The CW strikes again

Reviews, Comments and Information on new Science Fiction, Fantasy or other interesting TV shows, Films, Books, Radio Pays, etc.
User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 958
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

#21 The CW strikes again

Post by bernomatic » Fri, 04 Jan 19, 14:31 pm

I guess when a girl becomes a woman, she doesn't need a man? :? Yvonne Craig must be rolling over in her grave.

After having turned The Archie comic brand on its head, the CW has focused it's social justice changing warp on Batgirl. Excuse me Batwoman.
The potential series breaks yet another barrier for Berlanti as Batwoman becomes the first-ever superhero series to be led by a lesbian character — and played by an openly gay actress in Rose.

Here's The CW's official description: Armed with a passion for social justice and a flair for speaking her mind, Kate Kane [Rose] soars onto the streets of Gotham as Batwoman, an out lesbian and highly trained street fighter primed to snuff out the failing city's criminal resurgence. But don't call her a hero yet. In a city desperate for a savior, Kate must overcome her own demons before embracing the call to be Gotham's symbol of hope."
Passion for social justice? :o What is social justice? If a criminal commits crimes, but is socially aware that trans people should be able to use whatever bathroom they please, does that mean she will allow them to continue their otherwise evil ways?

It is no wonder I don't watch TV any more.

:arrow: article
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer

User avatar
luke strawwalker
Space Vice Admiral
Space Vice Admiral
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

#22 Re: The CW strikes again

Post by luke strawwalker » Sat, 09 Feb 19, 22:16 pm

Commander wrote:
Sat, 02 Feb 19, 17:37 pm
Wasn't a big fan of all the hype even for the original SW films, of course I didn't even really see them till after my children were born in the 90's. :shock:

I was way more of a ST fan. Then the first film came out and I was like, well shall we say, less than impressed. Fortunately they got Wrath of Kahn right and that saved me from just becoming a B movie junkie.
Yeah, Star Trek: The Motionless Picture was a classic case of trying too hard to clone the success of something else (original 77 Star Wars) rather than do something on their own that was *really good*. They spent a bazillion dollars (in then-money) on it and got a big name director (Robert Wise) who supposedly 'everything he touched turned to gold' but then they spent $1.98 on the script (Yeah, I know, it was a BIG sci-fi script by a bunch of big-name sci-fi writers, but it was STILL basically a re-tread of "The Changeling" episode of the original series, with the modified "NOMAD" probe coming back towards Earth as a super-powerful artificial intelligence that the crew had to deal with).
Turning a 48 minute teleplay into a 2.5 hour movie is never a good idea, no matter HOW MUCH special effects budget you have.

The rest of the Trek movies I liked... I'm partial to the school of thought that says the "even numbered ones are better" (though I like 3 a lot) and agree 5 was pretty terrible but the others were okay. I even liked the TNG movies, up until "Nemesis" just ruined the whole thing.

Then this gawdawful CRAP by JJAbrams came out. Now, I LIKED the crew (cast) of the film and thought they did a TERRIFIC job of bringing the characters into a more modern version for younger audiences, but I HATED the script and production... Sorry but when you're using a brewery as the engine room of the Enterprise, you're on the wrong track, I don't care HOW much artsy-fartsy lens flares you try to cover it with; blowing your entire production sets budget on making a bridge that looks like an I-phone store is equally stupid. The script was just absolutely pathetic... the story sucked and had plot holes big enough to fly a planet killer through... and when someone thinks it's a good idea to have a "fun moment" by beaming Scotty into a CLEAR tube of water headed for a "giant space Cuisinart of death that serves no purpose" in the environmental control system of the ship, only to have him spat onto the floor by a very luckily-placed hatch into the tube at just the last possible moment, JUST SAY NO!!!

Usually I go see a movie *THAT I LIKE* 2-3 times at the theater. I think I saw AVATAR about 4-5 times at the theater, in 3D and 2D. BUT, that's with movies that ACTUALLY HAVE A STORY and are actually GOOD... and when you leave the theater looking at your 13 year old daughter (who's a Trekkie/SWfanatic as well) and we say in unison "WTF was THAT????", well, that's NOT a good movie! I've seen Abrams-Drek a couple of times on DVD after I saw it in the theater, and every time I see it I like it LESS... Usually with a GOOD film I enjoy it MORE the second time around, because I get more things that I MISSED when I saw it the first time around... Not so with Abrams-Drek... every time I see it, I see MORE WRONG WITH IT. "Into Darkness" was simply awful... and I didn't even waste my time or money going to see the third one... haven't seen it YET. I didn't like them making SULU queer. Yeah, I get it, Sulu was played by a queer actor, one that actually I admired his performance OF THE CHARACTER (and I like George Takei as an actor even though I don't care for queers-- I can look at the talent of his performance and separate that from his life choices, so long as it's not "thrown in your face" like SO MANY of the Hollyweird types do nowdays... I liked Will Geer on "The Waltons" even though he was queer, but they weren't "in your face" about it back then like they are NOW...) Still, the CHARACTER of SULU was NOT "George Takei" and making him queer just turned my stomach. SO, no thanks, I'll pass. That and from everything I've read, seen, and heard about the film it was just more drivel than even "Into Darkness" was. I hear the same about the new "Discovery" series; everybody seems to say "watch "The Orville"-- it's more Star Trek than Discovery is..." Which I can believe...

AND, of course, what do they do?? Turn over Star Wars to a bunch of social justice warrior proselytizing (foaming at the mouth libtards) who use it for their personal agenda bully pulpit and that NO-TALENT HACK (never saw a movie I didn't think I could remake better but actually turn to sh!t) JJ Abrams... So NO WONDER all the new SW films are SH!T... (well, except for "Rogue One" which I enjoyed immensely, and enjoy more every time I see it... honestly the "anthology" movies are FAR AND AWAY MUCH BETTER than that silly hack remake of the original Star Wars: A New Hope that Abrams did, "The Force Awakens", and I won't even mention that absolute stinking sh!t-heap of a film "The Last Jedi"... Solo was actually "okay", though it could have been better... certainly MUCH better than TLJ, though honestly watching paint dry is better than TLJ...

I really wish that Hollyweird bunch that is dominating everything would hurry up and crash and burn already, so we could actually have a chance of someone who knows how to make a GOOD MOVIE back in there...

Later! OL J R :)
My MUNIFICENCE is BOUNDLESS, Mr. Bond...

Post Reply