Sliders.tv → Posts by Slider_Quinn21
What do we think of this season? I think the Darkness is a relatively compelling villain. I think the Lucifer stuff is interesting, but it is just a retread of season 5. I thought the show might reference it - it's usually meta enough to comment on itself when it's being repetitive.
At some point, they either need to have God show up or stop mentioning him.
SPOILERS
*
*
*
*
*
*
Well, you might've gotten your wish, Informant. Not sure if it's a tease of a tease (and if all the "you know I'd do anything for my little girl" talk means Lance is the guy who dies), but it certainly looks like Felicity is in trouble.
Solid winter finales for both. Definitely fear both Zoom and Dahrk.
Yeah, Alan Sepinwall said the same thing. That Marvel/Netflix should've had the freedom to decide to cut down the number of episodes if they chose to.
I've watched the first three. I started watching Mr. Robot and have been trying to watch Deadwood. Now that most of my shows are going on winter break, I should be able to finish this too. I've liked it so far. I like that it doesn't rely on Daredevil at all - it can survive on its own.
I do wonder if these guys will ever be incorporated into the ABC series or the movies.
Okay so I finally watched last week's "Heroes Join Forces" - I liked the threat they faced. Vandal Savage was good, and it used both casts very well. It's always cool to see Oliver hold his own alongside Barry, and I think the worlds mesh way better than I thought they were going to at first.
But something was off. I wasn't a huge fan of using time travel again - especially since Barry still hasn't cleaned up the mess from the last time he did it. I still think it's weird that Oliver discovers he has a child on the Flash (just like we discovered it last year on the Flash) - I know it was mostly done on Arrow, but actual reveal was done on Arrow. The show seems to assume that people watch both shows (and I know at least two people who only watch one).
And I felt like Barry was underused. It's like when Batman and Superman are fighting - they tend to depower Superman so that it isn't ridiculous for Batman to be fighting the same villain(s). Barry just kinda stood around for a lot of the same fight. I still think he could've fought Vandal by himself. He was an exceptional fighter but still just human.
I also feel like the show is doing a lot to set up Legends of Tomorrow instead of focusing on their own stuff. I like the crossovers that are a little more organic (like when each Oliver/Barry called the other when they needed help with a specific overwhelming task). Leaving Kendra with Team Arrow seemed a little forced, especially since Barry knows that Oliver has his own problems (although this was also written into the show).
All in all, I'm really enjoying both shows. I think Arrow Season 4 has been a big improvement. I just thought the crossover series was a bit underwhelming.
There's also rumors (not necessarily spoilers) that Jared Leto is playing an older Dick Grayson-turned-Joker. But there's also rumors that DC really wants to do a Red Hood story/movie - that it might even be the first Batman solo film directed by Affleck.
Yes. I think Dick Grayson is a great character that needs a spotlight. Like I said a while back on the older board, I was hoping we'd get the full gambit. Original Robin leaves, Teen Titans, Jason Todd, Death in the Family, Barbara/Killing Joke/Oracle, Tim Drake, etc
My fear is that there's one Robin, Dick Grayson, and he's the one that's dead. Robin hasn't been in any of the promotional material outside of the vandalized suit. A Robin is dead. Now maybe Bruce doesn't want to include Dick (if Jason is dead) in his war on Superman, but he brings Alfred. And even if Bruce/Dick had a falling out and he's out there Nightwinging it - Bruce has been working on this plan for years in that case. Dick's a smart guy. He'd figure it out, right? And just show up? Which is maybe what happens but if Dick Grayson shows up in a weird blue/black costume randomly, I think that's gonna confuse the heck out of some people.
Yeah but if Batman never showed himself, wouldn't that make him even a bigger hit to young kids? Their imaginations would go crazy thinking about what he'd look like. Would he have actual wings? Would he have fangs? Is he a literal half bat / half man? I'm sure some of the kids in Clark's middle school would have family in Gotham, and they'd claim they saw him.
And if Clark didn't idolize Batman as a kid, then Barry Allen might've. Or Hal Jordan. Or Oliver Queen. Or Victor Stone. That's been my problem with this from the beginning. Batman is a legend and the rest are getting started.
And there'd definitely be Halloween costumes. They might not be accurate to Bruce's actual suit, but they'd exist.
But we know that Batman ran with Robin. We know that Robin's costume is colorful - I doubt Batman was strictly a legend his whole career. Robin tends to lighten up Batman a bit, and I bet he made some sort of public appearance at some point.
In fact, speaking of Robin, Clark/Barry/Hal/Oliver/Victor are all Robin's age. Maybe even younger. You could've had a young Clark Kent *wishing* he could be Robin. Heck, there could be a DCCU elseworld where Clark Kent *was* Robin. That's just....way too weird.
Yeah I think the world as a whole would be pretty split on someone like Batman. In a lot of ways, J. Jonah Jameson should be in Batman comics instead of Spider-Man comics. It's easy to see Batman as a criminal. He's violent, and he's a textbook vigilante instead of a costumed superhero. I think most adults would be torn on whether or not he's good for the city, not even including the thought that Batman is the *reason* many of his villains are created (which wouldn't necessarily be public knowledge).
But a 12-year-old? He'd love it. There'd be no politics. There'd be no shades of gray. There'd be a badass ninja who dresses like a bat and beats up criminals, and boys that age would love that. Absolutely love it. So if we're looking at Clark's childhood happening while Batman's career is at it's peak, I can virtually guarantee that Clark dressed up as Batman for Halloween. Or he had close friends that did, and Clark didn't because he didn't want to look like a follower.
I know I harp on the age thing, but part of me is convinced that Superman should WORSHIP Batman because of that part of his childhood. That he should trust that the Batman would never be bad. Because it'd be his hero. And that would be a cool thing to add to the movie - the reason Batman and Superman is such a "fair" fight is that it *kills* Clark to have to fight his idol growing up.
And I just don't think stuff like that has even been considered. Batman would've been the only costumed hero in the world. No powers. Just a guy out there doing his best to clean up the streets. Clark would respect that. Especially a young Clark without a full grasp of the world. And Clark's a nostalgic guy - I think he'd have a soft spot for Batman - not hate him.
