I’m here and just missing the old Comicvine

37161 1 152 199
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers


From GQ Magazine: The Next Star Wars Movie Is Going to Be a Trainwreck, and Disney Knows It


No Caption Provided

Oh No: A Star Wars story.

Listen, I had hopes for Solo, even if it can't help being the ugly middle child of the new Star Wars franchise. But at this point, the movie has seemed completely doomed for a while now. Consistently good filmmakers Phil Lord and Chris Miller were removed from the project and replaced with occasionally good filmmaker Ron Howard. Add to that the fact we've yet to see a minute of footage with just four months until this movie's release. (That's right—this baby is supposed to come out in May!)

Yesterday, the synopsis for Solo: A Star Wars Story dropped in lieu of a long-awaited trailer. There are no surprises. In fact, it doesn't really sound that interesting at all:

Board the Millennium Falcon and journey to a galaxy far, far away in Solo: A Star Wars Story, an all-new adventure with the most beloved scoundrel in the galaxy. Through a series of daring escapades deep within a dark and dangerous criminal underworld, Han Solo meets his mighty future copilot Chewbacca and encounters the notorious gambler Lando Calrissian, in a journey that will set the course of one of the Star Wars saga’s most unlikely heroes.

Sounds dull as hell, and pretty vague for a movie in the can. The synopsis itself betrays a lack of faith in both this movie and its character, and this open-ended description of the movie seems to suggest that, yes, the movie is headed back for more reshoots after already getting four months of them under its belt. The fact we're still not getting anything from Disney about this movie—even a still!—is concerning.

Hey, perhaps it was a bad and incredibly stupid idea in the first place to bank on a movie that recasts Harrison Ford with an unproven actor? Obviously, this anonymous source, who spoke to Screen Geek last month, thinks so:

"[Disney is] essentially writing Solo off. The lead actor, Alden Ehrenreich, can’t act, and they had a dialogue coach on hand for all of his scenes. On top of that, the script is unworkable.

Thank you, anonymous source, for not mincing words. This isn't the first time Ehrenreich's acting has reportedly been an issue. LucasFilm quite publicly hired an acting coach months ago, even before Lord and Miller were removed, to help him hew closer to Harrison Ford's icon. Call me crazy, but maybe banking an entire movie on a twenty-something impersonating an all-timer Harrison Ford performance wasn't a super great idea to begin with.

In any case, Solo: A Star Wars Story marches inexorably toward its May 25, 2018, release date. Alongside Ehrenreich, it will star Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and Donald Glover, all of whom absolutely deserve better than this nonsense.


Also it's still suspect to me that they already have Avengers: Infinity War coming out, and Fox is also dropping Deadpool in May. I actually don't think Fox is trying to dick Disney over now, why would they try to dick over a company they just agreed to sell themselves to? If anything Fox maybe trying to Disney help bury a mistake. Or, maybe Fox got the heads up Solo may be pulled from May?



Why Critics & Casuals Love The Last Jedi & Long Time Fans Hate It(Spoilers Are Here)

Why Critics & Casuals Love It:

If you look at RT clearly there is a divide with fans and critics. Clearly something is going on there when the Audience Score is 59% Rotten and the Critic Score is 93%. I will be very interested as to what the cinemascore is as well. I don't think it has anything to do with the conspiracy trash of Disney pays da critics, herp da derp.

Reason 1: Subverting Expectations

This is the main reason I believe this movie is going to please critics and piss off fans. This movie works very hard to try & be clever, but honestly falls on it's face. A professional critic working for a decent site like Variety, Vanity Fair, or Hollywood Reporter watches probably 6 movies a week so certain tropes, themes, and characterizations. So when these things are subverted in favor of "bold new directions" the critic thinks to himself "finally something different"!!! While the fan, often looks puzzled as in "WTF?:

  • The mystery of Snoke is meaningless, subverting the idea there was going to be a big reveal and that he was the big baddie: "Sike Kylo Ren is the Big Baddie".
  • The mystery of Rey's parentage subverts the idea this was going to be a big reveal and explain why she is so powerful in the force without any real training. "Sike, her parents are nobodies, and she's powerful cause reasons(What do you hate powerful women are something dirt bag?)"
  • The mystery of the hole in the floor subverts the idea there was going to be some grand explanation for why some people turn to the darkside. "Sike, some people are just aholes OK."
  • Yoda burning down the Jedi temple and Luke being pretty much totally unhelpful subverts the idea this was going to be his GRAND RETURN. "Sike, this is Rey's franchise now, deal with it boy."
  • Da Last Jedi? Sike!!!!! Rey Will be A Jedi and so will any other cute wittle kid. "Insert gif of kid force grabbing the broom(rolls eyes***).

