48 – Amanda Waller

coverblackRecorded August 22nd.  “What are you really up to?”  The premise behind Task Force X as historically plausible.  Amanda Waller’s sales pitch and intentions.  FAQ run down.

You notice these are criminals?  They’re psychotic antisocial freaks.  It makes no sense . . . I mean, you need real soldiers.  Not these scumbags . . . What are you really up to?

Answers, insights, and commentary on:

  • Amazing Amanda Waller execution
  • The Voice of God
  • Sympathy for the Devil
  • Weird weapons of war
  • Project Habakkuk (ice ship) and Project X-Ray (bat bombs)
  • David and Goliath and military innovation
  • White House Situation Room
  • What was pitched and what was actually bought
  • People avoid uncertainty but actually like it
  • Military Mafia connection
  • Unethical human testing
  • Why not heroes or soldiers
  • Waller and Enchantress
  • History of WMD management
  • The Dirty Dozen and Filthy Thirteen
  • Roy Benavidez

Frequently Asked Questions:

  • Can this Squad stop Superman?
  • What is the purpose of the rest of the Squad?
  • What use is Harley?  Boomerang?  Killer Croc?  Slip Knot?
  • What is Waller really up to?
  • Why is Katana on the Squad?
  • What is the Squad’s purpose generally?
  • Why aren’t elite soldiers satisfactory to Waller?
  • What is the Squad’s mission specifically?
  • Who shot down the first helicopter?
  • Why would you send another helicopter?
  • Why was GQ and his men on this mission?
  • Don’t they compromise the Squad’s covert status?
  • Isn’t this expending soldiers for the Squad?
  • Wouldn’t two squads of soldiers be better?
  • Why couldn’t conventional soldiers win if bombs are effective?
  • Why weren’t the supernatural siblings more effective?
  • How did Deadshot set off the C4?
  • Why did Bruce need Waller’s files?
  • Where was The Flash?
  • Why didn’t Waller destroy the heart immediately?
  • Why didn’t Waller guard Enchantress more carefully?

To learn more:
Fighting Fire With Fire | Wikipedia
Project X-Ray (bat bomb) | Wikipedia
Project Habakkuk (ice ship) | Wikipedia
War In Heaven | Wikipedia
Penal Military Units | Wikipedia
The Dirty Dozen (1967) | IMDb
White House Situation Room | Wikipedia
Lucky Luciano’s deal | Wikipedia
Unethical human experimentation | Wikipedia
Command & Control | Eric Schlosser
Filthy Thirteen | Wikipedia
MSgt. Roy Benavidez | Wikipedia

Web: ManOfSteelAnswers.com
Twitter: @mosanswers
Subscribe: iTunes / RSS / Stitcher / YouTube http://feeds.feedburner.com/ManOfSteelAnswers
Proud member of the Superman Podcast Network!

A special first-draft since I’m away for the next month!  So here’s the “assembly cut” in lieu of dividing it into three polished episodes.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Hey doc,

    Long time listener and fan. Great episode as always. I posted a response to some SS backlash a few weeks back on reddit under the username capevmasks. Glad to see at least some of our points line up and as always, you seem to catch a lot that myself and other viewers/fans miss 🙂

    Thanks for putting in all this work and effort into these shows and please know that your podcast is well appreciated. I was wondering if there will be possible future BvS episodes about Doomsday and the ideological/philosophical/pragmatic differences between batman and superman (Day vs. Knight).

    • It amazes me that critics miss very obvious dialogue. It seems that what they do is say “Viola Davis portrayed a dark government official with motives that were never clearly described or demonstrated”, something like that. Which 1) separates the actor from the part. Instead of trying to understand Amanda Waller, their immediate attention is on Viola Davis as an actress 2) describe not having full knowledge of her plans as a plot hole when it’s an intention of the writers in a larger connected universe.

      I’m really hoping going forward that it is Waller who hires Deathstroke to assassinate Batman (in the solo Batman movie) as a response to Batman forming the JL. Waller would then see Batman as the real power on Earth given that he controls/leads the most powerful metas on Earth. This would threaten her ultimate goal of controlling the most powerful metas to satisfy her power needs. The in SS2 she forces the squad to do an unethical mission for her and they ultimately turn on her.