The timeline is just weird to me. I hope it makes more sense than I'm fearing it does.
I'm late to this party... blame work and my lack of ability to think of a friggin title for my next book. But I have thoughts!!!
Friggin Title For My Next Book. Done. 
I can see where your concerns are coming from, but I am going to wait and see how the movie turns out before I criticize any actual plot. Half of the time, the trailers are cutting random scenes together to look like one flowing story, but it doesn't reflect the actual product at all. So, we'll see.
No, I agree. I'm 100% sure there will be *an* answer to my concerns. I'm just worried it won't be a good one based on what I'm seeing.
In a lot of versions of Batman, he isn't played as something as public as Superman. He is a legend within Gotham that people know about, but never really know for sure. So if this is the version that they're going with, then even an older Batman could be big news, as long as this is the first time he's shown himself to the public.
Agreed. But the contradiction is Perry White calling him "The Batman" in the first trailer. And the "Keep Calm" sign calling him Batman. So people know he's Batman. And are pretty sure he exists.
As for how well the press covers things... In the real world, there are plenty of issues that the press dances around and avoids all the time. It's the difference between a "mass shooting" and a "terrorist attack". Referring to a "bat vigilante" paints a very different picture than "Batman".
Yeah. I definitely see that. And I read somewhere that Affleck said that both characters sorta come into meeting each other already knowing the other's identity (I don't know if that's a spoiler since it's a 3rd person account of an interview with zero context) and if that's the case, that scene's context changes a bit. Either way, Clark is definitely slanted. What's weird is that both characters should know better. If Batman and Superman showed up on the scene at the same time, that's one thing. But if Batman has rescued Gotham a hundred times from at least 3-4 members of his rogues' gallery. Superman should know that Batman is a good guy, whether or not his methods are a little out there. And if this is 2-3 years after Metropolis, Bruce shouldn't be as skeptical as Lex.
I mean, again, Clark would've been a teenager during Batman's career? Maybe even a preteen? Wouldn't every kid at Smallville Middle/High School be going bonkers for the masked vigilante in Gotham? Wouldn't Clark have been a big fan of Batman? And that's what bothers me about the age thing - these guys aren't contemporaries anymore. Bruce is a hero that Clark grew up watching. That's really really weird to me.
The trailer was interesting, but it confused me. And I'm not sure that it's painting the right picture. This Superman doesn't look like the character from Man of Steel. He is angry and bitter and apparently has an army of Nazi soldiers bowing before him.
Possible spoiler - ****
Word is that that whole sequence is a dream. Not sure where people are getting that, but it makes sense. Batman is a soldier living in some sort of post-apocalyptic Superman-dominated society. That's why Superman looks evil, has soldiers, and Batman is in fatigues. No idea if that's accurate, but it makes sense.
****
The voice is Batman. It makes sense that he would use it even around people that he knows, because he is Batman. Unlike Superman, Batman is closer to his true self than Bruce would be (in Batman Beyond Bruce even thinks of himself as Batman in his own head).
Yeah. Actually reminds me of one of my favorite Max Landis tweets of all time. Someone asked him why, in scripts, he always refers to Bruce as Batman and always refers to Superman as Clark. His answer is genius to me.
"Because Superman is just Clark in a costume. Bruce Wayne died in an alley. That thing in the suit is Batman."
I think that's a pretty awesome way of looking at those characters.
And Lex... I really hate the way he looks in the trailer. The portrayal seems completely wrong. He looks stupid. His voice is annoying. The question is, is this just his costume?
Maybe. We know it's possible from this image 
But every time we've seen Lex (in 3-4 different scenes), he's wearing the wig. Looks like he's worn it in all three acts - even when he's acting menacing. Lex is what I'm most worried about.
Yeah and there's enough from the trailers to show that they're going to do some work with the timeline to explain what's going on. Not only are there newpaper clippings of what Batman's been up to, there's a couple actual shots from Batman fighting crime in Gotham (or at least fighting street-level crime somewhere). There's at least one scene in Gotham (riddler question marks would only be there, right), and we saw the DCCU's version of the Thomas/Martha Wayne deaths. Not to mention seeing Man of Steel from Bruce's perspective. So they'll explain who Bruce is and what he's been doing and how it relates to Superman.
And what's funny, it's the the way the question is phrased that bothered me - and that could be fixed in editing or taking a different take (which happens all the time). "Mr. Wayne, what do you think of the reappearance of the Batman?" is a question that seems to cover all Clark's bases within the true context of the movie. Batman disappeared. Now he's back. Let's ask the biggest man in Gotham about that.
I can break down my other issue in SPOILERVISION
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
Lex's characterization. I don't get it. He's worn the wig in every appearance, and he just comes across as a goofy character. I don''t see Lex that way. Even when he's trying to be scary, it doesn't come off as intimidating, and I just never really bought Eisenberg's casting (I didn't buy Ledger's casting either so this one is just a thought now). I've always thought Lex should be the same size or bigger than Superman. Where Lex is an imposing man who still looks at Superman and thinks he can take him. Someone who might shatter his hand trying to punch Superman. I actually thought Kevin Spacey was cast correctly, and I thought he did a great job.
Now the Doomsday thing really didn't bother me. It's just a tease. I think the Zod twist is kinda cool. Doomsday is a guy who can realistically fight the DC Trinity on his own. And unlike the Avengers movies, we're going to see 3-on-1 as opposed to 7-on-150 or whatever.
But Affleck's Batman voice? Isn't it just as bad as Bale's? And just like the end of Dark Knight Rises, where Bruce is using the voice even though EVERYONE THERE knows who he is, Batman is using the voice when talking to Superman in a scene that's gotta be in Act 3 - when Superman has to know his identity by now.
I'm going to see it. And it's going to get it's full chance. But, man, that trailer brought up a ton of concerns.
