3,301

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well the problem with sticking with Rip and time travel is the idea that they aren't even able to maintain this Vandal Savage story for a full season.  We're 7 episodes in, and they've already had to resort to being marooned in one time, getting sent to the future accidentally, and this past episode they got sent off into space.  Not to mention I'm not even sure they have any real idea how they're going to "stop" Savage in the past.  It seems to me the simplest way would be to attack Savage during any of the hundreds of years where the team would have a distinct technological advantage.  If the issue is having some sort of record of where Savage is (and 1975 was their first chance), they could easily track him by going back to ancient Egypt and then tracking him forward.

So I don't know if making this their central story really works.

What would be cool with LoT, in my opinion - based exclusively on what TF said earlier in the discussion, would be to use this format to tell stories that might not need a full spinoff.  They could do a season dealing with Vixen (introduced as an animated series, then showed up on Arrow) or Nightwing or even Arsenal.  There could be a season dealing with Deathstroke or Earth 2/3/etc.  It'd be different from the title, but I'd actually like to see a Gotham-like season dealing with street crime in Central City or Star City.  Maybe even from the villains' point of view.

3,302

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I'm enjoying Legends of Tomorrow.  It's not great, but it's fun and I think they're having fun playing with some concepts.  The dark future of Star City was pretty cool, and I think it had a lot of fun with the whole Arrow mythology.  As far as I'm concerned, that episode alone was worth launching the series.  I really do hope that it's an anthology series and not this team because I do have some issues with the cast of characters.

Snart is probably the best character on the show, but I'm wondering if they're cheating themselves of a good character on Flash by making him too "good" on LoT.  I know he's been a bit of an ambiguous character, but I think he's always tended to look out for himself (which is why, even though he's been a "good guy" on Flash a couple times, he ends up staying a villain).  But on Legends, it seems like he's more of a selfless character than any of the others.  He seems to be the only one concerned about the mission at times, even when he's on his occasional side-trips to...steal...something?

I don't know.  I guess every episode he's doing something off-book, but he's also always saving the day.  So I guess it'll be interesting to see what happens next time he's on Flash because I'd assume he'd be entirely different once he's back from this mission.

3,303

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I'm enjoying Legends of Tomorrow.  It's not great, but it's fun and I think they're having fun playing with some concepts.  The dark future of Star City was pretty cool, and I think it had a lot of fun with the whole Arrow mythology.  As far as I'm concerned, that episode alone was worth launching the series.  I really do hope that it's an anthology series and not this team because I do have some issues with the cast of characters.

Snart is probably the best character on the show, but I'm wondering if they're cheating themselves of a good character on Flash by making him too "good" on LoT.  I know he's been a bit of an ambiguous character, but I think he's always tended to look out for himself (which is why, even though he's been a "good guy" on Flash a couple times, he ends up staying a villain).  But on Legends, it seems like he's more of a selfless character than any of the others.  He seems to be the only one concerned about the mission at times, even when he's on his occasional side-trips to...steal...something?

I don't know.  I guess every episode he's doing something off-book, but he's also always saving the day.  So I guess it'll be interesting to see what happens next time he's on Flash because I'd assume he'd be entirely different once he's back from this mission.

3,304

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The Weekly Planet, one of my favorite comic podcasts, did an entire episode about the Donner Superman.  I've never had any fondness towards those movies, and I don't really want the movies to be like them.  I group them in with not really seeing my version of superman on film yet.  I still say Smallville is the closest they've gotten yet.

In other news, they cast JK Simmons as Commissioner Gordon.  I really like him as an actor, but I think that's a really bad fit.

3,305

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, the Clintons are back because "it's women's feminist duty to vote for her" (because feminism is about forcing women to do something because other women tell them to) and because she's extremely popular with black people (even though her husband was responsible for a ton of policies that were horrible for the black community).

Now in both of those instances, I think the Republican party is doing themselves no favors.  Women vote democrat because of conservative stances on a woman's right to choose, and black people vote democrat because conservative stances on social/racial issues.  It's no surprise that the two biggest rivals to Trump are named "Rubio" and "Cruz" - the Republican party knows that it can't just throw out another old white guy again.  Trump's white supremacy rhetoric doesn't really help with that image.

3,306

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

From what I hear, one of Hillary's staff members was just given immunity. They don't usually do that unless there is something to be immune from, and unless there are bigger fish to fry.

Well, it depends on what side of the aisle you're reading.  Democrats are saying that it's procedural - that the staffer wasn't going to participate in the Republican-run witch hunt, and that by taking immunity from the FBI, he can cooperate (because Hillary wants him to testify to put the thing to rest) and clear Hillary's name.

The Republicans agree with you - he's taking immunity to rat on Hillary - that he's been quiet so as not to incriminate himself, and now that he's not going to, he's going to spill all the beans and Hillary will go down.  That Hillary is publicly saying that she wants him to testify but that she's secretly worried that this is the magic bullet that takes her down.

I've read "legal experts" on both sides saying the opposite thing.  So until the indictment either happens or doesn't happen, we'll just have to wait and see.

3,307

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I haven't done enough research, but didn't Petraeus plead guilty to similar charges?  I think he only got a fine and probation, but I wonder if a similar conviction would affect Hillary?

And I think Trump vs. Hillary wouldn't go the way you think, Informant.  I think she'd have to stand up to him and look "masculine" so as not to look too weak.  I think she'd react in the same way that the male Republicans are reacting, and I think it'd work the same way it's working for them.  I do think you're right that he'd accuse her of stuff, factual or not, and people would believe it.  And even if the indictment stuff goes nowhere, I think he'd hammer her on it, and I think it'd be tough for her to discuss it without looking more guilty.

It's just going to be ugly no matter what.

3,308

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

And one more thing that I wanted to keep separate....


....what if Hillary is indicted?  It's hard to find a trustworthy source (non-partisan) reporting on the issue, but what happens if Hillary is the clear choice but is indicted?  Does she drop out?  Fight through it?  Can the Democrats put their support behind someone indicted by the federal government?  Even if there's reason to indict or convene a grand jury, does Obama's Justice Department go after the lead candidate for his party's nomination?  If Hillary drops out, does Sanders get the nomination or does someone else step up?  Is Joe Biden out of the running?

What if the race is Biden-replacing-Hillary vs. Trump with no support from the Republicans vs. someone like Cruz as the Republican-supported candidate?

3,309

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I watched the entire debate last night.  And I don't think any of the Republicans can/will stand up to Trump.  It's almost like they're so flabbergasted that he's still in the race that they don't know what to do.  When he insults Rubio, Rubio looks to the moderator like he's broken a rule and should be disqualified. 

And what's weird is that it's a strategy that works.  Trump says a lot of things that sound good (clearly not his racist stuff....don't even start there), but anything that is fact-checked seems to be wrong (best example from last night is the Trump University BBB rating).  And the guy is constantly changing his opinion on things. 

The problem is that the average voter isn't going to fact-check or compare with previous statements.  They hear that Trump is going to be good for business based on previous businesses, and it sounds great.  Good for business is good.  Then Trump stoops to the lowest common denominator and insults the other candidates....who either look weak or defensive when he does it....and he looks strong.  You start seeing him standing up to Kim Jong Un, and you think it could all work out.

Funny thing is that I don't think Hillary would respond much better to it.  I think she'd try to look offended or laugh off him as a mockery, but that strategy doesn't seem to work.  And if she doesn't stand up to him, she's going to look weak.  And I just don't think any of these politicians have ever debated with a clown like Trump, and I think it throws them off their game.  All three candidates last night went after Trump, and he came out unscathed.  I don't know how that's possible, but the big story at the end of the night was the size of Trump's junk.

Right now, Hillary is polling better than Trump in a head to head, but I don't think Hillary is going to get much more support.  But what happens when Trump starts tearing at Hillary in whatever cuthroat way he wants?  Even if the story is BS, will Trump be able to use the email scandal to convince the country that Hillary is soft on national security?  Will he be able to get *any* minority support?  Will the minorities that showed up in record numbers to vote Obama be there for Hillary, or will Trump be able to prove that the Clintons were bad for blacks?

It'll be interesting.

3,310

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

TemporalFlux wrote:

Norman Lear probably put it best - in this election, Trump is America's middle finger.

