Poll of the Day > PotdMon: Nerd/Geek

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10
Zeus
04/25/19 3:24:48 AM
#155:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
At least some movies that were behind the YT Red paywall have since been released on DVD, it's possible they might eventually release that series as well. Assuming you're willing to pay for it that way as an alternative.


It's a possibility, I suppose. I'd need to figure out if it's something I'd watch more than once, though.
---
(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/26/19 11:02:17 AM
#156:


No spoilers, but Endgame was very good.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66
04/26/19 11:21:50 AM
#157:


Seeing it tonight.
---
PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69
Big bombs go kabang.
... Copied to Clipboard!
WastelandCowboy
04/26/19 11:23:43 AM
#158:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
No spoilers, but Endgame was very good.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/26/19 3:10:17 PM
#159:


So now we wait for Spiderman to end this phase, as was stated. I'd be willing to call that a wrap on the MCU, though we know how the Mouse Ears of Doom love the sound of money - all of the money.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66
04/26/19 3:19:17 PM
#160:


Remember the Hyphen
---
PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69
Big bombs go kabang.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/26/19 3:28:59 PM
#161:


That brings me to an interesting point I would like to bring up.

On a site that specializes in transgender based literature, all for free (so writers sadly make nothing), I co-wrote the main parts of a superhero and villain universe with another girl who had kicked things off before I joined in. As things developed, and more people tried their hands at adding stories--almost none of which finished--Kisa and I decided mutually that our main projects should only go as far as the trilogies that they became.

Kisa never did finish her third part, and my trilogy never quite drew the audience that her original story did.

However, I wrote the ending of my trilogy to be a proper send-off for my characters. If there was money involved then nothing would have changed, I don't think. Either way, I would have left open the possible usage of a couple major characters should Kisa ever need them for her finale, but to this day we'll never know. I'd love to revisit that world with new characters and a different setting, but it would have to be a natural, fresh beginning, rather than anything forced.

I actually re-read my trilogy lately. My left eye still hurts from the amount of powerful emotion I got out of it, with many scenes that I forgot over the years. I'm glad I ended it where I did when I wrote the series. Someone could pay me enough money to live my life however I want for however long, and yet the trilogy remains constant.

When I look at the MCU? It did its thing. It presumably has one more movie for this "phase." Any reasonable company would use that final film to say that life goes on, with torches passed, and then end it there forever, but we know Disney. We know major corporations as a whole. I may not know the details of what comes next, but I know the MCU will overstay its welcome after this climactic apex.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/26/19 9:05:19 PM
#162:


Entity13 posted...
but we know Disney. We know major corporations as a whole.

We also know comic books, which have been telling sequential stories for 58 years (in Marvel's case), or 81 years (in DC's case - unless you count their various reboots as reset points, in which case they've only been telling bad stories for 8 years).

The entire concept of comics is a medium where you tell stories that can be so utterly meaningful and charged with emotion that it can bring someone to tears, or stir something in them they've never felt before. And then you do it again. And again. And again. And again. There is no three-act structure, there is no grand finale, there is no ending. There's just the end of ONE story, and then next month we meet right back here again for the next one.

Most of Marvel's best stories weren't the FIRST stories for their respective characters. In many cases, they weren't even from the same decade those characters were created. Often they weren't even the first major, meaningful storyline that character ever had. If comics just ended after they "finished" telling their story, we wouldn't have any of the actual worthwhile comic book stories of the past 50 years (ie, some of the best comic stories ever told).

I have less problem with the MCU continuing past it's "conclusion" than I do almost any other franchise ever (except maybe Sherlock Holmes or the like), because by definition that's exactly what it's MEANT to do.

If anything, thinking of comic stories in terms of beginning/middle/end is what gave us The Dark Knight Rises - and I'd rather it didn't.

The fate of the MCU is to shuffle out old characters and shuffle in new. Maybe some characters will get recast. Maybe some will just "retire" and be thematically replaced (ie, Doctor Strange stops being the magic character, but you introduce Doctor Druid or Magik or Wiccan or Nico from the Runaways, etc to be "the magic character", Thor goes back to Asgard but we get Hercules instead, Scott Lang Ant-Man retires and we get Eric O'Grady Ant-Man or Rita DeMara's Yellowjacket, and so on ad infinitum). Eventually they'll likely wind up with nothing left to use but the throwaway characters no one cares about, and the franchise will sputter to a slow, whimpering death (at least until the eventual reboot starts the whole thing over again from scratch), but there may be any number of fantastic stories before then, and it's possible all of us now will be dead before they run out of ideas. There's a LOT of great comic stories for them to crib ideas from they still haven't used yet.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/26/19 9:06:53 PM
#163:


Oh, and speaking of writing novels, I had my usual "every few years get the urge to write my Night in the Lonesome October sequel" impulse a few days ago. I think I still remember where my notes are from the last time I had that impulse, though I think I can successfully suppress it again before it manages to accomplish anything.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/26/19 9:27:20 PM
#164:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
If anything, thinking of comic stories in terms of beginning/middle/end is what gave us The Dark Knight Rises - and I'd rather it didn't.


Eh... I chalk DKR up to other factors. One is the loss of Heath Ledger, so they couldn't re-use the Joker as needed. Second was the need to over-stuff as many plot threads and nods as possible rather than telling a cohesive story to send off Nolan's Batman toward the rest of his career. Third was Nolan developing what I am now calling George Lucas Syndrome by the time the third film came along, and people just said "Yes Chris, that's great Chris, let's do it without question Chris."

ParanoidObsessive posted...
The fate of the MCU is to shuffle out old characters and shuffle in new. Maybe some characters will get recast. Maybe some will just "retire" and be thematically replaced (ie, Doctor Strange stops being the magic character, but you introduce Doctor Druid or Magik or Wiccan or Nico from the Runaways, etc to be "the magic character", Thor goes back to Asgard but we get Hercules instead, Scott Lang Ant-Man retires and we get Eric O'Grady Ant-Man or Rita DeMara's Yellowjacket, and so on ad infinitum). Eventually they'll likely wind up with nothing left to use but the throwaway characters no one cares about, and the franchise will sputter to a slow, whimpering death (at least until the eventual reboot starts the whole thing over again from scratch), but there may be any number of fantastic stories before then, and it's possible all of us now will be dead before they run out of ideas. There's a LOT of great comic stories for them to crib ideas from they still haven't used yet.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
We also know comic books, which have been telling sequential stories for 58 years (in Marvel's case), or 81 years (in DC's case - unless you count their various reboots as reset points, in which case they've only been telling bad stories for 8 years).


Therein lies a difference between mediums, for one thing. When it comes to movies and many shows or novels, people want their three acts so they can move on, because three acts is simple enough to recognize or replicate. With the MCU, we already got more than that with an exhaustive catalog of movies and shows, all with varying degrees of canon. Then, once you are done considering the simplicity that most people require, there is fatigue.

