Danny Franks

Me too. I found Wonder Woman decidedly mediocre as a movie. Gal Gadot was really good, but the rest of it was formulaic and predictable, with some seriously hammy performances. Captain Marvel had much better balance of substance and fun.

It is if the rules of time travel in this movie are followed. Her husband was in the past, and Steve can't go back to change that in this timeline. If he goes back and stops Peggy from marrying the guy, then he creates a new timeline.

The biggest paradox in the entire movie would be Nebula killing her past self. Under the time loop theory rules, it would be impossible - She would have died before she could kill past Nebula, therefore couldn't have killed past Nebula, nor could she have done any of the things she's done in any of the MCU movies. That in itself is proof that Steve can't go back to be Peggy's husband in this timeline. Because Peggy's husband already lived and died, and that's immutable. Just like our Nebula did all the thing she did in Guardians, Guardians 2 and Infinity War, to lead her to killing her past self.

Those fans cheering are absolute garbage. I would have been happy for the Raptors if they won, before this. Now I hope an angry Warriors team stuffs them, and Kawhi (another mercenary, who somehow avoids criticism) goes to LA. As for Durant playing? Sure, there was pressure on him to play from the media, and perhaps from teammates and coaches too. But I imagine the most pressure came from KD himself. He'll have wanted to play, desperately. Especially if this was potentially his last game in a Warriors uniform.

I'm slowly making my way through this show. Not much free time at the moment. Episode three started off with a fun montage of Aziraphale and Crowley's friendship over the millennia, and Crowley repeatedly saving Aziraphale from his overly idealistic and naive exploits. Sheen and Tennant really do inhabit these characters well. I imagine the costume and makeup people had a lot of fun coming up with their different looks, over the years. I never got quasi-romantic undertones from their friendship in the book, but it seems to be very present in the show. Obviously, being angels and demons, I don't think they actually have sexual desires, but part of the way Sheen plays Aziraphale's fussy nervousness, and Tennant plays that louche charm, they definitely have that vibe. It was nice to see the League of Gentlemen - Mark Gatiss, Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton - appearing. This show really feels like an all-star cast of British television. So it kind of confuses me as to why they cast an American actor to play the very Scottish Shadwell. It seems like a role tailor-made for Bill Paterson, who appears very briefly (with a real Scottish accent) as the neighbourhood watch bloke in Tadfield. Adria Arjona is stunning, and probably too attractive for Anathema (certainly too attractive to go unremarked in a small English village). Jack Whitehall is managing to hide his well-bred good looks quite well. I'm quite impressed with the way he's changed his body language, posture and facial expressions. The boy playing Adam is really good. He manages to feel like an eleven year old boy, rather than a practised child actor, playing an eleven year old boy. He's a lot more low-key than, say, the Stranger Things kids, but I guess it makes sense, given that he's the Anti-Christ. I always liked the idea of the weather in Tadfield being exactly as it should be for the time of year - warm and sunny in the summer, snow in the winter - just the sort of thing you'd want as a kid.

Honestly, I never thought that Gwyneth Paltrow cared about the MCU, or any of the characters in it except Pepper and Tony. She never struck me as being invested in the overarching narrative and strategic goals of the MCU, and I don't think there's any reason she would need to be. It's just a paying gig for her, not a career defining role or something she can put her own creative energies into. She's not the only one. I'm sure Jeremy Renner and some of the other actors have implied that they've not watched a lot of the MCU films. I think it was Elizabeth Olsen who didn't know Rocket Raccoon's name, in some Endgame publicity interviews.

He did only have enough Pym Particles for one trip... but then Pym came back from being Snapped and could make as many more as anyone could need. Also, the Pym in Steve's new timeline would have been able to make them for him at any point. I think you're misunderstanding that scene. Bruce saying you can't change the past means that you literally can't change it, not that you mustn't. This is the key quote that explains the movie's theory of time travel: So Steve going back is not creating a time loop, he's creating a new timeline for himself, from that point he travels to. This is why he can't just sit in Brooklyn for seventy years, then go and give his shield to Sam. Sam doesn't know him, in this timeline. The Peggy Steve marries is not the Peggy whose funeral he attends in Civil War. That Peggy is the one who married some guy and had a happy life, some years after WWII. And the guy she married was not our time travelling Steve.

That must be why I was just never very invested in the X-Files, as a kid. I watched it, on and off, but never considered it appointment viewing like a lot of people did. I definitely prioritise character over story, for most of my forms of entertainment.

