Search options (Page 52 of 57)

Well, I don't really think "super-hope" is any more alien than being able to fly.  I don't want Clark to be perfect - but I don't want the world's troubles to get to him.  I want him to be able to see passed the bad to see the good.  When he sees someone....Batman, Lex, whoever....I want him to see the best of them.  To know they can be saved.  Because I don't think Clark's power is just catching people when they fall from a building - it's catching them when they lose themselves. 

And the screenwriter seemed to think that too because the script seems to say that the movie is Superman saving Batman.  That Clark knows that Bruce is a hero, and he wants to show him.  Clark was willing to kill for the greater good with Zod because he felt he had no choice.  He begs Zod to stop, and he realizes that there was no other way.  Zod tells him there is no other way.  And you're right - making that decision kills him.

In this movie, he gives Bruce every chance, and he's willing to die to save Bruce.  It's actually a great follow-up to what happened in Man of Steel because it's exactly what everyone wanted him to do in the first movie.  Find the way to save the day without killing ("If I wanted it, you'd be dead already").  Move the fight somewhere isolated.  If anyone has to die, it should be Clark.  And in the end, it's Clark's humanity that forces Batman to save a life when he's spent the whole movie trying to end one.

And you're a writer.  You have a great sense of story.  If you were able to see that story, then you're better at it than me because Zack Snyder distorted the script until that whole storyline was lost on me.  If he opens with the train story from the prequel comic, for example, then you see this man doing everything correctly to save the day.  To minimize loss at all costs.  Then I'd make a handful of minor changes.  If Snyder really wanted the image of Clark floating over the houses, I'd show that Clark is surveying the damage so he can super-speed everyone to safety without missing anyone (x-ray vision, for example).  I'd show the whole rocket sequence or not show it at all.  When he saves the people in the Mexican fire, I'd have him make eye contact and smile with the person he's saving, letting them know that they're alright.  He'd, of course, be focused on the rest of the people, but he'd make everyone feel at calm.

When Superman faces Batman, I wouldn't make it about threats.  Superman would walk over and make sure the Batmobile is disabled (so no one else has to die). 

"What are you doing?  I know you're a hero.  You've saved Gotham time and time again.  I used to read about it all the time.  What happened?"
"You happened.  You flew in and killed thousands.  I'm going to stop you."
"We're on the same side.  You have to believe me."
"I'll never believe you.  I'm here to stop you."

Clark shakes his head, knowing he can't win this argument right now.  He floats away.

"Do you bleed?  You will."

For the story to work, Clark has to be the protagonist.  But Snyder didn't want that.  So the villain becomes the protagonist, and the whole tone is lost.

I believe BvS is a great movie that got twisted into a bit of a mess.  Still good....but no longer great.

Oh man....I watched the whole CNN Brooklyn Democratic Debate.  Barf barf barf.  Hillary Clinton is so slimy that I felt like I needed to take a shower.  The woman cozies up to Obama because she knows that he's really popular with African Americans, while her husband has been very critical of him so she can also court the vote that doesn't like him.  She routinely changes her opinion on guns or trade or immigration or crime depending on what audience she's in.  She panders to the Brooklyn audience as if she's one of them.  She acts like she earned both her job as a US senator and the secretary of state job because of her work ethic, not her last name.  It's insulting.

Every time I see her, all I think of is Frank Underwood.  Not only were the Underwoods based on the Clintons, but I feel like she's embracing that.  She's a southern Democrat who tries and smooth-talk people while secretly stabbing them in the back.  And it's so glaringly obvious to me that I have to wonder if she's resorted to some sort of black magic to trick people into not seeing it.  She wants to pretend like she's the spiritual successor to Barack Obama when she has much more in common with cartoonishly evil politicians like Tywin Lannister.

At this point, I don't care who beats her.  If it's Bernie, cool.  If it's Cruz, fine.  Hell, if it's Trump....I bet that guy gets impeached before he can do any real harm.  But when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.  I'd love it if she just had to spend the rest of her life pandering to the big banks at $225,000 a pop, talking about how she would've made them so much more money if the American people had just given her what she was owed.

