S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So I agree we shouldn't hold the Legacy title against it.  Maybe there was more legacy stuff and he ended up streamlining it.  It was a good decision to drop the subtitle.

It's funny...I do this a lot where I rewrite movies in my head.  Or in this case, I wrote Superman: Legacy in my head.  To me, I was thinking it might be interesting if the movie took place after the Justice Society (or just another team of superheroes) had aged out.  And when something (I assumed Brainaic) shows up, this second generation of heroes was going to have to step in and save the day...along with this brand new guy who doesn't know where he fits.  There would be a second Green Lantern (although I know he's the third one), a second Hawkgirl, a second Mr. Terrific - these heroes who have a clear legacy that they're following in.  And Clark, who's trying to blaze his own trail.  And how each of those has positives and negatives.  Clark could tell Guy how scary it is to be out on his own and be this alien and not sure if people will trust him.  And Guy could say that he's always being compared to Hal and how he wished he could be his own guy. 

That's what I thought the movie would be.  It would be a fresh start but it would feel lived in.

The post-credits scene was confusing to me.  Were they repairing the city, or was that just how the city reformed?  There's the scene at the end after the portal is closed where the building comes back together on its own.  That's what I assumed the building at the end was done, but obviously the scene doesn't make any sense if that's the case because why would Terrific feel any ownership of how that building came back together?

ireactions wrote:

I enjoyed the movie, but... it's very lightweight. Superman's parents being supervillains didn't really have the heavy, dark weight it could have because the film is so good-natured and gentle that it never really feels like a big deal. Superman's efforts to keep everything bloodless is great, but it also leads to a certain absence of threat and danger because it's hard to believe anyone can really get hurt... although the one casualty is indeed very upsetting.

It's funny.  Most of the criticism I've seen is that the movie is too messy, and I do think that some of the movie could've been streamlined a bit.  The movie, to me at least, was trying to talk about what it means to be human.  Because I think Clark has every right to think of himself as a human.  And as long as the movie ended with Clark telling Lex that, I think the movie would've been good.

So I saw Superman.

S
U
P
E
R
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I liked it.  I didn't love it like I was hoping I would.  But it had a lot of the things that I would want in a Superhero movie, and I think it's a nice, solid foundation for a new DCU.

Things I liked:
- I liked this version of Superman.  I like my Superman to be innocent, and I loved that Clark kept saying things like "gosh" and golly" when he was fighting.  I liked that he saved the squirrel.  I like that he was upset when the Justice Gang killed that kaiju monster.  I like a Superman that feels like he has an obligation to save every human life, and I appreciated a Superman that considers himself to be human first.  I know, somewhere, Informant would've liked that too.  Although I have no idea where he or his head is anymore.
- I liked this version of Lex Luthor.  Gunn has said that he really likes the Rosenbaum Lex, and I think you can tell that.  What's funny is that Nicholas Hoult doesn't *seem* imposing, but he's basically the same size as Corenswet.  Maybe not as "big" but almost as tall.  I like that Lex admitted that he was envious, and that it's what is driving him.  I liked that Lex was basically Ultraman, and when Ultraman was beating up Superman, it was really Lex doing it.
- I worried that the movie would be too full.  Superman and Lex and Lois and Green Lantern and Hawkgirl and Mr Terrific and Metamorpho and Ultraman and the Engineer and this Hammer of Baravia.  A lot of characters.  But they made it work.  The movie didn't seem too bloated, and it still felt very much like a Superman movie.  I liked all the supporting characters from Guy Gardner to Jimmy.
- I liked Lois Lane.  In Nando v Movies' spoiler-free review, he remarked that Lois usually gets the short end of the stick in movies like this, but I really liked her portrayal.  She's confident in her journalism, but she's vulnerable everywhere else.  She feels like a well-rounded character.
- Everything with the Kents and young Clark and being a parent and being a son got to me as a parent.  I almost teared up a handful of times.

Things I didn't like / were confused by
- The plot seemed like a bit too much.  I think you could've simplified some of the plotlines and it would've maybe been a cleaner movie.  I didn't love the inclusion of a Superman clone in the first movie, and I think I might've preferred a movie where the Engineer is Lex's only muscle.  She seemed to give him all he could handle, and it wouldn't just be a punching contest.
- I don't understand how Superman survived the nanobot attack.  What did he do?
- Why was this called Superman: Legacy, originally?  Someone pointed out years ago that a lot of characters in this aren't the original version of themselves.  It's the second Green Lantern.  It's the second Engineer.  Hawkgirl is the second hawk person.  I thought the movie would delve into the idea of following in someone's footsteps.  Obviously, Clark's story is about how he was supposed to represent the legacy of Krypton but is choosing to follow the legacy of the Kents.  But I don't know if that's clear enough that it would be the title of the movie, and I feel like it's a bit of a stretch.
- We gave Man of Steel a lot of issues for destroying Metropolis and leading to so much death.  I'm not sure there was a whole lot less death in this.  I know they were evacuating Metropolis, but how many entire skyscrapers were destroyed?  We know there were people in some of them - probably most of them.  I think getting rid of the pocket dimension storyline and removing the black hole threat would eliminate that issue.  I just don't love Metropolis being destroyed with no consequences, and I don't know why they keep doing it.
- Along the same lines, are we going to have another Superman that people don't necessarily love?  I think the movie tried to sweep the whole "he's here to rule us" under the rug, but I think a lot of people wouldn't forgive him.  I think he'd win some people back by turning the tables on Luthor, but I think the movie needed to end with a big interview from Superman where he promises to win people back or something.

And then there's Krypto.  I think he was a good addition, and I liked how they worked together.  But was there way too much Krypto?  I think maybe.

3

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

My relationship with Dexter is a bit complicated.  While I might be one of only a handful of people on this Earth who didn't hate the finale, that isn't to say that I loved it.  Dexter did have a steady decline in quality after the brilliant season 4.  I do think that I have a better ending for Dexter in my mind (Dexter is captured and has a season where he's a Hannibal Lecter type advisor to his sister), but I think the story they told is a fine one.

I think New Blood was an appropriate next chapter for Dexter.  He's always wanted a normal life and stripped of all of his ties to Miami, he was able to live a fairly normal life.

What's strange about New Blood is that it doesn't do much of the things that Resurrection does.  Resurrection is a parade of returning characters and cameos to take Dexter through the journey of his life.  Resurrection forces Dexter to face the consequences of eight seasons in Miami.  New Blood, in a lot of ways, allowed Dexter to start fresh.  Resurrection doesn't really appear to let him do that.

The question with Dexter is always: "Is he a good person?"  Yes, he's a killer.  But can killing be used for good?  I don't know if New Blood really tried to answer that (or if it did, I forgot).  Resurrection comes out and says it - Dexter kills bad guys which saves good guys.  But he also involves himself with bad guys, bringing bad guys close enough to him that good people in Dexter's life are killed.  There's good and bad, and it would be almost impossible to settle Dexter's accounts to know if he's saving more people than he's getting killed.

I think I like the version of Dexter where he knows he's a bad person and he's just doing the best he can with that.  Where he acknowledges that he likes killing, and if he's going to kill, he might as well kill bad guys.  I don't really like the version of Dexter where he's some kind of victim.  He's not Batman - he's the Punisher.  The Punisher knows he's a bad guy who does good by doing bad things.  I don't know if the Punisher has ever had a sidekick or an apprentice, but I would assume he wouldn't want to raise anyone else to be like him.  Dexter has a son, but he's gone back and forth with whether or not Harrison even has a dark passenger.

I don't think Resurrection overturned anything I cared about.  If the original Dexter was the end, I would've been fine.  If New Blood was the end, I would've been fine.  I don't think we *need* Dexter stories, but the character is so compelling that I'm happy to get new stories.  I haven't had a ton of interest in the Dexter prequel because I think Michael C Hall's performance is 99% of the fun.

Is the revival plausible?  I'm not nearly educated enough on stuff like that.  Dexter was shot in the chest (I'm not even sure if where he was shot is a place you can survive), and from my memory of New Blood, the show was pretty clear that he was going to die in the wilderness.  But he was shot in the snow, and Resurrection says that the show slowed down his heart enough to keep the blood loss from being too severe.  Is that a thing that happens?  I don't know.  But it's plausible enough for this silly show in my opinion.

And yeah I did like it.  I liked that it gave us the parade of former villains.  I like that Batista is back and still looking into LaGuerta's death (one of the few deaths that paints Dexter as a truly bad guy).  And if Hall is going to keep playing this character, I'll watch.

4

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I desperately need to know what Slider_Quinn21 thinks of how NEW BLOOD has been undone.

So I'm sure you'll be happy to hear that I watched the first episode of RESURRECTION.  The ending to New Blood (which was fine) was undone, but they haven't retconned a ton.  Instead of dying, Dexter survives because blood loss was slowed by the snow.  Other than that, it's a fairly faithful follow-up to New Blood.

Not only that, it's a much more direct follow-up to the original Dexter than New Blood was.  In a lot of ways, Resurrection has made it so that New Blood is the equivalent of a prequel comic to a Marvel or Star Trek movie.  There's a couple of items that are relevant (but also explained in Resurrection) that you might need to know, but I think most people could jump straight to Resurrection.  It not only picks up from New Blood but picks up a plotline straight from the Dexter finale.

There are also cameos, and they've gone back to using Harry as the avatar for the Dark Passenger.

5

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought Ironheart was...fine?  I'm not sure why this was held on for as long as it was.  Unless they did major reshoots (which I didn't hear about if they did) or unless they needed to work on the CGI (which I think was pretty good), I'm not sure why they waited.  The show was fun and entertaining and seemed to fit in well with the other phase 4 introductory series.  I think it's a fine addition to the MCU, and I hope we get to see Riri again.

I'm glad that Marvel is trying to focus on making their movies better because there's no question that the Phase 4/5 movies weren't as good as the Phase 3 movies.  But I think completely moving away from the Disney+ shows is a mistake.  You can understand from stuff like The Marvels and Brave New World that the movies have a little bit of a hard time with the Disney+ shows because they have to rehash some stuff because not every movie-going audience member will have seen 6-10 episodes of a Disney+ show.  Cool.

