CaptainFoamerang
-
Posts
1484 -
Joined
-
Nobody responds when I make True Blood threads.
But might as well do my normal recap:- Thought for a moment that the episode would start with Eric walking, or rather flying, in on Sookie and Bill doing the deed.
- Good once again to see a happier Lafayette, but I'm worried that all the homosexuality floating around will be used as an excuse for some viewers to tune out.
- Surprised that Eric played his hand against Russell so relatively early; given that he complains about Russell being three times his age later, you would think he wouldn't go the wound over the kill.
- I'm glad that Jessica survived her encounter with the werewolf, but even gladder that she wasn't the one making all that noise with Tommy that night.
- Speaking of Jessica, I'm still kind of worried that Russell will kill her since she isn't in the books as far as I know. He's had her blood so maybe he can track her, and they might have him kill her, but if they do I hope somehow Hoyt gets to be the one to kill Russell.
- I gather that if you drain one of whatever it is that Sookie is, you can become a permanent daywalker, which will make her blood so valuable; Russell may use this knowledge to turn the tables once the rest of the vamps come after him.
- Furthermore, when I saw Russell holding that jar of blood in the preview, I was worried he got a hold of Hadley's kid.
- Hadley's hawtsome.
- Jessica's hawtsome.
- Sad to see Sam start to tread steadily toward the dark side just because his little brother teases him.
- Even sadder to continue watching Jason's storyline; I'm sure they realized that's their weak point and tried to rectify it somewhat with having Jason kill Franklin and put that wooden buckshot to use.
- I hope that Jason and Tara finally get together, and maybe having Sam and Andy getting involved with the folks from Hotshot will provide another means of introducing their story, so there's no obligation to have Jason maintain that plot connection.
- Got a weird vibe from that new waitress at Merlotte's when she was talking to Arlene; could she be a spy from Hotshot?
- Eric finally came clean with the Authority about everything, but part of me was hoping they'd give him resources to take down Russell so we could have a full out vampire and werewolf war, while the other part was hoping they'd leave him to his own devices like they did.
- That chick with Flanagan at the end was just, damn.
- Speaking of the end, I somewhat saw that coming as soon as I saw the last scene involved a television; now that the country will see a tide of anti-vampirism, will any of our beloved characters be safe? And is there anyone powerful enough to take on Russell?
- And I have a bad feeling that when Russell does go down, Debbie will come back to deliver a heart-crushing blow and provide the finale's cliffhanger; if not, we can always hope for another catfight between her and Sookie.
-
Quote:I'll give you 3 hints:Originally Posted by Myster_Hero
Who is She who must not be named ? I missed alot of the last 2 seasons :/
1. Her initials are LL.
2. She was a huge rooster tease.
3. She was noted as the reason he hadn't become Superman many times over the course of the show.
BONUS HINT:
She redeemed herself somewhat through her hawtness on Chuck. -
Hmm . . . trailer needs more John Williams.
-
Quote:Think I just discovered the key to True Blood's success:Originally Posted by Tocharon
while I won'r ruin what Sookie is, in the books its only impied she is a half-breed of whatever she is, based on Claudine's first talk with her, I think she can become a full blooded version of whatever she is
Also I think Jason isn't completely left out in gifts either, even though he may not have the same potential. Doesn't he seem a little TOO lucky with the ladies.
Lafayette (who if they were going stricly by the book, would've been dead in Season 1), I think is a witch/ warlock or whatever
It's Buffy the Vampire Slayer with nudity. -
Quote:I just couldn't tell from your post whether you were agreeing with me or not.Originally Posted by Eisregen_NA
Yes. That would fall under the exception I outlined. The exception doesn't apply to Bats himself cause you know he can dodge bullets and stuff, but a normal police officer or soldier faced with an armed assailant, and without a Batman around to pull their *** out of the fire would likely have to shoot the other guy if they wanted to survive. Batman is not Gandhi or Jesus after all; peaceful resistance is not on his agenda, nor is turning the other cheek.
o.O -
Quote:Thanks! Make sure to create an account on SplitReason.com and let 'em know, though, cuz they keep rejecting my stuff while accepting some rather shabby ones. :/Originally Posted by Shawn Sage
I would pay money to have this on a t-shirt.
-
Quote:Everything I've seen so far has been Batman reserving those kind of criticisms for fellow costumed crimefighters.Originally Posted by Olantern
I could've sworn I have seen exactly this, especially the second part. That is, I think I've seen Batman dressing down police officers who've killed in self-defense. I'm certain that I've seen him (or his author, which amounts to the same thing, to me) criticizing other characters for failing to save characters from "third-party" causes of death, such as burning buildings or falls.