Star Wars of late is a great example of this, because the fatigue set in by the time "Solo" finally came out, and then people were too wary to truly appreciate the better half of Episode VIII.

I sometimes think the Rocky movies are another example to this. Before V came out, how tired were people of the Rocky movies, regardless of how good they managed to be? I stand by the idea that IV was good, on par with I or II, but V was not so good. V didn't need to happen, but it did. Then Balboa came along decades later, which was a different kind of good--that poor guy whose match was hijacked by Rocky cheering signs IRL--and then that led to Balboa II that no one I know even saw...

People get tired of a thing, no matter how the thing was designed, or how good or bad the thing was.

...We totally should have gotten a third Tron movie by now, though. It sucks that we didn't.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/26/19 9:33:11 PM
#165:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
Oh, and speaking of writing novels, I had my usual "every few years get the urge to write my Night in the Lonesome October sequel" impulse a few days ago. I think I still remember where my notes are from the last time I had that impulse, though I think I can successfully suppress it again before it manages to accomplish anything.



Calm down there, Ze-lazy. (Kidding)

On the note of present writing projects I'm done with chapter 35 of "Elysium Shining" as of this morning. That's the sci fi one I've been working on. This morning I also posted chapter 14 on the same site, and a buddy of mine has agreed to proofread it only now in case I want to improve it a smidge and publish via ebooks and Amazon. "Elysium Shining" is drawing a respectable crowd for the site that it's on, and loads of positive reviews. That is a good sign.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WastelandCowboy
04/26/19 9:53:57 PM
#166:


Yeah, I agree with both of you on this. I grew up watching Marvel movies and while I really got into the MCU movies a bit late, I loved how EndGame wrapped-up the trilogy of phases. Yes, we do still have Spider-Man Far From Home and Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3, as well as the planned Doctor Strange and Black Panther 2. I'm fearful of, that, years from now, there'll be a bunch of more MCU movies that I'll watch once and probably never again, like The Incredible Hulk. Watched it a few weeks ago and just couldn't get into it, not because of the change of actor from Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo, but because it was just awkward to watch as I had movies with better CGI before watching TIH, like Infinity War.

I guess what I'm saying is that, unless future movies lead up to a highly-anticipated climatic battle like EndGame with characters from the previous movies and I watch the movies again in order of release to prep for it, I'll just watch a movie once and be done with it. Not because I don't like the movie, but because I will likely not have the same personal relationship and bond that I did with Iron Man.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/26/19 9:54:07 PM
#167:


Entity13 posted...
Eh... I chalk DKR up to other factors. One is the loss of Heath Ledger, so they couldn't re-use the Joker as needed. Second was the need to over-stuff as many plot threads and nods as possible rather than telling a cohesive story to send off Nolan's Batman toward the rest of his career.

Yeah, but even there, you're just proving my point. You don't NEED shove as many plot threads in or "send the main character off" unless you're making the arbitrary decision that the movie NEEDS to be an epic conclusion to a trilogy, rather than "just another installment in a serial story" or "the third in a series of relatively stand-alone movies".

Thinking in narrative framework of epic storytelling (or three-act structure) is what creates the pressure to "end" everything, which generally contributes to the mess.



Entity13 posted...
Therein lies a difference between mediums, for one thing.

True, but serialization isn't a new thing for cinema - if anything, serialized cinema predates comic books as we know them (but not comic strips as a whole), because Flash Gordon predated Superman by a couple years.

Serialization mostly fell out of favor in cinema once it effectively moved to TV and became the conceptual "TV show", but film as a medium isn't inherently anathema to the narrative form.



Entity13 posted...
Star Wars of late is a great example of this, because the fatigue set in by the time "Solo" finally came out, and then people were too wary to truly appreciate the better half of Episode VIII.

Star Wars doesn't really prove the point - if anything, it proves the opposite.

They've been giving us terrible Star Wars movies for almost 20 years now, yet we STILL keep going to them. Maybe THIS will be the one where they figure things out! Maybe THIS is the one where it gets good again! As a collective, we WANT more Star Wars.

The main reason why so many people are burned out on it is because they keep giving us BAD Star Wars. Repeatedly. Over and over. There's a reason why Rogue One got such a positive reaction, and why The Last Jedi drowned the Internet in blood. Solo was doomed from the start because it told a story no one wanted to hear.

It's the same reason the MCU can put out nearly 20 films and leave people still obsessively excited about the next one, while DC couldn't even maintain their own cinematic universe for three films before everyone wants it dead. Quality DOES matter.



Entity13 posted...
I sometimes think the Rocky movies are another example to this. Before V came out, how tired were people of the Rocky movies, regardless of how good they managed to be?

This falls into the same category. The Rocky movies get progressively worse - and honestly, as much as I LOVE Rocky IV for being quintessentially 80s, it's terrible when you compare it to what Rocky originally was (see also, the difference between Rambo 1 and 2).

People stopped caring about Rocky because the movies sucked. Then they came out with a couple new ones that were good again and people started caring again. Repetition doesn't kill interest, shit movies kill interest.



Entity13 posted...
...We totally should have gotten a third Tron movie by now, though. It sucks that we didn't.

This is straight up Star Wars' fault. Disney execs literally said "We don't need that sci-fi franchise that sort of appeals to teen boys, we have Star Wars now".


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus
04/26/19 10:26:29 PM
#168:


I'm bummed out because I wanted to find out which Avenger would die in Endgame and managed to spoil multiple key plot points that I hadn't wanted to know just yet.
---
(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/26/19 11:34:30 PM
#169:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
Star Wars doesn't really prove the point - if anything, it proves the opposite.

They've been giving us terrible Star Wars movies for almost 20 years now, yet we STILL keep going to them. Maybe THIS will be the one where they figure things out! Maybe THIS is the one where it gets good again! As a collective, we WANT more Star Wars.

The main reason why so many people are burned out on it is because they keep giving us BAD Star Wars. Repeatedly. Over and over. There's a reason why Rogue One got such a positive reaction, and why The Last Jedi drowned the Internet in blood. Solo was doomed from the start because it told a story no one wanted to hear.

It's the same reason the MCU can put out nearly 20 films and leave people still obsessively excited about the next one, while DC couldn't even maintain their own cinematic universe for three films before everyone wants it dead. Quality DOES matter.


Of course quality matters. I'm not saying it doesn't. You, however, seem to be remembering wrong.

The prequel trilogy was bad enough that anyone with standards was willing to fall back on the original trilogy and forsake the prequels. The fatigue was not there yet, though at the same time people were loathing and despising what George was doing even to the original movies.

When Disney acquired the franchise, a lot of people basically said "Oh thank God" and drew parallels to the MCU being good thanks to Disney's quality control they believed to exist.

Then came Ep. VII, which played things super safe with retelling IV in a lot of ways. It was good, but not fantastic nor sticking out in its own greatness. The idea of character one-offs came along too, and some people were at least interested. Solo, however, hit Development Hell as soon as it reached production and needed a worthwhile director who would stick around.