Yeah, but I think with a project of this size, there needs to be consistency.  If you think Feige sucks at his job, that's fine.  But it doesn't mean that DC shouldn't have that job.  We're talking about dozens of people that have to make one big movie with lots of little parts.  Aquaman can't be funny and cracking jokes in his solo movie and cold and dour in Justice League.  And if the director of Aquaman wants to do that, someone above him needs to be able to tell him that it contradicts what's happening in subsequent movies. 

Because while there might not be much character development in Marvel movies, I think their characters are very consistent.  Thor has been directed by three different directors, but I feel like he acts consistently in all four movies.  I think that's partially the work of Feige.  And there's a disconnect between the MCU and the Netflix shows, but I honestly don't think it's that big of a difference.  I don't think it needs to be as close as Agents of Shield because it's more street level stuff. 

Agents of Shield and Agent Carter are pretty close to the MCU.  They have the same tone and feel.  And they do their best, considering that Downey/Hemsworth/Evans/Ruffalo are never going to appear on TV.

The problem is that Snyder has a very specific color palette that he likes. He's painted Batman and Superman in a very specific way, and if Affleck doesn't follow those same guidelines for his solo movie then it's going to feel unconnected.  Or some sort of elseworld.  If Suicide Squad takes place before BvS, then Batman needs to be angry and murderous and violent.  Because that's what's been established.  If Affleck is sorta jokey and playful to go along with the style of Suicide Squad, it's going to be a problem.

I think, in the end, it's all about expectations.  This was supposed to be a cultural explosion that sent DC into the stratosphere.  It made money (a sh*t-ton of it), but it wasn't what people were expecting.  I think the same applies critically.

I think Informant looks at the Marvel movies and then looks at the DC movies and prefers the DC ones.  They clearly take the material more seriously than Marvel does.  Marvel's costumes are garish and ridiculous at times, and the movies intersect but nothing really matters movie to movie.  Even Civil War, Marvel's attempt to show consequences, sorta pales in comparison to what DC did with BvS.

But I think there's a middle ground between Marvel and what DC is doing.  I think it's possible for these guys to smile without making a joke.  There's a brief second where Wonder Woman smiles in the fight with Doomsday.  And I'm not kidding - it's the most fun moment of the movie.  She's a warrior who hasn't had a fight in a while, and it kinda excites her.  And I'm willing to bet that either Snyder missed it or fought against it because it's the only moment in that movie that feels that way.

Yeah, Star Wars was definitely more fun.  I didn't love the movie, but I had tons of fun watching it.  I even saw it a couple days later with no qualms.  It's just sad that there was such little fun in BvS - that's why I think it really needed a Superman Returns - like airplane save.  A 5-7 minute sequence where Superman can use his powers to save the day.  But Snyder would probably end up with him saving Air Force One but accidentally killing the president.

And, honestly, it isn't close.  She does all the work to implicate Lex, and she does all the work in the first movie to find/discover Clark.  What's crazy is that Lex knows to go to Lois to get Superman's attention.  Even crazy/murderous Batman doesn't think to go there.  He just shines his own Bat-signal and waits for Clark to show up. 

And believe me, if the movie was about a Batman who'd completely lost his way....completely blinded by his hatred of "freaks dressed as clowns" to the point where he'd basically become Lex Luthor.....that's a great movie.  Honestly.  And, with seven Batman movies in less than 30 years, I think America would've accepted "okay, Batman's gone crazy.  Save him, Superman!"

But in that case, they can't paint Superman the way they did.  They can't give Bruce (and, therefore, Lex) reasons to believe they're right.  Clark has to be a shining beacon of hope that can burst through Bruce's anger and craziness.  And instead, every single public image of Superman is *exactly* like the Knightmare sequence.  I agree that Cavill gets to play Clark as human, but his Superman is *very* alien.  He never smiles but he also never speaks, right?  Does Superman have any lines before the fight with Batman?  He speaks to Lois (as Clark).  Speaks to Perry and company (as Clark).  Speaks to Bruce (as Clark).  I think Superman's only lines are to Batman (after the fight....and it's a threat) and then to Lex I guess.

If I'm Clark, I want Superman's public persona to be over the top to earn the trust back.  Apparently he does *something* to earn back Metropolis' trust, but it's hard to see what it was.  Because with what we saw, I'd still be *terrified* of Superman.  He has these great powers and these cold, emotionless expressions every single time.  He's the ticking time-bomb that Bruce is afraid of.  And when he's that, the entire purpose of the movie gets completely lost.