Many of the American people have felt beaten down and powerless for a long time; even when they vote for change and win, nothing really changes (or if it does, it just gets worse).  After accepting there's nothing that can really be done about the situation, how do people show their frustration?  They give the middle finger (and in this case vote Trump).  it seems to be working too; from their bewilderment to their anger, the pros are reacting in many ways like someone just flipped them off.

Well, I think it's the response to stuff like "Black Lives Matter", #OscarsSoWhite, etc.  I think the majority of white America has been afraid to speak on certain issues because white people generally aren't allowed to speak on certain topics without being declared racist.  And even when white people speak up, no matter what they say, the words they use have to be chosen carefully.  It happens in academia, but it also happens in our nerdy neck of the woods with stuff like race-swapping in comic book movies.

And so I think certain groups of white people in this country see Donald Trump speaking his mind, and they are drawn to it.  Here's a guy who isn't afraid to speak his mind, no matter the backlash.  He isn't choosing his words carefully - he's just speaking.  And it's just something that I'm sure is very refreshing.

The fact that a lot of what he has to say is hate-filled, racist, or downright crazy either doesn't matter or actually helps his case.

3,311

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

pilight wrote:

Trump an "outsider"?  HA!  He was born into money and has had deep political connections his whole life.

It isn't the truth, but it's definitely the message that's gotten across.

3,312

(954 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I liked Agent Carter.  But I still say Agents of Shield is fun.  In the same way that the MCU movies are fun.  It isn't deep, and their characters are a mess.   But if you just watch for action and movie references, it's still fun to watch.

I'm looking forward to the return of Daredevil, though.

3,313

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

Hillary has brought a lot of this on herself, but I suggest you check out this:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … in-08.html

Yeah, I can see that.  But it's hard to read anything these days without any spin.  I'd be more trusting of your friend's opinion than any article written around this time.

I have spoken first-hand with a secret service agent who worked in the Clinton White House, and he said she was very rude to the agents that were trying to protect her life.  I don't know if that's true, but the same guy said that wasn't the case with the Bushes.  Now that could be political, but I didn't sense that.

To me, Hillary seems like the ultimate politician.  Everything is done for a reason and done for an angle.  She's wanted to be president forever, and she stayed with Bill because she'd put so much work into him and needed to use his name to build her own political capital.  And she's somehow convinced the African American community to vote for her (even though she and her husband haven't done great in regards to racial issues) and she's convinced all feminists to vote for her just because she's a woman.  So it doesn't really matter what her policies are, what she believes in, or what she says.

And I think that's why Trump is getting so much support.  You have the ultimate Washington insider vs. the ultimate Washington outsider.  To me, they're equally slimy, and that's why it's a nightmare of a race.

3,314

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well the whole thing is a mess.  My number one enemy in this election.  I hate her.  She's basically a real-life version of the guy from House of Cards (who I also hate).  The House of Cards creator has already said that he based the wife on Hillary, and she's probably worse than Frank is.

Rubio was polling as being able to beat her.  But at this point, Rubio could still win and then Trump would run 3rd party.  Which would split the vote and then that power-hungry monster would get her wish.

3,315

(3,573 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ugh, it's gonna be Trump and Hillary isn't it? 

I'm moving to Canada.

3,316

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I mean, I always just sorta assumed that Batman and Superman were the same age.  Is Superman really supposed to be Dick's age?  Because that just seems bizarre.  Also, is there any continuity where the two of them are friends because if they're the same age, I could see that.

3,317

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Haha, no I wasn't really upset.  But whenever TF shows up on the other side of an argument, I generally assume I'm wrong smile

3,318

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Haha, guys, guys, guys....I used "it's just weird" twice in my argument.  I'm clearly not arguing from a position of strength here.  No need to gang up smile

I thought about the DCAU and came to a similar conclusion about his age.  And I get that Bruce can be Batman into his 50s.  But, as it took on the show, he'd need more tech.  He'd be converting himself from Batman to Iron Man.  Which is fine, but now you have Iron Man in the Justice League instead of Batman.

I also just wonder if a mature/older Bruce would go rushing to Gotham to fight this guy.  If the idea is that Bruce is legitimately worried that Superman is a threat, I think an older Bruce does the detective thing.  He finds out who Clark is, sees his personal life, looks up the whole Kent Farm thing, and he realizes that Clark is a good dude.  He'd watch footage of the Clark/Zod fight and realize that one guy was trying to kill people and the other guy was trying to kill that guy.  I don't think he'd go in guns blazing without doing any legwork.  Because, presumably, this is a guy who's fought Bane.  Maybe he's dealt with Arkham City or No Man's Land Gotham.  He's gotta know that there's better/more strategic ways of fighting a guy like Superman.  And he'd probably be more likely to listen to Alfred's advice (which probably saved his life a couple dozen times at least)

Now a young Batman?  Who's presumably never fought anyone like Clark but also presumably never lost a fight?  Who's young and strong and less mature and fool-hearty?  That dude is going to ignore Alfred and go and fight this big blue idiot.

Like I said, I'm writing my own version of how I'd do the story.  It's probably bad and probably not even correct versions of the characters, but it's what I'd do if I was just "correcting" Zack Snyder's version.  So I'm trying to keep a lot of the same story elements while fixing some of the stuff that I find questionable.  I'll post it soon enough so you guys can laugh at it smile

3,319

(45 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I saw it for the second time tonight.  I really liked it.  It's a simple plot, but it's really well done.  The humor works, and you can tell they had fun making it.

I don't know if I want another Deadpool solo film.  But I would like to team him up with a couple characters to make the plot a little less dependent on him.  But it definitely worked at least one time.

3,320

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

43 isn't old for Bruce Wayne.  But it is old for Batman.  He's the same age he was in Dark Knight Rises (or several years older)....his body wouldn't be able to keep up with it.  Unless Affleck is playing Batman at 32, Batman is passed his prime.  Every other hero will be in their prime, but Bruce will be passed his.  Which either makes Batman the mentor figure for the Justice League, he's going to need to wear that powered suit in every fight (which is why a 50-year-old Tony Stark is believable - the tech is doing all the work), or Batman fighting alongside the Justice League is even more ridiculous.

I actually really like the idea that Batman can exist on the same battlefield as the Justice League.  It's silly, but it's cool.  But when you make Batman already-retired, you're taking most/all of that away.  Now he's older than everyone in addition to having no powers.  You've handicapped the only hero who was already severely handicapped.

I just feel like they're sacrificing a lot just so they can make a Dark Knight Returns parallel.

3,321

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I confess to a certain distaste towards Ben Affleck as Batman -- because, like Slider_Quinn21, I really hate old people. No, not really.

Hahaha, I don't hate old people!  I'm becoming an old person myself.

What drives me crazy is this disjointed mess where Batman and Superman aren't contemporaries.  I just can't get passed that.  I actually think it's an interesting story for an elseworld, in the same sense that I think Red Son Superman and Thomas Wayne Batman are cool concepts.  But we're talking about the main DC cinematic universe, and changing a fundamental part about it. 

Now trust me, I get it.  I know why they're doing it.  When you make Batman older, you give him the wisdom to make the moral argument against Superman.  You let yourself do a cool Dark Knight Returns bit.  You give yourself the ability to do Bat-Family stories that you can't do with a young/new Batman.  And, most importantly, you find a way to deal with a problem that Justice League stories face: how can a man in a bat costume fight alongside gods?  What enemy can fight both Superman and Batman?

In a realistic sense, it sidelines Batman.  He can be the mentor, calling plays from behind a radio.  Because a young Batman would want to fight - an old Batman might understand that he serves the team better if he doesn't..

So I get it.

And in a standalone Batman/Superman movie, I think it'd be okay.  Lex Luthor Jr. (with a mysteriously absent Lex Luthor Sr.) might be okay.  The problem is that this isn't standalone.  We're going to get "official movie versions" of all the heroes we love, and Batman is going to be this mentor character who will be yelling for the rest of the Justice League to get off his lawn.  They're going to see him as this weird old man with no powers who is going to be telling them how to hero properly.

It's just weird to me.  It's weird that Dick Grayson will be Superman's age or younger.  That Clark might be Tim Drake's age.  That characters that are older than Batman already (like Penguin) might be dead from old age. 