I'll see if I can find something in my collections about him talking to a police officer for a more specific reference. -
Quote:Well that doesn't really conflict with what I was saying because I was responding to someone who said that basically Batman believes that anyone killing anyone else for any reason was wrong, which is different than Batman believing that him killing anyone for any reason was wrong.Originally Posted by rian_frostdrake
well, one can base the ethical nature of self defense against one's ability to defend themselves. batman can easily(thanks to author madness) defeat a room full of trained goons with firearms in a nonlethal manner. a normal cop could not. to hop comic companies, one could reason that with the power to non-lethally stop a criminal comes the responsibility to do so when possible. Even in real life self defense trials, a jury will be more sympathetic to a less physically imposing, less trained individual than if someone has military or significant martial arts training, or physically over-matches his/her assailant, and still kills or cripples them. So bats could still console a normal person who kills in the lie of duty while still see himself doing it as wrong because he can do it without killing.
-
Quote:Except you don't see Batman or Bruce Wayne as a vocal opponent to the death penalty. And I believe there have been situations where Batman has talked to police officers or soldiers that had to kill and reassured them that they did the right thing. So, really, it isn't as if he believes that any type of killing in any type of situation is wrong, which is what I was responding to.Originally Posted by Eisregen_NA
Ah, how I've missed having to disagree with you.
And agree with Olantern, pretty much.
Which is funny, because the darker incarnations of Batman have had no issues crippling people if necessary. That said, there is a distinction. Someone killing an attacker in self-defence comes down to them not being able to find a better solution, and it being preferable to the attacker killing the victim. It has to fall under acceptable losses.
But a criminal that has been arrested and 'neutralized'? If Batman had any interest in seeing that happen, he'd testify in court against the three or four of his enemies that aren't legally insane. With the rest actually being legally insane, it's a non-issue unless they move Gotham to Texas. -
Quote:Yeah but there's been times since then where Batman has had the opportunity to kill or let someone else kill Joker, specifically in the Hush and Under the Hood arcs.Originally Posted by Tenzhi
If I recall correctly, ever since No Man's Land we can blame the Joker's continued existence on Commissioner Gordon.
-
One more I whipped up today:
-
Quote:Well that kinda already happened when Jason Todd came back and tried to kill Joker. Batman still stepped in.Originally Posted by Nericus
Here's a scenario: the next of kin of many of Joker's victims if not all of them decide to pool their finances to hire someone like Deadshot or Deathstroke for the sole purpose of killing the Joker.
Now neither Deadshot or Deathstroke strike me as idiots so they should realize that would mean hunting the Joker in Gotham City which will inevitably bring in the Batman. Would Batman attempt to stop them? Or would Batman decide that it's these guys that are doing the killing, not me and it IS the Joker after all.
I'm confident that Batman would stop them. OR the fight might occur with Joker nearby watching, bound and gagged but enjoying how Batman is so conflicted and then the assassin gets a lucky shot off that Batman dodges but it kills the Joker. How guilty would Batman feel about that? Can't say he didn't try to stop them, but he may have doubts about whether he allowed that kill shot to happen.
Don't know if Batman's ever asked Superman for help sending him there, but I would imagine they both know that if Joker was ever sent there, Zod and the rest would be even deadlier the next time they broke out.Quote:Here's another scenario: Joker has finally pushed Batman too far, and Batman decides that it's time the Joker was dealt with for good. BUT after he brutally pummels the Joker near to death he then pulls out a device that he obtained and zaps the Joker and the Joker appears to be disintegrated......everyone thinks Batman has finally crossed the line until he reveals that its Superman's Phantom Zone projector and that Joker is now forever in the Phantom Zone. Not dead, eternally banished and can do no harm. A prison that Joker is unlikely to ever escape. -
Quote:I don't get that vibe off of him at all. I think Batman wouldn't object if Joker got the death penalty.Originally Posted by Olantern
I found this interesting:
You have a very different conception of Batman from the one comics, movies, and books (the novelization of Knightfall) have given me. Some heroes are law-and-order types, but not Batman; he's always presented as serving a "higher" moral code, which more or less amounts to "no one should ever be killed." As he's been presented to me, Batman would refuse to hand over anyone to the authorities if there was the slightest possibility that person might end up executed, simply because the entire point of Batman and his stories is that Killing Is Always Wrong, No Matter What The Circumstance, Even If It's An Accident, Let Alone Intentional. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see a story about Batman breaking a supervillain out of a death row-type situation. Does anyone know if there's ever been a story like that?
As you might guess from the tone of the preceding paragraph, I don't much care for the character of Batman.
That said, blaming him for another character's misdeeds is even sillier than his own preachiness.
