Obsidian

Cruz is FAR more dangerous than Trump. With Trump, it'd be pretty much the status quo plus some embarrassing gaffes. I could see him getting the US embroiled in another war through his own incompetence.

Cruz however... He would probably start World War III by deliberate action, because he believes it would bring Jesus back. There'd be no coming back from that.

If this movie breaks the $1 billion mark where BvS didn't, expect Zach Snyder's 12 year-old fanboys to have a temper tantrum. They are already going nuts because the movie has such good early reviews.

If the movie ends up making 850 mil and the movie cost 250 mil to make and I'm sure they spent probably 200 mil to promote the movie will it really be all that profitable for the studio? I realize basic math would seem to say yes, but once the theaters take their cut how much profit is it for Warners? I'd think not very much. I know once there is other income associated with the movie in terms of merchandise (which I doubt this movie had THAT much of) and eventually it's home release but just through the box office I'm thinking that Warners isn't making much money from this yet.

From my understanding, when everything is factored in, $850 million means Warner just BARELY broke even on BvS. Unless it grosses over $1.2 billion, and that is highly unlikely to happen. it will not be considered profitable to the shareholders.

So yeah, WB is probably wishing they had dumped Snyder after Man of Steel by now.

 

pong! I bet you wish your liburals were this funny.

Funny you'd say that. I know very few conservatives in real life, but have some entertaining and seriously whacked out ones in the gaming groups I belong to. It's not a constant stream of political rants, maybe a drip drop of comments here and there, and when you click on their profile, it's pretty obvious where they stand. Now, they believe a lot of truly stupid (and factually incorrect) ****, but to give credit where it is due, a lot of them have good senses of humor and can laugh at themselves, which is more than I can say about the Portlandia crowd.

 

I've been thinking about that a fair amount lately: there are very few (no?) funny comedians who come from a culturally conservative perspective. There are a few (mostly writers) who are ideologically conservative; usually they have more of a libertarian than socially conservative outlook. Meanwhile, most of the funniest comedians are both culturally and ideologically liberal.

 

I don't think this is a matter of opinion, liberals are just straight up funnier. Yet -- and here's where it gets weird -- among people I interact with, if somebody comes off as self-righteous and utterly humorless, it's a sure bet they are also a rabid Bernie Sanders supporter.

 

 

The explanation I've heard for that is that liberals, in general, tend to be outside of and opposed to the status quo, and the most successful humor is that which mocks and pokes holes in the status quo ('punching up' as they say). While conservatives, being part of the status quo by definition, are not capable of taking the kind of jabs at it that liberals are. Thus, conservative comedy is either completely apolitical, which can be funny but is not as universally appealing as satire is, or involves mean-spirited attacks on the disenfranchised ('punching down'), which alienates anyone who doesn't already share their viewpoints.

The best comedy comes from a place of weakness. The audience can relate to the shared suffering of a comedian struggling to get by, and who is therefor taking jabs at the existing power structure that leaves them disenfranchised. They can also relate to a comedian gently skewering those who try to change the system in ineffective ways, like Portland Hipsters and such. It is admirable to see a comedian going after those more powerful than them. David vs Goliath, the little guy picking a fight with those powerful enough to crush them, and winning in a way? That's something audiences can relate to. It's why George Carlin was so well liked. His comedy was all about skewering and deflating powerful cultural institutions in a way that removed some of their power.

Audiences cannot relate to some rich prick mocking a poor person who has to work three jobs just to put food on their table for their children, as conservative 'comedy' often is. The comedian then looks like a bully and an as*hole, which he is. He is the powerful picking on the powerless. That's never funny.

 

I'm not saying it isn't a positive development. It's just more evidence that they really don't have a clue what they're doing.

 

No one is more outspoken than me on DC Entertainment being totally inept. This is definitely not evidence of that.

 

I agree with this. The fact that they are doing reshoots to change the tone, rather than just doubling down on grimdark angsting, tells me that they know realize they were mistaken about what audiences wanted originally, and are making an effort to correct it. If anything, this is evidence that there actually ARE competent people at WB. Not many, but some.