(There might be a minor spoiler in this, but it's barely a spoiler and I'm just speculating on a trailer. But if you want to be completely blind on this movie going in, you can see yourself out)
Okay. BvS trailer 2.....geez. What a disappointment. I could go into the myriad of reasons why the trailer really concerned me (on a movie I was basically already sold on), but I want to focus on one thing. This is something the movie will almost certainly explain, but it ties in with my biggest problem with this movie since day one - what I'm seeing about Batman is very contradictory, even between trailers.
So the whole point of Batfleck is that he's older. He's been Batman for a while, and he comes out of retirement to take on Superman - since he's the only one who can. And I've come to peace with that - the DCCU can *sorta* be a sequel to the Dark Knight trilogy in the sense that Batman is old and retired - the continuity will be different than the Nolanverse but people can pretend that Bruce returned, got partners, fought Joker again, etc. And unlike Marvel, DC decided to go with an older version of a popular/established character instead of rebooting him again. It's a side to the Batman story that, unlike Spider-Man, they'll actually show us. Whatever. That's fine.
And in the three trailers we've seen, there's tons of evidence that this is true. Robin suit. Riddler question mark. Jared Leto Joker stuff in both this and Suicide Squad. This is very clearly a Batman who has done his thing, retired for whatever reason, and moved on. Heck, the Keep Calm and Call Batman sign from Man of Steel backs up this story.
Cut to trailer 2. Bruce shows up at a fancy gala, and Clark asks him about his thoughts on the "Bat vigilante" in Gotham. And they have a philosophical argument about civil liberties and the media and blah blah blah.
Now, again, I know this is material that will 100% be covered in the movie. But....what? Why is Clark Kent asking that question, and if this isn't the exact moment that Bruce learns that Clark is Superman, then Brucefleck isn't smart enough. If Bruce has been Batman long enough to have an established rogues gallery (and he does), then there's zero reason for Clark Kent to get a quote from Bruce. It would be like getting a quote from someone about the OJ story. Or 9/11 - it would've been a story that was covered over and over again. I'm sure there would've been a hundred quotes from the Son of Gotham regarding the bat vigilante. And there's no way anyone would call him that - they'd know he was Batman. He'd probably have his own damn statue in Gotham to match Superman's in Metropolis.
Clark would've been on Earth and in the US for Batman's whole career - he would've known about Batman. It would've been a big story. And Batman's disappearance would've been a big story. But both of those stories would've died out. The way Clark's investigating Batman ("nobody cares about Clark Kent taking on the Batman") makes it seem like this happened:
Batman's career in Gotham was either completely spotless (say, 1960s Batman level) or his career was completely that of legend (say, first half of 1989 Batman). Either way, Batman returns to Gotham and uses infinitely more brutal tactics to take down criminals (backed up by the Gotham article and Clark's comment about "civil liberties"). But I'm sorry, I don't buy that. I could see an angry Bruce coming back out of retirement to fight Superman, but why would he brutally fight criminals first? Why would he alert Superman of his presence? Is he training to get back into shape by taking it out on criminals?
Then there's the whole timeline of this. The trailers have implied that Batman was already retired when Superman showed up. That Bruce was in Metropolis and ran into the chaos and saved that girl and then became Batman again. That's fine.
But when the movie starts, tons of time seems to have passed. Metropolis seems fine so it was completely rebuilt. Not only that, Superman has won over the public in Metropolis enough that he's universally revered (if it was 50/50, there's no way that statue gets built - it would need to be overwhelming - "False God" graffiti notwithstanding. And the Senate is now finally having hearings (it took almost 3 years for the 9/11 report to be published - this would probably be more extensive since it deals with alien life and much more destruction). I'd guess that at least 2-3 years had to have passed since the Superman/Zod fight.
So Bruce is all pissed off, comes out of retirement, brutally beats up criminals to such an extent that reporters start reporting on his new tactics. But he doesn't go to Metropolis - he stays in Gotham. And for the years he's waiting, Clark would've built an impressive amount of goodwill - enough to win over everyone in Metropolis - that Bruce simply ignores? Superman would've done an interview before the Senate hearings, I assume, where he'd explain that Zod was bad and that he did his best to save people in Metropolis.
And in the mean time, Lex is (spoiler) so (spoiler) can (spoiler) in the 3rd act. Does that take 2-3 years? And if he's manipulating a fight between Batman and Superman, why does *that* take 2-3 years to pull together.
Which brings me to my complaint, finally. None of the above really makes sense to me at the moment. It almost seems like they wanted to use an older Batman for story reasons, but their plot is almost universally describing a new/younger Batman. Someone who decided to be a hero and train after seeing the destruction in Metropolis. Someone who would've just burst onto the scene in Gotham who the media (including Clark) don't know much about. And that his battle with Superman is Batman's real coming out party.
Except that Batman is older and retired and famous enough for Perry White to know him and for him to have a rogue's gallery and a Robin that lived and died, but the media still refers to him as the "bat vigilante" and getting opinions on him and his tactics are still newsworthy. And Batman himself was so mad about what happened with Zod/Superman that he waited 2-3 years before doing anything directly about it? Except, of course, doing random Batmanning in Gotham, enough to be newsworthy. Lex, despite being just as scared/suspicious as Bruce, has his own plan that also takes 2-3 years to pull off. That he knows Clark well enough to know by name but hasn't ever met/shook hands with.
It seems like a jumbled mess. And while the movie can answer most of my questions, the dialogue when set side to side with themselves still implies a disparity in logic.
Anyone else bothered by this?
That was pretty cool.
I've always thought about a Sliders video game. It'd actually be relatively easy to do, I'd think (I'm not a programmer). But you'd just need to create one area of town/city and then alter it for however many levels/worlds you want. Maybe one is old west, one is Nazi, one is Confederate, etc.
I imagine the plot would be some sort of "Chasing a Rickman-like character" and/or Kromaggs.
Yeah I imagine it's Lance too because too many people like Felicity. My only thought was the fact that it was Barry in the flashforward scene. I guess he could just be a forced crossover (and a way to tease Zoom on Arrow) and Barry just being a good friend, but when I saw him, I assumed it was Felicity. Or at least someone Barry has met - so someone on Team Arrow.
I can see what you're saying about a weakened Oliver, but that same flashforward scene makes it seem like Oliver knew that he know he's softer. And even says that he's going to kill "him" - which he hasn't done since season one.