Meanwhile, Rogue One--which definitely WAS a movie no one asked for--came out and polarized audiences in terms of good or bad. Someone in charge of making the movie said they had to go out of their way to subvert expectations because of things on the internet like Game Theory and other analysts that broke down what things did or could mean, meaning RO suffered rewrites that didn't need to be there. Quality issue? Sure. Was the movie necessary? No.

Finally Solo came out with some questionable choices of its own, but was a fine film. People just lost interest, dooming it.

Then came Ep. VIII, which was also polarizing, stuffed with a needless sequence in the middle no one wanted or cared for, but people generally liked most of the rest, even with a couple oddball decisions for the remainder.

People are tired. IX can somehow be damn good, or at least marginally better than Solo, and people aren't going to bat much of an eye at the parts that are decent. It can be worse than the prequels or the Christmas Special (again, no one wanted that one), and then people will shred it to pieces.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
True, but serialization isn't a new thing for cinema - if anything, serialized cinema predates comic books as we know them (but not comic strips as a whole), because Flash Gordon predated Superman by a couple years.

Serialization mostly fell out of favor in cinema once it effectively moved to TV and became the conceptual "TV show", but film as a medium isn't inherently anathema to the narrative form.


This more or less adds to my point, actually. Movies do not need to be serialized. There are better mediums for that. On the other hand, TV works well for this, and how are Agents of SHIELD doing now? I'd point out the Netflix shows, but that's another quality vs quality thing that...
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/26/19 11:34:51 PM
#170:


...leans on quantity, definitely. Punisher? Didn't need to happen, but they crammed it in because of how popular the character was in another show that should have had a better second season than it had (and then Punisher season 1 ended up being boring). Luke Cage season 1 and Iron Fist season 1? There were so many issues that could have been fixed by giving them a joint show from the get-go. Defenders? It rode the hype train and crashed in an alleyway somewhere, not even necessary in its existence as early as it happened. The shows dipped in quality, yes, but so much of it is from being spread thin in the area of quality control and not having a good plan for everything BEFORE most of it was made. So of course people got tired.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
Yeah, but even there, you're just proving my point. You don't NEED shove as many plot threads in or "send the main character off" unless you're making the arbitrary decision that the movie NEEDS to be an epic conclusion to a trilogy, rather than "just another installment in a serial story" or "the third in a series of relatively stand-alone movies".

Thinking in narrative framework of epic storytelling (or three-act structure) is what creates the pressure to "end" everything, which generally contributes to the mess.


This may or may not prove both of our arguments here for differed reasons. My point was that the DK trilogy only needed to be a grand origin for the man and the myth, and his neverending quest for vengeance and eccentric-brooding-rich-dick flavor of justice. It didn't NEED to stuff half a dozen different story arcs into one thing. It over-burdened itself and its audience before any of us could get to the final act of the saga. That made the failures and shortcomings taste all the more foul by comparison.

When you're tired, things that taste sub-mediocre will undoubtedly be that much worse. The fatigue was minor in this case, but it was there, because the movie did far more than it needed to, and people weren't having it. It's like ordering something from Olive Garden and being handed half a dozen different salads to tide you over before the main course arrived.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
This is straight up Star Wars' fault. Disney execs literally said "We don't need that sci-fi franchise that sort of appeals to teen boys, we have Star Wars now".


Ye... no. That's Disney. Disney made the decision, and gave their love and affection to the adopted-yet-older child, leaving their actual child cold, hungry, and dying. Don't blame Star Wars for Disney's decisions, even if Star Wars came along around that time.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 12:04:30 AM
#171:


Entity13 posted...
Meanwhile, Rogue One--which definitely WAS a movie no one asked for--came out and polarized audiences in terms of good or bad. Someone in charge of making the movie said they had to go out of their way to subvert expectations because of things on the internet like Game Theory and other analysts that broke down what things did or could mean, meaning RO suffered rewrites that didn't need to be there. Quality issue? Sure. Was the movie necessary? No.

Finally Solo came out with some questionable choices of its own, but was a fine film. People just lost interest, dooming it.


Hold the phone there Ent.

Rouge One was far better than Solo despite the ultimate outcome of both films being known going into either of them.

The key difference was, that you knew with Rogue One there were going to be no happy endings for anyone involved except R2D2. The stakes were high, but everyone else was a meat popsicle from the get go.

On the other hand, In Solo, there were literally no stakes at any point for any character whose name you knew ahead of time. Not only did they try to shoehorn every passing reference Han made in the OT into one film, but there was literally no amount of peril you could put Han, Chewie, or Lando in that amounted to anything whatsoever. Unless you'd spent 40+ years living under a rock, there was absolutely no suspense because you knew the outcome. Anyone you hadn't met previously was chum, but the main draws were invincible by default.

At least with Rogue One, you knew they were all going to die, but there was suspense in the telling of the tale. You knew fuck all about anyone that was introduced except for the whistling droid, and the inevitable Leia Organa cameo that was going to end the film. Plus, there was the gratuitous Badass Vader scene which more than made up for it compared to the demystifying of the Kessel Run in Solo.

Rouge One at least had the advantage of telling an original story. Solo was doomed from the start by actually telling too much of nothing.


Edit: all of that probably needed spoiler tags in hindsight...
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/27/19 12:10:31 AM
#172:


Not denying what you're saying there either, Whiskey, but Solo was still fine for what it was. It just wasn't necessary. Again, there's my point. RO and Solo didn't need to be made. RO at least gave us emotional investment to give a damn, but again there were decisions in there the general audience couldn't help but scratch their heads over. Solo could have been dropped by the second or third major issue in production--something, by the way, that we're now seeing with the new Picard show before it's even made--but Disney just kept going with it, because how can the Star Wars name possibly fail? Oh, right, a lack of direction or necessity.

And then the fatigue set in for people.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 12:18:02 AM
#173:


Entity13 posted...
Not denying what you're saying there either, Whiskey, but Solo was still fine for what it was. It just wasn't necessary. Again, there's my point. RO and Solo didn't need to be made. RO at least gave us emotional investment to give a damn, but again there were decisions in there the general audience couldn't help but scratch their heads over. Solo could have been dropped by the second or third major issue in production--something, by the way, that we're now seeing with the new Picard show before it's even made--but Disney just kept going with it, because how can the Star Wars name possibly fail? Oh, right, a lack of direction or necessity.

And then the fatigue set in for people.


Half the problem with the Picard series is letting Frakes direct it.

Do you remember the Frakes-directed episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY?

