Search options (Page 53 of 59)

Informant has regularly accused Marvel of reacting to Batman v Superman with Civil War.  ireactions has responded with evidence that it wasn't a direct reaction.  But what's funny is that, from the trailers, it seems like the movie is actually a Marvel response to the end of Man of Steel.

Basically, the government is saying "listen, I know you guys saved people in the Battle of New York/Metropolis" but people died.  We can't do our job as the government(s) of the US/the world without doing our best to make sure people are safe.  It's certainly a big deal in these movies - there's collateral damage in all these movies, and most movies don't really deal with it.

What's crazy is that the goofier of the two movies seemed to deal with it more realistically/seriously.  The government says "hey, we have to come up with a plan to defend normal people" and heroes choose sides.  And they believe in their sides enough that they're willing to fight for it.  Yeah, it's a bit illogical that Tony would side with government control and Cap would side against the system, but at least they're acknowledging that something should be done.

DC, however, had most people in that universe gloss over the whole thing.  Yeah, Batman is mad.  Yeah, Luthor is mad.  But in-universe, most people seemed to unilaterally agree that Superman did what was necessary.  There's zero mention of rebuilding the city, what that took, or anything.  I was shocked that the government hearings from the trailer wasn't about the battle with Zod.  Absolutely shocked.  I was less shocked (but still startled) that there wasn't more of those protest scenes we saw in the trailers.  It seemed like a relatively minor (and extremely calm/unemotional) mob that Superman faced.  And, again, the statue was "beloved" in Metropolis.

In the movie, the hearing was about interfering with some random terrorist, and only three people were all that upset that Superman was responsible for any civilian deaths.

So, yeah, the Marvel stuff is silly.  But for the serious movie to basically say "nah, Superman did nothing wrong and everyone but crazy murderers agree" was a bit mystifying to me.

See, I had the opposite reaction to that...I thought killing Brody was way overdue.  I thought his storyline had run its course, and it was time for him to go.  When someone is on the run like that, an international fugitive, they can't just let him get back to a normal life.  The show was bending over backward to keep him on the show, and it was going to suffer.

It's also not really a movie that lends itself to be seen multiple times, I don't think.  I'm pretty sure I've seen every Zach Snyder film, but the only one I've watched repeatedly is, oddly enough, Dawn of the Dead.  I also think, while that movie is certainly grim, that it's his most fun movie.

(I found his filmography, and I saw that he did Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, which I bet is both less grim and more fun than any of Snyder's other films put together.  I don't know.  I haven't seen it.  Leaving in my mistake for reference sake)

When 300 or Watchmen or even Man of Steel come on, I watch a little of it and then I find something else.  It isn't that I didn't like those movies, but they're always so heavy and you sorta have to watch the whole thing to get any enjoyment of it.

(SPOILERS FOR EVERY SNYDER FILM COMING UP).

Yeah, everyone dies in Dawn of the Dead....but you only know that if you watch the post-credit stuff.  And it's a zombie flick.
Everyone dies in 300.
In Watchmen, the bad guy wins and the good guys are okay with it.  The only good guy that isn't is murdered.  And then, possibly, ruins everything by exposing it.
Sucker Punch, most of the girls die, right?  The main girl survives, but she's now by herself and alone.
And in Man of Steel, Superman comes into his own, but he had to murder a guy and be a party to hundreds of thousands of deaths for it to happen.
And in BvS, Superman dies and there's this ominous threat that something is coming and it's up to Batman, Wonder Woman, and three guys we saw on video to save the day.

I saw every one of those movies except 300 in theaters.  I didn't walk out of any of those movies depressed or anything, but they're not the kind of movie that puts a smile on your face.  Most of them are sepia-toned, dark, with this shroud of death covering the ending to each of them.

And so I think they're the type of movie that people watch, a lot of people like, and then that's it.  And while that's fine...it isn't the type of movie (like Deadpool or Avengers) that lends itself to making a ton of money.  And, of course, you don't have little kids begging to go see a movie again because no kids went to see this.

And if Snyder directs Justice League, I think you have to expect the same.  A lot of people will see it opening weekend, and there will be a sharp decline.  At the end of the first month in theaters, it'll be an afterthought.

The problem with people uniting behind Hillary to defeat Trump is that every argument also applies to Hillary.  Republicans hate Hillary.  They hated Obama.  And the Republicans are going to be energized to take back the White House, just like the the Democrats were energized to get the White House back after eight years of George W. Bush.  So it honestly won't matter who is running for the Republicans, I think the nominee is going to get a ton of support.

