Search options (Page 51 of 59)

Okay, is it weird that I didn't hate the Fantastic Four movie?  It was bad, but I didn't think it was terrible.  It was also pretty short, making it easier to stomach.  I think Trank is right, and it could've been pretty good if they'd just done a few things different.

What's funny is that I watched the movie in two parts because I got distracted and had to stop in the middle.  I stopped exactly at the time jump in the movie.  So I got to watch the first half before they get their powers and then the second half (which was just about 40 minutes).  And, yeah, the stuff with Doom is pretty dumb, but I think it'd be pretty simple to make a pretty good movie out of it.

It was short on action, so I would've included more of the army scenes that they alluded to (and showed clips of).  If they have to team up at the end, maybe individual action sequences to show them using their powers (instead of just testing them - maybe a foreign army tries to kidnap the Four or something).  And since this was "Fantastic Four Begins" - I would've had the government be the bad guys and save Doom for a sequel.  He seemed completely shoehorned.  Plus, I've seen 3 movies, read a few articles on him, and you guys have tried to explain, and I still have no idea what Doom's powers are supposed to be.

To me, movies are all about expectations.  I was expecting the worst superhero movie ever, and it wasn't.  So I sorta liked it.

(I know I just lost all credibility I had left )

I mean I get it but it doesn't make sense to me under scrutiny.  The plan in X2 to kill all the humans makes sense. The plot in the original movie to turn all the powerful humans into mutants to shape the world makes sense.

My point is that causing a bunch of earthquakes and buildings to collapse doesn't ensure that the strongest of mutants survives.  It ensures that the people (humans and mutants) with the best ability to survive earthquakes and buildings collapsing survive.

For example.  Let's say that the heroes were one step behind the entire time.  Charles doesn't find Moira so she doesn't get in the fray.  Mystique misses out on the fight between Angel and Nightcrawler so he never gets the info on Magneto.  Quicksilver (and no other mutant) happens to see the news about Magneto.  Presumably, nothing about Apocalypse's plan would change.  He'd gather his horsemen, and he'd have Magneto destroy the world like he destroyed Auschwitz.

With no info on Eric, Charles wouldn't have any reason to find him on Cerebro.  So Apocalypse wouldn't have learned of Charles' existence and so the mansion wouldn't have been destroyed.  The school would've gone on like normal.

(Funny thing.  In the final battle, it's shown to be daytime in Egypt, New York City, and Australia.)

Xavier's school would presumably have the highest concentration of mutants, but I think most of them would've been killed right alongside any humans.  Jean might've been able to stop some of the debris with her telekinesis, but she might not have.  Same with Scott and his energy blast.  Debris could easily kill Jubilee.  Nightcrawler could teleport, but he could also easily teleport to a place with more debris (or, hypothetically, teleport himself *into* debris). 

And, of course, Charles himself is both powerless to stop debris and less mobile than most people.  If the building collapsed on him, he's dead.  And that would've happened before Apocalypse even knew he existed (which ended up being his primary plan).

I get that he wants to destroy the world and rebuild a better one.  And he seemed less "mutant rah rah" as Magento is in the original trilogy so maybe he's cool with killing some mutants in exchange for some wily humans who could survive Magneto's attack.  But it just seemed odd to me because, from the looks of it, humans and mutants had a similar chance of surviving (unless you're a mutant who can take extra punishment like Colossus).

Yeah, especially after Deadpool did so well.  And especially after knowing that kids *could not* see this movie.  It'd be suicide for the MCU to ever do an R-rated film (or, heck, even a mainstream X-Men movie), but if kids basically can't see the movie anyway, go all out.

The only question would be length - would audiences be okay with a 3-hour superhero movie?  Maybe not, but the Nolan Batman movies and Civil War were both pretty long. I know this is a hypocritical argument from me since I started my review with "it's way too long" but if it makes the movie better, it makes the movie better

Man, what if the Ultimate Edition is great, and it fills in all the holes from the original movie.  Will it matter to the masses? 

Because I honestly think the Daredevil Directors Cut makes that movie so much better, and it hasn't really improved the reputation of that movie.  Has any director's cut actually improved the reputation of any movie?

I think it'd be a mistake.  Going back a couple years would only work in our timeline - not theirs   Even if Laurel was back alive, the current writers would still be more interested in developing Felicity.

The fact that they aired Flash before Arrow and then didn't reference it on Arrow makes me think the changes won't be wide-spread.

