Episode 199


RSS
 Share

Recommended Posts

This isn't World's Finest Podcast and it isn't the Is It Wednesday Yet? segment, so why are both James Deaux and Desmond Reddick on Earth-2.net: The Show this week? That's because James and Mike review Justice League: The New Frontier, and then Des joins Mike to discuss Witchblade #116. [ 3:01:52 || 83.2 MB ]

The above is from: http://www.earth-2.net/theshow/episodes/e2ts_199.mp3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with your view on the 50's in relation to The New Frontier. Yes it does show that it wasn't a perfect time, and there was a lot of fear in the air but at the same time The New Frontier shows that it wasn't that bad of a time either. People were still a little more carefree, and were able to still have a good time even in the face of the war. Not to mention Darwyn Cooke's love affair with the style of the time which is draped over every panel of the book. There was a real visual identity to the 50's that we really don't have today, and you can feel Darwyn Cooke's appreciation of it throughout both the book and the movie.

It's kind of funny that you guys both praised the movie for it's "realism" considering that if anything the book was about embracing the fun of the silver age. A little ironic when you think about.

The scene at the beginning of the movie where Hal shoots the korean kid was in my opinion used more to show that even though the war was over, more blooshed was to come since they were all about to fight a bigger enemy. The irony of Hal only having to shoot someone after the war was over isn't really neccasary since the scene is used more as a cue to the audience that worse things are to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sin City is not the best adaptation of a comic book to a movie. An adaptation requires that you change the source material into something else that suits the medium that you are translating into. Sin City does not do that at all. It's also an awful movie. Granted that's your opinion, but i figured it couldn't hurt to throw in a counterpoint.

In relation to The New Frontier as an adaptation, i'll just post what i wrote on the CGS board

In relation to what they left in and what they left out of the movie, I am actually happy that it wasn't just everything in the book panel for panel. I like that the movie took the main skeleton of the story, and left some stuff out or stuck it in the background. I think this is the most benefical way to do things, and the most respectful to the source material. This way the movie dosen't just render the source material obsolete, because say someone sees the animated movie and likes it so much that they go out and get the trades of New Frontier, now they will get a different experience out of reading the book with whole new areas of the story to discover, and only further illuminates the world of the movie on future viewings. This way you have two unique versions of basically the same story, and they both can co-exist together without cancelling each other out.

I really dug the movie a lot, and i am little pissed how the movie is just getting the complete shaft by the general public, and even from a lot of comic fans. This movie should be nominated at the next Oscars for best animated film, and it should win. Even though that will never happen, and whatever talking car, talking toy bullshit Pixar throws out will win instead. It's such a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because very little was changed from comic to screen, Sin City isn't the best adaptation? :unsure:

Sometimes things do need to be changed (e.g. New Frontier had to be trimmed), other times the filmmakers change things for no reason at all (e.g. the names of Robert Neville's wife and daughter), then there are the times when the source material can remain mostly untouched. The fact that Sin City worked as is on both paper and screen speaks volumes about Frank Miller as a writer, Robert Rodriguez as a director, the crossover appeal of the source material and the poor decisions other filmmakers employ when producing adaptations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Sin City worked as is on both paper and screen speaks volumes about Frank Miller as a writer, Robert Rodriguez as a director, the crossover appeal of the source material and the poor decisions other filmmakers employ when producing adaptations.

I guess that's just a difference of opinion then. I felt Sin City as a movie didn't work at all. The acting was very wooden and the use of big name actors as opposed to character actors did more to hinder the intent of the filmmaker since you weren't able to see the characters just the actors attempting to portray them. Not to mention the actors weren't very good, and really weren't right for the roles they were trying to portray (the notable exception being Mickey Rourke). The look of the film was also very distracting, and the film would of been more well-suited being shot in black and white on 35mm film using a stylized set design with actual sets, and very distinct lighting. That would have been a far better tribute to the film noir movies that they were trying to evoke as opposed to the dreadful green screen CGI laziness that was used.