'nuff said.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 12:36:48 AM
#174:


And on another note...if you want to give me more Picard, I don't really want Old Man Picard. I saw enough of that in All Good Things. The Picard series I'd like is when he was Captain of the Stargazer, and cast as the kid that played him in the Rascals episode because he'd be the right age now. >_>

And let Adam Nimoy direct the series too.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/27/19 12:37:26 AM
#175:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
Entity13 posted...
Not denying what you're saying there either, Whiskey, but Solo was still fine for what it was. It just wasn't necessary. Again, there's my point. RO and Solo didn't need to be made. RO at least gave us emotional investment to give a damn, but again there were decisions in there the general audience couldn't help but scratch their heads over. Solo could have been dropped by the second or third major issue in production--something, by the way, that we're now seeing with the new Picard show before it's even made--but Disney just kept going with it, because how can the Star Wars name possibly fail? Oh, right, a lack of direction or necessity.

And then the fatigue set in for people.


Half the problem with the Picard series is letting Frakes direct it.

Do you remember the Frakes-directed episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY?

'nuff said.


Quite Frake-ly there's only so much blame you can put on one man. I spent a good bit just now trying to dig up links that I saw regarding issues and setbacks, but I'm not finding them despite having seen said links a month or less ago.

Additionally the series is supposed to run parallel to the Discovery and Abrams Trek universes, rather than the beloved universe we all knew and loved (until Voy killed every decent concept it could get its hands on).

So between the dev hell I remember seeing, and can't find anywhere, and the less than optimal setting, the Picard series feels doomed if not for Stewart/Picard being so loved. Oh, wait, he's supposed to be darker in this new show. hmm
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 12:40:05 AM
#176:


Entity13 posted...
WhiskeyDisk posted...
Entity13 posted...
Not denying what you're saying there either, Whiskey, but Solo was still fine for what it was. It just wasn't necessary. Again, there's my point. RO and Solo didn't need to be made. RO at least gave us emotional investment to give a damn, but again there were decisions in there the general audience couldn't help but scratch their heads over. Solo could have been dropped by the second or third major issue in production--something, by the way, that we're now seeing with the new Picard show before it's even made--but Disney just kept going with it, because how can the Star Wars name possibly fail? Oh, right, a lack of direction or necessity.

And then the fatigue set in for people.


Half the problem with the Picard series is letting Frakes direct it.

Do you remember the Frakes-directed episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY?

'nuff said.


Quite Frake-ly there's only so much blame you can put on one man. I spent a good bit just now trying to dig up links that I saw regarding issues and setbacks, but I'm not finding them despite having seen said links a month or less ago.

Additionally the series is supposed to run parallel to the Discovery and Abrams Trek universes, rather than the beloved universe we all knew and loved (until Voy killed every decent concept it could get its hands on).

So between the dev hell I remember seeing, and can't find anywhere, and the less than optimal setting, the Picard series feels doomed if not for Stewart/Picard being so loved. Oh, wait, he's supposed to be darker in this new show. hmm


And we already saw "dark Picard". He was called "Shinzon" and he sucked a giant bag of donkey dicks.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/27/19 12:45:45 AM
#177:


It sounds almost like CBS is unoriginal. I gasp in your general direction, sir. *Rolls her eyes*
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 12:51:33 AM
#178:


Entity13 posted...
It sounds almost like CBS is unoriginal. I gasp in your general direction, sir. *Rolls her eyes*


I'd bitch that we still never got a DS9 movie, but with the direction the TNG movies went, that's probably for the better. As much as I love OG Picard, Sisko is my favorite captain.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/27/19 1:05:24 AM
#179:


*This whole damn message has been deleted upon command*
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 1:13:03 AM
#180:


Entity13 posted...
*This whole damn message has been deleted upon command*


Even ignoring "In the Pale Moonlight", Sisko was the only Captain that knew exactly how to handle Q. Picard entertained Q out of curiosity. Janeway did so out of hope and necessity. Sisko found out Q was on board, marched down to Quark's, and punched him in the fucking face. That was the only sensible way to handle Q. Notice he only showed up on DS9 once. I'd call that a win.

And don't get me wrong, I love DeLancie AS Q. But after Q puts the Federation on the Borg's radar, no Captain in their right mind should tolerate Q's presence on board.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/27/19 1:20:30 AM
#181:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
Entity13 posted...
*This whole damn message has been deleted upon command*


Even ignoring "In the Pale Moonlight", Sisko was the only Captain that knew exactly how to handle Q. Picard entertained Q out of curiosity. Janeway did so out of hope and necessity. Sisko found out Q was on board, marched down to Quark's, and punched him in the fucking face. That was the only sensible way to handle Q. Notice he only showed up on DS9 once. I'd call that a win.


I like to think that Archer would just have put the whole Continuum to sleep for a few centuries, or Kirk would have bed Q about as many times.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 1:23:43 AM
#182:


Entity13 posted...
WhiskeyDisk posted...
Entity13 posted...
*This whole damn message has been deleted upon command*


Even ignoring "In the Pale Moonlight", Sisko was the only Captain that knew exactly how to handle Q. Picard entertained Q out of curiosity. Janeway did so out of hope and necessity. Sisko found out Q was on board, marched down to Quark's, and punched him in the fucking face. That was the only sensible way to handle Q. Notice he only showed up on DS9 once. I'd call that a win.


I like to think that Archer would just have put the whole Continuum to sleep for a few centuries, or Kirk would have bed Q about as many times.


Again, no Captain in Starfleet should tolerate Q on principle.

"You hit me. Picard never hit me."

"I'm not Picard."

That's literally how every appearance of Q should be handled.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/27/19 1:27:28 AM
#183:


Oh Kirk would have hit him alright - in bed.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 1:30:58 AM
#184:


Entity13 posted...
Oh Kirk would have hit him alright - in bed.


The mental image of Chris Pine pegging John DeLancie is eye bleach territory to begin with Ent.

The mental image of Shatner in that pile is beyond words.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus
04/27/19 1:43:01 AM
#185:


Today's POTD:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/poll/7578-if-you-were-a-superhero-or-super-villain-what-would-you-want

If you were a superhero (or super-villain), what would you want your origin story to be?

Alien from another planet, raised as a human (Superman) 6.69%

85
Mutated human, a new species of mankind (X-Men) 29.58%

376
Powers from a lab accident or experiment (Spider-Man) 17.15%

218
Powers granted by an artifact, mystical or high-tech (Green Lantern) 27.85%

354
No special powers, just training and/or technology (Batman)


tbh, lab accident/experiment/freak accident seems like the most appealing choice. Originally coming from another planet or dimension adds awkward backstory and would make my powers less unique. Powers granted from an object implies that they could be taken away or deprived if separated from the object. Training and tech is just boring, I could do that now.

It really just comes down to new species/mutant or accident. Accident would suggest I'd keep more of my life intact up to that point and then just one day get powers, which appeals to me a bit more since it means that the powers weren't with me all along and taking time to manifest. That way I'd have to worry less about my origins.

Of course, if I did hail from another planet, it's almost certain I'd wind up a villain >_>
---
(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 1:58:52 AM
#186:


Notably absent from the poll:

Supernatural...entanglements (Dr. Strange, Lucifer Morningstar, John Constantine, Moon Knight, Blade, Swamp Thing, Ghost Rider)
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Entity13
04/27/19 1:58:56 AM
#187:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
Entity13 posted...
Oh Kirk would have hit him alright - in bed.