The Republicans backed Jeb.  Then Rubio.  Now Cruz.  If Cruz fails or if Kasich can't steal the nomination, the Republicans will back Trump.  It'll happen.  Even the ones that hate Trump would be more terrified of Hillary in office, and they'll vote Trump to keep that from happening.

It's why this election is infuriating.  No one likes their candidate - they only hate the other side.  Cruz and Trump have abysmal favorability ratings, but Hillary isn't far behind. 

And, yes, Trump could run as a 3rd party candidate.  But so could Bernie.  As Democrats are fond of saying, he's not a Democrat and only ran so because, like you've said, the 3rd party candidates don't have much support.  But now he has the support, and if he ran as an independent, he'd get a ton of support.

Hillary is the favorite, but she's unpopular in her own party and very unpopular outside of it.  She's winning the primary with the help of the DNC, the Democratic establishment, and some very favorable primary rules.  She's not going to get people to rally to the polls in record numbers like Obama did, even if it's people running to the polls just to vote against Trump.  Throw in just the idea of indictment (even if it doesn't happen, which it probably won't), and Hillary is no sure bet.

Yeah but look at the states that she'd definitely be on the ballot in.  Because the election always comes down to a state here and a state there.  If Nader was only on the ballot in one state (Florida), he still would've disrupted the 2000 election.

Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida were the closest states in 2012 - they're your "battleground states".  Jill Stein is already on the ballot in five of those, and every one but Indiana is a possibility in 2016.  But of the big battleground states (Colorado, Ohio, and Florida), she's there.  And it wouldn't take a crazy amount of votes to change things up.

For example, what if Kasich actually becomes the VP candidate for the Republican?  Heck, what if he somehow steals the nomination?  It wouldn't take much for the Republicans to win Ohio in that case.  Same with Colorado and Florida.  That alone gives the Republicans 262 votes (if you give them every state that McCain or Romney got).  So it'd just take the Republican flipping basically any state that Obama got, and the election is over.

I'm not saying that Stein is going to win any of those states or even do half as well as Nader did.  But if she steals a few thousand votes here or there in any of those battleground states, it's going to be a problem.  And that doesn't even include people who decide not to vote, people who write in Bernie (not sure which states allow that), or people who get flipped to Trump.

Hillary is probably going to win.  But even against Trump (which is a dream scenario for her), I think she's going to struggle to unify the party.  And I don't think she'd do well with Independents so the party is basically all she has.

Agree to disagree

I've actually never had bad food there.  They also have endless pizza on Tuesdays (?) which is pretty good. 

Most of them also have a bar area where you can sit back and complain why Batman killed all those people

Well, Jill Stein has already made a few moves on Twitter to get some of the Bernie supporters that Hillary is driving away.  It'll be interesting to see if she's able to pull enough votes to scare the Democrats.

We probably live way closer than either of us think.  I also live near the woods of Richardson haha.

I ruined everything.

Blech.  That's my bad.  I figured it was old complainy Informant

*Back to SLIDERS REBORN*

Hillary won big last night, and in her speech, she tried to court Bernie supporters.  But then one of her campaign advisors tweeted that Bernie needs to drop out because his campaign is "destructive."

What's funny is that Hillary clearly has the nomination locked up - it's almost impossible for Bernie to win....even at a contested convention, the Democrats would vote her in because it's "her turn" - but Bernie controls the general election.  What happens if Bernie is so turned off by the vitriol of the Clinton campaign that he doesn't endorse her?  What happens if he softly endorses her and the 1/3 (and growing) of his supporters flat-out refuse to vote Hillary?

Now I've seen the argument that "Democrats won't let Trump win just to spite Hillary" but there are two problems with that.  First, a lot of Bernie supporters aren't Democrats.  Young people don't give a crap about parties - they care about issues.  And so it's going to be hard to use party rhetoric to get Bernie people in line.  Second, I saw something really interesting on Twitter last night when I was searching #NeverHillary.  Several Bernie people were responding to "Well, you're going to vote Hillary to avoid Trump" with "Maybe this country deserves Trump."

Bernie folks seem tired of getting jerked around by the Democrats.  This election was rigged for Hillary before it even started, and they're tired of feeling like the deck is stacked against them.  So I wouldn't be surprised if they do vote against the Democrats - either by voting 3rd party, not voting at all, or, yes, voting Republican. 