Well, if we're talking TNG-VOY, the "communicators" also function as transporter locks.  So while it's separating "communication" from our "cell phones" - it actually serves another purpose in the Trek universe.  And it makes sense to have the communicator/transport lock be on your universe/on your body to make sure it works.  It could be subdermal, I guess, but I don't think that technology is necessarily archaic.

The big difference would be however information is displayed, and everything would be smaller and more compact.

If they wanted to go with an explanation, I like the idea that technology stagnated after WWIII.  They're also seemingly behind us in terms of AI technology (The Computer is basically just a better version of Siri, and we'll be better than that in the next decade).  So maybe AI was responsible for WWIII, and we vowed never to go down that road again.  And maybe, due to the fact that everyone had their faces in their cell phones 24/7, we decided to make technology less streamlined.

It sorta works, I guess.

Well if that was the end of a 3-year arc, it wasn't that bad.  I thought they handled the God thing pretty well, he's out of the picture again, and it was wrapped up pretty nicely.

I was actually hoping to have an ending sorta like the ending of Arrow this season.  Where there wasn't a real cliffhanger or anything - just two weary hunters not knowing what's next.  The two cliffhangers were pretty interesting - I don't know what bringing back Mary accomplishes (and why couldn't John also come back), but assuming Sam isn't actually dead, hunters hunting the Winchesters could be a pretty cool storyline.

What did you guys think?

I thought it was okay.  It was a little poetic that the season started with Oliver and Felicity having abandoned Oliver's quest, and it ends with everyone else abandoning it.  I think it makes some sense, and it's cool that Oliver is going to be able to fight his fight in the light.  It's probably going to be a little difficult to be the Green Arrow when he's mayor, though.  This'll be the first time he's actually had a job since like season 2, right?

I was a little surprised at how it ended.  I was sorta thinking they might have an epilogue where everything resets and is darker because of what Barry did.  For people who watch Flash, they'd know.  For people who only watch Arrow, it'd be an interesting twist to be explained next year.

If they aren't going to have ripples through the rest of the Arrowverse, I think the Flash twist is sorta pointless, right?

I was reading that this could be the way they bring Tom Cavanaugh back to play the "original" Harrison Wells.  If Barry defeated Thawne, there's a chance that Thawne could've chosen to take over for someone else.  Maybe Martin Stein? 

They could hypothetically bring Teddy Sears to play a good guy version of Hunter Zolomon who became Flash instead of Barry (if saving his mom makes him no longer be the Flash). 

Honestly, I'd hate if big portions of the universe got reset.

Yeah, I guess Barry could've technically splintered away from Earth-1 when he changed time.  He could end up in, say, Earth-5 (Arrowverse, Earth-2, Jay's Earth-3, and Kara's world).

I did read there there's a lot of secrecy about Arrow's finale.  Is there a chance it ends with Barry changing time and everything getting reset?  Would CW do that when there are clearly people who don't watch all shows?

It'd be limited but there could be tons of ripples.  For example, there are people that Henry Allen could've saved that wouldn't have been saved in the original Arrowverse timeline.  In fact, would Barry even be the Flash?  If he never had to prove his father was innocent, he might not have gone into forensic science, and he wouldn't have been in the lab that night.  Joe and Iris would be different people, and their relationship with Barry would be different.

If Barry isn't the Flash, Team Arrow could be different.  Barry saved everyone from Ra's last season, for example.

Logistically, there should be huge changes.  We'll see what they actually choose to go with.

Well, I have two questions before I comment.  First, did RDJ ever really apologize for his behavior?  I know he's spoken candidly about it, but I also know he's dodged questions about it too.  Secondly, has Gibson apologized?

I think if RDJ apologized and Gibson apologized, then they should be allowed to walk the same road back to Hollywood.  I know their "crimes" were different, and because of that, their apologies would need to be different.

I have to think that Gibson's blacklist has to do with the fact that he was highly antisemitic, and Hollywood is, statistically, more Jewish than most of the country (whether or not the highly popular "Jews run Hollywood" is true).

But I do think people should get a second chance if they truly ask for it.  I don't think people should get a second chance just because, though.

Well, I just don't know if there are enough people who are going to go out and vote *against* someone.  I don't know if you can rally up support *against* a candidate.  No one loves Hillary.  And I'm not sure the people who love Trump are going to flock to vote for him.  People might hate Hillary and/or Trump, but I don't think that means people will go out and vote for the other guy so they won't win.