      • Agree with you on everything you said about the critics being too close minded when it comes to waller’s intentions and also, you have some very solid story ideas concerning waller as we move forward in these films 🙂

  2. Wow almost 2 hours, the longest to date! I’m definitely going to enjoy it.

  3. Figure it out indeed. Doc already went through the whole deal and the film had 2 Squad sales pitches in reasonably short succession for a reason. The dinner conversation was the real deal. The military one set up her questionably role inside it and her fall + possible redemption. Note the lack of an Enchantress “presentation” and the random / sacrificial Slipknot during the “dinner date” too. Some of the men present even have comic counterparts! I also wonder if she suspected Diablo to be an actual demi-god.
    I say yes, as his bomb could have NEVER controlled him. You can´t blow up living fire.

    I highly suggest to go through cracked . com´s WW2 archives. The amount of crazy experimentation during the war never fails to hold my attention. The 80s Squad comic is also connected to a WW2 unit and Flag´s father was on it. Ostrander used them in 1 story and even this film plot is technically from his run.
    The opening arc of the N52 Justice League Dark is more similar though. The upcoming JLD toon film looks awesome btw. and this year needs a DC toon film winner due to the messy 3 previous entries.
    The actual JLD DCEU film has my blessing too. Doug Liman´s Go, The Bourne Identity and Edge of Tomorrow are great after all. Well done producers!

    The “free agent” Katana and even more so Deadshot are crazy dangerous and only 1 step below the 2 actual Squad gods. Why the rest joined the team:

    Boomerang: Connections to Australia´s penal system and info in the Flash would be a good start. Why did he go on the mission? Either him or Slipknot HAD to go boom. Waller repeatedly tried to kill him in the comics too but he always came back.

    Croc: Doc explained the freaks angle and he is the perfect Navy Seal. That diving scene was awesome.

    (GQ´s team probably survived btw. The charge went upwards. The movie explicitly went into that.)

    Harley: You can´t control the Joker (watch Assault on Arkham), so let´s go for the next best thing. The Joker also proved borderline immortal in the comics and “this” one would have about 2 decades to his career too. Just look what she went through in the film. Amanda could also go after the Joker with her, but the tables turned.

    Slipknot: Good question but the comic version even had Grant Morrison (!) on it. I don´t think that Squad 2.0 will have such a stooge on it, as the core team now saw the bomb go boom.

    @ Doc. Respect on noticing what Deadshoot did on the gun range (i was in the military) and N52 Superman made a Super Friends joke during his “last” storyline. I strongly assumed that Waller would have nuked Midway City after she and “her team” left but having the novel knowledge is good too.
    I also wonder how many people died (the core Battle of Metropolis only lasted about 1 hour), especially due to the space laser Enchantress later used. I lastly liked her motivations. They were rooted in the film´s core and fit the overall DCEU theme of escalating metahuman-activity.

  4. Doc, truly enjoying this so far. I didn’t think you would be too interested in applying that big ol’ brain of yours to the fore in defense/apology of a film that I know you didn’t particularly like, but that you loved. And yet here you are, even making me reconsider my average to good level of enjoyment of it, to the better. I’ve just got beyond the “It’s even in the bloody TV spots!” which was a hoot – I’m British and hearing you guys across the pond say bloody is a treat. Thanks for this chief!

    • How severe is “bloody” a cures really? Regular comics now have it in them and it´s occasionally used as a half joke on international tv. Just curios and i noted a few heightened emotions in doc´s voice this time.

      I myself will take all these critics seriously when some of the fault finders start taking their job seriously. Film (or whatever) criticism is a case for a person´s view on one thing. Not some empirical statement on who is “right” or “wrong”. Few got that memo in recent years…

      • Oh it’s not a curse word even really. It’s actually more like an older affectation or a more localised usage in the UK – something my mother would say if she stubbed her toe type thing (bloody hell!) It just amuses me to hear non-brits use it, as I hear it rarely.

  5. Hey Doc,

    Did you see this study about Clark Kent’s disguise? It explains why it is actually plausible that they don’t recognize that Clark Kent is Superman.


    • The glasses aren´t the full disguise. Clark slouches his shoulders, he throws his voice, his hair is deferent, he wears suits too big for him to hide his physique, he is constantly clumsy and so on. Some Superman versions even vibrated their face to never be caught on camera and he occasionally uses robots or shape shifters, as Martian Manhunter, to stand in front of Superman during public occasions he covers.
      Most also think that being Superman or Batman is a full time job. Clark even has a birth certificate and a traceable life and Superman just showed up as an adult in his early 20s (33 in MoS).
      All Star Superman explained pretty well why noone can put 2 and 2 together and the DCEU take, where both are very similar people is directly taken from the The MoS reboot from 1986.
      PS: I have glasses. I only wear then when i work.