I think that's what the writers intended - Steve as the secret husband all along. As a narrative loop, it's neat and appealing to a writer, but at some point they decided to clarify the time travel rules and baldly state 'you can't go back and change the past, you can only change events to start a new timeline'. And as soon as they did that, the ending no longer works as written (and it never works for Steve's character, because he wouldn't go back in time and do nothing to help people. Nor would Peggy let him). It seems like the Russos just accepted that Steve travelled back from his new timeline, where he had lived happily with Peggy, to sit on that bench but there was nothing in the movie to confirm that. And that has to be the intended ending, because the movie explicitly states that the alternative isn't possible. It's perfectly sensible to assume Steve Rogers set about moulding the world in his image, and with his knowledge of the future, from the 1940s onwards. That's a Marvel multiverse story I'd really like to read. I don't have a problem with Steve getting back to 1947 or whenever, and saying to himself, "I need to go back to my original timeline in 2023, to give Sam my shield" and ensuring he had everything in place to do that. It seems completely within Steve's character to be that prepared. The wrinkle is frustrating, because it could easily have been ironed out if they'd just had a line like "I came back to give you this". But overall, at the end of a three hour movie that caps a ten year storyline? I'm just not getting worked up about it. It's easily handwaveable, if people want it to be.

Just finished season 5, and I have to comment on Jake Johnson. It's easy to forget, because the guy is so funny and Nick is such a ridiculously broad character at times, but man, he's a good actor. The little moments where he has to show the depths of Nick's insecurities and vulnerabilities are so good - The scene in the season 5 finale, where he's amazed that Regan could possible want a relationship with "the guy who makes you realise how much better you can do" and then his stunned reaction when Jess yells at him to stop putting himself down, were great. And I still think the best line delivery in the entire show was when he said "I'm a little bit broken, Jess" in the episode with his dad. Just the perfect blend of self-deprecating humour and pain and the pleasure he felt that Jess so clearly cared. This show really should have been more of a breakout role for him.

That's discounting the ripple effect of Steve Rogers being active in Shield for potentially decades, as Hydra were embedding themselves, as the Winter Soldier was active and as all other world events took place. What's the point of doing it at all, then? If she hasn't moved on, it's cruel and painful to her and if she has moved on, it's Steve inflicting pointless pain on himself. We also don't know if that scene of them at the end was their immediate reunion or a snippet from several years after their reunion.

That seems like an unnecessarily cruel thing to do to a woman who lost the man she loved. "Hey, I'm alive and I know you loved me and mourned me for years. But I'm okay so... chin up, girl. See you!" Unless Steve told her where to find and unfreeze her timeline's Steve... which would then change the timeline and cause the same problems that everyone keeps thinking up.

I really enjoyed John/Aeryn in the first couple of seasons of Farscape, and appreciated that they quickly got to a stage where they genuinely trusted one another, and were actually relatively open about having feelings for one another. But the differences between them, and the extreme circumstances of their lives always gave the show a realistic reason for them not getting together. But the overly-angst-filled end to season 3 kind of killed it for me. The show wallowed in that shit, managing to have John dying, Aeryn mourning him to the point that she was suicidal, and other John being jealous and then having to deal with Aeryn rejecting him. It was all too much. So in season 4, I was actually rooting for John to have a fling with Sikozu, even though the John/Aeryn train was clearly driving the show. I loved Sikozu's look and personality, until they made her Scorpius' zealot for some reason. And I would have enjoyed a John/Chiana thing too. I loved their chemistry, and the unabashed attraction between them. They managed to combine a healthy and supportive sibling-like relationship with genuine sexual heat, in a way that came off as hot rather than icky (at least, to me). Not many shows have the confidence in their writing to push things that far with two main characters who aren't the intended couple.

Right, the episode where Nick and Jess break up. It's so absurd that they go from lovey-dovey but with a few minor issues to 'we have nothing in common and no future, we must break up immediately!' It stinks of writing, and I hate it when that happens - A writer needs something to happen, so just shoehorns the plot in even when it makes no sense. Then a few episodes later, there's a storyline about how Schmidt has never done laundry. What? Schmidt, the obsessive cleaner who gagged at the thought of someone else using his towel? Who always wears clean, ironed clothes? Who takes the idea of sartorial elegance seriously, and will spend whatever it takes to look the part? That guy has never done laundry? Okay.

The Warriors are showing that their team isn't just about "five allstars". It's about a team built to fit a system, from top to bottom. Durant goes down, they can fit Looney and Iguadala in to alternate. Thompson goes down, they can use Livingston and Cook to fill in. And when they lose Looney's physicality, they can ask Cousins to provide it. Anyone who hates them really doesn't appreciate basketball, and the amount of work it takes for the players and coaches to have built and sustain this team.