Outside of the last ten minutes of this last episode, I don't think the Olicity stuff has been bad. I thought Felicity has been a pretty fun character again, and I thought the chemistry has been pretty good. I even struggled to remember whether or not Olicity was even together until all the lovey dovey stuff this week.
SPOILERS
*
*
*
Is it just me or is the idea of Claire dying in childbirth just crazy?
Someone needs to put "you bet on a game you don't understand? you're an idiot!" on youtube. I love that scene so much.
I get that, but I'm not sure I understand holding a show accountable for something the marketing department at Netflix did. Show runners don't make those trailers, right? I remember Lindelof/Cuse getting mad about LOST promos back in the day for showing things they didn't want shown. If those guys weren't part of their promos, I can't imagine anyone involved at Jessica Jones was involved with the Netflix stuff.
Did you watch the trailer? Trailer seems pretty clear cut what the show is supposed to be - Netflix might just release trailers later than other networks, which is why they resorted to the other marketing campaign. I don't remember how soon before the show the Daredevil trailer showed up.
Beyond Earth 2, I still believe this is a perfect opportunity to visit a version the big guns they don 't seem to be allowed to use. Earth 3 gives us the Crime Syndicate consisting of Ultraman, Owl Man, Super Woman, Power Ring and of course Johnny Quick. They are not just doubles of Clark Kent, etc; they are their own unique characters in the comics with different origins from the heroes; it should be just enough to let them be used without stepping on any plans for Superman, etc.
Okay that'd be pretty sweet. I imagine their Crime Syndicate would just be darker versions of the guys they already have, but that would be a great way to get around the system. Especially if they never refer to their alter-ego's actual names.
Still think a Welling cameo would be cool and call back to the legacy of the DC heroes on the CW. Even something like Justin Hartley appearing as Oliver Queen (or, heck, Aquaman) could be funny if done correctly.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/35654 … e#/slide/1
Info, we got our Jessica Jones trailer finally.
Maybe this will happen later in the season, but I was sorta hoping they'd have more fun with the alternate worlds on the show like Fringe did. Is the only difference between Earth 1 and Earth 2 who the Flash is? Why haven't the writers taken advantage of differences in pop culture, history, etc? I'd also like to see them move beyond Earth 2. The rumor about the Smallville earth was probably far-fetched, but they could play around with the idea of going to a world with Superman (even if they just see a shadow flying above the city) or any of the other heroes they aren't allowed to feature.
I know, on a Sliders board, I'm going to suggest more parallel universe stuff, but it seems like the writers aren't having as much fun with the concept as they could be.
Nah, nothing in the movie indicated that it took place in any specific year. It's just funny - phone technology has advanced so much in a few years that unless you have a Galaxy/iPhone, the movie just looks extremely dated. I think the artist character had a nicer phone so maybe it was supposed to show how poor the gambler was supposed to be. It just seemed really weird to see in a recent movie.
Watched this movie last night. I thought it was interesting (and stars Danielle Panabaker from "Flash") and well done. However, a bunch of things bugged me about it. It was made last year (and seems to be present day) but the one guy was using a flip phone - was it supposed to take place in the past? And why were they making money on televised dog races? I also wasn't sure why any of those people were friends :-) It's like they thought through a lot of the time travel stuff, but they didn't think through any of the non-time travel stuff.
I'm also not sure why Callie's character thought she could retroactively change the past when I don't think that's how any of the characters saw the time travel working the entire movie.
But it was entertaining.
Yeah it just sorta feels false that there was another Joker-like villain before the Joker, who feels genuinely unique. I think it was pretty cool for Jerome to be on the show, and I thought the actor was *spectacular*. But wouldn't Gordon (and to a lesser extent, Bruce) get Jerome flashbacks when the Joker shows up? Like "wow, another Jerome!" instead of "holy crap, what is that?"
I thought both premieres were very strong. I felt that Flash followed up with their first season pretty well (although the way they handled the singularity was a bit botched IMO). I'm interested to see what Jay Garrick brings to the table, and I'm interested in both Zoom and whatever happens with Dr. Wells.
Arrow was very good, I thought. Bringing in mysticism, making Oliver the Green Arrow finally, the new team dynamic, making Lance a bit of a villain - all cool moves. I even felt like we had the old Felicity back. Should be a much better season.
Although, mirroring my Jerome/Joker thoughts - the official Arrowverse continuity is that Roy Harper was the Arrow and now a new guy is a semi-copycat of him as the Green Arrow? I like the way that evolved, but it's kinda weak that Star City's greatest hero is just holding someone else's mantle.
I feel like this season is good but not really all that interesting, if that makes any sense. I've been pleasantly surprised that Noah is the only real character who has shown back up (which makes sense from a plot standpoint). Mohinder and Hiro have been referenced, but almost nothing else. And I feel like the show feels a bit more fresh. I'm gonna stick with it.
Yeah I was relieved to see that, but the end montage sorta spoiled it for me. I read in a review that said that, no matter what, the Joker ends up being a Jerome copycat more than an original character. Or, in a way, a coincidence. I've always sorta liked the "Killing Joke" version of Joker who is driven to madness by "one bad day." Any version of Joker who's already crazy, or worse, inspired by someone else - is just sorta weak to me.
But they were true to their word, and I have to give that to them.
By the way, whatever happened to the Ivy character? She was on all the promotional materials, played a big part in the pilot, randomly showed up again in season one, and she hasn't been seen/mentioned since.
I think the problem is that most people associate cartoons with kids' movies. And while, yeah, superhero movies are kid friendly, I think the format alone would scare away some adults. Even if they simply animated the exact script from, say, Age of Ultron with the actor's voices, I think it'd make a percentage of the box office a live-action Age of Ultron made.
Some of the DC Animated movies are good. Some are pretty dark and are made for a more adult audience. But if you made an "edgy" theatrical cartoon superhero movie, I think it'd end up in a weird no-man's land where no one wants to see it. It'd be too cartoony for adults and too mature for kids. And even if they didn't go mature with it, any humor will come off as, well, cartoonish.