Batman already had all his adventures.  It looks like Bruce is coming out of retirement to be Batman.  And yet there's going to be Batman solo films.  Is he going to come out of retirement several times?  How many times is Bruce going to look at Alfred and say "one more time?" 

It's just weird.

3,322

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ummm...sorta?

I could be reading more into this than I should (and I apologize if I am), but you've been concerned about the Hitfix rumors, the success of BvS commercially, and the start of filming for Justice League.  You've, several times, compared the DC strategy to the Marvel strategy. 

So some of that doesn't really sync with what you just said.  If your main concern about BvS is whether or not it's a good movie, then the Hitfix rumors have no bearing on that.  The movie is done.  The Hitfix rumors don't have anything about last-minute reshoots or constant script editing.  Again, this wasn't like Fantastic Four, and the rumors even compliment Batman and Luthor (nothing about FF was positive in similar rumors).  You're going to see BvS as it was meant to be seen by the creator, regardless of what the studio does or does not think.

Also, you seemed concerned about the start of the Justice League filming being on time.  Is this simply tied to the idea that BvS is a mess?  Like if BvS is great and everyone loves it and it makes 2 billion dollars but the studio still wants to delay filming, would that be fine?  Because I'm not sure how to read that from your perspective - is it worrying because of how it affects BvS or how it makes the DCCU look vs. the MCU?

Do you view the success of the DCCU as connected to the success of the MCU?  Or are they so different to you that it doesn't really matter?

Because I'm like you - I just want the movies to be good.  And if BvS is bad (and I fear that it is), then I at least want to salvage Justice League.  And if that means Justice League comes out months or even years after it's supposed to, that's fine.  Because I worry that it's just not in the right hands.  I worry we're going to get Batman with brooding/angry Superman (which seems to be, from the trailers, where his character arc is going), brooding/angry Aquaman, brooding/angry Cyborg, brooding/angry Wonder Woman, etc, and that's not what I want.  I'd rather wait for the Nolan stuff to die down and get a movie that has character development but is fun and exciting.

Like you and MoS I could be wrong.  And I'll be there opening night regardless of what I think of the movie.  Where it feels like the collision of these two different worlds - BvS and the Snyderverse just doesn't feel right to me.

3,323

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, let's talk a little about what "success" means.  And not just necessarily talking about BvS but to the DCCU as a whole.  I know you want it to succeed so let's talk about what that would really mean.

(And I know you're not a DC fanboy who loves DC and hates Marvel.  You've been as critical as anyone about stuff in Gotham, Supergirl, and even the Arrowverse that you originally loved.  For the sake of the argument, I simply would like to characterize you as someone who wants the DCCU to survive)

So you liked Man of Steel.  Man of Steel spawned Dawn of Justice and the plans that currently include Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, The Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, Green Lantern Corps, Shazam, and at least one Affleck Batman solo film.  Now is the DCCU a success if it can pull off a "phase one" like the MCU did?  Is it a success if it gets to Justice League and maybe some of those smaller films don't get made?  Is success based on critics?  Money?  Accurate representations of comics?

Because I'm not really sure what to make of this.  I want BvS to succeed, but I'm also very worried about how it's being handled.  In my head, would I rather have BvS be a success (regardless of whether I like it) if it means that we'll get a lot of the same in future projects?  Or would I rather have BvS be a bit of a flop so that Justice League won't fall prey to a lot of the creative issues I have with BvS?

Is the DCCU a success if we get a Zack Snyder helmed Justice League movie on time?  Would it be a success if the Hitfix rumors are true and we get a Batman movie before Justice League and someone else directs it?  Can it be a failure if Justice League still happens, or does it need to be a bigger success?  If BvS and Justice League are a critical/financial success but the other movies (Cyborg, Aquaman, Flash, Green Lantern Corps) are failures, is the DCCU a success?  If the movies start looking like Marvel movies (no character development, big explosions, fun but forgettable movies) is that a problem?

And, Info, this is for you primarily but anyone could answer - if you don't like BvS, should the plan be changed?  Or is it important that the plan not be changed, regardless of the reason?

3,324

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Maybe part of his body has a "normal" mode that would allow him to live in a normal world without crushing people and busting down walls, and super strength or speed would require a learned ability to break down the blocks that his brain has in place.

It's possible.  And it doesn't seem like anything in the movie confirms or denies this so it's just our own (fun) speculation.

3,325

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I mean I guess if his childhood was that traumatic, maybe he would be afraid of pushing himself.  But unless I'm understanding the general idea of "powers" incorrectly, I don't see how there's any way he wouldn't have known he has super-speed.

(Since "powers" are fictional, it's entirely possible that I'm looking at it wrongly.  But since Superman established the whole "yellow sun" thing to try and explain it scientifically, I'm going to use whatever scientific knowledge I have to rationalize how it'd work in my head.)

I imagine heat vision/x-ray vision/flight all working as if I was trying to wag a tail.  I can imagine what wagging a tail would feel like, but since I don't have a tail, I wouldn't exactly know how to do it.  But strength/super breath/super-hearing//speed are all, in my mind, just extensions of things I can do.  For example, if I were to line up for a race with Barry Allen, mind-wiped him from knowing he's the Flash, and shot the starting gun, we'd both run as fast as we can.  It's just he'd end up in Mexico before I ended up at the end of the finish line.  Barry could run "slowly" so that it looks like he's running "normal" speed, but he'd be doing an act.  He's an adult shaking a toddler's hand and pretending that it's being crushed by this super-strong toddler.

(Case in point - Smallville season one.  Clark loses his powers and tries to super-speed.  It just looks like he's starting to run fast.)

If that's the way powers work, Clark would have to actively work to appear human.  If he exerted himself in any way,  his strength/speed would show up.  So to say that Clark doesn't know he has super-speed would imply that he's never run.  Or even started to run.  And it wouldn't have had to have been something where he even knew he needed to run.  Maybe he tries to sneak a cookie as a four year old and speeds off when he heard a noise.  I mean, again, kids run around all the time.  My nephew learned how to walk a month ago, and he's already "running"

So I don't buy that he didn't know.  Not unless powers work completely differently than I think they do and it's a completely different motion to run and super-run.

Two things I can accept regarding the super-speed and the tornado is 1) that he thought he'd kill Jonathan if he ran to save him and 2) he was absolutely terrified of using his powers in front of anyone.  And those are both fine things.  But I hate that lesson for Clark, and I guess my problem is more there than anything.  Not a problem with the movie or a problem with the character - just a disagreement with how to raise a super-powered child.  Again assuming powers work the way I think they do, I'd have Clark using his powers all the time on the farm because I'd need him to be in complete control of them all the time.  Like the JLU episode, Clark has to live in a world that's made of paper, not losing control even for a second, or people could die.  Terrifying him just seems counterproductive.

3,326

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

When the heck is DC going to give us our own show on the CW?  My suggestion is a Nightwing show, but I could be talked into just about anything.

3,327

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well I was starting to think that "Jay Garrick" is someone else entirely (so the person we've seen is Hunter Zolomon and another actor would be playing the real Flash/Jay Garrick), but I keep getting stopped when I remember that Wells/Jay had an altercation on Earth 2.  Wells seemed to recognize him as the actual Flash so I guess that's not the case.

The guy on the bench could be Zoom.  But for Jay to also be the guy in the iron mask, there'd need to be an Earth 3 or some sort of complicated time travel.

I'm a little disappointed in the reveal just because I don't think Jay has been a very good character and they *just* did the whole "good guy is the main bad guy" thing last season.  So the reveal is both weak and lazy.  Even if this turns out to be as good as season one, they need to try something different next season.  No hidden reveal, no betrayal, and I'd say no other speedster.  It'd be cool if they could take someone like Mirror Master, who could be someone that Barry might face in a normal "villain of the week" episode, and find a way to make him a powerful enough enemy that he could be a season-long problem.

3,328

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, they went ahead and revealed it.  Anyone surprised?

3,329

(486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watchi … he-revival

I'm somewhere in the middle between the two of you.  I didn't think it was awful, but I didn't think it was great.  They were able to capture the feeling of a global apocalypse with a TV budget.  That's something.

3,330

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, like I said, I'm using several-years-old memories to attack a movie I liked for the most part.  I'm probably making Clark more dreary and Jonathan less loving.  I'm absolutely willing to admit that.