My personal feeling on adaptations are that you should think long and hard about why you feel you have to transfer something to a new medium, and what is something new you feel you can bring to this story by bringing it to another medium while still staying true to the spirit of the source material. Sin City didn't feel like a director's vision brought to the screen, it just felt like a $40 million dollar book on tape. The movie was successful because it had a bunch of people getting killed in slow motion, and you know how the kids of today get a kick out of that. Plus it's exactly like the comic so the unimaginative fanboys are going to have a wank fest over it. It's a no brainer why it was a success, and it had nothing to do with the crossover appeal of the source material, or Frank Miller's strength as a writer, or Robert Rodriguez's strength as a director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was wrong with the writing? It was lifted straight from Miller's books. Do you not like them either?

I feel Sin City is the worst of Frank Miller's otherwise flawless body of work. Even with that said, the dialogue could of been tweaked a bit to suit the actor saying it or they could of cast better actors to maybe read the lines with some sort of feeling (with the obvious exception of Mickey Rourke who was the only bright spot in this otherwise dreadful mess of a film).

Enough about Sin City though, this topic is about The New Frontier, and Witchblade #116.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord...

The fact that Sin City worked as is on both paper and screen speaks volumes about Frank Miller as a writer, Robert Rodriguez as a director, the crossover appeal of the source material and the poor decisions other filmmakers employ when producing adaptations.

I guess that's just a difference of opinion then. I felt Sin City as a movie didn't work at all. The acting was very wooden and the use of big name actors as opposed to character actors did more to hinder the intent of the filmmaker since you weren't able to see the characters just the actors attempting to portray them. Not to mention the actors weren't very good, and really weren't right for the roles they were trying to portray (the notable exception being Mickey Rourke).

I'd argue that whilst this usually true of films with an ensemble cast, the visuals of the film made you look past the fact it was big name actors in the role. Be it Bruce Willis's scar making him Hartigan, not McClane or Elijah Wood's giant glasses making him look un-Hobbit-esque, or Mickey Rourke's mega prosthetics, I thought the film did a good job of making the actors more in keeping with the Sin City universe. And I'd have to rewatch the film first to really pick out who had a weak performance, but I don't remember anyone being "not very good", even Alba.

The look of the film was also very distracting, and the film would of been more well-suited being shot in black and white on 35mm film using a stylized set design with actual sets, and very distinct lighting. That would have been a far better tribute to the film noir movies that they were trying to evoke as opposed to the dreadful green screen CGI laziness that was used.

A black and white version of the film would be pretty plain. The CGI look in contrast made it look like the action of the comic/graphic novel (whichever Mike deems it to be) coming to life off of the page. That's why it's a great adaptation of the book, rather than merely being a film based off the plot points of the book.

My personal feeling on adaptations are that you should think long and hard about why you feel you have to transfer something to a new medium, and what is something new you feel you can bring to this story by bringing it to another medium while still staying true to the spirit of the source material. Sin City didn't feel like a director's vision brought to the screen, it just felt like a $40 million dollar book on tape.

I feel that Rodriguez/Miller did exactly what you said in your first sentence. How you can say that setting a CBM in a stylized CGI environment ISN'T a vision being brought to the screen confuses me.

The movie was successful because it had a bunch of people getting killed in slow motion, and you know how the kids of today get a kick out of that.

Right, that's the one reason Sin City was successful. Because teenagers today are sociopaths.

Plus it's exactly like the comic so the unimaginative fanboys are going to have a wank fest over it.

So you'd rather an amazing storyline from a comicbook wasn't directly transferred to film because it would only attract fanboys?? Sin City won fans from a mass audience, many of whom hadn't ever read Miller's books. I'm one such person.

It's a no brainer why it was a success, and it had nothing to do with the crossover appeal of the source material, or Frank Miller's strength as a writer, or Robert Rodriguez's strength as a director.

Again, morally bankrupt teenagers are the SOLE cause of the film's success? WhyIoughtta....

Sin City is a stylistic action-fest with a strong narrative in each tale, due to it being a direct adaptation from three storylines from Miller's anthology. The cast is somewhat starry, which may have put a few more bums on seats, but with the creator of the characters co-directing the film, there wasn't going to be a single performance there that didn't get his own stamp of approval. So there we go - argument #2!!