There's a lot more of these. Basically almost every single fan expectation is turned onto its head. Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy predict everything fans expect and want and instead say "Nah, what we are giving you is cooler". When Kylo says "Let the past die" & Luke says "This isn't going to go the way you think." they are basically talking to the audience. As in let us burn this old franchise down and give you something better like female empowerment, and fake diversity with great characters like Finn & Rose. Hey see, isn't that much better? You don't wanna see old whack Luke coming in here like the big hero to save the day, nahhhhhhhhhhh.

Let's check out this example of critics loving this sort of thing from IGN:

IGN The Last Jedi Review 9.7/10

J.J. Abrams’ The Force Awakens got dinged for borrowing too much from A New Hope, but recycling old material isn’t an issue in The Last Jedi. It’s evident that Johnson understands the criticisms about every preceding film and predicted the assumptions about this one (to the point where some dialogue sounds as if it was lifted right from fans’ mouths), and that he used that knowledge to absolutely shatter expectations. There are fan-pleasing moments, for sure, but nothing is included without a purpose. Johnson plays with all the toys Star Wars has to offer, and he’s not afraid to change – or break – a few along the way.

Some expectations need to be meet when you are crafting mass media like this. (Basically think about a Batman trope of throwing Batarangs instead subverted by Batman carrying a gun)...How would you feel about that? Sure casual fans don't have a bunch of built up expectations so they won't care either way most of the time, but long time fans will be pissed when certain expectations aren't meet. And in this case with lines from Luke about not coming to save the day with "a laser sword", they don't just subvert expectations with this movie, Kathleen Kennedy tosses them right back in your face.

Reason 2: It's A Four Quadrant Movie

No Caption Provided

This is why casuals will especially will like this film. It's got young female characters, it's got a black guy, it's got a Asian woman, Latino, etc. It's got all the diversity you want, now sure many of these characters like Finn, Rose, and Captain Phasma are utterly pointless in the plot, but hey they in the movie :D.

Right here Grace Randolph explains from 21:27 how it makes her feel to see women do cool things on the big screen...

I'm all for diversity, but it has to be earned like in the MCU has handled it IMO. Not here for the sake of having it, or forced it at the cost of another character like Poe is shown up by two old ladies for the sake of making them look better. Critics love diversity due to them probably watching a *** ton more movies and mostly starring the typical prototype handsome white male cast. So when they get to see some diversity on screen even when those characters aren't all that good, they still eat it up like candy.

Another example is from a RT certified critic....

No Caption Provided

Reason 3: Porgs Are In Fact Adorable Little Mother Creeps & The Action In This Movie Was Good

Some good action, interesting set pieces, humor/jokes, and cute little creatures will take you a long way with critics and casuals. When you have to sit through these long movies repeatedly or if you're a member of the general audience you really enjoy those moments where you can just kick back and laugh, or watch something blow up. Also casuals love cute little creatures: look at the success of beanie babies back in their hey day!!!



Net neutrality is dead. It’s time to fear Mickey Mouse.

No Caption Provided

What's Now & What's Next: Net Neutrality Electric Boogaloo

Well this deal is probably the biggest Media/Entertainment deal that we've ever seen, even bigger than the AOL Time Warner deal. The only thing that could be bigger is the AT&T, Warner Brothers merger, but I don't know if that deal is gonna pass. So until then this Fox/Disney is the biggest deal we've really seen go down, but how it is handled and how the AT&T/WB is handled by the government will be vastly different IMO. Because of the Net Neutrality being rolled back the AT&T/WB deal is going to be even more scrutinized. Think about the type of control AT&T/WB would have, they could offer you data free cap as long as you subscribed to their video services and watched their content when streaming.


Carriers could also go after competing services, like Verizon’s move against Google Wallet in 2011 or AT&T’s attempt to block an early version of FaceTime. In those incidents, carriers were trying to protect a competing service, and recent mergers have given nearly every carrier a roster of competing services to protect. Carriers have amassed enormous content holdings since the last FCC regime, with Comcast acquiring NBCUniversal, Verizon acquiring Yahoo and AOL, and AT&T attempting to acquire Time Warner. If any of those companies decide to make things hard for Netflix and YouTube, they’ll have a much freer hand than they did under Title II.

Openly throttling a service like Netflix might seem far-fetched, but there’s a long history of brazen moves after net neutrality setbacks. “The history of net neutrality,” says Feld, “is that whenever you get rid of the rules, one of the carriers does something stupid that makes people very upset.”