Time travel is fraught with complications. If you go too far back, you'd have trouble no matter who you are. The pre-20th century world did not have the standards of cleanliness and sanitation we do. Before the publication of Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle', the food was often crawling with bacteria, fecal matter, half rotten, ground up maggots and other things that people of that time could deal with, but our modern immune systems, a result of strict regulations on food safety, would not be able to handle. (Seriously. Read 'The Jungle'. it'll give you nightmares.)

And then there is the flip side. Every one of us is crawling in potentially harmful bacteria or viruses that modern medicine has rendered us immune to, but which people in previous eras had no defense against. We could wind up starting a plague merely by existing.

Thus, we'd be best aiming for sometime in the 20th century if we wanted to travel into the past, but even that would have complications. Would we be able to work and make any additional money without documentation of some kind?

As to the fear of paradoxes, well, I'm not so sure that's a problem. Granted, I'm not a physicist, but it seems likely, based upon the current understanding of quantum mechanics and the Many-Worlds Interpretation, that time travel into the past would not involved actual travel within your own timeline, but the creation of an alternate timeline branching off at your point of arrival. Thus, anything you did would consequently only affect the outcome of the NEW timeline, leaving the one you originated from untouched and unchanged. In other words, according to this interpretation, in 'The Terminator', had Skynet succeeded in killing Sarah Conner to avert the birth of John Conner and prevent the creation of the resistance, it would have merely created an alternate timeline where John Conner was never born. It's own timeline would remain in existence, unchanged, because the very fact that it sent a Terminator into the past in the first place meant that it's timeline could only exist because the past had never been altered in such a way.

Given all those facts, I'd have to give this issue some thought before I gave my answer.

My wife and I binged seasons 1-7 (including all the specials and BBC Christmas charity shorts), watched seasons 8-9 as they aired, and would prefer to avoid any and all classic Who for the foreseeable future. Developing our own opinions under such hermetic circumstances left us so far disconnected from normal Whovian discussion circles that it's tough for either of us to find an entry point without being totally lost or instantly expelled. Usually I just lurk through writer/superfan Paul Cornell's post-ep Twitter discussions and leave it at that.

 

Short version: we've liked all the modern Doctors, we've liked more episodes than we've hated, and we've found no real reasons to spit when we type Moffat's name. We're a weird, silent minority.

Don't worry. Like I said, the weird thing about Whovians is that whoever is the showrunner is the worst thing to ever happen to the show while they are actually in charge of it, and then a genius who was so underappreciated and should come back and take the show back over again once they leave. It's been that way since the Classic era, and will probably remain so forever.

 

Again though people are acting like this is a bad thing when I think it's actually positive.

 

I agree that it's a positive. Mostly, I'm just endlessly amused at the possibility that WB is looking at BvS's reception, and is melting down over it. With luck, this will lead them to kick Snyder and Goyer to the curb, and appoint people who DON'T think that GRIMDARK angsting equals serious, legitimate cinema.

 

Especially superhero movies. Also, I really have no problem with this one being dark and gritty because this property is dark and gritty. My problem with D&G is when you impose that sort of tone on something...like say, Superman...that shouldn't be D&G. I hope they nail this one. It would be great of Warner Bros. figured out that DC's major strength is in their villains (whereas Marvel's major weakness is their villains). They keep thinking that they need to crack some kind of code with their heroes, like Green Lantern or Superman. What they should be doing is keeping those characters simple and saving all the weight for the adversaries.

 

Agreed. Marvel's best villains are Doctor Doom and Magneto, both of whom are tied up with Fox (Although with the way Fantastic Four bombed last year, maybe Fox will agree to give the characters back to Marvel, or at least come to an agreement like with Sony). Whereas DC has the Joker and the rest of Batman's rogues Gallery, Darkseid, the Flash's rogues gallery, Sinestro, Vandal Savage, Deathstroke, etc. Suicide Squad is a step in the right direction for DC, by focusing on their villains, which is where the real strength of thier universe is found.

All big movies do reshoots and pickups after initial testing. All of them.