ON TOPIC

Great review from Mike & James, which tied in nicely with Mike's review. Whilst I got more of a sense of the JLA's troubles/stories than I did of the Government or the Centre, it was a great review that made me check out youTube for some clips afterwards. Looks darn good! Then again, this episode caused me to really consider a certain question: who does Mike review things best alongside: James, Des (another great review btw - I was just very tired by the time it got to that review) or Jenny? All three dynamics are great, but the fact we had two of them here in the same episode made me mentally contrast them. Sadly, I fell asleep before coming to a conclusion, but both were great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'd argue that whilst this usually true of films with an ensemble cast, the visuals of the film made you look past the fact it was big name actors in the role. Be it Bruce Willis's scar making him Hartigan, not McClane or Elijah Wood's giant glasses making him look un-Hobbit-esque, or Mickey Rourke's mega prosthetics, I thought the film did a good job of making the actors more in keeping with the Sin City universe. And I'd have to rewatch the film first to really pick out who had a weak performance, but I don't remember anyone being "not very good", even Alba.

With the exception of Mickey Rourke who really became Marv on the screen, and i guess i will give props to Elijah Wood too (although i think the fact that it was Elijah Wood playing the character made it creepy as opposed to him becoming the character, but it worked so i'm not complaining), everyone else was still terrible, and no amount of props were going to hide that, and Jessica Alba was the worst of all.

A black and white version of the film would be pretty plain. The CGI look in contrast made it look like the action of the comic/graphic novel (whichever Mike deems it to be) coming to life off of the page. That's why it's a great adaptation of the book, rather than merely being a film based off the plot points of the book.

So by that logic movies like "The Public Enemy", "Sunset Blvd.", "Touch Of Evil", "The Maltese Falcon", and "Out Of The Past" are bland looking movies ???? Whatever you say, man. Even so, if Black and White is so bland to you, they could of shot it in color but with a very dried out look, and could of later further pronounced colors in a digital intermediate using digital coloring.

I feel that Rodriguez/Miller did exactly what you said in your first sentence. How you can say that setting a CBM in a stylized CGI environment ISN'T a vision being brought to the screen confuses me.

How did they do that when they didn't bring anything new to the story by bringing it to another medium. I think you need to look up the word adaptation

ad·ap·ta·tion - a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.

Sin City didn't do that at all. If anything it did everything in it's power to not do that. In relation to your CGI question, you can make a movie look like a comic book without using CGI, look at the sets on 30 Days Of Night which look exactly like the book, look at the rooftop sequence at the end of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Trurtles movie which look's exactly like the book, look at certain scenes in Batman Begins that look exactly like Batman: Year One, look at the sets on The Rocketeer which look exactly like the book. All of these were real sets and locations which they filmed on, and in turn made them better movies because of it. If any CGI is used it's just augment a few things here and there, and if it's good CGI you wouldn't even notice it's there.

Which begs the question, If they really needed to use as much CGI as they did in Sin City, why didn't they just animate the whole thing including the characters like they did in Beowulf???? That way it would be a fully formed world as opposed to just a bunch of actors standing in front of a green screen.

Right, that's the one reason Sin City was successful. Because teenagers today are sociopaths.

As long as Saw is a succesful franchise, my point still stands.

So you'd rather an amazing storyline from a comicbook wasn't directly transferred to film because it would only attract fanboys?? Sin City won fans from a mass audience, many of whom hadn't ever read Miller's books. I'm one such person..

You're twisting my words. I am just saying that regardless of the quality of the movie, fanboys would rejoice in saying that it's such an amazing movie because it's exactly the same as the book. I am not saying that they were the key to it's success but they didn't hurt it's success. Also keep in mind that Sin City was not a box office success, and it wasn't as well received by critics as people like to think it is. It's more of a cult film than anything so saying it won fans from a mass audicne is a little misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough - I replied thusly.

'd argue that whilst this usually true of films with an ensemble cast, the visuals of the film made you look past the fact it was big name actors in the role. Be it Bruce Willis's scar making him Hartigan, not McClane or Elijah Wood's giant glasses making him look un-Hobbit-esque, or Mickey Rourke's mega prosthetics, I thought the film did a good job of making the actors more in keeping with the Sin City universe. And I'd have to rewatch the film first to really pick out who had a weak performance, but I don't remember anyone being "not very good", even Alba.

