's faced, has "privatized world peace," and has his dream girl.  And while he wins in the end in Iron Man 3 and both Avengers movies, it comes at a great cost.  He almost dies, Pepper almost dies, his arrogance has turned against him (literally) in all three movies (the Stark Tower becomes the conduit for the Chitauri, the Mandarin is borne from his arrogant past, and Ultron his literally his baby).

So I saw him agreeing with the Sokovia Accords as finally admitting that he can't do everything on his own.  But it's still the same guy because he still thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and every fight in this movie is basically him trying to convince Cap that he's right about whatever decision he's made. 

And I think one of the key ideas is that he's lost Pepper.  In Age of Ultron, they explain away Gweneth Paltrow's absence by saying that Pepper is away or something (same with Natalie Portman's Jane Foster).  The truth is that there was no place for Pepper in an already-bloated movie.  And the same was true of a very-long Civil War movie.  And, again, they could've explained her away with a throw-away line.  But the fact is that Pepper is gone - and Tony's lost something else.  It's more doubt to throw in Tony's face and more reason why he might be willing to accept oversight.

(And what's funny is that Tony still basically works alone, with no oversight, the entire movie.  So it's still basically in character).

And Steve's stuff make's sense too.  He wants to be a good little soldier, but in every movie, the government has been evil.  SHIELD was secretly run by HYDRA.  Nick Fury was spying on him.  Then SHIELD disbands, and he starts working for the Avengers.  But then Tony builds an evil robot that they all have to fight.  So he can't really trust the Avengers either. 

Because, at the core of things, Steve is a soldier.  It was easy in World War II because Germany and HYDRA were obviously evil.  There was a clear indication of who was good and who was bad.  And in each movie, Steve has to question who to trust.  Who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. 

And, yet, Steve is still a trusting guy.  He forms a quick bond and instantly trusts Falcon after knowing him for a very short time in Winter Soldier.  He instantly trusts Ant-Man right before one of the biggest battles of his life without knowing anything about him.  And, of course, he's firmly loyal to Bucky despite everyone else turning on him.   

That's what I like about the MCU.  Yeah, they're kids movies without a whole lot of deep thought or character development.,  But after movie after movie, I really do think they're allowing these characters to evolve and change.  I think Civil War the movie might be more earned than Civil War the comic.  And even if a lot of the stuff I wrote wasn't explicitly stated (or even intended), the pieces fit together well enough that it does feel earned.

So the CinemaSins guy didn't like Civil War, and a lot of his comments echo stuff that Informant said before the movie was released.  I'm gonna put a spoiler tag just in case:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So the issues he came up with are that a) no one died and b) there were no consequences.

Regarding point B first, I agree that there wasn't a ton resolved regarding the central question of the film.  Is government oversight good or bad?  It really isn't answered.  And, in fact, there's not even really a situation in the film (nor a place for it) where government oversight is shown at all.  Cap is worried about bureaucracy interfering with saving people, and Tony is terrified of all the mistakes they've made and wants something done.  Tony wins the argument in the sense that the Avengers are now government-sanctioned, but we still don't know if that was the right call or not.

But no consequences?  I know no one died and Rhodey's injury was basically overridden (although I think that's also a bit trite since he's still paralyzed), but look at all the lives that were affected.

Cap is a fugitive from the law.  He wants to do good, but now he's going to have to do it from the shadows.  Bucky has to go back in cryostasis, and he's hated by just about everyone.  Black Panther's father is dead, and he's been thrust into the leadership of Wakanda.  And he's now risking his country's privacy by harboring a fugitive.  Falcon is a fugitive.  Hawkeye is a fugitive, and while I'm sure he can grab his family and disappear, that's going to be a huge change.  Ant-Man spent his whole movie trying to get back with his family, and now that's blown to Hell.

On Tony's side, after trying to get passed Iron Man and failing, he's now lost everything.  And now he's in charge of a broken group of Avengers.  Vision is going to be questioning why he failed when he shot Rhodey.  Rhodey is paralyzed.  Scarlet Witch still doesn't know her place.  Black Widow broke ranks, and she might be out of the trust tree.

So the story moved a distance, and these characters are all changed.  So it's not like there wasn't any consequences.

Now regarding deaths, I still maintain that these guys didn't want to kill each other.  As is mentioned in the movie, they're pulling punches.  Yeah they're dropping cars on people and using guns and explosives, but these are superheroes.  There's not any real anger because it's just a disagreement.  Even in the big fight, it's all about getting Cap and Bucky away.  When that's achieved, the rest of Team Cap surrenders.