Hah, I hope not.

I mean Sleepy Hollow is a great example, but I'm genuinely curious about watching a show for one specific character.  Are there any shows where if X is killed, you'd stop watching?  I literally can't think of an example.  Even if Barry was killed and they replaced him with Wally, I'd give the show a chance (and Barry is awesome and Wally has zero characterization/charisma so far).

Well, that sorta goes along with the whole premise of this.  Is a show where the two primary characters have to be invincible any better?  I mean the answer to that can be "yes" - it's happened tons of times.  I just think the premise of the show, as it was sold to me before I watched it, was more about Crane.  He's an out-of-time guy in modern US, fighting monsters that have connections to him.  Abbie is a better character, and the premise grew into the whole "two witnesses" thing.  But I wasn't offended at the idea that there could be multiple witnesses (otherwise, wouldn't the entire universe be banking on Ichabod and Abbie never dying?), and I think the idea of a secret US department of the supernatural could end up being cool.

And if Jenny ends up being the second witness, she's a great character too.  They've added the Mills father and the FBI agents if they want, or they can make it just Ichabod and Jenny with new supporting characters if they want.  They can do a soft reboot.

If it gets renewed at all.  I'm not saying I love the show.  But I didn't tune in just for Abbie or even just Abbie/Ichabod.  They were  a cool pair, but I think there's a show beyond them.

Oh wow, I'm an idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs3sVrm … tml5=False

You've never heard of Honest Trailers?  They've been doing them for a while - fairly popular.  They do a trailer for the film, usually using it as a (comedic) review of the film.  They typically point out flaws in the movie (sometimes obvious, sometimes stretching).  One of my favorites was when they pointed out that, in the final battle in the Avengers, the team was speaking to each other as if they had earpieces in (when it was clear they didn't).

A New Hope is certainly brilliant with its simplicity

And, yeah, I guess I'd forgotten the iconic shot of Luke staring up at the twin suns.  That's definitely one night.  I'd always wondered if they slept on the way to Alderaan or if there was a big gap between the Empire discovering the rebel base and getting there.

Next Star Wars question I've always had.  Can the Death Star travel at hyperspeed (is that what it's called in SW?)?  It has to, right?  That would've been quite the visual.

I think we've reached the point, length-wise, where we just have to agree to disagree.  I'm going to just chalk it up to not liking certain things about Star Wars and the Force and so on. 

In my original post, I said that she was "a bit boring" - I've said at least a couple times that I liked the movie and thought it was fun.  This is not the hill I'm willing to die on, but I like that you, as well as millions of hardcore Star Wars fans, loved the film

Well, I mean I've already stated that these movies aren't necessarily for me.  If that's how we want to write it off, that's fine.  But I think a lot of the characters you mentioned are all boring in the same way that Rey is boring.  It's why I like a Batman Begins more than I like a Dark Knight, which seems a bit crazy.  But I like the person who is on the upward slope - not someone who starts out being pretty awesome at everything.  I don't like Bond movies.  I only really liked the first Bourne movie.  I've seen the Indiana Jones movies about as many times as I've seen the Star Wars movies.

When your hero has no room to grow, I'm just not that interested.  If the next time Rey is in a fight, the Force is always going to save her, then that's not intriguing to me.  And you can say that Kylo was injured and that's accurate, but I don't fear Kylo Ren in any way.  They didn't establish anything with Snoke to fear.  Phasma was irrelevant in the movie. 

So you have a movie where the primary hero is good-to-great at everything and the villain is generally pretty weak (I've complained that Finn does as well as he does - Ren should dominate him, injury or no).  By all means, now that Luke and Rey are together, the First Order should be destroyed pretty easily.  With more training, Rey easily beats Ren again, and Luke can handle Snoke.  The last movie can be about Poe making lemon squares for everyone

Well, I can't speak for Landis.  If he's sexist and veils it with talk of character, that's his problem.

I thought everything in Phantom Menace was a disaster so I had issues with everything.  And I do think that there was an outcry when a kid blew everything up.  That Anakin shouldn't have been on the trip to Naboo in the first place.  That it was all played terribly for humor.  I mean, to this day, Jake Lloyd hates Star Wars because the hate for young Anakin was so great.  So to say that everyone loved Anakin or had no issue with Anakin in Phantom Menace is a bit too far.