With the exception of Mickey Rourke who really became Marv on the screen, and i guess i will give props to Elijah Wood too (although i think the fact that it was Elijah Wood playing the character made it creepy as opposed to him becoming the character, but it worked so i'm not complaining), everyone else was still terrible, and no amount of props were going to hide that, and Jessica Alba was the worst of all.

So apart from Marv and Kevin(? - whoever the mute was), ALL of the cast were terrible?! If you read my most recent article, you'll know that I don't have much time for Alba; nor I care for the acting of Josh Hartnett. Alba was rarely ever the focus of her scenes, playing off either Willis or Nick Stahl, and whilst she's no Meryl Streep, she didn't make Nancy so unwatchable as a character that I had to leave the cinema. Hartnett was petty damn great in his two cameo scenes and I felt particularly moved by Becky the treacherous prostitute, whilst Clive Owen was pretty damn cool as a remorseless killer, as was Willis as the film noir detective.

A black and white version of the film would be pretty plain. The CGI look in contrast made it look like the action of the comic/graphic novel (whichever Mike deems it to be) coming to life off of the page. That's why it's a great adaptation of the book, rather than merely being a film based off the plot points of the book.

So by that logic movies like "The Public Enemy", "Sunset Blvd.", "Touch Of Evil", "The Maltese Falcon", and "Out Of The Past" are bland looking movies ???? Whatever you say, man. Even so, if Black and White is so bland to you, they could of shot it in color but with a very dried out look, and could of later further pronounced colors in a digital intermediate using digital coloring.

I said a black & white version of THE film would be plain - I'm not so culturally bereft that I find monochrome films to be dull or boring. But it wouldn't wholly work for Sin City. What they actually did was very clever; keeping the basic visuals monochrome, but digitally colouring certain things to bring them out (such as Becky's eyes, or Goldies hair). As such, I thought it looked awesome.

I feel that Rodriguez/Miller did exactly what you said in your first sentence. How you can say that setting a CBM in a stylized CGI environment ISN'T a vision being brought to the screen confuses me.

How did they do that when they didn't bring anything new to the story by bringing it to another medium. I think you need to look up the word adaptation

ad·ap·ta·tion - a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.

Sin City didn't do that at all. If anything it did everything in it's power to not do that. In relation to your CGI question, you can make a movie look like a comic book without using CGI, look at the sets on 30 Days Of Night which look exactly like the book, look at the rooftop sequence at the end of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Trurtles movie which look's exactly like the book, look at certain scenes in Batman Begins that look exactly like Batman: Year One, look at the sets on The Rocketeer which look exactly like the book. All of these were real sets and locations which they filmed on, and in turn made them better movies because of it. If any CGI is used it's just augment a few things here and there, and if it's good CGI you wouldn't even notice it's there.

Which begs the question, If they really needed to use as much CGI as they did in Sin City, why didn't they just animate the whole thing including the characters like they did in Beowulf???? That way it would be a fully formed world as opposed to just a bunch of actors standing in front of a green screen.

Firstly, it's an adaptation - fitting a changed environment - by not being a comic book. It's a film that visualizes the characters and has human beings play them. As such, that's a changed environment as someone isn't shown turning the pages of a Sin City volume on screen for 90 minutes.

As for the second part of your point, it's entirely the choice of the director. You can have a film that relies on no special effects, one that's slightly CGI enhanced, one that is primarily CGI, and one that is fully CGI. Rodriguez chose to do option #3. Now granted, there are all these options, but he picked one of them, and the best one in my opinion. All four can work, just depends on preference as to how effective you find it.

Right, that's the one reason Sin City was successful. Because teenagers today are sociopaths.

As long as Saw is a succesful franchise, my point still stands.

With Saw films, you know you're getting gory puzzle-based horror-schlok from the profligacy (I think that's the word) of the films and their well-publicised reviews/advertising campaign. Sin City has its roots in a graphic novel and whilst it has a kill count, to say it's ONLY popular because people watch films simply to see people die is frankly quite wrong.

So you'd rather an amazing storyline from a comicbook wasn't directly transferred to film because it would only attract fanboys?? Sin City won fans from a mass audience, many of whom hadn't ever read Miller's books. I'm one such person..