Slow Boiling Evil:

No Caption Provided

Don't expect things to change overnight, but if you think Micky Mouse, Warner Bros, Comcast/NBC, and all of the other major players aren't about to cook your grits you're naive as ****. The entertainment industry now has us by the balls. This all started because of the success of Netflix and it's streaming content. Disney made moves to amp itself to godly levels of power and now there "are no strings on me" due to the death of Net Neutrality.

From The Verge: Net neutrality is dead. It’s time to fear Mickey Mouse

It’s a red letter day for the media industry. Disney just took control of 21st Century Fox’s media empire, and the Federal Communications Commission voted to repeal net neutrality regulations that prevent internet providers from discriminatory behavior. These two industry-shaking events will set media companies on a dramatic collision course with ISPs. It is the conflict that threatens the internet.

This week you might have seen lots of talk about fast and slow lanes, blocked websites, and the end of the internet. But the death of net neutrality is not going to look like a sudden apocalypse. It’s going to look more like things we’ve already seen: data caps, “free” data for apps, and service bundling, like an AT&T mobile plan that comes with HBO. These schemes will change the internet slowly, and they might even seem boring.

More and more of these little schemes will add up over time as ISPs merge with more media companies and own more content. These mergers will create huge conflicts of interest, because companies that own access to the internet will be tempted to rig it in favor of their own shows and services. Some of these schemes will show up on an internet bill, while others will be decided in backroom corporate warfare that leaves customers stuck in the middle and in the dark. The next Comcast versus Netflix might be Comcast versus Disney.

So let’s talk about Disney. Combined with Fox, it now has massive leverage over the content industry. It can use that leverage to compete with Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon, because, like Disney, those ISPs are trying to sell people their own video services. Because Disney now owns so much content, other media companies have greater incentive to consolidate to improve their bargaining positions. And ISPs have greater incentive to merge with media companies so they can reap profit from the content that travels on their networks. It’s an escalating cycle of consolidation.

Here are some obvious conflicts that have already resulted from the Disney merger:

  • Disney now has a controlling stake in Hulu
  • Hulu was jointly owned by Disney (30%), Fox (30%), Comcast (30%) and Time Warner(10%) to compete with YouTube; now Disney owns more than both Comcast and Time Warner combined
  • Comcast owns NBCUniversal, which broadcasts shows on Hulu
  • Time Warner is about to be owned by AT&T, which is a competitor of Comcast
  • Time Warner is a competitor of both NBC and Disney
  • Comcast and AT&T control the network that people use to watch content from Disney, Time Warner, and NBC
  • (This is just a fun place to put this disclosure: Comcast’s NBCU division is a minority investor in Vox Media, which owns The Verge.)

If this all sounds confusing to you, that’s because it’s confusing. In this world of mergers and overlapping conglomerates, the internet will be a pawn between companies that want to sell you television.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, these companies are going to hold content hostage and while they are playing corporate warfare with the internet and what will stream fast & slow, we the customer will be caught in the middle.

Vertically integrated ISPs like Comcast and Verizon have huge incentives to make up for the decline in cable television revenue by making the internet more like cable, and they are already working on that by bundling video services with internet plans. (ISPs are also buying internet companies to compete with Google and Facebook, creating even more conflicts of interest.) Think about it: why wouldn’t you privilege the media companies you own if your customers have few or no choices about where to buy their internet service?

US regulators have publicly recognized the threat of consolidation with their actions, even if they still allow these hugely problematic mergers to occur. A consequence of Comcast buying NBCUniversal was that Comcast had to enter a consent decree that enforced net neutrality rules to make sure it didn’t put NBC’s competitors at a disadvantage. But that decree ends in 2018 — just as the FCC’s net neutrality regulations are also eliminated. Comcast has promised it won’t behave badly, but without regulation all we have is trust. Comcast has not earned that trust.

As much as I am hyped to see Wolverine vs Hulk, we should now be very wary of media companies like Disney, and ISP like Comcast & Verizon becoming so powerful. They now have incredible leverage in the market place and will probably force ISP to give them internet speed priority preference. It's going to be an interesting journey, but we are going to have a hard time putting this all together to see what changes come.

Start the Conversation

Star Wars The Last Jedi: My Thoughts(Spoilers Ahead)

Kathleen Kennedy: I think she enjoys thumbing her nose at Star Wars fanboys....