And Landis said that if Rey were male, he'd be one of the worst characters ever, and people would absolutely hate him.  The fact that she's female is what's shielding her from criticism.  Again, his words, not mine.

To me, and you can believe this if you want and dismiss it if you don't, I just thought there was a lot that she was very good at to start.  Fixing things, fighting, piloting, force-pulls, jedi mind trick, lightsaber dueling.  Everyone loves her as soon as they meet her.  Han wants her to stay after being with her for a few hours (and Han didn't bond like that with anyone else that fast).  Maz has a special connection immediately.  Hell, when everyone returns to the Resistance base, Leia walks right by Chewbacca and hugs Rey!  And they hadn't even met!

That was my issue.  And it wasn't that it wasn't set up properly.  I can believe that she's a great pilot because she's grown up near a spaceport.  That she's great at repairing because she's a scavenger.  That she's great with the Force because it's either in her blood or she's been trained.  All of that is great.  But between a character that is already good-to-great at everything and a character with some room to grow, I'd rather have the character that has room to grow.

And if "well she's great with the force so that makes her great at everything" is just Star Wars.....well, then I guess that's the reason why this series isn't my favorite   And I'm clearly in the minority in that respect so my opinion can't be that great anyway

Now regarding Rey, I don't think she's a bad character.  I just didn't find her to be all that compelling.  I could be perfectly wrong, but it seems like Rey was trained and is already a Jedi / Jedi Master.  Which is fine....but I would've appreciated that information being in the movie.  And we aren't really watching the growth/triumph of a character as much as the realization of what she's already been.  Again, all that is totally fine - I just don't think it's all that interesting if Neo already was The One and just needed someone to tell him.

(For the record, I didn't find Neo to be all that compelling of a character either).

And I don't think it has anything to do with her gender.  I find a lot of characters (many of whom are/were also called Mary Sues) to be pretty boring if they start the story as crazy powerful.  John Wick, John McClane, Superman.  If Batman always has something in his utility belt to get him out of any situation, why would there be any reason to worry about him?

If Episode 8 starts with Rey as the ultimate Jedi warrior, fully unlocked who goes around mowing down First Order troops and restoring peace to the galaxy.....only to be defeated by a souped-up Kylo Ren or an in-person Snoke.....cool.  If they're setting her up to be a badass only to be torn down so we see who the *true* badass is....cool.  But if they're just gonna say "Anakin was powerful.  Luke was better.  Rey is the best." then I just think that's boring. 

I still liked the movie.

Well, I haven't seen Force Awakens since my last post here.  It's really hard to really defend/discuss whatever opinions I had then, but I would like to defend a couple points.  As per usual, you've done a better job than me of really breaking things down, but here's my two cents.

1. First of all, I'm by ZERO means a Star Wars fanatic.  I've probably seen A New Hope 5 times all the way through.  I might have seen Empire 2-3 times.  Return of the Jedi twice.  Maybe.  The prequels one time each.  Now this is Star Wars and they're on all the time, so I might have seen bits and pieces of the movies a dozen or so times.  But sit down and watch Star Wars - it just never connected for me.  I can see the allure but cannot identify with it.

So, yes, my memory of the original trilogy required more use of Wookiepedia than actual memory of the movies.  And to me, I always thought Luke was a bit of a wimp and a wuss in the first couple of movies.  He's brave in the sense that he wants to get out there and is willing to go to great lengths to rescue his friends.  But I never got the sense that he was really a hero in ANH or Empire.  In the first movie, he wants to do more but his parents and his mentor get killed with him being powerless to do anything.  He accomplishes very little in the rescue of Leia.  Yeah, he blows up the Death Star, but at the time of watching it, I almost give Obi-Wan's ghost more of the credit.  In Empire, the very first scene of the movie, Luke has to be rescued.  Then he runs off to train, and all of the action happens in Cloud City.  Luke comes to rescue his friends, doesn't save Han, and has to be rescued himself after he's owned and disfigured by Vader.