If I'm the RNC, I'm doing everything I can to court the Bernie voters.  I'm not sure exactly how they can do that (Bernie is to the left of Hillary), but there are some issues that Trump can use (trade, unions, the Iraq War, actually) to court them.

I think Hillary's people are assuming that the Bernie vote will get in line.  Her surrogates keep saying that she did it for Obama.  The difference is that her people are hardcore establishment Democrats who, of course, fell in line.  Unfortunately for Hillary, I don't think Bernie folks care about Democrats enough to do that after the way they've been treated.  Because they certainly don't care about her enough.

I don't know, I don't feel like its any more "for kids" than Flash.  I feel like it's about the same level of fun/goofy as Flash.  Definitely not as serious as Arrow used to be, but I don't think it's too silly or stupid.

I absolutely agree that they need to do something about Clark.  Superman is too much of a distraction, and they can't stay in this weird zone where he's on the show but he's not.  It's cool that he's out there, but if they aren't going to use him, they need to send him away or something.  They're trying to have their cake and eat it too, and it doesn't work.

I loved LOST.  Still do.  I haven't gone back and watched much of it since it ended, but I thought the finale was great.  I actually saw an article today about the writers admitting that they made stuff up as they went along.  And you know what, that's fine.  Because to me, the show *started* as a collection of awesome mysteries, but by the end of the show, I didn't care about the Monster or the Island or the polar bear or any of that stuff.  I genuinely cared about Jack and Kate and Sawyer and Jin and Sun and all the other characters, and I loved the flashbacks and flashforwards and flash-sideways.

LOST came down to one fact - if you cared about the characters more than the mysteries, you liked it.  If you cared about the mysteries more than the characters, you were disappointed. 

It isn't the best show I've ever seen, but I still think it's my favorite.  No show ever got me as excited to watch, and nothing has come close since.

It's the most overrated movie of all time.

Speaking of wasting money, did you guys see that James Cameron and 20th Century Fox are making FOUR Avatar sequels at the same time.  Did anyone ask for that???

Well, that's the thing.  Marvel movies are fun and stupid and goofy.  But they're for everyone (kids, adults, etc).  So they can be financial successes because a) the audience is larger and b) people go see it multiple times.  We know that there are less people going to see BvS multiple times because the box office numbers dropped big time after the first week.  Everyone that wanted to see the movie saw it the first week, and then the stragglers saw it.

The other problem is that kids cannot see this movie.  There were tons of reports of kids running out of the theater crying.  The movie is too dark, it's too violent, and it has none of the fun of the Marvel movies.  They should've just gone for the R rating because I don't know if they would've lost any of their audience. 

WB probably banked on Dark Knight Trilogy numbers, and this was never going to be that.  It's a Man of Steel sequel with Ben Affleck as Batman added to the cast.  The original movie was divisive, the casting was divisive, and the look of the movie was divisive.  WB got cocky, and they're paying for it.

The next movie probably won't be as big of a budget, and it probably won't get the same level of marketing.  Hopefully they learn their lesson.  Because there's clearly a market for this, but it isn't as big as they thought.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/both-partie … 1460898001

I'm not alone.

Exactly.  I saw Force Awakens and Deadpool each twice in theaters.  I saw BvS once, and there hasn't been a reason to see it again yet.  None of my friends have asked me to see it with them, and I'm not eager to go out there and see it again.  I'm eager to see the extended edition, hoping it'll be a better story with everything thrown back in.

But that's the problem with the movie not being fun.  Movies like Requiem for a Dream and Seven are fantastic movies, but they aren't movies I'm really in a mood to go back and revisit.

Agreed.  I'm not really sure what the solution is, either.  There's been talk of Arrow only being five seasons.  So maybe Arrow ends next season.  I still think Legends should be / should've been an anthology mini-series.  Maybe even a companion piece to Arrow and Flash like Agent Carter is to Agents of Shield.  Three full series seems like a lot, and it doesn't seem like they're finding the writers to write all three effectively.

Thinking way outside the box, what if they merged all the shows into one big show called "Arrowverse"?  Sign everyone to contracts of X number of episodes, and every story takes place somewhere in the Arrowverse but every episode is essentially a crossover.  Maybe one episode is Oliver, Sara, and Cisco taking down a gang of criminals in Star City, while another has Rip, Barry, and Diggle taking down some time traveling metahuman.  Instead of 69 episodes of three shows, maybe you do 54 episodes of one

Okay, well this is probably just my interpretation of Superman, but one of his best powers in my opinion is "super-hope" - he doesn't let all the bad stuff bother him.  It doesn't matter how many times Lex does something bad, Superman always believes in him.  So that's why I sorta visualizing him smiling when he's saving people.  I think he's just as interested in making a connection with the person he's saving as he is about saving the next one.  I don't get that vibe from Cavill's Superman.  If you're right, the weight of the world is weighing him down, and he's letting it affect his work. 