Not all, but while reshoots are not uncommon, the amount of money being spent is. 10 million is a LOT for a reshoot. Furthermore, they specifically stated that they are doing the reshoots to lighten the tone of the movie based upon the positive reception of the trailer, and likely the backlash over Batman v Superman

Word is WB is spending $10 million on reshoots of Suicide Squad. Apparently, the Bohemian Rhapsody trailer contained pretty much the only funny moments, and BvS's negative reception has them worried. Hopefully, they are trying for a more Deadpool like feel to the film.

One thing I suspect is that if Suicide Squad fails the same way BvS did, that's it for the entire premise of the DC Cinematic Universe.

Benedict Cumberbatch is a great actor, but I wasn't sure he would be a good fit for Doctor Strange. Now that all the pictures of him in costume have leaked, all doubts are erased.

I love Doctor Strange, and like Krawlie, this is the movie I'm looking forwards to most.

 

 

Probably because Timm and Dini's ideas might not fit into WB's idea of what is globally appealing. No matter how much I appreciated Timm or Dini's work, or thought they delivered near-perfect adaptations of DC lore, their approach could be seen as not being as capable of checking all of the boxes a studio needs when aiming for a billion. That is the central motivator of all superhero films, not what in the know comic fans think, so you can count yourself as lucky if any superhero film actually comes close to getting it right, considering why the films are made at all. That's why of all of the Marvel films, the Cap entries always rank at the top of the list. Avengers and Ant Man....not really.

 

 

 

I'm really not sure what this means. What is it about their approach that would diminish the potential of making a billion dollars? Avengers went for a feel that's similarly earnest, almost faultlessly faithful to the feel of the source material, and character driven -- and it literally made a billion dollars. Timm and Dini's material isn't exactly comprised of inaccessible deep cuts. Anyone, adult or child, could watch Justice League Unlimited or Batman: The Animated Series and gain a real appreciation for the characters. It seems to me that BvS went for a distinctly inaccessible approach by making every character miserable and the story incredibly shallow and violent. By doing so they're probably dissuading parents from bringing their kids to see it. I know I wouldn't want to bring my child to see that drudging mess. DC's idea of what constitutes a globally appealing superhero film is clearly the problem here -- and that's why they're not going to clear a billion.

 

I don't understand your last point either...the top of what list? I think Avengers and Ant Man were two of the better Marvel films.

 

(Long time no see, Justin. Missed ya, Bro. Hope you stick around here more.)

I completely agree with this. Tonally, WB doesn't get it, and they've appointed people who do not understand either.

Last year the internet saw 'Power/Rangers', a satirical Power Rangers fan film that contained nudity, profanity, drug use, blood and so on. The fan film was not intended as a satire of Power Rangers, but of the Hollywood thought process that says that in order for a kids' concept be taken seriously, you have to make it 'dark' and 'gritty' and 'extreme'. That 'maturity'=GRIMDARK and brooding, with no sense of fun or lightheartedness. BvS is pretty much that mindset made manifest. Goyer and Snyder very much operate with that mentality, and that is what hurts the film.

Look, I'm a Marvel fanatic, but I still appreciate DC's characters. I think the DCAU is the best interpretation of any superhero universe ever made. I am partial to Wonder Woman, and was happy that she is getting well-deserved exposure, and I'd be first in line for a good Wonder Woman film. But, thus far, the characters are in the hands of people who Just. Don't. Get. It.

Marvel's Cinematic Universe gets a lot of praise, and that is because the people in charge understand the source material. They know what tone fits what characters, and they balance lightness and fun with darkness and seriousness when appropriate. Darkness by itself is not bad. It's how it's used. Look at Marvel's Daredevil and Jessica Jones series. The later especially is darker than anything in BvS, dealing with issues of PTSD, rape, misogyny, trauma, abuse, abortion, drug use, and so on. But, rather than just being thrown in to make them quote/unquote 'Mature', the dark elements are there because it is true to the story and the character. Furthermore, for all the darkness of both series, there is still plenty of hope and optimism, a sense that the characters genuinely care about people, a camaraderie with friends you know they'd do anything for. As well, other Marvel offerings like Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy, are far lighter and fun, because that's what they need. Yet, even within that lightness, there is buoyed some pathos and an understanding of when to be serious.