No Caption Provided

What I Liked:

First, let me say I really liked this movie. I enjoyed the humor, although the opening scene jokes were a bit much, the action set pieces were awesome, the action was really good, the pacing was fine although the movie feels a bit long. I really loved Kylo Ren and how it was tired of his past bogging him down. He just wants to move on and doesn't want the old ways of doing things to stop his progress. I think Kylo is should be the key to the future of this current franchise and I hope they don't kill him off in the next film. I think he should continue either as a villain or as an anti-hero. He's the best character they have for the new franchise.

Problem 1: Pointless Characters:

No Caption Provided

Finn is just so damn likable, but outside of being a misdirect in the first movie(making us think he was going to be a jedi), his character is almost completely pointless. Yes he has inside knowledge of the first order, but it really doesn't help and the side mission(with Rose) itself becomes completely pointless as well. I think Finn is just here to get black people to come to Star Wars movies. Rose is just here to be an Asian fangirl of Finn and to try to hype him up like some legend in the making. Her real purpose is just to get more Asian people in the movie theater...besides that she's honestly pointless.

No Caption Provided

Snoke is pretty much pointless, the whole "Who is Snoke Mystery"...pointless bullshit. He's just a stone for Kylo to step on. Although the audience gave a round of applause when Kylo merked his ass, I was like "WTF"???

No Caption Provided

Also I guess we shouldn't be shocked Captain Phasma is useless trash yet again....

Problem 2: Disrespectful....

I though a lot of the choices in the movie were aimed at Kennedy telling fanboys that she was going to be the "light to spark the fire" to burn the Original Franchise to the ground. When Kylo tells Rey "Let the past die, kill if you have to." He's not just talking to Rey, he's talking to the audience. The film was very dismissive of the old Jedi Lore and the idea of training and honing skill. Instead Rey is an unapologetic Mary Sue, in fact she becomes almost an insufferable one...If it wasn't for Daisy Ridley delivering such a heartfelt and earnest performance I would down right hate Rey(I still might >_>). Rey's parentage story line was pointless trash that was meant to try and be clever(OOhhh look we're circumventing your expectations). Honestly the filmmaker here really out thunk themselves and are really just trying to force Rey down our throats as a lovable hero.

Problem 3: Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo = Kathleen Kennedy

No Caption Provided

A middle aged white woman inherits a really important job, but the hot shot man underneath her doesn't want to listen because he thinks he knows better...I'm sure this is a real world issue all of the time...but Jesus you wanna be anymore on the nose with this? Ehhh ughh....

No Caption Provided

Which brings me to Problem 4...

Pointless Subplots & Ruining Poe:

No Caption Provided

Poe was a really cool guy in the TFA, here in TLJ he's an impatient Hot Head that will throw a tantrum the minute he doesn't get his way and will even point a gun at his superior officer. The things he does in this movie are supremely stupid, and he has the nerve to want a pat on the back from Leia after getting much of his crew killed in the opening battle. There are a bunch of pointless subplots in this film that lead to 0, and the biggest one was the Resistance Mutiny. He would be tired and executed in the real world if he pulled the type of dumb shit he does here in an actual military. Some of it took me out of the movie.

Seriously the subtext of this film is listen to the older white women in charge young whimper snappers. Leia and Holdo are supposed to look at the more superior and gracious/classy when they forgive Poe for his incredible stupidity which actually causes a lot of deaths by the way. Had he not sent Finn on that side mission. Finn would have never meet the thief that rats them out and causes the attack on the escape transports as the Resistance was fleeing the main ship.

All in all I liked it, but I won't blame people that down right hate it because there are a lot of problems with this movie and honestly this played more like a filler episode than a brand new adventure it was hyped to be....

New Grade: C- to C+(Meh Movie TBH)

I'll decide after seeing it again and then I'll get back to you.....


Can Any Studio Stop Full Powered Mickey Mouse??? (Fox Disney Deal Sealed For Thursday???)

No Caption Provided

From CNBC: Fox, Disney on 'glide path' for Thursday deal announcement: Sources


  • 21st Century Fox and Disney are on track for a Thursday deal announcement, sources familiar with the deal said.
  • Comcast dropped out of the bidding for the majority of Fox assets on Monday.
  • The Fox 'Spin Co.' remaining would be worth approximately $10 a share, sources said.

1st Century Fox and Disney are on a "glide path" for a Thursday deal announcement, sources familiar with the deal said.

Disney became the sole suitor after Comcast dropped its bid for the majority of Fox assets on Monday.

A week ago, CNBC reported that Disney and the Rupert Murdoch-controlled media company were closing in on a deal. The enterprise value of the Fox assets in the Disney deal is seen as above $60 billion, sources said a week ago, but that exact amount is still not firm.

Current Fox shareholders would get one share of the company that remains after the movie and television assets are sold, plus shares of Disney in a fixed exchange ratio.

