Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Legion


scpanther22

Recommended Posts

Anyone else caught the pilot this past week on FX? apparently its set in the x-men universe(although I imagine very loosely). Visuals were great, different from any thing comic book related on TV

 

From what I remember about David Haller in the comics he's Professors X kid and is one of the most powerful mutants in that universe but like we saw in the pilot very mentally unstable..overall thought it was pretty good episode

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a great pilot.  Pilots usually are iffy, but this hit the mark and was really cool.

Legion is basically an Omega-level mutant, which is the highest.   Potentially one of the most powerful.    I think the show will more more grounded/in its own world though and may not touch on X-men universe or even who is father is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone that went into this show completely blind knowing absolutely nothing about the content, characters or plot line. I have to say when Busker showed up in the second episode after being murdered it made me wonder if she is even real. Is she? I began to question if we're likely viewing an entire world of his own design that exists within his own head.

 A few parts of it definitely left me scratching my head. Our POV is completely unreliable because he is so mentally imbalanced. But it's so well done that I find myself more intrigued than confused. Good show so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Datawire said:

As someone that went into this show completely blind knowing absolutely nothing about the content, characters or plot line. I have to say when Busker showed up in the second episode after being murdered it made me wonder if she is even real. Is she? I began to question if we're likely viewing an entire world of his own design that exists within his own head.

 A few parts of it definitely left me scratching my head. Our POV is completely unreliable because he is so mentally imbalanced. But it's so well done that I find myself more intrigued than confused. Good show so far.

Busker was shown in a flashback in episode 2, but she is dead in the present, killed by his girlfriend after they switched bodies and she didn't know how to control his powers (accident).

But yeah, we don't know what really is going on, you see stuff that looks like it's decades before but then you see someone using a tablet that looks from the future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
16 minutes ago, Cary Kollins said:

So I'm three episodes in and this show is nothing short of brilliant.

 

Wait until episode 7. You will enjoy the hell out of that one. I liked it so much I watched it twice. Episode 6 is a little difficult to sit through but completely makes up for it in episode 7.

Warning Spoiler Below...

I wonder if Oliver will begin to age now that he is out of his diving suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...I was just re-watching the last episode with a friend of mine and noticed after the credit roll David gets beamed into some kind of 'drone'. WTF is it? And who is that walking out of the hallway in the background? Anyone else catch this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2017 at 8:43 PM, Datawire said:

So...I was just re-watching the last episode with a friend of mine and noticed after the credit roll David gets beamed into some kind of 'drone'. WTF is it? And who is that walking out of the hallway in the background? Anyone else catch this?

Ha, yeah, who knows.   Some people think the drone could be one of his personalities, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...