  6. Hi Guys,

    To those who have read superman comics like red son, peace on earth, birthright and so on, I’m aware that those superman stories are very complex but does superman himself have some complexity himself in those comics?? Like superman having some self doubt about himself whether he is doing a right thing or not and having some internal conflict about his action and so on??

    To be more precise does those most popular superman comics depicting a superman character almost falter from his ideals like in BvS when superman say men indeed don stay good?

    I argue with one fan who claim that even in those superman comics, superman himself are still simple black and white character and only complexity is the story around him not the character itself.

    Appreciate for the prove in the form of comic image gif if possible

    • (No links, i ain´t going in the spam doghouse, unless it is unavoidable.)
      Golden Age Superman and Morrison´s version during the very start of the New52 was a social crusader. Casual Superman fans would be shocked by these interpretations. The now dead New52 Superman also fought police brutality when he lost his powers towards the last act of his New52 run.

      The Post Crisis The MoS reboot also explain in issue 1 why the Superman persona has to exist. He saved a space shuttle in civilian clothing (with Lois on it) and the media rushed immediately. That experience gave him a very real existential crisis, as he needed to retain a normal side to his life to function, so his parents then came up with his costume. The 2nd appearance of Doomsday ever in Hunter/Prey borderline reads like a blueprint for his arc in BvS. He has night terror due to their first fight and he sees Doomsday as his “dragon”. He even gets an armor and sword to fight him in the end. The way he chooses to ground himself by focusing his world on Lois (+ his parents, I guess) is also featured. His original execution of Zod + his 2 classic followers in the late 80s also gave him a deep existential crisis and I could go on.
      His 2 new Rebirth comics further deal with very heavy themes.

      Even TAS Superman had serious “flaws”. Just watch the Darkseid episodes or the 2nd to last season of JLU in which Lex successfully turns the media against him. Doc covered the JLA episode “Hereafter” on the podcast (about his TAS “death”, as the Justice Lords already took out Doomdsday previously in the season). He considered crushing Vandal Savage´s skull when he found out that he killed all of humanity in an alternate future.
      Superman or Wonder Woman (that discussion is coming…) are such complex characters that a lot of professional writers have trouble writing them. Hello J. Michael Straczynski.
      Non-canon stories as Red Son, Kingdom Come or DKR (every other Miller comic got him + the JLA dead wrong though) are also deep examinations of “compromised” Supermen. “No One Stays Good in This World” and all of that.

      • (1) I ~love~ the DCAU Superman.

        (2) Have you read “Superman: Peace On Earth”?

        (3) “Kingdom Come” is quite the doozy. BTW isn’t the promo pic with Superman behind a dozen press microphones an homage to the panel in that book after Superman’s “second coming”?

        • Superman: Peace On Earth is from the line “The World’s Greatest Super-Heroes” by Paul Dini and Alex Ross. Read all and PoE is the best entry.

          Aquaman Rebirth is surprisingly enough proving to be a showcase for Superman´s role in the geopolitical DC landscape, due to this week´s No.6. Atlantian agents go rogue and declare war on the US. The White House then sends Superman after Aquaman (very DKR) and both + Mera duke it out. The outcome is very interesting and Clark uses the words “fix this or else”, after deciding to step down. The DCEU is all sorts of things but Rebirth readers will feel right at home.
          CW touches can only be seen in Supergirl as of now btw. I hope that S02 of that show really fixes itself, after the high amount of well intended restructuring. Arrow is now a lost cause (i am beyond done), i don´t need a 2nd one.

    • “Superman: Peace On Earth” was part of a Paul Dini/Alex Ross collaboration series of insanely expensive (but worth every penny) coffee-table books where we get descriptive prose (without speech or thought bubbles, so basically Voiceover Narration) on what is basically a series of ready-made storyboards. Not to get too spoilery (though if you’d like to know more, just tell me so and I’ll get into it deeper in my next comment) but the Superman depicted in this story is a great blend of old-school boy scout and real life realism that the DCEU is attempting to capture. The other entries in this series are similar to that: Batman tries to combat crime on its core (poverty) and it proves just as Herculean as defeating a supervillain (the only rogues gallery villain that appears in “War On Crime” is a “legit businessman” Penguin); Wonder Woman has to decide if she has to compromise some of her Amazonian ideals to help people (with an emphasis on women) in third world countries — Arabian women won’t take too nicely to be saved by a bikini armor lady, for instance — or risk undoing her own efforts; Captain Marvel has to juggle his everyday life of being both Billy the schoolboy and The Next Best Thing To Superman…

  7. Hi,

    What do you think on geoff john comments about recent DC movies.