Sources said this week that the Fox spinoff entity would be worth approximately $10 a share.

From Variety: Disney-Fox Deal Expected for Thursday (Report)


A mega deal between Disney and Fox will be announced on Thursday, according to a new report on CNBC.

The $60 billion-plus pact will see Disney acquire key entertainment and sports assets from 21st Century Fox, including its film and TV studio. The CNBC report follows a Monday announcement that Comcast has opted out of its pursuit for Fox.

A spokesman for Fox declined comment. A Disney spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Shares of Disney were up 0.44% in early morning trading to just over $107, while shares of Fox rose .33% to $33.37.

Not all of Fox’s assets will go to Disney. The company will retain Fox News, the Fox broadcast network, and Fox Sports 1, which will be reconstituted into a new, independent company. According to CNBC, that would be worth roughly $10 a share. As part of the deal, Fox shareholders will get a stake in the new company, along with shares of Disney.

The pact is expected to dramatically reshape the entertainment business, eliminating one of the six major studios and giving Disney access to a vast library of shows and movies as it tries to launch a streaming competitor to Netflix. Under CEO Bob Iger, Disney has established a reputation for spending big to nab major entertainment companies, shelling out billions for the likes of Marvel, Pixar, and Lucasfilm.

Can any Studio Stand A chance against Full Powered Mickey????

No Caption Provided





For some fans, the low scores felt like a referendum not only on Snyder's work, but the DC Extended Universe franchise as a whole—so much so, a few defenders even began to speculate as to whether Rotten Tomatoes was manipulating the DCEU data (or, at the very least, grading the reviews on a much steeper curve than the Marvel films). Such theories filled messageboards and Quora discussions, and there was even a Change.org petition to shut the site down that collected more than 23,000 signatures).

DC fans very much do notwant these movies to suck, and when their very suckitude becomes a semi-objective truth—something that can be "proven" with a measurement like the Tomatometer—it can become the Mother Box of all insults.

Considering how some DC obsessives have reacted to the films' bad reviews—there have been death threats in the past—the conspiracy theory is actually a somewhat measured response. Yet there is no damning, X-on-the-bench-style clue-bonanza to pore over here, aside from the reviews themselves. There's also little in the way of motive: Why would RT want to intentionally and repeatedly crucify a franchise–especially one maintained by Warner Bros., which has held various financial stakes in the company? If RT did hold DC films to a harsher standard than Marvel films, why would movie critics acquiesce to having their opinions misrepresented? And how would the site's anomalous 92 percent critical score for Wonder Woman play into this supposed RT v DC secret war?

The simple answer to all of these questions is that the DC Extended Universe is, even its better moments, a wobbily constructed franchise-in-flux, and that the critics have responded accordingly. Yet it's hard not to understand why so many DC fans look at these RT scores and feel as though they're under attack, as well. In the social-media era, the lines between our personal lives and the pop-cultural ones have been erased, and the heroes we once adored and/or doodled in private have become literal public avatars. DC fans very much do not want these movies to suck, and when their very suckitude becomes a semi-objective truth—something that can be "proven" with a measurement like the Tomatometer—it can become the Mother Box of all insults. Even if the See It/Skip It ratings-ruse wasn't some Warner Bros.-dictated corporate maneuver (as an RT spokesperson told the Chicago Tribune), dangling the verdict in front of fans, and putting off the inevitable, felt like a misuse of power.

Which may be why, by Monday morning, another Justice League score had begun to draw attention on Rotten Tomatoes: The movie's audience score, which collected more than 100,000 votes, and is currently standing at 85 percent. Maybe those competing numbers speak to a larger divide, and that the critics who disliked Justice League are simply unaligned with the average moviegoer (a complaint that goes back decades now, and feels as pointless as ever). Perhaps there's a minor DC-fan counter-rebellion underway, with some users amping up their score a to send RT a message (or to encourage others to see the movie for themselves). Or maybe the future of movie discussion will simply come down to a numbers game, one in which viewers stake out a position, find the stats that seem to back it up, and stick to their own league.




If you tell a Marvel fan that Thor: The Dark World kinda sucked and Iron Man 2 was a sprawling, unfocused mess, they'll shrug and say, "Yeah, I kinda liked 'em. But you're right."

But if you go online and say similar things about Suicide Squad, Batman v Superman or Justice League, you'll be met with venom, hostility and, in some cases, legitimate death threats. If you point out that critics and fans — at least according to Rotten Tomatoes and CinemaScore, which measure such things — are divided on the quality of these films, you'll be called names as polite as "Marvel shill," and the tenor only goes downwards from there. And don't even mention the grosses. (For the record, Justice League, at $94 million domestic in its opening weekend, grossed almost $100 million less than Avengers: Age of Ultron in the same context — and a hair less than Wonder Woman, despite having six heroes to just the one.)

