sinanju

"You won't be able to generate thrust or to breathe."
 
"Alex...I don't think you really understand how I fly."
 
"How DO you fly?"
 
"Uh...I'm not actually sure of that myself. All I know is that I'm violating Newtonian physics when I do it. I don't need air to push against. And as for breathing--I can hold my breath for a long, long time. Long enough for sure to [REDACTED] and save the world."

"You won't be able to generate thrust or to breathe."
 
"Alex...I don't think you really understand how I fly."
 
"How DO you fly?"
 
"Uh...I'm not actually sure of that myself. All I know is that I'm violating Newtonian physics when I do it. I don't need air to push against. And as for breathing--I can hold my breath for a long, long time. Long enough for sure to [REDACTED] and save the world."

"You won't be able to generate thrust or to breathe."
 
"Alex...I don't think you really understand how I fly."
 
"How DO you fly?"
 
"Uh...I'm not actually sure of that myself. All I know is that I'm violating Newtonian physics when I do it. I don't need air to push against. And as for breathing--I can hold my breath for a long, long time. Long enough for sure to [REDACTED] and save the world."

The most recent episode (the crossover is tomorrow as I write this) did address this point. Young Kara, only recently arrived on earth hears trouble and DOES rush to help. She saves two lives--and is soundly lectured about the dangers of doing so again. So while, yes, she is physically superior to anyone (except Clark) in her life, every authority figure she knows spends the next ten years telling her to keep her head down and avoid making a spectacle of herself. And she's a pre-teen (or teenager) for most of that time. And she does what she's told (by presumably wiser people than she).

The most recent episode (the crossover is tomorrow as I write this) did address this point. Young Kara, only recently arrived on earth hears trouble and DOES rush to help. She saves two lives--and is soundly lectured about the dangers of doing so again. So while, yes, she is physically superior to anyone (except Clark) in her life, every authority figure she knows spends the next ten years telling her to keep her head down and avoid making a spectacle of herself. And she's a pre-teen (or teenager) for most of that time. And she does what she's told (by presumably wiser people than she).

I agree completely about B5, except that I don't see the non-arc episodes as wasted filler. Different strokes, etc.
 
I gave up on Lost in Season 2 (I think) when I realized the creators had no idea what the hell they were doing and really were just making shit up based on whatever sounded good after their last bong.

I, personally, preferred the stand-alone "monster of the week" episodes of X-Files to the myth-arc episodes. Why? Because it became clear to me early on that Chris Carter did not, in fact, have a master chart of The Conspiracy over his desk, and he was making **** up by the seat of his pants...just like the monster of the week episodes. But with MOTW, I didn't have to bother with the nonsensical mythology.

I, personally, preferred the stand-alone "monster of the week" episodes of X-Files to the myth-arc episodes. Why? Because it became clear to me early on that Chris Carter did not, in fact, have a master chart of The Conspiracy over his desk, and he was making **** up by the seat of his pants...just like the monster of the week episodes. But with MOTW, I didn't have to bother with the nonsensical mythology.

I can't disagree more about tone. The Supergirl character has been light romcom for most of the character's existence. Even the most recent series never go darker than teen angst/rebellion and for much of her career, her stories were young romance.
 
The dumb stick is omnipresent in stories of any DCU character with superspeed. If Superman/Supergirl/Flash were run by genre wrecking gamers, then any villain they faced without a counter should wake up in jail asking who captured them. Kryptonians can scout a scene from 50,000 ft, observe powers, listen to plans swoop to attack before you can guess they are there. It's just that by genre conventions, only villains get to use their powers to the fullest consistently.

They change to a monetization model that's less predatory and safer for site visitors maybe?
 
The concept of advertising isn't the problem, it's the douchey way it's implemented on the Internet that is.

Having watched at least part of one of the videos, what I saw was that he unholstered his weapon when--and only when--two young men began approaching him while he was dealing with the girl. They immediately retreated (in fact ran off, pursued by other cops), and he holstered his weapon. I never saw him threaten the girl with his firearm. Did he overreact two young men moving quickly toward him? I dunno. Did he draw his weapon on a teenage girl in a bikini? No.

Having watched at least part of one of the videos, what I saw was that he unholstered his weapon when--and only when--two young men began approaching him while he was dealing with the girl. They immediately retreated (in fact ran off, pursued by other cops), and he holstered his weapon. I never saw him threaten the girl with his firearm. Did he overreact two young men moving quickly toward him? I dunno. Did he draw his weapon on a teenage girl in a bikini? No.