And what's weird is that I don't think it's how he was characterized in the first movie.  I do think there's a lot of hope in Man of Steel (my problem was the ending).  But it does not translate to BvS....which found a way to almost ignore one of the two title characters in two and a half hours.  And what I would've done with the run time would've been to eliminate the entire Lois subplot.  Let Bruce be the only detective, make the hearing about Metropolis...not whatever happened in Africa, and let Lex get caught in the act (which is sorta what happens in the "Communion" deleted scene if I'm guessing correctly where that scene would've fit in).

Throw in a big action piece for Superman and a scene that either explains why Superman always looks so damn sad/angry/upset.

Look, I have no reason to think that DC won't be a unified front.  That Batman in BvS will match Batman in Suicide Squad that will match Batman in Affleck's solo film.  I don't think we'll suddenly get Adam West Batman in Suicide Squad because that movie is a little goofier.

I have no reason to believe that things won't go sour.  But I also have no reason to think that they won't.  And I think the problem is that this universe has a tone, and it's Zack Snyder's tone.  And Zack Snyder has a very specific and very unique tone - it's grim, it's dour, and it's muted.  Yes, he takes things very seriously, and that's awesome.  But all his movies are, on one level or another, extremely depressing.  For the most part, these movies don't even end happily.  Watchmen, 300, Sucker Punch, Man of Steel.  Every one of them ends with the hero either dying or walking away from some sort of huge tragedy.  I know you thought Man of Steel was hopeful, but I thought it ended on a really dark note.  BvS ends on a really dark note.

So, honestly, I'd *love* it if Snyder was fired and they went in a different direction.  But I don't think that benefits anyone.  We have to have a Superman who is publicly cold and alien.  We have to have a Batman who is more-than-willing to kill when the situation calls for it.  Because if we don't, we're contradicting what's been established.  And that's more than twisting the narrative so that Thor can end up on Earth with the Bifrost destroyed.  It's more than Captain America's wardrobe or Black Widow's boyfriend.  Superman never smiling is a part of his character across his entire career.  Batman's willingness to kill is something that is a part of his character.

And so if Superman shows up in a Flash movie, he can't all-the-sudden start acting fun and playful.  If Batman shows up in an Aquaman movie and has a chance to kill a villain who's doing harm, he has to take the shot.  And whether 12 people are doing it or one person is doing it, those characteristics have to apply to all the movies in the DCCU or there's no reason to even do a cinematic universe.

Info, do you agree that the DC movies needs a Kevin Feige, though?  Most of the complaints that I've read revolve around the fact that no one is in charge of making sure these movies work together.  So while the Russo Brothers might have final say on Civil War, they still have to report to Kevin Feige to make sure each movie works in the universe. 

Right now, that person is sorta Zack Snyder and sorta Geoff Johns.  But Johns is crazy busy doing about ten things, and I think the common complaint about MoS and BvS is that Snyder doesn't understand these characters.  And even if you think he does, he has nothing to do with Suicide Squad or Wonder Woman or Batman....shouldn't someone be making sure that what happens in those movies matters in subsequent ones?

Listen, I really really really do not want to make you dislike the movie.  I'm thrilled you loved it because I'm glad at least one of us loved this movie.  And while I do agree with you that a lot of people went into theaters either wanting to dislike BvS or tear it apart, I think that's exclusively based on Zach Snyder's BvS and not a "Batman vs Superman" movie.  I think, universally, everyone wanted "Batman vs Superman" to be great.  But I think Man of Steel + casting choices + bloated movie + dark tone scared a lot of people off.

I know you loved Man of Steel and really like Snyder.  But imagine Batman vs Superman had spun off Green Lantern or even the Schumacher Batman films.  You'd been waiting for your whole life to see Batman vs. Superman, and it ends up being George Clooney and his Bat-nipples vs. Nicholas Cage as Superman.  It'd be crushing.  And you'd probably find faults that weren't even there.

Maybe you can just read more into this Superman than I can.  I just thought Superman was a mess in this movie - way moreso than Man of Steel.  I thought Man of Steel was lifeless and no fun, but the flying sequence in Man of Steel is more fun than anything in this movie.  And that's what I'm talking about.  This is Superman!  There's gotta be a sequence where he sits back and thinks, "Holy crap, I can do X, Y, and Z!  This is awesome!"  We never get that in this movie.  It's 150 minutes long and a direct sequel to a Superman movie, and Superman enjoys his powers for literally zero seconds.