And for the record, I agree with you. I love the DCAU - I think it's the definitive version of most of the DC characters. But I think people would prefer to see Ben Affleck walk around in a cape and cowl than hear Kevin Conroy. Even though Kevin Conroy, as far as I'm concerned IS Batman.
Well, they're going to do an animated Spider-Man movie. If that works, it could mean that an animated superhero movie could work. But as far as I know, the only movie that tried that was Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, and they didn't repeat that model with the second Batman: TAS movie, so it couldn't have gone overwhelmingly well.
ireactions, just for curiosity's sake, where do you get your TV/movie news. You always have cool info
No, for sure. But I wonder if there are more people who check those sites vs. people who are just going to log on to Netflix one day, see a giant ad for Jessica Jones, and decide then and there whether to watch it or not. It'll have the Marvel logo, it'll have the "Netflix Original Program" emblem. And people will give it a shot.
And don't forget, it'll be out there a while. This isn't a movie that needs to have a big opening weekend to be successful or a show that airs weekly. Even if there were no trailers or bad-looking trailers, if the show was good, word of mouth would spread and people would be free to watch from the beginning at their leisure.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe the footage of what they've shot is terrible. Maybe they know the show will suck, and they're trying to hide it as long as possible. But without any evidence either way, I just suspect that the trailer campaign will have little-to-no impact on how the show performs.
I'll watch. But almost certainly in a "Iron Man was so good that I have to watch Thor" kind of way. Jessica Jones seems like an interesting idea for a character from what I've read, but it's not something I'm going to knock down the door to watch. Heck, I was really excited about Daredevil but still took more than a month to watch it.
Well who watches those trailers? Where do they "air"? Aren't the only people who'd even see them the people who are actively looking for information on Jessica Jones? How does the average Netflix subscriber decide if they're going to watch a show or not? Is it 99% word of mouth? Or do they read the tagline and then decide? Watch an episode and decide? Is the trailer even available on Netflix?
The only "trailers" I've ever seen for a TV show I actively seeked out. And they're usually genre shows (Minority Report, Lucifer, and Supergirl were the trailers I saw for the upcoming series this fall). For the 100 other TV shows, I've never seen a trailer. So you ask how the trailers help, and I ask who the trailers are even designed for? Because my guess it's for people who are going to watch it no matter what, not to try and attract a new audience.
(and I'm guessing they're right)
It's Netflix and Marvel. They could be assuming that, after the success of Daredevil, people will watch no matter what. So they're going with a mystery angle with the trailers. Seems like the campaign is sorta "you don't know her name, but you will"
It does sorta remind me of X-Men: Days of Future Past, which definitely seemed like it was releasing footage pretty late. But you gotta think they have enough footage for a teaser. So I'm guessing it's the intended message, and they're assuming people will watch whether they give us more than a teaser or not.
I watched it On Demand. Or on the website. http://www.nbc.com/heroes-reborn/dark-matters/episodes
Yeah. I think the show is basically supposed to be one big tease (as a prequel tends to be) and so it's hard not to look forward and think about how this show is supposed to be built.
As it is, it's still a good show. I agree with your comments - Barbara is much better as a villain than as a nagging fiance. Jerome is fun but almost has to be Joker, right? Might be too much for it to be a curve ball to pull that rug out.
Maybe we never archived our last discussion.
I've only seen the premiere of season 2 of Gotham (subtitled Rise of the Villains). The show is definitely becoming Batman without Batman as opposed to a prequel. Penguin is already (the main?) boss in the Gotham mob. Two-Face, Riddler, Joker, Zsasz, Catwoman are just younger versions of their eventual-villain characters (with Riddler, Two-Face, and Zsasz we're just talking about slightly younger). We're basically already ready for Batman to show up, which makes the Bruce story seem slower than usual.
It's a fun show to watch, but I think it's so far from what I was expecting/hoping it to be. Would a fairly-standard police procedural set in Gotham just not work? Young veteran of the police force Gordon working with younger Harvey Bullock who dabbles in the occasional fit of corruption trying to take down the traditional mob in Gotham. The only villain character around is Cobblepot, who is young and reckless. His story has been good, but it needs to have been slower.
The way I see it, Bruce is in the first episode as a catalyst but doesn't show up for years. Every season takes place over the course of a year or two, with Gordon taking down crime and corruption. As soon as he takes one guy down (Maroni), another is shown to be pulling his strings (Falcone). When he gets to Falcone, corruption in his own precinct prevents Gordon from doing his job. Season 3 is Jim fighting the police themselves as Falcone gets desperate. With Gordon/Dent decimating his ranks, he starts turning to lunatics as his soldiers. And those soldiers become lieutenants.
Meanwhile, Gordon doesn't notice any of this. By season 4, he's risen to almost-commissioner, he's cleaned up the department, and he's ready to go after Falcone. He finally gets his man by the end, and there's a big celebration. He's taken down the mob in Gotham.
But then he looks around. The new head of the Falcone family is that weird-looking guy named Penguin (maybe an old CI of his - that angle is interesting). Around the city, there are crimes attributed to guys named Riddler and Freeze and Scarecrow. In cleaning up Gotham, he's exposed a layer of madness that no one knew was there.
Season 5 either introduces a 21-22 year-old Bruce Wayne ready to fight this maddening city, has Gordon investigating a masked vigilante (that ends up being a never-seen Bruce), or ends with Gordon wondering whether or not taking down Falcone was worth it.
To me, it'd be procedural. Gordon takes down random criminals, all tied to Maroni. And then Falcone. To get the crime-side of things, Penguin slowly rises up the ranks, learning things with Gordon about how deep crime goes. And while Gordon is too focused to really notice, the weekly crimes start becoming a bit more elaborate. Laughing gas. Fear toxin. Booby traps. Henchmen in costumes. Fewer men Gordon catches are going to jail - more are going to Arkham.
The main characters would be Gordon and Penguin. The side characters like Riddler/Dent/Catwoman would show up as one-off/recurring characters that serve a logical purpose (criminal informants, allies to Penguin or Gordon, one-off criminals). Bruce doesn't appear at all after the Pilot until he's grown or already Batman (although Alfred could show up every once in a while too).