Sure they are. They're trying hard to make sure the downside TO THEM is bearable. A movie that makes boatloads of money is--by economic necessity--going to be one that appeals to the vast majority who don't buy comics. A BIG comic might sell 100,000 copies. A multi-million dollar movie that only sold 100,000 tickets might as well be the boat anchor the money guys are going to use to make sure the body of the guy who greenlit it stays at the bottom of the ocean. If you follow the conventional wisdom (brightly colored costumes won't work) and the movie founders, well, you tried. If you went against the convention wisdom and you succeed, hey, you're a genius! If you do it and fail...you're finished. No more donuts and whores for you.
 
Sure, fanboys are gonna complain. But so what? Anyone who knows anything about ANY field can point out countless ways that Hollywood gets it wrong because either the truth doesn't make for an entertaining story or they just don't care because it looks good enough. Everyone complains about something. "Good enough" is good enough if makes money.

Okay, so it's probably moot now (what with Thawne's fate) but...
 
"Psst. Hey, Barry. Yeah, you in the red suit."
"Who are you?"
"Never mind. See that man lying on the floor over there? Not too far from your dead mom?"
"You mean my dad?"
"Yeah."
"What about him?"
"Well, it occurs to me that if he were bound and helpless in a roll of duct tape, the authorities would have a much harder time accusing him of the murder."
"..."
"And you're superfast, and you're right here, and you've got a few seconds to spare so--"
Whoooooooooooooooooosh!
"Done."
 
This was LITERALLY the first thought I had when they gave us that shot of Barry's dad lying on the floor unconscious. DUCT TAPE HIM! He can't be the killer if he's a victim! Okay, so he couldn't save mom. But at least dad won't spend twenty years in prison.

I must be a 20-something girl too, then. (Which would come as quite a surprise to me, my wife, and many others....)
 
Because I liked it. It wasn't what I expected, I admit. It looks very CW-ish (if that's a word), but still--Supergirl. She flies. She's bulletproof. She can stop a speeding semi  without budging. And I really like the "learning to be a superhero" aspect to this. Yes, you have Phenomenal Cosmic Power , but you have to learn how to use it. And when to use it.
 
I'll be watching it.

I must be a 20-something girl too, then. (Which would come as quite a surprise to me, my wife, and many others....)
 
Because I liked it. It wasn't what I expected, I admit. It looks very CW-ish (if that's a word), but still--Supergirl. She flies. She's bulletproof. She can stop a speeding semi  without budging. And I really like the "learning to be a superhero" aspect to this. Yes, you have Phenomenal Cosmic Power , but you have to learn how to use it. And when to use it.
 
I'll be watching it.

In a mystery writing workshop I took, they described Noir (as opposed to other forms of mystery stories) this way:
Structure of Noir:
Noir is the most realistic of all subgenres of mystery.
1. Urban setting. And it is crime-ridden.
2. It's dark, gritty, sensory-filled and nasty.
3. Character-focused in relationship to the setting.
4. The ending: the crime gets resolved, but it's not pretty and it's rarely uplifting.
5. Voice is off the charts: deep, resonant, powerful, worth listening to. A riveting storyteller telling you a horrible, horrible story.
 
Other things about Noir (not necessarily the case):
1. Often the main character is a vigilante or someone outside the law.
2. It's the anti-cozy.
3. It rarely has a moral compass. Sometime the moral compass is broken. Morals don't exist at all in most noir stories. Morals are for people who have money, time, a "real life." They can afford it.

In a mystery writing workshop I took, they described Noir (as opposed to other forms of mystery stories) this way:
Structure of Noir:
Noir is the most realistic of all subgenres of mystery.
1. Urban setting. And it is crime-ridden.
2. It's dark, gritty, sensory-filled and nasty.
3. Character-focused in relationship to the setting.
4. The ending: the crime gets resolved, but it's not pretty and it's rarely uplifting.
5. Voice is off the charts: deep, resonant, powerful, worth listening to. A riveting storyteller telling you a horrible, horrible story.
 
Other things about Noir (not necessarily the case):
1. Often the main character is a vigilante or someone outside the law.
2. It's the anti-cozy.
3. It rarely has a moral compass. Sometime the moral compass is broken. Morals don't exist at all in most noir stories. Morals are for people who have money, time, a "real life." They can afford it.