If someone died, it wouldl've had more emotional impact.  If Vision had killed Rhodes instead of just paralyzing him, it would've had a lot of impact.  But let's say this was a Batman/Superman bloodbath - killing the other side doesn't win anything for either side.  Tony doesn't want to kill Cap - he just wants him brought in.  If he does kill Cap, it could actually make things worse for his cause - because there's a martyr to keep fighting for (which is what happened in the comic story).

And Cap definitely doesn't want to kill Tony because that accomplishes nothing.   He'd still be a fugitive, and he'd basically be confirming the government's concerns that he's dangerous and needs to be brought in.  And the same applies for every member of both sides.

Yes, it's a disagreement that boils over into a fight.  But no one seems eager to do it.  And I think the movie shows that every character is pretty disappointed with him/herself for letting it get that far.

The problem with Kara just falling into the Arrowverse is the fact that Barry already did that, and they got him back in the course of an episode.  Now, oddly enough, they could go the Sliders route where Kara is transported but can't find her way home.  So she stays in the Arrowverse until they can find a way to send her back to *her* Earth.

One thing they could do is have Barry go get her for help and then not be able to bring her back.  It could be a background story on Flash, allowing for Barry and Kara to have crossovers (since they're great together).

But she'd definitely want to go home, and just stranding her on a parallel universe isn't the best way to start a show.  I mean, I guess Harry and Jessie are doing it, but at least they have each other.  Now I guess it could be Kara and someone else from her show so she's not too upset about it, but it'd still be odd.

I'm sorta tired of the openings to the Berlanti shows.  Do we really need to be reminded who the main character(s) is/are in all these shows?

Gotham is such a bizarre show.  I mean, they had a character die via point-blank rocket launcher in the last episode.  It's definitely found it's tone - which is a bizarre mix of realism and comic book feel.  And I do love the costuming and feel of the show, where you aren't really sure which era it takes place in.  Do they have cell phones.

I do have another complaint - just like with the future Joker getting his inspiration from "Jerome" - is it bizarre that Bruce is inspired by Theo Galavan / Azrael?  It just seems a bit cheap if these two iconic characters are basically copying someone they saw when they were children.

Comparing the earnings of Civil War and Batman v Superman seems foolish considering that BvS deliberately ignored a huge segment of its audience (kids) and by its nature, isn't the type of movie that people want to see multiple times in theaters.

Accordingly, BvS' marketing budget shouldn't have been anywhere near as much as Civil War's was.

No I can definitely see all of that.  The problem is that (in my opinion) there wasn't enough of the "in the middle" crowd.  You're right - the movie can't really be from Superman's point of view because otherwise Batman is a murderous psycho. 

But I wanted more world-building where it's implied that people other than Lex (a crazy murderer) and Wally (a crazy murderer) are on Batman's side.  Like I've said before - protests.  Pressure on Senator Finch from other countries to control Superman.  Even one-off lines where it's just implied that people are torn ("you hear about that poll that came out the other day.  First time since he showed up that people in Metropolis support him more than don't support him.")

Instead, the statue is "beloved."  There's no indication that anyone support's Wally's vandalization of the statue.  The Daily Planet is running "puff pieces" on Superman.  It describes the Christopher Reeve Superman more than the one we've seen for two movies.  Everyone in Metropolis loves him.  The whole city is rebuilt, and here's a statue.  The entire government is trusting enough of him that they're not willing to look into weapons that might hurt or possibly kill him.

I think everything you said is right.  Superman has to look sorta cold and alien because that's the way Batman sees him.  And we, as the audience, are supposed to think of Batman as being rational. 

The problem is that the message was lost on me.  Batman doesn't look rational - he still looks like a murderous psycho.  And now Clark looks like a cold alien.  So I don't really feel anything either way.

What I think the script wanted was Batman to be the bad guy.  He sees this event happen and snaps, no longer able to use his own judgment and just sees a super-powered Joker who can destroy the planet whenever he wants.  And so he goes on this plan...and as the movie moves with him, we see that Lex has the same plan.  Maybe even have parallel stories where they're each building tech suits.  And Bruce realizes, "Holy shit, I'm Lex Luthor.  I'm the bad guy."  And if you do that, then you can have a human Superman who's trying his best to make up for everything.  He's saving people, not just physically but emotionally, and he's training so that he never has to put people in harm's way again.

And if Batman is the bad guy, Superman gets to be the protagonist.  He gets to save the day twice, and the end is so tragic for Batman.  If they could've just done that, then BvS blows Civil War out of the water no question.

The problem is that Tony and Cap's story is a true moral dilemma.  Bruce and Clark's is an imaginary dilemma that's twisted so that Zack Snyder could make a Batman movie.

And yeah I'm happy to talk about House of Cards.  I gave it two full seasons (well, I quit after the penultimate one of season two) and I'll never go back.

It'd certainly explain a lot, right?

