ICantDoThatDave

Not to disparage this movie's take on Batman-Catwoman at all, but that was literally the central theme of Batman Returns with Keaton/Pfeiffer. How Bruce Wayne could interact with Selina Kyle & also Batman try to stop Catwoman. Penguin, Walken's Max Schrek? Not the central plotline. Bruce/Selina was. The final scene with Selina & Schrek was nothing but that. EDIT: The two "Mistletoe can be deadly if you eat it. But a kiss can be even deadlier if you mean it" parallel scenes illustrate this perfectly.

What's fascinating is how little interest in this there is. Not just posts on this forum... it's mostly links, news releases, & press clips. But even among people I know. No one I know is looking forward to this, or even discussing it. Anecdotal, yes, but for example Spider-Man: No Way Home was the topic of conversation among my friends, family, coworkers for weeks leading up to its release. This? Not a blip on the radar.

This show is just so... meh. It's not really funny. There's not even any "oh, hah!" jokes that make it worth it. The plot is... there. The characters... exist. I keep watching each season hoping it'll hit its stride, but it just never does. I'll watch another season, I guess. For the reasons above. But if it didn't get another season, I wouldn't even miss it.

No. He said sometimes the signs at a protest are calling "the other side" Nazis, which, while hyperbolic, is not equivalent to people proudly waiving Nazi flags.

As low-quality as this show generally is, I've been dreading this. If they screw up The Judas Contract, I will riot. Only read if you're familiar with the plot of The Judas Contract:

This looks like a parody of the genre. The sad thing is it appears to be serious.

Just saw it & wasn't impressed. It seemed like a bad fanfiction a teenager who just saw the originals would write. If I had to sum it up in one word: unnecessary.

Rewatched The Suicide Squad, which, IMO, is honestly a fun movie. But! There is no world in which I will watch a Peacemaker show. He was about to kill Ratcatcher (2), "Because I'm thorough. Sorry, kid.". That's an unforgiveable offense (on top of anything else he did). F that guy. Not interested in some sort of "redemption arc" for him. You simply don't come back from that.

Yelena is The Best. I had no real interest in a Hawkeye show, & even less interest in the introduction of a knock-off Hawkeye, but I told a friend of mine to let me know if/when Yelena showed up (based on Black Widow). And... well, Yelena is The Best. I'll watch anything she appears in, from now on.

I just watched the episode (Thanksgiving), & Shan called both Erika AND Deshawn "shady". I feel like, in Survivor terms, when a Survivor player calls another Survivor player "shady", it means "the are plotting without me! OMG! so shady" Nothing more. Just "this other player is playing their game without me. That's shady!" It's almost a compliment, to hear a player describe another player as "shady". IMO. That said, it feels like we, as observers, too often try to assign negative traits to people we don't like when they might not deserve it. A player uses the word "shady" = they don't like Asians. So when Shan (who I enjoyed seeing voted outed out) uses "shady" to describe Erika, it's something we can use to ascribe a negative trait to her, ignoring that she also called Deshawn "shady". It just appears *to me*, as a way to pile on a player a poster doesn't like. As in, if you can ascribe racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. to a player you already don't like, based on a vague word choice they used to describe another contestant, then you can be like "I don't like this person, AND ALSO they are a bad human being", when just not liking a player is a fair enough take.

Finally watched both episodes. I was... whelmed. It was what I expected from the previews, which is not a good thing. I know nothing of Kate Bishop from the comics, but my initial impression of Kate is: it's hard to root for someone whose "superpower" appears to be a combination of white privilege + a trust fund. A knock-off Hawkeye of any stripe is just an even more boring Hawkeye, who was already The Most Boring Avenger. Wake me when/if Yelena (who is awesome!) shows up.

The problem is that In Real Life stuff like that can happen, absolutely. But in fiction, it needs to be consistent, or else viewers are like "aw, come on!". "Blonde kid in real life has black hair later", totally happens in real life. "Blonde kid in your fiction turns out to be black hair character in your fiction later", is a "come on, show!! [:rollseyes:]" reaction in fiction from the readers/viewers. Justifiably so. EDIT: I'm not gonna look it up, but I think it's a Mark Twain quote: "truth is stranger than fiction."

fwiw, I think he was only pointing out that *they* exist, & are the ones likely to get violent. I think he was just saying that it's A Thing. I didn't get the impression he was saying the condition was only men, or that some people have other reasons for celibacy, or that "Incel" was even necessarily bad. I saw him pointing out that the self-proclaimed "Incels" are a potential threat: A Thing. A Thing people need to be aware of, because they exist. Dismissing them is dangerous. Ignoring they exist, dismissing them for being stupid, or even making fun of their reasons to exist, no matter how legitimate those reasons may be to make fun of them... no matter what one thinks of them, is dangerous. 'Cause they exist. And they are dangerous.