That balance is thus far missing from the DC movies, because they are being made by people who think hope, lightheartedness and fun means 'for children', and GRIMDARK angsting is serious cinema. And DC's movies will continue to suffer as long as that continues.

What Pavonis said. Also, I got burnt on Who fans. People like to bag on Star Wars nerds or Trekkies, but there is no fandom more derisive and scattered than Whovians. Any given thing with who-- be it The Doctor, a companion, the showrunner, an episode, a portrayal, an alien-- ANYTHING discussed will have somebody saying it is the WORST THING EVER and somebody saying it is THE BEST THING EVER.

Especially showrunners. Every time there is a new showrunner, they get blamed for EVERYTHING wrong with the show, and are regarded as worse than Hitler. Then, when a new showrunner comes in, suddenly the old one was the best thing ever, and the new person is ****. I'm not denying Moffat's tenure has been mixed, and he is certainly trying to do too much, but he's far from the worse showrunner Doctor Who has ever had. I guarantee that once Moffat leaves, and the new guy comes in, the same people attacking Moffat now are going to be wistfully talking about how the show was so much BETTER when he ran it. The same thing happened with Davies.

Just in case there was any question:

 

http://koin.com/2016/01/28/fbi-video-lavoy-finicum-shooting-hwy-395-malheur-01282016/

I don't expect the true believers, those who supported the Dildo boys, to accept this, but this settles it for normal people.

Ordinarily, I'm skeptical of the 'official' law enforcement claims when someone is shot, but considering that he had publicly stated that he had no intention of being taken alive, I was not surprised at this outcome, and had no reason to doubt that he left the FBI no choice.

Fox News released a beautifully snarky response to Trump's boycott:

“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings."

Ah, Fox. I never thought I'd say this, but right now, I love you.

I'm glad it's mostly over, although I enjoyed the show, and the fools they made of themselves.

That said, while the FBI's strategy of giving these f**ktrumpets just enough rope to hang themselves with was solid, it still pisses me off because, had they not been white, the response would have been much different, and they would not have been treated with kid gloves, and the government would not have gone out of their way to avoid bloodshed.

And this isn't conjecture on my part. In 1973, a group of Sioux and Cherokee affiliated with the American Indian Movement occupied the town of Wounded Knee, South Dakota, site of a massacre almost 100 years before. The government response in THAT case was much different, with National Guard units from five different states mobilized, 15 APC's, attack helicopters, snipers and so forth brought in to barricade the town. Power and water was cut off, and shots fired into the town around the clock. They certainly were not allowed to come and go as they please, and allowed to receive supplies for almost a month as was the case with the Branch Dildoians here.

Not to mention heavily armed law enforcement personnel aiming guns in the faces of unarmed, peaceful black protesters in Ferguson a couple of years ago.

While I certainly did not want to see this end in violence, the disparity of the responses between the situations mentioned angers me.

Obsidian: I just saw an argument this morning where somebody was arguing that it "wasn't racism" but "insanity."

 

One of the most ridiculous diversions I've seen in a while. Of course the shooter is a freakin' nut; what he did was crazy. I don't have a problem calling the guy insane. That doesn't mean he wasn't also extremely racist and fueled by a social circle/culture that hates black people. It's not like you can only be either racist or crazy. But the lengths the guy went to to define the mass shooting as an act of insanity as opposed to an act of racism was just bizarre, and definitely informed by a "racism doesn't exist/barely exists anymore" mindset.

FoxNews hosts were twisting themselves into contortions to try and claim it was an attack on Christians. Others were saying 'We'll never understand the shooter's reasons or motivations.'

Anything to avoid confronting the big white sheet wearing elephant in the room,,,

I think it's somewhat naive to think we will ever fix race relations in this country. I hope to be proven wrong, but there's just so much hate and distrust to go around. All sides have their points, but people are just so entrenched it's kind of hopeless. Whites can say they're not racist blah blah blah but everyone pays more to live in white flight neighborhoods.

