fantastic_four

I'm not sure that the Walking Dead set this precedent, but I can say that's the first show I've watched that uses the technique of mixing up what they took from the comic with completely new plot and story points in an effort to make things fresh. I love the idea of that because it has indeed made my watching of the show not just be a story where I know everything that's going to happen. Gifted is definitely using this same technique, and I agreed with whoever it was that suggested maybe this brother and sister are the Fenris twins--I think that was you, if memory serves--only in this iteration they're not twins. An idea I believe you also reinforced after this last episode where they channeled their powers together in a similar way that the Fenris twins did. So no, it wasn't at all obvious to me or the past version of you. Nor could it have been because of the way the show is altering characters and plot points from the comics. It's a cool twist though, throwing the kids at us and then later doing what it sounds like they're doing. But wait...this is for episode 8? Monday's episode was 5, so this is a spoiler from two and a half weeks from now. Sheesh.

Why do you like to even spoil things for yourself? That was a spoiler for you, too.

It's not splitting hairs to call a spoiler for everyone a spoiler. You're rejecting the entire idea that anything can be a spoiler for everyone, and that's simply false. The only person that wasn't a spoiler for is the four days away future version of everyone who reads this thread.

No, I'm the one that always proclaims that if you don't want to read spoilers, don't read these threads immediately following an episode. I saw this week's episode, so I thought I was safe. I didn't realize someone would post something that NOBODY has seen that is impossible to not be a spoiler for anyone who ever reads it between now and next Monday. The only way to be safe from the posting of spoilers about unaired episodes is to just never read a thread about that show.

Sounds like they're most likely Very interesting twist, and a MAMMOTH freakin' spoiler. The author's article should have denoted the spoiler at the top of the article, and you should have put that in a spoiler tag.

A "sea" is definitely an exaggeration, but it's not a short list. The complete list that didn't get a nod but were better than Fury Road includes Alien, Blade Runner, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956 version), Forbidden Planet, Gattaca, The Thing (1982 Carpenter version), Children of Men, 2001, Clockwork Orange, and The Matrix. I would've included the 1927 Metropolis on that list, but the Oscars didn't start until two years after that so I'll give 'em a break on that one. There are definite arguments to be made for the crop of films being too strong in the year those were released, but it's far more than that--there's a clear bias against science-fiction, one that was universal throughout the first half-century of the Oscars that has thankfully decreased slowly every decade. The real breaking point for science fiction and the Oscars was Star Wars getting the first best picture nod for a sci-fi film in 1977, and since then the others that also got the nod prior to the 10-film expansion were Raiders of the Lost Ark and ET. Following the expansion in 2010 we've gotten LOTS of nods including District 9, Avatar, Inception, Her, Gravity, The Martian, and Arrival. But still no wins. I suppose if you expand it to fantasy we've gotten two wins--Lord of the Rings and Birdman.

I still do not know what people see in that film. I thought it was terrible with way too many over the top things. I liked it but didn't find it exceptional. I can't even begin to imagine why among the sea of quality sci-fi films THAT'S the one that gets a Best Picture nod.

The Academy almost never nominates science fiction. The only award it has any outside shot of being nominated for is Best Picture, and that's only because they now nominate 10 instead of 5. It has zero chance of winning that award. I would never have even guessed a best picture nomination if they hadn't done it with "Mad Max: Fury Road," still one of the more baffling nominations in Oscar history.

Feige didn't have that at first either. He had no experience at all in film OR comics when he was hired as a producer on X-Men. He got in just with the force of his personality in impressing Avi Arad coupled with his extensive lifelong knowledge of Marvel Comics characters.

Perhaps that's why he's co-running it with Jon Berg for now, although Berg only has one successful film under his belt in "Elf" himself, so if that's what they were thinking, Berg is a strange choice. Feige had a seemingly-ideal tutoring phase under Avi Arad from 2000 to 2007. Feige seemed to take Avad's skill at getting films made and deals done and couple it with his long-standing knowledge of the Marvel Universe, something Arad himself never had. The Johns/Berg tandem seems far less ideal than what Feige did in grooming for his job. Given that they put Johns/Berg in control last year, that answers my question--he hasn't had control of the studio long enough for JLA to be entirely his baby. I'm not sure the same thing applies to Feige with Iron Man, either, since production on that started before Feige took over the studio.

But they need an equivalent to Kevin Feige, and I thought they realized that last year by tapping Johns to take that spot. I was wrong, I guess?

Wait--does Geoff Johns run DC Films, or does he co-run it? Wikipedia says that Johns and Jon Berg share control over the studio. I was unaware of that if it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Films

I forget now--was Geoff Johns put into the Kevin Feige position before or after Snyder was chosen to helm this film? Which film will be--or was--the first that was conceived of after Johns had direct control of the studio? Wonder Woman had Patty Jenkins before Johns took over, didn't it?

What is with all the speculation about the embargo? Warner Brothers embargoes almost everything, even their non-DC films. That means speculating on a reason for an embargo on JLA is pointless. They embargoed "Dunkirk," and that one's probably going to get nominated for best picture.

She's one of the tougher characters to take a humorous slant on, but it's certainly possible. Waititi certainly showed he can make historically serious topics funny with "What We Do In the Shadows," but he did it there by lampooning the entire idea of vampires. He can't lampoon this, he'd have to take another angle, a challenge that he clearly identifies himself in that quote.

Yea, it's got to be a direct reference to those two.

Was Cyborg in the JLA in the comics?

Have any of you Brits seen the series yet? Not sure why we're getting it so much later than you guys.

My thread title is weirdly stated because the profanity filter edits out the well-known author's name. Just learned that there's a new anthology series based upon the works of Philip K. You-Know-Who. It was released in the UK on Channel 4 last month and is supposed to make it to the US via Amazon video at some point in 2018. Every episode is a separate story based upon some work from , presumably short stories for the most part. The cast varies every episode, but they've drawn some famous stars such as Bryan Cranston, Anna Paquin, Steve Buscemi, and Terrence Howard. Sounds compelling! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Dick's_Electric_Dreams http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5711280/

Did it say why Ridley Scott didn't include it in the original film, or who at the time was projected to play the role Bautista did?

I can't decide if it was their lame design or Romita Jr's art that made me completely forget about these two.

I found your issue and highlighted it above. Uninstall and try again.

The final minute or two hosed up on my DVR, and Comcast isn't making it available for me on demand. When it cut off, the dad in custody was talking to the agent telling him he's been in his shoes and that threatening his mom with prosecution seemed like an act of desperation. That's the last I saw...what happened after that?