Now, there's no way to know if Marvel fans would be so drunk with rage if the MCU had floundered out of the gate the way the DCEU is. But there might be something in this: Much of the DC identity lay, especially in the wake of 1984's one-two smash of Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, in the idea that gritty was cool. Dark was the way forward.

(Never mind that Richard Donner's Superman is the foundation upon which all of this is built. "You'll believe a man can fly" might as well be "You'll believe a man can skulk.")

Marvel was always younger, jokier, poppier — Spider-Man's wisecracks; the X-Men's teen drama — while DC was none-more-black. When Tim Burton borrowed Frank Miller's pearls-scattering origin sequence, and in the process, became a genuine pop culture phenomenon, DC fans were thrilled. When Nolan leaned into the dark for his trilogy, they were ecstatic. Snyder picked up that ball and ran with it — right into a wall of mainstream audiences and critics who, perhaps, thought that the Man of Steel should spend less time in the shadows.

Maybe, just maybe, when the dark failed, the stalwart DC fan felt that anyone who tried to shine a light on why deserved whatever they got.

Tribalism is a shiny, beautiful double-edged sword. One stroke makes you feel at home with people who share your beliefs. It's where community comes from: Folks who can, together, push towards a common goal. The warm blanket of unity. But the other stroke brings its own kind of heat — a fury for anyone who doesn't agree. Who doesn't wear the right colors. Who doesn't toe the line and like the right stuff with the same full-throated cry.

Will DC and Warner Bros. find their footing? Maybe. Maybe not. I sure would like them to, because we're better off with the "distinguished competition" operating at the highest level. The rising tide lifts all boats. But a functioning fandom, like a functioning society, needs to be able to brook disagreements and embrace a plurality of opinions.

When you demand that everyone love what you love, in exactly the manner in which you love it, or suffer the consequences — real, lasting consequences — you've pushed past fandom and into fanaticism.

And a thing that was borne out of innocent childhood passion shouldn't be the cover for this much anger.


I am a huge DCEU Fan myself and I have posted reviews to the DCEU films on my blog, and I while yes most of the fans are just regular casual joes; however, there is a section of them that are hotblooded salt factories that are way too obsessive. These subsection of fans are obsessed with always being on the defensive. Feeling the need to defend every single thing about the DCEU whether it be good or bad, smart or dumb. These fans are insecure people, who don't seem to be comfortable within their own fandom. I wanted to highlight these articles in order to shed some light on this type of toxic fandom. Yes, RT, Critics, and we as a fan community as a whole have contributed towards this toxic environment, but their needs to be a sense of personal responsibility as to how individual fans conduct themselves.

As the article mentions the DCEU fans are very sensitive right now due to all of the criticism and reaction(box office and other wise) towards Justice League(which should have been DCEU's crown jewel). As the article mentions if the shoe was on the other foot MCU fan, may have turned down the same dark path. I think we can all make things healthier if we just remember these are "fictional characters" and it's not the end of the world if someone doesn't like a movie or something in a particular movie you happen to love. Cheers & Happy Thanksgiving!!!!


My Justice League Review & Reaction With Grades(Possible Spoilers)

No Caption Provided

Overall I thought the movie was more good than bad, but this film has a lot of problems to it. I would give this movie an enthusiastic B-. But, I'm going to see it again to see if I missed anything or I may enjoy the 2nd viewing even more. The movie's biggest problem is it's way too short and you don't get to spend enough time with the main characters, and get reactions from regular people as to what's happening around them. Example: When Superman is resurrected and normal civilians see him it should have been this major world wide media frenzy, but we don't get anyone's reaction to it besides the main characters in the film and Lois & Martha.

I was entertained throughout the film, and was never bored, but the pace was so breakneck a lot of the emotional beats are just rushed over and you're never given time for certain things to sink in.