The main obstacle is acknowledgement. Too many people want to deny racism. They want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend racism does not exist, that it is no longer a problem.

And as long as that occurs, as long as people refuse to admit the reality of racial hatred, racism will continue to be a poison eating away at our society.

I agree the problem is too deeply engrained to ever go away completely. The status quo will remain such for the forseeable future.

 

I have held a very radical stance on this issue for years and I have always believed that those who fly the Confederate flag/battle flag or whatever is a treasonous act and it has no business flying anywhere let alone a state capital.

 

This damn flag should have been banned forever after the civil war and should never be flown again. The Union won and the confederacy lost. To the victor go the spoils.

Ultimately, it was a soft defeat, since the former Confedereate states held much power in the century to follow (troubling presidents such as Kennedy and Johnson), while retaining much of its core beliefs sans slavery.

 

That's the reason why I believe that Reconstruction ended too soon. Or, I should say, the mistake was that it ended at all.

I know how some of the people here feel about the Daily Show, but Jon Stewart's opening segment the day after the shooting says everything I could possibly say. No comedy on this one. Just Stewart's palpable anger about the fact that we refuse to do anything to prevent these kinds of things:

I don't know about that. Italy lost the war, and it's not remembered JUST for that. It still has it's history during Roman times and so on to be remembered for.

Same for Japan. Despite their lost of the war, Japan is still well respected, and is known for far more than WWII.

While Germany's loss no doubt played a part, I think it was the other things that really impact how the country is seen.

I think part of that is, Germany is YOUNG. Germany as an independent, unified state had existed for less than 100 years by the time the Nazis took power. Before that, it was smaller states, or part of other countries like the Holy Roman Empire or Prussia.

Consequently, unlike countries like England, France, China, which have been around for over a thousand years, Germany does not really have a lot of history that is definatively its own. Most of it's history was made when Germany was part of another country. There were no major, history changing acts to cement Germany into in the minds of the world until the Holocaust.

On top of that, let's also remember that Germany was largely seen by the Allies as the instigator in World War I, the country responsible for pushing Austria-Hungary into war with Serbia, and one that agressively and zealously embraced the war when it happened. That another war less than 20 after the first ended could also be laid at it's feet does Germany no favors in the image department. Many historians today have said that the bloodshed of the Second War World would have been avoided had Germany been broken up at the end of the first war.

Combined, I think these facts have an impact on how Germany is perceived by the rest of the world.

That is likely the path they take, also in keeping with a positive spin on Frank. However I think Frank has more to say being an actual villain... being the villain I can understand, rather than the hero that is a badass. I think that is a distinction which, for me at least, makes Frank's appearances with other heroes (anti or not) end up feeling false and forced. Frank posing in Captain America duds is barf. Frank working alongside Spidey is barf. Even Frank working with Wolverine feels muddled and Wolverine is a man, the anti-hero, that kills enemies whenever he feels like it. There is a very core thing about Frank than should effectively alienate him from every other hero. I'm almost convinced that Frank is deeply deeply broken even prior to his family being gunned down, that he's just a villain that happens to be killing villains.

There are different interpretations of the Punisher, depending on the writer. With some, he's well-intentioned, geniunely motivated by the desire to better the world. With others, he's really no better than the people he opposes, someone who simply enjoys killing, and just happens to go after other killers. I think both interpretations are valid.

Yeah, I'd go with an entire storyarc. With Punisher trying to stay under the radar, keep Daredevil off his trail. He feels he has to use extreme measures to clean up Hell's Kitchen, while this fellow vigilante, the one who took down Fisk, is investigating, getting closer and closer to finding him. Castle is having to continuously stay on the move to remain one step ahead of Daredevil. The entire season being Matt's hunt for this Punisher, as Castle tries to continue his war without getting caught. All while Fisk is plotting his return to power. This would create great tension for the audience. Meanwhile, Daredevil opposes his actions, but understands his motivations, and the feeling of having 'the devil inside' him, and struggles with that.

It's just what Punisher needs to become more than just a generic anti-hero, I think.