Search options (Page 8 of 35)

It's fine for William to be brought back into the picture. I just think that the execution of that story was poor. It felt like a generic X-Files script, with scenes added to put William in there, but without properly framing that side of the story.

No, I'm an X-Files fan. I started watching the show when the first episode aired, and I have watched it straight through today. Ice rewstched the series. I know the series. I get the series. I know what it's like when it's good, and I know what it's like when it's not. Sorry, but if you watch the series all the way through (including the rather iffy last couple seasons of the original run) and go right I to this revival, it just doesn't feel like it fits (for the most part). "Ghouli" is a halfway good stand-alone episode and a halfway good mythology episode, but ultimately succeeds at being neither. And the lack of proper story construction is perfectly evident in the scene in Mulder's office. The case is introduced as both a normal X-File and as a supernatural message to Scully, when only one of those was needed (probably the supernatural element, because it would echo Scully's previous discovery of her daughter)

A fun experiment might be to go back and watch the introduction of Emily in season 5.

This week's episode was weak. It wasn't as horrible as the first two of the season, but it was incredibly weak. It was like they took a typical X-File monster of the week story and tried to turn it into a story about William, and the final product was neither one of those things. It didn't have the weight or care of an episode about William should have, even with the weird scene with Scully crying over his body. They didn't spend enough time getting to the "this is William" side of the story, and the fact that whole thing just came to them, rather than them going to it, made it feel false.

Had they played the angle of Scully finding the file on Mulder's desk, and her suspecting/projecting a William angle over their course of the investigation, the episode could have been really interesting. It didn't even need to be the real William. In fact, it probably shouldn't have been, because turning him into this big X-File creature with super powers prevents him from being an active part of the story in any real way.

Trying to mash these stories together deprived the story of any natural flow. It just didn't work for me.

On another note, what's with Gillian Anderson's voice? I watch her on The Fall and American Gods, and she sounds perfectly normal. However, on The X-Files, she sounds like she's spent the last 15 years living with the Cigarette Smoking Man.

I honestly don't know. The season was fine without her, and I don't see a huge need for her. Ruth Connell has said that she always knew that it wasn't going to stick, so this was the plan all along. I just don't get why. Why kill her? Why bring her back? Even in this episode, I think they could have done without her.

That said, the episode wasn't horrible. The story of the two witches trying to revive their mother could have been a fun episode on its own.

I'm super tired of the demon lair, with the throne room and the dungeons and all that. It is a set that's dedicated entirely to useless dialogue. I wish that Lucifer really was dead, but we know he's not. I think that at this point, the writers need to make death mean something again. Maybe introduce a third tablet: the tablet of life and death. Explain that it went missing about ten or fifteen years ago, and it's throwing off the balance of the world by allowing the dead to come back. Maybe a reaper went nuts and stole it. Then you have three tablets that can solve all of the show's major problems at this point.

I think this whole issue was settled months ago, whichever side you come down on. The memo either confirms what you already believe, or it doesn't exist.

I totally get the fun of reworking someone else's project (I've been chipping away at a Supergirl pilot script for a long time, whenever I have some time, just for fun), an finishing a story that you feel wasn't properly resolved (I did a season of Buffy. That's roughly 1,100 pages. You think <i>you're</i> crazy?). But those projects need to be used as a means of sharpening your tools and practicing your craft in a safe and familiar environment. They're a stepping stone. Now you create your own world that the sliders don't get to see, and when you manage to put that crazy little daydream on paper in a way that you're happy with, you will feel a whole new type of rush.

If all else fails, just take the vague idea for an episode that you had for one of those other shows and turn it into a unique story of your own. All of the original elements of my Buffy scripts belong to me, and don't think that I don't plan to mine that crap someday.

I do appreciate it!