The main character in my Gotham would be the city. It's sick from crime, but the sickness is covering up the insanity that's underneath. And as Gordon cures the city of crime, he exposes the insanity. Season one would be Law and Order: Gotham. Season 3 would be closer to season one of our version of Gotham. It wouldn't be until season 5 that we'd even get close to where we are in "Rise of the Villains"
I also thought it was good. In fact, I watched the prequel web series "Dark Matters" before it - it's a prequel series focusing on Quentin (conspiracy guy) and his sister (an EVO). Both were pretty well done.
What I like is that this isn't a reimagining entirely - there's threads tied to the first run. And if we get more Micah, more Molly, etc - with cameos/flybys from non-HRG characters, this could really become what season 2 of Heroes was supposed to be - a new story each season. It's a shame that Heroes wasn't produced now - after American Horror Story and True Detective, I think Kring might've had the guts to go through with his plan.
80% of my problem with Heroes seasons 2-4 have to do with Sylar. With him out of the picture (only referenced in a visual cameo, which might've even only been in Dark Matters now that I think about it), it has a chance to succeed.
That's pretty awesome customer service if that gets done.
Well, and I think I've said this before, with a retired Batman I wouldn't have *any* Batman solo films. We just had a trilogy, and I think Affleck should be the Nick Fury of the DCCU. Have him appear a ton, and make him the glue that holds the universe together. He can suit up and fight, but I want him to be the grizzled veteran putting a team together and pointing these powerful gods in the right direction.
The problem with human villains and Superman is you get Superman Returns. There's no place for a climactic action sequence, and you end up with your climax being Clark holding up a piece of rock. Every action sequence in that movie was either an act of nature (plane crash), kryptonite-aided (with Luthor's thugs), or Superman dominating humans (the robbery sequence).
With a Batman movie, main villain thug #4 can at least fight the main hero. In a Superman movie, it's either someone crazy powerful or they're no match for him.
I'd be cool with some of these movies simply not being big enough to call in the whole League. There are cool villains who aren't going to try to blow up a city.
Damn, I meant to add that. I would definitely like to see that. Something (relatively) intimate wouldn't require the League to gather, which would also not require the "where is Superman?" that people would ask.
The problem is that these are gods. And the only way to challenge a god is with another god. Humans vs. Superman haven't really made good movies - the only ones people seem to like are ones with Zod in them. Same with Flash or Wonder Woman, although their rogues' galleries are a little more obscure. Green Lantern can just be sent into space. Same with Martian Manhunter if he ever gets a solo film. Aquaman could take place entirely underwater.
Well that's the thing. They explained it. And Barry worships Oliver and probably assumes that Ollie can handle anything. And even then, they brought Barry in a couple times when they needed him (and Oliver showed up when Barry needed help). But a TV show and a movie are different. In the Arrowverse, both characters showed up on the other show for sweeps when something big happened.
In a movie, it's *always* sweeps. Something big is *always* happening. And when something big happens, it'd be illogical for Oliver not to call Barry and vice-versa.
In the trailer for BvS, Bruce is in Metropolis during the fight with Zod. He runs into the rubble as the building falls down. That's what, in theory, any of the Justice League would do. Heck, that's why the Justice League forms in the first place. Something world shattering happens and the team has to unite.
What happens is that, in solo movies, the stakes are usually just as high. In Thor: The Dark World, the earth is still being invaded by space creatures through a portal - just like Avengers. In Iron Man 3, the President has been kidnapped. In Captain America: Winter Soldier, the capital of the US is under direct attack from its own operatives. There isn't the level of destruction from Avengers, but the Avengers only united because of one Loki attack. The Battle of New York happened way after the Avengers had already assembled.
In Phase 2, the explanation seems to be that the events in each of those movies happened before the Avengers could assemble and were over before anyone could react. But in the DCCU, there won't be any incident that could happen "before anyone could react." Flash could be on the other side of the planet whenever you need him, and Superman could be on the moon in seconds. And if the danger was serious enough, they would.
Now Batman can fight the Penguin with only a dozen lives at stake and that doesn't need to involve Green Lantern. But the kind of people Superman fights? Or Flash? Or Green Lantern? Backup would be needed.
If a Zod/Superman fight took place after Justice League, the League would need to show up. Or there would need to be an explanation. And my idea provides the explanation.
FRIEND
Is it true that Sinestro has kidnapped GIRL and is holding her hostage on PLANET?
GREEN LANTERN
Afraid so. Time to suit up.
FRIEND
Isn't this a job for Superman too?
GREEN LANTERN
Checked. He's fighting some Parasite. Sounds serious. We're on our own.
*******
SIDEKICK
BARRY! Zoom is downtown, he's terrorizing the Central City Bank!
FLASH
On my way! Contact Diana! We could use some backup!
SIDEKICK
No answer on the JL Radio. I overheard something about an explosion on Themyscira.
FLASH
Damn. Oh well, I guess we'll see who's faster.
*******
BATMAN
Call the League. Something isn't right.
ORACLE
Busy.
BATMAN
I'll call them myself.
ORACLE
I mean they're busy.
BATMAN
All of them?
ORACLE
Everyone is currently occupied. Think it's connected.
BATMAN
It's always connected. Someone is keeping us apart.
Something like that.
Well, again, I think there needs to be more explanation in the DCCU than in the MCU. I agree that they need to do a better job of standing up as movies, but there's a big difference between the Avengers and the Justice League. And that difference is POWER.
Any member of the Justice League could destroy the entire Avengers lineup. Thor is probably the most powerful of the Avengers, and his "godliness" has been downplayed. He's just a strong "human" with "strong science/magic" aiding him.
Every member of the Justice League, outside of Batman, is a GOD. Both Flash and Superman could eliminate/kill every member of the Avengers (including/especially) Quicksilver before they even know what was happening. Green Lantern could contain/imprison everyone in constructs and fling them all into space. Wonder Woman has the strength/invulnerability of the Hulk with the agility of Iron Man and the fighting prowess of Thor. Martian Manhunter is basically Superman with the ability to shape-shift and phase through anything. Batman wins because Batman.