Because I don't think it has to be jokes.  I don't think it has to be Marvel-style action for action's sake.  I really don't.  Just a scene where you marvel at the idea that this is a guy who can lift a plane and fly at the speed of sound.  Who has diamond-skin and can hear an explosion across the planet.  His eyes shoot freakin' lasers!

And trust me, I get that they're trying to humanize Clark.  Make him realistic.  And if they decided that Clark was still hated from the Battle of Metropolis, and that's what's making him sad, that's fine.  When I wrote my version of BvS, that's the angle I went with.  That Clark simply can't do enough to win the people back, even if he has.  That he can do anything in the world, and that it's still not enough.  I can imagine my version of Superman looking sad.

But I don't think that's what this version of Superman is.  Yeah, Batman thinks that.  Yeah, Lex thinks that.  But even the Senator doesn't really think that.  Some of the talking heads in the movie think it, but the only protest in the movie is in Washington.  It doesn't even look like that big of a protest all things considered.  There's no one protesting at the statue, and when Wally defaces it, it's referred to as a "beloved statue."  If people in Metropolis mistrusted Superman, then it wouldn't be beloved.  There'd be protests there every single day, Occupy Wall Street style.

And that's where Snyder's vision messed with a great script.  Superman needed to be the star of that script, but Snyder wanted to make a Batman movie.  And he didn't want Batman to be an anti-hero, he wanted him to be the hero.  But Batman is *clearly* the villain.  Not an anti-hero.  A villain.  He's out to murder someone who has done nothing wrong.  And yet the movie has to make that work as a hero, so they make Clark look cold and alien.  Cavill's eyes might show more, but Superman doesn't do anything to inspire hope.  And in the 2-3 scenes where Clark is allowed to speak with Lois or his mother, he doesn't talk about his struggles with being a god.  He doesn't talk about being sad.

Because I think, in the script, he's not supposed to be sad.  He's supposed to be happy.  I bet he was supposed to be honored to save the victims in Mexico.  That he was supposed to be gracious and kind to the flood victims.  Maybe saving the rocket was supposed to be like the scene in Superman Returns.  But as you know, the director gets to interpret the script.  And if Batman is out to murder a clear hero, then he's a monster.  And Snyder wanted Batman to be cool.

I don't think the characterization is bad.  I have zero issues with the way Batman is done - I buy him completely.  And if Superman is sad but doesn't want to say anything about it, that's also fine.  But the rest of the movie starts to unravel because why would people trust him?  It's obvious that they do.  Superman has done *something* in 18 months to win the people over.  But none of that is in the movie because Snyder's vision needs Superman to be scary.

A truly great movie is in there.  I just think Snyder messed it up.  And I think when we see Wonder Woman and Suicide Squad and Affleck's solo Batman film, it's going to be obvious that the bigger villain in the DCCU is Zack Snyder

I wrote my review after watching the movie.  I still liked it.  It was still better than I thought.  But I hear certain criticisms, and I have trouble arguing against them.  And I think people are "unfair" to the movie because I think, universally, EVERYONE wanted it to be great.  And when it wasn't what people were expecting, people sorta tear it up.  Again, I think this movie's failures have a ton in common with the failures of Force Awakens.  But for whatever reason, people forgave the Star Wars film.  Oh well.

But here's the thing about Superman.  If he was uncomfortable with being a god and people worshiping him, he does *nothing* to stop them.  Nothing.  When he saves the person in Metropolis, they surround him.  He doesn't say "no, no, I'm just like you.  Please don't do that.  I'm just here to help."  When people are reaching out to him on top of their roofs like he's an angel, he just creepily floats over them....like an angel.  He wouldn't allow a GIANT STATUE to be built of him in the middle of Metropolis.  If Clark was uncomfortable with any of that, he doesn't really do anything to show it.

Now I know that it's hard to be Superman, but he NEVER smiles when he's being Superman.  When he's saving people, he shows zero emotion.  So that's either Cavill being a bad actor (and he's not), or Snyder wanted him to look cold and alien.  He's so cold and alien as Superman that the bathtub scene feels like it's from a completely different movie.