If you just go by the first two movies, Luke sorta sucks.  If you're picking people to go on a mission, I'd rather have Leia than Luke.  She's more creative and just as brave.  I sorta feel like Luke would've given up the real location of the Rebel base.  It isn't until Jedi that he really feels like someone you want to bring into battle (although his plan to rescue Han goes horribly wrong and, again, has to be rescued)

With Rey, I just felt like she was never in any real danger.  In Empire, I think there was a real fear that Vader would kill him.  Even when Ren had his lightsaber to Rey's neck, I figured she'd get out of it.  And she struggles....kinda.  But it's the little things - that Han loves her instantly.  That *she* is teaching *him* how to fix parts of the Falcon.  That she has all the good parts of Han and all the good parts of Luke and all the good parts of Leia.  I don't hate her character - I just thought her character was boring. 

2. Yes, I agreed with Landis.  Yes, I have agreed with him in the past.  I don't actually like him that much as a writer (Chronicle was pretty good, American Ultra was fun but forgettable, I haven't seen Frankenstein and don't really want to, I have no interest in Me Him Her, I'd only see Mr. Right because of Anna Kendrick, etc), and he seems like an arrogant asshole most of the time.  But I value his opinion because I really think he cares about a lot of this stuff, and I think he comes at it from an interesting angle.  I thought it was a bit crazy that he got so much fire on that whole thing, and I guess it's just because so many people loved the movie and didn't want anyone to say anything bad about it.  And that we'd been waiting all these years for a female hero in Star Wars, and it felt like cheapening what was supposed to be a historic moment.

So, yeah, I don't think I was just taking his words and vomiting them as my own.  Since he's presumably seen the Star Wars saga more than 12 times all the way through, I respect his opinion on the matter more than my own.  And since his opinion melded with my original thoughts, I thought I'd let him explain moreso than me.

Now if the Force, as it was originally visioned, is supposed to give the Force-sensitive the ability to either be instinctively good/great at pretty much everything with or without any teaching, that's fine.  But I just felt like Rey had so many times where she just seemed to *know* what to do without being taught that it seemed a bit off-putting.  Many times in the movie she just "gives it a try" and pretty much succeeds every time. 

Now the explanation is probably that Rey has latent training.  But I guess I have an issue with pretty big things in a movie having to be explained in a second movie.  Hinting at something bigger is fine, but I don't even think they went that far.  But in today's film culture, I guess that's just to be expected.

Agree 2000%.  I have a friend who is a Olicity hater, and he was prominently retweeting #NoLaurelNoArrow tweets all day.  And I just don't understand that.  And the Olicity fangirls seem even worse.  I think there are people who think Felicity is annoying, and I think there are people who are just huge fans of Black Canary.  And those people were annoyed that Oliver Queen was ending up with someone else.  I think a lot of them see GA/BC as one of the greater comic couples around, and they want to see that romance on Arrow.

And, on the other side, I think a lot of girls see themselves as Felicity.  An awkward, shy, nerdy girl who can get the big handsome man.  So she's an audience insert, and they like that.  It's funny...when my roommate would walk by when I was watching Arrow in the living room, he'd stop when Felicity was on the screen.  And I'd say something like, "She's the nerd."  And he'd look confused because Emily Bett Rickards is clearly very attractive.  And I'd point out the fact that she wears glasses and makes pop culture references, and he'd just shake his head and walk away. 

What's sad, in a way, is that the show is so divisive, and the two sides are so entrenched, that the show's kinda screwed either way.  If Laurel had died telling Oliver he was the love of her life and said nothing else (especially nothing about Felicity), I think it would've been better for "Lauliver" fans because "she died the love of his life."  But what happened was they set themselves up where you have people actively hating one character because she's the rival of your character.  It just ends up hurting the show, and I don't know how else the show could move passed it besides just killing off the character they view to be less valuable.

That being said, I've convinced myself the the Laurel death is a fake-out.  I think whatever was in the pouch is something to stop her heart or whatever, and it's a fakeout.  And maybe the "secret" she told him involved telling her dad (I hope, to spare poor Lance) what was going on.

(SPOILERS)

Now I know the next couple episodes are supposed to revolve around trying to bring Laurel back, but that could all be part of some plan to get Dahrk.