The mental image of Chris Pine pegging John DeLancie is eye bleach territory to begin with Ent.

The mental image of Shatner in that pile is beyond words.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?


The universe slapped me too hard a few too many times, and now my ability to imagine things exceeds any sane person's grasp. Now, ironically, my own madness is all that keeps me hanging on. If the universe doesn't like it then it can send me back in time with a damned apology.

>:D
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 1:59:07 AM
#188:


Entity13 posted...
You, however, seem to be remembering wrong.

No, I'm remembering right. We're just very much interpreting the same things in different ways.

The Prequel Trilogy was bad enough that anyone with standards was willing to fall back on the original trilogy and forsake the prequels... but it wasn't the mere existence of those movies that burned people out, it was the fact that they were terrible. Rejection of the prequels wasn't fatigue-based, it was quality based.

When Disney acquired the franchise, a lot of people DID basically say "Oh thank God" and assumed Disney would do a better job. But then Disney didn't do a better job. People didn't lose interest because we had four movies in rapid succession (TFA, RO, TLJ, Solo) with a fifth one coming, they lost interest because TFA felt like a rehash, TLJ was absolutely terrible, and Solo was a story no one wanted told in a way that was as mediocre as possible. RO is literally the only one that people seemed to even remotely enjoy (at least based on my unscientific survey of all the 40-year old men I knew at the time, who seemed to have an almost child-like joy talking about how much they enjoyed it. Like, from their perspective, they finally had something that felt like Star Wars again).

And then TLJ shit directly into their open mouths.

The fact that there are now 11 Star Wars movies is immaterial. If they were all the same level of quality as the originals, or even Rogue One, interest and engagement in the films would be far higher. In the same vein that Marvel can put out 20 straight films and people are more hyped for the 21st movie than they were for almost anything prior.

If Star Wars as a franchise had kept its original release pace - and we were up to Episode XV at this point - but every one of those films was on par with Empire in quality (or getting successively better over time), Lucas would literally rule the world because he would control our entire economy.

Quantity really doesn't matter if quality remains consistent. Even with TV shows, it's the dip in quantity that eventually kills long-running series (except for the Simpsons, which literally cannot be killed in spite of losing most of its quality before half the people on PotD were born).



Entity13 posted...
Meanwhile, Rogue One--which definitely WAS a movie no one asked for--came out and polarized audiences in terms of good or bad.

I'm inclined to say that it didn't polarize audiences. The only real strong negative reaction I saw to it at the time came from critics, and critics are generally terrible people with terrible opinions who need to be beaten with sticks.

Rogue One was a movie no one asked for, and that no one had ever really thought they wanted before it was announced, but it was an interesting enough premise that most people were willing to give it a chance - and it wound up being better than most other Star Wars movies before or since other than the originals (though that is admittedly a low bar to hurdle). It made a lot of us care when we had no reason to. Meanwhile, the sequels have to stunt-cast Han, Leia, and Luke in a desperate attempt to win us over, because we barely care about anyone else (other than maybe Poe - who we weren't supposed to care about).

As opposed to...


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 1:59:12 AM
#189:


Entity13 posted...
Finally Solo came out with some questionable choices of its own, but was a fine film. People just lost interest, dooming it.

Whether or not it was a "fine" film was immaterial (though that's itself debatable), because it was a movie that no one wanted, and literally nothing about it changed people's minds on that score. Rogue One introduced new characters, and told a minor story point we already knew in a way we didn't know - Solo recast a character we loved and went out of its way to tell a bunch of stories we already knew in the lamest possible way, completely demystifying the character, conflicting with prior characterization and making the character less cool (the exact same sin that the Prequels committed).

Solo was the "Greedo Shot First" of modern Star Wars films.

Even people who enjoyed it were usually willing to admit that it was relatively mediocre, and relied far too heavily on the "HEY, REMEMBER WHEN THAT ONE GUY SAID THAT THING IN THE MOVIE YOU LIKE? HERE IS THE LAZIEST POSSIBLE WAY WE COULD SHOW YOU THAT THING HAPPENING! WHY DON'T YOU LOVE US YET?!" method of script writing. It certainly didn't help that "Hey, there's that actress I recognize from Game of Thrones!" has literally never been a good actress in any movie she's ever been in, or that Solo was coming directly after the shitstorm that was TLJ. Or that most people heard tons of stories about how the filming was a disaster and expected nothing from it. Or saw Youtube videos telling them how terrible it was and how annoying the feminist robot was. Or any number of other factors that a mediocre movie was never going to overcome solely by word of mouth.

But if Solo had come out and it was the best Star Wars movie ever, if Alden Ehrenreich somehow managed to channel Harrison Ford as well as Ewan McGregor channeled Alec Guinness, if it managed to tell a moving and compelling story in a way that drove everyone who saw it to go tell all their friends how fantastic it was and how they all NEEDED to see it, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Because Solo would have succeeded wildly in spite of being the fourth Star Wars movie in 2 1/2 years, and the 10th overall.

It isn't the number of Star Wars films that's the problem. Or even how often we're getting them. The real problem is that we're hoping for The Matrix and we're getting The Matrix Revolutions.



Entity13 posted...
Then came Ep. VIII, which was also polarizing, stuffed with a needless sequence in the middle no one wanted or cared for, but people generally liked most of the rest, even with a couple oddball decisions for the remainder.

Ehh. "Polarizing" implies more than one pole.

"It's terrible" and "There are a few good parts, and you can kind of see a worthwhile movie in there somewhere, but yeah, the movie as-is is definitely terrible" are pretty much the same opinion, and it's the opinion that nearly everyone had about that film.

People shredded it because it was easily the most "prequel-esque" of the modern films in terms of being a catasterfuck - and because "Okay, the Rey/Kylo parts weren't terrible, even if they were kind of poorly handled, and killing Snoke off like that was still a total waste, and I didn't mind Luke being a bitter old asshole, it was kind of cool" doesn't really counterbalance "but literally everything with Finn and Rose was liquid hot shit, and Poe's entire storyline was incredibly stupid, so I still feel like I wasted nearly two hours of my life I am never getting back."

People didn't rip into TLJ because they were tired of Star Wars movies. They ripped into TLJ because it was terrible.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 2:01:50 AM
#190:


Entity13 posted...
People are tired. IX can somehow be damn good, or at least marginally better than Solo, and people aren't going to bat much of an eye at the parts that are decent.

People are desperate for another good Star Wars film. We're currently in the same denial we were in prior to Revenge of the Sith, and if it's even passable we're likely to see the sort of mental gymnastics we saw there as well, where people try to convince themselves that it somehow "redeemed" the previous two movies.