In the beginning, yes. And I think it was a good concept. Having supers (heroes and villains) running around in normal clothes made it easier for non-comics fans to buy into the story. But toward the end? When he was The Blur, and basically acting like Superman without being called Superman? They still refused to have him wear any sort of real costume.

In the beginning, yes. And I think it was a good concept. Having supers (heroes and villains) running around in normal clothes made it easier for non-comics fans to buy into the story. But toward the end? When he was The Blur, and basically acting like Superman without being called Superman? They still refused to have him wear any sort of real costume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Thought i'd post this here, as it seems especially relevant.

Tawana Brawley. Fraud.

I've served on a Grand Jury. Once, for an an afternoon. It was for a small county in rural Virginia when I was about 20, so a long time ago. In theory we were on call for a month, but in practice, we spent one day at it during our term of service. We the jurors sat in a room in the courthouse and prosecutors and cops would enter, tell us who the defendant was, what crime he/she was being charged with, and what evidence they had to support the charge. They did not present any exculpatory evidence, only the evidence for the prosecution. Our job was to decide whether they had enough evidence of the defendant's guilt to warrant a trial.
 
They say that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In my experience, that's true. We okayed every case brought to us (everything from passing bad checks to one murder). And why not? They had a convincing case for guilt (at least in the absence of any defense); presumably, if they didn't think they had enough evidence to convince us, they'd have waited to find more and presented it to another grand jury later on. If they had fabricated evidence or the cops perjured themselves, would we have known? No--but that's why all we can do is okay a trial. The defense would be able to make those arguments in the actual trial later on.
 
This is why I have no doubt that the presecutor in the Ferguson case deliberately sabotaged his own case against Officer Wilson. He didn't want to prosecute but wasn't man enough to make that decision himself and stand by it in the face of public anger, so he used the grand jury process to engineer the same result while retaining barely-plausible deniability.

I've served on a Grand Jury. Once, for an an afternoon. It was for a small county in rural Virginia when I was about 20, so a long time ago. In theory we were on call for a month, but in practice, we spent one day at it during our term of service. We the jurors sat in a room in the courthouse and prosecutors and cops would enter, tell us who the defendant was, what crime he/she was being charged with, and what evidence they had to support the charge. They did not present any exculpatory evidence, only the evidence for the prosecution. Our job was to decide whether they had enough evidence of the defendant's guilt to warrant a trial.
 
They say that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In my experience, that's true. We okayed every case brought to us (everything from passing bad checks to one murder). And why not? They had a convincing case for guilt (at least in the absence of any defense); presumably, if they didn't think they had enough evidence to convince us, they'd have waited to find more and presented it to another grand jury later on. If they had fabricated evidence or the cops perjured themselves, would we have known? No--but that's why all we can do is okay a trial. The defense would be able to make those arguments in the actual trial later on.
 
This is why I have no doubt that the presecutor in the Ferguson case deliberately sabotaged his own case against Officer Wilson. He didn't want to prosecute but wasn't man enough to make that decision himself and stand by it in the face of public anger, so he used the grand jury process to engineer the same result while retaining barely-plausible deniability.

I've served on a Grand Jury. Once, for an an afternoon. It was for a small county in rural Virginia when I was about 20, so a long time ago. In theory we were on call for a month, but in practice, we spent one day at it during our term of service. We the jurors sat in a room in the courthouse and prosecutors and cops would enter, tell us who the defendant was, what crime he/she was being charged with, and what evidence they had to support the charge. They did not present any exculpatory evidence, only the evidence for the prosecution. Our job was to decide whether they had enough evidence of the defendant's guilt to warrant a trial.
 
They say that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In my experience, that's true. We okayed every case brought to us (everything from passing bad checks to one murder). And why not? They had a convincing case for guilt (at least in the absence of any defense); presumably, if they didn't think they had enough evidence to convince us, they'd have waited to find more and presented it to another grand jury later on. If they had fabricated evidence or the cops perjured themselves, would we have known? No--but that's why all we can do is okay a trial. The defense would be able to make those arguments in the actual trial later on.
 
This is why I have no doubt that the presecutor in the Ferguson case deliberately sabotaged his own case against Officer Wilson. He didn't want to prosecute but wasn't man enough to make that decision himself and stand by it in the face of public anger, so he used the grand jury process to engineer the same result while retaining barely-plausible deniability.