My problem, I guess, is how there's any chance Clark wouldn't know some of the limits of his powers unless there was some sort of "unlocking" that we didn't see.  In Smallville, Clark starts out with speed, strength, and invulnerability (with stuff like super-athleticism like jumping grouped in).  Clark knows these three things because they're the ones that can be generally assumed.

(All of this is based on the idea that Clark has his powers, even if just a percentage of them, from birth.  That they aren't "activated" at some point in his life.  I don't remember if MoS said this or not, but I'm assuming Clark was always stronger/faster/more invulnerable than a human child his age.)

Clark is a "normal" male child.  All of his play is going to involve those three powers as soon as he's able.  He's going to try and lift stuff.  He's going to try and break stuff.  He's going to fall and hit his head.  He's going to try to run as fast as he can.  As he gets older, those games are just going to continue.  Whether or not Clark is too nerdy for sports, he's going to play them at recess.  So I don't buy that Clark knows he has super-speed.  I don't even buy that he doesn't know the limits of his super-speed.  Because I think any person, human or not, isn't going to be curious.  If he finds out that he can run faster than the other kids (say, in kindergarten), then he's going to test himself at some point before he's an adult.  Is he going to try and break the sound barrier?  Probably not, but I could see him exerting himself.  I know, even know, I'll sometimes try to sprint as fast as I can.  I've done it all my life.  And unless using super-speed involves some sort of extra muscles or extra exertion, then Clark would know well before the tornado scene.

Heat vision, flight, freeze breath, x-ray vision....these are things that would both be unnatural and unintuitive.  Those are things that he wouldn't learn on his own - it'd happen the same way they happened on Smallville.  But speed, strength, and invulnerability are things he would know really early, I'd think.

Now the video makes two great points.  The best is the violence of the speed - there's a great chance that Clark tries to save him and kills him (kinda like Spider-Man "killing" Gwen Stacy) by hitting him with too much force.  But Jonathan is dead either way in that instance, and I don't like the idea that Clark didn't try.  I almost like that better - and it even parallels with him "killing" all those people in an attempt to save Metropolis.

The other point is why he bothers walking/climbing/etc when he can do other stuff.  And I'm guessing super-speed takes more out of him than anything else.  So if there's a chance to do things at "normal speed" I'm guessing he would.  And maybe running at super-speed is exhausting and flying takes less effort - it'd explain why there isn't much super-running in the movie and a lot more super-flying.

3,331

(756 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Has anyone seen the movie Room?  I saw it last night, and I really liked it.  If you don't know what it's about, I'd encourage you *not* to watch the trailer or read anything about it.  Go in as blind as possible - it'll make the story better. 

What surprised me was the tone of the film.  I'd been told how sad it is (and it is), but there's a level of wonder to the film that I really liked (and from what I did know about the film, really hoped would be there).  If any of you have seen it, I'd like to talk about it more at length.

3,332

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I really wish I could talk more about Man of Steel, but I've only seen it the one time all the way through.  And it's a movie that I remember liking a lot until the ending.  And I found myself sorta amazed by the actual Battle of Metropolis - which is why I think I had such a problem with how casual the ending was.  If you're going to make *that* much of an impact with your climax, I need that to be respected.  And, yeah, BvS is going to be the payoff, but if that's the case, I almost needed a tip to that *more* in the end of MoS.  Because, otherwise, it seems more reactionary than what the plan was.  And, as you said, that's when problems happen.

I'd really have to go back to see the optimism.  From my memory, it wasn't there, but I might just be revising history.  I rewatched the "What if Man of Steel was in color" video by Videolab (side note: I like the colored version better), and I was surprised to see Clark having as much fun flying as he did.  So that's good - there needs to be a scene like that in BvS, but I'm afraid there won't be (has Clark smiled in any of the promo materials because I know for sure Bruce has).

I guess my primary problem with the characterization of Clark is Jonathan Kent.  I hated him.  And it wasn't Costner's fault - I just never really agreed with his character.  Yes, Clark needed to be careful.  But I found myself wishing that John Schneider's Jonathan (from Smallville) would show up and punch him in the face.  When he tells Clark that maybe he should've let the bus full of kids drown?  I don't believe he'd say that.  Clark is a good person because he does the right thing, and he does the right thing because Jonathan and Martha Kent taught him to do that.  I believe, on a level, Clark is Superman because one of his powers is simply being better at making the right choice - super-humanity if you will.  But his moral compass is midwestern America - and you're the one who taught me that. 

Jonathan believing so hard that Clark can *never* reveal his powers, even if it means letting people die, was nonsense to me.  I don't buy it.  It's selfish, and it's wrong.  Now maybe comics Jonathan said that, but I prefer the Smallville origin where Jonathan is proud that his son wants to do the right thing.  And where, instead of teaching him to be afraid of his powers, they teach him that he just better not get caught.  So it forces Clark to use his powers in secret, which actually forces him to fine-tune things like his speed so that no one can see him.

The tornado scene.....ugh......what a mess.  I don't buy it.  Not for a second.  And not any of it, honestly.  Let's assume for a second that everyone under that bridge noticed Clark and was staring at Clark the entire time.  So if he speeds away, everyone notices and understands there's no other explanation.  These are Clark's neighbors - they aren't going to scream "ALIEN" and immediately call in the black helicopters. 

But, first of all, there's a ton of chaos in that scene.  Clark could've slipped into the crowd where no one would notice him, speed to save Jonathan, and be back before anyone noticed.  He could've even waited until the last second so that it *looked* like he was killed in the storm, then he shows up X time later with some bruises as some kind of "miracle." 

Second, I don't like a Clark that would allow that to happen.  And, yeah, I know that's what he was taught.  I don't like a Clark that allows that lesson to seep in.  And I don't like that the moral center of Man of Steel is a moral argument between Jonathan and Jor-El where *Jonathan* is wrong.  It's so backwards in my mind, and it poisons Clark's character for me.  Because Clark's upbringing is supposed to be pure, but Man of Steel paints it like Jor-El has to come in and re-raise him so that he can be the hero he was supposed to be. 

I would've liked a version of the story where Smallville just knows that Clark is an alien.  He saves Jonathan in front of enough people, and they just understand.  He saved the bus of kids.  He saved his father.  He's a good guy.  Just like Metropolis will see this god flying around and just *know* that he's a hero.  And they protect him just like he protects them.  He doesn't go full Superboy or even full Smallville.  Even if it's just those two things, it works.

And if they have to do the "my father was convinced that if people found out who I really was, they'd reject me" storyline, give it to Clark instead of Jonathan.  Have Jonathan tell Clark that he needs to be himself, and Clark is so afraid of hurting anyone that he won't do it.  When the bus starts to sink, for a second, he considers letting it fall but can't.  Jonathan later scolds him for how selfish that would've been.  When the tornado happens, he looks around at all the people before he speeds in.  He later breaks down because he almost let his father die to protect himself.  So it's about dismantling his own fear and embracing the hero that was there all along.

3,333

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

The question is, what would make the Batman movie a better launching pad than Justice League? JL should be a good movie with a solid script, regardless of what happens with BvS. They should have people from Warner Bros and DC going over the script to make sure that Snyder isn't going crazy, and they should be showing that script to the people making any of the related movies, just so they can make sure that everyone is on the same page. Snyder isn't working in a bubble here. He is part of a bigger machine.

Well it's building on what works and fixing what doesn't.  If you'll allow me to speculate, let's say that the Hitfix rumors are correct.  Batman works, Lex works, but the rest of the movie falls flat.  That means that Wonder Woman doesn't impress, and something about Superman doesn't work.  And to continue to play devil's advocate, let's say that Superman spends the whole time being angry and doesn't do anything heroic.  And maybe they don't like how dark (lighting, not tone) the whole movie is.

WB looks at the script for Justice League, and they look at what's in there.  (speculating again).  Batman's in it fine, but Lex is either barely in it or not in it at all.  So maybe they rework it so that Lex plays a bigger part.  Wonder Woman didn't work in BvS, but her movie is coming out so they sorta have to run with whatever is established in that movie.  Perhaps they could make some slight alterations in her character.  But with Superman, there's tons they could do.  Maybe you open the movie with a fun action scene that spotlights the kind of Superman that people want (I'll get to this in a second) - sorta like how Singer would've re-written Superman Returns to open with the plane crash.  Maybe you alter his character to make him a little happier - a little less moody.  And whether or not you keep Snyder, maybe you tell him to cut back on the sepia/gray colors and throw in some color.