I think most people assume Hillary will crush Trump.  So if you're a Trump hater, why would you bother going out and voting for someone you don't really like.  Other people will do that for you.  Your vote doesn't really matter, you don't really support the person you'd vote for, and other people will beat him for you.  I think that's the mentality you'll see out of most Democrats.

It's like sports.  I might hate some team like the Philadelphia Eagles.  I might want them to lose every game they play.  I might tell myself that the world would be a horrible place if the Eagles ever won the Super Bowl.  But if the Eagles are playing, say, the Jaguars (a team I don't care about at all), I'm not going to pay to watch.  Or even watch for free.  Because, at the end of the day, I don't care if the Jaguars win.  I'll just check my phone later that night to see if the Eagles lost.

That's how I think this election will go.  Few people will hate Trump enough to vote for Hillary and vice versa.

I'm still not sure as many people will jump to Hillary as you think.  Because these guys don't have party loyalty.  The difference between 2008 and 2016 is that the Rebels won in 2008.  Of course the older/establishment voters were going to get in line.  Young people don't have party loyalty, and a lot of these people are "independents."  And if they really believe in the "cause" instead of a "party line" then they'll vote 3rd party before they vote Hillary.  I really believe that.

The funny thing is that these two candidates are so historically awful that I'm not sure either party is going to be able to steal many of the other side's people.  Republicans might hate Trump, but they aren't gonna vote for Hillary.  And Democrats might hate Hillary, but they aren't voting for Trump.

At the end of the day, I bet we get historically low voter turnout because people don't want to vote for either of these guys.

Okay, I watched the LoT finale.  Pretty solid.  I liked that the beginning had them adjusting back to life, and I like that Rip sorta helped Sara from trying to go back and save Laurel.  And it was pretty cool to take advantage of the size of the team by killing Savage three different times.  And, yes, we got the hard reset and a new quest with a smaller cast.

What I think is bothersome about all three shows is the lack of acknowledgement of what's going on in the other three shows.

- In Arrow, Damien Darhk just set off a nuclear bomb in an American city, and he's going to try and launch more.
- In Flash, an army of metahumans attacked Central City, killing at least a couple police officers. 
- In Legends, the Earth was almost destroyed by Vandal Savage.

Now, I know they can't have crossovers every week, but wouldn't Team Flash be interested in helping prevent a nuclear blast?  Wouldn't Team Arrow be willing to lend a hand when there's a literal war in the streets?  And Lance tells Sara that her work with Rip is more important when there might not be a world when Darhk is done with it (or, conversely, if Rip doesn't think it's an issue, then everything works out fine in Arrow).

When the struggle is more intimate (Oliver having to take down Ra's or Barry taking down Thawne), then things can be contained.  But even then, Barry and Oliver helped each other.  But there's world-altering stuff going on, and I think that's a problem.  I've mentioned it several times that this season of all three shows are doing an odd job of using this shared universe.  Hopefully this new style of contract will help with that, especially if they expand it to a lot of the regular casts.

Because, honestly, Flash should be helping with what's going on in Star City.  I know he's got Zoom, but they had time for a nice family dinner (that, yes, got disrupted by Zoom).  I know Barry has a life, but a freakin' nuclear bomb went off.

I'd read that (but, again, I'm so behind reading).

I do think a season on an alien ship with minimal human interaction would be really daring and interesting.  It could be a disaster, but I think it's something Fuller might give a shot with the right leeway.

I'd be interested in a Klingon ship after Undiscovered Country.  Or a Federation ship patrolling the Federation/Klingon border, where things might be in a bit of chaos.  Could be some interesting Cold War / post-WWII Berlin / post Iraq War Middle East comparisons to be made.

I do hope we get some post-DS9/VOY stuff and not all prequel stuff.

Yeah but if he's a hugely different person in BvS, shouldn't a solo movie deal almost entirely with Bruce feeling *horrible* for going down such a dark path?

I think that's one of BvS' failings.  Since Bruce was still the hero, I don't think enough time was spent on how far he'd fallen.  I would've liked some line from Alfred saying "so you're just killing people now?"  That implies that Bruce didn't used to kill and has gone so far off-mission.  In fact, we still don't know nearly enough about this Batman to make a judgment on whether or not Batman was different before.

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.