My stuff isn't usually that political, if that helps at all. Freedom/Hate has some politics, I guess, but it's more about an alternate history/what-if story than it is about hardcore political commentary. Half of the stuff that seems really current is based on things that happened in other countries in the past

But yeah, if I do any sort of podcast or YouTube channel, it will be more like my posts here where I review/discuss shows and movies, and writing, but probably not too much by way of politics.

And I think most of my ideas for upcoming writing projects are non-political. I have one book that I wrote years ago that I need to get out, but that takes place in the past, so you should be safe.

Agreed. It'd be like if any show ever had an Obama joke... Ever.

Good thing that never happened.

They are already pretty dated and petty, and they just aired! The problem with a lot of these hollow jabs is that they're based on "everybody knows..." politics. They're not based on facts or reality, just raw emotion, with vague references to news headlines that nobody bothered to read the story for. So now we have Mulder making comments about the President wanting to shut down the FBI (not something that I think is true), and we're at a point in the news cycle where shutting down the FBI doesn't sound like the craziest idea in the world... which again, will probably change before the story is settled.

And it was done in such a way where Mulder and Scully are wondering what they'll do if they lose their jobs... the jobs that they just got back, after spending 13 years without those jobs!

The need to jab at Trump has trumped (no pun intended) the need for their stories to make sense. We're expected to laugh because "everybody knows" that what they're saying is true, because it bashed Trump.

Argh.

Okay, I'm obviously not the target audience for MCU movies, so I wanted to see what everyone's impression of the Black Panther trailers are. Are people looking forward to the movie? I can't base any expectations of performance on my own impressions, but I also can't really take the word of the critics.

I watched both movies this weekend (the final cut of the original) and I am blown away by how much I liked 2049. It was a great movie, definitely made for fans of the original, but not in a way that just repeated the original at all. It was new and fascinating to watch. Great movie.

While watching the original, I found myself thinking that Daryl Hannah looked a lot like Cameron from Halt and Catch Fire. Next thing you know, Mackenzie Davis is playing a character in 2049. That was funny.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

The scene where they had Rachel come back was insane! Star Wars got a lot of attention for Rogue One doing something like that, but Blade Runner was a much better execution. I had to look it up and see if they somehow reused old footage or something. If that part hadn't been perfect, it would have blown the whole story beat.

I've been meaning to check this one out. It looks interesting.

I'm not opposed to the idea of romantic pairings in general, but I think that they sometimes happen less because the characters demand it, and more because the audience (and writers) expect it. It's not just true with Mulder and Scully, it's also true with Oliver and Felicity, and I'm sure it's true with many more characters on screen that I'm too lazy to think of right now.

Mulder and Scully are, in a lot of ways, like Sam and Dean Winchester. They didn't choose to be together, but once they are together, they have a strong bond and partnership. Some in the fan community view this as sexual (do not Google the word Wincest, I warn you), but the truth is that it's not. There's a need for a lot of people to sexualize relationships where people have chemistry, but sometime you have to recognize where that chemistry comes from.

Mulder and Scully were never a couple where you expected them to fall into some frenzied makeout session at any moment. Their dynamic was based on the fact that they push off of each other, not the fact that they're drawn toward each other. It's a strong partnership, but not romance. Mulder and Scully should be the partners with absolutely zero chance of being sexually involved, who can grab a beer and complain about their actual spouses (if they had them). They should be a safe zone for each other, and for the audience, in an otherwise incredibly dangerous world that they live in. Being romantically linked creates drama between them that shouldn't exist. And rather than have a pretty unique relationship that we don't often see on TV, they become like every other man and woman who appear on screen together on every show.

What has their romantic pairing added to the show? The best part of "Plus One" was the push and pull that reminded me of the earlier X-Files episodes. He'd make some sexual innuendo that was totally safe because there was zero chance of it happening, and she'd rebut with some sharp comeback.
The romantic pairing has given us an awkward relationship between the characters, because they can't be the partners that they once were, but they also kinda need to be the partners that they once were, because it's the premise of the show. There's always this random, useless element sitting between them in every scene now.
And what else has the pairing given us? William? Even though the story could have been done in other ways, it just went nowhere. He's some vaguely powerful person who has had not much of an impact on the show at all.