It's possible, in-show that's the case, but unless they explicitly say so I wouldn't assume that, so it's still an outstanding question. You can be back walking with a prosthetic in min 3 months. And she's really comfortable with it, handling stairs like a champ even. Do we know how old she was when it happened at this point (EDIT: the character, not the actress - she was 13)? I may have missed it.

60 years ago puts them at early 1960's, nearly 20 years after WW2. So Nazi's aren't completely implausible, but I'd guess not. Given they could pick any XX years they wanted to, I'd think they'd say "75-80 years" if they were going with Nazis. Just speculating. EDIT: Oh, also, the people on the ship taught them (perfect) English, so another reason to think not Nazis.

What the hell, Riverdale? I was promised a Sabrina appearance by commercials! And when she doesn't show up at all I go out & Google this ('cause why would I before?) & find out she's not showing up until episode 4? See you back in 3 weeks I guess. No Sabrina, no interest in your silly show (& yes, I get the irony of saying that :) ).

I agree they're going to find some excuse to get Izzy there, but intentionally taking her would be by far the more irresponsible option. Even ignoring all the other issues, if her prosthetic gets damaged or needs maintenance, she's screwed.

Or they're about to do a crossover episode with The Simpsons.

One nitpicky thing confused me: how did they wind up with 17 people after the Marbles games? Tug-of-War took the from exactly 80 to exactly 40. Then the Doctor is killed, leaving 39. During the partner pick, the "weird lady" is left out, but survives. So we should have 19 pairs playing marbles, meaning 19 survivors plus "weird lady", leaving 20. So how did they wind up with 17 (16 after #069 hangs himself)? My first theory was pairs who couldn't decide on a Marbles victory were both eliminated, but then we'd still have an even number - either 18 (one pair) or 16 (two pairs). So that can't be it. Can anyone explain how they wound up with 17 at that point?

I mean, ok, that's the "in-show" explanation. But wouldn't the other people in the town remark on it? Or even the main characters ("I hate having to wear long-sleeves in July!") Wouldn't it be a an anomaly for the state? The whole country? It's just silly. Not diminishing my enjoyment of the show, but... it's just... silly. Laughable, when you notice it while watching.

I can suspend disbelief with regards to a bunch of teenagers fighting an Evil Mind Demon who escaped from a Diamond, but I'm having a hard time with how everyone is wearing winter clothes & coats on "July 4th" & there are no leaves on the trees in the summer. EDIT: although they did lampshade it this episode, I'll grant

This threw me a bit at first because 9/11/01 was a Tuesday & the planes hit in the morning. But I checked & the Monday Night Football game on 9/10 was Denver vs the NY Giants in Denver, so it checks out since they'd have needed to stay the night.

I feel like in focusing on the multiple anthem thing, which was just Bill's prelude to get to his larger point, people are falling into the right-wing trap of distraction by focusing on minutia. I mean he made that point about the anthem, briefly, in New Rules, but then focused more on the Separate But Equal push - segregated dorms, segregated graduations (no matter that everyone is technically invited), segregated housing, etc. I feel like people are missing Bill's point by focusing on the multiple anthems - he even said it was stupid that we sing any anthem at sporting events & also that the current anthem could go away in any context. I feel like his main point point was pointing out the push for Separate But Equal in many aspects of life. Which, is... well, horrible, no matter who is doing it.

Agreed. Bill made the point that it's getting difficult to tell the difference between "something a woke person would advocate for" & "something a racist would advocate for".

I mean, can you cite an instance of that? Bill has always been on the side of civil rights, I feel. He gave a million dollars to Obama's campaign, so that's clearly doing something. More than I could do. What he's doing now, on his show, is (IMO) trying to get Dems to dial it all back a bit on the cancel stuff. It's because he believes, & I tend to agree, that it turns too many people away from the causes he supports. He's also trying to push the idea of not demonizing people who *just aren't there yet* - to persuade them, not demonize. Again, I hate to get all personal anecdotal, because I know that isn't really worth much, but I've seen it in my circle of friends & coworkers: the ones on the fence, or who were "raised that way", can be persuaded. If you tell them they are awful people or are stupid, they retreat. And I see Bill doing that, reaching out - making the case to *not* do that. Also, possibly more to your point, making the case to the people to the left of him: "we need to win". He's saying, IMO, don't alienate people (especially if they are basically on your side). If they believe what you believe, then don't push them away due to a forgivable transgression. Again, just my reading of his "cancel culture" rants. I admit, it's been the past several episode threads that finally made me post all this (been lurking for years)- I see far too many allies taking umbrage at what he says week after week, when Democrats need all the allies they can get, as opposed to a purity test, which is what I see Bill criticizing all the time, & I can't help agreeing with him, & kinda despairing when I see that sentiment echoed on these episode threads.