If Iron Man runs into a big problem, Thor can't just show up because he's in Asgard. Hulk could show up but he might be on the other side of the country/world and needs transport. And that applies to any of them. They handle their own stuff because, most of the time, it takes time for the Avengers to assemble.
If Joker is about to blow up Gotham, Superman can be there in one second. It doesn't matter where he was, he has godly speed. So does Flash. The other guys also have superhuman speed or the ability to travel at superhuman speeds. It would be flat-out irresponsible for any of the Justice League not to call the others. And it wouldn't be because they weren't capable or pride. It's simply because, if the stakes are high enough, there are probably others better suited for the job. Or, at least, as backup.
I know in comic books there's a sort of understanding in comics that you let the hometown hero take care of crime in that city. So Superman lets Batman do his thing. Green Lantern lets Flash do his thing. But is Superman seriously sitting on his couch in Metropolis watching Penguin set off a nuke? Is Flash really in a coffee shop while the Sinestro kills 25,000 people?
That's what worries me.
Had an interesting thought that might work for the DCCU. What if someone like Vandal Savage is a puppet-master in this universe, and in post-JLU movies, he makes sure the Justice League is too busy to combine to stop him.
Justice League happens. Bruce finds that someone is responsible for the villain in that movie, but he doesn't know who.
In the first solo post-JL movie, the hero from that movie (Wonder Woman? Flash? GL?) calls for the Justice League to help him. But Batman says he's busy. And so is Superman. And so are....everyone else. All the heroes are dealing with something at the same time.
All "phase 2" solo movies take place at the same time, with each solo film offering hints on what the other heroes are doing - teasing their movies but keeping them separate. And once everyone is victorious, they combine to take down the puppet-master in Justice League 2.
Well if we're talking about fanfic as opposed to actual episodes, then we could get some bizarre stuff. And I imagine if interdimensional travel, it'd be much more likely that we'd see something bizarre as opposed to something familiar.
I think my fear for any alternate species would be it becoming Planet of the Apes. Human sliders show up....dominant species takes them prisoner....maybe experiments on them....compassionate scientist takes pity on them...escape....end of episode. I don't know if there's many more stories than that. If intelligent mutated elephants came to our world, that's exactly what would happen. Even if they were benevolent, I think curiosity wins every time.
It's definitely a fun idea, though.
Well, see, if we were being realistic with the concept of alternate worlds, wouldn't the *vast* majority of Earths traveled to be lifeless? If we're starting with the first possible branching point, it'd be the big bang, and if that hadn't happened the exact way that it did, the Earth wouldn't be able to support life. At least one planet would've, statistically speaking, but it wouldn't have been the Earth. Whether or not life is common or extremely uncommon in the universe, the odds are very unlikely that the Sliders would come across intelligent life on most of the worlds they saw.
And if they did, it's very unlikely that they'd see humans that were recognizable. I read an article recently that talked about how we might come across alien life but not even really understand that we'd done it. We always assume that aliens are humanoid because, of course they are....evolution says that humanoid species will dominate a planet. But alien life could look like anything. Life on another planet could've evolved an infinite number of ways, and so if any number of things changed in Earth's past, life could've gone in any number of directions. Untrained sliders could think an Earth was barren but could be teeming with life that they just don't understand.
But to me, all of that makes very boring storytelling. "The Sliders land on another world where life never evolved and die immediately on an inhabitable Earth" is a pretty bad episode if you ask me. Which is why I would write something into any Sliders reboot that gives some technobabble explanation that the timer can somehow scan worlds while in the vortex to make sure the Earth a) is there and b) can sustain life before it opens up the exit portal.
To me (and to the writers of basically every episode), the best stories are the ones that have a sense of familiarity that is twisted in some way. The Big Bang happened, the Earth was created, established life, humans evolved, North America was colonized by someone and then X happened. And X is your story. I don't know if I could, with a straight face, write a line that somehow explains how the timer could determine *that* but that's not a problem I really have to deal with.
Yeah, I just like Landis and wanted to support his movie. He had this ramble the other day about Nightwing that I really liked. Not so much about the rambling itself but just the happiness in his face as he talks about it. He LOVES this stuff. LOVES story. LOVES these characters. They're real to him, and he's fascinated. Something about that is really cool in a childlike innocence way.
(Also I love Nightwing. In my opinion, he's the only comic book character who's ever been allowed to grow for some reason, and that's awesome to me).
Yeah, I mean I don't really remember any Harold/Kumar-type jokes. That definitely couldn't contributed to the downfall if people were expecting that.
Well that's the other thing that might've hurt it. The main character is a stoner, but it's not really the point of the movie. It's more of a "this guy is a stoner who works at a convenience store - how can he be Jason Bourne" more than anything. He's high a lot and talks about getting high when he's trying to understand what's going on, but the movie moves beyond it at some point. It isn't played for laughs like in Harold and Kumar, and after the movie gets going, you see that it's more medication than anything else.
Because I'm the same way. I don't do drugs and don't really think they're all that funny.
And I guess that's an issue with marketing it - the stoner aspect is there, but it's not the whole story.
Well, I mean there have been examples of movies that are clearly not what the trailer said they were. Click looked like a dumb Adam Sandler movie about a guy who gets a magic remote and does a bunch of sophomoric stuff. What it actually ended up being was a Capra-esque film about a guy dealing with his own mortality.
American Ultra was painted as a stoner who is a CIA asset. It's got action and comedy. And that's basically what it was. But it was also fun in a way that only Jurassic World was really able to capture. It wasn't crazy original, but it was apparently based on a real-life CIA abandoned project so that was kinda cool. Something like Bourne meets Half Baked.
Landis wrote a Frankenstein movie that's coming out soon. He's doing a remake for television. He's writing a Superman comic and pitched for a Fantastic Four movie. I don't necessarily think his comments were hypocritical, but he's had criticisms about the way movies are sold in general. And I think his concern is that it'll be harder for original ideas to get created if original ideas aren't profitable. I don't think he wants sequels/remakes to go away - just that he doesn't want original ideas to go away.