That's all they'd need to do.  And if you release Batman before Justice League, you give yourself time to fine-tune these kinds of things.

And it's not like they can't do stuff like that.  If you have Affleck's Batman, and that's what works, then you use that and build on it.  Make no mistake, the MCU has succeeded because of Downey's Tony Stark character.  People liked Iron Man, but look at the rest of the phase one.  Incredible Hulk bombed so much that it's barely canon.  Thor is no one's favorite movie.  Captain America: the First Avenger is a glorified trailer.  Heck, Iron Man 2 is a mess, and it's the second-best pre-Avengers movie.

Avengers worked because it a) had Iron Man and b) made the rest of the characters work, altering them if-necessary.  That's why no one gives a damn about a Hulk solo film, but they go nuts for every Hulk scene in the Avengers. 

So you apply that plan to DC.  If Superman doesn't work, make him work in some other way.  And I don't necessarily think that it's Donner.  I think pretty much every DCAU movie/show gets Superman right.  He's a great leader, he's tough, but he's fatherly/brotherly.  He lightens things up a bit when it's not time to be serious.  I think the problem with MoS Superman (that seems to be carried over into BvS) is that he doesn't really have fun being Superman at any point.  Now the second Zod shows up, the guy should be all business.  But it's just weird that the two most fun scenes in Man of Steel both happen *after* the Battle of Metropolis, literally the only time in the movie that fun shouldn't be happening (again, IMO).

Max Landis gave my favorite description of Superman in a video he did.  He said "instead of absolute power corruption (Clark) absolutely, absolute power has absolved him from fear and greed and hate and all the weaknesses that stem from human insecurity."  And I think that's brilliant, and it turns all the "boring" parts about Superman into really fun, creative things.  I can imagine a scene in a Justice League movie where they're hanging around a situation room table talking about why they became superheroes.  And Barry talks about how his mom was murdered and his dad was imprisoned and how that turned him to the law.  And Diana talks about how it's her legacy to protect mankind.  And Arthur says he wants to do right by his people.  And maybe Bruce mentions his parents or whatever.  But Superman looks around and is a little confused - he's a superhero because it's the right thing to do.  And everyone sorta laughs at the innocence of that, but it shows Clark as this guy who has all the super powers but the strongest is his belief in mankind.

And while I think Man of Steel actually captured a lot of the things right about Clark, I don't think it captured his super-optimism.  I don't think it captured his light-heartedness or his fun side.  And I think, more than just cramming Superman into the Nolanverse, I think that was my biggest issue.

3,334

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, and this is the part where we have to agree to disagree.  I'm worried about the movie, and you're confident that it will be done well.  If you're right, then nothing will change and the rumors will have been forgotten.  If I'm right, they're going to need to take a step back and make some changes (even if minor) to correct the ship.

Remember, Hitfix didn't say that the movie was a disaster.  This isn't Fantastic 4, which abandoned its sequel plans after a nightmare of a movie, creatively and financially.  The rumors said that Affleck was good and that Eisenberg was great.  That the move would be to a) move the solo Batman movie up and b) push back the Justice League movie.  Unless further rumors came up, I never heard anything about reboots or doing anything differently.  That BvS would still be canon and a building block, but that it might not be the launching pad that the studio was hoping for.

I really want Batman Superman to be good, but if it isn't good, I *really* want them to fix it for Justice League.  And if it's not good and they just close their eyes and pretend that it is so that they can save face in their war vs. Marvel, then they're going to be sabotaging Justice League before it gets a chance.

There's no shame in reworking something to make it better.  And whether or not Justice League comes out on time or months late, I want them to be doing everything they can to make sure it's the best movie it can be.

3,335

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Isn't that just as irresponsible, though?  What if the movie isn't a hit?  What if things don't work?  What if Snyder isn't the guy?  Is it still smart to just roll on like everything is fine?

There's nothing wrong with replacing Snyder - Marvel replaced Whedon with the Russo Brothers and just kept rolling.  Ant-Man had many different creative heads, and it still was a commercial and critical success.

I want Justice League to be successful.  But they have to do it the right way.  And if pushing it back means making sure the movie is set up to succeed, then that's what they should do.  This, to me, reeks of the studio over-compensating, showing extra confidence in BvS to combat the rumors of the contrary.

3,336

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

For the record, I've decided to write my own mega-synopsis version of Batman v Superman.  So far it's only 3 pages long (I'm through the end of act 2), but it's more along the lines of the movie I'd like to see.

3,337

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Re: Flash

Any idea who the guy in the mask in the prison cell on Earth-2 was?  My first thought was Earth 2 Diggle (when we briefly saw him in the first Earth-2 episode) but now I have no idea.

3,338

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, as I've said in many comic-based arguments, I don't know these characters all that well.  I don't read many comics, and most of my knowledge comes from sources like cartoons/movies/TV shows.  And when you look at the guys who have played Jimmy, and the ways he's been presented in other media, I never saw a muscle-bound male model guy.  Heck, when I think about photographers I know in life, there's a reason they're behind the camera and not in front of it smile  Mehcad Brooks looks like he would've spent his career as a TV anchorman.  He'd apply for jobs as a photographer, and they wouldn't let him.  Heck, I'm surprised that Cat is allowing him to be behind the camera.

I just think of Jimmy as being short (5'7) and nerdy.  It's like Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man.  It was hard for me to buy because he was presented as a fairly-popular, athletic, attractive, skateboarding guy before he got bit by the spider.  James' line in the show might say that he's spent years being scared, but I just don't see it.

Now I love the idea that he has super-PTSD.  And I do agree that even the manliest of men can have it.  But, first, I don't think we've seen enough of that (I just watched episode nine so maybe there's more).  But in episode nine, he goes toe-to-toe with Maxwell Lord - he's definitely not shying away from a fight or a dangerous situation.  Second, I think the character could've been *so* powerful if Jimmy/James came to National City literally broken.  And maybe the romance between Jimmy and Kara isn't based on "he's attractive and smart and brave and talented and amazing" and more like a Florence Nightingale situation.  Clark trusts Kara to take care of Jimmy, and she's helping rebuild his life because Clark legitimately thinks Jimmy will snap if he lives one more day in Metropolis.

And for that, I'd go with someone less physically imposing.  I was talking with my friend and I might've switched the casting on Mr. Terrific on Arrow and James on Supergirl.  And the more I think about it, I actually think Grant Gustin would've done an incredible job in that role (although he's also 6'2).

3,339

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Re: Supergirl.

I actually really like this show.  I'm surprised at how much heart is in it.  It definitely feels like the Flash to me, and that's a great thing.  And the introduction of some other DC characters really helps the show click.  Maxwell Lord is a good analogue for Lex Luthor, and "Henshaw" is a great character.

Two things bother me.  First, I hate the casting of "James Olsen" and it has nothing to do with racial-swapping.  If they wanted Jimmy Olsen to be black, that's fine with me.  My problem is that Jimmy Olsen apparently chose photography as soon as he was done with being a GQ model.  Changing Jimmy's race doesn't really affect the character - changing his personality does.  And the actor does a fine job, but he's playing the wrong part.  When Jimmy admits that he was always scared in Metropolis, I don't buy it.  He's a physically-imposing, in-shape, attractive guy.  There'd be virtually no reason for him to be the coward that he claims to be.  I can understand wanting to hire an attractive guy to be the male lead, but it'd make more since for Winn to be the tall, handsome one.  Or make it another character.  Changing his character like that seems wrong.

Second, I'm not sure I like the way they're using Superman.  I love that he's not on the show - that would be too much.  And I'm sorta glad they didn't go the "Birds of Prey" route, where Batman was just missing.  I like the use of instant messenger to make him a presence on the show without actually showing him.  I like that he's essentially giving Kara her space to be her own hero (I liked how it was handled in both episode 3 and episode 9, where Clark checks in but promises to stay out unless she asks).

But when there's an army of Kryptonians?  When Kara's lost her powers?  Aren't these situations where Clark should show up? 

If I sorta put those two things to the side, I really like it.

