What the cops in NYC do is they wedge a leaf in the plate frame, so there’s always a leaf partially blocking 1 letter.

Buy 3, get 3 free. On 12 packs of soda. So it’s a “12 pack” but really it’s a 72 pack if you want the price to make sense.

Name brand potato chips. Doritos over $5 a bag is insane. They were 2 for 5 just a few years ago.

You’re suggesting the “reddit hug of death” as a weapon. It would have to be something much smaller. Certainly not Amazon, who runs their own web services.

Netflix had an issue with Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson at around 100 million viewers. Caused some streaming issues for many people. Those are the sorts of numbers you’d need to make those bigger websites even flinch a little. And that was people streaming video, not simply visiting the website. Also it was one of Netflix’s very first live events, so the technical issues probably hadn’t been worked out yet.

If a bunch of people went to Walmart.com or something, and all started streaming video. There’s definitely a level where it would crash the site. Probably in the hundreds of millions. However you’d have to coordinate this ahead of time, and in recruiting 300 million people for your plan they’d hear about it and be prepared for it, so I can’t imagine this actually working.

Saw someone the other day describe Portland as 'full of whimsical anarchists" or something.

Trix commercials. I get to steal food from that rabbit all day with zero consequences.

Still, they’re having to call the police so frequently that this parking space made sense to someone. Maybe there’s something about their store that needs to change. If a strip club was having to call the police every single day, they’d probably shut the place down.

“Our business has SO MUCH CRIME INSIDE that the police have special parking” is not a message that makes me want to come inside.

Maybe by forcing you to go inside you’re more likely to purchase something? Or maybe it’s about the potential for crime? They would effectively become ATMs with less security.

Yes. They’re still building more “detention centers” and still rounding people up.

IDK if there’s a point.

The Trump admin is going wild with imperialism. They did a coup in Venezuela. It went surprisingly well. Negotiations with Iran weren’t going well (over the nuclear stuff), so Trump decide to try that coup thing again. Killed the leader of Iran. With no actual plan for how that was going to go afterward. Now the dead leader’s son is in charge. He’s pissed at the USA. The main/only leverage Iran has is on the Strait of Hormuz. So now that the USA killed their leader, they’re using that leverage. Which is driving up the price of oil and hurting everyone, including the USA.

If the Iranians didn’t have control of the strait anymore, that would probably mean that the regime has fallen.

Yeah that’s pretty nonsense though. Superman can literally die for days/weeks and come back to life with the sun’s power. Krypto should be able to also.

Yes! That was plot hole that frustrated me early on.

I don’t think that’s true at all, and there are nearly 100 years of Superman comics full of stuff that doesn’t fit that. I feel like you are commenting on the movies specifically and coming to the conclusion that these are the ONLY choices.

When they make a movie, they are OBSESSED with the 2nd idea. An enemy with equal power. Which is why we’ve seen 2 movies starring general Zod, despite him not being that major of a character. It’s why we got Doomsday in the Justice League movie. Hollywood filmmakers are clearly in love with the idea of two super people bouncing off buildings for 90 minutes. In the comics though, this would be boring as hell. “Essentially no stakes” as you put it. Correct. It’s boring. I hate that the movies always want Superman to become this. Because it’s not what the comics are like at all.

There are many options you have missed. There are limits to Superman’s powers. Remember that these are from detective comics. A good Superman comic involves a mystery for Clark Kent/Superman to solve. Like who is supplying Intergang with weapons. A good episode from the kids cartoon show starts with Clark Kent being assassinated, then Superman trying to figure out who did it and why. Superman Red Son (which has a cartoon movie with some changes), puts Superman in the USSR instead of Kansas, for truth, justice, and the communist way. Again, not remotely any of the 3 plot lines you have suggested.

Superman (2025) did a great job with this. Yes you’ve got an “equal” super-being for him to fight (Hollywood wouldn’t accept anything less), but ultimately it’s about Lex Luthor and the plot behind it all.

The Boys is a poorly written show that loves violence. They ran out of ideas within a couple years. Not surprised at all that everyone hated the ending. They wrote themselves into a corner very early on. They were always pushing the idea that violence was the answer, very unlike Superman in nearly every way. The fact that you see this as comparable to Superman is pretty frustrating. Frankly I think the whole show is a bit of a middle finger to Superman. It’s literally a show about how much they think Superman sucks. The show that’s about Superman sucking, isn’t a satisfying portrayal of Superman? Shocker.

Like… “Superman” is Clark Kent. A reporter who discovers crime, then he also has the powers to stop it. But the “Superman” you describe is a super-being who is boring when he bounces off buildings, always being power scaled or losing his powers so that the fights will be interesting for Hollywood. Do you see the difference?

It won’t end in a satisfying way. They never do. Game of Thrones or The Boys or any violence-focused show. Terrible endings, all of them.

EDIT: Breaking Bad did okay by killing everyone, including an unrealistic machine gun in the trunk.

Couldn’t get past season 1 of Invincible. You won’t like what I thought about it. But I’m a Superman fan who doesn’t like excessive violence, so hopefully you can understand where I’m coming from.

Diane Keaton was once in a movie where she gets cancer. Meryl Streep is her hairstylist sister. She makes her this wig. Marvin’s Room (1996)

Before makeover: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116999/mediaviewer/rm1756714240/

After makeover: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116999/mediaviewer/rm991533057/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116999/mediaviewer/rm303667201/

I laughed so fucking hard when they put on that wig and all acted like it was great.

I feel as though most war movies, especially the famous ones, the moral is always “war is horrible.” The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) is about how hard it is to come back from war and resume life.

With the exceptions of Top Gun, Act of Valor (2012), Lone Survivor (2013), etc. Sands of Iwo Jima (1949) sticks out as propaganda-ish.

The ones I would actually call “war movies” and not propaganda. Like The Longest Day (1962), Tora Tora Tora (1970) are obsessed with their historical accuracy. Hard to call those pro-war.

So tired of seeing revenge killing movies in Hollywood. As long as someone is truly evil and does something unforgivable in the 1st act, the “hero” is then justified in slaughtering like 100+ random people in a dark hallway in the 2nd act. I think it’s the only sort of violence we’re okay with anymore. Any other type of violence people might have a problem, but because it’s done in the name of revenge for a dead wife/dog/kidnapped daughter, that’s now been whitewashed as “good wholesome revenge killing.” Or something.

I would like to see a situation that cannot be solved by strength alone. It feels like lazy writing to take that strength away. Kryptonite as a plot device is kinda old. But if you use it for a few seconds here or there, like Superman (2025) that’s great. What I definitely do not want is a movie about Superman without his powers. Powerless for a situation? Yes! Powerless for 75% of the movie? No!