In my opinion, it just isn't his fault. Everyone draws this line in a different place. A psychologist who studies legal systems once noted that while science is deterministic (his example was a psychologist recognizing other people's behavior as affecting a defendant's actions), law emphasizes the free will and responsiblity of individual actors. As much as I like to criticize legal philosophy, I think this is one point where it got things right. Your Mileage May (Will) Vary.
However, your post reminds me of an issue of Batgirl in which she set off to make sure that absolutely no one died in Gotham for one night, the anniversary of the first time she killed someone as a girl. This included her trying to stop an execution that was scheduled that night, but the mother of one of the inmate's victim's got Batgirl's attention and basically told her that his death would be justice. I'm sure the explanation was more elaborate and emotional than that, but it just makes me think that Batgirl may have had that notion in her head at some point, but Batman would likely have moved on from that line of thinking.
After all, you don't see Batman being pissed about police officers or soldiers killing in self-defense all the time. -
Quote:Not as bad as in the Under the Hood arc, where he actually shoots and sets off a bunch of explosives he's holding onto, and the blast destroys the building he's in, but he survives somehow.Originally Posted by Nericus
That does make one wonder....Joker has survived some pretty serious stuff both in comics and the Batman TAS.
In Death in the Family, Joker gets some gunfire in his stomach and stomach wounds are not to be laughed off (pun not intended)
In Batman/Superman World's Finest at the end Joker is laughing it up as his own grenades bring down the flying wing with him on it, but no body or pieces of a body are found. In a Batman TAS episode, Laughing Fish, it sure looks like that shark got him but we see no body, or pieces or blood.
Then in Tim Burton's Batman movie, Nicholson Joker makes the comment "Haven't you heard of the healing power of laughter?"
Perhaps the chemical dunk that bleached his skin, etc also gave him a healing ability that is in fact tied to laughter? The more he laughs, faster he heals, etc. -
Quote:Well Joker has this nasty habit of being unkillable, like many of the heroes, so it goes back to that saying, "don't wound what you can't kill, especially if what you can't kill will slaughter you and your entire family by making them literally laugh themselves to death."Originally Posted by Lord_Nightblade
Doesn't Joker scare the crap out of the rest of Earth's villains? You'd think they
would get together and try to eliminate him, if only to keep him from screwing with their own plans at some later date. -
Quote:I believe he does give money to Arkham to enhance security, as he's also part of their parole review board. Whether they actually put the money toward security rather than blow it on hookers and cocaine is another matter.Originally Posted by SwellGuy
Joining the "No" chorus. Whoever is in charge of keeping him locked up in Arkham bears some responsibility though. But the comic would be dull if Bruce invested in a system there to actually prevent the Joker (or fill in other enemy) from escaping ever again.
-
Quote:Pfft, that was foreplay.Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
28 Days Later was NOT a romantic movie.
*shudders in memory of some of the scenes.*
Whenever I get up to go to the bathroom, I recall the scene where the infected burst through his window as he was watching the movie. -
Quote:They already did.Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
Ryan Reynolds also does well in RomComs.
I wonder....
think they will make a RomZom some day?
Zombieland.
Oh, and 28 Days Later. -
Quote:Blade: Trinity really wasn't all that bad. The action was good, but it could have done better with a more emotionally involved Wesley Snipes and an actor with more on-screen presence as Dracula.Originally Posted by Lord_of_Time
I'd hate to say it but yeah you guys are right. Blade: Trinity was just HORRIBLE however the only tolerable scenes were with Reynolds. However even with him yucking it up it was still kind of hard to stomach. Especially when one of the main 'baddies' (Parker Posey) looks like she came out of a Flock of Seagulls video.
Also, Parker Posey was every bit as terrific as Ryan Reynolds. -
Quote:He stole every scene in that movie, sir. And in a good way.Originally Posted by Nericus
Too bad he was lousy in Blade: Trinity, but then the whole movie was lousy.
-
Might as well update this since someone deemed this worthy to keep after the purge.
-
I'd say a month.
-
Loki as Commodus from Gladiator?
Could work. -
I'll have to see how much work they put into his personality and such. If they nail that down, I can accept a new design so long as they have the basics down.
-
Quote:Really?Originally Posted by Lord_of_Time
I couldn't agree more. In fact I'm surprised the genre hasn't imploded already under the sheer weight of super movies being made. I mean occasionally having a superhero movie come out is great and mixes it up in Hollywood. But it seems everything coming out nowadays is either based on a comic or graphic novel and often the source material is never honoured and the film is just a cheap imitation.
I don't see it ever going away, primarily because superhero stories are just extensions of the standard power and revenge fantasies that are common throughout every fictional medium.