At the risk of turning this into another thing, I think I'm going to just say that I expected a lot more Man of Steel fallout than we got.  You know how I feel about Man of Steel, and every DC fanboy (not you) told me to just wait....it'd all be settled in Dawn of Justice.  And....honestly, I didn't think it was.  Yeah, Batman was mad.  Yeah, it was the catalyst for Batman being mad.  And, yeah, Wally was mad.  And Lex was mad....but there wasn't really any reason for him to be.  He doesn't really seem concerned about Superman - he just wants him dead because he's the bad guy.

What I wanted was a world divided.  Instead, I felt like every background character pretty much supported Superman 100%.  If they supported him because they were scared of him and felt there was no other way, I didn't pick up on that.

And that's why Superman's temperament is so key to my thoughts on the movie.  Everything in the movie is telling me that Superman has tirelessly spent time saving people for 18 months, earning back everyone's trust.  That his public persona has basically morphed back into the Superman we know and love - the TaS version, the Reeve and Reeves versions, the Routh version, etc.

But the movie implies that while showing us a Superman that never smiles.  Who is more interested in looking cool than actually saving people (floating above the flood instead of saving the people begging for help, grabbing the person out of the burning building while it's still burning, allowing people to worship him when he could be helping more people or at least putting the fire out, standing in a burning congressional building while he could be helping survivors, etc).

But for Snyder's movie to work the way Snyder wanted it to work, Bruce can't be crazy.  Other people have to mistrust Superman or Bruce is basically Lex.  So while Superman is floating over the flood, we can think "maybe he's deciding whether or not to save them."  When he's being worshiped in Mexico, maybe he's thinking "yeah, these people *should* worship me."  When the bomb goes off in Congress, Superman does nothing so maybe he's involved somehow.

So you have a movie that's telling us one thing and showing us another.  That wants Superman to be this divisive figure when there's no other indication that he's anything other than the Reeve version as far as anyone in Metropolis is concerned.

In Civil War, a mother says Tony is responsible for the death of her son.  To her, it doesn't matter if Tony was saving lives or if the Avengers *entire plan* revolved around saving civilians as much as it was defeating Ultron.  Tony was there, leading the charge, and Tony was the one who invented the monster in the first place.  To her, everything else is unimportant.

Dawn of Justice has that character, and it's Wally.  But instead of taking his anger out on Superman, he seems to direct his rage at....Bruce?  And takes his revenge on.....a congressional panel trying to *indict* Superman?

House of Cards is my least favorite show ever.  I really, truly hate it.

FF2015 is on HBO right now.  I might watch it just to see how much of a disaster it is.

Yeah, I think Chuck's line about writing "Revolution" cemented the idea that God is Kripke.

Well the problem with the Arrowverse is that it isn't synced up.  You'd need to watch the first two seasons of Arrow, then start alternating between Arrow and Flash.  Then halfway through season 4 of Arrow and season 2 of Flash, you'd need to start working Legends of Tomorrow in.  Because, again, you'd get spoilers for each of the shows if you don't do it that way.

And I don't know if there's a great roadmap to do that except to just look up original airdates.  And I don't know anyone who'd be interested in doing that.

It's easily done when you're watching in real time, and there's not so many connections that they can't be viewed individually.  But if I was Greg Berlanti, I might have Netflix offer an "Arrowverse" binge where you watch in the correct timeline order.

Of course, even watching by airdate wouldn't necessarily work as we've seen that Arrow and Flash aren't even synced up now.

It's funny because it's both unfair to compare Civil War and Dawn of Justice and also impossible not to.  Marvel and DC aren't really trying to do the same thing, but they're also trying something similar enough in the same genre (kind of) that it's hard to just ignore the similarities.

So I'll just say this: the advantage that the Marvel model has over the DC model is patience.  I know why DC did things the way they did, but the problem with BvS and Civil War is that Civil War feels earned.  And BvS is stuck in this weird place for a lot of the film where they have these main characters (Batman, Alfred, Lex, Diana) who people know but don't really know.  This is Batman, but it's a very different version of Batman than we know.  And it has to spend so much time on Batman that Superman gets ignored, and things start to get muddled.

And while Tony and Cap are weaker characters than Batman or Superman, Civil War felt "earned" to me.  These characters might be five-story buildings compared to the Batman/Superman skyscrapers, but their foundations are solid.  And you can understand why these two might want to kick the crap out of each other and while they might fight beside each other five minutes later.  What I liked about it vs. BvS is that they try pretty hard not to fight.  There's a handful of scenes in Civil War where they try and talk it out.  And it doesn't work.  They're both entrenched and won't be persuaded.