  1. Girl Trouble: Why doesn't Mera help in the final battle? Seems pretty douche that the end of the world is on the line and the most she can do is let Aquaman borrow her pitchfork? You don't want to help us out with this? End of the World = End of Atlantis. Also the Amazons can't leave the Island <<< It's the end of the world B***. Seems like the Amazons should have done a bit more to help out as well IMO.
  2. Outing Batman: Does Batman not give a **** about his secret identity? Twice Batman is outed in front of civilians, although to be fair the one with Barry was done for the sake of comedy. When Aquaman straight up yells out his secret. Batman should have been like WTF man!!?? And don't tell me these people were foreign and didn't understand English, because it's clear with the Bruce Wayne scene earlier that they do in fact understand English. Batman has very little to almost no real concern about his identity...
  3. This Batman & Flash are totally useless aren't they?: Batman questioned his role so much in this movie(good character development), but he did it to the point where I as an audience member thought to myself? "Other than paying for things? What's your role on this team Bruce?" Don't tell me it's his tech, cause Cyborg has got that covered in spades, it's not the leader(cause he clearly states Superman & Wonder Woman should lead the team), so..... Flash was a total noob to the point where he endangers the mission via tripping over his own feet. "Hahahah so funny, herdeck, herpa derp, derp...flash trip." It was pretty cringe worthy.


Character Grades:

Superman: A+ When Superman shows up the whole movie got a different energy the earlier half of the film was lacking. Best scene in the movie was when Superman was fighting the league. When Superman sees the Flash from the corner of his eye and it becomes clear Superman is fast enough to keep up with Flash the theater I was in erupted and my wife & family were screaming(with joy). Best character moments are when Superman questions Batman's motives for bringing him back, when he talks to Lois, and when he talks to his mom. Also damn time we finally see this Superman use his freeze breathe. Also I enjoyed him having full use of his Super Speed.

Wonder Woman: A- She did a great job, but I didn't like the recycled joke Whedon used with Flash falling on her boobs, which is the same joke he used in Age of Ultron. Sure I laughed a bit, but it was one followed by a sigh.

Cyborg: A- Cyborg really surprised me how well he was portrayed since I generally prefer funny Cyborg over withdrawn emo Cyborg, but he was really great. I want to see more of him, but still not in a solo movie.

Batman: C- Batman was too much of a useless ***hole, to the point where I was seriously questing as to why would Wonder Woman even put up with his BS.

Aquman: B+ I liked the Aquabro touch to the character, but he needs to turn down the jerk stuff. I think they need to go for the big brother we've always wanted, not the big brother we've always hated. There's a big difference and he needs to avoid the negative macho guy ****.

Flash: D- The Flash being a noob started out as cute, but by the time he gets to the "It's like a Cave, it's a Batcave." joke my sister literally said "Dude come on" and we(the audience) were laughing more at her response to his stupidity than to his lame joke. I really came in wanting to embrace this Flash, but they went way too far with him being a noob. Que the DCEU Flash vs Stairs Battle Thread.


Cringe Worthy Dialogue: There was a lot of cringe worthy, beyond cheese/camp lines in this movie. "You smell good", "Booyah" (DC's I'm The Juggernaut B*** moment.), etc.


CGI: Honestly Steppenwolf's CGI was bad, but it didn't distract me. Superman's face did though a little bit, that's just some slopply *** production. Also they should have made some sort of deal with Paramount to let Cavill shave it off in the first place.


End Credit Scenes: Both end credit scenes were pretty amazing.



Ben Affleck Scandal: Will It Hurt Justice League

From CNN: From CNN:

(CNN)Ben Affleck has apologized for groping Hilarie Burton during an appearance on MTV's "Total Request Live" years ago.

The incident took place when Burton, who recurs on Fox's "Lethal Weapon," was a co-host on MTV's "Total Request Live," a daily music video countdown that ran for ten years until 2008 and was recently revived by the network."I acted inappropriately toward Ms. Burton and I sincerely apologize," Affleck wrote on Twitter.

Video of the incident resurfaced Wednesday after Affleck joined a chorus of others in denouncing the actions of disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, who stands accused of numerous incidents of sexual harassment and three incidents of rape.The New York Times and the New Yorker detailed the allegations in separate stories published within the last week.A representative for Weinstein denied the allegations of sexual assault in a statement to CNN."Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances," the statement read in part.Burton's encounter with Affleck was recalled by Burton on Twitter in reply to a fan who brought up the incident.

Clearly, the lynch mob is coming for Ben Affleck, which to be honest he kinda stepped in it when he condemned Weinstien on Twitter. He should have stayed out of it. Now the internet is reliving every dumb thing Ben has done to a woman ever....Also it doesn't help his brother has also been of accused of being very rapey towards women...I'm in no way giving Ben a pass for this, but this thing is going to turn into a witch hunt & it's very weird to see things play out like this.

From Vice:

On Wednesday, Ben Affleck—who recently took to Facebook to denounce Harvey Weinstein's alleged sexual harassment—was called out on Twitter for grabbing One Tree Hill actress Hilarie Burton's breast during a 2003 TRLinterview. Affleck tweeted an apology to Burton on Twitter after footage of the incident resurfaced, but the internet quickly discovered it wasn't the only time the actor had man-handled a woman on camera.