People think that having two characters fall in love will cement their bond and make the whole thing that much stronger, but that's not always the case. It's important to recognize when two characters shouldn't go there, and I think the X-Files is one of those cases. Rather than bring the characters together, the sexualization of that relationship has created division between them, and an awkwardness. The safe zone (friend zone?) is gone, and where do they go from here?

I agree that the execution of the romance was poorly handled. If they were going to go there, they should have just gone there. However, I don't think that putting them together was ever going to turn out well for the series. A married couple with children, who are partners in some oddball FBI division, sharing a one-desk office in the basement, and hunting monsters? It sounds like a premise that might work if we're talking about a small town sheriff's department, or a PI firm, but it just looks silly when it's the FBI.

Yeah, I'm a writer, and I'm supposed to be able to envision all of the potential routes that a story could take. However, there is usually a path of least resistance, where the story naturally wants to go. If you ignore that and force it to go in another direction, the story feels wrong. I think that's what happened here. The story wasn't properly executed because there was no proper execution.

To me, watching Mulder and Scully kiss is like watching Sam and Dean kiss, or Buffy and Giles. It doesn't make me all warm inside, it makes me a little grossed out. They have a huge amount of chemistry and a strong relationship... but she's more like the sister that he never had a chance to have than she is the woman that he wants to make wild, passionate love to.

Yeah, that's all true. I think we've discussed those elements before, and it's fair to say that for a number of reasons, DC isn't going to be making the Disney money with these movies. From the style they're going with, to the fact that the audience is already way more familiar with these characters than the Marvel characters, I think it's safe to say that the billion dollar mark isn't realistic for these films. I wouldn't say that they're "behind" because of this. I think that if anything, it's because they're at a much more advanced stage of cultural awareness than Marvel is. I think it's wrong to really compare the DC movies with the Marvel movies (though I know I do it all the time anyway).

All of that taken into consideration, the DC movies have their following. They perform well on a consistent basis, and they do well in terms of both box office and home video sales. Even with the division amongst viewers, the franchise has proven that it has legs to stand on.

And I'm not calling Justice League a failure really. The franchise could be finding its sweet spot for all I know, but there was a noticeable dip in the box office sales between BvS (a more divisive film) and Justice League (a generally more well received film). So I'm just wondering how much of that is based on press and how much of it is just the franchise settling into its comfort zone in terms of box office.

The reason I'm down on the press isn't a recent thing or a political thing. I've been pointing out the lies and slanted reporting in news media for many years. I incorporated the subject into my writing before the term "fake news" was a thing, and long before Donald Trump was running for President. I've literally watched an actor friend appear on a "legit" national news program, playing a character. Basically, I know that the press doesn't just take the facts and put them out there for people to know and form opinions with. They are in the business of forming those opinions for people, and it's been that way for a very long time. I absolutely do see it crossing over from political coverage to entertainment coverage, and everything else.  I think it's interesting to understand the bias in news stories, and to identify the reason why that bias exists.

Generally, there is a certain approach to reporting for these franchises. The media tends to play to the fans, because the fans will visit their pages and click on their stories. They'll write a bunch of fluff pieces about the casting and filming process. They'll publish some interviews, hyping the movie. They'll publish some behind the scenes pictures, generating excitement for the movie.

With the DC movies, the reporting is usually different. Even in simple casting reports, I'll usually notice some jab at the franchise overall. They will talk about the failure of the franchise, or how disappointing it is. This was happening long before JL came out, and the reports didn't reflect either the box office success of any of the movies, or the general audience reaction (which isn't all A's across the board, but is far from, say Fantastic Four). The articles reflected critic reactions, and that's pretty much it. So the news outlets were pretty much generating their own stories at that point. Their critics down-vote the movies, and then their news coverage constantly references the critic reviews.