I think the solution is somewhere in the middle.  Because I think the shows have value, and I think the shows should continue to be made.  But I would use the Disney+ shows the way I thought they were originally designed to be: a bridge between movies.  One of my favorite things about Agents of Shield was the fact that we were living in this MCU world in between movies.  I know some people hated it, but I loved when we had the cleanup from Thor: The Dark World or the big reaction to the Winter Soldier twist.  And while I think the show got better year after year, the fact that it felt less and less a part of the MCU was to the detriment of the universe.

So when we got the announcement of WandaVision, Falcon and the Winter Soldier, and Loki, it seemed like we were doing that.  Doing side adventures for key MCU characters that moved the story along without having to do an entire movie.  I don't think we need 10 shows a year, but I would like to see shows that fill in the gaps and get us from Point A to Point B where the next movie picks up. 

And that takes skill and luck and planning, but I think Marvel is perfectly capable of that barring no more strikes or pandemics.

6

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

ICE is officially more funded than any other federal agency... and Trump now has an army of thugs masked thugs empowered to kidnap anyone which he can use to sabotage elections.

I don't know how Americans will fight this.

Well, not only that.  The Supreme Court gave Trump immunity and neutered the lower courts ability to issue nationwide injunctions that can stop Trump's executive orders.  So Trump could do something blatantly unconstitutional, and it might take months or years before the Supreme Court decides to do anything about it.  And they could just choose to ignore it.  And Trump would face no consequences.

It's bad.

And I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but it's crazy how Democrats allowed all this to happen.  Republicans took over everything, and Democrats didn't seem to have any response.  Republicans had an evil plan that they were patient enough to execute, and they did it wonderfully.  They took over all rural areas, and then they started working on urban ones.  They took over courts at every level.  They took over local elections and state elections.  All without any policies or agenda items or anything.

I really don't even know where Democrats go from here.  They have to trust that there are elections, but what do they run on?  How do they fight Republicans and the media?  How do you make an argument when there is no longer truth, and the entire system works for the other guys?  And when the people want to be lied to.  And that doesn't even get into the fact that the Democrats have no gameplan and might be completely incompetent.

This recent flooding in Texas has been blamed by the government controlling the weather by MAGA.  But Republicans control the government.  So even when Democrats aren't in power, people believe they're to blame.

I have no answers.  No solutions.  The war sure seems lost.

7

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Jacobin observes: Democrats are a weak political party that is at the mercy of incumbents who won't pass the torch.

The Democratic Party behaves less like a traditional party than a professional association for individual liberal politicians. Its membership has few opportunities for substantive democratic membership participation, the platform it adopts at each convention is toothless, and most Americans can’t identify its political goals. In the vacuum of politics, the party conforms to the individual career aspirations of powerful strivers.

Aging politicians refuse to pass the torch, even when their continued presence imperils the very causes they claim to champion, because they are chiefly animated by a desire for personal achievement — and because the party lacks the organizational capacity to compel them to step down for the greater good.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s stubborn refusal to retire during Barack Obama’s presidency, despite being an octogenarian cancer survivor, allowed Donald Trump to replace her with Amy Coney Barrett, providing the decisive vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Dianne Feinstein’s choice to cling to her Senate seat well into her nineties, despite obvious functional decline, paralyzed judicial confirmations and threatened Joe Biden’s entire court-packing strategy. Joe Biden’s disastrous decision to seek reelection at eighty-one, despite clear signs of cognitive decline, resulted in a rare example of the Democratic Party leadership taking decisive collective action. They were too late, however, and the spectacle of the torch being wrenched from Biden’s hands contributed directly to Trump’s return to power.

In each case, these figures prioritized their personal legacy and the psychic rewards of holding power over the strategic needs of their party and the constituencies they purported to serve. Beneath gerontocracy, we see the deeper problem: that the Democratic Party’s institutional weakness and political hollowness enables individual ego and career considerations to override group political judgment, repeatedly placing personal ambition above the shared goals that should animate a functioning political organization.

https://jacobin.com/2025/06/cuomo-nyc-m … ts-mamdani

I agree with all of this.  But I think it goes deeper than that.  Hakeem Jeffries isn't an aging politician - he's 54.  But who is Hakeem Jeffries?  What would be the most relevant thing he's done?  He's in a real position of power within the Democratic Party, but I don't think he's really making a name for himself.  I know the Democrats don't have any real power, but that doesn't always matter in today's media environment.  Trump had no real power from 2020-2024, but he was still everywhere.

Since Trump was elected, the only real thing anyone did was Cory Booker.  Voting against Trump's agenda and saying "we don't have any power until we win back the House and/or Senate" isn't good enough.  I think the Democrats need to do more to be getting attention.  I don't know if they're going on Fox News or Newsmax or places like that, but they need to be reaching everyone.  Trump's bill will do real damage to Republicans, and they need to be reaching those people with "I'm telling you what's about to happen to you, and here's how we would fix it"  You won't reach everyone (or maybe even a lot of people), but you have to try.

They can't just be the party of "we're against Trump" - that will probably be very useful in 2026 (if there are elections) and maybe 2028 (bigger "if there are elections") but I was worried about this even if Harris won.  The party has a very tenuous coalition, and if Trump isn't in the picture, there's no guarantee that the rich suburban white people stay with them.  And there's definitely no guarantee that the Obama-Trump voters they lost ever come back.

I don't know if they're working on that.  But I think they're fumbling the ball.

8

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I wanted to believe what Farron said before too.  But since I clicked on one of his videos once, the YouTube algorithm brings him up a bit.  With how the Trump administration is acting, I still expect them to defy the people and not hold elections.  I think there's plenty of things they could do, real or fabricated, and I think it could work for a time.

I'm not one for the "uniparty" conspiracy, but I do think people on both sides are totally fine with things the way they are.  Congresspeople and Senators have a cushy job with a ton of benefits, and they're content complaining in public but doing nothing about it.  If they were concerned, I think they'd be making a bigger deal about this stuff.  So either Trump isn't as bad as they say, or they are more than fine with it.  I'm waiting for a hero to show up, but I'm afraid no one is coming.

I have enjoyed Pete Buttigieg and AOC, but there's no way America is in a place to elect a gay man or a Latina.  I think Pete could already be president if he were straight, which is such a sad statement to have to say.  I've liked some of what I've seen from Newsom, but honestly the only guy who consistently seems to say the right thing is Jon Stewart.  I still hold out hope on some level that he would run for office, but I don't think he has any interest in that.

9

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't know how or why, but I completely missed the Karate Kid franchise.  It feels up my alley (I gravitated towards both 3 Ninjas and Surf Ninjas instead).  I watched the original a couple years ago, but while I enjoyed it, I felt like it had passed me by.  So while I want to watch all the movies and Cobra Kai, I just can't find the energy to put into actually doing that.

But I'm interested in how the rights work that the movie and show can use the same character but not share other pieces?

10

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Still not watching the news, but obviously I heard about what's happening in Iran.  I think if Trump were a normal Republican, I think there would be reasons to be hopeful that Trumpism could fall apart.  There's a pretty distinct split in MAGA (see Tucker Carlson vs Ted Cruz or Lindsay Graham vs Marjorie Taylor Greene), and with Trump doing nothing to fix the economy, I think there is a real chance that the 2026 and 2028 elections could be bloodbaths.

But I'm still skeptical that we would have elections then, and I think the more signs that Trump is unpopular and could lose power, the less likely we have elections.  I know ireactions posted from a YouTuber named Farron Biased during the election, and he downplayed the idea that midterms won't be held in a recent video.  But I think we've crossed the Rubicon, and I think the whole situation is in the hands of a madman and the madmen that control him.

That being said, if they did another (fair) election right now, I think Trump would get destroyed.  Everyone that figured he'd changed or had forgotten who he was remembers now.  And I think he's shed a decent amount of the loyalists.

My other concern - who is stepping up on the Democratic side?  Cory Booker?  Gavin Newsome?  Politicians can make their name in times like this.  Who is that?  All the names from the Obama/Biden years will be out.  We need a hero.  Who is it?

11

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ha, that all makes sense to me.  I'm genuinely curious where, if anywhere, this franchise goes next.  It's a little crazy that there are 8 movies, of wildly different styles at times, that were all good to great.  I'm not sure enough people appreciate that this might be the overall best franchise we've ever had.

12

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

These spoilers will self destruct in 5 seconds.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Hmmm, did Ethan not share the poison pill plan with the president, or did I just miss that?  I did feel like some of the motivations seemed a little weird.  Like how the president almost nuked everyone, but that seemed like the most temporary of temporary solutions.  If the president had gone through with the nuclear strikes, the Entity would've still taken control of the American nuclear weapons.  Which, on their own, would've been enough to accomplish the Entity's plan to wipe out humanity.

I do feel like if the president had known that Ethan's plan to capture the Entity would've resulted in no harm to the internet, she would've gone along with it.  It seemed like, at least to me, that the government didn't seem as concerned with controlling the Entity as just staying alive.  The argument seemed to be about the fallout from destroying the Entity, and if Ethan had a plan that didn't cause that fallout, they would've gone along with it.

But why do you think Ethan, at least until the second the movie ended, kept the Entity intact?  Is it not possible to destroy the Entity by destroying the crystal?  Would destroying the contained Entity end up destroying the internet?

And I guess my biggest question, as someone who knows nothing about AI or computers or any technology I guess....I would assume that the Entity would be not one being but infinity beings working together in harmony.  To use an analogy, I see the Entity as being the Borg.  If you capture one drone, even if it's an important drone, the rest of the Borg are still out there.  And that the Entity was trying to get a single drone (or even the Queen) into the secure servers to save itself, but that the rest of the drones would still be out in the world causing chaos.

The idea that the Entity would remove itself from every system in the world and hide all of itself in the servers seems wild to me.  Is that really how it would work?

NOTE: I still really liked this movie, but I do think the script needed another rewrite for some of this stuff that seemed less than polished.