So I saw American Ultra today. Max Landis wrote it (and as I've said before, I'm a fan of his). It was a fun movie - characters seemed real and 3-dimensional, there was action and heart, and it was just a fun ride. Had the feel of another Eisenberg movie - Zombieland - and I think it *should* have that same level of success. But it hasn't - there were five people in the theater I saw it in (granted, it was 1pm on a Saturday). Landis went on a rant saying that the movie was beat by a few movies, all of which were sequels or remakes. Claims that it's this kind of stuff that makes Hollywood pump out more unoriginal films. Went on another rant the other day about the dangers of sites like Rotten Tomatoes. American Ultra is currently at 47% there.
Anyone seen it? If not, were you interested? A lot of times, issues where good movies get bad results are due to marketing. But I feel like the movie was marketed pretty well - I thought it would be a bit more druggie but it wasn't. They're stoners but it's not necessarily their entire characters. The whole cast is good and recognizable.
I thought it was well done, all around. If it seems like your kind of thing, go support it. I'm sure every dollar helps.
Congrats man! Hope it works out for you!
Well I can't imagine I can be any clearer that I have NO idea what makes a good FF movie
Would that have been a movie people liked more?
Well I don't read FF comics. What aspects are non-negotiable when making a movie? Does it have to be over-the-top goofy? Do the Four have to be celebrities? Does Reed have to be an inventor? Does Doom have to be the center of all villainous plots?
I'd break the story down to it's basest elements and go from there. I'm sure WB would love to fix Clark Kent's disguise, but it's iconic even if it's ridiculous. If Superman wore a mask to protect the Clark Kent identity, then he wouldn't be Superman anymore. So every iteration of Superman has to start with "Okay, Clark Kent wears glasses and that's his disguise. We can't worry about that. Now what?"
Well let's go back to the beginning then. From what I've read and seen, the issues that Fox had with Trank's original idea were things that took place in the first half. Reed and Ben were working for the government at a young age. Victor's last name was something else before it was changed to Von Doom. Items that the studio thought would scare off fanboys so they were changed.
And according to reviews, the first half wasn't the problem. As far as you know, what were the changes made to the second half of the movie, where it allegedly fell flat? Because the problems seem to be that Doom had no real motivation to want to destroy the Earth, the action was meaningless and pointless, and that you didn't care about any of the characters.
I'd love to think that Trank had a really good movie that Fox screwed up. That's his claim, after all. But I've just yet to see what his idea would've been that would've saved the second half of the movie. And maybe that idea didn't leak. But if it did, I'd be curious to know what it was.
So ireactions - and I'm genuinely asking this question - is it possible to do a Fantastic Four movie in 2015 era times? In your opinion, is the concept possible? Because after reading more of this, I watched some youtube reviews - and everyone is talking about giving the rights back to Marvel. And yeah - they've done a pretty good job with the Avengers - but it's not like they're infallible. Iron Man 2, both Thor movies, Cap 1, Iron Man 3 - these aren't great movies. I still haven't seen Ant-Man, and Avengers 2 was underwhelming. We don't know what they're going to do with Spider-Man.
Can we trust that Marvel will do better than Fox? Based on Ant-Man, we know that studio interference won't be any less.
The pieces were in place in 2005 and 2015 for a good Fantastic Four movie. Is the source material too flawed to get it right?
That's interesting.
So they're definitely doing Jay Garrick and Wally West this season. One rumor we had at the end of last year was that Barry was going to end up in the Smallville universe. And my question is - why the heck not? Would Tom come back for one episode as Clark where he meets up with Barry? Could they get Kyle Gallner to play Bart/Impulse? Or, heck, get Justin Hartley to play a different version of Oliver. Something like that could be fun and tie one era of CW/DC television to another.
FANTASTIC FOUR is a *very* challenging concept compared to IRON MAN or SPIDER-MAN or X-MEN, simply because those concepts are *easily* transplanted from the 1960s to today while F4's origins are *completely* intertwined with the space race and the fight against Communism. Rewriting the origin is a necessity for a mainstream movie in 2015; it's understandable if it doesn't work out.
Again, I haven't seen the movie. But every review I've read has said the same thing - the origin isn't the problem. I've seen nothing but praise for the first portion of the movie. The part that fails, supposedly, is the superhero part.
One thing that I've always had issue with is Doom. I've heard he's supposedly the biggest bad of all the bads in the primary Marvel universe, but what are his powers? What makes him so powerful? How come I can't think of a single big-time Marvel event (granted, I don't know a ton) where he even participates?
I've seen the 2005 movie and the sequel and his powers are electricity? Manipulation of some kind? Being evil? It's like he's a male Scarlet Witch - his powers are just whatever the plot demands. And I've heard the same sort of power ambiguity exists in the new movie.
The buzz seems to be that FOX is moving ahead with a sequel regardless of the box office failure. Why? Their thinking is, it seems: somebody, someday, will make money off an F4 movie, so it might as well be them even if they're currently doing it at a loss.
I think Fox's best bet is to absorb them into X-Men somehow. Or, heck, do TF's idea and do a FF show instead of an X-Men show. Or combine the two.
I don't know if the new version can meld with mutants or not. If not, do FF science and send them to the Marvel universe. Let them hang out with Channing Tatum's Gambit (who I assume will be the star of the X-Men franchise when Jackman retires). Let them fight whatever new villain they decide to use going forward. Team them up with minor mutants. Put Johnny in a "main" X-Men movie. But try and get some of the good-natured X-Men mojo associated with Fantastic Four.
That's what I'd do. I definitely wouldn't reboot again.
I think ASM suffered from the fact that they didn't want to commit to anything. It just wanted to tease and tease and tease and tease. But even the MCU gives pay offs. They cut a ton of Richard Parker stuff to use in the sequel. And probably cut the reveal for a future sequel. Which would've pushed something to a future sequel.
I still haven't seen FF, but I'm sure they got caught between fun adventure and dark/gritty. And probably got caught up in world building and teases on its own.
Sliders.tv → Posts by Slider_Quinn21
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.