3,340

(486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

"Sliders BBoard - come for X-Files discussion, get barbecue suggestions."

Let me know if you enjoy it.  I've been a bunch and love it.

3,341

(486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

http://www.ten50bbq.com/

It's East Texas style barbecue - you can/should order by the pound, and they just cook as much meat as they have.  Really good sauce, really good sides, delicious desserts.  They also have bacon-wrapped stuffed jalapenos (chicken or brisket) that are fantastic.,  They're supposed to have the best fried okra in Texas, but I'm not a fan of fried okra.

3,342

(486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Texas might have crappy pizza, Chinese food, bagels and seafood, and the salt water taffy sold here may be a joke, but it is still a big, modern, civilized state!

The Mexican food is good. And the steaks are... I saw a steak for sale in Georgia, and I took a picture because it was so laughably small to me.

I can direct you to some good pizza (NY or Chicago style).  And I've had some decent seafood - not in DFW but closer to the coast.

We do barbecue (I recently found my new favorite spot in North Dallas), Mexican food, boutique tacos, and burgers really well.  I'll buy Carter some pretty solid brisket if he ever wants to visit.

3,343

(486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Carter has never depicted Texas well. In the first movie, it was just poorly filmed (they used deserts and mountains as their Dallas location. Not remotely accurate). In this case, he allowed his disdain for Texas show through like a spotlight. His version of Texans, with their cowboy hats and their blind hatred of anything that wasn't white, is arrogant, self-righteous, and wrong. This episode was based on the attempted attack in my own town (though the outcomes were quite different). There are a lot of Muslims around here, and the number seems to be rising. We don't just go around giving them the evil eye or making comments about their color, or else we would have no time left in the day. Newsflash: We have quite a lot of non-white people around here!
Also, nobody wears cowboy hats and boots, unless they're going to a country-themed club or they actually work on a ranch. Even then, probably not. People claim that this episode was racist toward Muslims. I disagree. All that stuff was based on the news, and Carter went out of his way to sympathize and humanize them. If anything, the episode was racist toward Texans.

Had the exact same thoughts.  I'm from Texas too, and it was annoying to see the same, tired stereotypes.  Has Carter really never been?  I don't own a pair of boots or a Cowboy hat.  I was born in Texas, and I've lived here my whole life.

The first movie drove me crazy with their version of "Dallas"

What was weird about this one, outside of the honkey-tonk stereotypes and the overtly-racist Texans, was the oddity of the location - where was it supposed to be?  I think they mentioned "southwest Texas" at the beginning, but every other reference was just "Texas."  "Our flight to Texas."  "You'll have to meet me in Texas" Then, to top it off, the airport just says "Welcome to Texas."  I wouldn't put it passed a Texan airport to say this, but "Texas" is a pretty big place with a diverse geography.  Not that Carter would know anything about that.

3,344

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Regarding Snyder....I don't know.  I think 300 is visually a good film, and I enjoyed it the first time I watched it.  I tried watching it again and was sorta bored by it.  It just didn't hold my interest.

I liked Dawn of the Dead.  For some reason, I watched that movie every time it was on when they showed it on premium cable over and over again.  Like most zombie movies, the ending was clunky, but I think it was pretty good.

Watchmen was fine.  I thought he did an amazing job translating it from the book to film, but I just didn't love it.  I think the accurate translation actually exposed some of the narrative problems in the book. 

I liked Sucker Punch more than most people, but that was a movie most people didn't like.  Visually stunning and a pretty fun story, but I can see problems regarding the way it was presented.

All in all, Snyder's movies are all breathtaking from a visual standpoint.  Every one of them has a unique look that suits it, and I think he knows how to make a movie look great.  His action sequences are pretty great, and I think he does care about character.  But while I've generally enjoyed every one of his movies, I don't know how much re-watchablility they have.  I've still never really re-watched Man of Steel - only watched bits and pieces.

My main problem with BvS are the creative choices they've made.  I'm going to judge the movie based on what it is, not what it could be.  But a lot of the choices he's made are just so frustrating to me.

3,345

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ha, well I'm sorry about that.  As we've chronicled here, I'm *very* worried about this movie.  I could list a dozen creative decisions that I'd label as missteps - but it's still Batman and Superman on the same screen.  It's still fun Dark Knight Returns imagery, Wonder Woman on the big screen, and a move towards the Justice League.  It's awesome.

I hope Snyder made a great movie.  I hope he can make a great Justice League movie.  But based on his prior track record (in my opinion), I'll unfortunately have to see it to believe it.

3,346

(954 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I mean, I see that.  But I still say the seeds were planted a while back.  Marvel doesn't make character a priority, but we have seen a lot of these characters.  This will be Tony Stark's sixth movie (and let's be honest, he was the main character in the previous five).  It will just be Cap's fifth, and even though Winter Soldier is probably the best overall movie in the MCU, there's still not much to Cap's character besides doing the right thing.

I think a disagreement that blows up into a "war" was sorta inevitable in the series.  I'm a little surprised that this wasn't the plot of Avengers 2, but there's still seeds in that movie that lead directly to Civil War.  So even if it wasn't announced until later, I think it was planned a while back.

BvS should be the superior film.  Snyder worked a bit more on character (although, honestly, I still don't think MoS took the devastation of Metropolis any more seriously than the Battle of New York - Avengers had schwarma, MoS had "I just think he's hot."), and Batman/Superman have way more cultural coin than Cap/Iron Man.  DC wanted to finally make them fight, and I think it's just a coincidence that it happens to come out while Civil War was coming out.

3,347

(954 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's hard to say that Civil War was affected, at all, by DC's plans.  Tony and Cap have been bickering since the first Avengers movie, and it's pretty obvious that Marvel has wanted to go in the direction of Civil War since the beginning (it's one of the biggest events in recent history - they're, of course, going to want to take things there).  Also, there's no way Civil War can compete with Batman vs Superman on a cultural level.  The Avengers are having their biggest moment in the sun, and they're possibly still not on the same level that Batman and Superman have been on for decades.  So that's really not a competition (at least, as far as most adults are concerned).

Now have they been at each other's throats?  No....but sorta?  In the first Avengers, they are about to fight numerous times.  In the second Avengers, they disagree time and time again.  The only reason they don't fight is because, basically from the beginning, they have bigger fish to fry (Strucker - then Ultron).  In fact, the second-oddest scene in the MCU is the final scene between the two of them in Age of Ultron because they're acting much friendlier than they ever have.  The oddest will be the scene in Civil War where Cap says "...but (Bucky's) my friend." and Tony will respond "....so was I." because they haven't liked each other since the moment they ran into each other.

"War" is probably a bit of a misnomer because, in the original comics, neither side wanted the other to die.  Just to surrender.  When Cap dies in the end, Tony is devastated.  The Super Bowl spot sorta confirms this.  Bucky looks to try to assassinate Tony in his street clothes, and when he fails, Tony's shocked.  It looks pretty clear to me that Bucky crossed a line that Tony didn't think they'd cross - actually trying to kill each other.  I'd expect it'd be the same thing if, say, Rhodey tried to kill Cap.  So I think the "Civil War" will be a "Civil Spar" just like it was in the comics.  And just like in BvS, the actual "title match" will only be in the first two acts before they unite to fight a bigger enemy.

3,348

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, if BvS is good, it won't matter.  If it is a bit of a mess, the rumor gets confirmed.  I can't imagine it'd affect box office numbers (in fact, with lowered expectations due to the report, it could look better - "I heard it sucked, but it was actually pretty good"), and a report wouldn't really affect the WB's plans until after the movie comes out.

And even the HitFix report really only talks about how the Justice League movie would either be pushed back or go in a different direction creatively.  Which, based on 95% of the decisions that have been made for BvS, might actually save a Justice League movie.

3,349

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well I did a bit more research and Eisenberg definitely said it.  And the Fortune article, if canon, definitely says it.  Makes it seem like Lex Sr. is dead and Lex Jr. inherited the company.  No idea if Lex Sr. will play into the movie at all, or if he even survived to see Superman show up.

3,350

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Like I said, it's hard to judge what we haven't seen. But based on what I have seen, nothing about BvS feels completely wrong to me. I'm still questioning their decisions regarding Lex Luthor, but I won't know until I actually see the movie.