13

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I saw it.  I wanted to give some thoughts:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So I know the director has talked about filming the prequel scenes and de-aging Cruise and filming it like a Mission Impossible movie that would've been made in the 80s.  And they decided, I believe, it was too distracting.  But I think you're right - even if they didn't go all out, they probably still could've explained a bit more.

I think, overall, the movie is really good.  I thought it was fun and engaging.  But at the same time, I struggled with some things.  I think the ending was a bit bizarre.  The whole movie is set up as a culmination of 8 movies, and the movie goes out of its way to show clips from previous movies.  This was a love note to fans of the franchise, but the movie doesn't really sell itself as a farewell to Ethan at all.  The movie keeps talking about it as "one last mission" or whatever, but what's stopping Ethan from continuing the work?  He doesn't talk about retiring, and he's not injured in any significant way.  I thought for a few minutes that the movie would end with Ethan falling out of the plane to his death, sacrificing himself to kill the Entity.  And that's almost exactly what happened.

But it didn't.  And if, immediately after everyone walks way, someone calls Ethan and tells him that Benji has been kidnapped, Ethan would go right back to work.  So what ended?

I also thought it was a bit crazy on two levels:

1. The movie says multiple times that "cyberspace" will end if they kill the Entity.  Did that not happen because they captured the Entity?  Or did it happen?  The movie simply doesn't say.  If there's somehow no Internet anymore, that's a giant change to the universe that the movie simply doesn't address

2. The movie ends with the Entity intact.  Shouldn't someone smash that box?  What's the point of capturing the Entity and holding it?  That doesn't save the world, it just delays the inevitable.  I figured Grace or Benji would smash it immediately, but then they just give it to Ethan?  And he just holds on to it?  I don't understand.

Then there's some other stuff that goes unaddressed.  They talk about martial law across the world, but that doesn't really play into anything.  Ethan and company are able to pretty freely cross borders and get through places and have chases without running into any problems.  I also found Grace's character to be a bit frustrating.  In Dead Reckoning, she was pretty clearly in it for herself, shifting a bit at the end.  In Final Reckoning, she starts off seemingly in it for herself, but at some point she's all in.  I don't know if that was earned.

I also think the dialogue was a bit clunky.  They used the word reckoning way more than it's usually used in normal conversation, and I think some of the flashback stuff was very distracting.  I have recently seen all eight movies, and I did some homework to remember some things.  So maybe it was useful to people who haven't seen any of these movies since they came out.  But to me it was distracting.

And I was also a bit blown away that the movie only had one big returning character.  Where was Jeremy Renner or Michelle Monaghan or Sean Harris or Vanessa Kirby?  I really expected that Renner would show up in a surprise appearance, and he certainly would've been helpful in this mission.  And if they wanted to make this the final movie, I sorta expected some sort of "Endgame" sequences where people showed up to help.  I know that Renner stepped away from the role and turned down something, and I don't know if there's animosity, but Renner almost took over this franchise.  And for him not to be dead but also never be mentioned or even shown in flashback just feels super weird.

And the Jim Phelps Jr stuff....I didn't think that was earned at all, and I'd be interested in seeing whether or not this satisfies people who were turned off by Phelps being the bad guy in the original.

I know that was a lot of negative, but the negative just sort of stands out.  I think the movie is really good.  It might be one of my least favorite movies of the series, but this is a series of extremely strong movies.  And this one, I think, bit off a bit more than it could chew.  But, man, Cruise knows how to make a movie, even a movie this long, super fun and engaging.  The action was fun and clear and didn't make my eyes gloss over.  And the stunts he does at his age are so impressive and memorable.

All in all, I would love to see this series continue.  And I think the way they actually ended it, this isn't really the end for Ethan, right?  There's gonna be another one, I gotta think.

14

(24 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Do TV shows have handfuls of episodes in the can before they air?  I was always under the impression that TV shows were essentially worked on until it was time to air them, and they were produced in order (outside of episodes that require extra FX, special shoots, actor availability, etc).  Like a network couldn't air the Flash season finale first because they don't usually even start working on it until long after the premiere has already aired.

Grant Gustin's last day filming on the Flash was March 4, 2023.  They'd already aired the first four episodes before he was done filming the season.  That episode didn't air for another two months, which I assume was filled with post-production.  So when are episodes in the can, and how long do networks hold them?

I promise I'm not arguing.  I legit do not know and am asking smile

15

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Still staying away from news, but I saw some of the fallout of the Elon/Trump divorce.

I know a lot of people on the left are celebrating this, but I don't see any win in this for those of us who hate Trump.  Nothing Musk says, including the Epstein stuff he's already said, will cause Trump any issue with the people who give him his real power.  There's no chance anything could be released that would get Trump removed from office.  And if you're hoping Trump does something to Musk, I don't think Trump can or will do anything that will hurt Musk in any meaningful way.

People on the left can laugh all day, but Trump is still president.

16

(24 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't understand the need/want to air episodes out of order.  Maybe I don't understand enough about how television production works, but they usually produce episodes in a certain order.  So shows will write and film the premiere first and the finale last.  They don't usually start filming the finale until the premiere has already aired.

So if they filmed Summer of Love before Prince of Wails, I don't understand why Fox would hold a finished Summer of Love for weeks when they could've just aired it.  In later seasons with larger episode orders, I figure you'd air completed episodes as soon as you can, and airing out of order would mean completing episodes out of order.  Which doesn't make sense to me unless it's an FX/post production thing.  But wouldn't Torme control that?

17

(24 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think that was the plan at all.  In fact, Quinn wasn't the one who was supposed to have the tracking device - it was Arturo, I believe.

It sounds to me like the Kromaggs were just supposed to appear a couple of times and be a mind-bending villain to the heroes.  Torme never watched any of season 4, and I don't think Sliders was planned that far in advance so it's not like they could've taken his notes and made any of it.

18

(24 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

DieselMickyDolenz wrote:

I can't imagine a Tormé-led season of Sliders being Kromag-centered. There's an infinite number of Earths (Also an infinite number of Kromag-invaded worlds, eventually, but still fewer that aren't). Maybe they run into them once a season. Maybe even twice. Just as a matter of not wanting to get too repetitious, though, there are too many more interesting ways to go.

It wouldn't fit into the show, but I'd love to see what happens when the Kromags invade an Earth whose timeline forked off from their own. It's not unthinkable that the Kromag Earths would eventually all wipe each other out.

I completely agree, actually.  But I think once you open that door, it's open.  And I think the natural evolution of "There's a group of humanoid monsters invading parallel Earths" is "humans form some sort of defense network."  There have to be advanced sliding humans who would form networks with each other to track Kromaggs or rescue Earths or whatever.  Which of course means some kind of multiversal war.  To keep with the Star Trek metaphor, there would be some sort of Mirror universe (an evil human earth that is doing the same thing the Kromaggs were doing).  I assume there would be Earths that would strip other Earths for parts for profit.  I assume there would be sliding tourism.  Who wouldn't want to slide and see worlds where history or entertainment went another direction?

My point is that the Kromaggs opened up the idea that there are advanced societies with control of sliding that are out there messing with other Earths.  Until that point, it seemed like only Quinn had access to sliding.  It changed the game.

And as far as the odds of running into the Kromaggs ever again, I think you're right but the show was really inconsistent with how the multiverse worked.  Quinn says in Summer of Love that there might only be six parallel Earths (which as ridiculous because I think Quinn had already seen or knew about more than that at that point).  It seemed like the way they slid wasn't 100% random as they interacted with related worlds a handful of times.  I've always kinda thought of it as sliding in "neighborhoods" in a city.  They stayed in a single "city" of the multiverse (the "human-led" city of the Multiverse).  And some neighborhoods look different from others, but sometimes you run into the same exact house design that just looks slightly different inside.  I think Quinn's timer wasn't powerful enough to get to the stranger parts of the multiverse where life evolved differently or whatever.

And I think the only reason I'd think the chances they'd run into Kromaggs more was the fact that one of them was being tracked.  If they didn't have the tracking device, I'd probably say that it's unlikely they'd ever see them again.  But if the Kromaggs are tracking them, they'd eventually come back.  And if they came back, would the sliders get drawn into that bigger world that was implied?

Not saying they should have.  But the door was opened.

19

(24 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Chuck wrote:

Thanks, but that story is a fan-made extrapolation of Torme's idea. Maybe.

ireactions is the author, but it's based on the idea that Torme had.  It's an approximation of what the story might have been.

I think the inherent problem with the Kromaggs is that the Season 4 Kromaggs are the natural evolution of the Season 2 Kromaggs.  If you have a militaristic society of sliding masters, I think the Sliders would become increasingly more likely to come across them.  I struggle with the idea that the Kromaggs have the manpower to invade (let alone hold) that many Earths.  But if we assume they can, I think the Sliders would start running into them more and more as their empire expands.  Especially if they were being tracked by the Kromaggs.

I think the natural evolution of that is what we never saw - what is the human reaction to the Kromaggs?  Some sort of human alliance that goes around rescuing Earths from the Kromaggs or taking the fight to them.  If the Kromaggs are the Klingons, it would be some sort of multiverse Starfleet.  If Sliders kept going, I gotta think that would happen.

So I think Torme opened the Pandora's box, and I think Season 4 is how that story would evolve.  I don't know if the design of the Kromaggs in Season 4 was the way to go, but I think the idea that we'd have an entire season where the Sliders were taking on the Kromaggs is where that story almost certainly was going to go.  You have an expansionary society that is actively tracking the Sliders and taking over worlds they are traveling to.  I don't know what else you do with that.

20

(330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think there's a ton you could skip.  If you liked Rogue One and want to see a grounded look at how the rebellion formed (for better and worse), I strongly recommend Andor.  The parallels to our world are obvious, but it's a full step away from the Skywalker stuff.  And it's separated from the other Filoni-based stuff that's currently going on.

I liked Skeleton Crew, and I like a lot of the Mandalorian.  I think my problem with a lot of the Filoni stuff is that the sequels make it feel pointless since I know what's coming.  Maybe the Younglings had a really great field trip right before Order 66, but they still get massacred by Anakin so it's hard to care too much about their story.