Again, if it was simple fatigue, that sheer desperation and hope that maybe THIS one is going to be good wouldn't be a thing. The prevailing feeling would be less "OH GOD PLEASE LET THIS BE GOOD" and more "OH PLEASE GOD WHY WON'T THIS END?"

People clearly still want Star Wars. They just don't want the Star Wars we're getting.



Entity13 posted...
This more or less adds to my point, actually. Movies do not need to be serialized. There are better mediums for that. On the other hand, TV works well for this, and how are Agents of SHIELD doing now? I'd point out the Netflix shows, but that's another quality vs quality thing that...

Agents of SHIELD is actually another point for ME - it's a mediocre show, that was hamstrung by internal politics with the film division of Marvel, and it's resulted in general apathy. It's lack of quality has mostly left it abandoned by all but a hardcore die-hard group of fans - and the only reason we don't really hear people complaining about it's quality online is because most people aren't watching it. There was excitement about the show when it started, but lack of quality has driven people away.

Meanwhile the Netflix shows were perceived as having strong, consistent quality (except for Iron Fist), and everyone mourned when the shows were cancelled. Almost no one will mourn when Agents of SHIELD gets cancelled.

As for there being a NEED for serial films, that's not really an argument. In the era of TV and Internet, there isn't a need for films PERIOD. There's nothing about the medium itself that lends itself to storytelling in ANY fashion that can't easily be duplicated by other media just as effectively. But if someone feels the story they want to tell works better as a film than as a TV-movie, or a direct-to-DVD movie, or a "Netflix Original", or a Youtube Red production, or streamed over Twitch... then it's up to them to tell their story in whatever manner works best.

So if someone can tell a cohesive, interesting story in a serialized film format, more power to them. It's essentially what Marvel HAS been doing, to some degree.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 2:01:55 AM
#191:


Entity13 posted...
This may or may not prove both of our arguments here for differed reasons. My point was that the DK trilogy only needed to be a grand origin for the man and the myth, and his neverending quest for vengeance and eccentric-brooding-rich-dick flavor of justice. It didn't NEED to stuff half a dozen different story arcs into one thing. It over-burdened itself and its audience before any of us could get to the final act of the saga. That made the failures and shortcomings taste all the more foul by comparison.

Yes, but the point is, if Nolan felt "I have all these themes and plot elements I need to finish the story, but only one movie left to cram them all into", then it's the "I only have one movie left" mentality that ultimately causes the problem. He visualized the entire overarching story as a three-part narrative, and thus worked to fit it in three parts, with the ultimate conclusion being "Okay, Batman retires, the end" - in spite of the fact that "Batman retires" is like "Jumbo Shrimp" or "Living Dead".

Spreading narrative elements out more, and leaving an open-ended conclusion that could lead into future films (if Nolan wanted to do them and Bale was willing to come back, and so on), could easily have alleviated at least some of those issues.

It might also have kept him from feeling the need to jump ahead 8 years to have a "broken" Batman so he could justify retiring, which itself seeds a lot of the eventual flaws into the work.



Entity13 posted...
Ye... no. That's Disney. Disney made the decision, and gave their love and affection to the adopted-yet-older child, leaving their actual child cold, hungry, and dying. Don't blame Star Wars for Disney's decisions, even if Star Wars came along around that time.

Yeah, but it IS still Star Wars' fault - because it's literally the Star Wars purchase that killed Tron. In a world where Disney doesn't buy Star Wars, we likely get Tron 3.

Execs and analysts literally said this was the reason. The Disney mindset was that they have the young girl demographic on lockdown with the princesses and such, but they needed something to appeal to young boys. Tron was supposed to fill that niche, until they acquired Star Wars and decided they no longer needed anything else.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 2:05:23 AM
#192:


Entity13 posted...
WhiskeyDisk posted...
Entity13 posted...
Oh Kirk would have hit him alright - in bed.


The mental image of Chris Pine pegging John DeLancie is eye bleach territory to begin with Ent.

The mental image of Shatner in that pile is beyond words.

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?


The universe slapped me too hard a few too many times, and now my ability to imagine things exceeds any sane person's grasp. Now, ironically, my own madness is all that keeps me hanging on. If the universe doesn't like it then it can send me back in time with a damned apology.

>:D


Don't make me dig up EntityCensored.jpg.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 2:13:56 AM
#193:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
It certainly didn't help that "Hey, there's that actress I recognize from Game of Thrones!"


Believe it or not, despite having been up to date with GoT at that point I totally did not recognize her in the first act of Solo at all. It didn't click until far later in the film despite a nagging "where do I know her from" feeling.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 2:16:15 AM
#194:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
The key difference was, that you knew with Rogue One there were going to be no happy endings for anyone involved except R2D2. The stakes were high, but everyone else was a meat popsicle from the get go.

Technically we didn't even know that. In RotJ, all we knew was that "many Bothans died" getting the (2nd) plans. In "Star Wars" (screw calling it A New Hope, I'm rebelling against you damned millennials! ~shakes fist~ ), we know that Leia winds up with the plans (somehow), and that she eventually gives them to R2, but we never really know HOW she got the plans in the first place, beyond the fact that they were "beamed to her ship by Rebel spies".

Yes, it seems likely that the spies who got them maybe didn't survive that mission, and most people probably went into Rogue One expecting them all to die, but they could easily have had at least some of them survive and escape. People would (and did) bring up the "If they survived why didn't we see them in the other films" logic, but it's not as if we see literally every member of the Rebel Alliance in the first three films anyway. We could just as easily have gotten a scenario where Jyn, Cassian, and the cool robot voiced by nerd royalty Alan Tudyk escape in the end, with Jyn convincing Cassian to leave the Rebellion for her, or Jyn finally accepting her place and joining the Rebellion herself. Then they're off doing their own things in Empire and Jedi, because there are tons of Rebels in dozens of different cells across the galaxy. There's no reason why they'd pop up on Hoth or Endor (even if Wedge seems to be everywhere).

So even beyond "We don't know any of these characters", we didn't even know if/how they were going to end.

And honestly, while I can easily point out the parts of Rogue One that didn't work, or how I would have done certain parts differently, or how they could have focused more on one aspect and less on another aspect and made a more solid film, at the end of the day I enjoyed the film on a visceral level and didn't feel the NEED to tear it apart like that. But it's hard to say the same for TLJ or Solo.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 2:21:24 AM
#195:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
Half the problem with the Picard series is letting Frakes direct it.

Do you remember the Frakes-directed episodes of TNG, DS9, and VOY?

'nuff said.

YOU SHUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH ABOUT DAVID XANATOS, YOU UNCULTURED PIG-DOG!





Also, to be fair, I barely remember any episodes of TNG, DS9, or VOY. Because bleh, Star Trek. I am firmly on the Star Wars side of the ancient and revered Trek/Wars Geek Divide.

The harder sci-fi gets, the more I tend to shy away from it. It's why I always give Shadow a hard time about transhumanism, and why I never really got into Babylon 5 either.