You're twisting my words. I am just saying that regardless of the quality of the movie, fanboys would rejoice in saying that it's such an amazing movie because it's exactly the same as the book. I am not saying that they were the key to it's success but they didn't hurt it's success. Also keep in mind that Sin City was not a box office success, and it wasn't as well received by critics as people like to think it is. It's more of a cult film than anything so saying it won fans from a mass audicne is a little misleading.

Sin City box office stats. It made $30 million in profit in America alone and substantially more with the worldwide receipts. Admittedly it isn't nearly the most successful CBM ever, although that does not neccessarily count as an indicator of quality - Batman & Robin made a lot more money, for example.

Sin City reviews compilation from Metacritic. Whilst the scale does range from 0-100%, the average review is put at 74% and most of the reviews flash green. I can absolutely see it as a cult film, but if you shop around message boards, you'll find that a lot of them have very nice things to say about Sin City. Some of them will be fanboys, some will be Saw-lovers - some might even be both. But you can't say that that maks up the entirity of the Sin City audience. Some times it really is as simple as a lot of people liked the film!

Btw, keen to carry on this debate as long as it stays civil. There aren't many signs so far to say that it won't, but you did jump on my black & white point a bit too readily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to jump in here

How did they do that when they didn't bring anything new to the story by bringing it to another medium. I think you need to look up the word adaptation

ad·ap·ta·tion - a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.

mo-di-fy - to change somewhat the form or qualities of

Seems to me, going from static image on a page to a moving picture is more than enough to be considered both a modification and an adaptation. Also, it mashes together four separate (yet intertwined) stories in publication to one film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked out the movie based on the review, and for the most part agreed. Just a couple notes.

- At only 74 minutes, it's even more amazing what they accomplished here, in terms of fitting so much stuff in, but at the same time, quite a few of the scenes felt quite rushed. I think at an even 90 minutes, they could have held on the dramatic scenes a bit more and added a couple more nods to the comic.

- Knowing supervillian tendancy to usually vegitate in mainly one geographical area, was there any reason given to why Captain Cold was so far outside of Central City? Was he so tired of being thwarted by the Flash that he decided to relocate? If so, that officially makes him the smartest villain in all of comics.

- I found it weird that there was literally no reaction from the police force when the dark goverment people came for Barry. You have to assume that they weren't in on the plan, as they were there to stop "Grodd". There wasn't so much as a "what the fuck?" from the cops when these other guys went after the hero.

- I wasn't as impressed with David Boreanaz as Hal. Not so much with his performance, but I just think he was miscast. Despite being nearly 40, it felt like he was playing Hal as way too young for someone that had just come back from a war. Though Doogie Howser as the Flash was pretty much perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- At only 74 minutes, it's even more amazing what they accomplished here, in terms of fitting so much stuff in, but at the same time, quite a few of the scenes felt quite rushed. I think at an even 90 minutes, they could have held on the dramatic scenes a bit more and added a couple more nods to the comic.

There were a few more things from the book they could have added in, such as the building of J'onn and Faraday's relationship, but overall I don't think it felt rushed.

- Knowing supervillian tendancy to usually vegitate in mainly one geographical area, was there any reason given to why Captain Cold was so far outside of Central City? Was he so tired of being thwarted by the Flash that he decided to relocate? If so, that officially makes him the smartest villain in all of comics.

HA! Good call!

In the comic it's stated that Cold was there to rob the box office, the one from the boxing match Barry was watching on TV, but that's only implied in the movie.

- I found it weird that there was literally no reaction from the police force when the dark goverment people came for Barry. You have to assume that they weren't in on the plan, as they were there to stop "Grodd". There wasn't so much as a "what the fuck?" from the cops when these other guys went after the hero.

It all happened so quickly, the cops didn't have time to react. Plus, consider the period: questioning the government was not acceptable.

- I wasn't as impressed with David Boreanaz as Hal. Not so much with his performance, but I just think he was miscast. Despite being nearly 40, it felt like he was playing Hal as way too young for someone that had just come back from a war. Though Doogie Howser as the Flash was pretty much perfect.