Then the coverage of the new movies will usually write from a negative angle. They'll constantly reference mysterious unnamed sources "close to production" (which could mean someone who was watching them film from a hundred yards away), talking about the chaos and drama behind the scenes, and how whichever movie they're reporting on is completely unwatchable. The panic! The desperation! They'll report on things that are standard for any production, but they'll talk about it as though it's a sign of sure failure for the entire franchise. Usually, they'll follow it up by posing the question of whether or not it's time for Warner Bros to admit their mistake and start from scratch.

When Justice League came out, the most vocal criticisms that I saw of the movie reflected the reports from those mysterious sources, nearly word for word, making the movie sound like one of those super embarrassing movies that studios produce just to hold onto the rights to certain characters, but which never see the light of day. The movie sounded like a total disaster, which worried me because I already had concerns about the movie.

Then I actually watched the movie. I knew about Joss coming in, but I didn't go out of my way to find a list of which scenes were his and which were Snyder's. I knew about the mustache thing, but I didn't go out of my way to study Cavill's face in every scene that he appeared in. I just watched the movie the same way that I'd watch any movie... and it was just a movie. It was a pretty good movie at that! Not my favorite of the franchise, but not my least favorite either. The mustache, which was so distracting that it totally destroyed the movie as far as the press was concerned was, I'm sure, apparent if you were looking for it specifically, but it didn't distract me at all. The "Frankenstein's monster" of a movie was really just a movie about different types of people joining forces. The panic wasn't warranted at all.

So, how much of the movie's criticisms or the lower box office can be chalked up to the press? I'm not saying it's all about the press. I have criticisms of the movie and I understand that the numbers were probably going to fall on their own either way. I'm not being unrealistic about that. However, we have fans of the franchise who refuse to even buy the movie on home video because they're demanding a Snyder cut that will probably never happen. Actual fans are refusing to support the film because they've been led to believe that Joss Whedon came in and was told to make the movie his own. They don't even seem to get that most of (if not all of) what Whedon shot was because it's what Snyder had planned and had been working on with Whedon. They don't seem to process the fact that Snyder wasn't booted from the franchise because the studio lost faith in him, he left because his daughter committed suicide and he needed to step back.

What we're seeing is a lot of the reaction to the movie being dictated by the press coverage of the movie. So now I'm left to wonder how much of the box office reflects the franchise itself, and how much of it reflects the media campaign against the movie. I'm not shifting blame for the movie's box office performance, or making excuses, but I am acknowledging another significant factor that should be taken into consideration.

And from there, we can ponder the question of whether there is some competition pushing this narrative, or if the negativity simply generates more clicks for those media outlets.

I'm considering doing a YouTube channel or a podcast, discussing movies/TV/etc. (it could help me build a following for my own work, while discussing the things that I end up discussing anyway!) but I haven't been able to work out the details in my head. A name, or a format. My original plan was to just make videos with on-screen graphics and a voiceover. Then I figured that I could just do a podcast, which is the same thing, minus the graphics. Or I could do the podcast, but release it on YouTube with graphics.

But then I started thinking that rather than, say, one long discussion of Man of Steel (or whatever), I could break those long conversations down into more, much shorter episodes that discuss specific topics. The DCEU is probably good for a ton of episodes, so why limit it to five, right? But those shorter episodes would be better on YouTube than a podcast.

It'd probably be better to have a back and forth of some sort, but I'd be doing it solo, so I'd just have to do my best to express the other sides and try to address them in my own way.

But trying to figure out how to do all of this, and do it in a way that isn't totally hokie, has been driving me nuts. So it'll probably never happen. I'd do it all on a blog, but I've always had a hard time keeping up with a blog, along with all of my other writing.

I'm starting to think that I don't fit into this modern internet world.