(END SPOILERS)

I don't know if I love that any more, but that's how I think it'll go.  My guess is actually that it's still Felicity who dies - Curtis was promoted to a series regular, and I still think he's the one who ends up as Overwatch.  I don't see any other reason to promote him, and making Felicity the new Black Canary would be insane.

No that's absolutely true.  But they, at least, know that Dahrk is more dangerous than anyone they've faced before since he's actually killed.  Ra's never managed to do it.  Merlyn's killed before, but his murder of Sara was sorta roundabout.

I just think there needs to be consequences.  It actually could've been an interesting creative move if they'd had someone like Laurel die out on a routine night out via one of the Ghosts.  Maybe Oliver has them out there working too hard, and Laurel gets tired and gets lazy (sorta like Batman in Knightfall).  At the end of the day, this is Oliver's story, and Laurel's death should advance his story.  He should intensely go after Dahrk, but he also has to be careful about who he sends in.

Yeah I've thought about the Grammer thing too.  But he's had 20 years to get something done if he really wanted.  There's "being a fan of something" and "willing to pour my heart and soul into something."  I mean, honestly, this stuff has to be viral in a lot of ways.  I absolutely agree that Grammer could get the ball rolling, but unless he's producing it himself and doing all the legwork, it takes him being a superfan, rallying troops, and then convincing X number of people to join his cause.  It would eat up a ton of his time and energy, and he probably has bigger fish to fry.

I mean think about all the shows and movies you consider yourself a fan of.  Now how many are you willing to write fanfic for?  How many are you willing to talk about on a daily basis?  And how many would you be willing to say, "I'm putting my life on hold to devote to this?"

Now you guys are absolutely right - if a Sliders reunion panel was created at ComicCon, that's a place where the ball gets rolling.  Whether the cast gets together and starts talking and seeing when their schedules might be free.  If the panel is packed with super-high energy and tons of interest in a new movie or whatever, then you have the beginnings of something.  Because there's  a huge difference between Jerry O'Connell or Kelsey Grammer or whoever calling and saying "hey, you guys should do some new Sliders" and a studio exec finding out organically "Hey, there was a huge panel at ComicCon with all the original Sliders and people were really excited about it.  What if we decided to try and do something with the rights?"

Yeah, they could've just had someone leave, but how many times is Team Arrow going to hit the streets and come back unscathed.  In these action shows, I think people need to die, or the action pieces become pedestrian.  Roy left the show alive and well.  If you also have Diggle or Laurel or Thea leave, then Team Arrow becomes indestructible.  I think Oliver really needs to learn that he's putting himself and his closest family in danger.  And that's why I would've picked Diggle.  I would've kept Andy good (or brought in someone else) who could serve as a surrogate father and take baby Sara out of harm's way.

I honestly don't hate Olicity.  What I don't really like is the drama.  So if Laurel's death gets rid of a character that the writers had no use for and pushes Oliver and Felicity to a better place with no drama, then I think it could be fine.  What's odd is that Curtis is getting promoted to a series regular next season, and he fills in the same role as Felicity.  So unless he's going to train and become Mr. Terrific, then I don't know where he fits in.

And that's basically my ultimate point re: Jerry.  If Sliders is ever going to return, in any form, it needs a champion.  Someone who will go into the important offices with a pitch and make things happen.  That's how this stuff works.

You're right: Torme isn't that guy anymore.  If he was, it would've been done already.  And my point has been, Jerry might not be that guy, but he's the best chance the show has as far as we know.  He's the only one talking about it. 

Example: Battlestar Galactica.  It's another small sci-fi show with a cult following.  Its star, Richard Hatch, spent years and years and years trying to get a continuation produced.  Made comics, made novels, made a teaser trailer for a continuation called "The Second Coming".  He got really close a few times.  And while he never got his version on screen, he knocked down enough doors that Universal decided to make the reboot.  And it got a new champion in Ronald D. Moore.

So if Jerry goes around Hollywood and shops Sliders enough, anything can happen.  But that's where it has to start.  Petitions might work, but the one I found has 70 signatures.  I signed it, but 70 isn't going to get anything moving.  Kickstarter could work, but you have to have people attached for people to be willing to pay money for it.  For these things, you still need a champion.