    “”Mistakenly in the past I think the studio has said, ‘Oh, DC films are gritty and dark and that’s what makes them different.’ That couldn’t be more wrong, It’s a hopeful and optimistic view of life. Even Batman has a glimmer of that in him. If he didn’t think he’d make tomorrow better, he’d stop.””.

    I hope geoff realize that both MoS and BvS do ended up on hopeful and optimistic note. It kinda worrying this kind of statement implying that both MoS and BvS is a mistake. It could be means both way. This is kind of cryptic

    • I think that Johns is talking about how he and the studio views DC Films differently.

      He means that the studio considers MoS, BvS, and maybe SS as “dark and gritty”, but he himself considers those films as “hopeful and optimistic”. I myself consider the first two films to give a message of hope, while in the third I received a message of redemption, so maybe that’s something we share in common. 😛

      • That’s precisely what he was saying. The reporting of his comments were misrepresented. Snyder has consulted with Johns for the longest time, and Johns has been a string influence on Snyder, and I’ve read multiple times how Snyder’s challenging of established norms in the DC have made him rethink certain views.

        • Correct. NO context is given for what Geoff says within and the whole editorial was nearly unreadable. Getting JLA done is obviously a struggle, it kinda should be, but him and Snyder have been a winning combo since 2013. What needs to be done though are more easy to understand narratives for the masses. But even the straightforward Squad was deeply misunderstood, so i don´t even know what needs to be done anymore.

          PS: Read a few of Johns highlight comics, as Infinite Crisis (our Luthor has similarities to Alexander Luthor). He isn´t the sunshine and rainbows guy the internet makes him out to be and he most importantly knows how to write or fix easy to digest continuity snarls or challenging narratives in general.

  8. Hi Dr,

    Remember in episode 22 podcast where you explain that is it make sense to approach captain america heroism in easy mode because his brand is not that well known and MCU is basically his first movie incarnation unlike superman who are already appeared in dozen of movies and TV. You said that civil war might present a narrative to test Captain America ideals and morality. Even Russo brothers said that civil war is basically deconstructing a superheroes.

    After watching civil war, I’m kinda conflicted if civil war is truly deconstructing superheroes. Maybe it did decostruct iron man but i’m not sure about captain america. What do you think about marvel deconstruction angle?

    • CA CW I feel didn’t take Steve anywhere new both his issues and struggles pretty much rehash what he went through in WS, being against the government and on the run as a fugitive while also trying to save Bucky. His motives did not change. I honestly feel the only movie that came close to deconstructing Steve was Age of Ultron. His nightmare suggests things that turn the character on his head. Steve doesn’t actually want a peaceful world he doesn’t want to stop fighting, he actively seeks conflict he doesn’t know what his purpose is without it.

      That’s very intriguing and could’ve been a hidden motivation for him in CW, he fears the accords will not just conscript him but eventually render him obsolete. Even more so them choosing when to send him prevents Steve from fulfilling his purpose it stops him from fighting. The layers are there but none of them were ever used.

      The idea that the Russo brothers honestly believe CW deconstructed anything just shows that while great with action and even good at directing their actors and conveying emotion, their actual understanding of storytelling, character development and exploration of themes and ideas are very limited. While having talents of their own they’re still amateurs who have much to learn before they can stand beside directors like Nolan, Snyder, Jackson, Spielberg, and even Whedon. They do not know how to actually explore deep themes and ideas they don’t know how to actually be morally complex and if people keep praising them without forcing them to see their flaws they will never improve.

      That’s my view of it I don’t feel Marvel has deconstructed CA yet and since they think they recently did I doubt they ever actually will. Tony on the other hand they have done a great job they have deconstructed and reconstructed him many times only to do it again each with different yet similar results, I don’t have a whole lot of negative things to say about him.