At the start of the movie Hal is only in his early 20s, and he's pushing 30 by the time he becomes Green Lantern, so I didn't mind the occasional youthfulness to his voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were a few more things from the book they could have added in, such as the building of J'onn and Faraday's relationship, but overall I don't think it felt rushed.

Yeah, that was a big one to me. One sec, he's a paranoid bigot, then they're suddenly playing chess with eachother.

In the comic it's stated that Cold was there to rob the box office, the one from the boxing match Barry was watching on TV, but that's only implied in the movie.

Ah. Thanks for clearing that up.

It all happened so quickly, the cops didn't have time to react. Plus, consider the period: questioning the government was not acceptable.

I can accept them being caught off guard, but weren't these super-secret goverment people? How would the cops even know who they were?

At the start of the movie Hal is only in his early 20s, and he's pushing 30 by the time he becomes Green Lantern, so I didn't mind the occasional youthfulness to his voice.

I think "young" was a bad word choice on my part. He just seemed a little too carefree for someone that had to spend time in a psych ward after coming back from the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That Grodd / Flash scene is a little ambiguous. I assume the feds were in and out so quickly the police had no time to react. However, in the comic the police have a few lines which can be taken two ways:

01. They didn't know the feds were around, and were too shocked to react when Flash was jumped.

02. They did know the feds were around, but were too confused to act because they thought the feds wanted Grodd, not Flash.

Either way, they don't know what to do with the men in black.

As for Hal, he was probably faking his carefree attitude to keep up appearances. Unlike J'onn, we never get to see Hal alone. He's always with someone, and, therefore, can't brood. If he did, considering his record, he'd never be allowed on the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall I really enjoyed the film, but I felt there were a couple of things taking aawy from it. Firstly, some of the character models didn't feel fully realised. The Martian Manhunter was amazing, as was Flash, but neither Wonder Woman or Superman felt like they were complete creatoins on par with thier previous JLU incarnations. Wonder Woman in particular seemed slightly stiff.

Secondly, David Boreanaz. I'll preface this by saying I'm a huge Buffy fan, I'm a huge Angel fan, I've watched the first season of Bones just because he's in it and I even own the DVD of sub-sub-par slasher flick Valentine, although that might have had more to do with a post Wild Things thing for Denise Richards. All that being said, as fond as I am of Boreanaz he really only plays a limited range. He's good at it, but his Hal Jordan didn't feel any different to his Angel or his FBI guy. It was distracting that the main character in this film was essentially exactly the same as he always plays. For people unfamiliar with his work I'm sure he was great, but it hurt the film for me.

Mike, you've really never watched Buffy? That strikes me as just crazy. Has your only exposure to Whedon come through Astonishing X-men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see... I've seen the Buffy movie, as well as the first episode of the show (though I don't remember much). Oh, I caught half an episode of Angel (they were in a casino). I've read the first trade of the new Buffy comic, and... yeah, that's it. So most / all of my Whedon love comes from Astonishing.

And what you said about someone who isn't familiar with Boreanaz's body of work, of course, applies to me. Had I been a fan of Buffy and Angel, maybe I'd see where you're coming from. But as it is, I loved him in New Frontier.

Let me add this: the first season of Buffy is in my Netflix queue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see... I've seen the Buffy movie, as well as the first episode of the show (though I don't remember much). Oh, I caught half an episode of Angel (they were in a casino). I've read the first trade of the new Buffy comic, and... yeah, that's it. So most / all of my Whedon love comes from Astonishing.

And what you said about someone who isn't familiar with Boreanaz's body of work, of course, applies to me. Had I been a fan of Buffy and Angel, maybe I'd see where you're coming from. But as it is, I loved him in New Frontier.

Let me add this: the first season of Buffy is in my Netflix queue.

As a huge Buffy/Angel fan, I thought he was perfect in The New Frontier, and didn't he was just playing the same character again.

I have to say i don't know if Buffy would quite be your cup of tea Mike. Many of the things you would complain about on World's Finest about B:TAS, S:TAS, etc. happen in pretty much every episode of Buffy. I hope you do enjoy the show since it's one of my favorites but i would say brace yourself to really suspend your disbelief lol.

btw you haven't seen Firefly/Serenity either ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.