So the fight does feel earned - at least from Cap and Tony's story.  The rest is sorta assumed.  But instead of spending time on why Cap and Tony are there or who the Starks are or who even someone like Ant-Man is....we get proper introductions to Black Panther and Spider-Man.  I know more about those two than I do about Diana, and both of them were actually introduced in the same way as Diana (minor part in someone else's movie - then her own movie).

I went to the movie with two people.  One of my buddies has seen every MCU movie but Thor 2 and Ant-Man.  My other buddy has seen pieces of the MCU here and there.  I'm not sure he saw any movie in Phase 2, including Avengers 2.  Both of them really enjoyed it.  The first guy actually said he's interested in going back and seeing Ant-Man now.

What's interesting about the second guy is how much I assumed was lost by not seeing all the movies.  Something as simple as Scott's line about being a criminal being nothing new was funny, but you wouldn't really get it unless you knew (from comics or from the first movie) that Scott's a petty criminal.  But he said there was enough there (and, he said, enough that I'd told him about movies he hadn't seen) that it all sorta fit.  He enjoyed it.

So, yeah, there's stupid in the MCU, but they're for kids.  Still, I thought (like Winter Soldier) that there was some darkness there.  Tony is legitimately trying to kill Bucky at the end.  Not as violently as Batman fighting Superman, but it's brutal.  And Cap has to stop him.

What I really liked is that both guys are really the good guys in this.  I could see myself arguing either side of it.  And while I'm a bigger fan of Tony than Steve, I found it hard to really be Team Cap or Team Iron Man.  I was sorta like Black Widow - where I'd probably side with Tony but switch if the situation was dangerous enough.  And to compare it to BvS unfairly again, that disagreement is way deeper and way more human, but in the end, it's really weak.  It could be (and is) solved with twenty seconds of real conversation.  So that's why I felt like the fights were earned.

I think Affleck will be a good voice in the room.  Hopefully Snyder listens to him and doesn't fight him too much because I agree - I think Affleck is getting pretty good at behind the scenes stuff.  And, honestly, he's much better as an actor than he was a decade ago.

I'm looking forward to the full movie.  I'm really interested in seeing the Jena Malone stuff.

Well, my hope rests in three things.

1. The American government is structured so that if a horrible fascist is elected, there's checks and balances in place to prevent the president from doing too much harm.  I'm not in the "the president has no power so who cares?" camp, but there are things in place to keep Trump from doing too much harm.  If he crosses some line - like breaking the Geneva Convention or something - he can be kicked out of office.

2. The rest of the world might be "scared" of Trump, but I don't think the US loses any allies out of this.  Just because the rest of the world still tends to lean on the United States more than anything.  I think even the most scared of countries would just sit back for four years and hope nothing bad happens.

3. Electing Trump would force major changes in both parties.  Obviously people are turning against establishment politics, and I think both parties need to start looking at that.  If Hillary doesn't win, it will be because she's bought by Wall Street.  It could lead to reforms there.  It could lead to more people (especially down ticket) to doing more for the peoples' interests than the party's interests.  Maybe break down the parties' power a little bit.

That's maybe wishful thinking but it's my hope coming out of this mess.

I'm not saying you're a Hillbot by any means.  In fact, I'd say you've been the most level-headed in this discussion.  It just sucks that it's come down to what amounts as the two worst candidates that the parties could come up with.

They're both essentially insiders.  They're both gonna end to some sort of war.  They're both elite.  And I don't think either is really interested in making the country better for anyone but the top 1%.  So....great.

I'd love if Supergirl filmed in Dallas.  The only regret about my trip to Vancouver last December was that I *COMPLETELY FORGOT* that they filmed all these shows there.  I could've watched Flash film about six blocks from my hotel on the night I had nothing planned.  I'd absolutely go watch filming of a show.

Interesting.  I'd like to see the show moved to the CW, but I also worry about how that would affect the show and its budget.  I also wonder what would happen if the move happened - would Kara stay in her own universe, or would she somehow be brought into Earth-1?  Because I imagine there'd be more crossovers, but Barry is the only one who can actually cross over (literally) to her show.

Something that I've been thinking about tonight watching the coverage.

100% of people have basically decided whether or not they *would* vote for Trump, right?  This isn't a normal election - Democrats aren't going to be introduced to Donald Trump as soon as primary season is over - most people in the US know him.  All the people that he's turned off are already turned off.  I honestly don't think there's anything he can do or say or could be revealed by Hillary that would cause him to lose any more votes.  He's already done and said everything, and the Republicans have tried to take him down.  It hasn't worked.

And I wonder if that explains why Hillary (and Bernie for that matter) is winning so much in national polls.  There are tons of people who are #NeverTrump but I wonder if independents/Bernie folks/populists/etc would switch to him once they actually are forced to listen to him in debates.  They might actually realize he's not that bad.

But there's no way he can lose any votes from now to the election, right?  Isn't that a positive on his side?