      • You bring a great point about captain america decoonstruction angle in age of ultron. It is disappointing indeed that we don see that anymore in CACW. I agree that captain america character did not really that much change and he also don struggle or conflict so much internally as his dilemma is already resolved just by merely a speech from Sharon Carter

        As for iron man, he did got deconstructed in CACW but unfortunately it does not seems to be got reconstructed by the end of the movie. Plus i really don like tony stark character in civil war. He is basically becoming even more jerk and worse than ever and I don like the fact he still want to kill bucky and hold him responsible for his parents death despite of him knowlingly that bucky is a brainwash victim and acknowledge him as a Manchurian candidates in the movie. CACW don even redeem tony stark at all for his wrongdoings

        • It’s why I find the reception to Age Of Ultron more intriguing it’s regarded as weaker than avengers, guardians, WS, and CW yet it’s the closest Marvel has ever come to making a deep movie. Tony, Steve, Banner and Natasha are all picked apart and then put back together in the ending. Ultron is nothing but a very in depth deconstruction of Tony Stark, his daddy issues, his pride and ego, his hero complex, his feelings of self loathing and his cynical perspective. Ultron represents everything negative about Tony Stark including his belief that the avengers shouldn’t exist. A question and debate that is explored through Steve and Tony’s different ideologies which is further fueled by intense personal issue.

          Age Of Ultron was everything CA CW should’ve been. It had a ideological conflict that drove the movie and it was at the center of everything. Tony and Steve drove this conflict it pitted many avengers on opposing sides and still had the personal issues that motivated the characters. The idea that CW is considered the deeper movie is just weird and doesn’t make a lot of sense.

          I have no issue with Tony’s actions at the end except that he didn’t let go of revenge of his own will thus he didn’t grow or learn anything. I would of personally had Tony find out Bucky murdered his parents earlier thus allowing his more personal issues to cloud his objective just like Steve is in the third act he realizes he lost his way and let’s his anger go however he doesn’t let Bucky go, he’s still bringing him in because brainwashed or not he killed a lot of people and is too dangerous to leave free. He tells Steve Bucky is his friend and he should let him take responsibility for his past crimes. Steve believes Bucky will be safer with him. Thus the conflict comes full circle. Use Bucky to personify the debate in the third act is he accountable for his crimes despite being brainwashed and use the final battle to resolve it.

          I think doing that would’ve greatly improved CA CW, what do you think of my alternate take on the third act?

          • Yah true i agree it will be better that tony stark know earlier that bucky kill his parents rather than he only know after bucky is innocent in order to make his character at least sympathetic to some extent instead of being even more jerk than usual. Perhaps your take on the story could be a little bit better than russo version of civil war

            I honestly more surprised that age of ultron is actually have more depth than I realized as what you have stated above. However sorry to say that age of ultron still wasn’t really the best superhero movie around even with all the stuffs you mention. At least in my opinion

          • Age of Ultron was a struggle between the studio and director. Whedon wanted a character driven film about if the avengers should exist. He shows this by revealing deep personal issues of each member. Tony’s paranoia and overwhelming guilt, Natasha’s past and the fact that she wiling sterilized herself, Steve’s need of conflict to give himself a purpose, Banner’s belief that he can never have a normal life with anyone. Whedon revealed these flaws and used it to ask a question are the avengers actually heroes fighting because it’s the right thing or are they fighting for their own personal and selfish issues.

            Ultron challenges them on this picking them apart and showing them their deep psychological Scar’s they deny, forcing each one to question themselves and wonder if they are a hero or just fighting for themselves. Ultron even has his own issues of self denial. He claims humanity needs to evolve and is obsessed with evolution yet all he wants to be is a human being himself. Natasha and Banner are kindred spirits as they both view themselves as monsters unworthy of love while their other sees them as they are, neither can have children as well. Natasha and Banner are dealing with the same conflicts.

            The conflict on the avengers existence is further shown through Steve and Tony’s beliefs. Tony is trying to end the team this directly threatens Steve’s very purpose in life hence why he gets mad when Tony mentions ending the fight. Vision brings their views to a head Tony sees vision as their last hope Steve views vision as another threat both to the world and his purpose. It was very much a character film each arc ends with each character accepting who they are for better or worse. Natasha chooses the mission even betraying banner to do so. Banner after being betrayed by Natasha goes into exile because all he’ll ever be is a weapon. Tony decides to leave the avengers because he doesn’t want to burden the world anymore and he succeeded in building something to protect it. Steve decides he can’t have a life of peace and decides to make his new purpose in life training the new avengers.