And this is where I think a lot of TV writers have problems. Whenever you put two characters in a room together, there will be shippers. Mulder/Scully shippers, Dean/Castiel shippers, Sam/Dean shippers, Buffy/Giles shippers, Oliver/Felicity shippers... pretty much any time there are two (or more!) characters interacting with each other, a percentage of the audience will want them to start jumping each other. And a lot of the time, those fans are very, very vocal. With Supernatural, a lot of the fans ship themselves with the characters and screech every time a woman appears on screen with the guys.

Sometimes, the characters naturally do move toward a relationship (Fringe, Chuck, Psych), but other times, they are better left separate. Sometimes knowing when to deny the audience what they want is as vital as knowing when to give them what they want. Sometimes the plot the story needs isn't the same thing as what the audience wants. In fact, sometimes it's best to recognize what the audience wants, and write in the opposite direction entirely.

Dear lord, I'm about to give Whedon credit again... but the truth is that I did learn a lot about writing from him, before he totally sold out...

On Buffy, there was a certain death that I won't spoil for anyone who hasn't watched the show yet. It happened in season 2, and it was shocking. In playing the reaction to that death, Anthony Stewart Head's instinct was to cry, but Joss told him not to. He said that the second Giles releases that emotion, the audience will feel the release of theirs. By denying the expectation and denying the strong instinct in that moment, the story becomes much more powerful. Not to the characters, but to the audience. This is a lesson that I've carried with me for many years now.

It comes down to the instinct of the writer. To know the characters and know the story, and to hold true to it. The X-Files was Chris Carter's responsibility, not his writers and not the audience. He owed it to the story and to the characters to keep that story on course and to stay true to the characters. Many people probably just wanted Mulder and Scully to end up together because that's what's supposed to happen with any male/female interaction, and that's what the audience has been programmed to expect from the story. This situation was one where working against those expectations would have made the story so much stronger. Working against the expectations would have made the Mulder/Scully bond much more unique, much stronger, and much more interesting. Now they are exes with benefits, who are partners at the FBI (is that even allowed?). Instead of being special and compelling, their relationship devolved into a cliche that checked every box that we've come to expect.

Carter knew what the right choice was. Good for him. However, he allowed himself to be overruled by people who worked for him and whose job it was to fulfill his vision. He let the animals run the zoo. Even when he makes the right decision, he proves that he shouldn't be running the show by allowing his decision to be overruled.

There's no reason why Mulder and Scully needed to be romantic with each other in order to have a baby together. It sounds weird, but welcome to the 20th century! We have IVF now!

Does Iris manage to stay out of danger now?

Yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At this point, Iris seems to only work for the Flash's team, so it seems like there is little secret there.

Wayward Sisters -

Sam and Dean were trapped in Land of the Lost!

Overall, I liked the episode and the setup for the new series. I think it's smart to have a group of characters with different skills, so they can rotate from week to week. Everyone worked really well together. Usually, there's not a lot to say about the things that work in a story, while the down sides are a bit easier to discuss. So don't read the following as a negative review of the episode. I liked it. With that in mind...

I'm still not a huge fan of the Supernatural multiverse, but it worked for this story. I do kinda miss the Kripke era, when they would keep monsters in shadows a lot of the time, or give them human faces. I don't think we needed to see the giant monster at all. Letting the audience fill in blanks with their imagination works really well in a lot of stories, and I think the show is losing sight of that more and more each season.

I don't know if it's just my local station's broadcasting, or what, but the audio for Supernatural has sounded weird lately. Like they have bad mics or something. Combined with unnecessary background music in some scenes, or "cheap" background music in other scenes, the series can sometimes feel like a lower quality production than it is. Some of the directing choices have been weird too (like that weird handheld camera zoom/unzoom thing that people use when they want to look gritty, but it usually just looks lame).

I don't know who left the show or who joined the show behind the scenes over the years, but it seems like corners are being cut to save money, while money is being spent unnecessarily in other places (big giant CG monster that we didn't need to see). Some of this could be the broadcast quality where I am, but some of it is definitely on the production side. They should tighten that up.