Now it's true that Jerry might not be the best champion for Sliders.  If a Carlton Cuse or a JJ Abrams or Vince Gilligan or Chris Carter or Shawn Ryan or any number of TV producers wanted to get a Sliders reboot off the ground, they probably could.  But usually, those things take something smaller to get them off the ground.  Richard Hatch had to pitch BSG so many times before Moore found out they were doing it and thought, "Yeah, I could do something cool there."

And maybe Jerry has to go into a room and say "here's my idea.  I'm Arturo with a bunch of great young actors."  And he has this glossy cool-looking promo art, but the Universal exec brushes him off.  But then the next meeting is Cuse for Colony Season 2, and he sees the promo art sticking out of a folder on the exec's desk.  "You're doing SLIDERS?  That's awesome, I loved that show!"  "Well, not really.  But is that something you'd like to work on?" "Absolutely!"

And that's how you get Sliders: TNG.

Well.....damn.

I'm not sure I'm as upset as some (there's a really big #NoLaurelNoArrow hashtag going on now) because I'm not all that familiar with Laurel from the comics.  I don't like the idea that a character should be off-limits because they're a big deal in the comics.  If they need to kill Oliver (for real, not like last time) and it serves the greater Arrowverse story, then that'd be fine with me.  But I think the problem for me is that Laurel was never a great character on this show.  I don't think the writers knew what to do with her, they stumbled on this female character that was easier to write (Felicity), and then that grew into a monster.  Guggenheim basically said tonight that they did all they could with Laurel/Oliver, and they needed to close the book on it.

I still say the death should've been Diggle.  I think it would've meant a lot more to the team because Laurel barely felt like a team member in the first place.  She meant more as an ADA and a reason to keep Lance around.  Now....I don't really know what this changes.

I do think Spider-Man is better suited for TV.  His story is really deep and unique, and I think it would do better to unfold over 100 episodes of TV instead of 6-10 hours of film.

And my problem with Uncle Ben's killer is that Peter never follows up on it.  There's being obsessive about finding him (and ignoring those who need his help more) and there's letting a killer go free.  If there's more important matters than finding his killer (and, yes, the Lizard is one of those things), that's fine.  If he grows beyond needing revenge, that's fine.  But if that's the case, do a follow-up in ASM2.  If you don't want him to personally take down the killer, have a scene where Peter gives a dossier of all he knows about the killer to the police.  Or, hell, have Peter pick up a newspaper to find that the killer was found by the NYPD without his help.  He smiles, knowing that justice was served.

But the idea that Peter just decides to abandon his search was really off-putting to me.

Haha I don't hate old people!

Well, the only reason I bring up Jerry in a lead role in each of my scenarios is the fact that I'm assuming Jerry would need to be a driving force behind the revival.  Jerry probably has the most clout out of anyone that has worked on Sliders in a while.  Torme has tried (and failed) to get anything done.  Weiss hasn't produced anything in a while.  JRD might be a more familiar face to some, but no one knows his name.

If anyone has the potential to get this off the ground, Jerry has the name-recognition and the connections in Hollywood to get it done. 

The next question would be "what capacity would Jerry want to work in?"  And my answer to that would be "probably star in it."  The only reason I say that is because he's only produced/directed/written for two things in his career - Sliders and a 2004 film "First Daughter".  All 10+ years ago.  So if Jerry can get it off the ground, I'm guessing he wants to do what he's been doing in the last 10 years - acting. 

So if Jerry is working to get this off the ground and wants to act in it (and, presumably, anyone helping him would want him to act in it), you have two options.  Either he's playing Quinn or he's throwing out all the continuity and you're recasting him as someone else.  If Sliders is Quinn/Wade/Rembrandt/Arturo, then Arturo seems the natural fit if Jerry wants to be a star of the show.  JRD would presumably help him work on the mentor role if Jerry called, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be the exact same Arturo that JRD played.

The issue with him playing Quinn is a) continuity baggage and b) the age of the rest of the original cast.  The problem with all of these reboots/rebootquels is that Sliders has much less nostalgia factor than "Boy Meets World" or "Full House" and that the original cast is in their 40s or older.  I don't know many people in the target demo of something like Netflix that would tune in to watch a cast of all 40+ actors with very little star power.  I just don't think you'd get much of that audience.  Like Girl Meets World and Fuller House, you'd have to work in younger stars to match the demographic.

