ICantDoThatDave

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.

I see it a different way. He supports all the stances that "woke" is supposed to represent. He's never said otherwise. There's really nothing to debate there, so he doesn't. He's open to learning new terms as we saw this week (but not getting browbeaten for not already knowing them) & is accepting of them when explained to him, although if I had to hazard a guess, he's not exactly down with the idea of people having even one spirit, much less two. What he rails against, constantly, are the extreme examples where it goes too far & doesn't allow for forgiveness, or personal growth over time. Not to get too personal, but I was raised in a small, southern, rural town. Luckily I'm old enough that Twitter & Facebook didn't exist, but I was quite homophobic growing up, because it's all I knew, or was taught. Once I left my hometown & went to college, I changed my views. I expanded my life experiences & circle of friends. As well as my mindset. I experienced how wrong I was, through interactions with other people. But if someone dug up my (hypothetical) tweets from decades ago, I'd probably get canceled, no matter how much I've changed since then & now completely support LGBTQ rights. So I think what Bill is pointing out is how much that is costing Democrats support, when they cancel someone who is ostensibly an ally. Not only do they get turned off, but their friends get turned off, their supporters get turned off, their followers get turned off. And the Republicans have a field day with it. I like that Bill is pointing this out. I think Bill's main point is: if the Democrats didn't go SO overboard with this stuff, they'd have a lot more supporters. And I think it's worth him harping on it - it does good, IMO.

And he did, didn't he? But he showed no symptoms. Had to cancel a show (or two?), but no actual symptoms. I think it only reinforced his view that being "relatively healthy" is a big factor in hospitalization/survival. I don't think he's wrong to emphasize "general unhealthiness" as a factor, much like I didn't think Michelle Obama was wrong to do so. I also agree with those who point out it's not an easily, or quickly correctable condition. It's frustrating that both get pushback for even bringing it up - both from the right & the left (& normally I hate both-sidesing an issue, but it's clearly the case here). If no one is even pointing it out as a correlation or even a factor, much less trying to do anything about it, then nothing will ever get done, & those stats will only get worse as time passes.

I don't trust those types of "early reactions", for any movie. They're always over-the-top positive, even for what later turn out to be terrible movies & flops. I've literally never seen an early reaction, for any film, that was like "meh, it was OK.". So I'll wait for some general audience reactions before deciding to see it now or just wait a month & a half.

This is probably it! Just kidding, but I found that especially funny. :)

This is not that surprising, really, IMO. Putting aside the writing (I'll get to that in a moment), we only have to look at the WWE for a parallel (which is a surprisingly good analogy to super hero movies). When a Hero makes a heel turn, they are more universally reviled than the "standard" villains. The audience feels betrayed, particularly when the character turns on their other beloved "heroes". Conversely, when a villain makes a Face turn & goes through redemption, it's much easier to get the audience on their side. See the Loki Disney+ show: he didn't actually go through the years/events "real" Loki did. He just watched a video. Literally a few days ago he had murdered Phil Coulson & killed hundreds (thousands?) or New York citizens in a bid to take over the Earth. But audiences accepted him as a reformed baddie, full of remorse & sympathy nonetheless. Because that's how we're wired, I suppose. It's easier to go from a Bad Guy to a Good Guy, or at least a not-Bad Guy, while a Hero who falls from grace is reviled. That said, the writing for Sharon's heel turn was godawful & made almost no sense.

You're not wrong, but the people forget how shaky the MCU was at the beginning. When people lament the lack of Black Widow or Hawkeye solo movies, they forget that even the first Cap movie was one of the lowest grossing MCU movies ever (I think it actually was the lowest until Black Widow). Iron Man was a surprising hit at the time it came out. Iron Man 2 was not really well received but made a decent amount of money. Thor 1 & 2 did well, but didn't exactly break the bank. I'm glad they are finally giving the "lesser" Avengers their own spotlight, but doing so earlier would have been extremely risky & could have jeopardized the whole Universe (that sounded more ominous than I intended). Early on the MCU was essentially in the precarious position it kinda is now, where no one knows whether they can sustain their success. I'm not sure Phase 4 is gonna succeed (I don't mean they'll crash & burn, just that they'll probably start doing mediocre box office #'s), & if way back when they had announced a Hawkeye movie instead of, say Iron Man 3 (which I didn't particularly like but was a box office win) or Winter Soldier, the whole MCU could have gone off the rails. Think Solo or Justice League, for example, which doomed a lot of planned projects. I guess my point is, I'm glad they took the path they took, even if it means we are only now getting Black Widow & Hawkeye focused movies/shows.

That's encouraging.

I enjoyed the season 2 premiere. A lot of callbacks to season 1, with some good setup for season 2. My one complaint would be that as much as Courtney's studied the JSA she should know anyone who could wield The Lantern isn't a bad guy. Like if you ran across someone holding Mjolnir. Just an excuse for a "the good guys fight before they team up" scene. The only thing that worries me is the inevitable CW-ification of this show. The lack of goofy romances, love triangles, & teen angst were a nice plus to season 1.