I have to disagree about this approach being admirable.  Each writer approaches the characters differently, and that usually resulted in characters who were layered and complicated. It added to the show. However, Carter's inability to run the show has constantly damaged the series. Someone needs to figure out what's going on and what path they're going to take when it comes to major developments. That is the job of the showrunner. Carter's job is to steer the writers in the right direction. He is failing at that.

I kinda wish they would do an X-Files multiverse episode, where all of these different versions of Mulder and Scully are in the same room together. It'd be hilarious to see platonic Scully's reaction to relationship Scully's romance with Mulder. That'd be a fun episode. However, all of these are supposed to be the same person as far as the show is concerned, so it makes no sense!

Star Trek The Next Generation wasn't heavily serialized and even they could keep track of when Troi and Worf were dating.

The problem here is that Mulder and Scully shouldn't be a couple. It kills their dynamic. It is an awkward beat for characters who are partners at the FBI. They're best when they're pushing against each other (verbally) and that allows them to be sarcastic and super close in a way that a romantic involvement doesn't. Now they're trying to have it all, and it doesn't work. Maybe it'd play better if they weren't agents anymore, and they were just partners in some supernatural PI office or something, but that's not what this show is. Mulder and Scully should be like Ken and Barbie (junkless) around each other. It's irritating that they've been forced together, probably because of some vocal shippers, and Carter's inability to make a decision and hold people to it.

The relationship scenes this week were like brick walls that the story kept crashing into.

Wow, that actually makes sense in some weird way.

I was watching the episode under the assumption that Mulder and Scully were in a simulation, but the episode never went there. In the end, it seemed like an absurd waste of time, where Scully could infiltrate a highly secured government facility by winking at a stupid guy.

Your way works better. Especially because it allows for a universe where Mulder and Scully were never a couple. That never should have happened.

Hard to say. The X-Files is a known name that could make money. It also isn't super edgy or offensive (except for some bad writing), so I could see it being reworked. I could see some less marketable titles being tossed and forgotten though.

I hate this whole deal.

I agree. I think Warner Bros totally bungled that movie's release because Batman was testing well and they thought the movie was too long. I'm usually someone who thinks that if it's edited out, it's not Canon, but this is a strange situation where the movie that was released in theaters just wasn't the whole movie.

The Ultimate Edition is available on Vudu, I believe. Just be careful which version you choose. It might also be available on Amazon, Google Play, and Fandango Now. If you do decide to buy the blu-ray version, you will likely get a digital copy that you can stream. I know there's a box set that has all of the (released) movies on blu-ray with digital copies. All of them were cheap during the holidays, but I don't know about now.

I think the Ultimate Edition is canon, because it's the movie that Snyder intended to be released. I also think it's canon because it doesn't contradict the theatrical version. The theatrical version tells the Superman story through the eyes of other characters (Batman, Lois, the general public), which I still say made for an interesting approach to the story. I still got the point of what Clark was going through, but I see how others found it harder to connect with him. The Ultimate Edition simply widens the lens through which we see the movie, giving us Clark's point of view. At the end of the day, I feel like the Ultimate Edition is the movie that we're supposed to watch when we go back to rewatch the movie. Justice League supports that opinion (largely because there is a pretty big setup for the Justice League which was cut out of the theatrical version).

I'm curious to see what you think of the Ultimate Edition, and if it changes any of your thoughts on JL.

And yes, ireactions, it is pretty scary that we all agree on something (even if we disagree on certain details), but I'll take it. I'm tired of people thinking that I'm just trying to be a contrarian all the time, or that I can't enjoy anything that isn't grim.

I don't know. I think that if things were done that way, you'd end up weakening a lot of the movies and characters. If everyone can fight a Superman, Superman isn't the strongest man alive.