That's why I think Jerry should be in the main cast for any idea, and that's why I think Jerry is probably the only returning original cast member.  I bet Cleavant, JRD, and Sabrina could/would return in some guest star capacity.  I just can't see any legitimate project getting off the ground with the four original sliders, reboot or not.

Ha, well whatever it is, you could write it.  You understand the characters better than most, and you've shown (with various TV shows/movies) an understanding for how character and story should work.

For me, I think the idea doesn't need to be complicated or even directly connect to anything from the original run.  The only thing we have to include is Jerry.  So I think you have a Quinn (not necessarily *the* Quinn) who slid for a while and ended up staying on some world that was "close enough."  He's a professor at a college, and one of his students is starting to get pretty close to replicating his work.  Quinn tries to divert him, but he's also curious.  Maybe he's married to Wade and she comes along.  Maybe none of the other Sliders are on the trip.  You'd probably have to go with a younger cast with Jerry as the mentor character with the occasional guest spot by Rembrandt, Wade, or Arturo.

And that's what I'd do.  Like with the original, you'd need to find a time in history that's currently relevant.  In the mid-90s, it was the end of the Cold War.  Now?  Terrorism?  A world where a seemingly-oppresive empire in the Middle East keeps interfering with the developing religious states in North America because of the oil located on the continent.  Quinn is the leader of a militia trying to drive out the infidels.  Something like that?

Point is.....maybe it's the same Quinn from any of the seasons.  Maybe it isn't.  It doesn't really matter - we know there were endless groups of our sliders out there who could've had any number of adventures.  Quinn can mention going to a world where dinosaurs were alive, and it could be referencing "Dino Veritas" or it could be some adventure his group had.  As long as it's vague enough, it can be a fun line for old fans while still adding value to new fans.

Well, on FOX, it would actually be her working with a policeman.  Both as her regular job and her secret job.  Jimmy would've quit his job as a photographer to work as a cop in National City (because that's what his dad was or something).  And Kara would be an expert on alien life or something, and they'd solve cases together.  Like Minority Report.  And Lucifer.  And Almost Human.  And Sleepy Hollow.  And this new Houdini and Doyle show.  And so on and so on and so on.

But, yeah, I see what you mean.

Question about Daredevil - do people know that he's blind?  On the show there's a limited sample to work with, but in the comics is it something that is known?

I'm liking season two so far.  Just finished episode 4.  They've done a good job with Frank Castle.

Well, here's the thing.  Amazing Spider-Man has two primary villains before the Lizard even really develops - Uncle Ben's killer and Dr. Ratha.  Ratha is really a villain to Connors (who is a good guy until he transforms), and Uncle Ben is clearly a villain to Peter.  Once the Lizard transforms and turns evil, both of these villains are literally forgotten.  Dr. Ratha was dealt with in a scene that was eventually deleted, and I have no idea if Uncle Ben's killer was ever dealt with in any version.  There's a huge point to Spider-Man trying to find his uncle's killer....*the* reason he goes into crime fighting....and it's completely forgotten by the end.  It's never mentioned or followed up on in the sequel.  Uncle Ben gets murdered, and the guy gets away with it.

To release a reboot so soon after the Raimi series, they needed to make it different-enough so that it didn't just look like an excuse to keep the rights.  In my opinion, they didn't do enough different.  And from ireactions' stories, the stuff they *did* get in had to be fought for.  Which is weird because all the posters kept calling it "The Untold Story."  When I finally saw it (I skipped seeing it in theaters), it was just a generic reboot. 

There was some good characterization, and Garfield/Stacy are great together.  But my other problem is that Peter is already cool and fun when he gets bitten.  Becoming Spider-Man made a great life even better for Peter, and that was odd to me.  He's already a fun skateboard kid, pretty popular, when he gets his powers.  I like the idea of a Spider-Man where he chooses to help people to the detriment of his social and personal lives.  It seemed like, in ASM1, that Peter could've gotten Gwen regardless of any confidence he gets from the spider bite.  Something about that was a bit bizarre to me.

Well, I respect Garfield for sticking to his principles.  Sony ruined what could've been a fresh take on the character....twice.  Hard to rectify that.

Still would've been interesting to see a Sinister Six movie.  That's about it, though.  All the teases that Sony wanted so desperately weren't all that enticing.