I don't have time right now for another essay, but I have thoughts on both Marvel and DC.

But I wanted to mention - have we talked about the fact that Eisenberg isn't playing the traditional Lex but his son?  It's apparently been confirmed that he's playing Lex Luthor Jr.  I didn't get a ton of time to research it, but it was mentioned in the Fortune article and I think in an interview with MTV.

3,351

(267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah and that'd work.  I just like the idea of throwing these guys into a situation they can't control.  Because, let's be honest, they're basically Superman when it comes to most monsters.  To the point where the actual fight in the episode is the most boring part.  I meant to mention it, but I'd definitely *seriously* injure one or both brothers in their first fight.  Not dead and not even something that would be ongoing for too long.  But I'd want to raise the stakes.  Imagine Dean walking into a den of vampires, limping a bit, with Sam acting sorta like Oracle because he's too hurt.  All by himself.  Armed to the teeth but with no idea how to take them out.  Rock salt shotgun blast?  Nope - tosses it to the side.  Bronze knife?  Incapacitates him but nope.  Golden bullets as he's surrounded?  Nope.  One jumps him from behind and is about to bite him when he grabs a crystal dagger which kills the vamp immediately.  After that, it's a piece of cake as usual.

3,352

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Anyway, even if the movie flops, I can see DC fliddling with things here and there. Maybe they'd replace Snyder for the Justice League movies. But I don't see them trashing the whole slate and starting from square one. They really can't. They made a huge presentation of their plan in front of millions of people. If they make that presentation irrelevant, it will make them look like a sinking ship and nobody will get on board. They would be better off scrapping the whole plan and never making the movies at all.

That's sorta what I'm talking about.  I actually think this would've been done better with a gentler hand and more buildup.  Maybe there should've simply been "Batman vs Superman" - not "Dawn of Justice" - you get Batman (again, I'd have him be younger but that argument is played out) to show up in Metropolis to investigate Superman.  You have a Clark who's deeply remorseful about what happened and trying desperately to make it right (maybe even to the point where it's affecting his life as Clark Kent).  Clark's act is so genuine and nice and "truth, justice, and the American way" that it makes Bruce and Lex suspicious.  Bruce comes as a detective who wants to believe that someone can be that good - that Clark was just sloppy (having watched the footage a billion times).  Misunderstanding happens.  Bruce fights Clark thinking he's found the secret.  Lex activates Doomsday or his mech suit or whatever.  Clark convinces Bruce.  Combine to fight bigger threat.  End of movie.

No Wonder Woman.  No Flash.  No Aquaman.  No Cyborg.  If you want to tease these things, that's fine.  Wonder Woman needs a tease, I guess.  Maybe mention weird things regarding the ocean where Zod's gravity thing was going off.  Tease these characters but don't show them.  There are two characters in this world - Batman and Superman - and just hints of others.

Then Suicide Squad to introduce a different element.  Then Wonder Woman gets her own movie.  Bam, now you have a Trinity.  Once you have that in place, you can do Justice League.  It's already two parts so you can spend the first act getting these guys together.  Flash doesn't need a full movie to be introduced - he runs fast.  You might spend some time on Cyborg, but I'd spend a lot of time on Aquaman.  Set up Atlantis and some of that stuff because it needs explanation, and it'd be fun.  Maybe even make the reason for the Justice League *be* Atlantis attacking - that could be a whole movie before Darkseid shows up.

(this is the part where I'd say Green Lantern was canon and cast Ryan Reynolds.  I'd also have cast Bale as Batman if he has to be old and I have all the power int his hypothetical.  That way, these characters are already established)

I love the idea of taking the material seriously.  What I don't like is not having fun with it.  And while Man of Steel was a better movie than most of the Marvel movies, it wasn't much fun.  And Superman needs to be fun.  *Especially* the way they made the ending.  Imagine Man of Steel where Clark spends the first half of the movie just having fun with his powers.  Almost like Spider-Man except more wonder and less dickish.  Then he gets hit with the whole Kryptonian stuff - meets Jor-El, meets Zod, learns the true weight of an entire planet's destruction.  Then he goes to fight Zod and wins but the whole city has been destroyed.  Clark has to learn to take this whole hero thing seriously but we still know, at heart, that he's a fun-loving, genuinely good guy.

And it's the same thing with BvS - which, the way it's being presented, doesn't look very fun.  When you compare it to Captain America: Civil War, which does look to be character-motivated, it looks dark and violent.  All the fights in Captain America are during the day with bright colors.  All the BvS fights are sepia-colored with big explosions and/or set at night or in the rain.

All I'm saying is that there's tons of middle ground between the MCU and the Dark Knight Trilogy that could've been used for a world that Batman and Superman share.  Instead, it seems like they took the Dark Knight model and put the rest of the DC universe in there.  When, honestly, the only DC characters that fits in the Dark Knight world is Batman.  That's why Bruce is a part-time Justice Leaguer and an outcast. 

Just my two cents.  I don't love these characters as much as you do, so I could be wrong in my interpretation smile

3,353

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

No, I get that.  I didn't really hate any of the Phase 1 movies for the reasons you and ireactions didn't like them.  Especially since I don't necessarily care for Thor or Captain America as characters, the fact that they were living in a world with Iron Man (a character I did like) was pretty cool. 

The issue I see is with a foundation.  Iron Man set up the MCU really well.  It's fun but a little fantastic.  It's sarcastic and doesn't take itself too seriously.  And, for the most part, people loved Iron Man.  So even though their movies weren't great, Thor and Captain America followed a similar lead.  It also was fun and didn't take itself too seriously.  And the MCU was able to succeed with these movies that are fun but not necessarily great.

The problem with the DCCU is that it's foundation is Man of Steel.  A movie that is, at best, mixed.  It's an odd tone for a Superman movie, and the way Superman was represented wasn't universally accepted.  So if BvS also has a mixed reception, then I totally agree with the HitFix video, and everything will ride on Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the Batman solo film.  Because if the foundation of the universe doesn't work, then there's nothing to build on.

I think the part of the video I agreed with the most was the idea that the DCCU needs a Kevin Feige.  Say what you will about the MCU, but it definitely feels like a streamlined universe.  X happens in Movie 1, and it affects Y in Movie 2 and gets played on in Z in movie 8.  It might cheapen all eight movies, but it makes the universe feel real and contained.

And I disagree that BvS isn't just a prequel to Justice League in the same way that Iron Man 2/Thor/Captain America were prequels to Avengers.  In fact, Zach Snyder has come out and confirmed that BvS is exactly that.

3,354

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I think it just depends on where you're coming from on this issue.  Superman and Batman mean so much to so many people, and I think people want it to be perfect.  So if you didn't like Cavill or you don't like Affleck or you don't like Eisenberg as Lex or Snyder's tone/feel then the movie is already starting off on a bad foot.  And then you have people that are sorta rooting for the movie to fail before it comes out.

I dislike a lot of the angles they took - I admit that.  But I also really want this to be good.  I'm a bigger DC fan than a Marvel fan.  I religiously watch the Arrowverse, and I recently started Supergirl after they finally connected the DC universe together (the only outlier is Gotham and that doesn't really fit with the others).  I enjoy the Marvel stuff too, but I've always been DC > Marvel. 

But I think the problem with this approach is over-ambition.  They planned all these extra films based on the success of a sequel to a movie that wasn't universally loved.  Marvel didn't do that until after "phase one" succeeded.

3,355

(267 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

That would be interesting.  I still really like my idea for a season where the rules get rewritten somehow.  Maybe they defeat the Darkness, and it throws the universe into chaos to the point where all the lore is worthless.  Wooden stake doesn't kill vampires.  Silver doesn't kill werewolves.  Nothing that used to work works.

So you have this situation where Sam and Dean are fighting, say, a wendigo (because that's the example they always use).  Something they could kill with their eyes closed.  Except it doesn't work.  They find a way to kill it, but they have to get creative.  Reading a book and finding the magic bullet doesn't work anymore.