21

(330 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I really enjoyed the final season of Andor.  I think the show does a good job of making Star Wars more grounded and human.  I rewatched Rogue One, and I found myself really enjoying it.  I think I really liked it when I originally saw it, but it might be my favorite Star Wars movie.

22

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I haven't seen Mission Impossible: Final Reckoning yet.  But I'll hopefully see it in the next couple of weeks so I can read and respond.

23

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm interested in the fact that, apparently, China has created a thorium reactor.  I didn't know what thorium was until last night, but I'm interested in any technology that will help turn the tide our war against climate change.  Some of my friends know about some of this stuff, and one of them said that China could probably make this viable this year.  The US might be 15 years away (although he doesn't know if this is the same "15 years away" that we always are from fusion reactors).

I'm sure Trump and his anti-science brigade, as well as all the oil companies, will do what they can to make this not viable.  What I would like is for one of these oil companies to be pragmatic and get on the forefront of one of these alternatives.  They could make trillions if they play their cards right.

It is fascinating, though.  I think most Sliders fans think that season 5 is better than season 4 from a storytelling perspective, but I don't think season 5 resembles the Torme years much more than season 4 did.  I feel like they had more artistic control - Peckinpah was less active (right? am I misremembering?) and Jerry's influence was gone.  They moved away from being Kromagg heavy, but they stayed with more Sci-Fi concepts and less alternate history concepts.

I think there was an opportunity to do what they wanted, but it feels like they made a conscious decision to just do more of the same.

(Disclaimer: it's been forever since I've seen any of Season 5).

25

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well I'm glad I watched it when I did, then.  That's crazy.

26

(759 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

My wife and I are pretty good about expenses.  We have a budget on a family spreadsheet, and every week we download our expenditures for the week (we have separate credit cards), and we compare our expenses to how we've performed.  We meet for 5 or so minutes a week to discuss, and if we've overspent on any category, we talk through any changes that we need to make.  It's basically a free version of what you might find with any budgeting apps. 

One thing we've done is give ourselves each a certain amount of money (we call it our "allowance") that we can use without any sort of reaction from the other person.  This is usually something that we're doing for fun without the other - if I go out to dinner with my friends or if she wants to get some sort of spa experience.  This usually makes us give second thoughts to purchases that might otherwise be made without conscious thought.  And I think the same applies to any of our categories - making the categories separate and as specific as possible makes you think about the purchases more often.  For example, we ate at more restaurants during mother's day weekend, and so we're going to do less eating out the rest of the month to compensate.

Interesting about your cash back cards.  The bank I use does 1% cash back for all purchases, and then 5% cash back for a rotating grouping of categories on a quarterly basis.  It might be grocery stores one quarter and gas stations another.  I agree that those cards seem to have value, and I think every little bit helps.

27

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Interesting.  I watched it a couple of weeks ago.  Because of the interactive nature, I know it doesn't work on all devices so you might just not be able to see it?

28

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

DieselMickyDolenz wrote:

I don't think I've seen Black Mirror since before "Bandersnatch."

It can be hit or miss.  I recently rewatched Bandersnatch and think it was a fun concept.  The story itself isn't super Black Mirror-y.  I think some of it strays a bit from the stuff that I like the most ("how would people react if *insert technology* was introduced?") and that's what I liked about Common People.  If you wanted to try it again, there's probably some lists that would do better at picking which episodes to watch and which to skip than me.  But I think, since Bandersnatch, my favorites are:

Season 6
Beyond the Sea
Demon 79 (although technically this is "Red Mirror" - an attempt at horror)

Season 7
Common People
USS Callister: Into Infinity (if you've seen the original - obviously watch that one first)

In season 5 (which I didn't pick any), I think all three are pretty good but all flawed in their own way.  "Joan Is Awful" is very entertaining and I really wanted to like Bete Noire more than I ended up liking it.

29

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I really enjoyed this season of Black Mirror.  A lot of attention, I assume, has been on the sequel to USS Callister and the semi-sequel to Bandersnatch, but my favorite episode was "Common People."  A terrifying look at a super-realistic way that technology would both really help people and potentially hamstring working class families.  I think the others were generally pretty good.  I think "Bete Noire" is a really fun episode that I think has an ending that was maybe a little too ridiculous, even for this show.  "Hotel Reverie" has some good character work, and I assume is one of the ways movie production could go.  "Plaything" was a bit of fun, but also maybe a bit of a mess.  "Eulogy" was a great character piece starring Paul Giamatti.  And USS Callister: Into Infinity is still great, although probably not as great as the original.

30

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

SPOILERS FOR THUNDERBOLTS*

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I really liked Thunderbolts*.  I think the movie was a lot of fun, and I think the characters were really good.  I agree that Pullman's Bob is really good, and he did a good job of both being very scary and intimidating and being really vulnerable.  It's pretty incredible that Marvel was able to get all these huge stars to play, essentially, second-level characters and for a movie about them to be really fun.

We got a movie of:

- Captain America's Friend
- Three characters from the Black Widow movie
- The villain from a forgettable Ant-Man movie
- The secondary villain from the Falcon and the Winter Soldier streaming show

Some of that is a little reductive, but it's all true.  And it's a pretty great movie that I think will do well financially.

I would like to focus on a couple of things I didn't really like, though:

- The New Avengers.  I know it's played like it's a joke, but it bothered me for two reasons.  One, it's not a joke.  They are the Avengers, enough for it to really bother Sam Wilson.  I understand why Red Guardian would do this, and I think it makes a lot of sense for Yelena, Walker, and maybe Ava.  But what is Bucky doing?  He was already an Avenger, technically, and it doesn't seem like he ever wanted to be in the spotlight like this.  I think it would've been a better character move for him to turn it down.

And it shines a light on the fact that the Avengers are gone...for no reason?  I was about to write about how there are a handful of Avengers that are still active, but I guess that's not necessarily true.  In fact, I guess Phases 4-6 haven't done a terrible job at explaining where each of the Avengers is:

- Iron Man (Dead)
- Captain America (Retired)
- Hulk (Off world with his son?)
- Thor (Off world with his adopted daughter)
- Hawkeye (Retired?)
- War Machine (Replaced by a Skrull, Retired?)
- Falcon (now Captain America, working solo)
- Spider-Man (forgotten by the Avengers, working solo)
- Captain Marvel (off world)
- Black Panther (T'Challa is dead, Shuri is in Wakanda)
- Ant-Man (Not sure)
- Vison (dead)
- Black Widow (dead)
- Wanda (dead)
- Guardians (not really Avengers, off world)

Every one of those appeared in phases 4-6 or was dead in Endgame.  So they've actually done a better job than I thought at referencing why the Avengers aren't around, but they really haven't directly referenced it.  It's unclear to me if Hawkeye is actually retired, what the status is of War Machine and Ant-Man, and why none of the new characters have been recruited.  It's unclear to me why the Avengers were allowed to be over, even if I understand why individuals aren't active Avengers anymore.

And I think it all links to that scene at the end of Shang-Chi.  It seemed like Shang-Chi was in the fold, and it seemed like the Avengers existed in some form at that time.  I know Carol has space stuff to do, and Bruce was still around.  So when Bruce did his stuff from She-Hulk...did he just leave and the Avengers building was just empty?

I get that we're going to get a lot of this in Avengers: Doomsday, but it just feels super disorganized that it hasn't been referenced.  Why all these characters felt comfortable leaving the Earth defenseless, and no one thought that was a problem.  I think they've done an okay job of answering the job piecemeal, but like a lot of phases 4-6, it just doesn't feel cohesive.  And this random team being introduced as the New Avengers and then that just being okay just feels weird to me.

I also wish they'd gotten Sam to show up in the post-credits.  In fact, I wish Brave New World was more about this than what it was actually about.

31

(664 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

DieselMickyDolenz wrote:

Slow Horses - I'd read the first book. Enjoyed the season based on that book to binge the series.

I recently watched this series myself.  Really liked the characters, and Gary Oldman is incredible as the lead.  Maybe the most fun I've had watching a series in a while.

Hey DMD!

33

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Okay that's awesome.  I love the inside scoop, and I think it helps a lot with context.  And now I can sorta understand where everything was going and how/why it changed.

I guess the last question is: why kill Foggy?  There are (unsubstantiated?) rumors that Foggy will come back.  Maybe he faked his death or maybe he comes back with MCU nonsense, but if you're going to bring him back why kill him?  I understand he was dead in the original vision, but Foggy's death doesn't really play a part in episodes 2-7.  Karen moved to San Francisco.  Couldn't Foggy have moved away too?  I saw an interview with Cox and D'Onofrio where they talked about needing to jolt the series (I think Cox referred to Foggy as "the heartbeat of the MCU" which is pretty crazy for a character who technically was only in the MCU for 10 minutes?).  But I think you could've accomplished that with Foggy and Matt having a falling out or something like that.

The other question that I have is about continuity.  If Born Again originally had a loose connection to the Netflix seasons but also had a loose connection to the MCU (the strongest tie was Kamala's dad?)....then what is it?  Deadpool, I think, did a great job of connecting to both the MCU and the existing continuity.  We all thought that Deadpool would live in his own space, but this is literally Daredevil living in his own space.  No past and no future.

And, again, I don't think we needed Captain America to beat up Fisk or for the Chitauri to be involved.  But I think Born Again could cover some really interesting material.  Captain America and Iron Man were seemingly beloved by everyone, but would people differentiate between Daredevil and Captain America?  Would street-level superheroes be seen differently than Avengers?

What's crazy is that they had all the pieces to do this.  You're in the MCU - so just a couple of years ago, in universe, half the population disappeared and reappeared because of a purple alien fighting a bunch of superheroes.  New York City, where this is set, was the location of an alien attack.  This is the same universe where a giant hand is sticking out of the earth and Captain America just fought the president.  And you have, built into the show, these "man on the street interviews."

"I loved Tony Stark, but these street-level superheroes are nothing but criminals to me."

"If these guys were dangerous, the Avengers would've stopped them.  I think they're helping."

"Superheroes saved by Grandma in the blip.  I'll never see any of them as criminals."

And Fisk would have to fight this in his smear campaign.  I would assume all the Avengers have a 90+% approval rating.  He would need to make a clear case that Daredevil and White Tiger are different than Captain America.

And I don't think the show did any of that.  And it's just bizarre because it's staring right at their faces.  It's a show that doesn't seem to want to be in the MCU because it hurts its own argument.  Nolan's Dark Knight series is probably hurt if Superman is out there somewhere, and I think Born Again is a little hurt by the idea that incredibly-popular superheroes exist.

******

I think it all sorta ties to the idea that these MCU shows could've been a really cool street-level look into how the Avengers' actions impacted people.  It started really promising with Falcon and the Winter Soldier having the government react to the Snap/Blip.  But all that seems to have washed over.  Despite all the crazy stuff that's happened in the MCU, their world and our world are pretty much the same.  Which is bonkers.

I know that they can't have the worlds diverge too much because they still need to film in our world.  But you wouldn't need to pay Robert Downey Jr. to be in these movies to make them feel cohesive.  Dialogue is basically free, right?

34

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I watched Ant-Man and the Wasp.  I really didn't remember anything about that movie, apparently, outside of the post-credits scene.  Which I maintain is one of the best ones that the MCU has done.  Great cliffhanger and great tie-in to Endgame.  I thought it was a pretty fun movie.  I think Ant-Man really works, and I'm sad that Quantumania ended up being such a disaster for the MCU (critically, financially, and even creatively).

******

I think Daredevil was pretty solid.  And when you understand the behind the scenes hodgepodge that it was, I think it's amazing that it's anywhere near as good as it was.  I'm still unsure of what the show as going to be, though.  If we basically got episodes 1-6 of the original concept as episodes 2-7, what was the real difference?  Would the original season, minus missing out on Foggy and Karen (which I know is important to ireactions) really have been so bad that they needed to overhaul it?  Unless they made changes, those shows were pretty good.  I didn't think there was an obvious jump in quality.

I understand they didn't have the Punisher right, and they needed Foggy and Karen to make the whole show feel more cohesive.  But I guess it didn't feel like a dumpster fire that had to be rewritten.

35

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I rewatched Black Widow in advance of Thunderbolts* coming out.  I thought it was a lot of fun, and I think it was a good set up for Yelena and Red Guardian.  I think, obviously, it would've been a bit more fun if it had come out before Endgame, but it is what it is.  I'm still surprised when Jeremy Renner never shows up, but he has a voice cameo and is pictured in the post credits.  I also get why they didn't shoehorn a male star in Scarlet's movie, but I think it's weird that Cap didn't make an appearance.  I think a more complete story would've shown what Cap was up to and how he reunited with Natasha, but I can see why that wasn't what was done.

Taskmaster seemed completely wasted and might be completely wasted in Thunderbolts*.  I think she needed an action sequence where she used all her Avengers skills to win a fight.  She basically did some cool posing but mostly failed.  I think we needed to understand how formidable she was.

All in all, I liked it.  I'm going to try and watch Ant-Man and the Wasp to get some setup for Ghost.  I barely remember that movie.  I feel like I still have a pretty good feel for John Walker, since we spent so much time with him in FATWS.

I had a chance to see an advanced screening tonight but wasn't able to make it.  I'll try and see it the week after it comes out.

36

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The China stuff is absolute nonsense.  Trump doesn't care about China, and tariffs wouldn't even be on the top 50 ways to hurt China if you thought they were a threat.  Tariffs are being placed to hurt American businesses so that Trump can get loyalty from CEOs in exchange for tariff relief.  It's always a grift with Trump, and it's never about the reasons he uses.  If you ask 10 Trump administration people, they're all going to give different reasons because it's all BS.

Trump wants to help Russia by destabilizing the West.  And again, the tariffs help China way more than it hurts them.  People are still going to buy goods from China so it doesn't affect China there.  Businesses can pass the price along to the consumers so it doesn't affect them (unless the price becomes untenable).  The only people hurt are American consumers.  And China not only will get the same business from Americans, but they'll get additional trading from people that want free trade agreements (so far, Japan and South Korea).

So the winners are:

1. Trump (for getting whatever he wants)
2. Russia
3. China

Again, the people hurt the worst are almost certainly poor Trump voters.  And since there's still a tariff on thoughts and prayers, good.

37

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump paused his tariffs.  I hope it's a permanent pause.  As much as I have enjoyed Trump looking like an absolute moron on the global stage and having republican influencers turning on him, the tariffs were going to cause decades of irreparable harm to the country my kids live in.  The global market was basically going to cut the US out (they still might) - Canada was starting trade agreements with Europe, Japan and South Korea were going to China.  That kind of stuff would cause damage that isn't as easily fixed by a future competent administration.

38

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh dang, I meant to link to it.  Now all of this could be complete and utter BS because I tried to find the twitter chain and it's gone.  I haven't read the leaked script (if there is one) and I have no idea if this guy or his main source is reliable.  But if it's fanfic, I think its fun fanfic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SHeSUoN2ZM

39

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So I am way behind on this, but I recently watched a video that outlined how "The Kang Dynasty" would have played out.  I won't get into the plot of the dropped movie (but I'll have minor "spoilers" from plot details that almost certainly don't matter anymore), but what was most interesting to me was the idea that Phases 4-6 were supposed to feel more cohesive.  I've been wondering who the "Nick Fury" should've been for the Multiverse Saga - and it was supposed to be Jonathan Majors.

According to the leaks, this is how the Council of Kangs was supposed to be unveiled:

- Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania - Intro to Kang the Conqueror
- Loki (seasons 1 and 2) - Intro of He Who Remains and Victor Timely
- Deadpool and Wolverine - Mid-Credit Council of Kangs scene
- Agatha All Along - Introduction to Immortus
- Moon Knight (Season 2) - Introduction to Rama-Tut
- X-Men 97 (Season 2) - Introduction to the Centurian and formation of the Council of Kangs
- Fantastic Four - Background on the first multiversal war.  Some sort of connection between the TVA and the Fantastic Four would've been made because The Kang Dynasty starts with Reed reaching out to the TVA.

So it's not a ton more but it would've given proper intros to the primary figures in the Council of Kangs spread across the movies.  I think if we'd gotten all this, it would have felt more cohesive and felt like it was building to something.  It would've also revealed that Kang the Conqueror survived Quantumania so the whole "he got defeated by Ant-Man so how scary could he be" idea is a bit of a mess.

I think Marvel's problems were:

1) Covid messing with the release schedule.  I still think it would've been better if Spider-Man had come out after Multiverse of Madness and the original plan would've been used for those two movies (it would've been an evil Dr Strange helping Peter and America would've shown up to help). 

2) The decision to hire Jonathan Majors.  This isn't Disney's fault.  I think Majors could've been a great villain, but he ended up just being a bad dude.

I think the original plan sounds interesting, and I think The Kang Dynasty sounds interesting.  I would've loved to have seen how it worked out if the original plan had been followed.

Now is any of this actually how it was supposed to happen?  I don't know.  It's hard to say.

1. We got Ant-Man and Loki as is.  None of that would've changed.  Sounds like Deadpool and Wolverine would've had a mid-credits scene so that movie would've been mostly unchanged (but it introduced anchor beings, which was a big player in Kang Dynasty).

2. Immortus in Agatha?  I don't see how?  Any guesses?

3. Kang stuff in Moon Knight and X-Men 97 season 2s?  Could explain why we haven't had season 2s of either of them yet.  Seems a bit weird to make it season 2 of Moon Knight and not season one, but maybe they had a ton of confidence in season one.  The video implied that there was references to Rama-Tut in Moon Knight season one, but I wouldn't have gotten them.

4. Kang in Fantastic Four.  Makes sense and could explain why that movie had so many changes.

All in all, this makes me feel a little better that there was a plan, if this is true.  And Marvel didn't just suddenly get bad at cohesion - they're the victims of having to massively change course because their lynchpin became unusable

I do wonder why they didn't just recast.  Especially with something like Kang.  With a multiversal person, you could come up with any number of reasons why they look different, or you could do what was done with Rhodey or the Hulk and just ignore it.  It feels like a better idea to stick to the plan with a recast than anything else, but maybe they didn't think they could get it done quickly enough with someone who could carry the weight.  I don't know.

40

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't disagree.  I've generally liked everything that Marvel has released, even the stuff that probably won't go anywhere like Moon Knight.  I guess my biggest concern is that the process doesn't feel cohesive.  I don't know if it's not cohesive, but it doesn't feel that way.  And the whole universe sorta feels aimless.

Now if you're talking about a season of an anthology show like Black Mirror or a list of A24 films or whatever, it doesn't have to feel cohesive and you can enjoy something here or there.  But in a shared universe, I would like to hope that all the building blocks are setting something up that will reward me for my loyalty. 

Phase one is Tony and Steve's story.  They became heroes, became Avengers, fought, and came back together to save the world before their journeys ended.  But if T'Challa didn't have his journey, the Avengers couldn't have won against Thanos.  If Scott Lang didn't have his journey, the time heist wouldn't have been possible.  If Stephen Strange hadn't had his journey, maybe Tony dies before he could save the day.  Carol Danvers, the Guardians, Thor and Loki, Peter Parker, etc all had their parts to play.

Even small stuff.  Ant-Man (2015) may not feel super important, but Scott meeting Sam at the Avengers compound has a direct through-line to the time heist.  Thor: The Dark World is much maligned, but it introduces one of the infinity stones.  Even smaller stories contributed to the overall story.

Right now, it just feels like independent stories.  And some of that is okay.  They've done so many stories since Endgame, and not every one of them needs to be a puzzle piece.  Moon Knight doesn't need to contribute to defeating Doom for it to be enjoying or worth existing, but I just don't feel like any of it is building to anything.  And part of that is that we're not "checking in" on anyone.  I don't know what Dr. Strange is doing since he left with Charlize Theron.  We don't know what Spider-Man is up to.  We don't know what the Avengers are doing about the Ten Rings.  Brave New World implies there are no Avengers, but that didn't seem to be the case in Shang-Chi.

I think some of this could've been accomplished with a series of post-credit scenes that make the universe feel whole.  Sorta like a mini-movie that is being told via post-credit scenes to just keep our pulse on what's happening in the greater universe.  I think Sam would've been a great guy to put in a few of these movies, but it could've also been someone like Wong or Shang-Chi or someone like that.

But even if actor availability is a concern, they could simply catch us up with dialogue.  Sam could've told us what other Avengers were up to in Brave New World.  Daredevil could tell us what Spider-Man is doing.

And maybe all of this will work in retrospect.  It's unlikely the Sam/Scott fight in Ant-Man felt important at the time, and I'm not 100% sure that scene was even written to connect to Civil War.  But in retrospect, it works.  So maybe we'll look back and see more ties than we think there are now.  But I still think it doesn't feel like anyone is behind the wheel right now.

And I worry that they're going to have to devote time in Doomsday to catching us up.  And I think some of that could've been done in dialogue, in cameos, in crossovers, or even supplemental materials (One Shots or whatever).  It's just crazy to me that we've had so much content but so little continuity.

I'm still all in on Marvel.  My enthusiasm hasn't waned a ton.  But I just wish some of that cohesiveness was still there, and I worry that Doomsday is going to have to do so much heavy lifting instead of storytelling.

41

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I completely agree, but the Russos might be panicking a bit as well.  Their post-Endgame movies have all either been dull or been bombs, and their most recent is (allegedly, I haven't seen it) a disaster.  They probably need Marvel as much as Marvel needs them.

What's frustrating to me is that Phases 4 and 5 have had so much content, but it all feels so aimless.  To be fair, Thanos barely did anything prior to the very end of Phase 3, instantly became a great villain, and retroactively made it seem like he was the villain of Phases 1-3.  Maybe if there'd simply been an avengers movie in Phase 4 or 5 it would feel more cohesive.  The story of the Infinity Saga is basically told in the Avengers movies and Civil War.  Despite all the content, we haven't really had anything like that so far.

It can definitely work out.  Maybe the Russos do their best work in the Marvel sandbox, and maybe this has all been building to Doomsday and Secret Wars.  I'll be seeing it ASAP when it comes out.  But when DC rushed things to get to Justice League, it was because they didn't have enough time.  That wasn't Marvel's problem, and that's what's frustrating.  I know some of this is because of Jonathan Majors, but I feel like it still would've been rushed.

42

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Did anyone see the casting for Avengers Doomsday?  Is that a spoiler?

I have no idea how they're going to manage adding the cast of (spoiler?) to this movie.  I think the multiverse is a cool concept (obviously), and it's fun to have worlds collide.  But I really think this was the wrong decision for phases 4-6, and I'm worried Marvel is doing a panic move.

43

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Dan Carlin is known for a podcast called Hardcore History, but he has a more modern politics podcast called Common Sense.  He doesn't do that podcast very often (he hasn't done one in years), but he did one for the beginning of the second Trump administration.  I think he's very good and has an interesting perspective on both Trump and the decades-long increase of power for the executive branch.  I recommend people check it out.

https://www.dancarlin.com/common-sense/

44

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Spoilers for Episode 5 of Daredevil

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So they did their first MCU crossover.  I remember hearing about this, but I'd completely forgotten.  And I'm unsure how I feel about it.  On one hand, it's exactly what I'm looking for, and it might be the perfect link for this particular show.  On the other...Kamala's dad??

I'll start with the positives.  They aren't bringing in a big movie star (editorial - I know the actor playing Mr. Khan is allegedly some sort of criminal, I don't know anything about it), nor are they bringing in someone who requires big time CGI.  In fact, it was someone who couldn't help Matt at all.  If it had been Sam Wilson in civilian clothes or Rhodey or Nick Fury, Matt would've had help.  In this case, it's an established MCU character (he's probably appeared in more MCU material than some people you wouldn't expect) that couldn't help Matt in any way.  And there was an on-screen reference to Ms. Marvel.

So in that minute, Matt felt connected to the universe.

But at the end of the day, its a little bizarre that they picked Mr. Khan.  This feels like the type of cameo where they'd go to Jon Favreau and get Happy Hogan to show up.  If you'd told me there would be an MCU crossover in episode 5 and gave me 1000 guesses, I might never have gotten to Kamala's dad.  I might've gone off the board and picked Iron Fist and assumed that was technically an MCU character.

But I asked for it, and I got it.  I don't need Spider-Man to show up (I know he can't) and have the two of them fight aliens, but it's nice to know that the show isn't ashamed of being in the MCU.

45

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't know if its essential.  There are ties to previous seasons but they're pretty loose with it.  I think if you have a general idea of any version of Kingpin or Matt Murdock, you'd be okay without watching anything previous.  The show does a pretty good job of setting the stage, and any knowledge of seasons 1-3 would just be used as context more than anything.

If you decide to watch without having seen seasons 1-3, let us know.  I'd be curious to see how it feels.

46

(136 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I would think the same thing.  I tried to look but also didn't see anything.

Which is surprising to me because I think Rosenbaum is good about getting people to talk about controversial stuff.  But maybe Welling put his foot down or maybe he isn't legally allowed to talk about anything.

47

(136 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Does anyone actively listen to Talkville.  It looks like they've had new episodes since the arrest - has Tom referenced it?

48

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I just don't understand the disconnect between the universe now.  In the past, they'd throw Chris Evans in Thor: the Dark World for a sight gag.  Falcon would show up and fight Ant-Man.  Even if you don't want a direct crossover, dialogue is free.  Fisk should either acknowledge that Daredevil and White Tiger are different from government-sanctioned heroes like Captain America, or someone should be challenging him on that front.

I really thought that, following Endgame, the idea of fleshing out the universe via TV shows was a great idea.  The problem is that they've made the universe even more closed off.  And I wonder if the Snap was just too big of an event to follow up on.  Because the Snap/Blip is almost never mentioned outside of a few scenes.  Normal characters never mention it.  And the world seems to have completely rebounded to the point where nothing seems different.  I really liked that recovery from the Snap seemed to have been a huge part of Falcon and the Winter Soldier.

But think about the show/book "The Leftovers" - they made one of the best shows of all time based on the idea that 3% of people disappeared without a trace.  That happened in the MCU (and then they came back!) and now everyone in the MCU is the bullpen at the Daily Planet after Man of Steel.

Maybe they should've had Doctor Strange write a spell that compels people to return to their lives and forget about Thanos.  At least there would be a reason.  Or maybe they need to stay away from situations that would drastically affect society.

But...I went on a tangent.  I think, even if they wanted each show to live by itself, they could have people make references that make the universe feel cohesive.  If Fisk mentioned Captain America or the Avengers, it would feel like the MCU.  Making a shaded reference to Spider-Man is cool, but it feels like the references they'd make in the Netflix show (the big green guy.  the thing that happened in the city).

That's why I wonder if they needed a Nick Fury for Phases 4-6.  Someone who could pop into these shows and movies and make it feel connected.  I think Sam Wilson makes a lot of sense to be that guy, trying to hold the Avengers together in some way.  But they could really use anyone.  I mean, heck, use Coulson.  Say that Tony brought him back with the Snap and now he's the new Fury.  I know that might upset Agents of Shield people but it is what it is.

49

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought I'd typed out a response but I guess not.

I knew a lot of the behind the scenes, but I actually thought they reshot the whole thing.  I think that makes a ton of sense.  I thought there were some continuity errors (like Bullseye surviving the fall without much fanfare) but I think that makes a lot of sense.  I'd also heard that there was almost no Daredevil in the original version and 2.75 episodes in, there's been very little Daredevil.

So it makes sense, although I'm a little disappointed that we're still getting 2/3 of a show that was deemed unwatchable.  I think what we've seen so far is pretty good.  But it's a little different through the lens of seeing it as a Frankenstein creation.

I do agree with you on the oddity of both a separation from the Netflix show and the MCU.  I agree that the public probably wouldn't be massively in favor of slander of heroes.  Even street level vigilantes, I assume, would be popular celebrities.  So when it's argued that heroes like Daredevil or Spider-Man or White Tiger are criminals hiding their faces, I don't think that would really fly in a world where Iron Man and Captain America brought half the living beings in the universe back to life by punching a big purple guy.

In episode 3, no spoilers, there was a scene where Daredevil is trying to protect someone and has his PI associate protecting him.  And I'm like "you know She-Hulk".  I know whether or not he knows Spider-Man is a tricky question but he knows Spider-Man!  He knows Luke Cage and Jessica Jones.  Why is he letting a retired cop protect this guy when he knows different people depending on what is canon.

This all kinda goes into the soup of "what is the MCU after Endgame?"  Because we've had so many hours of material, but I still don't think this feels like a cohesive universe anymore.  Like during Falcon and the Winter Solider, they talked about all the way the worlds' governments responded to billions of people returning from the dead.  I thought it would be super useful for these TV shows to give more street-level info on this world and how normal people are reacting to stuff in the Marvel universe.

And it turns out that no one seems to even care or talk about the Snap anymore.  No one talks about superheroes.  It's just our world with minor changes.  And I think, especially in a show that's doing what Daredevil is doing, we should be getting the big differences with our world and their world.  And they don't seem to want to commit to that, whether they think it messes with the realism of Daredevil or what.  But I think it's okay to ask the question "what is the point of Daredevil when there's a flying Captain America"

And I think the answer should be the same thing that Captain Marvel told the Avengers in Endgame.  There are a lot of people who aren't directly protected by the Avengers.  That's what Daredevil and White Tiger and Kamala Khan and Moon Knight and those people are for.  Or, at least, that's what I think they should be for.

50

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

To me, Trump's biggest flaw isn't his incompetence.  If anything, I think it's the thing about him that I like the most.  If Trump were competent, I think he'd be much more dangerous.  The fact that the Hitler we're getting is really bad at his job might actually save the US because Trump is really really bad at getting things done.

My issue with Trump is that he doesn't seem to ever have the American people's best interests at heart.  I'm not sure he hates the United States, but he certainly does a lot of things to actively hurt it.  If Trump actually loved the United States and wanted it to be great, I wouldn't hate Trump as much (obviously, I still would).  But Trump is actively trying to sell the country out.  He's actively trying to diminish the country and make it less safe for my children.  He's attacking allies that we will need to placate powers we need to be standing up to.  And he's convincing my fellow countrymen that it's okay to do that.

I was thinking about what could get Americans united.  And if Russians actively attacked the US.  Let's say Russia invaded Alaska and secured some of our oil fields there.  Instead of rallying around a common enemy, I bet the narrative would be either that the Russians didn't really do it or that it's okay that they did.  If aliens attacked and we needed to unite as a species, it would either be that the alien invasion is fake or that it's good that they're taking over.

I think, with time, some of this will go away.  I thought it would need to be defeating Trump in a spectacular fashion.  At this point, it may need to be Trump failing in a spectacular fashion, even if it means the next president will need to dig us out of economic and social catastrophe.

51

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So small spoilers for episode one of Daredevil.  Not a major spoiler or anything you wouldn't see coming from a mile away (and yes you're in the right place).

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So Fisk becomes mayor of NYC.  And the parallels to Trump are pretty aggressive.  It's a little upsetting to see, but here's the thing that I keep thinking:

I think Fisk is better than Trump.

Fisk is a literal murderer, but in scenes where it doesn't make sense for him to lie or put on a show, he talks about wanting to be better.  He talks about how much he loves the city.  Maybe he's doing it for money or power or whatever, but as mayor, he starts making improvements.  He doesn't appear to be sexist or racist or selling out the people for his personal gain. 

Fisk is a bad guy, but at least he's making an effort.  I haven't seen Trump make an effort once in a decade.  And we know a lot more about Fisk than we do about Trump.  I'm sure there are bodies that belong to Trump.  He almost certainly hasn't done it himself like Fisk would, but I'd be shocked if he hasn't had people killed. 

I used to think it was so silly that a comic book villain would be elected mayor or president.  President Lex Luthor seemed so ridiculous and over the top.  And here's the thing:

I think Lex Luthor is better than Trump.

Lex is a monster, but I do think he cares about humanity.  He wants things done his way, and he wants to be the guy that gets celebrated...but he occasionally will step up and fight with the heroes when he realizes what side he needs to be on.  Do you think Trump would do that?  I certainly don't.

In some ways, we live in the ridiculous world.

52

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've started Daredevil: Born Again.  One problem, and it's a problem we've seen with the MCU in general with the additional output, is how does this connect to anything?  And it's not like "Daredevil lives in his own space" because he's appeared in two things in the MCU already.  I'm not fully done, but I'm not sure how Born Again ties in with She-Hulk.  When does this take place?  I don't think we need Sam Wilson to cameo, but it would be nice for this to feel like it exists in the MCU, unlike the original three seasons.

53

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I talked about it after the election.  I think he has the means to try it.  I think there's enough a) support for Trump and b) political apathy that he could probably make it happen without massive civil unrest.  All he has to do is use the FBI to "prove" that elections are unsafe or under attack and "delay" them.  And the delay never ends.

Reasons to not be pessimistic:

- Trump is very old.  Who knows if he'll survive the four years that he's president.  Who knows what mental state he'll be in four years from now.  Look at how Biden aged from 2020 to 2024, and Trump is aging the exact same number of years. 
- Trump enjoys all the attention he's getting and wants that to continue.  He's still in the "honeymoon" phase and everything is still new and exciting.  Let's see how he's doing when his approval rating goes back in the toilet and he has to spend all day defending all the stupid things he's done.  If being president is fun, this is the fun part.  We know Trump ran to keep himself out of prison and because he enjoys when people call him Mr. President.  There's no way he enjoys most of the rest of the job.  I thought there was a chance he wouldn't run again because the job was probably a pain in the butt - he has to wake up early and people make him read stuff and he has to talk to reporters and all that stuff.  I don't know if the charges against him changed the calculus or not, but I think there's a decent chance he doesn't want the job anymore.

***********

I'm still not watching any news or reading anything or involving myself in this stuff.  Good luck to everyone that is.

54

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Okay so I saw Cap 4.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Hmmm, I think you might be too hard on Captain America: Brave New World.  While I certainly agree that this is a Hulk movie acting like a Captain America movie, I do think a lot of it works as a Captain America movie.  I think it seems like it's trying to be the Winter Soldier (it feels as close to that as any movie since), and I think Captain America's relationship with the president is something that should be explored.  And then it's a natural extension, for me at least, to bring in Ross' supporting characters.

It could've been a purer Captain America movie if they'd Sidewinder the main villain (instead of the Leader) and made the president someone else.  But then I assume you lose the Red Hulk and the movie becomes something more potentially forgettable like Thor: The Dark World.

I think the movie probably would've been better served to have Bruce Banner in it, but I can see why they didn't want to go that route.  If Banner is there, he might overshadow Sam in his first movie.  It was okay to have Downey in Civil War and make that a mini-Avengers movie because it was Chris Evans' third movie.  If you make it a Hulk movie starring Captain America, it might be a bad look.  Especially for the first movie for a black Captain America.  You don't want that to turn into, on purpose or by accident, "The Hulk and his buddy Sam"

I think there were two natural stories for this movie.  One is perfect but logistically impossible.  The other I'm not sure why they didn't do, but it might have been too late to pivot.

1. Make it a Captain Hydra story.  What's the villain that would affect Sam the most: Steve.  What's the theme of this saga of MCU movies: the Multiverse.  If you bring back Chris Evans as Captain Hydra, brought into this universe by...something...and you have Sam having to face all his fears and hopes and dreams.  He gets to literally see if he's a better Captain America than Steve.  I think that movie is a better story for Sam, it's a better fit for the Multiverse Saga, and it's a bigger draw for people to have Chris Evans return.  But I think they're saving that for later, which is a shame.

2. Make it a "Putting the Avengers back together" story.  Maybe even some kind of Oceans 11 type movie where Sam spends the first act going to see Scott and Rhodey and Shuri and the other Earth-based heroes and trying to figure out who wants to join the team.  They'd all turn him down for one reason or another, but we'd also get to get status updates on everyone.  He tries to reach out to Captain Marvel or Thor or whoever.  Maybe it pivots into some kind of Young Avengers movie with Sam as the leader.  I don't know.  But I think it would make the universe feel cohesive again to have an understanding of what's going on in this universe because I think that's what we're missing. 

In so many ways, the world of the MCU is so much bigger, but we have no idea the state of the world right now.  Why aren't there any Avengers?  Even if most of the original Avengers died, retired, or moved on....there were a hundred Avengers at the fight in Endgame.  None of them wanted to stick around and keep doing good?  That's why I think phases 4-6 should've been about "what does it mean to be an Avenger?" "Can you have a life and be an Avenger or is being an Avenger your life?"  "Does the world need the Avengers" - stuff like that.  I think right now we don't understand what's going on, and that's the reason why the MCU is struggling to me.

But back to the movie we did get.  I think one of my other disappointments is that we didn't really get much of Sam's life.  Nando v Movies brought this up in his review, but Sam's life seems to be pretty changed from where he was in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.  Where's his family?  Where's his nephew(s)?  What is his deal - he seems to have some kind of headquarters.  Who's paying for that?  Who sends him on missions?  Is he a mercenary for good?  He seems to be enjoying being Captain America, but how's the rest of his life going?

Other than that, I thought the movie had good action.  I think the character moments we got with Sam were pretty good.  I still don't understand his position on the super soldier serum, but that doesn't bother me too much.  It was bizarre that we kept getting references to the Celestial but not a single reference to the Eternals.  I think the movie felt pretty unique - I didn't think it felt like any other MCU movie before.  I liked seeing the Leader, although I didn't love the look they gave him.  I think Giancarlo Esposito was wasted a bit, although he was good with what he was given.

All in all, I didn't hate it.  I think there were some wasted opportunities, but I can understand why they went the route they went.  I'm hoping that this can be considered the end of the "Covid era" of MCU because I do think Covid ruined a ton of the post-Endgame era.  With scheduling delays and changed storylines and altered release schedules and abandoned ideas, I think Covid messed with a lot of the master plan.  And I'm hoping Thunderbolts or Fantastic Four, which started development in the post-Covid era (at least FF did), can start to fix the heading of the ship.

55

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

I thought it was also very odd that Riri Williams, who only appeared in the BLACK PANTHER sequel, got a whole episode of focus; we barely know the prime Riri, so showing an alternate version isn't very meaningful.

Multiverse of Madness and No Way Home were originally flipped.  There's concept art that shows America Chavez helping out Spider-Man, and the Dr Strange in No Way Home was supposed to be the evil Dr Strange from Multiverse of Madness that defeated our Dr Strange in that movie.  Multiverse of Madness was supposed to end with a cliffhanger that had Dr Strange defeated and trapped on an alternate Earth.

It makes sense when you think about it.  The movie is pretty nonchalant with parallel universe stuff, and that's because audiences were supposed to be introduced to the Multiverse in Dr Strange.  America showing up would've helped the kids understand what was happening and how to stop it.  And, the biggest, Dr Strange's behavior is explained.  Instead of doing this really irresponsible spell that almost gets the universe destroyed, it's a bad guy doing it.

The same thing happened with Ironheart and What If Season 3.  Ironheart was supposed to be out by now - it finished filming in November 2022.  So I'm guessing it was supposed to air in 2023 or at the very least early 2024.  Not only would audiences get to meet Riri but they'd also meet The Hood (who shows up in the Wild West episode).  In both cases, the episodes probably make more sense when you have any idea who those people are.

********

I'm not upset about spoilers, I'm just confused.  I hope it isn't that they don't care because I think Thunderbolts could be a lot of fun, and I think adding Taskmaster to trick audiences should be fairly cheap or easy.  I don't think they needed to reshoot the whole movie with Taskmaster to fool audiences, but they could've shot certain shots with Taskmaster in the background and used those shots for the trailer.  If they didn't want to pay the actress to show up (and I don't even know if they paid whoever was in Black Widow to come back for this), they could've used anyone - Taskmaster wears a mask.