And I understand why.  Batman needs a reason to hate Superman, or he just looks like Lex in a bat costume.  Lex hates Superman even though Superman has done nothing but good his whole career.  He even hates the fun, colorful Superman.  It's illogical to us.  But for us to be convinced that Batman *isn't* crazy, Superman has to look cold.  Has to look alien.  He has to stare coldly while people worship him so that we are convinced that maybe the Knightmare version of him could be real.

The problem is that the whole fight is a misunderstanding that shouldn't have taken that long to clear up.  You say they spend more time with Batman as a detective more than Clark being a journalist.  I'd argue that neither character does either of those things.  Bruce does some detective work on the KGBeast mobster, but he does *zero* detective work on Superman.  Even the incident that the government is so concerned about, Bruce does zero investigation into. 

And, again, it makes sense because if Bruce were a half-decent detective in this movie, he'd figure out that Clark isn't a bad guy.  When Bruce says "even if there's a 1% chance that he's our enemy, we need to take it as an absolute certainty" he's exactly right.  When he says Clark has the ability to destroy the whole human race, he's exactly right.  But Bruce saw one fight (that saved billions) where Clark is seemingly fighting on the side of humanity, and he wants to kill him.  Then Clark does, seemingly, *nothing wrong* for 18 months.  And Bruce is just as mad 18 months later?  Hell, the inciting incident (the Capitol explosion) has nothing to do with Superman and cannot possibly be tied to him.

This is the primary reason why I didn't want an older Batman.  Because an older Batman wouldn't be impulsive.  He'd take his time, do his homework, and be absolutely sure that he's the "1% sure" that he is.  In this movie, Batman doesn't do anything other than see the Battle of Metropolis.  That's enough. 

Bruce doesn't investigate who Superman is.  Because if he did, he'd find out that Clark grew up in Kansas, never hurt anyone, and was a good guy for his whole life.  He would've ended up in the same place as Lois in the first movie....talking to Pete Ross and Whitney and Lana and all the people in Clark's life.  Hell, he probably would've spoken to Lois.  And MARTHA.  All it would've taken was Bruce listening in on the bathtub scene, and I think the whole movie ends there.

I really like the idea that Batman went murderously crazy after the Battle of Metropolis, and Superman spends the movie trying to save him.  That's a really cool idea.  That Batman and Lex are basically after the same goal, and Superman has to show him that he's basically become a supervillain.  But because this is a Batman movie, Superman *has* to be the villain for most of the movie.  We have to believe it.  So that message is completely lost.  We're led to believe, "Yeah!  Superman is crazy powerful.  He does look cold and alien.  Maybe Batman *should* kill him."

So instead of identifying with the hero (Superman), we end up identifying with the villain (Batman) and the REAL villain (Lex). And it's just so backwards that the script's message is just tonally lost.

I just saw a great TV spot for Civil War - showed clips from Captain America: The First Avenger, Iron Man, Avengers, Avengers:Age of Ultron, and finally the new movie.  It's pretty cool what Marvel has done, no matter what you think of their movies.

In other news, the Doctor Strange trailer came out.  Looks pretty good.

Well, I'm curious how she's "fundamental to the show."  This whole time were you watching a bad show with a great character or a bad show that stumbled upon a great character?  In your eyes, did the new people "ruin" Abbie before she died?  Or is her character so great that anyone could write for her, but now that she's gone, there's no way they can write anything as well as Abbie?

I'm honestly curious because that's just not the reason why I watch certain things.  Great characters are an attraction, but they've never been *the* attraction.  Of all the characters on Sliders, I think we can agree that Rembrandt started off as the worst (he developed more as the show went on, but he was the least developed at the beginning).  He's the only one who made it.  None of the later characters were any better than Rembrandt was at his worst.

So the top 3 characters were all killed off, all in a somewhat-insulting way, and they were all replaced by worse (and in some cases, much worse) characters.  And yet I watched all 88 episodes.  Because, at the end of the day, I liked the premise of the show.  And I liked the premise of the show before I'd met any of the characters.

Game of Thrones is a great example.  Crowd favorites die in that series all the time, but I guess there hasn't been too many times where "if you kill X, I'll stop watching."  There were clearly some big deaths, but for the most part, many of the more beloved characters have been safe (with one, recent and big exception).

What's odd to me is the idea that you trusted the show to create your favorite character, but you stop watching when that character goes away.  Wouldn't you trust that they could create a character just as good as the first one?  Or, again, even better?  For example, people were sad when Charlie died on LOST.  But Charlie leaving allowed more screen time for Desmond, who seemed even more beloved.  Or allowed for the entrance of the freighter science crew who were pretty cool.