            It’s all there and I would actually recommend watching the movie again with all this in mind it will probably improve your experience. The problem is that the studio wouldn’t let Whedon make the movie he wanted they forced in IW and Ragnarok set up they forced in more humor and levity even threatening to cut the farm if Whedon didn’t comply despite the farm be the most important part of everyone’s character arcs. The studio didn’t care about that they cared about IW. AOU was a struggle between studio and director that weakened the final product, but there is still a very good movie beneath it if you can find it, I would recommend rewatching it with all this in mind it change your perspective a little if it doesn’t there’s nothing wrong with that. Sorry for the length had a lot to say. Also for anyone wondering how this connects to the issue the DCEU is facing it shows that even Marvel suffers when it doesn’t completely follow the formula it set.

          • I consider AoU to be better than the 1st and noticeably better than Cap3. It was a well done adventure film, the buildup to the other stuff featured was organic enough, and everything but the Hulk romance made sense. The spirit of the books was nailed, even if Ultron himself was highly different. But even that makes sense, as he is based on Tony and not Hank. Whedon can come back any time. 8,5/10 but a longer DC wouldn´t hurt the film and it printed money anyway.

          • Actually if you separate the comics from the movie characters the hulk romance actually does make sense, breakdown Natasha and Banner psychologically and see just how similar they are. They both see themselves as monsters, they are both emotionally repressed, they both believe they are little more weapons, neither can have children, both are pretty much separated from society. Natasha was the one sent to recruit him, Natasha was the first avenger to see hulk and she doesn’t fear him either later anyway. They really are kindred spirits and are among the few who actually understand each other. The romance actually does make sense regarding these characters if you don’t like it or agree with it that’s perfectly fine but it does make sense.

            Anyway that got off topic originally it was about the nature of deconstructing Superheroes which I feel DC has done very well so far. The deconstruction and reconstruction of Superman was very well done showing us the true core of the character and what defines him. Batman was also deconstructed and reconstructed this was probably one of the best cases of this I have seen with batman right up there with Frank Miller’s DKR you really understood the dark and damaged psyche of Bruce Wayne but you could still see the hero beneath it all faintly which paid off great in the end.

            I can’t help but wonder if DC will continue this deconstruction of heroes. Debra mentioned the possibility that we might not but I can’t help but wonder if that is true, do you think DC will continue it’s deconstructing and reconstructing of the superhero genre if so how do you think this will continue in Justice League?

        • In Cap First Avenger we are first introduced to Steve as a frail man that stands up to “bullies” often needing rescuing from father figure Bucky. What CACW should have done is confront Steve on the fact that he had become that bully due to absence of Bucky’s guidance. Steve’s beligerance to listen and accept that his ways weren’t in the best interests of the “weak” needed to be confronted to him by Bucky, that should have fueled his character arc.

  9. Batman v Superman: Lex Luthor, Mental Illness And Me


    “People in Batman v Superman didn’t see something wrong with Lex Luthor for the same reason people don’t see my disabilities: people see them as personality eccentricities or flaws, not as symptoms.

    When that crowd of people saw his minor breakdown on stage, they didn’t see a man whose trauma was mixing with his other brain things to render him nearly speechless. They saw a rich, eccentric tech wunderkind with no social skills and maybe a stutter.

    And audiences in theatres?

    They saw something else: they saw the parts of Lex Luthor that Lex keeps hidden, and those parts aren’t so easily written off — but people do it anyway.

    Invalidating the experiences of real-life disabled people — that’s ableism, pure and simple.”

    • That was a really interesting article, thank you.

    • Interesting, because although the names are a bit different, the comments section indicate that this is written by the same person who did the article that Bea is recommending down in the thread.

  10. There is an interesting article about DCEU villains (including Amanda Waller):

  11. Doc ever thought of doing a live commentary and commenting just as a fan?

    • Not that I’d presume to answer on Docs behalf, but my understanding of Doc so far is that he really likes to let his ideas and thoughts stew and turn them over a lot, inspecting each angle, before setting pen to paper – a live viewing or live commentary wouldn’t be in his comfort zone I don’t believe, as he would have thoughts tumbling end over end about endless awesome tangents and interesting viewpoints! It also sounds like finding time to do this may be difficult, looking at how quickly he manages to release podcasts. But he may indeed be up for it and I’m talking out of my backside.

      If he did one I’d be first in line though!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *