1

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, Trump legitimized Mamdani, and I'm not sure what he got out of it.  Trump even basically allowed him to call him a fascist and a despot, and Mamdani didn't walk any of it back.  I'm curious how Fox News and the other Trump media handled that because they'd spent weeks demonizing him.  So I'm wondering if Trump went off script or if he'll walk back his praise of Mamdani, or if everyone will just forget about it all.

What's crazy is that Mamdani's meeting was about the most normal thing that's happened in 5+ years of Trump presidency.

2

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump getting along with Mamdani is so bizarre to me.  Did Mamdani charm him out of his element?  Is Trump up to something?  Is it all theater?

3

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think the Epstein files are a hoax...not in the way that Trump says they're a hoax (i.e. not real) but in the sense that it affects nothing.  I don't think anything in the Epstein files, even if it's concrete evidence against Trump, will affect anything.  His voters do not care.  I keep hearing whispers that this would be the thing that takes Trump down, or it will lead to a bunch of Republicans abandoning him, or that it will lead to his impeachment.

There is nothing that will do any of that.  I think most people either already think that Trump is a rapist or don't care either way.  He's either a pedophile or he's a necessary evil.  That's the two camps.  I mean you already saw Megan Kelly come out and basically say that being a pedophile isn't even that big of a deal, and she has teenage daughters!  I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't see laws passed in Florida that lower the age of consent to below whatever Trump is accused of doing.  I think Republicans would be more likely to lower the national age of consent to 10 or 11 than do anything to Trump.

He's been in the public eye for decades and he's been under immense political scrutiny for a full decade.  If anything was going to take him down, it would've already happened.  Like I said, the only escape we have from Trump is how long modern medicine keeps him alive.

4

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I mean maybe you're right and he wouldn't care if Congress was 100% Democrats so why bother with messing with the midterms.  He got his tax breaks, and he gets to do whatever he wants so who cares about getting anything done?  He shut down Congress and it didn't affect him one bit.

I guess the elections he'd want to cancel are in 2028.  But I still think 2026 could be a dry run.  I just don't feel like there's any reason to be optimistic.  People are putting all their hopes in the Epstein stuff, but it could be released that Trump did the whole operation and that Epstein was a patsy and I don't think it would matter.  Trump said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose any support and he was right.

So we just gotta wait until his monkey heart finally gets clogged with Big Macs for this nightmare to be over.

5

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I agree that it would be illegal, but I struggle with understanding who would stop him.  Congress has decided to be impotent.  The federal courts have been an okay firewall (they recently forced Trump to fund SNAP), but the Supreme Court has gone out of its way to give Trump whatever power he wants.  And even when they disagree with him (potentially, on tariffs), Trump has already laid out the groundwork to de-legitimize them or bully them into obedience.

Trump runs the FBI, and their leaders are loyalists
Trump runs the military, and their leaders are loyalists
Trump has de-legitimized the media, and the media leaders are Trump loyalists
The people can still protest (for now), but the Republicans are trying to de-legitimize those.  And even internally, I've heard younger people are getting tired of the protests because they don't accomplish anything.  Whether its Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, or No Kings...there's great support and huge showings but what has changed?

But maybe you're right.  Maybe he wouldn't go so far as to simply cancel elections.  I don't know.  But I shouldn't have this little faith.

6

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

My optimism is gone still.  I think it will be too easy for Trump to manufacture a situation where there are no midterms.  With the government shutdown and military in major cities, I think he's pushing buttons to try and create a situation where people push back enough for him to declare martial law.  I think the die has already been cast, and I think they're just waiting for the rationale to do it.  And I think if people don't take the bait, he'll just do it anyway.

Other than throwing lavish parties and ruining the White House, Trump has been doing two things:

1. Putting loyalist military into blue cities
2. Complaining about voter fraud

I think he'll use some combination of those two to "delay" the midterms, but like the shutdown, it will just be indefinite.  Or he'll hold bogus elections where Republicans win with 80-90% of the vote.

I hope I'm wrong, but there's a tariff on hope and I can't afford it.

7

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh sorry I guess I never gave an update.  I was able to get my dose of Moderna at a local pharmacy as well.  You have to meet one of the qualifications to get it, but a) my BMI is one of the qualifiers (because BMI is a sorta worthless metric) and b) they don't check so you can just say you do (not even which one) and get it.

So I got mine about a month ago.  My wife got hers a couple weeks later.  We didn't get ones for the kids because it's a bit more of a challenge, but they got their flu shots.  Hopefully it's good enough!

8

(431 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think Coogler could make anything work.

I think conspiracies are a whole lot less fun post-MAGA because they're completely mainstream instead of being funny and fringey.  But I think you could do a show and instead of aliens maybe you do something with Artificial Intelligence.  Maybe Mulder believes that some kind of AI has started taking over the world, and he has to get to the bottom of things.

Or do aliens.  Aliens are still in the culture and are relevant.

I think the DCU is going to be given a shot, even if Warner Bros is chopped up and sold for parts.  I think Superman was enough of a success to give Gunn another shot for the slate that he has coming up.  Nothing more than that is guaranteed, but that's true of any cinematic universe.  The MCU was able to keep going because they didn't really have any misses.  They had smaller movies, but the two biggest critical negatives from phases 1-3 were Incredible Hulk (which people don't even consider to be fully canon) and Thor: The Dark World (which was post-Avengers but still fairly early on).

So I think whether WB survives or not, Gunn will be given a chance because he's been successful so far.  Not billion dollars but still profitable and successful with fans and critics.  Now if Supergirl is a disaster or if Man of Tomorrow is a disaster, all bets are off.  But no matter who owns WB, I think Gunn will get an opportunity.

ireactions wrote:

At the same time, I'm not in a position to stop my government from doing anything they want, so that part does sort of ring true. I would say the end of Season 2 suffers from needing the Salvation prison to be left open as a plot point for SUPERGIRL, MAN OF TOMORROW, LANTERNS, etc.

I think if the answer is "Checkmate is in no position to take down Flag" then that should have been acknowledged.  In an episode that was already significantly longer than the normal episode, I think they could have spent two minutes with a scene between Peacemaker, Harcourt, and Adebayo that went over the unlikelihood of a direct assault on ARGUS.  Maybe something as simple as.

PEACEMAKER
Okay, what are we doing about this prison?

HARCOURT
Nothing, for now?

PEACEMAKER
Nothing?

ADEBAYO
They could have hundreds of people moved to that prison by now.  How can we do nothing?

HARCOURT
A week ago, we probably could've caught them by surprise.  But Fleury says they've increased security a hundred-fold.  No one gets in or out unless Flag is present personally.  It's a fortress.

ADEBAYO
We could still...

HARCOURT
We could, but we'd lose people.  I think we have a plan, but we're going to need to be patient.

PEACEMAKER
In the meantime, let's do as much good as we can.

I don't know, something that at least acknowledges that they want to do something but just can't at this point.  Or, like I said before, don't let them find out about the prison.  Maybe Checkmate's first mission is to figure out what Flag is up to.

Either way, I think they're allowed to be excited that they're back together and happy and have a path, but the ending certainly implies that they don't care about the prison.  And they immediately pay for that if that's the case.

Yeah, I think that's fine.  I think LOST had a great character resolution but obviously not as concrete of a plot resolution, and I still think that's my favorite show of all time.  So I get that.

And I think the character resolution was really good.  I just wish the plot was either better wrapped up or the team was a little less aware of the villain plot.  As it stands, they basically ignored Flag's plan.

Grizzlor wrote:

I did binge through Peacemaker's season 2, which of course featured the parallel "Nazi" world with doppelgangers and such.  Fantastic work by all involved.  Of course, Gunn was noncommittal on the show's future, though I suspect characters will play a run in the Lanterns show.

I think the season was very good from a character perspective, but I thought the plotting was very odd.  The way that the finale is set up, it felt like the kind of episode where they go and steal back the multiversal device or prevent the prison from being a thing in some other way.  Instead, they...do nothing?  This isn't a situation where the bad guys have a plan, and the good guys don't know about it yet.

They know that Rick Flag is creating a metahuman prison, but they spend a bunch of time and energy creating a new spy organization.  Now maybe their plan is to create Checkmate and then go after Flag, but how many metahumans could they have imprisoned by then?  It seemed like they had a window to go after Flag, and they didn't really take advantage of it.

And I get it's a shared universe and that Gunn is writing basically everything at this point, but it leaves an unsatisfying feeling in the audience when the good guys don't even try to stop the bad guy.  I can understand why the plot wasn't "save Earth X" because I don't think our guys are nearly equipped to do that.  But our team, with Bordeaux and Harcourt and Judomaster and Fleury all as inside guys, against a handful of ARGUS agents?  That's something our team would be pretty good at.  And I would assume they could fairly easily win that if they had made any effort.

And, yeah, they'd basically be back at square one on the run with Flag chasing after them, but at least they would've made an effort.  And if they were going to immediately take down Flag, I don't think they really showed that (unless I missed it) they were even planning on going after the prison.  It played like "oh well, Flag is a bad guy.  Let's start an agency to do some good."

I do think a lot of the character beats were hit, and I thought the whole thing was well done.  And I get that Gunn will work through these plot threads.  But to leave the plot here is super weird.

I would have preferred if the season ended with the good guys knowing nothing of Flag's plan.  Maybe Judomaster/Fleury/Harcourt all abandon ARGUS before Salvation is even found, they create Checkmate, and then Flag reveals his plan to the audience (but none of Peacemaker's team).  Then Peacemaker is sent there.  Then, at least, the good guys don't look like they're simply ignoring the problem.

It also leaves the DCU in a weird place.  I don't really know if any of this will get followed up in Lanterns, but if it gets followed up in Man of Tomorrow...where does it leave that?  Is Man of Tomorrow going to take place in Salvation?  Is Superman going to go up against ARGUS and Lex?  Is Superman going to go rescue Peacemaker?  I love all the Peacemaker characters, but they play in completely different sandboxes.  I'd prefer if they were kept separate.

But I trust Gunn, and I'm still excited to see what he does with all this.

13

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I wonder how many new stories there could be, but if they really haven't gotten together after all this time, maybe some fun stuff came up.  Looking forward to it!

14

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

They all look pretty great!

Any word on anything they discussed?

15

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think it will be a lot of fun to hear stories, maybe some stories we haven't heard before.  I assume they'll make some sort of vague reference to some kind of reboot / sequel shows.  Personally, I'm not going to put any stock into anything they say about that because I think Sliders was a hard sell 20 years ago, and I think it's going to be a harder sell today.  I maintain that there's no way they're going to do a show with JRD being 81 and Cleavant being 72.

The best bet has and will continue to be a show with Jerry as the mentor character to a younger cast.  You might be able to get the others for guest roles or cameos, but the Sliders cast is *way* older than the Golden Girls cast was.  So this would feel like that but much worse.

And honestly, the JOC thing isn't even the best bet.  The best bet is a bigger named actor pushing for the series to be made with a complete new cast, a la Quantum Leap.  I know there were some bigger named actors that liked the show back in the day (Kelsey Grammer?) that could maybe make it happen with a new, younger cast.  But I assume if that was going to happen, it would've happened already.

16

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ooooh that will be cool.

Have they really not reunited at any sort of convention?

I think, besides the colors being totally different, the tone of the character is so much different in Gunn's film.  Snyder's Superman doesn't seem to care at all about humanity, and I can't imagine he cares at all about any other Earth animals.  Snyder's Superman is sad that his father dies, but he still allows it to happen.  At the end of the day, he agreed that his father should die to protect his secret.  I think Gunn's Superman would've found a way to save his dad, even if it meant sacrificing his identity.

I'm also pretty sure that a comic-accurate Superman could've saved Jonathan without anyone even noticing he left.  Clark in Smallville was able to save someone during a football game without anyone noticing he'd moved.

I think Gunn's Clark will always do the right thing.  I think Snyder's Clark will do the right thing as long as it doesn't make his life any harder.  I think Gunn's Clark is there to protect humanity with no interest in allowing any collateral damage if he can help it.  I think Snyder's Clark is there to protect some humans and willing to accept as much collateral damage as it takes to get the job done.

There is a very dark moment in Gunn's Superman, but other than that, it's a very hopeful and bright and character-forward movie.  I could easily see Gunn making a pessimistic/hopeless Superman movie like Snyder did, but I think he did a good job of making Clark more comic accurate.

ireactions wrote:

I don't think Season 4 is going to be a wrap-up; that's going to be the six episodes of Season 5.

Ah, I was unaware that there was going to be a shortened season 5.  Good to know!

ireactions wrote:

I don't know. Gunn's SUICIDE SQUAD and PEACEMAKER had a certain dark cynicism that I associate with Snyder... but with a twisted comedy that I associate with Gunn.

Yeah but would you say any of that was in Superman?

Grizzlor wrote:

Gunn has been VERY good at a certain style in the genre, the tongue in cheek, shoot em up, comic book blockbusters.  GOTG, Suicide Squad/Peacemaker, and let's not forget my favorite, Super with Rainn Wilson.  Superman is normally more of an "epic" style of comic book blockbuster.  I've yet to see this one, but everything said and leaked sounded like the Snyder/Goyer film.

Oh I strongly disagree with the last piece.  I can't think of a similarity between Gunn's film and Snyder's.  Snyder's film had literally no appreciation for the comics, for Clark's personality, for what makes Clark special.  I think, if anything, Gunn's story has too much appreciation for comics - I think it was a bit of a barrier of entry to enjoying the film (there's so much going on).  Man of Steel showed Clark with literally no regard for the safety of anyone, and Gunn's Clark goes out of his way to save not just people but animals.

Hopefully you get a chance to see it (I think it hits HBO this week) because whoever told you that could not be more wrong in my opinion.

21

(6 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think the idea of a recurring villain is interesting, but I'm not sure it's necessary.  I probably would've rather had Logan be the "recurring sliding villain" since she's a flip side on our main character.  I think there's also an argument to be made that maybe you replace the "which Arturo slid?" story with a Quinn double that can't complete sliding on his own and steals Quinn's place.  Then you have a villain inside the group, and the person "chasing" them is our original Quinn.

This might be too mystical, but I'm thinking based on what ireactions and DMD said about a villain that can somehow "slide" their consciousness from place to place into a new double.  Maybe they interact with a villainous Bennish on a world, and they leave him behind.  But then in future episodes, they keep running into doubles of Bennish on each new world.  And like ireactions said, each time they run into him, he seems more of a threat.  And it turns out it was the villainous Bennish each time.  Maybe each time he enters a double, he gets more control, and by the end of the arc/season, he can finally do whatever he wants.  Or maybe he has full control each time but is playing the long game.

Sorta like Sliders meets Quantum Leap.

Well that's horrible.  I think Gunn seems like a really good guy and a very strong creative mind and a great writer.  He seems to have a good heart and a wicked sense of humor.  I hope he's been able to get passed his demons and that writing is helping him keep them away.

I don't think we've ever had that here.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So I think this is an instance where more episodes would have been useful.  The big bad for the season was introduced midway through the season and then wrapped up in a single hour.  In a pre-streaming Trek season, the finale would've at least been a two parter, and I think you could argue that it could have been longer.  Even commercials vs non commercials, a two-part finale would have been 82 minutes-ish vs 60 minutes-ish.  And I think we probably needed those additional twenty minutes.  Some of the episode felt very rushed.

I think you could argue that maybe you get rid of the documentary episode or the "everyone is turned into a Vulcan" episode and give more time to this.  You could've probably done an entire episode of the future scenes if you wanted and give additional weight to Pike's life with Batel.  I know the crew probably had fun doing the Vulcan episode so they'd probably vote to get rid of something different, but I wish they'd used their time a little more wisely.  And, honestly, I thought they got the opportunity to ham it up on the proto-Holodeck episode (and that episode also covered "why Star Trek is important" which was sorta covered by the documentary episode).

And when there's going to be a muppet episode next year when they're going to be trying to wrap this whole series up, I have concerns.

But again I really liked what they aired.  It had a lot of heart.  Like Pike, I wish there was just more time.

I really liked the SNW finale.  Although, and this is a hugely nitpicky thought, but I didn't like the inclusion of a modern song.  Has Trek ever done that?

I heard the other day that Gunn used to have some sort of substance abuse problem, and he's replaced that in his life with writing.  Good for him.  I think he's a great writer, and I'm impressed with how much he's been able to do and how fast he's been able to do it.

At the same time, I don't think the DCU can succeed with Gunn throwing it on his back.

26

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

There's a very numbers-based and nerdy aspect to sports.  Some people think the stats-focused side of sports has ruined the fun, but I could see someone like Quinn being excited about stuff like that.  The real sabermetrics stuff didn't come out until after Sliders, but it's possible that Quinn was just ahead of the curve.

27

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

James Talarico is running for US Senate in Texas.  If you don't know him, do yourself a favor and look him up.  He's the son of a Baptist minister, he's gone to seminary, and he's a Democratic state rep in Texas.  Every time I've seen him, he's impressed me.  I don't know if he has a chance to win, but he's been on Joe Rogan and he's been on different talk shows and I think he has the potential to be presidential.

Of course I thought the same thing about Beto O'Rourke, but I think Talarico is different.  He's an evangelical himself, and he wears his Christianity on his sleeve.  I think he can talk to Christian nationalists in a way that other Democrats can't.

I'm just using Supergirl as an example.

If James Gunn greenlighted preproduction on a Brave and the Bold movie where Damien Wayne is hospitalized at the end of the film and a Justice League movie where Bruce starts the movie by Damien's bedside, how would it work if the script for Brave and the Bold isn't ready but the script for Justice League is?  Would they wait to film Justice League until the Brave and the Bold's script is ready?  Would they remove the scene where Bruce is with Damien and set it earlier?

I'm trying to figure out how "we won't film until a script is ready" plays in a format where Story A has to exist before Story B can be told.  If story A never gets finished, how can there be a Story B?

Wouldn't that cause the same issues, though?  If Supergirl starts preproduction but isn't ready to be filmed, it still puts the next project to feature Supergirl in some kind of limbo.

Imagine if Endgame needed additional work on the script but Spider-Man: Far From Home was ready to shoot.  Do you wait to start filming Spider-Man until Endgame is filmed?  Go ahead and film but wait to release?  I guess the other option is to remove all the references from Tony from Far From Home, but I don't think that's even possible.

I assume James Gunn would say that they'd prioritize fixing the Endgame script and there wouldn't be a significant delay, but I don't know if you can do that for everything.

ireactions wrote:

ENTERPRISE, despite rendering Vulcans as being a lot like Sarek or T'Pau or T'Pring, is often criticized for its (admittedly underwritten) Vulcans in Seasons 1 - 3 and lauded for offering an 'explanation' in Season 4 for why the Vulcans weren't more like Spock, which has also muddied the waters a lot.

Enterprise Season 4 is (I think) the only live action Trek I haven't seen.  Help me understand what the explanation was.

DieselMickyDolenz wrote:

EDIT: and for the record, I though Four and a Half Vulcans was the series worst episode to date.

I've seen a lot of this sentiment.  I think the episode was entertaining, but I think there were a lot of issues with it.  I think the issue mainly goes to the idea that the writers and/or the cast had a fun idea, but they didn't really think through some of the issues.  And in an attempt to get an idea they liked on screen, they (pun intended) made the episode illogical.

The whole premise was a little flawed.  So they needed Vulcans to do the repair work, but Spock is the only Vulcan on board the Enterprise?  I know there aren't a ton of Vulcans in Starfleet compared to humans, but no one besides Spock?

Second, they made a joke of the repairs taking hours and then only taking seconds.  But if the repairs only took seconds, couldn't Spock have done it by himself?  Did it really take five people?

Third, they made some sort of implication that Spock's DNA allowed the converted Vulcans to show Spock-like emotion and logic, but that's done with training, not DNA.

Then there's silly cartoon stuff like Pike's hair changing.

So the question has to be asked - do writers of modern Trek know what Vulcans are supposed to be like, or do they know archetypes?  Are these Trek writers or just Sci-Fi writers?  I don't really know, but are there signs that these writers revere Trek?  Are there easter eggs and references that only true Trek fans would know?

Yeah I think Gunn is giving himself preferential treatment, but I think he's earned the trust to be able to do that.

What I don't understand is how this whole "we have to have a script we believe in before we proceed" works in an expanded universe.  Let me paint a picture:

So let's say that Superman comes out and Supergirl's script isn't ready.  So they don't make the Supergirl movie because the script isn't ready.  Well...what happens the next time Supergirl shows up.  Is she the drunk party girl that she is in Superman, or do they jump to her post-Woman of Tomorrow persona where she's grown up and evolved a little bit?  Maybe it works for Gunn because he's writing the next script, but what if it's a different writer?  How does that writer know how to write Kara?

Events in these movies can cause ripples in other movies.  Or, I guess, they *should* cause ripples.  Growth in one movie can affect actions in a different movie.  Whatever happens in Lanterns should impact the next time we see Hal or John or Guy.  So how do you get a finished script for the second movie if the first script never gets approved?  And if you're constantly waiting for the next script to get approved, how do you even plan another script?

I think that's sorta what is happening with the DCU right now.  Other than Supergirl, the only feature scripts that have been approved are by James Gunn (and like you said, that script is an exception because it isn't finished) or are mostly unrelated to the greater DCU (Clayface).  How do you write a Batman appearance if you don't know if Brave and the Bold is approved?  How do you write in Wonder Woman if that Wonder Woman TV show is in limbo?

Barreling ahead like Marvel does means that sometimes the movies are weak, but at least the story is cohesive.    Gunn's way might mean better movies but it also might mean a story that isn't cohesive.  What is better?

33

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, I agree.  I also think Vance would respect the job and the history of the presidency.  I think he's been bought and sold, but Vance used to be a reasonable person.  I think Trump has always been someone with fascist tendencies because he was raised in a world where he was in charge and what he wanted just happened.  He wants to run the country like he ran his company, and that's just not how it works.  I think Vance might enjoy the power of being a dictator, but he's only been MAGA for a short time.  And I think if he actually had the big job, he'd understand the historical significance of the job in a way that Trump just has no interest in or understanding of.

That's not to say he wouldn't be a bad president or even a worse president.  But I think Vance would allow there to be elections in 2026 in a way that Trump might not allow.  And I think Vance would be softer on the media (which might allow more scrutiny on the office as journalists feel emboldened to actually do their job and ask tough questions).  And while I assume some of the Cult of Trump would pass to Vance, I think a lot of it is directly tied to Trump himself and those people might abandon Vance.

That being said, Vance is infinitely more capable and intelligent than Trump so if he wanted to ruin the country in 3-3.5 years, I think he'd be able to do that.  I'm optimistic that he'd be more of a standard Republican president than a Trumpish president, but I don't know.  I don't have a ton of optimism left in general.

34

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

In the last month or so, Trump has swollen ankles and hasn't been able to walk in a straight line, and now has bruises on his hands that are very poorly covered up with makeup.  Then he disappeared for a week and showed up with awkwardly photoshopped pictures.  People online are claiming he had a stroke or multiple strokes

Is Trump dying?  I'm not sure, but the guy looks terrible.  I don't think him dying really does anyone that much good.  I think even if he died after election day, the damage was already done.  I think there's less of a chance of a President Vance doing outlandishly crazy stuff, but a President Vance could also do a lot more damage because he's the puppet of people who want to do a lot of damage.

I think Trump dying might make it easier for there to be elections in 2026, and it might bring back some modicum of sanity because the entire government apparatus won't have to revolve around one guy's ego.

But I find it hard to get excited about anything because the damage is done.

35

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm doing my physical in a couple weeks.  I'll ask my doctor.  I know her office doesn't carry the Covid shot (I asked) so I'd have to get referred to someplace that does have it.  I have a couple of nurse friends, and they've said they're seeing a lot of cases so I'd like the additional protection.

I don't know if a trip to Canada for a vaccine is an option.  If I can just pay for it out of pocket somewhere, I'd just do that I guess.

36

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Worm Brain changed the restrictions on the Covid shot so that I'm now ineligible to get it.

I thought Republicans were the party of freedom and the government staying out of peoples' business?

One of my friends talked about giving up on Strange New Worlds because he thought the show was too hard on Spock.

I do feel like Spock gets the short end of a lot of things.  He's constantly being teased or transformed or heartbroken or whatever.  I think we sometimes ignore the emotional damage that things would cause when they happen to Spock because he always bounces back.  But, man, if he was a human, this show could be downright depressing for Spock.

******

I know it will never ever ever happen, but I would really love either a full season with Kirk in charge or a second spin-off with Kirk in charge or a Paramount Plus movie with Kirk in charge.  I think we've never really seen in Trek an established ship adjust to a new captain.  Not like Voyager where the whole crew is new to each other, but a crew that already works together well adjusting to a new voice.  And I think Paul Wesley is really really good in the role, and I'd love to see more of him.  He adds something to every episode he's in, and I think that's why they loop him in whenever possible.

I don't want to lose Pike, but seeing Kirk take command and having him earn over the crew would be really interesting television, I think.

38

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

How is STAR TREK supposed to present the 1960s balsa wood starship sets as a representation of the future to a 2025 viewing audience? Would we consider it canon that technology somehow regressed?

I think it's simple - you just blame it on style.  For whatever reason, in the 2260s, there was a simplistic and retro technological era.  Thin tablets were no longer in fashion, and big bulky ones were popular.  Writing utensils / styli were in.  1960s era fashion was in.  What's the reason?  It doesn't matter because no one on the show ever talks about it.  Just like we have no explanation for what's popular now or why.

I'd treat it like Alien: Earth treated their scene on a vessel similar to the one seen in Alien in 1979.  For whatever reason, everyone looks and acts like it's the 1970s.  For whatever reason, the command room of the ship has tons of unexplained lights.  If its like that on a deep sea mining ship but not Earth, blame it on better technology on Earth and worse technology on mining ships.  I think there's headcanon to make it work.

Alternate Star Trek reason - Earth was decimated in the nuclear wars and the technology was effectively wiped out.  So no cell phones, no tablets, no whatever.  And when the Vulcans came and Earth had recovered, humans suddenly had a warp drive but were back to using paper and pens.  As humanity moved to a post-scarcity society, technological advancement went where it was needed (cleaning the earth from radiation, providing food and water and medicine where it was needed) and not on fancy gadgets.  Even as humanity started the Federation and Starfleet, invention focused on better starships and shields and weapons.  Only after humanity had a pretty good standing in the galaxy did they even bother with creating PADDs and stuff like that.

That, of course, ignores Enterprise entirely.

ireactions wrote:

That said, this is part and parcel of a shared universe. There's a wide variety of tones.

No I get that and I assume that young children who loved Superman aren't going to be forced to watch an NC-17 rated TV show on a premium network to enjoy the next movie.  But I do think it might be funny for someone who only knows James Gunn for the Guardians movies, jumped over to Superman and enjoyed the wholesomeness there, and then to immediately jump into Peacemaker Season 2 and see a dramatic shift in tone.

And technically Gunn has written the entirety of the DCU.  Creature Commandos, Superman, and Peacemaker Season 2.  He's also writing the Superman sequel.  I assume he's a guy who either works really fast or really loves working.  I do worry he's either going to have to do the whole thing himself or the whole thing will lose momentum.  Supergirl will be the first thing released he didn't write, and I don't know how Clayface really fits in with the overall narrative.  After that, it's a lot of question marks.

I agree with having a final script before proceeding and I think he's learned a lot from working in the MCU.  But they gotta make stuff that he doesn't make himself, I think.

ireactions wrote:

I watched PEACEMAKER's first season on the weekend and I thought it was earnest and vile, and, in many ways, probably a version of the Snyderverse suited to an audience beyond Snyder fans because the cynicism is comedic rather than bleak. I watched the Season 2 premiere and was impressed by how the continuity with the DCEU and DCU is quickly reconciled.

It is wild and incredible to me that James Gunn (sorta) cut the legs out from Superman's theatrical run to release the film on digital so that more people could see it before the release of Peacemaker because Peacemaker is a vital piece of the DCU...

...and for the Peacemaker premiere to have an orgy with full frontal male nudity.  The same universe that has Superman refusing to curse has a scene like that?  It's bizarre but also pretty funny.

41

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Hahaha I can't help it.  I really can't.  The past and the present and the future have to matter or none of it matters.  Headcanon to make it all work is half the fun smile

So one thing I really liked about the Orville and I think has been affected some with New Trek...is the idea that these are real-life people on these starships.  They get drunk sometimes.  They show up to work late sometimes.  They worry about things and mess up and they joke around.

I think Gene's vision of humanity is sometimes too much.  I think it's a wonderful aspiration, but the humans in the show don't always feel human.  I don't know if Roddenberry would love where Trek is now, but it just feels like these guys are more rounded now.  Not as flawed as they were on the Orville, but not as Vulcan either.

43

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, I think it might be more complicated than explaining it.  The rest of the episode doesn't feature Star Trek - like ships with futuristic tech.  It's just more modern-looking technology.  But since the rest of the show takes place on Earth, it's possible that technology is better there and people have more access.

But honestly I think the in-universe explanation is that the Weyland-Yutani ships shown in Alien and Alien: Earth are blue collar scavenger ships.  It would be like aliens finding a fishing boat made in the 90s and assuming that's how technologically advanced we are. 

To me, I just liked that they went out of their way to completely re-create the aesthetic of Alien for this.  I don't think the rest of the episode abandons the aesthetic at all, but it secures the 70s aesthetic, at least for this portion of the universe, as how things look.  They could've easily reimagined how people look or act or how the ship looks and operates.  But they didn't.

Again, I assume the juice isn't worth the squeeze if the whole show took place on a ship (it doesn't).  But for that section of the show, I liked the respect for continuity.

*******

Okay so I finished Dexter: Original Sin.  I really liked it.  The show absolutely takes liberties with continuity with characters' ages being off, people joining the police force earlier than they were supposed to, things happening differently than they were originally explained, etc.

But I think there are two reasons I'm okay with that:

1. Dexter is our narrator - modern Dexter - and, while there has never been any evidence that he's an unreliable narrator, he's still a psychopathic serial killer.  So if an unreliable narrator explains things two different ways, that's not a huge deal to me (think the Joker in the Dark Knight).  There's also the fact that Dexter is, canonically, retelling his origin story to the "audience" as his life passes before his eyes as he believes he's dying (at the end of New Blood).  So even if Dexter is a reliable narrator, maybe his brain isn't functioning properly

2. The show is just a lot of fun.  I tried to explain to my wife that the show isn't scary at all.  The concept of Dexter is dark, but I don't even know how violent Dexter is.  Some of the people he kills are violent, but Dexter usually stabs his victims one time in the chest with a big knife.  There's blood, but it's usually captured by the plastic wrap that Dexter uses to contain his crime scenes.  He chops up the bodies, but either I'm completely desensitized by it, or it's shot in a way that isn't gory.  I don't like torture porn, and I'm skittish at stuff like Saw so I don't think it's the former.

But Dexter is a charming guy, the side characters are all interesting, and Dexter never tries to convince the audience that he's not a monster.  He's just a monster who is doing good in the world.  I think you can root for Dexter to keep doing what he's doing since he's getting rid of worse people, but I don't think Dexter even wants you to like him as an audience member.

I'm going to try and show my wife the original series.  I'll let you know if she likes it.

44

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So has Gavin Newsom unlocked the formula to winning America back from MAGA?

I'm still not watching news, but because I'm still alive in the year 2025, I still catch glimpses of things that are happening.  And I've seen Gavin Newsom trolling Trump, both on gerrymandering and also everything else.  Honestly, I don't know if it is actually working, but it's at least getting him attention.  Which is more than I can say for basically any other Democrat at any other level (although I'm starting to get excited about James Talarico here in Texas).

Can out-Trumping Trump work?  Can out-Trumping Vance at least work?  I talked a lot back in November about Democrats needing to win back stupid people.  Well stupid people love stuff like this.  If Newsom can be more like Trump but be younger and full of energy, I think Democrats can win back some stupid people.  And the good news is that stupid people are happy to vote for stuff they don't understand and/or is against their own interests.  So if we can get a cult of personality around a guy like Newsom then it should be fairly easy to get liberal policies to be more popular.

Remember that Trump got his base to overwhelmingly support tariffs that will hurt them because they're not smart enough to understand how they work.  There's no reason to think that Trump is the only person who can do this.  To win back the republic, it might just mean a little disinformation of their own.  Maybe "Medicare for All" gets rebranded as "cutting deductibles."  Maybe you can rebrand raising the minimum wage as a "parental support initiative"

Or just lie and say that Medicare for All is free ice cream every summer.  At this point, I think taking advantage of the illiterate masses is the only play left in the playbook.

45

(934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I finally saw Fantastic Four.  I thought it was a lot of fun.  I think the whole cast did a great job.  I only read a handful of Fantastic Four comics so I can't speak too intelligently about how they nailed their characters, but they all felt like individuals.  Let me do a couple spoilery thoughts:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

- I liked that the characters felt evolved.  I like that Ben seemed like he had come to peace with what had happened to him.  He's not yearning to go back to the way things were, at least outwardly.  I liked the Chiklis version, but this one felt like a matured version of that.  I like that Johnny got his own little side quest where he can show that he's also really smart.  I liked everything about Sue.  I liked that Reed was very smart but also cautious and anxious.  I think a scene with him and Tony Stark would be interesting because they're both smart leaders, but they approach things very differently.  I think he'll make a good Avenger.

- I liked that the movie was its own thing.  I think previous versions were supposed to include Kang in some way, and as far as I know, there are no references to any future crossover in this.  I was sorta blown away that the movie didn't end with them crossing over into the main marvel universe.  I wonder if that will even be a permanent thing, now.  Like will Fantastic Four: Second Steps (fake title) be in this universe or will they be crossed over?  Or will the multiverse be gone by that point and there will just be one universe?

- I understand all the reasons.  Covid.  Jonathan Majors.  Shakeups at Marvel.  But we've had 29 movies and TV shows in Phases 4 and 5, and the main villain for the next two Avengers movies has barely appeared.  Now I know that Thanos barely appeared before Infinity War, but we at least understood who he was and what he wanted to do.  Doomsday is going to have to do a ton of work in the first 30 minutes to get us up to speed.  Maybe it'll be great - the Russo Brothers know how to make that work.  But it just makes me nervous that we've had so much runway and haven't done a ton with it.

46

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I wasn't sure which post to put this in so I'll just put it here because it covers multiple topics.

I watched the premiere of Alien Earth.  Really engaging show, which isn't a surprise since it's coming from Noah Hawley.  But the most striking part, to me, was the first 5 minutes of the premiere.  If you had told me that Ridley Scott filmed that whole section in 1979 as some dropped subplot from Alien, I might've believed you.  It was so well done and captured the spirit and look of the original that it was incredible.

This is what Star Trek should have done...

Now I get it.  The whole Alien Earth show isn't done like the first five minutes.  But the show isn't shying away from saying "look, I know it looks weird by today's standards, but that's what it looked like in canon."  There are weird lights that seem to be blinking on and off for no reason in the background.  Everyone looks like they're actors in the 1970s.  People are smoking as soon as they wake up.  The show says - there are weird blinking lights for some reason.  There's a 1970s-looking style evolution for these guys.  They're blue collar so they smoke.  It isn't what we (modern people) think the future will look like anymore, but it's what the future looks like in this.

And I get it.  If you made Strange New Worlds look like TOS with it's silly-looking technology for 80 episodes, people might not watch.  If you don't think about it, it's much more fun to watch the high-tech glossy ships they have on SNW.  But that's also why I just wouldn't do prequels.  Time travel episodes back to that era (like Trials and Tribble-ations) can be fun opportunities to play with it, but that's all I'd do.

And to be clear, I don't think Alien consistent with that either.  The ships and tech in Prometheus look more advanced than Alien.

I just like consistency, even when it's illogical smile

Thank you all for your Spock answers.  Clearly I need to go back and watch more TOS smile

Yeah, I think BvS tainted the DCEU.  I've seen every movie, but it always felt like a universe that didn't need to exist.

The Black Adam vs Superman storyline would've been interesting, but I don't see how it would've worked.  They made it seem like they'd build up to a confrontation between the two of them, but what does that even look like?  Black Adam makes it seem like their "versus" movie would've been next.  I suppose they could've stretched it out, but "stretching it out" would've just been solo Superman and Black Adam movies, but it would've just gotten them to the same point they were in that cave.

Now could you have had something like this?

2023 - Black Adam v Superman: Dawn of Society
2024 - Justice Society
2025 - Man of Steel II
2026 - Black Adam II
2027 - Black Adam v Superman: the Rematch

Maybe there's a throughline where Superman and Black Adam can lick their wounds in their own movies, and maybe they could have a rematch that would be huge?  I don't know.  It just seems like it'd be the same thing as BvS but it'd be Black Adam instead of Superman.  And it would just be Superman being the heavyweight champion who constantly has to keep fighting random people smile

49

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

By the way, I'm still really liking Dexter: Resurrection.  It's inspired me to watch Dexter: Original Sin (which I also really like), and I'm considering a rewatch of the original series.

50

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

SUICIDE SQUAD: KILL THE JUSTICE LEAGUE spoiler:













It's revealed in the downloadable content seasons post-release: the Batman who died in the game was a clone.

This is revealed in a bunch of still art pieces with no animation and just voiceover exposition.

Yeah, I'd read that.  It's...better?

I don't know.  I wish they'd just say that game wasn't canon and release an apology game smile

51

(3,535 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Trump wants to add five seats in Texas that will surely be won by Republicans to secure the House in midterms. Despite Democrats stalling, Trump is likely to succeed in rigging the midterms this way with gerrymandering.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/0 … g-00493624

So there's three ways to look at this.

1. The Republicans will succeed in further gerrymandering Texas and gain five seats that the Democrats won't be able to recover, either by their own gerrymandering or by simply winning back seats.  Trump will keep the House and the Democrats will continue to be powerless to do anything.

2. The Texas Democrats will be able to delay the vote with their current stall tactics, and the gerrymander won't happen.  Democrats will have a good shot at getting the House back.

3. This will backfire.  Texas Republicans have gone to extreme lengths to gerrymander as much as possible, but there's a limit.  Texas is red, but it's not deep red.  Democrats did terribly in 2024, but Texas has been moving purple for a while.  Maybe it'll never happen, but the shift has happened.  Beto O'Rourke almost beat Ted Cruz.  For a time, it looked like Colin Allred could beat Cruz.  At the moment, it looks like Allred could beat Ken Paxton.

And it's possible that they could stretch their Republican votes too far.  If 2024 Republican votes either shift back to Democrats or stay home and/or Democrats show up in 2026, Democrats could gain seats with the gerrymander.

The problems I see:

1. Democrats have, for the most part, decided to either voluntarily not gerrymander or to make gerrymandering impossible.  It's the right thing to do, but doing the right thing has gotten them where they are now.  I think it's time to fight dirty as well.

2. The Democrats are extremely unpopular in polling right now.  Maybe more unpopular than Republicans.  At least some Republicans still like their people.  No one likes Democrats right now.  Democrats told everyone that the world was going to end if Trump won.  Well Trump won.  So Democrats think the world is over.  Some are sad, some are angry, and no one is hopeful.

Can't have a blue wave if no one wants to step up.

