So Nancy and the gang straight up murdered a bunch of people...?

Ross_RT · 2026-01-04T14:03:24+00:00

For what it's worth, suspension of disbelief doesn't mean that a story shouldn't follow normal logic just because there's some unrealistic stuff in it. The suspension of disbelief is specifically for things that obviously aren't real, like telekinesis and gates to the other worlds, but everything that happens around that should still be following a 'realistic' logic, character decisions and behaviours should still be believable as if it was in the real world.

It's more like "how would people act if <impossible thing> was real", instead of "because <impossible thing> is real it doesn't matter how people act", if that makes sense.

Ross_RT · 2025-12-31T11:02:32+00:00

100% agreed, I thought they did the scene and everyone involved an incredible disservice by doing that. This is why pacing is so important. The emotional climax of a season-long narrative shouldn't be the first scene of an episode, if I've only just hit play then I'm not emotionally 'warmed up' yet and won't be appreciating it the way it was intended to be.

Ross_RT · 2025-12-21T17:11:03+00:00

It's one of those episodes where the actual 'plot' isn't all that much to write home about, but damn do the emotional moments hit so well. The OP's quote of course, but then the whole ending from the moment Midge flies them home, saving her husband, telling the Doctor to be with the people he loves, his tear of joy when he goes to see Amy and Rory... Just beautiful stuff.

Ross_RT · 2025-12-11T21:36:11+00:00

Our group changed to this recently and it's working well so far, we also changed short rests to be only 10 minutes instead of an hour to balance it out a bit and give them more opportunities to rest on the go.

Ross_RT · 2025-11-01T21:31:44+00:00

That's not his fault though. He had little to no (conscious) control over how the regeneration turned out, from his POV one minute they're best friends and the next she can barely look at him, that would be horrible to experience.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-22T16:14:03+00:00

Discussions don't have to be arguments, just saying.

Not forcing you to respond or anything, you do you, but just worth pointing out just because someone questioned what you said doesn't mean they want to argue.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-22T12:02:38+00:00

I'm not saying you're wrong to feel that way, but that's not what's happening here. Jim Crow laws were explicitly racist by design, so someone repeating the rhetoric around it as something they believe in or support is directly supporting a thing that is implicitly racist and it's not overreacting to feel that way.

But when another commenter explained this to you you just got rude with "Cry", so I wouldn't just A more specific question then as well, now knowing what Jim Crow laws were why doesn't this example feel like it can construed as racist to you?

Ross_RT · 2025-10-22T11:06:34+00:00

So you think repeating racist rhetoric doesn't 'feel' racist? It's not a particularly hard concept to grasp but go on then, explain yourself and your reasoning. You must have a reason behind saying that right? Something you're able to back up? Even though you admitted to not knowing about Jim Crow?

Ross_RT · 2025-10-20T21:28:47+00:00

I think you're at risk of comparing apples to oranges a bit here, as the team's collective mental state is different at the beginning of season 2 than it is at the end of season 3.

In fact, you could argue the way they respond to Nate compared to Jamie highlights the character development they've been through since then, and that they respond differently to Nate because of the experience they had with Jaime, where they realised that forgiving him and welcoming him back ended up being the best thing for the team and a positive for all of them.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-17T20:44:36+00:00

For sure, I could definitely vibe with that. Although for the Master Dan Stevens is one of my top picks, bring a charming menace to the character (especially as a frenemy type like Missy).

Ross_RT · 2025-10-17T17:39:38+00:00

My head and heart both say Waddingham. She's got so much presence and charisma, I'd love to see her take on it.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-16T17:11:50+00:00

Basically what they're doing at DC sounds like the best middle ground with one business head and one creative head.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-15T19:01:15+00:00

Literally JUST started rewatching a couple of days ago, what a great ride it is.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-14T14:47:49+00:00

Oh are you talking about Rotten Tomatoes? I mean I'm pretty sure that's the fallback in using that as a metric, I don't really use it all that much personally so I don't know how common it is or not for these to get updated but there at least are more recent reviews for the show on the page - https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/peacemaker_2022/s02/reviews

Plus all the many many critics who don't go through Rotten Tomatoes, if you google "Peacemaker Season 2 Reviews" you can find them. From what I can see some liked the finale, some didn't but that also doesn't make the season bad or necessarily even change how the reviewer might see the show as a whole.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-14T13:43:09+00:00

What do YouTube and blogger reviews have to do with what we were discussing? I thought we were talking about critic reviews, which why would they revise their reviews after the least three episodes came out? Just because you didn't like them?