Now that I'm off social media, I do try to avoid spoilers (it's much easier), but it doesn't bother me if I read something.   Sometimes I forget while watching a movie and can maintain suspense.

*******

Obviously since I'm here I love multiverse stories, but I think Phases 4-6 should not have been multiverse themed.  I think it should've been "Avengers Disassembled" and should've been about the world losing its heroes.  We are almost done with this saga of movies, and we still have no idea what the state of the Avengers is.  I haven't seen Captain America yet (I might see it tonight), but even that would be pretty late in the game for us to have almost no information.  Does the team still exist?  In what form?  Who's on it?  Where are the others?  The only indication we have that there is any sort of team is in the post credits of Shang Chi.

I think Sam Wilson should've been the star of Phases 4-6, and it should've been him trying to hold the Avengers together after he takes the mantle of Cap (which happened very early in Phase 4).  He should've shown up in most of the movies, pleading with Thor to stay on Earth or pleading with Dr Strange to stick around.  And in the absence of those guys, he should be active in recruiting new people.  Something like Multiverse of Madness should've featured a patchwork Avengers failing to stop a threat and Dr Strange coming to save the day.

Instead of....nothing...the running story through Phase 4-6 should be that the Avengers were a special group that cannot be easily replicated.  Tony loved being Iron Man, Steve Rogers had no life, Banner was an outcast, Thor didn't know many people off the team, and Barton/Natasha were soldiers that treated it like a job.  Most of the remaining team have lives they want to maintain.

I don't think we necessarily needed every movie to be a mini Avengers movie, but we needed the movies to tell the story of a world that doesn't have a team standing by anymore.  So solo movies should've been about heroes taking on too much or struggling to work in a broken team.  Movies like Ant-Man and Thor and Dr Strange should've been about legacy members trying to make it work as the ones left to carry the mantle.  And new characters should've been about Sam trying to find people that can work together.

And phase six could end with the Avengers figuring it out and starting a new team that allows members to come and go and respond when they can.

Phases 7-9 could be Multiverse as we see this new team facing versions of the old team (and themselves) coming back to haunt them.

56

(929 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Spoilers for Thunderbolts, probably.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So the trailers for this movie have been pretty good, I think.  I think it will be a fun team, and I think the characters will have a chance to expand.  But we saw it with Suicide Squad, and we're seeing it with Thunderbolts.  The team being advertised is six people: Bucky, Yelena, Red Guardian, John Walker, Ghost, and Taskmaster.  Except all the major scenes only have five members.  In the elevator, it's five.  When they're walking down the street together, it's five.  When Red Guardian is giving his big speech, it's five.

Taskmaster clearly dies very early in this film, and the marketing isn't even trying to hide it.  Unlike when they hid Spider-Man in the Civil War trailer until their big reveal or hid Fat Thor in the Endgame marketing or they hid the Spider-Men in No Way Home or they added back in the Hulk for Infinity War...they aren't even doing any trickery.  They aren't going back in and adding Taskmaster to make it seem like she's in this movie.  In the Super Bowl spot (which I really like), she's essentially tacked on to the end of it to make it seem like she's in the movie even though she's barely in the trailer before that. 

Now the trailer mostly ignores Ghost as well, but at least she's involved in the action.  You can tell she's in the movie.  We know Taskmaster is in the big ambush sequence (I assume at the very beginning) but she's basically gone in every other shot.  So like Slipknot in the original Suicide Squad, I assume she's only in the movie to die and slightly raise the stakes.  Which is fine...but I would've preferred if Marvel wasn't openly parading that in all the trailers.

Especially since Taskmaster wears a mask.  They could've had a stuntperson in the Taskmaster costume for every shot and use those shots in the trailer.  When they're just standing around listening to Red Guardian's speech, throw in the Taskmaster double for the trailers.  In the car ride that Bucky attacks, throw Taskmaster in for the trailers.  If that's too expensive, throw her in in post.  Not in every shot but just enough for us to believe that she's in more than one scene.

It's no big deal at the end of the day, but I'd either prefer they ignore her completely or add her back in.  The way they're doing is a little awkward.

******

I'm seeing Captain America this week.  I've heard nothing but bad things but I'm hopeful it'll be entertaining.

57

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

The Canadian character is also blessed with excellent precision: we know not to strike our friends even as we retaliate against our enemies. We know our enemies are not Grizzlor, Slider_Quinn21, pilight, Temporal Flux or even Informant. We know who we're fighting.

Make no mistake: even though we're currently in a transition (the soon to be former prime minister resigned, Slider_Quinn21 needs some time to think), we Canadians are furious, we have electricity and we're not afraid to stop selling it, we have long memories, and we hold very bitter grudges.

On behalf of all Americans, we are sorry.  Canada is supposed to be our friend, and I don't know why we're treating our friends this way.  We also do not want to make you an American state.  At the moment, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I hope America can find its way out of what we've become, and I hope Canada will forgive us when we do.

58

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden absolutely shouldn't have run for another term.  He ended up doing the right thing, but it was too late.  If you look the way the wind ended up blowing, it might not have mattered no matter who the candidate was.

59

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Personally, I set that selection over election aside because I liked Kamala. pilight did not set it aside, and pilgiht has every right to not set that aside and to consider it indicting and disqualifying and a clear indication that Kamala should never have been the nominee. As his facts are correct, he has the right to offer an opinion of the facts, and he should not be abused and harassed for it.

pilight has every right to hold and present his personal reaction to the objective facts of Kamala being selected, not elected. pilight did not make up his own facts. pilight did not attack others for declining to accept his personal reactions and speculations. I can't say what's going on in pilight's mind because he's been guarded on that, but his conduct has been exemplary in sharing his personal opinion as a personal opinion, and he has not engaged in conversation hijacking or false accusations or abuse and harassment.

I agree with all that.  I only disagree with the premise that there was ever a chance of an open primary.  If the Democrats would've run a primary, anyone that could've beaten Trump would've chosen to sit it out.  It would've been a primary for the sake of doing a primary, and it would've ended up with the same result.  I guess you could technically argue that if they'd spent 4-6 weeks doing a primary across the country that Kamala's "honeymoon period" could have come later and maybe that would've helped her.  But I doubt it.

I also think that even if Kamala had chosen not to run, there wouldn't have been a true open primary.  It was political suicide for Kamala to run herself.  Losing a presidential election is typically career death (which is why Trump still won't admit he lost), and it would've killed the career of Whitmer or Newsom to run on a shortened timeline and lose.

pilight is perfectly okay to think it mattered.  And I think he's right if Biden had dropped out in 2022.  But aside from that, I think a phony primary that Kamala would've easily won wouldn't have affected the outcome one bit.  And a true primary would've taken way too much time and probably also wouldn't have affected the outcome one bit.

60

(3,508 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm sorry, guys.  I had a rough day yesterday (no big deal, nothing consequential) and I don't have the heart to chime in here right now.  Maybe I will later.  I guess my half-hearted response would be some combination of the same argument I made in regard to Grizzlor (we can't afford to lose anyone and we need varied viewpoints) and "go back to your corners and cool down."  I don't want QuinnSlidr to leave, and I don't like the idea of any sort of temporary ban in this case, but I do agree that QuinnSlidr should probably voluntarily avoid this post for his own mental health.  And maybe do the same with the news.  It can be stressful and a break from it might help.

For my two cents, I'll say this:

1. Kamala wasn't directly elected by primary voters

2. Outside of Biden stepping down months earlier, I don't see how it's logistically possible for the voters to have done a second primary.  And I don't recall that ever being something that was on the table.  And I think if they did something like that, it would've gone exactly the way that Biden's primary went - a couple of random nobodies would have run against her and she would've easily won.

Would some kind of fake primary have helped Kamala win?  I can't imagine there's any chance of that.  So I think, in the end, that argument is invalid.  Biden "won a primary' but did he?  People voted for him, but (and I apologize for this comparison), Putin wins a lot of elections.  Because the elections aren't real elections but just rubber stamps to make us feel better.

The real problem is that we think that incumbents shouldn't be challenged.  We think challenging a sitting incumbent is a sign of weakness, and it will expose the incumbent to challenges in the general election.

And my response to that is "....good?"  If an incumbent can't beat a challenge in a primary, they probably can't win a challenge in a general election.  And if the point of a primary is to get the best possible candidate, then every primary should be an open primary.  The problem is that people assume all primaries are going to be dirty and negative.  I think if the Democrats had run a true open primary but kept it positive, it wouldn't have hurt anyone.  And if Biden was the best candidate, he'd win.  If not, then "....good?"

The problem with the Democrats in the two elections they lost to Trump is that they kept saying how important it was to defeat Trump, but they didn't make any effort to get the best Democrat.  Hillary didn't face a true primary and neither did Biden or Harris.  I'm not convinced that Newsom or Whitmer or Mayor Pete could've beaten Trump, especially with how things went.  It seems like Trump was always going to win.  But in 2016, Hillary was just so historically unpopular in her own party and then went out of her way to alienate the Bernie voters.  She was clearly the better candidate, but she wasn't electable because of all her baggage with voters.

And I'm guessing if anyone had joined in a primary against her, they would've beaten her and probably won the presidency.  Heck a super old crazy socialist (my own editorializing - I like Bernie but I think that description fits) made it way closer than it should've been, and no one had ever heard of him previously. A real candidate would've beaten her the same way Trump beat her.  Obviously if Biden's son hadn't died, I think he would've run and won.

So in summary, I don't think a primary would've mattered because I don't think a real primary would've happened.  Everyone lined up behind Kamala - that was the primary.  It would've been a waste of time to frantically throw together a process where people would put Kamala's name on a ballot just to check a box.  And they didn't have any time.

And again, I don't think anyone was going to beat Trump.  I think Kamala did as well as anyone else would've.

**************

So as a favor to me, everyone should calm down and take a breath.  Everything sucks right now, and as a favor to me, just drop it and let's move forward.