But while Sam and Dean are able to survive because they're the best, a TON of hunters around the world are dying.  They show up expecting one thing, and it isn't working.  I can see this montage of hunters from all over the place using tricks we've seen and then dying.  So Sam and Dean look around and things are bad.  And they realize that the hunter community needs them.  So they start working together.  They're traveling around, establishing a network of hunters, and they're sharing info.  Every week, they'd pair with a new hunter or face an old monster in a totally new way.  "We heard Linda in the Czech Republic says gold bullets work on vampires.  And Hideo in Japan says that rugaru can be taken down by iron weapons"

And what would be cool for me is the idea that you'd have this international community of hunters.  You could spin off a show, or you could keep the show going indefinitely once Jensen and Jared get tired of it.  Or if you just want to end it there, you have these boys really living John's legacy - literally writing the book on hunting like John's Journal 2.0.  The season would be almost all monsters - very small and intimate with not much tying it together besides building this community and learning what kills what.

And, yeah, maybe heaven and hell get closed off during this time.  So no angels and no demons.  But my favorite part would be watching these two guys struggle again.  Because whenever it's a ghost episode, the conflict is always just figuring out what it is.  Once they see it's a ghost, they get salt and iron and it's over.  But what if figuring out it was a ghost was only half the problem because they had *no idea* how to kill it?  So they're using gold and silver and wood and water and throwing everything they can think of until it works.

And maybe you'd even get the monsters figuring things out.  Because werewolves know to stay away from silver - it's in their DNA.  But what if it wasn't dangerous anymore?  But literally anything else could be.  You could have an episode where vampires are dying out because human blood is poisonous now (like dead man's blood was before).  They don't know what to eat anymore.  They're starving. 

I know I've thrown this idea out before, but it's so cool to me.  And I know reaction to it has been lukewarm, but I think it hits so many areas that you'd want in a season, Info smile

3,356

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I watched a video on HitFix today, and they were saying that Warner Bros. is *very* worried about this movie being a springboard for the DCCU.  That there are two things that work in the movie - Batman and Lex.  And that everything else sorta falls flat.  And if this last trailer is any indication, they're hoping to drive that point forward.  That, hey, this might be the best Batman we've ever seen on screen.  That, hey, this is really BATMAN vs superman.  And that maybe we'll see Justice League pushed back, and DC is going to let the real foundation for the DCCU ride on Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the new Batfleck solo film.

And I can definitely see that.  I think it was you who said that you expected to see a Batman trailer, a Superman trailer, and a joint one.  And what's weird is that we know there are Clark-centric scenes in the movie.  We see him and Ma Kent.  We see him and Perry.  But even those scenes paint Clark in an odd way.

What's bizarre to me is that this is so the opposite of how this relationship usually works.  Superman is the freakin' boy scout - everyone loves him.  Batman is the Dark Knight - he's often painted as a villain even in his solo work.  Gotham has this uneasy relationship with him because he's this vigilante.  No one ever calls Superman a vigilante.  So the idea that this movie is somehow Batman as the hero and Superman as the villain is just so backwards to me.  But for most of the trailers, that's sorta what we're seeing.  Clark is distant and menacing and very alien.  Batman is this underdog who puts on the suit to show this guy what humans are all about.

But it's also playing the more traditional angle - "Bat vigilante" - "trampling on civil liberties" - "thinks he's above the law" - but these are all quotes from Clark.  So it almost plays into the villain side of things - Clark is jealous of Batman for some reason, and he uses his job at the Daily Planet to battle for the public's admiration.

I know Superman isn't the villain, but if this were an original property, it's definitely how I'd think it was set up.  Batman is the hero and Superman is the villain. 

I've been skeptical about this movie from day one - I just want it to work out so well, but I just wasn't a big fan of Man of Steel.  I wasn't a fan of the Affleck casting.  Wasn't a fan of older Batman.  Wasn't a fan of so much so soon (Superman...and Batman!  And Wonder Woman!  And Lex!  And Doomsday!  But also Aquaman and Cyborg and Flash!  But also Superman's side characters!  But also Alfred!  And maybe Robin!...etc).  Wasn't a fan of the Eisenberg casting.  Wasn't a fan of the darker tone.  And now I'm worried that it isn't going to be as fun as this movie *needs* to be.  I think the tone is going to be wrong, and I think the creative direction is going to be wrong.  I don't think Zach Snyder is the right guy for this.  I watch that trailer and it's *so close* to exactly what I want, but I find myself almost wishing it was closer to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsmqc4RhSQY) more than what we're getting.

3,357

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So the final BvS trailer came out.  An, honestly, I'm surprised we didn't get a trailer from Superman's perspective.  In every single trailer we got, Superman is pretty much the bad guy.  Batman thinks he's the bad guy.  Lex thinks he's the bad guy.  The US government thinks he's the bad guy.  You have the weird dreamlike sequence where Superman is menacing with guards and rips off Batman's mask.  You have him walking/standing alone in a defendant's podium in a courtroom.  There's the weird sequences where he's hovering over flood victims and standing/doing nothing while people worship him.  There's the threats to Batman "If I wanted it, you'd be dead already" and "The Bat is dead."  There's even the odd scene with Ma Kent where she tells Clark that he never owed the planet anything.

The only truly heroic thing we've seen in any of the promotional materials is him saving the NASA-looking rocket.

Snyder has said that this isn't a sequel to Man of Steel.  And we all know the controversy regarding the end of that movie where audiences have criticized how Superman handled the last fight.  But I'm just really surprised that we haven't seen much defending Superman in this movie.  Clark tries to vilify Batman, but it seems like Bruce and Perry are there to defend Batman when he does. 

So I wonder if that's what this movie is.  Batman's story where Superman is sorta distant so it seems like he's worse than he is, Superman convinces Batman that he's good, and they team up with various Justice Leaguers to fight Doomsday.

Because that's just another weird artistic choice that I don't necessarily like.  Just throw it on the pile, I guess.

3,358

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Also to be fair, the two cities are 600 miles away from each other. It probably makes less sense for Team Flash to call Oliver than it would make for Team Arrow to call Barry. smile.

True, but they did some prep before going to Earth-2.  There would've been time for Oliver or Roy or Diggle or whoever to get on the jet/train and get to Central City in a few hours.  It's just so weird that, in both episodes, they chose the more-dangerous route without even considering the alternatives.

I think, in theory, I love the idea that superheroes let each other do their thing.  That Superman could solve all of Batman's crime in ten minutes, but he lets Batman do it.  And Barry is sorta doing the same thing with Oliver.  But I like that Oliver lets Barry struggle at things, and Barry lets Oliver struggle at things because it makes them better heroes in the end.  And for the most part, that's how I go about non-crossover episodes.  But both those examples really stood out to me.

3,359

(1,684 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, I don't want every episode to have a mention.  And you're right, they have plenty of throwaway lines to show that they're a united universe.  Heck, last night's episode had nods to every part of the DC TV multiverse, including the original Flash TV show and Supergirl (would've loved a Smallville reference, though). 

But instead of a throwaway line about Cisco or a joke about Barry, these were two situations where life was literally at stake because they didn't make the reference.  If Roy had died, Barry would've been *furious* that they didn't call him on something that would've been no problem for him.  If Velocity-7 had killed Jay and people had died, Oliver would've been *furious* that no one called him to help.  The more crossovers they do, the more they're forming a Justice League.  They've all met each other now, and there's no excuse to risk lives when they just need to make a phone call.

And the reason why I think it's a problem in these two situations instead of any other is the fact that they *couldn't* have mentioned it off-screen.  In the Arrow situation, we saw the whole conversation.  There was no time for Felicity to check, and there was no conversation on the team about calling Barry.  In the Flash one, we saw the whole conversation with Caitlin/Joe/Jay, and they didn't consider calling Oliver (caveat - those three characters have had the least interaction with Oliver and they might've legitimately not thought he'd say yes).  Now the part that could've happened off-screen is Barry checking to see if Oliver can watch the city, but two things contradict that.  If Oliver said no (and he would've had to have), Barry still leaves the city unprotected, and even if he did say no, Oliver would've checked in considering Geomancer said he'd been causing earthquakes for days.

Now, of course, they're real-life logistics, and I think these were two situations where they could've made in-world explanations.  Barry can't get to the warehouse to save the day in 4 minutes because villain of the week.  Oliver can't come or spare anyone from his team because they're working on Dahrk.  It's not an argument that they should have more mentions in-universe - just that they should save them for situations like these - where they're being irresponsible by not making the call.

3,360

(486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

William has been brought up so much that he's gotta play into the endgame