Apart from Red Dwarf and Isaac Asimov, I never really got as much out of sci-fi as I got out of fantasy (including space-flavored fantasy).


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus
04/27/19 2:26:32 AM
#196:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
Notably absent from the poll:

Supernatural...entanglements (Dr. Strange, Lucifer Morningstar, John Constantine, Moon Knight, Blade, Swamp Thing, Ghost Rider)


Kind of a wide category, though. Ghost Rider, Swamp Thing, etc, are very different from somebody like Lucifer.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
As for there being a NEED for serial films, that's not really an argument. In the era of TV and Internet, there isn't a need for films PERIOD. There's nothing about the medium itself that lends itself to storytelling in ANY fashion that can't easily be duplicated by other media just as effectively. But if someone feels the story they want to tell works better as a film than as a TV-movie, or a direct-to-DVD movie, or a "Netflix Original", or a Youtube Red production, or streamed over Twitch... then it's up to them to tell their story in whatever manner works best.


I will say that certain kinds of stories seem to work better in film. Plus films tend to have much larger budgets and can attract people who can't commit as much time to a tv show (well, barring shows like Luther which sometimes have 2 episodes per season). Granted, some tv shows work because they're basically made-for-tv films, such as some detective shows (Poirot, Sherlock, etc). A lot of that really also comes down to monetization where films seem to have a higher ROI.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

People didn't rip into TLJ because they were tired of Star Wars movies. They ripped into TLJ because it was terrible.


If that was the reason, they would have ripped harder into TFA.
---
(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 2:27:08 AM
#197:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
And we already saw "dark Picard". He was called "Shinzon" and he sucked a giant bag of donkey dicks.

I liked Shinzon, but I freely admit that was more "I like Tom Hardy" than any inherent virtue of the character itself or how it was presented in that movie.



WhiskeyDisk posted...
ParanoidObsessive posted...
It certainly didn't help that "Hey, there's that actress I recognize from Game of Thrones!"

Believe it or not, despite having been up to date with GoT at that point I totally did not recognize her in the first act of Solo at all. It didn't click until far later in the film despite a nagging "where do I know her from" feeling.

Every time I see her in a major film, I basically go "Oh, I know exactly why they hired her for this role - Game of Thrones is popular."

Ironically enough, I tend to think the same whenever I see Peter Dinklage in a major role. Though the difference there is that Peter Dinklage is actually a good actor who rises to the level of whatever character he's playing (no pun intended), while she... doesn't.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 2:30:35 AM
#198:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
So even beyond "We don't know any of these characters", we didn't even know if/how they were going to end.


You do of course know there's a huge difference between logic logic, and movie logic, so I can't help but think you're expecting way too much of anyone steering the franchise after the prequels and playing dumb.

Yes, there's an implied empire of thousands of planets, but we both know nothing worth a damn to the overall narrative ever happened on more than a half dozen of them because...reasons.

Yeah sure, there was also a Mandalorian, Wookie, and Hutt Jedi in the original EU because, why wouldn't there have been...but none of them were going to drag their asses from Space West Virginia for the Clone Wars or Star Wars: C-Span because we only care that every movie now has to be a United Colors of Benneton ad because that's what focus testing says sells. Nobody is asking where Jyn Erso has been all this time.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 2:36:57 AM
#199:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
Zeus posted...
Today's POTD

Notably absent from the poll:

Supernatural...entanglements (Dr. Strange, Lucifer Morningstar, John Constantine, Moon Knight, Blade, Swamp Thing, Ghost Rider)

As per the Marvel Superheroes RPG from 1984-1986, the "standard" origins for characters are:

Mutant (X-Men)
Altered Human (Captain America/Fantastic Four/Spider-Man)
Hi-Tech Wonder (Iron Man/Hawkeye/Punisher)
Alien (Skrulls/Kree/etc)
Robot (Vision/Machine Man)
Human w/Magic (Doctor Strange)

Blade would actually fall under Altered Human, because there isn't really a mechanical difference between vampire blood in utero and radioactive spider bites. Ghost Rider would probably be the same, though he might shade into magic depending on how you interpret things (but mechanically in game terms, he's very much Altered Human). Moon Knight is mostly a Hi-Tech Wonder (just like Batman), albeit a crazy one who may or may not be possessed by an ancient god (which would shade him into Magic or Altered Human). Lucifer would probably classify as an "Alien" (in the same way Thor technically does). Constantine's just a dude (and a dick) with magic.

Scarlet Witch would be a Mutant, then a Mutant w/Magic, then "Not Really a Mutant But Still Totally Magic, Because Fox Still Has the Rights to X-Men, So She and Quicksilver Are Totally Altered Humans Now", and probably Mutant w/Magic again eventually now that they got the rights back.

Swamp Thing would depend on which version of the character you're thinking of - the one where he's a guy who turned into a plant thing, or the plant being that got confused and thought it was human.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 2:41:51 AM
#200:


Zeus posted...
Kind of a wide category, though. Ghost Rider, Swamp Thing, etc, are very different from somebody like Lucifer.


Admittedly, but if I separate "deities" and "supernatural... entanglements" it's going to get ugly and confusing when I make the "Thor, Thor, Loki, Loki, Aries, Lucifer, Satan, Mephisto, Etrigan, The Endless, Living Tribunal, Santa Claus, One Above All" bracket. Yes I know Thor and Loki are there twice and I shouldn't have to explain why...
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 2:49:43 AM
#201:


Zeus posted...
ParanoidObsessive posted...

People didn't rip into TLJ because they were tired of Star Wars movies. They ripped into TLJ because it was terrible.

If that was the reason, they would have ripped harder into TFA.

A lot of people (myself included) said outright that "TFA is a mediocre film that is deliberately trying to rekindle the FEEL of Star Wars, so it's built almost entirely on nostalgia - and my opinion of it as a stand-alone film will shift depending on whether or not the next movie builds on that, or just does the same thing all over again."

And to be fair to Disney, TLJ did neither. It forged its own path straight into the heart of atrocity.

Which has actually left me somewhat on the fence about TFA. Should I hate it because TLJ failed to build on literally anything it set up? Or should I forgive it for the exact same reason?

But a lot of people loved TFA, no matter what flaws it had, because it finally FELT like a Star Wars movie again, after years of the prequels being terrible. Ironically enough for a movie blatantly copying "A New Hope", it felt like a new hope. Which was the entire point. TFA was exactly what it NEEDED to be.

If TFA had been an "unearned" Rogue One, or too much like the prequels, or even a (God help us) TLJ, it would have tanked the franchise hard, right after Disney paid a ton of money for it. They needed to breathe new life into it, and went the emotional exploitation route rather than the intellectual route (which was the right choice).

It's a movie designed to make you feel good on first viewing, which isn't meant to stand up under repeated follow-up viewings. It was buying back audience trust and a willingness to allow future divergence. Yes, that coin was completely thrown away in TLJ when it diverged in entirely ridiculous and stupid ways, but if TFA had been followed up by a stronger film, it would have uplifted TFA by proxy.