Then, with the individual movies... we know that you can have individual characters who then come together in a JL movie, because that's how the comic books worked. However, I think that you end up sacrificing the central theme of Justice League in favor of creating a movie where a bunch of people just come together because the movie needs them to come together. As it stands now, their coming together is what drives them to be better apart. And if you try to keep that emotional center in a JL movie after having each of them in a solo movie, you'd have to water down the solo movie and create an incomplete character arc for them.

So then we're left telling the hero stories in their solo movies and we need to come up with a JL movie that has purpose and some sort of theme. What's the theme? With Justice League, they couldn't have defeated Steppenwolf without Superman, and they couldn't have brought Superman back without everyone coming together. I just like that.

But yeah, it comes down to personal taste. I think people are used to the solo movies leading into the big group movie, but I think that it depends on the story that you're trying to tell and the theme that you're working with. For me, JL worked, and if you try messing with the recipe that created it, you're going to weaken the end product. In order to make it work, you'd have to create a whole new recipe for a whole new story, and at that point, there are a billion different ways to go.

As for the Bat-family... like I said, at this point, we can only work with what we have on screen. Anything else is wild theories. So far, it works.

And the Superman stuff, I guess we won't agree on. I just see BvS very differently than you, especially with the Ultimate Edition.

Okay, replying section by section.

On the Avengers model vs. the Justice League model

I get what you're saying, but I think that there's something to be gained from not being too familiar with everyone when the team comes together. You immediately lose any sense of discovery and unfamiliarity, even if it's supposed to exist between the characters.

Honestly, The Avengers might have been a better movie if the Thor movie never happened, and he just swooped in out of nowhere, with nobody having any clue who he was. As it stands, we don't have a real Hulk movie setting up the character in that universe. We have a sorta-kinda Hulk movie with The Incredible Hulk, but that is only loosely in canon at this point. We never had movies for Hawkeye or Black Widow, or Nick Fury. I would argue that Justice League did a better job as actually building characters than Marvel did with those characters, who are more like character concepts that can be filled out as needed.

I am a fan of using negative space in movies. There is something to be gained from what we don't see on screen, but I get that everyone isn't into that. What we do get from this movie is that Arthur is a man who feels abandoned by his mother and his Atlantian heritage, so he's never felt a great connection or responsibility toward them. At the same time, he feels alienated from the place where he actually did grow up, because he is out of place in the world. He essentially takes himself off the map, but still feels compelled to help people, like the village (and possibly the oil rig/Clark in Man of Steel). There is a lot of story to be explored, but he was cut off from the world where that story would need to take place. Putting the Aquaman movie before Justice League would kinda cut the legs out from under that character in this story.

Similarly, we have Victor Stone who was removed from the world after a horrible accident where he lost his mother. His father couldn't let him go, so he ended up turning Victor into something that didn't feel like him anymore. Again, if we had a Cyborg movie before this, you would need to remove the element of Victor rediscovering himself and his purpose in JL, because he would need to become a hero in his own movie.

Barry... I see what you mean when you say that his story feels disjointed with the Suicide Squad part, but it makes sense to me. He isn't unwilling to stop crime. In fact, he has a longing for justice. He isn't unwilling to use his powers. He doesn't feel scared off by them. He built the suit specifically so that he could run long distances and push his limits. He isn't so socially awkward that he can't make funny comments around them, which we see him do with Bruce as soon as they meet. There's nothing wrong with the Suicide Squad scene. The problem is that Barry isolates himself from the world and doesn't interact with anyone except his father, who is in prison and can only speak to Barry through a piece of bulletproof glass.

So, say we have a movie for each of these people. Immediately, Aquaman has to reconnect with his Atlantian side, because that's his story. Victor has to find the hero within and become a part of the world. Barry has to discover himself and the larger world, probably with Iris in the picture.

That removed all of their arcs from Justice League. So now we lose the theme of heroes finding themselves through each other, and we have to come up with a whole new foundation for Justice League.

The Flash

Kinda already did this one, so moving on...