During a 2004 interview with Canadian reporter Anne-Marie Losique to promote Jersey Girl, Affleck pulls Losique onto his lap, asks her why she wasn't showing more cleavage, and then tells her that the TV station would "like it better if [she] did this show topless."

"You usually show a lot more cleavage than this," Affleck says in the interview. "What's the story? Why are you covering it up today?"

"These breasts are really firm... suspiciously firm, they are like two giant stones," he says. "It's a sports bra," Losique replies.

Affleck—who was engaged to Jennifer Lopez at the time—then asks Losique if she "has a boyfriend back in Montreal" and later jokes that "all [she wants] to do is have sex all the time." Later in the interview, he puts on a fake French accent and jokes about appearing disabled.

"Don't make me look like I am retarded," he says. "I look like I have cerebral palsy!"

The 2004 interview, which reportedly appeared on Canada's Box-Office, resurfaced after Affleck said he was "angry" at Weinstein for using "his position of power to intimidate, sexually harass, and manipulate many women over decades" in a Facebook post. When one Twitter user brought up the TRLincident with Burton, the actress, who was just 21 at the time, replied she "had to laugh back then so [she] wouldn't cry." One of Weinstein's accusers, Rose McGowan, also tweeted that Affleck was a liar and had known about Weinstein's ongoing sexual abuse for years.

Losique has joked about sitting on Affleck's lap in the past and told the Hollywood Reporter on Wednesday that the clip "has been blown out of proportion."

"I know that people like fishing for anything, but this is completely out of context," she said. "It was for a show I was producing, so I was not at all a victim. When the cameras rolled, we would start to do that game. As soon as it stopped rolling, there was none of that. He never touched me in any improper way. He was very respectful, I must say."

Still, it's hard not to watch the footage and not feel pretty gross about the whole thing.

No Caption Provided

Side Note: I hope all of the people(mostly black people) that whinned and complained Bill Cosby was unfairly treated with his rape scandal now can shut the hell up. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, or whatever. We(society) don't like rapists....

So will this scandal hurt Justice League? I doubt the media won't ask him tough questions about this scandal when the film comes out as they did with Nate Parker with Brith of a Nation & his scandal.


Maybe Guns Aren't The Problem: Mental Health In America Sucks


The U.S. is one of the most depressed countries in the world, according to the World Health Organization.

In terms of quality years of life lost due to disability or death – a widely adopted public health metric that measures the overall burden of disease – the U.S. ranked third for unipolar depressive disorders, just after India and China.

India, China and the U.S. are also the countries most affected by anxiety, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, according to WHO.

About one in five adults in the U.S. experiences some form of mental illness each year, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, but only 41 percent of those affected received mental health care or services in the past year.

That's pretty terrible...

I've got a lot of mental health issues right now and I'm getting help, but man that's pretty bad. I would like to see more discussion on mental health and getting people help before they turn to violence & suicide.


Gun Control: Make Bullets More Expensive

Clearly Gun Control isn't happening and isn't necessarily even a good idea or an effective one.

From Huffington Post

Bullet, Not Gun Control

By Murray Rosenbaum
  • 420

Gun control has been the subject of debate for years now. Some people want to tighten gun registration and licensing, while others demand their second amendment right be recognized and protected without limitation. Seeing how banning guns seems nearly impossible, people are trying to find a middle-ground. There are many possible solutions out now, but they are all focused on guns themselves, but there maybe another solution. Jim Dwyer, writing in The New York Times, quoted United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said: “we have only a three-year supply of ammunition.”

In 1993, Senator Moynihan proposed that we ought to give up on gun control as a way to reduce criminal violence. “These mostly simple machines last forever,” Senator Moynihan said. “On the other hand, we have only a three-year supply of ammunition.” He proposed a tax on bullets. But he proposed a “Ten thousand percent” tax on hollow-tipped bullets. The result, a 20-bullet pack would cost $1,500. “Guns don’t kill people; bullets do,” said Moynihan.

This isn't an original idea, but I wonder what you all think about it? I'm shocked more people don't bring up this idea. To me this is the most logical solution. In fact I think they could comprise with the Pro Gun people and have looser restrictions on certain things if Republicans would agree to tax the hell out of bullets.

Yes people can make their own bullets, but you could tax those machines and supplies as well. Now a 20 pack of bullets costing $1,500 is ridiculous, but what if a 20 pack of bullets on average cost $100? What do you think?