Did Spock have any romantic entanglements in TOS?  Because he seems to be quite the player in SNW hah.

Another shift in tone this week, but I think DMD is right about TOS.  Even the other series did a bit of that from time to time.  And like I said, no matter what the genre, I think the show does a good job.

You're correct.  Complaint withdrawn.

54

(934 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I still haven't seen Fantastic Four.  Hopefully next week.

But I have been watching Eyes of Wakanda.  I think it's...fine?  I think it adds a little to the intrigue of Wakanda and their relation to the rest of the world.  But I had one thing that I wasn't sure about.

So the episodes I've seen (2.5 of the 4) all take place 3,000+ years in the past.  But the Wakandans essentially have the same technology in these episodes (cloaking tech, supersonic jets, holograms, etc) that they have in the present day.  They aren't just slightly ahead of Western tech, they're thousands of years ahead.

So what happened?  Is the show saying that there's some sort of flattening of technological advancements once you get to a certain place?  Did Wakandan technology stop progressing?  Did they have some sort of dark ages?  I get that they want the Wakandans to be cool and futuristic, but I also think showing them to be advanced (but not modern-tech advanced) would have still been cool.  Otherwise, the implication is that the Wakandans jumped straight to 2100-level tech and then did nothing else.

It just feels weird.  The outside world has had flying machines for a couple thousand years and airplanes for a little over a hundred.  This show states that Wakandans have had supersonic jets for 3500+ years, but while they're still more advanced than the rest of the world, they're not leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else still.

I know it doesn't matter.  It just feels weird to me.

I thought the episode might have been a tad bit too meta.  I do like the idea of a proto-holodeck, and I like that it gets indefinitely delayed.  My only issue with that is that it took 100 years to solve for it?  I figure that would be a fairly big priority, and I feel like Scotty could've solved it if he had enough time.

DieselMickyDolenz wrote:

FWIW, I like SNW. I like fleshing out Pike and Number One and meeting that crew of the Enterprise. I don't love the dips into retconning the Gorn, the Spock/Chapel relationship, Trelane, etc. There should be enough to explore in this time period without bringing in Kirk, who in TOS said he'd only met Pike once. Still, it's a fun series. It only exists because of the reaction fans had to Pike when he was in Discovery, so I disagree that they could have used this cast for a completely different show. Not because I don't think it would have worked, but because there's no way it would have ever gotten greenlit.

I think that's true.  I think my whole issue is that I like the "Trials and Tribble-ations" way of the Star Trek "past" - I like that when Sisko and company travel back to the TOS era, it looks old fashioned and 60s-ish and the characters point all that out.  When you have the Kelvin universe and Discovery/Strange New Worlds, that episode stops making sense.  Either TOS was a correct interpretation of how things looked and worked, or it "always looked like it did in Discovery and Strange New Worlds"  It can't be both.

And it really doesn't matter.  But when the TOS era starts looking more impressive than Voyager, my brain starts to melt

Speaking of SNW...this show is so strange.  And I agree that it's great and fun to watch week to week.  But also week to week...what is this show?

One week, it's a serious war episode.  Then the next week it's a goofy TOS-like alternate reality.  Then back to serious Gorn stuff.  Then a wacky holodeck episode.  It's like how they had the singing episode and the M'Benga war criminal episode back to back.  I get that this show is trying to be many things, but the tone seems to be all over the place.  And it was funny to have the announcement of a "puppet episode' for season 4 the same week they had the zombie episode.

The cast is talented and can pull off any genre they want, it seems.  And each individual episode is really great.  And I assume, in space, you might have to deal with a terrifying lizard one week and a childlike God that decides to throw a fake wedding the next, but I've just been a bit thrown off by the shifts in tone this season.  Is that just me?

I am mixed on this whole thing.  I do want the series to continue to move forward.  TNG was exciting because it was a new era.  Things could look modern and new and we could rationalize that with all the time that passed since TOS.  It made sense and that continued into DS9 and Voyager.  It looked brighter and more "futuristic" as technology in universe continued to get better.

I think it's really genius.  TOS looks old because it's in the past.  Now TNG looks old because it's also in the past.  We keep moving forward with leaps and bounds as the technology from our world (in some cases) eclipses what Kirk had.

Strange New Worlds is a lot of fun, but it would've been just as much fun if they'd used this cast to have a new show post-Picard.  Or even post-Discovery.  This is supposed to be about new frontiers, and the TOS is well-covered ground.

So I like that we're jumping way ahead to the 32nd century.  There's some "dark age" in there but now we can think ahead to what over 1000 years in the future would look like.  Everything is new.  I think the only problem is that I'm struggling to really identify with this universe or how it's supposed to work.  It's hard to know what the Federation looks like or what Starfleet is or how the universe works.  Hopefully a new show will sort all that out.

58

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

ireactions wrote:

Did you like it?

I'm changing my answer.  I like Resurrection quite a bit.  They've had some fun guest stars and cameos, and setting the show in New York has brought some life to the show.

Although I the show might be de-canoninzing some of the seasons that Clyde Phillips wasn't a part of.  In this season (spoilers if you care), Dexter is potentially going to start dating a fellow serial killer.  Dexter says that it's new territory for him, but he's dated at least two killers.  There's a chance I'm misremembering the later seasons or he is strictly talking about a pre-established serial killer (and I don't think Lumen or Hannah were that).  But I found that interesting.

59

(185 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

The premise was very interesting, later to be covered by Michael Bay's awful The Island, which itself was sued by two different sources having claimed to write "that story."

"Parts: the Clonus Horror" is my favorite MST3K.

The trailer for Star Trek: Academy came out.  I don't know how much of the premise I love, but I'm glad that the series takes place in the future (so the universe can move forward), and I am excited to see the Doctor again.