Steppenwolf

Steppenwolf's story runs counter to the Justice League's. He is isolated, and trying to be rejoined with the world that has been cut off from him. He wants to prove himself worthy of Darkseid. So his isn't just a generic "I want to destroy the world" story, as we often see. It's a story that parallels the story of our heroes. Specifically Batman, in a way. He had this family and this army, and he did great things with them, but he lost a battle and his life was destroyed because of it. Now he's seeking redemption.

The probably could have spent more time with Steppenwolf, developing those themes, but I'm not sure how to structure that element without it being too much. If you show a villain on screen too much, you usually end up with mustache twirling, or removing the sense of great danger. For example, the big powerful beings on Supernatural aren't really scary anymore, and spend a great deal of time in one location, talking about how evil they are.

Bat-Family

There's a lot that we could say might have happened here, but I guess we can't really explore it until we know more. As it stands in these movies, Batman had a partner and he died, and Batman hasn't worked with anyone else since then. However, the Batman movie might change our perspective on that, and if they do, we can discuss how well it all works together.

Then again, the Batgirl movie might be about Barbara joining Bruce as his first and only partner since Robin died. If this happens, it will be a continuation of his arc through his last two movies.

On BvS Revisionist History

I don't see it he way you do. I see a lot of people in BvS who saw Superman as their only hope in a dark world, while Clark (and Bruce) tended to focus on all of the people that he couldn't save, and the people who didn't like him. This is how people tend to be. I can probably quote more negative comments about my work than I can quote the positives. And in fact, even your comments about BvS tend to emphasize the more negative reactions to him than the positives. I love this element in the films, because it's realistic. I do agree that maybe the statue should have waited until after he died, but it worked with the themes of BvS, so it's hard to complain too much.

I think the world uniting in the loss of Superman is kinda BS, but in a realistic way. Think of 9/11 and how everyone came together with "Never Forget", and for a while, it seemed like the world was uniting in some really powerful way. But a lot of it was bull, and a lot of it was for show. Just like the actors who wore black to the Golden Globes were putting on an act. Some people want to be a part of something like that for selfish reasons, and they tend to be the loudest with it. They're probably mourning Superman for the same reasons they were bashing him before. Because it's a great community activity.

(Note: I'm not saying that all post-9/11 mourning was fake. But I think it's pretty clear that some of it was just for show)

"This" feels like an appropriate title for episode 2 of this season. It's like Glen Morgan just flopped his hands around a keyboard, printed whatever auto-correct typed up, and named it what it was.

The episode has no thrust. The action came to Mulder and Scully, rather than them going to the action. This is rarely a good thing for a series like this. There was no lead-in. We're just thrown into a story, and while I kept hoping that it would be revealed to be a work of genius as the story unraveled... it didn't. Scully is suddenly an action star, and Donald Trump now leads an elite team of Russians who work for an American mercenary company that's based out of Moscow, because... I'm assuming the tax incentives in Moscow are great? Except this group has existed for many years apparently, so the strained connection to the President seems a little awkward.

They did an episode where Langley was uploaded into a computer without referencing "Kill Switch", which was an episode from 1998 that dealt with the same concept.

The episode had more focus and better direction than last week, but it lacked an actual plot.

Gillian Anderson is probably smart for jumping ship. While we'd all love to see The X-Files resurrected in all of its former glory, the revival has never actually felt like The X-Files. When we think back on the series, how many of us will include anything that's happened since the show went off the air all those year ago?

I hope the rest of this season is good. I really do. But it just isn't doing well so far. Chris Carter is not only a bad writer, he's done a horrible job at running this revival as a whole.

I'm going to have to agree with ireactions on this one. I don't think the problem was that the episode was too dense. I think it was pretty much all fluff.

But you have to wonder if the stars of the shows would sign on for what would essentially be a recurring role on a series that would keep them from seeking any other work. Or they could get free to take other work, and it would be impossible to plan anything.