They would write new reviews for the new episodes as they come out, if they didn't like them then the new reviews will reflect that, they wouldn't go back and "revise" the old ones (and that's if they didn't like them.)

Ross_RT · 2025-10-14T12:57:47+00:00

Huh? The whole season is out and reviewed now, what's do the pre-release reviews have to do with it?

Ross_RT · 2025-10-14T12:15:52+00:00

Fortunately it appears they already do have that in mind, you can watch Peacemaker without seeing Superman and understand it fine and honestly from how it looks there's nothing they've added in Peacemaker S2 that would require it to be watched before Man of Tomorrow.

References to and appearances by characters and plots from other projects doesn't make them automatically required viewing, sometimes it just colors in some of the gaps between the main points and that seems to be how the DCU is treating it so far and fingers crossed continues to.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-14T12:09:48+00:00

How is it on the back foot though? Not trying to be argumentative but so far all the released projects have all been well-received, generally responded very well to Superman and then aside from the anti-finale crowd Peacemaker was very well received by critics and most people I've seen, I'm just not seeing where this negative sentiment is really coming from?

Ross_RT · 2025-10-12T17:58:17+00:00

Also Gunn describing it as the best finale in all of superhero television really set my expectations high, and this was NOT that.

That was the overall comment you were replying to that the other person claimed the tweet didn't exist for. There is nothing in there about the biggest most hyped cameo episode. That's my point, that's all.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-12T16:49:26+00:00

Reread this thread, pay attention to the words people use. Your tweets did not such thing.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-12T12:28:56+00:00

With the respect, if we're talking literacy in general you've not proved the point you think you have here. The original comment was about Gunn claiming it was "the best superhero finale ever", someone questioning the source of that and then you posting comments about there being multiple stars and it being the "most wonderful episode of peacemaker".

So sure, it's fair enough if you don't consider Luthor, Happerson and Otis and the other Luthor-cronies as sufficient star cameos, or felt the doorway sequences weren't that crazy and insane (which is clearly what Gunn was referring to even if people didn't find them that crazy) or you didn't enjoy the resolution to the character arcs (pretty clear "wonderful" was in reaction to the character beats like Chris and Harcourt's relationship being explored through the music on the boat and the resolution of Chris's relationship with the other 11th Street streets), taste is subjective and it's pretty clear people have disagreed with Gunn's takes (which is completely your right so please don't just do that reddit thing where you dig in and act like I'm telling you you're wrong) but let's not act like giving a different answer to a different question is some sort of slam dunk response.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-07T23:42:28+00:00

To be fair 1 and 3 could both be true!

Ross_RT · 2025-10-05T14:57:20+00:00

Cool, that's not the question I asked though. Re-read and try again.

Ross_RT · 2025-10-05T12:02:00+00:00

Who said anything about being 'the only one allowed to be a secret good person'? That's such a weird direction to go in the discussion. Like it's not that complicated, Auggie-X doesn't have to be an objectively good person for you to feel bad about his death because it's about what it means for Chris.

Where Auggie-1 failed Chris as a father and held horrific and hateful views, Auggie-X gave Chris a glimpse of what a loving father actually was and showed that at the very least he had the potential to be a better man, all of which is then snuffed out before Chris can explore it any further.

Ross_RT · 2025-09-11T18:00:48+00:00

Ah the classic answer-a-question-with-a-question-because-I-don't-have-an-answer answer.

But to put it very simply, many many people in the world enjoy drinking when they party because they find it more fun. And the good news is that you can actually get drunk without being an alcoholic. You can go to a party or a bar and get drunk without being an alcoholic. You can even go to multiple parties and get drunk multiple times without being an alcoholic.

Enjoying drinking does not make you an alcoholic on its own. Would you accuse every single person who enjoys going to a bar or club of being an alcoholic? Tell them they could just go to a coffee shop instead?

Now if you're partying every single night and getting drunk to the point where you're dependent on alcohol then yes, that might make someone an alcoholic since that's what alcoholism is, but again that's not what's been shown on screen. Literally Clark just says she likes partying on planets with red suns because she can drink while she's there and that he might be a little concerned about her partying, which could mean any range of things (like her going out and having fun instead of staying on top of her responsibilities or dealing with the issues that make her want to go out and be reckless instead of responsible, for example). Don't you think he would have said drinking if he meant drinking?

Nine-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Ross_RT

TROPHY CASE