Sort of in the same way that LotR changes the context of The Hobbit when you read them in order, and LotR effectively turns The Hobbit into a more meaningful work (though that doesn't mean much when you film and show them in the wrong order, and stretch the Hobbit three times longer than it needs to be, and now we're going down a different, darker road of conversation).

TFA was polarizing. Some people liked it, some people disliked it, some people were ambivalent about it, some people loved it, some people hated it, and some people were unsure about it and wanted to see how TLJ turned out before judging TFA too harshly. And that divide is why it wasn't savaged as badly as TLJ, which pretty much everyone everywhere hated all of the time for multiple reasons.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
04/27/19 3:09:37 AM
#202:


WhiskeyDisk posted...
You do of course know there's a huge difference between logic logic, and movie logic, so I can't help but think you're expecting way too much of anyone steering the franchise after the prequels and playing dumb.

Yes, there's an implied empire of thousands of planets, but we both know nothing worth a damn to the overall narrative ever happened on more than a half dozen of them because...reasons.

I can actually justify this with cynicism.

Hollywood loves a happy ending, and assumes audiences are too stupid to enjoy nuanced or sad endings. Movies like "I Am Legend" were completely undermined and ruined because test audiences thought the ending was too sad, and execs don't give a shit about artistic integrity or thematic meaning if they think it will cost them revenue. Part of what made Infinity War so impactful is that most people didn't think Marvel was crazy enough to have Thanos WIN.

So I could easily see a Disney exec going "Wait, you want to end this movie how? No way. You are NOT killing off every major character. We need them alive to sell more toys, and so we can do a sequel if this one does well. The further adventures of Rogue One tweaking the Empire's nose is a license to print money. You can kill off the Bothans in the next movie, when they team up with Rogue One to steal the second set of plans. Also, make the Bothans cute furry animals. No, wait, you can't kill them either now, because that will make kids sad. Continuity? Who gives a fuck about continuity? I have a yacht to pay for."

In a world where that mentality absolutely exists, and where it can be easily justified in various ways that they all live, that they all die, or that some die and some live, that the people in-charge would push for a happier ending. That and the knowledge that movies like last-act surprises creates just enough uncertainty that at least some of them might make it out.



WhiskeyDisk posted...
Nobody is asking where Jyn Erso has been all this time.

In-universe? Why would anyone? She's either a top agent/spy who would be shrouded in secrecy to prevent the Empire from learning her whereabouts and catching her, or she's left the Rebellion behind and is either living peacefully on some backwater planet after putting her personal demons to rest or is continuing her scoundrel ways much like Han prior to Yavin. Either way, no one is going to be like "Man, I wish Jyn were here, she'd really love flying a Y-Wing and helping blow up this new Death Star!"

It would actually be less likely that anyone in the Rogue One group would ever be referenced in the original movies than it would be that they would. It would be like wondering why US troops landing in Normandy in a WWII film aren't constantly referencing specific people they knew who were at Pearl Harbor by name ("Man, Ensign Dan would really love being here and killing Nazis, too bad the Japanese got him back in '41").

That being said, there was actually leaked concept art of the "Knights of Ren" prior to TFA that made them ALL look suspiciously like vague versions of most of the characters from Rogue One, implying that five of them wound up falling into Snoke's hands at some point and got brainwashed/cybernized/etc into bad guys. So that introduced a bit of uncertainty into the mix as well. Tying Rogue One into the new sequels would have made perfect sense if they'd gone that route. We just didn't realize that it would have required them to actually HAVE a plan for the sequels. Silly us!


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus
04/27/19 3:36:39 AM
#203:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
Every time I see her in a major film, I basically go "Oh, I know exactly why they hired her for this role - Game of Thrones is popular."

Ironically enough, I tend to think the same whenever I see Peter Dinklage in a major role. Though the difference there is that Peter Dinklage is actually a good actor who rises to the level of whatever character he's playing (no pun intended), while she... doesn't.


tbh, 90% of the time I see her, I don't recognize her from GoT. Haven't seen Solo, but didn't recognize her from the posters, etc.

Peter Dinklage is hard to miss, though.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
Lucifer would probably classify as an "Alien" (in the same way Thor technically does).


"Otherworldly Being" would therefore be a more fitting umbrella term.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
But a lot of people loved TFA, no matter what flaws it had, because it finally FELT like a Star Wars movie again, after years of the prequels being terrible. Ironically enough for a movie blatantly copying "A New Hope", it felt like a new hope. Which was the entire point. TFA was exactly what it NEEDED to be.


Here's the thing -- despite obviously cribbing so much of ANH, it *never* actually felt like a SW film (probably because there was no spirit to it). TLJ at least had a SW feel for the jedi portion. TLJ reminded me of some reasons why I loved the franchise, whereas TFA was a joyless abomination that made me miss the prequel trilogy.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
If TFA had been an "unearned" Rogue One, or too much like the prequels, or even a (God help us) TLJ, it would have tanked the franchise hard, right after Disney paid a ton of money for it. They needed to breathe new life into it, and went the emotional exploitation route rather than the intellectual route (which was the right choice).


TLJ was literally the only thing that convinced me to watch RO. I would have just given the rest of the supporting franchise a hard pass if TLJ had been more like TFA. TLJ did the impossible, though: It made me care again.

ParanoidObsessive posted...
Hollywood loves a happy ending, and assumes audiences are too stupid to enjoy nuanced or sad endings. Movies like "I Am Legend" were completely undermined and ruined because test audiences thought the ending was too sad, and execs don't give a shit about artistic integrity or thematic meaning if they think it will cost them revenue.


Most downer endings are lousy anyway. They're often used as a shortcut to presumed artistic merit. The Mist certainly wasn't improved by tacking on a shitty bit of survirony.... and, by the way, Hollywood sure hates ambivalent endings a metric fuckload more than downer endings. They seem to operate under the impression that audiences always want resolution and answers.
---
(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.
... Copied to Clipboard!
WhiskeyDisk
04/27/19 11:08:43 AM
#204:


Zeus posted...
They seem to operate under the impression that audiences always want resolution and answers.


On the other hand, that need to spoon-feed happy answers is how you get the demystification of the Kessel Run in Solo. Originally, it existed as a perfect bit of nonsense, a mcguffin that was fine as it was, and left something to the imagination. "Uncle Ben dies, Tom and Martha Wayne die. We get it. We don't need to see it every time Spiderman or Batman gets a reboot. We already know how this works, it doesn't need an explanation in sharp detail everytime.

The Kessel Run. You're a great smuggler and pilot Han, and the Millennium Falcon is awesome. We get it. We never actually needed to see the Kessel Run to understand it was a thing. What we got in the overexplanation of it was about as thrilling and illogical as eye punches from the eye punch dimension.
---
The SBA has closed for business, we thank you for your patronage Assassins.
~there's always free cheese in a mousetrap.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10